How to help a people not willing to help themselves? Obama gave 'em poop for all his promises. And the blacks still worship him. How to help people who will not help themselves?

I also warn people when asked about having a child. Not because I hate children, but because it is such as life changing experience, that most young couples will have a hard time coping. No more going to the theater for years to come. No more "just the 2 of us". The men will have to help change diapers. The sleepless nights. And the joy of the first baby smile. :) Yeah, it is better for them to know in advance what will happen and know that everybody else is experiencing the same thing and that they are not alone is this hard experience. ("Sorry kiddo, u ain't that special") So yeah, I warn people when asked. and I love my kids.

The fund managers did nothing illegal. 1. Bought with fair market price, 2.kept it in storage. 3. wait for food shortage 4. Sell for Huge Profit In pure capitalism, something like this is perfectly acceptable. In ethics, risking the lives and development of Mexican children for profit is unacceptable. Luckily, the fund managers sold their holdings before people start dying. But still... starving a whole people is just not ethical. even though it is legal. We, conservatives, should stand for Ethical Capitalism.

I think you confuse "ethics" vs "regulations". Government issue regulations, not ethics. Ethics follow rules with a higher authority than government. Regulations are different in different countries, but ethics is mostly universal. Contract law works when there is a contract. Often times, there is no contract. Hedge fund speculation is the perfect example. I think about 15 years ago (maybe? I was in college), there was a sudden corn shortage and price skyrocketed. The Mexicans can't afford to buy food. Their kids went hungry. Funny thing was, there was no drought or bad harvest. The food stock just wasn't there. Somebody bought them all. The fund managers did nothing illegal. 1. Bought with fair market price, 2.kept it in storage...

I think that is reasonable in principle. But problematic in practice. Everybody pays "sales tax", while not everybody pay income tax. Should it be only people who pay income tax? That would mean only well-to-do people can vote. At face value, that's not good, no? By principle, even sales-tax-payers have a right to vote. (their money is in the system, provided that THEY ARE CITIZENS) Who else is there out there? It seems every law-abiding citizen is a taxpayer by definition. So, I don;t think we can cut the line at taxpaying, that would include every law-abiding citizen. Law-breaking citizens are already forbidden to vote. So we would be back to square one.

Charles, You are right about the "voters who demand the impossible". But you are dead wrong about women should not be able to vote. I admit that women are more prone to this pitfall. But many are not. Either way, we must never take away the rights of fellow citizens because some of them are logically-challenged. Next thing we know, uneducated people are not allowed to vote, then next, blacks can't vote, etc. Our job is to help them understand and teach them. Otherwise, we would be just as bad as those Fascistic Elitist Leftists.

I think we need to add the word "Ethical" in front of "Capitalism". Pure capitalism, that has no moral compass, may result in seriously bad stuff. Just look at that Chinese milk company that added melamine into their milk product. They did it to boost the protein-count, and in turn, win against their competition. That's capitalism, BUT without ethics. Same thing with what some hedge fund managers "almost" tried to do. They started speculating on food-supply. Buying all the corn, starve the market, then sell at a huge profit. Luckily, they realized this business strategy will literally kill a whole lot of 3-rd worlders. So they stopped before any real damage. This is why "Ethics" is important in capitalism.

did he really say this? how come i have not read the news coverage of this.

Unfortunately, most common readers (including me) would scratch their head if we read "Star Chamber Proceedings". The conveyed meaning would be lost on most readers. Laymen like me understand the idea of "Kangaroo Court" readily enough though.

Dear New Students, Please keep in mind that we have a rule against "Raising Voices". There is a decibel-level which is allowed for each students to use at all times. The Administrators reserve the right to waive this rule on Themselves or anybody else we deem appropriate. For our mutual benefit, we often need to shout-down dissenting opinions in the public square. This is for the greater good of all. Please understand that should you violate this rule, you will be charged with "disorderly conduct" and be sent to a Siberian Gulag at your parent's expense. Should your parents challenge our decision, they will also be sent to the Gulag. Sincerely, University Administration

The problem with "legal intervention" is that Administrators can no longer trample on constitutional rights. Hence, they cry "TOO MUCH" legal intervention because actually they wish "NO" legality whatsoever. Since when does a dictator ever wish to follow his own laws? Laws are for the lowlies and the unwashed such as these "hicks and Christians". University Administrators is above the law of the land. They wish to rule by decree. "TOO MUCH"? Hahaha! There wouldn't be too much if there aren't so many right's violation.