News + Politics
We the people, by the people.
Taxes
Okay, so I will be the guy who asks the common-sense question about wealth and taxes: If they “hurt the rich” the way that the Occupy Movement says they would, why are all of these wealthy people supporting the party hiking taxes the most? The thing that no one tells you about taxes is that the super-wealthy “one-percenters” love them. They protect their investment by making it that much harder for us, the average person, to cut into their slice of the pie. The best part is that they get the assistance of the Federal Government, who will send armed men to your door and haul you off to jail. Just as King George III viewed taxes as a way to keep his wealth ahead of that of his subjects, the wealthiest political party in the world, the Democrats, protect the wealthy with taxes and overly complex tax codes.
By Mickey Finn7 years ago in The Swamp
Blacks Can't Be Racist
Allow me, if you will, to set the fucking record straight. Black people cannot be racist—I repeat—cannot be racist when it comes to white people. We're bigoted and prejudiced as SHIT!!!!!!! But nah, we're not racist. Black people are disadvantaged in a world ruled by a white power structure. We do not control or own any of the economic, legislative, judicial, military, academic, or legal institutions in Western civilization. We're literally guests in a house we, more or less built, but do not own.
By Dre Joseph7 years ago in The Swamp
AmeriAid
Recently, while reading George W. Bush's memoir Decision Points, I began to wonder about my own contributions to my community and society as a whole. I realized I helped to better my community in minute ways: reorganizing and writing the bylaws of a non-profit community store that helped people with clothes, food, utility payments, and even rent while supporting their growth through faith based initiative; organizing and speaking at an event to bring together a city falling apart to drugs and crime in Ohio; starting temporary programs of my own that helped families with winter clothing, paying their bills, paying their rent or getting an apartment, or having a meal to prepare for the holidays. Overall though, I was missing a greater contribution to help the nation I love to regain a lost independence. I contemplated what the hot topic of debate was that was serious enough to attract my attention. Then, I had it come to me. Healthcare! Therefore, in the following, I will expound upon my epiphany.
By Dr. Brian Smithberger7 years ago in The Swamp
Philosofail
Every once and again some philosophical dilettante gifts us with unparalleled sapience in video format. Incredible largess is displayed as complex philosophical ideas are broken down into bite-size pieces. Everybody's a fan. However, by that same token, we are, at times, treated to a buffet of word salad where sentences knot themselves together into argumentative catastrophes. I am speaking, of course, about one Philosophy tube. For some time now, Olly, who runs said channel, has amassed a considerable following, thanks in part to his unmistakably charming accent. Sometimes, however, his arguments are rendered far less persuasive than his character. For one thing, Olly pushed out an unscheduled video recently imploring viewers to imbibe his message about conservative voters. Clunky, disoriented, and haphazard, this video portended what calamity might unfold if Olly doesn't reorient his channel's ethos. Specifically, towards his videos end he, perhaps inadvertently, bifurcated his audience between those regular, left-leaning individuals, and everyone else. Needless to say, everyone else cocked their head at this unusual gesture. Philosophy tube, we thought, was dedicated to relaying important philosophical information in a manner that is both digestible and entertaining. However, on this occasion, Olly seemed to have pivoted his channel's purpose to pedaling those political issues that he regards as particularly exigent. Worse still, our gracious host closed the video's comment section to avoid potential squabbling. To me, Olly's actions here represent anti-philosophy's apotheosis. The imperative to close discussion unilaterally in an effort to have one's voice "heard" is an unpersuasive argument all together. On the one hand, scientific journals that pass peer-review gain clout as they demonstrate their robust defenses. Consequently, we generally revere articles that result from this process. On the other hand, theories or opinions that are produced without any analogous peer-review are, in a similar vein, looked down upon. This fact, of course, begs the question of why anybody militating on behalf of those thing's philosophical would decide to close himself off to criticism. So, for his credibility's sake, here I will offer a brief criticism of just one point made in his video. At one point, Olly indicated that America's invasion in Iraq was immoral on account of how many casualties there were at day's end. I find this reasoning wholly unconvincing. To Olly, our moral analysis of wartime conflict ends partially, if not wholly, when every body has been counted. There is one problem with this; that is, that this argument draws no meaningful distinction between consequences that are intended, and consequences that are foreseen. Intended consequences are subject to moral criticism because their agent desired them actively. Whereas foreseen consequences are pardonable by definition due to their un-intended nature. To illustrate my example, two thought experiments are required. For our first thought experiment, imagine that John was strolling in his local park when, suddenly, a drowning child arrested his attention. Impulsively, John flew into the water in an attempt to rescue this endangered child. Unfortunately, however, John’s efforts were thwarted when an alligator swallowed the boy. Now, would we judge John's actions as morally neutral? Surely not. His intentions speak volumes about his moral character. From what evidence has cropped up, we could surmise that physical limitations were all that prevented John's well-intentioned rescue mission. In other words, if John had possessed perfect rescuing-technology, then the child’s demise would have been averted. We should expect this conclusion in light of John’s impressive moral character. If, after all, John was eager to save the drowning child, then we can expect a fortiori that he would perform the task instantly if he had the right technology.
By Roger Smith7 years ago in The Swamp
Must Read Books About American Presidents
If you are interested in learning more history about the United States, then I recommend you get these must read books about American presidents. These books will allow you to go back in history and understand the lives of each of these presidents. You will be able to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of each of these presidents and their personal lives.
By Jessica Herring7 years ago in The Swamp