|
On July 04 2008 07:31 Holylight wrote:
LOL, HamerD you dont even know the star signs, way to go sir astrologist.
you know, its stupid to judge people based on nothing and then getting slapped silly with facts
Ok you're right about that. The first part, well I do and I don't. I know more than you, who skims from wiki, but I never said I was incredibly knowledgeable in astrology. Regardless, however, my mistake there was nothing to do with astrological knowledge. + Show Spoiler +You should know that guessing someone's true personality over the internets is like stopping you from devouring a poor, defenseless, slightly whimpering and limping puppy- difficult as fuck.
Ps you are korean right
|
On July 04 2008 07:47 PsycHOTemplar wrote:That just makes you a terrible debater, because all your 'arguments' are logical fallacies. Be humble, and maybe people will want to listen to you, keep talking how you are, and no one is going to care what you think. You're completely in context, and I wasn't trying to catch you off guard. I'm just pointing out for your own advantage what jumps out at people in your writing. If that's not what you want people to focus on, you need to to cut it.
That's why I put it in spoiler :S. I gave my reasons for actually showing it in the thread. Because I want any confrontation to be public so that I don't have to repeat myself ever. And I wasn't debating Jibba, man wtf! Did you SEE WHAT HE PUT? He was just insulting, not asking for a debate lol. Comon, read the rest of the posts to see what happened.
|
On July 04 2008 07:50 Xeris wrote:
HamerD clearly likes trying to impress people by trying to make himself sound like some sort of genius
Wait, where is your response to my detailed response to your post? Did I miss it? I'll have a look back through. If you didn't respond, and you just waited to say this, then well christ I'm just ashamed on your behalf.
|
On July 04 2008 07:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 07:00 HamerD wrote:
well mischy already responded but im sure she'll back me up.
By the way, as regards your actual point you made: I completely disagree about your contrary opinion to mine regarding Ron Paul's diplomacy. Ron Paul doesn't present a bad face. Ron Paul is bloody close to the ideals of the founding fathers. He is always pressing the agenda of HEALING relationships with the middle east, which would ameliorate relationships EVERYWHERE. He is in favour of isolationism, a perfectly valid and respectable policy which Europe maintains. That does not mean cutting short diplomatic talks or state vists, christ no.
What makes you think Ron Paul would be a poor host for diplomats or other state leaders? The way he talks exudes intellectual leadership. He is never wont to raise his voice. I don't see what the hell you are talking about, to be honest. Of all the things that could be considered wrong with ron paul, how can you POSSIBLY say it is his diplomacy to foreign states? His foreign policy propositions are like the most diplomatic you could want :S.
What do you mean Europe maintains isolationism? What does the European Union mean to you? The Founding Fathers were a group of very wise and intelligent men who had a lot of varying opinions. I'm not sure what "ideals of the founding fathers" means. Do you really think other countries (especially in Europe) would be pleased with us if we pulled out of the U.N. and NATO? Japan, South Korea? They'd shit themselves if there were nothing between them and Beijing. How about the gold standard? Automatic deflation when we buy goods from other countries. How about a nice repeat of the Hunt brothers?
Ok, again, about the economics, I cannot answer you intently. Let's firstly remind ourselves that Paul would have to push it through congress, at least that's what I think. I don't know if the gold standard is a good idea or a bad idea. I surface read about it being different to the post war gold standard which crashed in the 70's. I am not entirely sure. Are you entirely sure? I would prefer to hear from an economist.
Why do you say that about Japan? I'm pretty sure the US has learned its lesson from nazi germany. If China invaded Japan, I would expect that would constitute a large enough ally being attacked to warrant full scale war. I wouldn't expect China to immediately invade. Regardless, Americas presence in those situations is, I doubt, forced by NATO. The U.N. is a slow, lumbering dinosaur and America owns it and can do what it wants when it wants. Just signing its name on a piece of paper doesn't do much.
About the founding fathers and their ideals, clearly there was a big difference of opinion. Clearly, I do know that. What I mean by their opinions is that, big business wasn't directly in mind when they drafted the constitution, massive social security sponging and constant foreign invasions was NOT in mind. I can tell you that for sure. The political ideals of the original constitution have been bent and shaped to suit the most powerful in America, and to cripple the basic worker. Oil companies make the money from invading Iraq; why shouldn't THEY be footing the military bill, rather than the american taxpayer?!
|
United States22883 Posts
Three of your first four qualities were comparative. I'm positive Michelle doesn't like you because of your achievements in respect to mine, so therefore you did initiate a pissing contest.
"Perspective university career"? College is an excellent place to learn, but it does not make or break a person. I get the feeling you cling to textbooks over experience.
Also, about comedy, I think you are as out of possession of a good sense of humour as boxer is a weakness.
That is awful writing.
I responded to your post about Ron Paul. If you'd finally like to enter the world of political science, social science, or any non-star-positional-pseudo science, I'd be glad to start.
|
On July 04 2008 07:52 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 07:23 Jibba wrote:On July 04 2008 06:55 HamerD wrote:On July 04 2008 06:35 Jibba wrote:
Mischy, how can you possibly fuck a person like this? Does he have a 14" cock made out of diamonds or something? Jesus christ. Man. Ok. The fact that you even used that word just...well...I have lost even more respect for you. Seriously, you want reasons? This is just for you jibba, cos both mischy and I agree you are an arrogant cunt. I would really prefer that people other than jibba don't read this, but I want to keep any argument we have public because I don't want to have to repeat myself to any douches who are like you. So be it if I'm subjected to ridicule. I know most people who would choose to insult me have worse lives than I, and accept if they are so dissatisfied with themselves that they feel the need to take it out on me: + Show Spoiler +
1. I'm far more talented than you'll ever be at lots of things (I have no proof but I really, deeply expect so)
2. I'm far more funny than you'll ever be (around people who aren't stupid, whooping american seals at least). I am not entirely in tune with TL humour because it is far below the usual sort of humour of my friends, and it's hard to stoop
3. I'm attractive
4. I'm definitely more intelligent, philosophical, wise, well-read, charming and intellectual than you
5. I'm an exciting, enthusiastic person; with a lot of time for any charitable cause. I'm a passionate and emotional philanthrope.
6. I'm an elitist, and refuse to accept anything but the best
7. I have an incredibly eclectic range of things I enjoy, which is stimulating for people around me. I am always busy. From sports/ gym, to philosophy and politics, to gaming, to music, to academia and esoteric exploration; I do a lot of things which means I have a lot of interesting things to talk about.
8. I take life seriously...I have a lot of emotion and passion. I care about things, and I'm very protective and loyal of and to my friends.
There really are many more reasons why michelle likes me, and I can say that with total confidence in her agreeing with what I've put. If I had to take a WILD shot in the dark jibba, I'd say you are either an air sign or an aries. Aries because they are pugnacious cunts, or an air sign because they always fail @ opening their minds. You are like my ex...oh shit I just checked yes you are a libra. Fucking typical haha! Man...you will never get anything more than the most basic bread and butter facts. Sorry, but you don't know what it's like to dream. You are another typical cynical air sign. You'll never be able to prove me wrong because you'll just respond with hostility. I really pity you, that you cannot see any further than the end of your nose. Now when you do respond to this post, know that I won't respond in kind. Like I say, I'll busy myself with ONE direct flame. This isn't even a rude one, just a general negative assessment of your being. I don't want to discuss with you any further anything other than ron paul in this blog. This is going to be fun. + Show Spoiler +
1. I have the exact same birthday as you. Check my previous blog.
2. I'm a Dean's list political science and public policy student, and I'll be double majoring in philosophy if my schedules fit
3. During the school year I volunteer for Adopt-a-Classroom, Junior Achievement, a senior citizen community center and Habitat for Humanity, and I don't list them on my resume
4. Student organizations are Philosophy Club, Secular Humanist Group, and I'm on the board of a group that is building a grade school in Cameroon and donating a clean water supply system to their community
5. I'm pretty fucking cute
6. I work out, lift weights, spin, practice Tai Chi and am going to take up boxing during the school year
7. I get sarcasm
8. I'm arrogant, but I am not an elitist. I fucking hate exclusivity; I quit NHS. I'm a man of the people, and I generally defend those that the intarwebs people blindly write off as 'ignorant.'
9. I'm completing three internships this summer. One is political, two deal with kids. I'm not going to get much more specific than that.
10. Blah blah blah I listen to everything, I read everything, I do everything, typical internet bs.
I'll be studying abroad next year and I'm choosing between programs at Bilkent University in Turkey and the London School of Economics. 'Pissing in HamerD's tea' is definitely being added to the Pros list for #2. Anything else you want to challenge? My photographs? My ear for music? My performance driving skills?
Btw still up for any good points about ron paul/ rebuttals of my opinion. + Show Spoiler +
Ok, let's get this out of the way first. I respect the charity you do, and respect your humanist activity.
But, since when did I challenge you, you god damn belligerent twat. I did NOT initiate a pissing contest, despite how much you were DESPERATE to tell me all those things about you. I was explaining why Mischy likes me. Capiche? God, you were just DESPERATE to unleash those facts huh. I bet you sat there, slightly erect, making a low orgasmic sigh of ecstasy as your body reclined back to full horizontal position and you issued forth that post, probably giggling slightly; FINALLY the whole WORLD will know that you can do so much and are so perfect. Let's just recap, I told you that list because you ASKED why mischy likes me. You sent your list because you are desperate for everyone to know your unbelievable attributes. Oh YES! They are all realising my achievements, yes, the warm goo of acceptance!
So, aside from that pissing contest, which never existed because I was not interested in such a thing, I'm not at ALL retracting my point about talent. I still think you are probably a deeply unimaginative, untalented sod. You just strike me as that sort of person. Also, about comedy, I think you are as out of possession of a good sense of humour as boxer is a weakness.
Now, regarding my complete failure in guessing your star sign...yep damn. That's a mistake from my part. Not that it's at all easy to get someone's personality from the internet. You act like a libra, ironically, in that you are a cynical and unimaginative dimwad. You act on the internet more air than water, definitely. But that's my mistake. Astrology isn't an automatic hack to life. I would have a larger chance to guess your star sign if I met you, but there's always a huge chance I'd fail miserably. Astrology is really useful in relationships, diplomatic, friendly or romantic. It's not useful as a cheap parlour trick.
Well I guess I owe everyone an apology for my smug false-gratification. I was indeed wrong about guessing your star sign, so you can win that one.
I find your arrogance and unwillingness to engage in proper debate shocking for someone with such a position in life and prospective university career. Perhaps you could show me a properly constructed argument. You'll find that I can respond to the highest level of debate...but you can already see that I don't respond very articulately or ornately to cynical ad hominems.
ugh so much bullshit here i dont know what to say
you say one thing, take it back, say it again in a different way yada yada youre just full of shit.
in case you havent noticed (which you havent, but a good debater should have) is that Jibba is reacting to your arguments about Ron Paul and when you dont have anything to say you just make up some jibberish; either personal attacks or mention how awesome you are.
|
Hmm so I don't know how this turned into such a ridiculous argument, but Jibba, don't you like guns? That should mean the two of you should agree.
|
On July 04 2008 07:56 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 07:31 Holylight wrote:
LOL, HamerD you dont even know the star signs, way to go sir astrologist.
you know, its stupid to judge people based on nothing and then getting slapped silly with facts
Ok you're right about that. The first part, well I do and I don't. I know more than you, who skims from wiki, but I never said I was incredibly knowledgeable in astrology. Regardless, however, my mistake there was nothing to do with astrological knowledge. + Show Spoiler +You should know that guessing someone's true personality over the internets is like stopping you from devouring a poor, defenseless, slightly whimpering and limping puppy- difficult as fuck.
Ps you are korean right
You do and you don't. Ok right, good whatever
I still havent looked at wikipedia about astrology.
The fact that you bring up wikipedia all the time says more about you looking up shit there all the time.
And yeah you come across like you know everything about astrology and how its connected to numerology and political philosophy, seriously wtf lol
"THERE ARE PATTERNS" -_-
|
On July 04 2008 08:10 Jibba wrote:Three of your first four qualities were comparative. I'm positive Michelle doesn't like you because of your achievements in respect to mine, so therefore you did initiate a pissing contest. "Perspective university career"? College is an excellent place to learn, but it does not make or break a person. I get the feeling you cling to textbooks over experience. Show nested quote +
Also, about comedy, I think you are as out of possession of a good sense of humour as boxer is a weakness.
That is awful writing. I responded to your post about Ron Paul. If you'd finally like to enter the world of political science, social science, or any non-star-positional-pseudo science, I'd be glad to start.
Dude that second sentence you make is a complete non-sequitur. You're right, Michelle doesn't like me because of my education or charity work...'achievements', since when did I say she did. I told you the reasons she likes me, simple. That's not a pissing contest. Christ.
I dropped out of college at 17, to my eternal shame, because I refused to be given a B in latin; which horrified and disappointed all of my teachers. (In my defence, I always refused to learn english for a latin exam, and the entire exam was pre-translated [into english] poetry which we had to know volumes of and answer pointless, whimsical questions about)
If I wrote perspective university career then I am sorry for not putting prospective, I am tired.
That's not awful writing, DAMMIT. It's perfectly sensical english construction. I forgot the name of the construction but it's valid. I'm certain. Basically, it intimates that the second part of the sentence is to be read by substituting 'out of possession of' in before 'is'. Ie: You are AS out of possession of a good sense of humour AS boxer is out of possession of a weakness.
Believe me, you couldn't view me more wrongly if you think I am the sort of person who clings to textbooks.
I of course welcome anything you have to say about Ron Paul and won't argue vehemently my opinion because I don't know enough about the facts. I might end up admitting that my OP was wrong, and change my opinion.
|
Belgium8305 Posts
wow this blog got so much worse i don't know whether to laugh or cry
i think im just gonna laugh
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 04 2008 08:07 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 07:35 Jibba wrote:On July 04 2008 07:00 HamerD wrote:
well mischy already responded but im sure she'll back me up.
By the way, as regards your actual point you made: I completely disagree about your contrary opinion to mine regarding Ron Paul's diplomacy. Ron Paul doesn't present a bad face. Ron Paul is bloody close to the ideals of the founding fathers. He is always pressing the agenda of HEALING relationships with the middle east, which would ameliorate relationships EVERYWHERE. He is in favour of isolationism, a perfectly valid and respectable policy which Europe maintains. That does not mean cutting short diplomatic talks or state vists, christ no.
What makes you think Ron Paul would be a poor host for diplomats or other state leaders? The way he talks exudes intellectual leadership. He is never wont to raise his voice. I don't see what the hell you are talking about, to be honest. Of all the things that could be considered wrong with ron paul, how can you POSSIBLY say it is his diplomacy to foreign states? His foreign policy propositions are like the most diplomatic you could want :S.
What do you mean Europe maintains isolationism? What does the European Union mean to you? The Founding Fathers were a group of very wise and intelligent men who had a lot of varying opinions. I'm not sure what "ideals of the founding fathers" means. Do you really think other countries (especially in Europe) would be pleased with us if we pulled out of the U.N. and NATO? Japan, South Korea? They'd shit themselves if there were nothing between them and Beijing. How about the gold standard? Automatic deflation when we buy goods from other countries. How about a nice repeat of the Hunt brothers? Ok, again, about the economics, I cannot answer you intently. Let's firstly remind ourselves that Paul would have to push it through congress, at least that's what I think. I don't know if the gold standard is a good idea or a bad idea. I surface read about it being different to the post war gold standard which crashed in the 70's. I am not entirely sure. Are you entirely sure? I would prefer to hear from an economist. There's two main types of economists. Paul's philosophy is kin to a third type that is laughed at by the other two. You can't like Ron Paul for his policies and then justify his poor position on economics by relying on Congress' inevitable restraint on his policies. If you like Ron Paul for his economics policies, then you have to agree to at least one of these: abolishment of the Federal Reserve, gold standard, general laissez faire.
Why do you say that about Japan? I'm pretty sure the US has learned its lesson from nazi germany. If China invaded Japan, I would expect that would constitute a large enough ally being attacked to warrant full scale war. I wouldn't expect China to immediately invade. Regardless, Americas presence in those situations is, I doubt, forced by NATO. The U.N. is a slow, lumbering dinosaur and America owns it and can do what it wants when it wants. Just signing its name on a piece of paper doesn't do much.
China, North Korea, Indonesian pirates, whoever. Japan's Self Defense Forces are as wimpy as the name implies. We are a very large barking dog in that region, and Japan's limits would constantly be tested if we were not there. Oh yeah, and our bases are the reason we contribute truckloads to the economies of Japan and South Korea.
About the founding fathers and their ideals, clearly there was a big difference of opinion. Clearly, I do know that. What I mean by their opinions is that, big business wasn't directly in mind when they drafted the constitution, massive social security sponging and constant foreign invasions was NOT in mind. I can tell you that for sure. The political ideals of the original constitution have been bent and shaped to suit the most powerful in America, and to cripple the basic worker. Oil companies make the money from invading Iraq; why shouldn't THEY be footing the military bill, rather than the american taxpayer?!
Sigh. I'll start at the bottom. Iraq wasn't about making money for the oil companies. They had fantastic contracts with Saddam. Now they have to worry about security.
How can you talk about cutting social security and other social welfare programs and then mention the Constitution being bent to cripple the basic worker? Capitalists constantly search for new ways to make money, using any exploitations or cracks possible. When laissez faire is in place, they do a damn good job of it. When the government steps in, they still do a good job but they're held back a bit.
I'm pretty critical of US Foreign Policy, even with "good" outcomes like Kosovo, but you're attributing the Founding Fathers with a clairvoyance none of them had. We all make that mistake. Presidents make history and history makes presidents. What seems good and bad now will be irrelevant and forgotten (maybe less so with the internet around) in 50 years.
George Washington, who I regard as the greatest of all US Presidents, also said we should govern with a Bible in hand and that we should make no foreign alliances.
|
On July 04 2008 08:17 Holylight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 07:56 HamerD wrote:On July 04 2008 07:31 Holylight wrote:
LOL, HamerD you dont even know the star signs, way to go sir astrologist.
you know, its stupid to judge people based on nothing and then getting slapped silly with facts
Ok you're right about that. The first part, well I do and I don't. I know more than you, who skims from wiki, but I never said I was incredibly knowledgeable in astrology. Regardless, however, my mistake there was nothing to do with astrological knowledge. + Show Spoiler +You should know that guessing someone's true personality over the internets is like stopping you from devouring a poor, defenseless, slightly whimpering and limping puppy- difficult as fuck.
Ps you are korean right You do and you don't. Ok right, good whatever I still havent looked at wikipedia about astrology. The fact that you bring up wikipedia all the time says more about you looking up shit there all the time. And yeah you come across like you know everything about astrology and how its connected to numerology and political philosophy, seriously wtf lol "THERE ARE PATTERNS" -_-
hehe I like people who say things like "Hey....isn't astrology just something cosmopolitan magazine throws in the back pages to fill up space?"  Anyway people who study astrology typically study numerology along with it because they do actually go together. Thats how you get your charts etc...and yes there are certain "patterns" presented in astrology...a lot is based on mathematical equations. There are different branches in astrology and Ron Paul is definitely not involved in any of it so perhaps it should just be left alone for another time :D
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 04 2008 08:23 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2008 08:10 Jibba wrote:Three of your first four qualities were comparative. I'm positive Michelle doesn't like you because of your achievements in respect to mine, so therefore you did initiate a pissing contest. "Perspective university career"? College is an excellent place to learn, but it does not make or break a person. I get the feeling you cling to textbooks over experience.
Also, about comedy, I think you are as out of possession of a good sense of humour as boxer is a weakness.
That is awful writing. I responded to your post about Ron Paul. If you'd finally like to enter the world of political science, social science, or any non-star-positional-pseudo science, I'd be glad to start. Dude that second sentence you make is a complete non-sequitur. You're right, Michelle doesn't like me because of my education or charity work...'achievements', since when did I say she did. I told you the reasons she likes me, simple. That's not a pissing contest. Christ. Oh, you. Teehee! Charity was actually a part of your list. Anyways, "in respect to mine" was a key part of that sentence. Michelle likes you because you're smart; she does not like you because you're smarter than me. You did not write that you are smart; you wrote that you are smarter than me.
I dropped out of college at 17, to my eternal shame, because I refused to be given a B in latin; which horrified and disappointed all of my teachers. (In my defence, I always refused to learn english for a latin exam, and the entire exam was pre-translated [into english] poetry which we had to know volumes of and answer pointless, whimsical questions about)
If I wrote perspective university career then I am sorry for not putting prospective, I am tired.
I don't care about correct grammar or spelling. I don't think I've seriously corrected someone's grammar on an internet forum for at least 4 years. The point is that you hold grades and "proper education" in higher regards than you should. I'm glad to be where I am today but it wouldn't be the end of me if I dropped out, and likewise you shouldn't feel depressed or reprimand yourself for a mistake you made as a 17 year old, just as you shouldn't have felt depressed when you got that B. You're not a worse person for having dropped college alone, and it certainly shouldn't limit your prosperity if you're a bright and hard working person. You seem to be both, as well as passionate, but I think you're also angry. Then again, psychoanalyzing someone of the internet is absolute bullshit. I shouldn't be doing it right now, and you shouldn't have tried it earlier.
That's not awful writing, DAMMIT. It's perfectly sensical english construction. I forgot the name of the construction but it's valid. I'm certain. Basically, it intimates that the second part of the sentence is to be read by substituting 'out of possession of' in before 'is'. Ie: You are AS out of possession of a good sense of humour AS boxer is out of possession of a weakness.
Believe me, you couldn't view me more wrongly if you think I am the sort of person who clings to textbooks.
Correct grammar does not equal good writing.
"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" - Cicero
|
"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter" - Cicero
I think that's more appropriate as a response to anything Nightmarjoo writes.
|
I don't like Ron Paul for his economic policies. Economic policies mean diddly squat to me. Anything that helps the average worker is good imo. But I don't know loads about running economies. I should hope that Ron Paul has a good deal of knowledge or economic advisers. I cannot really differentiate from the nuances of economic policy, so I won't even try to respond. In theory, however, I would propose that current economic theory is going to self-destruct with the old getting older and more numerous seeing as they are the baby boomers currently coming to old age.
Look, I'm pretty sure that the US presence in Japan isn't entirely forced by the U.N. Is it, seriously? I have no idea, really. Unfortunately, I am definitely more of a theorist than a statistician. I don't go after facts and they don't seem particularly fond of sticking to me either. Regardless, I don't respect two of those on your list of three. North Korea and China would not invade Japan just because America moved patrolling troops and garrisons away from Japan. I am certain China wouldn't. Ok they might test boundaries, but no more than the Russians test our boundaries. It really would be the super war imo. Afghanistan was not a big ally of the US, but imagine if Russia had invaded England. One country away from America too. I reckon there would be war (potentially nuclear). And, well, Indonesian pirates... I'd much rather the US were sending troops into zimbabwe than capsizing long john il's boat.
Well basically the reasons for invading Iraq were totally bogus and ridiculous. The US should not have meddled in those sorts of affairs. It allows loads of tyrants to stay in power. Stop policing the world- you just put yourself in danger. The American government endangers its people with all the meddling in the middle east, and it doesn't help that the jewish lobby is allowed to skewer the American policy towards Israel to be far too partisan and inflammatory. Ron Paul always, and very rightly, states; along with George Galloway, another person whose debating and intelligence I greatly respect; all of the reasons why the Iraq war was illegitimate and destructive, so I won't go into that. Waste of taxpayer money in the end, for a completely pointless and ridiculous farce.
I don't see what you're talking about, with the third to last paragraph. Cutting social security is really not the best way to talk about it. It is more like trimming it...to be more streamlined to help those who desperately need it, and to provide benefit to people who support it, when they need it. I'll admit that personally, it is a little too far to the other extremity which we have right now, massive welfare abuse. But I think it is necessary, within reason, to limit the amount at which people can abuse the kindness of other people. I think that people would be happier in general if they could either choose to buy entirely into society or just contribute their trade. Although it's a risk, I'm sure a lot of people would like to pay as little tax as possible.
Now I'm not sure of Ron's policies here, but definitely job creation would need to be tackled. His policy of cracking down on borders would make a start, but I haven't read enough to see if he will be favouring start-up business and stimulating industry growth. I think that the US should be manufacturing more of the things it likes to consume. But again I'm not an economist.
And anyway, you are misinterpreting my opinion of the founding fathers and their document in 1776. For the virtue of its ideologies of liberty and freedom, I praise it. And similarly, for Ron Paul's desire to weaken government and give more choice to the American people, more liberty and freedom, I praise him.
|
You're right and wrong there Jibba. Whilst I did in fact put that michelle likes me because I am smarter than you, I still fail to see how that was a direct provocation for you to prove you were smart. For the record, you have proven yourself to be above average smartness by virtue of your arguments; so, after considering that you are not dumb, I will retract my comparative statements.
You were a complete cunt for being so rude, but still, that's your choice. At least I have my baby...I guess I should be used to people making jibes about my relationships.
|
United States22883 Posts
Paul wishes to weaken the government, but I can guarantee you when that happens the American people will be second in line for that freedom, behind corporations. Austrian economics is about laissez faire, which means no government enforcement besides basic law enforcement. The only thing that then protects workers and consumers is the "invisible hand", which takes a damn long time to react and relies on perfect information, which is a mythical creature.
The U.N. has nothing to do with our military bases. It's largely impotent and wasteful. China and North Korea would push and prod Japan and S. Korea if we were not there. North Korea already started with missile testing over the islands, but they've quieted down. Taiwan is another excellent example. Basically, none of the Asian Tigers would exist without our presence in southeast Asia.
I agree, policing the world (especially for Israel) puts us in danger, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. The real issue is that we don't police the world. We're a mob boss for the world, but we don't serve equally and we rarely do it without our own interests at the forefront. And that's only natural, but it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
I think that people would be happier in general if they could either choose to buy entirely into society or just contribute their trade. Well, right now the happiest people in the world pay boatloads of taxes. Unfortunately England and America rank very far behind.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 04 2008 09:14 HamerD wrote:
You were a complete cunt for being so rude, but still, that's your choice. Don't mind.
At least I have my baby...I guess I should be used to people making jibes about my relationships.
Woah now. I haven't said anything mean about Michelle. I've only said mean things about you!
|
Well insulting me is insulting her choice in men
|
[QUOTE]On July 04 2008 09:25 Jibba wrote:
Paul wishes to weaken the government, but I can guarantee you when that happens the American people will be second in line for that freedom, behind corporations. Austrian economics is about laissez faire, which means no government enforcement besides basic law enforcement. The only thing that then protects workers and consumers is the "invisible hand", which takes a damn long time to react and relies on perfect information, which is a mythical creature.[/QOUTE]
Wait, so the unions are abolished?
[QUOTE]On July 04 2008 09:25 Jibba wrote:
The U.N. has nothing to do with our military bases. It's largely impotent and wasteful. China and North Korea would push and prod Japan and S. Korea if we were not there. North Korea already started with missile testing over the islands, but they've quieted down. Taiwan is another excellent example. Basically, none of the Asian Tigers would exist without our presence in southeast Asia.[/QUOTE] Well so now you have backed out of your point about it being important to be in the U.N., if that ever was one of your points.
[QUOTE]On July 04 2008 09:25 Jibba wrote:
I agree, policing the world (especially for Israel) puts us in danger, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. The real issue is that we don't police the world. We're a mob boss for the world, but we don't serve equally and we rarely do it without our own interests at the forefront. And that's only natural, but it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
[/QUOTE]
I don't see how you can apply morality so flippantly in this case. Why should the USA police the world? Why does the USA have the fair vantage point? It's not about being some knight in shining armour. Topple a dictator and you just leave room for another. Stalin found it easy to come to power because of the previous rulers establishing the status quo for the people. The best way the US can affect other countries is by being the best damn country there is. Just like Russia was weakened by the glamour of the US capturing the hearts of Russian folk. Sending troops into every part of the world to sort out all of the moral outrages would, in all honesty, be impossible. The US could just about cope with Iran in a full scale war. Trying to cope with guerrillas in chechnya, palestine, sierra lione, as well as topple people like mugabe and kim jong il would leave the whole of the US drained and in staggering debt. It would be basically bringing MORE instability to unstable nations whilst destabilising itself.
Technically, for a US president, jibba, interfering so much in foreign countries IS the wrong thing to do (again my opinion). Because the second the quality of life of his own countrymen are hampered by his essentially needless actions abroad, he is failing to strengthen and improve the land of the free and the hope of the brave.
[quote]
Well, right now the happiest people in the world pay boatloads of taxes. Unfortunately England and America rank very far behind.[/quote]
not sure who you are talking about here...I read that the depression rate of Norway is very high. Which country are you referring to.
Now anyway, one of the important things I think really outlines Ron Paul as better than the others is his constant stream of essays regarding his policies. They are all succinct and devoid of stupid oratorical devices. I really can't watch 1 obama speech without getting pissed off at his oratorical devices. It's so bloody textbook. And I can't watch a McCain speech without thinking 'this guy wants to take over the world :S'. You know, I think I judge Ron Paul's character as the most honest, fair and wise out of the former and current candidates.
You know my OP was really just a remark of frustration. I don't think it makes much sense or is interesting to talk about. What gets me is how people disrespect Ron Paul's debating and speech making. People seem to be unable to give someone time to discover whether they are good or not. It's either loud shouting like bill o'reilly, or tricolon crescendos like barrack obama. No one in America seems to respect a quiet, intelligent, thoughtful, perceptive, strong-willed thinker like Paul. That's what vexed me...to see all the Ron Paul hate directed more at his person than his policies. Ironic that I'm taking this stance but in all honesty this is really what I meant from the start, I was just arguing for the sake of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
