patrick.net

Nomograph says

Michael Savage said the exact same thing on his AM talk radio show today. Interesting.

What are you implying? That Michael Savage is in here reading my posts? Interesting.

Troy says

Kevin says

I’m still waiting for someone to show me the section of the constitution that prevents the Federal Government from requiring people to pay a fee if they do not posses health insurance.

Actually that’s not how the Constitution was supposed to work, if one subscribes to a strict Enumerated Powers reading. The SCOTUS is basically still split 5-4 on this question. Back in 1995 the conservative majority said Congress didn’t have the power to ban guns within 1000′ of schools.

That's a very different type of ruling though. Saying that congress can't ban something is not the same as saying that they can't force the uninsured to pay a fine.

Kevin says

Troy says

Kevin says

I’m still waiting for someone to show me the section of the constitution that prevents the Federal Government from requiring people to pay a fee if they do not posses health insurance.

Actually that’s not how the Constitution was supposed to work, if one subscribes to a strict Enumerated Powers reading. The SCOTUS is basically still split 5-4 on this question. Back in 1995 the conservative majority said Congress didn’t have the power to ban guns within 1000′ of schools.

That’s a very different type of ruling though. Saying that congress can’t ban something is not the same as saying that they can’t force the uninsured to pay a fine.

That gets right to Enumerated Powers. Both the General Welfare and Commerce clauses are used to justify outlays, but this whole penalty thing for not carrying coverage is a novel extension of government power.

In 1937 the people lost their attempt to opt out of social security and federal UE, but the government had to jump through some odd hoops to get these 5-4 decisions, like arguing that FICA taxes were not earmarked pension programs.

All you're arguing is that the constitution is flawed (because it has loopholes), not that these things are unconstitutional.

Update: at least one Federal judge gets it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69D5CO20101014

This just in, "Senators get death bonuses, taxpayers get death taxes". Thats right, the Senate voted to pay Senator Byrds family a $200,000 death bonus. Yet another blatant display of cronyism by the political class. Them vs. us, the servant has become the master.

I kind of resent the fact that the government FORCES (there's that word again) forces everyone to name the IRS as one of your heirs. Death should not be a reason that the government uses to raid peoples after tax assets. Death shouldn't be a taxable event. And the libs accuse normal people of being greedy...hahaha, what a joke.

Abe is only happy when he's angry.

Honest Abe says

This just in, “Senators get death bonuses, taxpayers get death taxes”. Thats right, the Senate voted to pay Senator Byrds family a $200,000 death bonus. Yet another blatant display of cronyism by the political class. Them vs. us, the servant has become the master.
I kind of resent the fact that the government FORCES (there’s that word again) forces everyone to name the IRS as one of your heirs. Death should not be a reason that the government uses to raid peoples after tax assets. Death shouldn’t be a taxable event. And the libs accuse normal people of being greedy…hahaha, what a joke.

Why do you resent it? You will never have over a million dollars to leave to your heirs.

Oh no, some people have slightly smaller silver spoons when they die.

My kids are only going to get two or three million when I die rather than four or five million. Their lives will be so difficult.

Sensible people see estate taxes for what they are.

Dynasty Prevention.

Do we want to see the US turn into a society with a permanent oligarchy? No. The sociopathic empire builders will leave no stone unturned trying to make it happen of course.

It baffles me when the supposed "bootstrappy" want to cripple their children, shouldn't they get a chance at being self-made too?

the real deadbeats on paying medical costs are healthy, relatively young folks who decide against insurance, but then when they get old or get cancer, they want to be able to buy insurance in order to not pay the full costs. Its like buying home insurance after its on fire, no one can make money selling insurance like that. As for constitutionality, the people can ammend it for time to time no? Im not american but it seems to me in a democracy, no debate is ever settled, the country has to be able to adapt or be crippled by its legacies and traditions

Oh no! Please, someone say this isn't happening! ObamaCare was supposed to REDUCE the cost of healthcare. When capitalism and socialism get married, their children always turn out bad. What is guaranteed to happen is this: the cost of all those "poor folk" that don't have any insurance will now be financed via the payers, in turn raising the costs. There are already reports of numerous physicians that are planning to get out of their practices due entirely to ObamaCare, which will have an effect of course on costs going up even further due to higher demand (everyone with a headache in certain segments of society will run off to ER) with fewer medical professionals, etc. Yep, the government really, really, really makes things better. No wonder Liberals want more of it.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/Health-Care-Reform-Blamed-for-Huge-Hike-in-Premiums-105041674.html

I must disagree with Vincente's point about estate taxes as being dynasty killers. A dynasty has sovereignty, that is it makes the law and does not pay high taxes. The estate tax has really stopped the Kennedys and Rockefellers from having generational wealth, huh?. The estate tax targets and kills the evil middle class. The Magna Carta put a check on dynastic power, but it was by barons who were well-to-do enough to be a check on dynastic power. I refer the reader to the concept of Jeffersonian Democracy.

As far as rich and powerful people like George Soros are concerned, the middle class is anyone not manipulating government as the elite rich or being utilized as the righteous poor. What you libs call rich, you and people like George Soros call worth draining. Why don't you economically drain the Kennedys or Soros? Because you don't want responsibility for yourselves. You want secular saviors. Slaves don't have responsibility for themselves. Free people do. At least a slave knows he is a slave, and so hates being a slave. Libs I think seek actual domestication, unable to accept nature's answer to the age old question: quality or quantity? There will always be poor. There will always be people who's turn it is to suffer and die. We are mortal. We all get a turn. The question is not if any will be poor and needy. The question is if any will enjoy affluence and freedom without inducing poverty and need by diminution of productive others. Reader, your calories will be recycled, and the laws of nature will determine what progress is. Affluence is mightier than poverty. Social guarantee is not cost effective. Economy cannot contradict ecology. If socialized medicine is working in the West, it is only an illusion that time will correct.

No, Obamacare is NOT constitutional. But neither is fiat money or gun laws. It is perhaps reflective of the constitution of the people. Libs believe in evolution and so natural selection. Obamacare should work great, making a spectacular systemic failure out of what could have been individual failures. Let's go into an Orwellian dark ages and give Sharia law another chance. I wonder what sort of socialized health insurance they have in Saudi Arabia?

The Library of Congress reports (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Saudi_Arabia.pdf):
"Health benefits for Saudi citizens have increased exponentially since the implementation of the first five-year development plan in 1970. Today, according to the Saudi government, every citizen has access to unlimited, free medical care." Apparently, Wahhabism is even better than Communism.

antifeminist says

The estate tax targets and kills the evil middle class.

Right. When it comes back next year, the estate tax won't touch the first $1,000,000. And then for amounts above that, many well informed people will buy products from insurance companies, to avoid it.

Without your political bias, you might have seen the estate tax as: A good way to pay down the deficit (a little bit), combined with a gift to the insurance companies.

Without barons, the king will have unlimited powers. Lots of millionaires is a good thing, like the American Dream. Pay down the deficit? Tax-and-spend liberals like the money to always pass through their own hands; that's all. I'm not well informed about insurance to avoid paying taxes. That doesn't sound like a good way to pay down the deficit. Yet, we ought to stimulate consumption by people who do not produce. What will be left? Did you ever meet a tax you didn't like? Wouldn't it be better to simplify so there can't be special tax loophole favors and so there is less administrative overhead? Don't mean to offend the tax specialists out there. All that tax computing produces nothing useful. Can't we pick a few taxes and use them at whatever rate is needed. I think a flat sales tax on energy, a simple land tax, and uncomplicated external revenue are worth considering. If we consolidate taxation to a few taxes, we might see how ridiculous the U.S. unFederal Government extortion is.

We can't debate the appropriate level of taxation without a clear understanding of what level we have or are setting. Nickel-ing and dime-ing to death. Wouldn't you like to make more and for less hours and easier working conditions? Shouldn't technological benefits make life easier for truly free people? Pricing levels should come down; that is, the same dollars should buy more with advancing technology. It is obvious to me that American freedom is an anomaly about to pass into fable. What a special people antebellum Americans were. I know, they killed Amerinds and enslaved blacks. How smug today's Americans are, with so much handed to them that they can be subjugated and not realize it. With enough government, we can eliminate all conflict and all suffering. That is the feminist fantasy. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Wear your pink, all you mental candy asses. We need more breast cancer research like we need more housing. The resources spent on making bubble houses could have been better spent on something else. I don't know what exactly. I am not a certified community organizer who knows better. Let me emphasize CERTIFIED. Thanks, certifiable fiends, for actively throwing away the American Dream. I hope you get to experience the fruits of your labor.

antifeminist says

I must disagree with Vincente’s point about estate taxes as being dynasty killers.

It is a tool in the toolbox like any other. You sound like a Tory. Aristocracy is an evil to be fought not embraced. That some family fortunes survive countermeasures owes to the vibrancy of the particular individuals involved. A sort of "survival of the fittest".

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

the estate tax doesn't really prevent dynasties. Inheriting a little less than half of a multi billion dollar fortune will still make you rich.

But the argument that we need barrons is also ridiculous. We don't have kings.

What we need is reasoned, rational, public debate on real issues, not emotional appeals and fundamentalism.

Interesting aspect of history, this entail and primogeniture. From http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-4.htm:
"Entail and primogeniture imposed potentially perpetual restraints on the alienation of land, and could result in useful agricultural land being tied up indefinitely."

The laws of primogeniture and entail were laws that fostered perpetual inheritance according to the will of the state, which would be for the benefit of those actually in power. That is quite different than an inheritance determined by the deceased with no transfer of conditions upon further inheritance of the same property. Letting the individual decide for a single instance of estate disposal does not appear to be what Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson were against. Would Jefferson agree with FDR? I am not sure I would trust an editorial in the Economist that equates opposition to entail as support for an estate tax. The Economist seems to be controlled by the Rothschild banking family of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Group). They only copied from a blog by Stephen Budiansky. According to wikipedia, Budiansky went to Harvard and Yale, like the political elites often do, and was editor of U.S. News & World Report. Yah.

Jefferson did support the rich being taxed more than the poor (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1330.htm). A flat tax does that. I know you want a progressive tax. Jefferson seems to have at least pondered the possibility.

From (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1330.htm): "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

As for family inheritance itself, Jefferson was not against it. Thomas Jefferson wrote (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj010010%29%29):

"As the law of Descents, & the criminal law fell of course within my portion, I wished the commee to settle the leading principles of these, as a guide for me in framing them. And with respect to the first, I proposed to abolish the law of primogeniture, and to make real estate descendible in parcenary to the next of kin, as personal property is by the statute of distribution. Mr. Pendleton wished to preserve the right of primogeniture, but seeing at once that that could not prevail, he proposed we should adopt the Hebrew principle, and give a double portion to the elder son. I observed that if the eldest son could eat twice as much, or do double work, it might be a natural evidence of his right to a double portion; but being on a par in his powers & wants, with his brothers and sisters, he should be on a par also in the partition of the patrimony, and such was the decision of the other members."

Although inconclusive as to his feelings on the estate tax, Jefferson seems to have no problem with a law of family inheritance in parcenary, meaning received undivided and in common by family coheirs. Moving on....

Here is a list of the biggest U.S. land owners: http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/ It says Ted Turner is number one with a little over 2 million acres.

Biggest in the world? Do I think Queen Elizabeth II can use 6.6 billion acres? Not really. That's one sixth of the world's land. Do you think the estate tax is getting her? More about the world's biggest land owners (http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/):

"She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres."

ACTUALLY, THE BIGGEST OWNER OF U.S. LAND IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! From http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html we have: "The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States." I know parks and government facilities are needed, but 30% of the whole friggin' country? Is government big enough for you yet? The estate tax will stop the aristocracy? Would you please stop hating the so-called rich and aspire to be one yourself? If you earn it, you help us all. Politically speaking, $10 million is not rich. I said 'politically speaking'.

Perhaps we need a gift tax to stop landlordism too? When does the paranoid taxation stop? There is no landlordism without government coercion. The estate tax does not stop government coercion; it is government coercion that mainly benefits elitists, some of whom, like the Kennedys, are part of the dynasties supposedly to be dismantled. Why don't we destroy Harley-Davidson? Why don't we destroy Campbell's soup? I liked it better when the Bancroft family owned the Wall Street Journal. Is it better that WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch? I don't think people with several million dollars are aristocrats. They are not able to compete with George Soros or Bill Gates unless they stand united in the distribution of power. If they are numerous, they provide some safety to the rest of us. The freedom we once had in America can trace its heritage to the Magna Carta, when barons limited the king's power. That is the greatness of British heritage: limited government.

Thomas Jefferson also wrote this (Thomas Jefferson to Pierre S. Dupont de Nemours, April 15, 1811; see loc.gov Jefferson digital collection):

"Another great field of political experiment is opening in our neighborhood, in Spanish America. I fear the degrading ignorance into which their priests and kings have sunk them, has disqualified them from the maintenance or even knowledge of their rights, and that much blood may be shed for little improvement in their condition. Should their new rulers honestly lay their shoulders to remove the great obstacles of ignorance, and press the remedies of education and information, they will still be in jeopardy until another generation comes into place, and what may happen in the interval cannot be predicted, nor shall you or I live to see it. In these cases I console myself with the reflection that those who will come after us will be as wise as we are, and as able to take care of themselves as we have been. I hope you continue to preserve your health, and that you may long continue to do so in happiness, is the prayer of yours affectionately."

Are you wise enough to deserve freedom?

Kevin says

What we need is reasoned, rational, public debate on real issues, not emotional appeals and fundamentalism.

b-b-but, then some people wouldn't have anything to say...

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."

Daniel Webster

"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts-- our duty is not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln

Is ObamaCare constitutional?

antifeminist says

Are you wise enough to deserve freedom?

In that last quote, substitute right wing politicians and corporations for priests and kings, and you have a recipe for a continued deterioration of conditions here, much like what Jefferson was referring to ( I assume) in Mexico and Central America.

It takes some serious mental gymnastics to attribute the current gap between the rich and the poor, and the ever shrinking middle class to liberal policies.

As I have suggested before. All we need to do is attack the deficit with very progressive taxation, and watch how quickly congress figures out how to get spending under control. And then taxes can come back down.

But no. That just makes too much sense.

I still can't believe that anyone is dumb enough to use quotes from people who have been dead for 200 years as a way to argue for or against something.

What Thomas Jefferson thought of government, taxes, or anything else is irrelevant to 2010. Dead people don't get a vote.

Kevin says

I still can’t believe that anyone is dumb enough to use quotes from people who have been dead for 200 years as a way to argue for or against something.
What Thomas Jefferson thought of government, taxes, or anything else is irrelevant to 2010. Dead people don’t get a vote.

Who needs Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Washington, etc. when we have "Kevin" to tell us what's relevant? No doubt he knows far more than those idiots that founded the country. LOL

Kevin said of my quote of Thomas Jefferson, "I still can’t believe that anyone is dumb enough to use quotes from people who have been dead for 200 years as a way to argue for or against something." I was only responding to Vicente's argument for the estate tax by using Thomas Jefferson (http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers). Is anybody reading for substance?

I guess history hurts your feelings. Founding the greatest country ever that you enjoy is really dumb. You sound like one of the fashionable ingrates. Thomas Jefferson knew more 200 years ago than you and I will ever know today. You just look to take any offense to avoid thinking. Can't you find any truth in what others say? Most of the comments here have some truth. You might learn something if you don't throw away everything that is not your own brilliant, perfected opinion. If you are that smart, please lead all of humanity.

For the record, I do not support the Republicans, except maybe those Tea Party candidates that are really outsiders who are using the government machinery so well monopolized by the Demorepublicrat political oligarchy, which is only a front to emotionally engage and stupefy the American masses. Do you think O'Reilly on The View was our struggle? Of course not. I see the propagandist theatrics are working incredibly well. Fished in! I don't want plutocracy any more than I want socialism. I want aspirations of self-sufficiency, and charity at home.

If you don't give up wanting a free ride, you are corrupt. You also choose to give up your freedom. The hand that gives is on top. I know it would take work to have more than an emotional argument. You have the Internet and public libraries. Life has so many shades of gray. We can learn some of the biggest truths from our enemies. I don't dare quote anyone who said as much. I think many of you don't want the truth; you want easy at the expense of others, and you want if for everyone. Brilliant.

antifeminist says

For the record, I do not support the Republicans, except maybe those Tea Party candidates that are really outsiders who are using the government machinery so well monopolized by the Demorepublicrat political oligarchy, which is only a front to emotionally engage and stupefy the American masses.

So, you support the militant wing of the GOP. Good to get that admission out of the way.

Vicente,

I am happy to talk candidly with you. Politics is maintenance of jurisdiction. We cannot have civilized freedom without possessing politics ourselves. That is why I believe in the 2nd Amendment, scrupulous federalism, and self-government. Someone must have the power of jurisdiction for there to be a civilization. Centralized control is dangerous and ultimately oppressive.

'Radical' presumes a great distance from some proper position. A position that is conciliatory to fools or the two wings of the establishment is not a valid reference point. Any judgment or morality not consistent with the Laws of Nature is wrong. Although our unalienable rights are actually alienable, the Laws of Nature are not. Freedom can only work a certain way in this world. Whereas a preacher might have told someone to repent, Benjamen Franklin would have said try this lightning rod on your next house. What answer will work?

RayAmerica says

Who needs Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Washington, etc. when we have “Kevin” to tell us what’s relevant? No doubt he knows far more than those idiots that founded the country. LOL

By definition. Do you have any idea how much more the average person knows today than even the best educated people did 200 years ago?

Thomas Jefferson didn't even believe that Africans and Europeans were the same species.

So, no, the appeal to authority bullshit doesn't sway me on anything. Anyone can dredge up random quotes from dead people to support their arguments.

Kevin says

By definition. Do you have any idea how much more the average person knows today than even the best educated people did 200 years ago?

You have access to Wikipedia. Of course that makes you smarter than Thomas Jefferson, et all. How could anyone argue that “Kevin” isn’t smarter than all the Founding Fathers combined? LOL!!

RayAmerica says

Kevin says

By definition. Do you have any idea how much more the average person knows today than even the best educated people did 200 years ago?

You have access to Wikipedia. Of course that makes you smarter than Thomas Jefferson, et all. How could anyone argue that “Kevin” isn’t smarter than all the Founding Fathers combined? LOL!!

I never said anything about being "smarter", I said that I know more than they did. And I do. As much as it pains me to admit it, so do you.

Please don't mistake knowledge for intelligence.

If you want to lend an air of credibility to your arrogant know it all political ramblings, then the founding fathers are definitely the route to go. Greek philosophers can also be nice when the goal is a little intellectual sophistication (or bring out the latin if you need the really big guns). Jesus is also excellent in some circles, although it is so challenging to find good quotes by Jesus to back up right wing political views.

Whatever you do though, stay away from ancient eastern (Lao Tsu, Confucius etc) as well as French philosophers.

I've always been fond of Einstein quotes and also Bertrand Russel.

marcus says

If you want to lend an air of credibility to your arrogant know it all ramblings, then the founding fathers are definitely the route to go. Greek philosophers can also be nice when the goal is a little intellectual sophistication (or bring out the latin or if you need the really big guns)

As long as he doesn't invoke the great Homer Simpson... That guy is awesome and really brings in the D'oh.

By the way, antifeminist...was Jesus a feminist ?

elliemae says

As long as he doesn’t invoke the great Homer Simpson… That guy is awesome and really brings in the D’oh.

I prefer the wisdom of a forgotten genius.

"Did I ever tell you about my Uncle Max?....."

Thomas Jefferson was well aware that white slave owners had sex with black slave women, and that the result was mulatto children. He was accused of doing so himself. Species are able to breed among themselves. Where is your evidence that TJ believed whites and blacks were different species? I THINK YOU LIED.

You are so smug with your Internet access and your cell phone. Having things of worth is not being things of worth. You are not better than Thomas Jefferson, certainly not as a writer or thinker. It is not unreasonable to think there are some substantial genetic differences between blacks and whites.

Why do only people of blacks heritage get sickel cell anemia?

Sickle cell anemia affects millions throughout the world. It is particularly common among people whose ancestors come from sub-Saharan Africa; Spanish-speaking regions (South America, Cuba, Central America); Saudi Arabia; India; and Mediterranean countries such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy. In the Unites States, it affects around 72,000 people, most of whose ancestors come from Africa. The disease occurs in about 1 in every 500 African-American births and 1 in every 1000 to 1400 Hispanic-American births. About 2 million Americans, or 1 in 12 African Americans, carry the sickle cell trait.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml

From Washington Post:

With the help of a pinch of fossil bone dust, scientists have discovered that modern human beings interbred with Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago, and that 1 to 4 percent of the genes carried by non-African people are traceable to the much-caricatured, beetle-browed cavemen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050604423.html

From The Huffington Post:

We have met Neanderthal and he is us – at least a little. The most detailed look yet at the Neanderthal genome helps answer one of the most debated questions in anthropology: Did Neanderthals and modern humans mate?

The answer is yes, there is at least some cave man biology in most of us. Between 1 percent and 4 percent of genes in people from Europe and Asia trace back to Neanderthals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/07/neanderthal-dna-found-in-_n_567177.html

I doubt you, Kevin, can 'drudge up random quotes from dead people to support' your argument. Oh look, from Vicente's comment above: "Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere..." I guess Vicente is anybody too.

If you aren't anybody, then I guess TJ is better than you.

I take the liberty of observing that you are not a true disciple of our master Epicurus, in indulging the indolence to which you say you are yielding. One of his canons, you know, was that "that indulgence which prevents a greater pleasure, or produces a greater pain is to be avoided."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28ws03098%29%29

So impress us, Kevin, and quote from a dead guy to support how much smarter average people are today, or your political views at all. Heck, just give us a source that proves what you say Jefferson said. Use his own words, not your interpretation of them. If you get sick of the abuse from being in over your head, try studying the facts! Maybe you will figure out that the Mediterranean basin was the cradle of Western civilization, and that dark-skinned Caucasians (Caucasoids) come from northern Africa. Egyptians used corvee labor, and they were and are 'white' people. Al Sharpton was wrong when he said, "White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires...." Negroids come from sub-Saharan Africa. How can we have a coherent discussion if your basic terminology is mistaken?, if you ignore history?, and if your feelings are out of control because your intellect has never been challenged to grow?

antifeminist says

So impress us, Kevin, and quote from a dead guy to support how much smarter average people are today

Kevin says

I never said anything about being “smarter”,

As Kevin said, there is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Hopefully, you understand that.

marcus asked if Jesus was a feminist. I am not aware of anyone that was a feminist until the 19th century. Feminism is not possible without an industrial revolution. I believe Jesus did say give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. Also, I think it was St. Paul that said for wives to obey their husbands. Of course, the Bible loses meaning with translations. Muslims, incidentally, do not allow translations of the Quran from Arabic to be still considered the Quran.

antifeminist says

I doubt you, Kevin, can ‘drudge up random quotes from dead people to support’ your argument. Oh look, from Vicente’s comment above: “Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere…” I guess Vicente is anybody too.

I've made it to "anybody" status. Hurray!

Most people watch "Dancing with the Stars", etc. They don't know more, IMHO, than Thomas Jefferson. Having more materially is not being more mentally. Thomas Jefferson was a polymath. Do you even know what one is? According to wikipedia:

"A polymath, Jefferson achieved distinction as, among other things, a horticulturist, political leader, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, musician, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia."

So who the hell are you?

Vicente says

I’ve made it to “anybody” status. Hurray!

Congrats Vicente. Couldn't have happened to a better anyone.

antifeminist says

I am not aware of anyone that was a feminist until the 19th century. Feminism is not possible without an industrial revolution.

There are examples of matriarchal societies prior to Industrial Revolution.