William: Who forbids, who allows? It's not a trivial question. The extended answer to that question, and your nonsensical objections to it are the reason for your rejection here, bucky, not groupthink.

I feel no rejection, one would have to be seeking something to feel that.

You ask, "who forbids, and who allows" and that is a great question. What is your answer? I do not believe I have seen it before.

You also write, "poor in Appalachia aren't poor as a result of a mental flaw, or a moral one" Thank you for that, but we already knew that. I wrote to Kitt on subject, and you will see that post before this one I wager, but I'll expand.

If I could set LWM (or pick your own fellow) in some business and make it a total monopoly; he and his would never be able to keep the monopoly. It might last a while (years and years even), but only government protected monopolies can withstand the market.

Why mention this? Because you liberals (if it walks like a duck ...?) can not see that the economic system is not static. For a host of reasons, the monopoly will not maintain itself as a monopoly. For like reasons there is no class of people who are permanently poor in this real world unless a government holds them down. It is only a thought-experiment device. (in fact, even governments are not permanent --- in case some here did not know)

And now William, you might get the drift of what I was saying before about Democrats not even knowing the lingo.

It is like the ancient Gnostic who would only tell you the "outer mysteries" at first, because you could not understand his truth and not because he did not want you to know.

"Et in Arcadia ego" So? I prefer "that of god is in each of us" but I doubt we have a lot of Friends here.

... Something also tells me we're not going to agree on this issue, so I will bow out of further argument on it

For the best, no doubt. I can not get you to see that social organization is not identically equal to "government."

Since you do not see any real difference between voluntary, private social groups and involuntary governments --- you could never agree with me. Hell, I would not either!

Have a nice night.

After the normal amount of slime and insult, Paul finally writtes:

The fundamental problem with bucky1, from the POV of what Glenn's blog is about is that he doesn't get what Glenn's blog is about. He his here to make it bucky1's blog. And frankly, most of us find bucky1's blog to be boring beyond tears. But we just can't help ourselves in getting off one last stinging reply. And then one more. And one more. And one more after that...

Yes! I told you yesterday that I was merely writing back to those that wrote me --- and not everyone at that. Damn tiring it is. However, I will respond as time allows to whoever wants to talk. The fact that your insults are "just facts" and my retorts are "insane" will have to be left to each individual to ascertain.

Oddly, I pointed out that this should stop yesterday sometime (or perhaps this AM) but the assembled crowd had not vented enough yet. I did mention that it is Glen's blog --- but, no one would see that then.

Perhaps St. Paul can help others see.

... Just as writers in this thread having or not having college degrees - as was brought up by you - has no bearing on this discussion.

What? When? What did I say?

I dare say you have someone else in mind. I do not care about degrees more than you could ever imagine.

Glenn,

... Describing America as an empire or pursuing imperial domination has been, for quite some time, more or less taboo, or at least a point that one could make only by almost immediately relegating oneself to the fringes. But I think that's changing. ...

I for one, hope you are correct on this call. The first step toward recovery is to honestly address the problem. Since 1945 at least (perhaps since 1893), we have been an empire; so why not just say it out loud? How can we ask if we should be an empire if we deny that we are one?

It seems a lot of questions can be avoided if we can manage to relegate the question (an questioner) to the fringe. Every aspect of our government should be open to question; and "news-paper men/women" should be asking those hard questions.

Most Americans are unaware that we maintain military installations at over 800 different overseas locations.

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n15mil.html

"... The U.S. military has left behind a legacy of environmental problems throughout the world, giving rise to a multitude of complaints by host governments, community groups, and environmental organizations. In the Philippines, only after the U.S. military evacuated Subic Naval Station and Clark Air Base in 1992 did Filipinos discover what one U.S. official called a "horror story," including tons of toxic chemicals dumped on the ground and into the water, or buried in uncontrolled landfills. In Panama, 21 people already have died from explosions of ordnance left on firing ranges, prompting fears that more accidents will occur after the U.S. leaves. And in Germany, where half of all overseas U.S. troops are still stationed, industrial solvents, firefighting foams, and waste have destroyed local ecosystems near some military bases. The Army estimates that cleanup of all U.S.-caused soil and groundwater pollution overseas could cost more than $3 billion. ..."

Sweet Jesus, we are winning hearts and minds all over the place. Perhaps we pollute "over there" so we do not pollute here.