1 - 4
In response to:

Predatory Journalism

Brad431 Wrote: Oct 22, 2014 12:23 PM
Sowell is unparalleled at tearing apart the false economics involved. But unquestioned is, "What business is it of any third party to interpose itself between two willing, contractual parties?" Shouldn't two parties be free to make a financial deal? But a newpaper thinks it's unfair? So? Expose those banks guilty of usury, or warn the poorer parties involved with articles. Or open a competing bank with cheap interest rates! But don't jump to government controls which hand powers over to a few and take away freedom of choice? That should be a last and desperate resort!! Nothing is more insidieous than stripping away middle-class freedoms in the name of compassion for the poor. History shows Governments never return power, and that power corrupts. The graves of hundreds of millions of victims testify against abusive governments, bureaucrats claiming to need to control others to implement their version of justice.
In response to:

Random Thoughts

Brad431 Wrote: Feb 11, 2014 1:13 PM
You miss the point. Sowell wants this asked of liberals who buy off on these kinds of emotionally charged BS. In other words, use their own technique against them. And note, Mr. Sowell doesnt like stop and search, he's simply stating that between only those choices, he'd rather be safe and have other young blacks safe.
In response to:

The Role of 'Educators'

Brad431 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 3:55 PM
I love the above reply. Steve of CA's post proves Restoreliberty's point! His first 4 words make no sense, yet he prefers public schools. Why? Not because of its superior education, its graduates are better equiped for the future or the U.S. is better off, but he didn't want to be separated from his friends. The sense of privilege he avoided we used to call patriotism and national pride. While Steve counts on public education to dull his patriotic optimism, I find all I need is graduates like Steve to deaden mine.
In response to:

Changing America

Brad431 Wrote: Nov 13, 2012 12:34 PM
Cal blithely assumes that O's goverment will continue to allow churches and Christians to help the poor and preach the gospel, as in the past. He also presumes the evangelical movement in politics was to implement the gospel via government. Both are wrong. Humanist governments will always oppose the gospel and forbid religious charity while offering government alternatives instead. Cal years ago you rightly noticed the dirty bathwater around some evangelicals and politics. But you tossed out the baby as well. Now there is no salt to slow the societial corruption.
1 - 4