|
Post by Toromalfred on Sept 19, 2008 18:45:41 GMT -5
I dunno. I hate how you guys make assumptions before you actually look into things. You mean you're not a penguin?!
|
|
|
Post by Jester on Sept 19, 2008 21:38:37 GMT -5
No thanks, I still have the horrible memory of being stuck in a yellow station wagon for 5 hours waiting for gas when I was 3. The hard part here is actually finding any. I waited for an hour and twenty minutes today for gas. And there was a huge fucking barge full of it sitting on the riverbank. Fucking Republicrats.
|
|
ender502
Ye Olde King of OT
A cock-gobbling dick-hound
%\0\%
Posts: 502
|
Post by ender502 on Sept 20, 2008 8:53:32 GMT -5
I want to make sweet sweet mouth love to Elusive's avatar.
In the last 28 years only 1 president has manages to shrink the debt and force balanced budgets...Bill Clinton.
How crazy has the world become when the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility?
I am certainly a fan of any pro-crazy platform. That would include Paul and Kuccinich... Actually, I just like teh vegan's wife...and her tongue ring.
ender502
|
|
takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 20, 2008 12:41:06 GMT -5
Clinton was a neocon in an ass's clothing (so a neoliberal). His balanced budget and debt reduction revolved around a shell game very similar to the one which inevitably turned around to ass fuck the US credit industry. The entire US financial policy has been esentially run by disciples of Milton Friedman since Reagan.
|
|
|
Post by Elusive71 on Sept 22, 2008 12:07:46 GMT -5
Ron Paul is a punk rocker, not a metal head. No he's not. He's a Christian. But he's not hipster at all, i don't know where you get that. He did NOTHING to reel in the college crowd, they (I) found him by going to his website to make fun of "that crazy guy in the debate", only to find he was actually brilliant. Ron Paul's "libertarianism" does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. Brilliant! Ron Paul's shit record when it comes to the environment (Republicans for Environmental Protection scored him a meager 17 percent). Brilliant! Ron Paul supports repealing birthright citizenship. Brilliant! Ron Paul is hostile to gay rights (particularly the right to marry)and gay people in general - from his own mouth: "How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual deviance! It's officials could have had their own float in the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade." GLBi = sexual deviance. Brilliant! Considers himself a strict Constitutionalist yet his opinions on Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state seem to contradict this. Brilliant! Genocide in Darfur? Not our problem. Brilliant! Out of Iraq! Yay! But fuck the veterans who fought the war. Boo-rilliant! There's plenty more instances of Ron Paul's brilliance, but that would require me to look into things, and I've done enough of that all ready. Back to my sweet sweet assumptions.
|
|
takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 22, 2008 13:49:05 GMT -5
Bravo sir!
|
|
|
Post by PenguinDude on Sept 22, 2008 15:32:54 GMT -5
Ron Paul is a punk rocker, not a metal head. No he's not. He's a Christian. But he's not hipster at all, i don't know where you get that. He did NOTHING to reel in the college crowd, they (I) found him by going to his website to make fun of "that crazy guy in the debate", only to find he was actually brilliant. Ron Paul's "libertarianism" does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. Brilliant! Ron Paul's shit record when it comes to the environment (Republicans for Environmental Protection scored him a meager 17 percent). Brilliant! Ron Paul supports repealing birthright citizenship. Brilliant! Ron Paul is hostile to gay rights (particularly the right to marry)and gay people in general - from his own mouth: "How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual deviance! It's officials could have had their own float in the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade." GLBi = sexual deviance. Brilliant! Considers himself a strict Constitutionalist yet his opinions on Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state seem to contradict this. Brilliant! Genocide in Darfur? Not our problem. Brilliant! Out of Iraq! Yay! But fuck the veterans who fought the war. Boo-rilliant! There's plenty more instances of Ron Paul's brilliance, but that would require me to look into things, and I've done enough of that all ready. Back to my sweet sweet assumptions. Again, personal views are not political views. Ron Paul doesn't agree with abortion. But he would not ask that it be outlawed on federal level. Thats libertarianism at its finest. On the environment, he just has a different/more effective and direct approach. If littering is illegal, he says, so should be polluting. no slaps on the wrists, you get arrested if you hurt other people, right? It applies to pollution too. Thats not how past legislation has been, however, so he hasnt voted for it. Again, personal views are not political views. Ron Paul, as you said, is christian, but is not one to outlaw gay marriage. He doesn't see marriage as a governmental issue. All marriage should be religious... cause it is. Everyone says it's a "holy union", right? So how is that a legal issue? He IS, hwoever, pro civil unions. For everyone. Including gays. If a church wants to marry gays, a church can marry gays. The government, he says, has no role there. The genocide in Darfur is not the problem of the United States government. I agree with that. I'm also in "Help Darfur Now" at Hofstra, and have worked and donated for the cause. I trust reliable independent aid organizations over the US government any day. Again, Ron is a true libertarian. You say he's anti gay marriage. He's not. You say he wants to ban abortions. He doesn't. You say he's anti veterans and gave no evidence. Well, that'd explain why he got more money from soldiers than all the other 17 candidates combined, and why he wants to save their lives by getting them out of combat zones they should never have been in. Keep on with the assumptions, those are what have gotten us dependent on the federal reserve. Who is the one government official to warn of this chaos years ago? You know it's ron paul. When the Federal Reserve encroaches on the congresses right to spend our money (it says only they may in the constitution), no one says shit except Ron. When we go to war without a declaration, no one says shit except Ron. When we start taking half baked ideas for granted, no one says shit except Ron. I don't care if he personally doesn't approve of homosexuality, he doesn't need to. He votes along the lines of the constitution, not his personal preferences. He wouldnt like that I smoke pot from time to time, he thinks it's a bad life choice. But he'd legalize it. Again, in summary, you have no point, and that is merely confirmed by the fact that takedown applauded it.
|
|
takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 22, 2008 16:26:28 GMT -5
Again, personal views are not political views. Then why does he insist on injecting his personal opinion into political matters? If he really is such an unbiased human being he should have no qualms about answering questions pertaining to his personal life with a statement of irrelevance. I trust reliable independent aid organizations over the US government any day. There is no such thing. Every humanitarian NGO worth its salt (save the Red Cross/Crescent which is shielded by the UN) is fundamentally beholden to national interests by virtue of funding. Well, that'd explain why he got more money from soldiers than all the other 17 candidates combined, and why he wants to save their lives by getting them out of combat zones they should never have been in. That is false Keep on with the assumptions, those are what have gotten us dependent on the federal reserve. Who is the one government official to warn of this chaos years ago? You know it's ron paul. We have depended on the Fed since its creation following the Great Depression. One would hope that nascent free-marketeers could simply read history to understand the reason for that. A regulated economy is the only kind which permits its government to be involved in major world affairs. Without the Fed WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Cold War would have been fully beyond the capacity of our nation. Funny really, the only way the US was able to stave off communism is by fulling its potential as a social democracy. When the Federal Reserve encroaches on the congresses right to spend our money (it says only they may in the constitution), no one says shit except Ron. When we go to war without a declaration, no one says shit except Ron. When we start taking half baked ideas for granted, no one says shit except Ron. Well, unless those half-baked ideas are misbegotten ideals which have been clearly reshaped through the forces of history. Then Ron is painfully silent. The free market is a romanticized illusion. We have not lived in a laissez-faire society for nearly 100 years (if indeed we ever really did) and in that time America went from insignificant New World state to superpower. It seems regulation has it benefits. Again, in summary, you have no point, and that is merely confirmed by the fact that takedown applauded it. No, Elusive has a point, and it really boils down to the fact that you seem unable to question your own beliefs with the same ferocity with which you question those of others. That's my point too, in case you missed it.
|
|
|
Post by PenguinDude on Sept 23, 2008 9:20:25 GMT -5
"We have depended on the Fed since its creation following the Great Depression"
It's old. it must be good.
"That is false " Well fuck, he's been out of the race for months, that's from August dude.
"Well, unless those half-baked ideas are misbegotten ideals which have been clearly reshaped through the forces of history. Then Ron is painfully silent. The free market is a romanticized illusion." No, that's where Ron is the loudest. Just because something changed doesnt mean it should have. Just because we have it now doesn't mean we should have it. Only time will tell on most of these issues, honestly, but so far Ron has had the foresight to predict a lot of these economic disasters. Hell, he even called 9-11, saying many years ago that there's be major blowback for our imperialist foreign policy.
"Then why does he insist on injecting his personal opinion into political matters? If he really is such an unbiased human being he should have no qualms about answering questions pertaining to his personal life with a statement of irrelevance." I don't know what you're talking about. You think the guy shouldn't be able to state his opinion? 1st amendment shit? Because thats all he did at times like the ones you referenced. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, in his opinion, but no legislature is entitled to destroy the constitution with their opinions.
" Funny really, the only way the US was able to stave off communism is by fulling its potential as a social democracy."
This is the flaw in your argument. You assume "this is how it was done, this is the only way it could have been done". I think that's quite closed minded.
"you seem unable to question your own beliefs with the same ferocity with which you question those of others." Really? Where you hear back when I supported Bush, the war, and the patriot act? It wasn't long ago, in a lifetime point of view. Boy is my face red over that...
|
|
takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 23, 2008 12:24:41 GMT -5
It's old. it must be good. Um, what? The Fed isn't good because its old, its good because history tells us that is has been vital to the preservation of the American state. Either you didn't understand what I said, or you're deliberately miscontruing it in order to hold your position unscathed. Well fuck, he's been out of the race for months, that's from August dude. And? That doesn't make your claim any less fraudulent. Not to mention that the degree of financial contribution has little to do with representative support, or any supposed support of the military. For example, the neocons didn't give a shit about the religous right, yet they recieved massive amounts of support from them. No, that's where Ron is the loudest. Just because something changed doesnt mean it should have. Just because we have it now doesn't mean we should have it. Only time will tell on most of these issues, honestly, Really? Because as far as I can tell most of the government shows some degree of temerity in comitting to ideal standards. The market should be left to its own devices unless those devices compromise the state. Paul, on the other hand, has attached himself to a concept which has no historical foundation whatsoever. The kind free market he is chasing has never existed in history. Well, that's not true really. A totally free market is roughly equivalent to Hobbe's state of nature. You know, the assumption which underpins liberal (and therefore American) capitalism. The one which says all people are inherently self-interested and so will utilize any advantage they possess in order to cultivate further advantage. A process which inevitably creates a social hierarchy from a state of perfect competition. In effect, Paul simply wants to hit the reset button on the nation and capitalism as a whole. Something which won't happen. Not without a major, nation destroying, economic collapse. but so far Ron has had the foresight to predict a lot of these economic disasters. Hell, he even called 9-11, saying many years ago that there's be major blowback for our imperialist foreign policy. You mean he grasps the cyclic nature of capitalism? You mean he realized that taking an interest in the larger world might bring us into conflict with other interests? Many people predicted our current economic woes. Many people also predicted 9/11. These are no great feats. I don't know what you're talking about. You think the guy shouldn't be able to state his opinion? 1st amendment shit? Because thats all he did at times like the ones you referenced. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, in his opinion, but no legislature is entitled to destroy the constitution with their opinions. No, he can state his opinion all he wants, but he shouldn't be given a free pass on it. Personally I expect his 'opinion' is a calculated means of generating support. He gets baseline conservatives to identify with his values while still attracting centrists with the addendum of "That's just my opinion." Its quite a bit like Palin and Obama holding their children in the public eye and then saying they're 'off limits' or a 'personal matter'. This is the flaw in your argument. You assume "this is how it was done, this is the only way it could have been done". I think that's quite closed minded. Really, you think we could have kept pace with the Soviet Union without debt spending? Or is it that you believe isolationist policies will get the rest of the world to leave us alone? Really? Where you hear back when I supported Bush, the war, and the patriot act? It wasn't long ago, in a lifetime point of view. Boy is my face red over that... So you went from the extreme of neocon interventionism to the extreme of libertarian isolationism? That shows reflection? You know they almost identical economic policies right?
|
|
|
Post by PenguinDude on Sept 23, 2008 15:45:06 GMT -5
"You know they almost identical economic policies right?" No. They don't. "Really, you think we could have kept pace with the Soviet Union without debt spending?" Nope, we probably could not have. However, only the congress is allowed to spend money, and allowing a private entity to do so is extremely dangerous. It should have been done another way, and we still need to do it another way. "No, he can state his opinion all he wants, but he shouldn't be given a free pass on it." Fine, don't like the man, but his politics are seperate. Palin is different in that she wants to legislate her own supposed morality on the rest of us, while not practicing it in her own family. Ron can practice what he wants, and he wants the same right for you. "You mean he grasps the cyclic nature of capitalism? You mean he realized that taking an interest in the larger world might bring us into conflict with other interests? Many people predicted our current economic woes. Many people also predicted 9/11. These are no great feats." Its better than our other elected officials have done. He doesn't just predict though, he goes through our policies and points out individual instances that cause them, and suggests how to fix them. No one listens, but he does it. "Paul simply wants to hit the reset button on the nation and capitalism as a whole." I don't know where you get that from. He merely wants to follow the law of the land as written: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.htmlIf things need changing, change them. When you allow a slight pass in the law, it opens a crack in a dam that widens and widens until it breaks. That's what is happening now. The depression scared people enough to allow a crack to form, and now the dam is breaking. "And? That doesn't make your claim any less fraudulent. " It does, because I was clearly referring to the primary season, not the current season when I referenced the "17 or so" candidates. You're just picking at my words now. "Um, what? The Fed isn't good because its old, its good because history tells us that is has been vital to the preservation of the American state." This is where we fundamentally disagree. I see the fed as a band-aid, but one that was put on already covered with dirt and germs. it stopped the bleeding, but is slowly infecting the body and will bring america down if we don't address it. There can be no true value in a money supply that can be dramatically increased any time we feel like we need a loan or a bail out. People still have a lingering trust in a dollar that is essentially worth nothing. Im not even talking gold, I just mean a defined approximate amount. When we write ourselves checks for billions we don't have and just print it so we do, it can only hurt us in the long run.
|
|
takedown275
Ye Olde King of OT
Too smart for his own damn good
%\1\%
Posts: 674
|
Post by takedown275 on Sept 23, 2008 17:20:08 GMT -5
They both call for deregulation as a means of securing economic prosperity. Paul's policy is less developed for its foundation in neo-classical economics, but their overall aim is quite similar. Nope, we probably could not have. However, only the congress is allowed to spend money, and allowing a private entity to do so is extremely dangerous. It should have been done another way, and we still need to do it another way. The Fed isn't a private entity. Its board of governors are Presidential appointees. In any case, its existence is no more dangerous than leaving the financial well being of the nation to a group unregulated, for-profit oligarchs. Especially if Paul supports the disolution of anti-trust laws (I'm not sure he does). Fine, don't like the man, but his politics are seperate. Palin is different in that she wants to legislate her own supposed morality on the rest of us, while not practicing it in her own family. Ron can practice what he wants, and he wants the same right for you. He certainly can practice as he wishes, but the second he voiced his opinion in the public sphere it became a matter of politics. Its better than our other elected officials have done. He doesn't just predict though, he goes through our policies and points out individual instances that cause them, and suggests how to fix them. No one listens, but he does it. So no one else in the government does anything similar? What makes Ron Paul so apparently extraordinary? Why is he immune to the presumption that no politician wishes to better the system? Perhaps no one listens because they consider his idea to be too idealistic; with a foolish disconnect between reality and proposition. I don't know where you get that from. He merely wants to follow the law of the land as written: www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.htmlIf things need changing, change them. When you allow a slight pass in the law, it opens a crack in a dam that widens and widens until it breaks. That's what is happening now. The depression scared people enough to allow a crack to form, and now the dam is breaking. By design the Consitution is vague in the extreme. Indeed, it provides for a body specifically devoted to its interpretation. I doubt very seriously you could find any sense in which current legislation directly contradicts it. Either way, returning to a strict Constitutional structure is hitting the reset button. It asks the nation to essentially act as if the past 200 years had never happened; completely ignoring the fact that the adoption of the Constitution is what began us on the road to the present day. It does, because I was clearly referring to the primary season, not the current season when I referenced the "17 or so" candidates. You're just picking at my words now. Not really. You said Paul raised more money from the military than all 17 candidates combined. For that to be true McCain and Obama would have had to at least triple their respective totals in 3 months. In any case this gives a similar picture from inside primary season. There can be no true value in a money supply that can be dramatically increased any time we feel like we need a loan or a bail out. People still have a lingering trust in a dollar that is essentially worth nothing. Im not even talking gold, I just mean a defined approximate amount. When we write ourselves checks for billions we don't have and just print it so we do, it can only hurt us in the long run. In the end a currency is only as valuable as the confidence in the state which issues it. For example, GBPs may be directly backed by silver, but if the state went into an economic crash and people decided to cash out their notes there would be no incentive for the Brits to oblige. It would empty their treasuries and kill the government. A finite currency just offers an illusion of security and value, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by PenguinDude on Sept 23, 2008 19:35:20 GMT -5
Im writing an essay right now, but a quick reply:
"By design the Consitution is vague in the extreme. Indeed, it provides for a body specifically devoted to its interpretation. I doubt very seriously you could find any sense in which current legislation directly contradicts it. Either way, returning to a strict Constitutional structure is hitting the reset button. It asks the nation to essentially act as if the past 200 years had never happened; completely ignoring the fact that the adoption of the Constitution is what began us on the road to the present day. " Parts are vague. Parts are not. Only congress has the ability to spend our money. That is being ignored. Only gold and silver shall be legal tender. That needs to be changed, but it hasnt been, and is being ignored, allowing an 'anything goes' monetary policy. Even the right to fair trial is being threatened by the bush administration.
"In the end a currency is only as valuable as the confidence in the state which issues it. " Im sorry, but a state that writes itself checks for new money anytime it needs it does NOT inspire confidence.
More later, but really i dont see this going anywhere, we seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by McMMMNNNMMM on Sept 23, 2008 23:13:12 GMT -5
I don't think Ron Paul is necessarily a bad person or a bad politician, but it's one of those things where it's a moot point to debate. By taking extreme stances outside of the standard practices, it allows him to take the 'high road' but these extreme options are never actually put forward, so he can continue to criticize everything else (while touting the hypothetical).
It's like if you were an anarchist, saying if we went to a form of pure anarchy, that would solve all the problems. And since your plans will never get put to the test, you can continue to rail against the system..it's a moot point..
|
|
|
Post by Elusive71 on Sept 24, 2008 3:16:01 GMT -5
Again, personal views are not political views. Ron Paul, as you said, is christian, but is not one to outlaw gay marriage. He doesn't see marriage as a governmental issue. All marriage should be religious... cause it is. Everyone says it's a "holy union", right? So how is that a legal issue? He IS, hwoever, pro civil unions. For everyone. Including gays. You sure? Ron supports the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.Yes, he opposed the "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage, but he cosponsored the "Marriage Protection Act," which would bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. Considering his opinions, seems kind of like a roundabout way of supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, doesn't it? Ron says "The definition of marriage- a union between a man and a woman- can be found in any dictionary. It’s sad that we need government to define an institution that has existed for centuries. The best approach to complex social problems, as always, is to follow the Constitution." and "Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. The Marriage Protection Act, if passed by the Senate and signed by the President, will protect the people of Texas from having marriage defined by federal judges rather than the Texas legislature." Sounds to me like he does consider marriage a governmental issue (albeit one at the State level), and not just a matter handled by the church. Thing is, despite Ron's claims that he's a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional. No assumptions here. Straight from the ass's horse's mouth. Read it for yourself.
|
|