In the Spirit of Sowell

Rob Lawson - So, when I discovered this group, I thought "heh, this is great stuff. Smart, relatively little "name calling." Some interesting topics.

After a while, I thought I'd bring it to the attention of some friends who might have an interest in it. As I scrolled down my list, I automatically disqualified those who lean to (or are heavily) left. I figured my friends leaning right would be more receptive to the ideas here.

But then I thought "wait a sec. The people who really SHOULD read this are leftists. There's some great logic and intellectual backing for pretty much everything Sowell says.

So I tried it with one smart left-leaning friend (a little nervous, I don't want to be pushy). After a week, I noticed he'd signed up and I thanked him for at least checking this place out. But alas, he wrote back:

"So I gave it a fair read and unjoined.... I find his views to be pseudo intellectual and seem more aligned with driving an agenda as opposed to making reasonable points...there is a big contrast with Robert Reich whom I find more balanced and well reasoned from my perspective.... less about scoring points to me at least."

*sigh*

I did stand up for Sowell, noting that he has the exact same "agenda" as Reich (who I follow as well, but don't agree with nearly as much as Sowell), that being "the best way to have a prosperous society for all."

And secondly, I noted that there's nothing "pseudo intellectual" about Sowell. He's a towering intellectual giant, standing above most others. Perhaps some on here might be given that name.

Anyway, thought I'd share that. I think it highlights the importance of always being polite, no name calling, sticking to data as much as possible.
 We can "preach to the choir" all day long, but what's the point if we can't articulate to others who might think or believe a little differently?

Muhammad Rasheed - I love Dr. Sowell's work, and in a lot of ways it changed my life. But he is a Senior Fellow at a major conservative think tank that absolutely has a political agenda though, and since they are paying his bills, he's not likely to write articles that conflict with their pet views whether he finds facts that destroy those views or not. For example, his articles that praise Reagan are conspicuously absent a worthy harsh critique against the former president's nation destroying policies, just as Obama's well-documented support of open free markets over cartels/monopolies that are classic libertarian check-off bullets, are conspicuously ignored in his condemnation of the POTUS.

I have no illusions about Sowell as he is just a human being after-all, but when he is at his best, working on the topics he built his masterwork around, he's untouchable as a scholar par excellence.

Stephen Paulsen - Actually, his paycheck comes from Stanford University, where he is a tenured professor.

Muhammad Rasheed - Thank you. But he's also getting money from Hoover.

Muhammad Rasheed - And the fans of his printed work, who are the vast majority self-confessed conservatives.

Stephen Paulsen - I understand your point, but I don't think the Hoover Institute is where his opinions are formed. I have watched him since the 70s, when he and Milton Friedman spared with big-name leftists on Free to Decide. He has been consistent, so who pays for that consistency shouldn't matter.
JB Poole - I would hardly classify Obama's signature legislation, 'Obamacare' as open or free market.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think he's been suspiciously less consistent in his older years. Why ignore the clear terror of the Black/Latino communities by Reagan's savage 'War on Crime" and ignore Obama's free market championship since that is something that all Libertarian leaning folk should love?

Together those two items look extremely fishy.

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad Rasheed, probably most of us take offense to this statement out of a well argued position of yours;

" just as Obama's well-documented support of open free markets over cartels/monopolies".

Obama supports Gov't Winners and Losers and funding for Markets that the Free Market will not support. He's friends and supporters are big companies, wall street types, Silicon Valley Cartels and banks... This is "Documented by who gave to his elections campaigns!

You destroyed your credibility with that statement, IMHO

JB Poole - @Scott Hoffman... you got that right.....

Muhammad Rasheed - You destroyed your credibility, Scott, by not simply asking me to what I was referring to with my comment.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Well-documented" was a clue.

Stephen Paulsen - I believe Dr. So well has addressed the minority crime issue many a time. I don't think he's been inconsistent. He doesn't buy the BLM tripe.

Don MacLean - What is the well documented support of open markets by Obama

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad Rasheed, on the war on drugs, it's madness.  One of my current favorite sayings that I tweaked!

"Legalize everything and let God and Darwin take over!"

Muhammad Rasheed - Thank you, Don. THERE'S the Spirit of Sowell that i joined this group expecting to find! smh lol

Stephen Paulsen - True, but the issues are the same

Muhammad Rasheed - This isn't about the oddly demonized BLM, since that org isn't as old as the Reagan administration's crimes.

JB Poole - @Muhammad Rasheed... I am happy that you include the reference to BLM with Reagan 'crimes". By that inclusion, you tacitly acknowledge that BLM is a criminal organization....

Damon Williams - You've got it backwards Muham,. Mr Sowell was asked to join BECAUSE of his views and outlook. But I"d love to hear some of your urban myths about Reagan.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stand by... I have to address Don's request first because he genuinely earned it.

Damon Williams - you're hilarious.

Muhammad Rasheed   ;)

Jay Valko - As a huge fan of Sowell, I have to admit that sometimes I wonder at some of his articles. Most of his books are A+ outstanding, most of his articles are great, but he definitely does some preaching to the choir. I think he writes many articles to appease his base.

Damon Williams - good lord, trying to spin open markets from obama ought to be a hoot.

Don MacLean - @Damon... I find it intriguing.

Damon Williams - @Jay Valko... You'd rather he write things opposed to his thoughts? lol

Jay King - @Scott Hoffman... It's hard for a fair minded observer not to notice that the WAR ON DRUGS generates vastly more problems than the drugs themselves. Aside from the invasion of individual rights that drug laws represent, this WAR is obscenely costly in many ways. Drugs should be treated- out in the open - as a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.

Jay Valko - @Damon Williams, at times book Sowell and article Sowell seem like two different people.

Brian Christopher - My God, everyone calm down. A guy disagrees with Sowell and you all lose your minds like a bunch of hyper emotional liberals. Sowell is not a deity.

That said, I am curious about what you think Obama’s free market policies are.

Also your facts are a little muddled, LBJ kicked off the "War on Crime," and Nixon the "War on Drugs." Admittedly Reagan was a contributor to the latter though.

Muhammad Rasheed - Brian Christopher wrote: "LBJ kicked off the 'War on Crime,' and Nixon the 'War on Drugs.' Admittedly Reagan was a contributor to the latter though."

Yes, I meant "War on Drugs." It was a typo. The difference between the Nixon and Reagan drug policies, is that the former meant it figuratively, while Reagan meant it literal as hell.

Scott Hoffman - @Brian Christopher, Amen!

Damon Williams - Calm down Brian lol

Damon Williams - @Brian Christopher... don't leave us hanging, tell us about how Reagan dealt drugs on the side.

Muhammad Rasheed - "When President Obama took office, he vowed a new era of antitrust enforcement, promising to crack down on deals that undermined competition. Now the administration faces its biggest test.

"On Wednesday, the Justice Department sued to block AT&T’s $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile USA, a merger that would create the nation’s largest mobile carrier.

“'We believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower-quality products for their mobile wireless services,' said James M. Cole, the deputy attorney general."

The Antitrust Battle Ahead

Damon Williams - There have been numerous big mergers under obama. What is this supposed to indicate again?

Jay King - @Brian Christopher... I am not concerned with who started the WAR ON DRUGS - or why. I am concerned with ENDING it and its catastrophic consequences.

Muhammad Rasheed - WASHINGTON — Declaring himself an ally of American students in a fight against commercial banks, President Obama on Tuesday signed a new law designed to free up more money for higher education by ending the role of banks as "middlemen" in the college lending process.

The changes to the college loan business come as part of the final piece of the healthcare reform law, which Obama enacted in a signing ceremony at a community college in the Virginia suburbs of D.C.

Speaking to a crowd of students, Obama credited Democrats in Congress with tackling "a sweetheart deal in federal law" that guaranteed billions of dollars in profits for banks to offer college loans.

Money that should have been spent advancing the educational interests of students "instead was spent padding student lenders' profits," the president said. "It probably won't surprise you to learn that the banks hired an army of lobbyists" to fight it.

Obama signs student loan reforms into law

Don MacLean - @Muhammad... is there more? Asking before I comment.

Damon Williams - But the Student loan program, better called the "college loan program" has been a HUGE failure. You've got student debt over a trillion, kids paying loan debt rather than buying homes, and defaults are sky high. Would have been much more useful and beneficial to have urged colleges to stop the insane raising of tuitions, which is among the highest inflationary cost in history.

Brian Christopher - On October 14, 1982, President Ronald Reagan declared drugs to be a threat to U.S. national security.

In 1988, Reagan created the Office of National Drug Control Policy to coordinate drug-related legislative, security, diplomatic, research and health policy throughout the government.

Also, it was under his watch that the crack vs. cocaine sentencing disparity really harmed the black community.

He was nowhere near as culpable as Johnson or Nixon.

Stephen Paulsen - So removing the credits for banks that loaned to risky students will put the financial burden squarely on the taxpayers and remove the private sector from the equation. That is never a good thing.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Don... Yes.

#3 - The Obama Administration broke up the long running Insurance company cartel with the Affordable Care Act, enabling anyone to jump in that industry and compete.

#4 - He sued to prevent the cable companies from forming a cartel, too. I'll have to dig those articles up in the morning though.

Stephen Paulsen - #3 didn't work out that way.

Damon Williams - @Brian Christopher So crack is not worse to the individual than powder? I disagree, all one needed to do was look at the neighborhoods where crack had struck to see which was destroying lives at a far higher clip.

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad Rasheed... Why not just change the Law to allow Insurance companies to compete in different states? All Obama did was make it a Socialist Medicine, with the Gov't creating the Cartels!

Muhammad Rasheed - No, it freed up the markets. No one has to buy anything from the gov, or from who the gov demands.

Brian Christopher - @Muhammad, I'm trying to defend you here, but just...no. The ACA was not at all free market. It entrenched both insurance companies and the government in an industry that should be run by neither.

Muhammad Rasheed - Damon Williams wrote: "...all one needed to do was look at the neighborhoods where crack had struck..."

More importantly, the severely unfair drug offense laws that snatched up minorities but gave the powder offense suburbanites slaps on the wrist. These laws were responsible for the blight that destroyed the communities.

Damon Williams - Come on Mu, no one is buying the hype any longer. Costs are up, deductables are up. competition is scarce where it exists at all, and there are STILL tens of millions uninsured. It's OVER. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - @Brian & Damon... The gov is NOT running it, just protecting the competition of the marketplace. You can purchase from whomever you wish. The problem is that the red states that didn't support it screwed over its true potential.

Don MacLean - @Muhammad... if you're forcing tax payers to subsidize the services of others (who are in turn forced to accept these services), you are creating a system that is anything but part of the free market. I'm sure you understand the ripple effect of such a policy.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Don... Yes, but there's a HUGE difference between the POTUS actively working to protect free market capitalism from cartels/monopolies versus the "demon kenyan mooslem socialist" picture his critics on the right have painted of him. Naturally he wasn't going to transform the gov into Libertarianism. He's a Moderate/centrist after-all.

JB Poole - @Damon Williams... SPIN is right! Someone here (Rasheed) is a very unapologetic Obama apologist....

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that he is actually a LOT different from what you lot and Dr. Sowell have said about him deserves a serious discussion in what we really claim to believe.

Jay King - @Muhammad Rasheed... I think THE problem - if we have to pick just one - was depriving individuals of choice and control.

JB Poole - @Muhammad Rasheed, oh, dude. I really enjoy your sense of humor.....best laughs I have had all week.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Jay... Did the previous full-blown insurance company cartel give you choice & control? Because by definition it stifled the markets. It hasn't had a chance to stabilize yet and you all... who are supposed to be wiser on such topics... are joining in on the panic freakout. lol

Damon Williams - I think he actually believes obama is a free market proponent, Yet advocating stifling the free enterprise insurance market. OK, I've heard enough. LOL

JB Poole - @Muhammad Rasheed... I would simply say that I have always paid for my insurance. Before Obamacare, I could afford it. Now, simply, I can't. So, before I could choose to buy or not buy. Now, I am a criminal because I do not buy it. Nothing in Obamacare improved accessibility, nor cost nor doctor access as repeatedly promised by the President. That is the truth.

Don MacLean - The old system wasn't free market either. But I'm still not convinced forcing people to pay for a service other people are forced to use, can be considered protecting a free market.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Damon... The ACA broke up the cartel. Even though you all had grown used to singing that "the gov is monopolizing insurance!" song, that is 100% not what happened. lol

JB Poole - @Don MacLean... exactly. I have always seen a doctor when necessary, insurance or none. It was never about providing insurance or health care. It was redistribution of income and government control over 1/6 of our economy (not very free market when the government holds the reins) .

Damon Williams - Cartel? There are FAR less insurers now than before. Not only has a 'cartel' been created, it's becoming more and more a monopoly as it shrinks. You really need better sources of information or something, you've missed the boat on this one.

Muhammad Rasheed - JB Poole wrote: "Before Obamacare, I could afford it. Now, simply, I can't."

That's not the ACA's fault, that is squarely on the shoulders of the red states that refused to accept it. So the costs are higher than they would have been otherwise as projected from a more bipartisan optimism.

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad, you and I need to start smoking the same thing to lower my blood pressure!

JB Poole - @Muhammad Rasheed.. It "broke up nothing"....if anything it was intended to pull the "cartel" as you are fond of writing, under the government reins. It made the federal government overlord of the 'insurance' market. Higher cost, fewer choices

Muhammad Rasheed - You guys are a trip. I'll be back to teach you goofs what a cartel actually is.  >:(

Muhammad Rasheed - Noooo...

Damon Williams - Lets blame the 'Reds", you know, the other Russians. LOL

JB Poole - @Muhammad Rasheed... the red states fault? So, if I refuse to drink poison it's my fault I'm still alive? Thank goodness for the red states (whose behavior was upheld by the Supreme Court).

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad, what Obama has done is force people to "Purchase" a product or service, I still can not believe SOCTUS went along with this.

You're a great cartoonist, but would you really be happy if the Gov't forced people to buy one of your comic books every year?

Damon Williams - I loved the cartel. It was cheaper, more flexible, of more practical use via deductables, and about a million more available doctors existed then..

Scott Hoffman - Freedom and Liberty comes with cost! Free Markets work every time they're tried! Time to go back to the "Old Paths" the Ancient Ways that work!

Bruce Michael Grant - @Muhammad Rasheed... How's that working out? Healthcare insurers are going bankrupt one after another under Obamacare. Most of the exchanges have lost nearly all their providers due to massive losses while premiums and deductibles under those firms still doing business are going through the roof...in some cases even doubling. Obamacare is a total disaster. Fact.

Muhammad Rasheed - JB Poole wrote: "Muhammad Rasheed the red states fault? So, if I refuse to drink poison it's my fault I'm still alive?"

It's disingenuous to withhold support for a solution that needs bipartisan support to work from around the nation, and then proclaim it is broken after deliberately sabotaging what it could be.

Bruce Michael Grant - @Muhammad Rasheed... In other words, single payer.

Bruce Michael Grant - @Muhammad Rasheed... It's common knowledge that what's being 'sabotaged' here is the private healthcare insurance industry. More than one liberal has proudly admitted that the ultimate goal is single payer.

Bruce Michael Grant - @Muhammad Rasheed... Once the government has total control over your healthcare they can dictate your lifestyle and limit your freedom in ways not nearly related to health.

Muhammad Rasheed - cartel, a group of independent suppliers, which agree to restrict trade to their mutual benefit. It's the term for when a small group comes together to form a monopoly. Monopoly is when just one entity does it.

The cartel stifles the market competition allowing only a few suppliers to engage in a given industry. It is a positive force only for the companies directly involved, their vendor partners, and the limited number of customers able to enjoy the product. Cartels work against the greater customer base, and prevent new innovative product from entering the market from other hungry businesses.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bruce, stop preaching to me about the evils of Big Gov, when Big Gov in this case destroyed the evil of libertarian legend, and is why corporate and their media conglomerate (in bed with their political partners) have been vilifying it.

Disrupting a cartel, and causing major ripples in the industry is a reasonably expected effect. What we should be thinking about is how to help speed up the stabilization process. Wishing for a return to the old cartel is selfish and crazy.

Bruce Michael Grant - Shall we dispense with the meaningless and irrelevant generalities?  Intentionally bankrupting private industry by crippling government regulations is the textbook definition of fascism.

How is an unaccountable government monopoly who enjoys the power to force you at gunpoint to purchase, at whatever price they choose, a ptoduct they're under no legal obligation to provide to any objective standard, better than a product made by the best and most economical means freely purchased by free people from a choice of options?

Muhammad Rasheed - Don MacLean wrote: "The old system wasn't free market either. But I'm still not convinced forcing people to pay for a service other people are forced to use, can be considered protecting a free market."

Your thinking is too absolute here. President Obama isn't a Libertarian, he's a left-leaning Moderate. His act of breaking up the cartel IS protecting the free marketplace by definition. In addition to that -- as a totally separate item -- he put in place the 'safety net for the poor' tax fees to make sure they will be covered in case of medical events, and to aid in paying for the program. The cartel was bad because it streamlined the process so that it would maximize their profits. They didn't care if people were actually insured as protection in their lives, they ONLY wanted people to be insured so they could make their money. The ACA is designed to shift that focus to caring for the people themselves as the POINT of getting insurance, and it does that by doing it's job, i.e., protecting the open markets that are the lifeblood of capitalism.  This is a major conflict of course, and represents greed versus the people.

Rose Douglass - @Muhammad Rasheed , are you by chance the liberal Rob Lawson originally wrote this post about!

Bruce Michael Grant - Let's use the proper terms here.  Obama is not 'breaking up' anything. He's bankrupting them with crippling and unprofitable anti-business dictates.

Bruce Michael Grant - Anyone who claims that running private industry out of business, as Obama has done to a number of US firms, is 'protecting the marketplace' can not be taken seriously.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bruce Michael Grant wrote: "Shall we dispense with the meaningless and irrelevant generalities?  Intentionally bankrupting private industry by crippling government regulations is the textbook definition of fascism."

lol My 'generalities' are no where near as bad as your pearl-clutching, over-the-top melodrama. You're being ridiculous.

Bruce Michael Grant wrote: "How is an unaccountable government monopoly who enjoys the power to force you at gunpoint to purchase, at whatever price they choose, a ptoduct they're under no legal obligation to provide to any objective standard, better than a product made by the best and most economical means freely purchased by free people from a choice of options?"

Who cares since none of that describes this situation? Taxing you for not buying insurance isn't holding you at gun point. You pay taxes anyway. Grow up, Bruce. The gov isn't forcing anyone to buy its OWN product, so how is it a monopoly? Stop! lol

Those huge companies from the cartel went bankrupt because their restricted private playground enabled them to specialize to the point of obsolescence. That's why they muscled innovative new companies out of their playground, so they could cater to a small crowd of equally specialized customer.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bruce Michael Grant wrote: "Let's use the proper terms here."

That's adorable since I'm pretty sure you just melodramatically used the extremely inappropriate term "fascism" while clutching your pearl necklace and fainting. Quit.

Stephen Paulsen - Mr. Rasheed, please explain why you believe the federal govt has any constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a product from a company.

Bruce Michael Grant - That is exactly what 'describes this situation'. Denying the reality of the Obamacare debacle and concealing government coercion with Orwellian doublespeak is irresponsible and unproductive.

Muhammad Rasheed - @ Stephen... First, please explain why you believe the federal govt has forced citizens to buy a product from a company. Please provide the name of both company and product.

Stephen Paulsen - OK... that is really simple: if I don't buy health insurance from an insurance company, the federal govt levies a tax against me for it.

Bruce Michael Grant - You are fined, NOT 'taxed', if you do not purchase health insurance that meets the specific requirements dictated by the federal government.

Stephen Paulsen - If I don't purchase car insurance from an insurance company, I cannot legally drive my car.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bruce Michael Grant wrote: "That is exactly what 'describes this situation'."

Negative. You are engaged in empty, fear-mongering rhetoric with no foundation to support it. And yes, you may consider that sound the "clang" of my challenge gauntlett hitting the ground.

Bruce Michael Grant wrote: "Denying the reality of the Obamacare debacle and concealing government coercion with Orwellian doublespeak is irresponsible and unproductive."

lol I'm explaining the reality of the matter to you, thus you may safely discard the foolishness you are spewing as a treacherous nonessential to truth. You're welcome.

Stephen Paulsen - @Bruce Michael Grant... Wrong. Chief Justice John Roberts made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the govt cannot 'fine' someone. It is a tax.

Bruce Michael Grant - Here's a question. If the Obamacare 'penalty' is a 'tax', can I take my IRS receipt to a doctor and receive medical care? You know the answer to that one. So please stop calling it a 'tax'.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Paulsen wrote: "OK- that is really simple: if I don't buy health insurance from an insurance company, the federal govt levies a tax against me for it."

Apparently it wasn't simple enough. Let's try again:

The name of the specific company the US Gov is forcing you to do business with is _____________________, and the specific product they are forcing you to buy is _______________________.

Go. Use a #2 pencil, please. There's a lad.

Bruce Michael Grant - You are now engaging in personal disparagement. You lose. Goodbye, sir.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't even know you, how can it be "personal?" Relax.

Stephen Paulsen - @Muhammad Rasheed... Blue Cross Blue Shiled. The product is a health insurance policy.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please provide the proof that definitively states that the gov specifically tells you to ONLY do business with THAT company and no other.

Go.

Stephen Paulsen - Are you seriously that dense? Since my state has only ONE insurer in the Obamacare program, and I have to purchase from it under the law, that is forcing me to purchase a product from that company. But it is utterly irrelevant how many companies are selling insurance. The govt doesn't sell insurance, so compelling me through taxation to purchase ANYTHING from a company is indeed coercion.

Muhammad Rasheed - Rose Douglass wrote: "Muhammad Rasheed , are you by chance the liberal Rob Lawson originally wrote this post about!"

lol No, Rose. I'm not a liberal. I have a few items of theirs in my bag, but not enough to claim their group. I think being an orthodox Muslim makes me a conservative by default, really.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Paulsen wrote: "Are you seriously that dense?"

Hey, Bruce! You see how Stephen asked me that, but I didn't take it personal? Take the hint and get back here.

Bruce Michael Grant - No it does not make you 'conservative'. It makes you a danger to this country which must be ruthlessly eradicated by force if necessary.

Muhammad Rasheed - Ah. No wonder you are so melodramatic. You are gullible & silly.

See a doctor, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - Better yet, just engage in a discussion with me about it. Grow an open mind between now and then though and just THINK.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please?

Muhammad Rasheed - The only clear & present danger to this country are the mass of yahoos that just voted "Grab her by the Pussy" sociopath into my White House.

Muhammad Rasheed - Y'all need to get it together.

Rose Douglass - "Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don't have to prove they are citizens."  ~Anonymous (attributed to Ben Stein by some).

Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Paulsen wrote: "Since my state has only ONE insurer in the Obamacare program, and I have to purchase from it under the law..."

Why do you believe you HAVE to purchase it from the ACA network? Where is that written? Is it written in Sharpie on a stall in your local watering hole under a crudely drawn phallis + "FUCK OBAMA!" above it?

Stephen Paulsen wrote: "...that is forcing me to purchase a product from that company."

Form an insurance company yourself then. Or look around for one that you haven't thought of because they weren't part of that old good ole boy cartel network. There ARE other options, you're just still indoctrinated in the old specialized model that only benefited a few. Get over it.

Bruce Michael Grant - How arrogant. You know damn well that no policy that does not meet ACA dictates is not acceptable insurance and you WILL be assessed an Obamacare penalty.

Rose Douglass - Muhammad Rasheed wrote: "Why do you believe you HAVE to purchase it from the ACA network? Where is that written? Is it written in Sharpie on a stall in your local watering hole under a crudely drawn phallus + "FUCK OBAMA!" above it?"

Not productive, dude!

Bruce Michael Grant - But typical.

Muhammad Rasheed - IT WAS FUNNY!

Muhammad Rasheed - Y'all know you really have that stuff graffitied all over your bars. Stop playing.

Bruce Michael Grant - But at least we don't dress prepubescent boys up as girls and rape them anally...or rape nine-year-old little girls in the process of losing their bsby teeth.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Rose... That's not hypocrisy. He wants every citizen to be insured so that your life won't destroyed in case of a devastating event. It will help you. Insurance is a major tool that is the different between the poor vs rich wealth gap.

The "prove they are citizens" item is only racist claptrap, and the true nature of "voter fraud." See this article for details:

Muhammad Rasheed - @ Bruce... Good! Because I don't either. *high five*

Bruce Michael Grant - But you follow a false prophet notorious for raping a little girl. And you talk about us?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol The prophet Muhammad did no such a thing. Abu Bakr's daughter Aisha was in her mid- to late teens when she married, according to the calculation of her sister Asma's age, and the date of the flight to Medina (hejirah).

See, that's why you need to have that discussion with me. You're broken.

Bruce Michael Grant - That is an outright lie and you know it.
There's really no further purpose in discussing anything with a person who justifies child rape. Goodbye.

Muhammad Rasheed - I just told you the prophet didn't rape a child at all (how come you doofs don't believe anything at all in Islam, but you have such blind faith assurance in all the clear National Enquirer gossip?), but you somehow believe that I'm justifying child rape?

What kind of magic trick is that?

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you even know who Asma is, and what the hejirah is? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Then why do you believe you know my faith better than I, Bruce?

Listen to me: sitting around in bars all the time, gossiping with a bunch of folk who are exactly as uninformed about Al-Islam as you are, is not how you STUDY something. Okay? lol And neither is reading the tripe found on that 'answering-islam' site either.

Muhammad Rasheed - Don't worry about it though. I'm here now. I'll square you away. Fear not!

Stephen Paulsen - Mr. Rasheed, while I sympathize with you, you also understand that the Wahhabism is what most western people wrongly associate with Islam. Not much anyone can do about it except point out the difference and hope people can learn to delineate the facts. Western Muslim leaders have done a poor job at it, so its up to folks like you and me to do it. You are the better man for rising above the fray here.

Muhammad Rasheed - *kicks scimitar under bed*

Vaughn Slavin - as a conservative, I doubt he is going to be hired by the Clinton Foundation

Muhammad Rasheed - You're probably right...

Scott Hoffman - Man where did time and this go! I'm back but need a nap. I'll catch up with this soon.

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad Rasheed... Mohammad had how many wives and how young?

Muhammad Rasheed - He had 13 of them. By now they would be in the 1,500 year range.

Give or take a century or so.

Scott Hoffman - Dude, funny! We both know how young his youngest wife was when he married her. Just say it!

Muhammad Rasheed - I answered that above, dude. What we "both know" is that you hold gossipy falsehood, while I know the actual calculated age of Aisha based on actual data from history.

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad Rasheed, what is it!

Scott Hoffman - Or what was it when Mohammad married her?

Muhammad Rasheed - Aisha was in her mid- to late teens when she married the prophet (pbuh).

Scott Hoffman - Thank you!

Much Love in the name of Jesus Christ to my Muslim Brother!

May He give you dreams! I will be praying for that!

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad Rasheed, were you born into the faith or convert ?

Muhammad Rasheed - Your name is "Hoffman," but you're a Christian?

Is that really a thing? *skeptical*

Scott Hoffman - Not Jewish, but why would that matter?

Scott Hoffman - I'm come from a long, long line of Preachers and Pastors in the RCA.

Muhammad Rasheed - For the same level of abstract curiosity i assumed you had for all of your questions to me.

Are you really not Jewish? But your name is "Hoffman."

Scott Hoffman - Are you born into the faith or an American Muslim convert?

Muhammad Rasheed - "Rabbinic Cabbalists of America?" (RCA)

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Scott Hoffman - I was born into the Christian Faith. I was a full blown prodigal son of the 70s. Born again in my 20s after tasting too much of the world! Raised in a Liberal Christian home.

Muhammad Rasheed - You were born Muslim.

Are you reading that off of a site? Or a card?

Muhammad Rasheed - j/k

Muhammad Rasheed - (but your name is "Hoffman" though)

Muhammad Rasheed - (you don't think that's weird...?)

Muhammad Rasheed - I need to brush up on my ethnic naming science.

Scott Hoffman - Lost me... I'm Dutch. Hoffmann would be Jewish. or Hofman, I think. I grew up in NYC and have often been confused as a Jewish person.

Scott Hoffman - Btw, there are many Children of the Book that become born again Christians!

I will be praying God gives you visions and dreams of Him!

Muhammad Rasheed - Pretty sure there are Dutch Jews.

Which one of your Jewish ancestors converted to Christianity?

Muhammad Rasheed - How far back, I mean?

Scott Hoffman - @Muhammad Rasheed, Bro I don't know? Don't care... I'm a Jesus Freak! I'm a child of the OT and NT who is waiting for Daddy to send His Son back to take His throne!
Come Lord Jesus!

Bro, stay in touch and and keep up with this group! Love your input! and your artwork!

Brian Christopher - What brought you to conservatism or libertarianism? If you previously adhered to different ideology, please explain what experience/book/etc. changed your mind.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane - This book did an excellent job of explaining how it is the individual who is truly free when he/she worships only the One God alone. This is the unit of society who is responsible for moving civilization forward with a mentality of invention-innovation, while it is the pagan-minded destructive mentality that stagnates society and drags us backwards.

2.) Black Rednecks & White Liberals by Thomas Sowell - This is the book that solidified the concepts of changing your mentality to one of learning, building up of in demand skills, and working towards enduring LEGACY that has made humans successful in the past. Not race, ethnicity, national origin, but what the successful among them did that pulled them ahead of the packs. As a bonus, it also definitively squashed many long-held beliefs about the Black and White racial groups in America that had been falsely perpetrated since the 13th Amendment was passed and the release of the original Birth of A Nation film.

Bill Smith - One of my all time favorite books.

Muhammad Rasheed - Which one?

Freddy Farnham - As a young man I was liberal. by 30 I was a conservative Dem. I voted for Clinton in his first run and was ready to impeach him in 3 months. The Dem party of JFK is dead and the Dems today are crooks because they know collectivism does not work.

Muhammad Rasheed - Collectivism certainly works for the GOP and their voters. They make sure to get their interests pushed through like a swarm of hornets. Even when there is clear in-fighting, they still come together long enough to make it work. The Demos need to take a page out of that book.

Freddy Farnham - You are confused

Muhammad Rasheed - The GOP are pretty good at putting the group-party above petty squabbles. That's a form of collectivism.

Muhammad Rasheed - And it works for them.

Benjamin Lucky - I want some of what Muhammad is smoking as long as it doesn't make me permanently delusional

Muhammad Rasheed - Naturally I'm open to hearing a rational counter argument that makes your case better than I'm able to make mine, proving me wrong.

Cheap name-calling and zero attempts to back up your disrespectful and uncalled for snark with actual reason would seem to be against the spirit of Dr. Sowell. Hm? Or am I calling you to a standard your arms are too short to reach up to?

Muhammad Rasheed - "Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the group and its interests. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Collectivists focus on communal, societal, or national interests in various types of political, economic and educational systems."

Because of the GOP's and their voter's ability to come together and elect Donald "Grab her by the pussy" Trump as president, I would say they admirably demonstrated a form of collectivism by emphasizing the political party group over their feelings as individuals.

How do you counter?

Benjamin Lucky - Show me one place in which it has worked. You have your provens at hand readily. Detroit. Baltimore Cuba Venezuela N Korea et al

Muhammad Rasheed - It works inside of the Republican Party at a small level. The GOP functions the way the above definition describes, and they are able to put the group ahead of smaller concerns to great effect. That's why I said it was "a form of collectivism."

I am no fan of the ideals of the far left at all, and by no means uphold communism, or say that the state control of the means of production is a system that works. I hate it as a Godless political system. That's not what I'm arguing here.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Benjamin... I don't understand why you listed Detroit and Baltimore in your commie list anyway. Those are American cities. The blight they experienced are the direct result of Reagan's anti-urban population policies.

Benjamin Lucky - @Muhamhead... not Reagan at all. 100% liberal collectivism since the 60's run exclusively (corruptly) by Dems While similar cities prospered like Pittsburgh for example

Muhammad Rasheed - Those are two different items.

1.) Long-time Detroit Mayor Coleman Young was the city's most successful as far as managing his charge. The only people who were mad were the White suburbanites who wanted Young to pander to them after they abandoned the city, but he refused. All subsequent mayors did so though, and now the population has dipped abysmally. Mayor Young ran the city for 20 years, and it is well documented that the corruption and mismanagement was at its lowest during his tenure.

2.) Two years before crack infested American cities, when drug-related crimes were actually on a decline, Reagan announced his "War on Drugs" campaign and began the mass incarceration era of the Prison Industrial Complex. The president heralded the destruction with his mysterious announcement and a relentless marketing campaign against the drug, it's users and sellers, and two years later it became a devastating problem. Not before or during his announcement, but AFTER. His VP later won the presidency by promising to continue the fake, 'War on Drugs' because the populace had been thoroughly indoctrinated in Reagan's promotional rhetoric. it proved so powerful that even the Demos were forced to parrot the "tough on crime" rhetoric so that Clinton could win his two terms. The result is that today, American urban areas with high minority populations are devastated and struggling to recover even today. This had zero to do with any perceived "liberal collectivism."


See Also:

Countering the GOP Gun Control Talking Point

The Government Middleman - Helping the Poor on Your Behalf?

TRICK QUESTION: Which Party Believes the Minimum Wage Decreases Unemployment?