Hundreds of Ole Miss students exchanged racial epithets and violent,politicized chants in response to the announcement of the re-election of President Barack Obama.

What began as an argument around midnight quickly spread across campus.

UPD responded to a fire alarm being pulled in Brown Hall as crowds gathered near Kincannon and Stockard.

Just as all seemed to calm down, those in disagreement moved to the Grove.

UPD cleared the Grove on the grounds that it closes at midnight. Displeased, crowds continued to grow and returned to Kincannon.

UPD responded and forcibly dispersed the crowd.

"Disperse or go to jail," UPD officers said.

For me, the greatest political irony in the world is the Democratic Party, the party of the southern states civil war.

The Democrats have done a total 180 degree turn and is not the racist party of the former U.S. slave states.

This flip-flop occurred after Martin Luther King Jr. graced us with his message. Hillary Rodham Clinton, from a connected Republican Chicago family, became a Democrat. So in this weird twist, I can keep my ancestors' political association without being a 'good ol' boy' white southern racist.

I will always laugh that the southern white male bigot votes for the political party that was formed to go to war with the south and ended up destroying it quite thoroughly. Irony++. Republicans were who were chanting racist vitriole in Mississippi, no Democrats were there, they were being human.

The Republican Party is the standing white male southern racist party. Be proud of that or change.

The folks who fought for seccession (and slavery) are the same folks who populate the sourthern republicans.  They just have a different team name and jersey color.

28 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

I would argue that neither major party today would fit with the Civil War era Democrats. Neither is really for states' rights. Libertarian Party would probably be the best fit.

You are probably right from the states vs. federal point of view, but that whole economic prosperity through people ownership thing can't be one of the Libertarian ideals, can it?

MANHATTAN BEACH -- Police in Southern California say someone left a dead pig in a Mitt Romney T-shirt outside a Republican campaign office.

Manhattan Beach police say the pig carcass clad in a blue Romney T-shirt was discovered on the doorstep of the office on Thursday morning.

Witness Andy Gaeta told KABC-TV he thought the body was a dead human when he saw police approach it, but then realized it was a pig, most likely from a butcher shop, with barbed wire around its head.

Animal control officers first put the pig in a trash bin, then returned and removed the bin as evidence in an investigation of illegal dumping of an animal carcass.

Police tell KABC they have no evidence of any other crime, and no note was left behind.

That's just pathetic. Hooligans in the parking lot after the game starting fights. Bad behavior from somewhere other than the South - oiy vey.

3 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

@JohnAskew:The parties switched over in the last 100 years or so. 

The folks who fought for seccession (and slavery) are the same folks who populate the sourthern republicans.  They just have a different team name and jersey color.

I don't normally get into political discussions but I felt I had to correct this one.  It is actually the Republican party that fought for civil rights and to end slavery.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

You are probably right from the states vs. federal point of view, but that whole economic prosperity through people ownership thing can't be one of the Libertarian ideals, can it?

lol, exactly. But if you believed that slaves were property and not people (as some Southerners did back then), then you'd protest the government telling you what to do with that property. Basic Libertarian idea is "I can do what I want as long it's not hurting anyone else". Of course, determining whether it's hurting anyone else or not is sometimes very difficult.

7 minutes ago, SheldonS wrote

*snip*

 

I don't normally get into political discussions but I felt I had to correct this one.  It is actually the Republican party that fought for civil rights and to end slavery.

Sheldon, read the initial post. It is exactly what you have reiterated. Oh the irony!

Compare then and now, see it as a wholesale trade of cultures between parties in the 1960s.

3 minutes ago, SheldonS wrote

*snip* 

I don't normally get into political discussions but I felt I had to correct this one.  It is actually the Republican party that fought for civil rights and to end slavery.

Surprisingly true. Here's an interesting article that covers that in detail. From the article it's clear both Republicans and Democrats were pushing for civil rights but the Democrats from the south were not. I suppose if Republicans were in power in the south at the time you'd see the same resistance. Bottom line: it doesn't matter what party is in power in the south -- they still live up to the racist-faith-guns-flag stereotype.

32 minutes ago, SheldonS wrote

*snip*

 I don't normally get into political discussions but I felt I had to correct this one.  It is actually the Republican party that fought for civil rights and to end slavery.

Reread what I wrote.  I said exactly that. 

What I am _also_ saying is that the attitudes of the people who make up the southern republicans TODAY would be the same attitudes of people you'd find in the southern democrats 150 YEARS AGO.

1 hour ago, Proton2 wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: You mention Fox. Are you aware that scientific research has shown that Fox has the most balanced reporting of all the major networks? They are just slightly left of center in their reporting overall.

"Fox News" and "scientific research" don't belong in the same sentence unless they're accompanied by the word "denial".

Thanks for the laugh though.

As for infotainment, some people like The Onion, others like Fox News. Personally, I think The Onion does a better job at presenting the facts.

-Josh

"Critics have been known to complain about the "Fair & Balanced" slogan.  Former President Bill Clinton exploded at Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after being lightly pressed by Wallace about his record on fighting Al Qaeda. Democratic politicians and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, sometimes accusing it of being a Republican propaganda mill.  Former Vice-President and environmentalist Al Gore has likened Fox to a right-wing "fifth column."  Groups, such as MoveOn.org, funded a classic schlockumentary entitled Outfoxed, which purports to expose the channel's 'nefarious Republican agenda'.  Some have referred to FOX News as "the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" or "Faux News." In a grandstanding gesture of political theater the group unsuccessfully petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to stop Fox's from using its slogan as "deceptive advertising". It was unanimously rejected. ^[5] Fox News spokesman Rob Zimmerman told today's (Tuesday) Wall Street Journal: "If they can attack Fox News to this extreme, then all news organizations are at risk to be targeted by similar attacks. ... It's best to ignore nuts." "

http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel

Herbie

On election night they even said at one point "We will need to analyze why "we" [Faux News] lost the presidential election".

4 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

Wow, are there actually people that think Faux News isn't heavily biased towards the right? Either you haven't actually watched it or you have a defective view of what "balanced" is.

I don't think it is so much being biased towards the right. The problem I see is it presents only 1 version of conservatism.  For example, I have always voted republican but was reluctant to vote for Romney. I saw him as too much for an assertive US military and too much involvement in the Mideast.  On the tax debate Fox will provide no voice to conservatives who want a balanced budget ahead of anything else. Raise taxes. If the economy tanks then conservatives have a great argument for lowering taxes and spending. If it does not, then we have to change the laws of economics.

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

I'm going to steer clear of this one, as it can only end in tears.

I cannot have a very relevant opinion about sub-cultures in other countries, either. I'm uninformed.

1 day ago, Proton2 wrote

Great map of the educated vs. ignorant. No need to guess the color tile that you live in...

31 minutes ago, Bas wrote

I love maps like those. They're completely pointless if you don't take population density of each of those areas into account.

You should see what that map would have looked like had Alaska been drawn to scale and filled with the proper color.

2 hours ago, Bas wrote

I love maps like those. They're completely pointless if you don't take population density of each of those areas into account.

County elections, skewed for population.

@Proton: In terms of raw numbers

Obama: 61 944 375
Romney: 58 659 578

So no matter how many pictures you show showing mainly red, the fact is that more people voted Obama than voted Romney. 

Thanks for posting!

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@BitFlipper: I knew it! Government uses schools to brainwash you!

 

Thanks for posting!

The government brainwashes people into getting a college degree and finding a well-paying job? At least those dirt-poor people in those red states can be thankful that they're still free-thinkers and can choose to be dumb as a box of rocks if they want.

Herbie

It should be your own free choice to get a college degree.

What you end up with now is people with fancy college degrees that serve hamburgers and with a massive debt. Next stop; student loan crisis!

And maybe the reds are the free thinkers? Have you considered that? Maybe they think they can make up their own minds, instead of some college professor telling them how the world works?

You make an awful amount of assumptions for one that claims to be a member of 'the only party that can think free'.

@Dr Herbie: It's all well intended, just badly thought trough. So I for one don't think it's a conspiracy.

And the reply to BitFlipper was meant very sarcastically.

Herbie

18 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

@Maddus Mattus: I don't really think it's a conspiracy either, just the standard short-term thinking that comes from our free market oriented politicians.

Herbie

That's a contradiction. A government official has no power over a free market.

So if a government official is telling a school to adhere to a certain curriculum, you have a regulated market. In a free market the school could make up its own mind what to teach. It then would be up to the students to see if the curriculum meets their demands and it would not be up to the government official.

Herbie

You cannot agree or disagree with a free market. It's the dance of the producer and the consumer, no one else. The market is not always right. That's why we have booms and busts. By interfering with this pattern, the booms and busts (especially the busts) will be more severe.

If the schools produce a high number of drones, instead of free thinkers, the businesses will determine their value when they leave school. If the businesses determine that it does not place a lot of value on drones, they will pay a less rate to the student. In this scenario the student is the only one to blame, he bet on drone and lost. As a result students will flock to the free thinkers curriculum.

Now if government sticks it's nose in and dictate the curriculum (or part of it) by law, the student is no longer responsible for the decision. Therefore it's unfair for him to bear the consequences. So as a result of this failure, we need to also regulate businesses to hire drones. And as a result of this failure we need to bail out the banks where the drones work. The disease that is regulation spreads it's tentacles everywhere. You cannot plan people. And frankly I think it's an insult to the intelligence of a student and an attack on his freedom.

Herbie

What you see throughout history is that countries that adopt free market policies, and protection of this market, hugely increased their standards of living. We can see it happening right now in the BIRC countries.

edit;

This is also what made the US to the superpower that it is/was. People flocked by the millions to the US for a chance to grow up in a society where you are free to chase your own rainbow. It did not have any migration laws, because it did not need to protect the nanny state. Business was booming, the US owned the largest portion of businesses around the world. But in less then 30 years they went from the worlds largest creditor, to the worlds largest debtor. When we clean this mess up here in the EU, the spotlight will be on the US. You guys will have to go over this fiscal cliff, my concern is if Obama is up for the task or will he kick the can down the road. At least with Romney you would have had someone with some economic sense at the wheel.

38 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

When we clean this mess up here in the EU, the spotlight will be on the US. You guys will have to go over this fiscal cliff, my concern is if Obama is up for the task or will he kick the can down the road. At least with Romney you would have had someone with some economic sense at the wheel.

I think the EU has a better political structure than the US. In the EU financially responsible countries can firewall themselves off from the reckless countries. It is Germany choice whether it wants to loan more money to Greece, Italy and Spain. In the US the feds control the central bank and also have a multil trillion $ annual budget. I do not think the EU has taxing and spending authority.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Dr Herbie: There is a case to be made for a government in a free market society. The free market is very fragile, you need to protect it. And you do this by protecting the freedom of individuals.

It is not, however, the only thing that needs protection in a society and to be honest, when the chips are down, it's certainly not the first thing that needs protection.  Unless and until we are willing to change our societal rules to 'suceed or die', we have other responsibilities besides simply free market protection.

What you see throughout history is that countries that adopt free market policies, and protection of this market, hugely increased their standards of living. We can see it happening right now in the BIRC countries.

What you see right now in those countries is what happens when any country goes from the 3rd world to first.

edit;

This is also what made the US to the superpower that it is/was. People flocked by the millions to the US for a chance to grow up in a society where you are free to chase your own rainbow. It did not have any migration laws, because it did not need to protect the nanny state. Business was booming, the US owned the largest portion of businesses around the world. But in less then 30 years they went from the worlds largest creditor, to the worlds largest debtor. When we clean this mess up here in the EU, the spotlight will be on the US. You guys will have to go over this fiscal cliff, my concern is if Obama is up for the task or will he kick the can down the road. At least with Romney you would have had someone with some economic sense at the wheel.

And we've run out of un-owned resources and people to exploit, so we aren't able to continue the boom times.  We _could_ invade canada or mexico...

BRIC  countries are already starting to slow their growth and will continue to do so because growth isn't sustainable forever.  Unless we find new resources here or get out of the gravity well into space, growth like we just saw for the last 100-200 years is just not going to happen.

29 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

It is not, however, the only thing that needs protection in a society and to be honest, when the chips are down, it's certainly not the first thing that needs protection.  Unless and until we are willing to change our societal rules to 'suceed or die', we have other responsibilities besides simply free market protection.

When the chips are down, when you have a bust, it's in everybody's best interest to see the bust go bust. To prevent a bust to bust is to kick the can down the road and create a bigger bust when you no longer can afford to kick the can.

What you see right now in those countries is what happens when any country goes from the 3rd world to first.

And what is fueling that transition? Government? No, production in a free market.

We've been trying to fuel this transition for 50 years with government money, didn't do any good. Actually, it did more harm then good. And now in just a few years of trade, these countries can rise from the gutter on their own merit.

And we've run out of un-owned resources and people to exploit, so we aren't able to continue the boom times.  We _could_ invade canada or mexico...

Hogwash. You are in the middle of a shale gas revolution that make America the next Saudi Arabia. Technology is what drives the efficient use of the resources you have. No need to invade other countries.

BRIC  countries are already starting to slow their growth and will continue to do so because growth isn't sustainable forever.  Unless we find new resources here or get out of the gravity well into space, growth like we just saw for the last 100-200 years is just not going to happen.

There are plenty of resources, it's a myth that resources are dwindling. Just take a look at the total economic reserves of oil. It's up from millions of barrels to billions of barrels in 50 years. All due to better technology.

1 hour ago, SteveRichter wrote

I think the EU has a better political structure than the US. In the EU financially responsible countries can firewall themselves off from the reckless countries. It is Germany choice whether it wants to loan more money to Greece, Italy and Spain. In the US the feds control the central bank and also have a multil trillion $ annual budget. I do not think the EU has taxing and spending authority.

Nope, sorry,..

Look up the ESM treaty. We have no say.

Want to vote for member of the EC? Can't.

Want to vote for a member in EP that is not from your country? Can't.

Want to vote for a president of the EU? Can't.

Want to vote via a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon? You can, but they will ignore the outcome.

Want to vote for a national parliament? You can, but they have no real power anymore, Brussels decides what's right and wrong, as EU law weighs heavier then domestic law.

So, you want to be less free, by all means! come to the EU!

52 seconds ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Want to vote for a national parliament? You can, but they have no real power anymore, Brussels decides what's right and wrong, as EU law weighs heavier then domestic law.

Examples? With reliable source, please.

21 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

When the chips are down, when you have a bust, it's in everybody's best interest to see the bust go bust. To prevent a bust to bust is to kick the can down the road and create a bigger bust when you no longer can afford to kick the can.

Yeah, because having a global economic depression is in everybody's interesting. Hell, if we're going to allow the entire global economy crumble because it's good for us, why not allow the governments that once fostered these economic systems to crumble as well? Government sucks. It can't do anything better than private, profit-motivated industry can, and we're just kicking the can down the road by keeping government around.

The entire world could use period of lawlessness like in Somalia. The masses of poor will rape and pillage the rich, and things will all even out in the end. Then the entire world can start anew. The Earth is resilient. We can deplete all of the natural resources, because people will eventually die and turn into petroleum just like the dinosaurs did. The world is funny like that. Things just eventually work out, and all countries will be lifted from poverty and be even stronger because the free market will prevail!

We'll just have to a wait a few million years, and everything will be back to normal. Just you watch!

What you see throughout history is that countries that adopt free market policies, and protection of this market, hugely increased their standards of living. We can see it happening right now in the BIRC countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brazilian_government_enterprises

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_sector_undertakings_in_India

If the USA were to take example from any of these BRIC countries, we'd have to nationalize far more of the economy than we currently do.

The chaebols of South Korea are essentially nationalized companies, but they compete very well on an international level.

Just as we talk about how unhealthy it is for infighting between WinDiv and DevDiv within Microsoft, it would be equally unhealthy for there to be "infighting" between Microsoft and Apple, if US technology companies had to compete individually, without government backing, against nationalized companies like Samsung as well as huge nationalized technology companies that may someday arise from China, India, etc.

I've spoken out against companies becoming "too-big-to-fail", and have argued for regulations preventing this, but that's only from the context of these companies being private companies that needn't answer to the government yet reap the benefit of the safety net that the government is willing to offer. I would be all for allowing "too-big-to-fail" companies to exist as long as they are nationalized. Hey, I like lower taxes too. So if some guy from the Netherlands buys a product from a US company that benefits from the "too-big-to-fail" safety net, then I expect the profits to go directly toward lowering MY taxes.

@cbae: weeeee another move to Somalia argument. Don't project your solution of running away onto me. I love my country and want to see it prosper. If you want to continue to kick the can down the road, throwing your country into an even bigger depression, by my guest.

You can always print more money or raise the debt ceiling some more. That's a solution they are all to familiar with in Zimbabwe. Lets see you buy a burger for a million dollars. As soon as the spotlights shift,.. I sure hope you are up to the challenge.

@Sven Groot: recently, something with children an migration that was in violation with EU law. Will google it once I get home.

There is the example of the income calculated insurance premium, could also be in violation with eu law, so it was canned.

The examples are numerous. It's in the treaties, don't know why you need concrete examples.

5 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: weeeee another move to Somalia argument. Don't project your solution of running away onto me. I love my country and want to see it prosper. If you want to continue to kick the can down the road, throwing your country into an even bigger depression, by my guest.

You can always print more money or raise the debt ceiling some more. That's a solution they are all to familiar with in Zimbabwe. Lets see you buy a burger for a million dollars. As soon as the spotlights shift,.. I sure hope you are up to the challenge.

And I really don't need to hear your diatribes about your own government. Keep it to yourself, please. This is a discussion about US POLITICS, and I didn't see anybody here railing about the US government or even government in general until you started posting your crap. Thank you for your unsolicited advice for the residents of our country. We'll take it on advisement. Really, we will.

But we've heard enough. You're now repeating yourself. You said you were going to steer clear of this thread, so do as you said. For everybody's benefit.

1 minute ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

When the chips are down, when you have a bust, it's in everybody's best interest to see the bust go bust. To prevent a bust to bust is to kick the can down the road and create a bigger bust when you no longer can afford to kick the can.

I have no idea what that paragraph means and your inability to use meaningful grammar or puntiation is tiresome.  If you are going to argue coherently, do .... ya know what, nevermind.

I'm not falling into your trap, again.

You are wrong.  You have been shown to be wrong over and over again, and you keep coming back with cartoonish misunderstandings of what government, society, and commerce is and does.  You purposefully ignore any and all logic, and frankly, I cannot f*cking believe I even cared enough to hit submit on this post.

You, sir, are a troll.

Fair enough.

I will note that every time you all start on economics, global warming, politics, religion I end up locking the thread. Believe it or not I have better things to do. So, please, don't take threads off topic into those areas. I'd rather not have my day spoiled.