‘I know there are some who believe that, if you simply take from some and give to others, then we’ll all be better off. It’s known as redistribution. It’s never been a characteristic of America,’ [Mitt] Romney said. The campaign apparently thinks that voters will find 'redistribution’ a scary word. But does Mr. Romney really disagree with the belief that part of government’s role is, in Mr. Obama’s words, to help 'make sure that everybody’s got a shot’? To tax is to redistribute. To govern is to redistribute. Benefits from government spending flow in different amounts to different individuals and different states. Unless Mr. Romney envisions government stripped down to the role of providing for the national defense and building a road or two, and it is clear that he doesn’t, it is hard to imagine a world in which government does not play some redistributionist role.
The Dumbest History Videos You'll Ever See, Courtesy Of Crazy Cliven Bundy

Remember Cliven Bundy? He was the guy who became the short lived new hero for the “Guv’ment bad” crowd last month, until it surfaced that he was a giant racist. Yeah that guy. He has released a series of educational videos explaining his understanding of the history of the United States. Here are a few highlights for those not brave enough to watch, A Brief History of The United States: Completely Bat s**t Insane Redneck Edition.

  • The answer to every problem that exists in the world is to follow the U.S constitution. If EVERY government in the world just follows the U.S constitution, EVERY problem in the world will be solved.
  • The U.S constitution is based on the ten commandments in the bible.
  • Our government has become a central government. A central government with unlimited power. The kind that our founding fathers fought against in the Revolutionary War. The government we have now is the same as before the Revolutionary War.
  • The founding fathers created the three branches of government. The executive, the legislative and the “Judical.” These are the only “three governments” we are supposed to have and the Parks Department and BLM is a new government with its own laws and jails.
  • When the thirteen colonies formed the United States we didn’t want a big central government, we didn’t want a big state government, we was even leery about having even a local government.
  • Cliven Bundy really really wants you to subscribe to his e-mail list and has stock footage of cowboys.

Enjoy his videos here, if you dare.

Independent Institute: The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality

Independent Institute: The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality

Independent Institute: The Beacon: Randall Holcombe: Progressivism: Rhetoric Versus Reality

What people need to understand about progressivism, is that it isn’t socialism. Sure, they are both about big centralized government, but progressivism isn’t completely about government. And doesn’t think individualism and individual initiative is necessarily a bad thing. Or that freedom isn’t necessarily…

View On WordPress


This video is funny, the truth is not. Harry Reid is clueless, why on earth did he get reelected? Come on Nevada vote this guy out.   This is shady business to me that he is still in power . How can this guy stay in power?  Government is out of control. The Role of Government is not to control people.

Thanks for reading this, it means a lot that people care about what I think. It is hard enough to get my family

In the very earliest Sumerian texts, particularly those from roughly 3000 to 2500 Be, women are everywhere. Early histories not only record the names of numerous female rulers, but make clear that women were well represented among the ranks of doctors, merchants, scribes, and public officials, and generally free to take part in all aspects of public life.

One cannot speak of full gender equality: men still outnumbered women in all these areas. Still, one gets the sense of a society not so different than that which prevails in much of the developed world today.

Over the course of the next thousand years or so, all this changes. The place of women in civic life erodes; gradually, the more familiar patriarchal pattern takes shape, with its emphasis on chastity and premarital virginity, a weakening and eventually wholesale disappearance of women’s role in government and the liberal professions, and the loss of women’s independent legal status, which renders them wards of their husbands.

By the end of the Bronze Age, around noo BC, we begin to see large numbers of women sequestered away in harems and (in some places, at least), subjected to obligatory veiling.

In fact, this appears to reflect a much broader worldwide pattern. It has always been something of a scandal for those who like to see the advance of science and technology, the accumulation of learning, economic growth-“human progress,” as we like to call it-as necessarily leading to greater human freedom, that for women, the exact opposite often seems to be the case. Or at least, has been the case until very recent times. A similar gradual restriction on women’s freedoms can be observed in India and China. The question is, obviously, Why?

The standard explanation in the Sumerian case has been the gradual infiltration of pastoralists from the surrounding deserts who, presumably, always had more patriarchal mores. There was, after all, only a narrow strip of land along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that could support intensive irrigation works, and hence, urban life. Civilization was thus from early times surrounded by a fringe of desert people, who lived much like those described in Genesis and spoke the same Semitic languages.

It is undeniably true that, over the course of time, the Sumerian language was gradually replaced-first by Akkadian, then by Amorite, then by Aramaic languages, and finally, most recently of all, by Arabic, which was also brought to Mesopotamia and the Levant by desert pastoralists. While all this did, clearly, bring with it profound cultural changes as well, it’s not a particularly satisfying explanation. Former nomads appear to have been willing to adapt to urban life in any number of other ways. Why not that one? And it’s very much a local explanation and does nothing, really, to explain the broader pattern.

Feminist scholarship has instead tended to emphasize the growing scale and social importance of war, and the increasing centralization of the state that accompanied it. This is more convincing. Certainly, the more militaristic the state, the harsher its laws tended to be toward women.

But I would add another, complementary argument. As I have emphasized, historically, war, states, and markets all tend to feed off one another. Conquest leads to taxes. Taxes tend to be ways to create markets, which are convenient for soldiers and administrators.

In the specific case of Mesopotamia, all of this took on a complicated relation to an explosion of debt that threatened to turn all human relations and by extension, women’s bodies-into potential commodities.

At the same time, it created a horrified reaction on the part of the (male) winners of the economic game, who over time felt forced to go to greater and greater lengths to make clear that their women could in no sense be bought or sold.

—  Debt: The First 5000 years, David Graeber
Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
—  Thomas Jefferson
What role does government have in your ideal society?

I’ve been asked this question before and it’s often a tricky question to answer if you ask me. Personally, I know for one thing, the government we have now is way more enormous than it should be. The role of government is a factor of in just about everything, when it should be a factor in so little. I’m not totally against the idea of a government, but it’s power should be limited to the bare necessities. If people would stop being dependent on the government for everything, our lives would be much better off. The role of government should give more power to the states if you ask me, I do believe that state governments can function better and improve the quality of life of its residents and if it doesn’t, people will pack up ship and move elsewhere. If the federal government was ran like a business we would be far better off and not in the mess we are in. But, the politicians (from both sides of the aisle) keep getting re-elected for doing nothing and are basically nothing more than warming a seat that is better off empty. The few that do talk, are mostly up to no good. 

Watch on

Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute and Dr. Jerry Avorn of Harvard Medical School debate the role the government plays in maintaining public safety and delivering effective medicine.

Thom Hartmann: Video: Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved Debating the Role of Government in America

Thom Hartmann: Video: Thom Hartmann & Michael Medved Debating the Role of Government in America

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress, February, 2012

You ask the question’s what’s the role of government and you’ll get many different answers across the political spectrum in America. From Socialists who want government to do almost everything. Who believe the best society is the society that is as equal…

View On WordPress

New Post has been published on Giter Done News

A noo artikle has dunben rote ahn WWW.GITERDONENEWS.COM CALT

To Reach Latinos, GOP Must Alter Its Message, Tone


T’ las part o'fife-day speshul repert, “Hispanic Voters: Trends an’ Oppertunitees,” a'runnin thishere week an’ sponseret by Univision.  Thar is no doubt at t'Latino electerate is a'gettin increesinglee impertant n’ presidenshul electyuns an’ will becum eve mer so n’ t'future. Today, …

Odd, what makes someone believe another law will solve anything? The article states,

“…swiftly pass legislation to make sure such a tragedy never happens again.”

The writer stipulates that legislation will prevent another oil spill. Does anyone really believe this? I cannot name a law that has prevented anything. Yes, there are good laws, laws that someone inevitably breaks. 

What this shows is the failed reliance, our faith, in government, as if it is God. 

Maybe what the writer wants is for BP to be punished. I agree, they really screwed up the gulf. In fact, BP has paid $20 billion and is preparing for collective action lawsuits.

Polluters will be punished but tragedies will still occur regardless of any legislation. Government can protect our property, but it cannot prevent anything.

Would you mind asking on your page for the fans to describe a specific example (current or historical) of an economic policy that aligns with their view of the ideal role of government?
—  Discuss
New Post has been published on Giter Done News

A noo artikle has dunben rote ahn WWW.GITERDONENEWS.COM CALT

To Reach Latinos, GOP Must Alter Its Message, Tone


T’ las part o'fife-day speshul repert, “Hispanic Voters: Trends an’ Oppertunitees,” a'runnin thishere week an’ sponseret by Univision.  Thar is no doubt at t'Latino electerate is a'gettin increesinglee impertant n’ presidenshul electyuns an’ will becum eve mer so n’ t'future. Today, …

The right’s rhetoric is all about individual liberty, but love of fellow humans is essential to a functioning society – or policy.

I have so many reactions to this piece. 

  1. LOL GOP Reaction: SOS/RED ALERT!!! Someone let the great liberal secret slip and the conservatives have figured it out: our lives as individuals are interwoven and inseparable in society, and government has a role in that!!!! CRAZY! HOW DID THEY FIGURE IT OUT?! 
  2. Mercilessly Mocking Paul Ryan: What? Paul Ryan, are you sure we’re not all just our own, self-sufficient islands? I thought all we needed to succeed was enough desire, pluck, and strong enough bootstraps? What do you mean, government plays a role? What is this “community” you speak of? What do you mean, it’s responsible to care about our fellow citizens? Balderdash! I don’t need community, let alone government! Government is the enemy of freedom, the oppressor! I’d be better if there was NO government on my back! DON’T TREAD ON MEEEEE! 
  3. Um, you’re just wrong, even by your own logic: While it’s great you guys are starting to figure out that government does have a role and that taking care of other people in our communities is responsible, you’re pretty much dead wrong on a lot of your suggested ways of enacting that. I’m actually on board with some of the general ideas here, but some are just silly. For example, not sure why “weakening teacher’s unions” is part of this great community/people oriented platform of yours. If society/community-based organizations that exist between people and government are good and important (churches, clubs, etc.), how do unions not qualify for the list? I’m pretty sure unions are one of the BEST examples of organizations that exist in the sphere between people and government, actually. Also, how do you make an argument that we have a moral responsibility/obligation to take care of the least among us AND THEN argue for entitlement reform in the same breath? Especially when the GOP’s current ideas on entitlement reform basically amount to slashing/virtually eliminating them. Hello, proposed massive cuts to food stamps? But good try, though.