On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
I'm not disagreeing with his position ... but it's a radical one that the Republican party will never get behind. I'm just talking about his electability, not whether he is right or wrong. It's a same really. He's the only worthy candidate as far as I'm concerned (other than maybe Huntsman, but that's a stretch).
He's been winning straw polls, he's been between first and third on google trends for the last several months. He's only been surpassed by other candidates lately as the amount of airtime media has allowed him has been cut to virtually nothing. For the sake of appearance, they'd like to give him more airtime, but they can't really push their agenda (it's too easily debated against) with him given any time to speak. And apparently, it's war.
Americans don't want to go to war again. It's pretty obvious. However, they won't really have a choice in the end. I'm sure you've heard this, but Ron Paul has gotten more monetary support from veterans than all the other republican candidates combined. The people that have actually been in the military overwhelmingly realize that we shouldn't be engaging in policing the world, but for corporations that want to be free to offshore jobs and then turn around and sell in America benefit more us having bases all over the world. Notice also how the debates talked more and more about conflict with Iran. Iran doesn't want war, Americans don't want war, then who does? Who benefits if America mires itself in yet another conflict?
I apologize for jumping all over the place, but I just got up.
He can win all the straw polls he wants. I'm talking about cadre of weasels and politicians that make up the Republican Party, not the population of everyday conservatives and libertarians that would vote for him. His own party resents him.
@Defacer I think you are referring too neo-conservatives because real conservatives endorse Paul's plans to cut the deficit by 1 trillion dollars and his balancing of the budget in three years tops. So, when you say his own party resents him I think you are talking about those people.
On November 15 2011 22:25 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @Defacer I think you are referring too neo-conservatives because real conservatives endorse Paul's plans to cut the deficit by 1 trillion dollars and his balancing of the budget in three years tops. So, when you say his own party resents him I think you are talking about those people.
Bob the builder in somalia? KBR/Halliburton making prisons now? Lol.
Bill' O took down a few polls recently over Paul-mania.. In addition to the straw polls listed. CNN took down it's poll 2 weeks in a row since Paul was walking away with them. Such a horrible thing to have supporters in a election.
Edit- If your want more Paul... check out the DailyPaul. It's been up since the last election hehe.
Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are in a dead heat as the top choices for Iowans likely to attend the Jan. 3 Republican presidential caucuses. A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.
This election is shaping up to be very interesting. I think Ron Paul has a chance, way beyond his chances last election. This time things are much worse in our country, and he predicted much of what has occurred, and is the only one with actual solutions (i.e. more than just changing around how our taxes work).
On November 15 2011 22:25 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @Defacer I think you are referring too neo-conservatives because real conservatives endorse Paul's plans to cut the deficit by 1 trillion dollars and his balancing of the budget in three years tops. So, when you say his own party resents him I think you are talking about those people.
Bob the builder in somalia? KBR/Halliburton making prisons now? Lol.
Bill' O took down a few polls recently over Paul-mania.. In addition to the straw polls listed. CNN took down it's poll 2 weeks in a row since Paul was walking away with them. Such a horrible thing to have supporters in a election.
Edit- If your want more Paul... check out the DailyPaul. It's been up since the last election hehe.
Good one. As you can tell already where I'm from is just a joke. I'm not really from there but, I do check the dailypaul for recent news and yes this time around he has a good chance of winning because of the economy.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering).
I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain.
I'm just going to preface this by saying that the ignorance in this post is infuriating, but I'll attempt to explain myself in a civil manner:
"he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general" You have to understand, he's simply attempting to adhere to the Constitution. We have so many government agencies and programs that are not even condoned within the confines of the restraints so wisely put in place by our founders. The Constitution was created to limit the power of the federal government, and was comprised of three branches just to make sure it was kept in check. His position is the Constitutional position. If the Constitution doesn't allow it, then it is a State issue, and not within the powers given to our Federal Government.
"except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing" The founders created our government with the intent that it would protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we allow a mother to kill a child (though unborn), then we create a moral atmosphere that places relevant value on life. Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, and his understanding of the Constitution (accurate, I might add) is such that the Federal Government has no role to play in this issue. This is to be regarded as a violent crime, murder, and therefore is left up to the States to regulate. He would not create any Federal legislation to stop abortions from occurring, he simply would allow each State to decide how best to approach it. This is the Constitutional approach.
"Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me." If this is your opinion, then it's obvious you haven't given much consideration to Ron Paul's views. The Federal Reserve is what is creating these bubbles, and our current economic crisis. It's using fiat money, not backed by any material value, to manipulate and "control" economies. This is the root of the problem, and until people start looking seriously into Ron Paul's End the Fed position, and the current battle between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics, we will not stop the looming financial crisis, no matter how many more government enforced regulations are created.
I apologize if at any point I came across as condescending. I am simply frustrated by the large amount of individuals who will call this man a "loon" without even attempting to understand why he holds the positions he does.
I am completely aware of how much Ron Paul leans on his interpretation of the constitution. I don't agree with it and even if I did I wouldn't really care that much, if the Fed wants to run a program that is morally or politically good or whatever (social security and federal income taxes, among other things, are commonly argued to be technically unconstitutional) then quite frankly I don't care if it hasn't been explicitly laid out as a job of the federal govt (*cue the collective gasp of you strict constructionist types*).
Your thoughts on abortion are one of the most hilarious cop outs I've ever seen on the topic, although I have to give you credit - that argument is a new one on me. I imagine he breaks that one out again with gay marriage. Like I said, he supports not restricting the rights of individuals so long as they don't conflict with his particular brand of religious idiocy, in which case he leaves the states to do the restricting instead based on "state rights".....lol, if that's the only problem he has with this country's abortion stance then I'm Honest Abe. Luckily, Republicans have been wasting shitloads of time and money for years trying to pass bogus limits on abortion at the state level and have generally failed miserably, so I can't imagine anything would change if RP was the president. By the way, you seem to know a lot about the guy, how does Ronny cope with the vitriolic hatred his libertarian hero and the namesake of his child had for his silly little religion? I'm curious.
I'm kinda confused why you would bring up the federal reserve as a retort to a statement regarding too little regulation -- they fuck with the stock market, make bogus deals with investment banks using taxpayer money, handle the printing of money (if I remember correctly anyway), set interest rates, and god only knows what else.........aaaaand they're not audited. Good joke. Perhaps "end the fed" is a better idea than simply forcing a little accountability on them, I wouldn't know; but regardless of that you need to have your eyes sewed shut to really believe we don't need more regulations (or maybe we just need to actually enforce the ones we have? same difference really), what with banks playing zero-risk, hedge roulette with mortgages based on comically small amounts of cash rather than making traditional investments (while those won't crash the economy they have risk and make less money, so fuck that). Depressingly they may actually manage to convince people that allowing any nub with a few grand to get a mortgage was something politicians forced on them and that they weren't making outrageous amounts of money trading the debt from it around. I think everyone should read about industries like meat packing and how unbelievably dangerous it is, especially after their respective regulatory agencies have had their nuts chopped off by politicians like Reagan. I wonder if he did so out of his deep commitment to improving the profitability of business or if someone made it worth his while? You could write a senior thesis on all the ways deregulation contributes to corruption, exploitation, and just how few people it actually benefits.
"The founders created our government with the intent that it would protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we allow a mother to kill a child (though unborn), then we create a moral atmosphere that places relevant value on life. Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, and his understanding of the Constitution (accurate, I might add) is such that the Federal Government has no role to play in this issue. This is to be regarded as a violent crime, murder, and therefore is left up to the States to regulate. He would not create any Federal legislation to stop abortions from occurring, he simply would allow each State to decide how best to approach it. This is the Constitutional approach."
Where is the cop out in this? I'd like for you to elaborate what is wrong with this statement, dirtbirdy, so that I can form a rebuttal assuming you have a valid concern. His religious affiliation has no effect on his political philosophies. The argument that life is sacred can be easily formed from both a secular and religious position.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
I'm not disagreeing with his position ... but it's a radical one that the Republican party will never get behind. I'm just talking about his electability, not whether he is right or wrong. It's a same really. He's the only worthy candidate as far as I'm concerned (other than maybe Huntsman, but that's a stretch).
He's been winning straw polls, he's been between first and third on google trends for the last several months. He's only been surpassed by other candidates lately as the amount of airtime media has allowed him has been cut to virtually nothing. For the sake of appearance, they'd like to give him more airtime, but they can't really push their agenda (it's too easily debated against) with him given any time to speak. And apparently, it's war.
Americans don't want to go to war again. It's pretty obvious. However, they won't really have a choice in the end. I'm sure you've heard this, but Ron Paul has gotten more monetary support from veterans than all the other republican candidates combined. The people that have actually been in the military overwhelmingly realize that we shouldn't be engaging in policing the world, but for corporations that want to be free to offshore jobs and then turn around and sell in America benefit more us having bases all over the world. Notice also how the debates talked more and more about conflict with Iran. Iran doesn't want war, Americans don't want war, then who does? Who benefits if America mires itself in yet another conflict?
I apologize for jumping all over the place, but I just got up.
He can win all the straw polls he wants. I'm talking about cadre of weasels and politicians that make up the Republican Party, not the population of everyday conservatives and libertarians that would vote for him. His own party resents him.
Well, I'm actually getting involved in Ron Paul's campaign this time around. Apparently the delegates from my district in 2008 were voted in as Ron Paul supporters. I'm sure he'll do even better this time around. As I begin to learn how the republican party is run, I'm actually more hopeful. From the outside looking in, it seems like a joke, but the system reflects the people that are active in the party. If people that care about liberty aren't putting hours in, then that won't be a priority for the party. However, if the individuals in the party overwhelmingly want more libertarian ideals, then that WILL be reflected at every level of the party.
Am I wrong in thinking that Romney is the only one who has a chance at winning against Obama?
Other than him you have a collection of nutters/idiots/ignorants. Perry, Bachman and Cain are a joke, and I'd be ashamed if they were considered legitimate candidates in my country. As for Paul, he's more charismatic, but other than that the lack of media interest seems to be his biggest strength. Not only can he play the victim card, but more importantly the less he says the less people realise how horrible his ideas are.
On November 16 2011 13:42 MilesTeg wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney is the only one who has a chance at winning against Obama?
Other than him you have a collection of nutters/idiots/ignorants. Perry, Bachman and Cain are a joke, and I'd be ashamed if they were considered legitimate candidates in my country. As for Paul, he's more charismatic, but other than that the lack of media interest seems to be his biggest strength. Not only can he play the victim card, but more importantly the less he says the less people realise how horrible his ideas are.
Romney would more than likely lose. Why do you find that Paul's ideas are horrible? They're fantastic for the position America is in right now. They're terrible for France, but not us.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
Asking if the states "could" do worse as though it's some sort of hypothetical is disingenuous. For everything wrong with the FDA for example, it's still better than not having it at all and letting people sell poisonous food and medicine, which was the actual reality people faced when the stats weere in charge. Not all 50 states have adequate resources to ensure such safety. I'm sure you'd be fine in New York or California, but how about Alabama or North Dakota? I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it? How would you even go about such a thing? I certainly have no idea.
How about a real example? Bayer sold hemophilia blood products, some of which contained HIV. After realizing the problem and developing a method to sterilize the products, they continued to sell the old, unsterilized product in other countries, knowingly infecting people with HIV. If they could get away with it in countries in Asia and Latin America, can you really say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't get away with it in any one of the 50 states if each state had its own mini-FDA? Hell, this doesn't even need to serve as an example of a larger trend, this case alone would justify the federal government running the FDA if it didn't already exist.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine. And in the case of Bayer.... why does Bayer still exist? Isn't that what we have courts for? Oh wait, corporations are people only in ways that benefit them, and not people anytime they need to avoid the results of their actions. This isn't the FDA's problem, it's the courts. The laws exist to hold people (and ideally corporations) accountable for their actions. However, since corporations can do no wrong, there is little incentive to give a shit about the consumer's safety.
Sure, HIV is bad, but how about diabetes? Obesity? Heart Disease? Did you not read the part where more people die every year in the US from prescription drugs than car accidents? That is over 40,000 a year.
Conveniently, if you forget the youtube link, you can just google: "Sugar poison" and find it.
"I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it?"
This is actually pretty funny as I don't assume that what the FDA allows in food (either under it's own name, or hidden under a different one) to be safe. I read every label and google what it does to my body. Look up flouride. There is your mommy FDA for you. Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. And you probably didn't need your pinneal gland in the first place. Being able to sleep at night is over-rated. You assume that the FDA exists to protect your health. That's cute.
However, here is my biggest problem with the FDA. They restrict choice. And often the remaining options they give you sacrifice nutrition to grease the pockets of the markets they regulate.
Ok, any point you don't feel I've adequately addressed, let me know.
Right, this may be a little off topic but you brought it up. Besides regulation by the FDA is somewhat related. Let's take a close look at what you wrote.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine.
You seem to be suggesting that these services are adequate to determine the safety of medication. Here is a question for you, what determines whether a medication is safe? How do you find this information? I would say a safe medication is one where the side effects are determined to be of lesser importance than the clinical effect produced by the drug. An example of this balance would be chemotherapy, which has drastic side effects but obvious benefits.
How do you find this information? This is much harder. Most clinical trials which test these drugs are only published if the information is positive. In most cases this is in journals which require subscriptions. Further more if you expect the average consumer to be aware of all the different options available to them, as well as being able to balance the inherent risks in taking any medication, you are naive. The consumer would essentially be a doctor.
Further more this kind of system is open to massive abuse. Pharma companies would have a huge incentive to post crap on these sites to discredit the opposition and support themselves. How to stop that? Face it, this idea is ridiculous. Your average Joe is in no position to evaluate the risks and benefits of treatments. This is why we have the medical profession and all its associated training.
And in the case of Bayer.... why does Bayer still exist? Isn't that what we have courts for? Oh wait, corporations are people only in ways that benefit them, and not people anytime they need to avoid the results of their actions.
I am not sure what you are driving at but it is hardly an indictment of the FDA? They are not responsible for ensuring corporate accountability.
This isn't the FDA's problem, it's the courts. The laws exist to hold people (and ideally corporations) accountable for their actions. However, since corporations can do no wrong, there is little incentive to give a shit about the consumer's safety.
Sure, HIV is bad, but how about diabetes? Obesity? Heart Disease? Did you not read the part where more people die every year in the US from prescription drugs than car accidents? That is over 40,000 a year.
Nice stat, can you provide a source? In particular can you provide a source that shows it is the drug specifically that is responsible for the deaths of the patients and not the underlying disease. One that clearly states that the drugs were administered appropriately and that the patients were compliant? I am sure that most of these are explained by the disease they are treating or by substance abuse.
The FDA is actually setup to regulate exactly this. Have a look here for all the treatments that have been withdrawn from the market due to safety reasons etc. In a system without regulation these withdrawals would be voluntary and far less numerous. The fact is that drugs have to prove they are beneficial before they are allowed to be marketed. Obviously as the drugs are tested in a wider population more rare side effects become known, but that is why the FDA constantly monitors the use and safety of the medication. That is their job, who would do it without the FDA?
This is actually pretty funny as I don't assume that what the FDA allows in food (either under it's own name, or hidden under a different one) to be safe. I read every label and google what it does to my body. Look up flouride. There is your mommy FDA for you. Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. And you probably didn't need your pinneal gland in the first place. Being able to sleep at night is over-rated. You assume that the FDA exists to protect your health. That's cute.
Flouride is a well known anti-tooth decay molecule. Here is the wiki entry "Fluoride-containing compounds are used in topical and systemic fluoride therapy for preventing tooth decay. They are used for water fluoridation and in many products associated with oral hygiene.[16] Originally, sodium fluoride was used to fluoridate water; however, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) are more commonly used additives, especially in the United States. The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay[17][18] and is considered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century".[19][20] In some countries where large, centralized water systems are uncommon, fluoride is delivered to the populace by fluoridating table salt. Fluoridation of water is not without critics, however (see Water fluoridation controversy).[21]"
The controversy is
"The water fluoridation controversy arises from moral, ethical, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation.[1] Those opposed argue that water fluoridation imposes ethical issues,[2] may cause serious health problems,[3] is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.[4][5][6]
The weight of the scientific evidence have found that at the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development. This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health.[7] Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.[8]
Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[1] During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health.[9]"
If I was your all knowing consumer I would belive that flouride is really beneficial. What is the problem? You say . Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. Yes, this happens, not because of some crazy flouride theory but because people get old. The number one killer of people is age.
However, here is my biggest problem with the FDA. They restrict choice. And often the remaining options they give you sacrifice nutrition to grease the pockets of the markets they regulate.
Of course they restrict choice, that is their purpose. Like I explained consumer cannot be expected to fully evaluate the risks and benefits of treatment in a reliable manner. For example, your doctor tells you that you need immediate heart surgery or you can take a combination of a beta-blocker, diaretic and ace inhibitor to try and control the damage. If you are going to get the surgery it needs to happen immediately? What do you do? Is this a safe combination? You trust your doctor, right? Well he has to be aware that these medications are safe in the doses and indications that he intends to use them. Where does that information come from, the FDA.
I am sorry mate but instead of spouting nosnense do a little reading. There are reasons that the FDA was established, sure it is not perfect but it improves with time. You want to know what happens with minimal oversight, check out thalidomide.
I am sorry mate, but instead of spouting nonsense, do a little reading:
Lets come back to why we put Fluorosilicic acid in our water. We put it in our water to prevent cavities! (google: cavity rates fluoridation) http://www.icnr.com/articles/national-fluoride-tooth-decay-study.html Well, I guess it doesn't help our teeth... on the bright side, we can support our businesses by buying their toxic chemicals from them to dope the population with. It'd be terrible if they had to dispose of them themselves.
If you can't admit to a little curiosity regarding this one topic, then there really is no point to this discussion as I've no direct investment in your wellbeing.
On November 16 2011 13:42 MilesTeg wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney is the only one who has a chance at winning against Obama?
Other than him you have a collection of nutters/idiots/ignorants. Perry, Bachman and Cain are a joke, and I'd be ashamed if they were considered legitimate candidates in my country. As for Paul, he's more charismatic, but other than that the lack of media interest seems to be his biggest strength. Not only can he play the victim card, but more importantly the less he says the less people realise how horrible his ideas are.
It's not as if simply hearing libertarian ideas is enough to "realise" they're "horrible", as much as you might like it to be so. There is such a slew of people who regard Keynesian economic theory as fact only because Austrian theory has been long unpopular. I could easily make the same argument that the vast majority of advocates of Keynesian theory simply haven't been exposed to its best criticisms, precisely because of its popularity. 5 years ago, I don't even think most people had heard of libertarianism or Austrian theory. Neither popularity nor unpopularity makes something true. But Keynsian pundits have been relying on the same trick for too long, which is to simply laugh whenever a libertarian starts talking and hope they go away. At this point, you might find yourself in need of an actual argument.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering).
I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain.
I'm just going to preface this by saying that the ignorance in this post is infuriating, but I'll attempt to explain myself in a civil manner:
"he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general" You have to understand, he's simply attempting to adhere to the Constitution. We have so many government agencies and programs that are not even condoned within the confines of the restraints so wisely put in place by our founders. The Constitution was created to limit the power of the federal government, and was comprised of three branches just to make sure it was kept in check. His position is the Constitutional position. If the Constitution doesn't allow it, then it is a State issue, and not within the powers given to our Federal Government.
"except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing" The founders created our government with the intent that it would protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we allow a mother to kill a child (though unborn), then we create a moral atmosphere that places relevant value on life. Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, and his understanding of the Constitution (accurate, I might add) is such that the Federal Government has no role to play in this issue. This is to be regarded as a violent crime, murder, and therefore is left up to the States to regulate. He would not create any Federal legislation to stop abortions from occurring, he simply would allow each State to decide how best to approach it. This is the Constitutional approach.
"Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me." If this is your opinion, then it's obvious you haven't given much consideration to Ron Paul's views. The Federal Reserve is what is creating these bubbles, and our current economic crisis. It's using fiat money, not backed by any material value, to manipulate and "control" economies. This is the root of the problem, and until people start looking seriously into Ron Paul's End the Fed position, and the current battle between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics, we will not stop the looming financial crisis, no matter how many more government enforced regulations are created.
I apologize if at any point I came across as condescending. I am simply frustrated by the large amount of individuals who will call this man a "loon" without even attempting to understand why he holds the positions he does.
I am completely aware of how much Ron Paul leans on his interpretation of the constitution. I don't agree with it and even if I did I wouldn't really care that much, if the Fed wants to run a program that is morally or politically good or whatever (social security and federal income taxes, among other things, are commonly argued to be technically unconstitutional) then quite frankly I don't care if it hasn't been explicitly laid out as a job of the federal govt (*cue the collective gasp of you strict constructionist types*).
Your thoughts on abortion are one of the most hilarious cop outs I've ever seen on the topic, although I have to give you credit - that argument is a new one on me. I imagine he breaks that one out again with gay marriage. Like I said, he supports not restricting the rights of individuals so long as they don't conflict with his particular brand of religious idiocy, in which case he leaves the states to do the restricting instead based on "state rights".....lol, if that's the only problem he has with this country's abortion stance then I'm Honest Abe. Luckily, Republicans have been wasting shitloads of time and money for years trying to pass bogus limits on abortion at the state level and have generally failed miserably, so I can't imagine anything would change if RP was the president. By the way, you seem to know a lot about the guy, how does Ronny cope with the vitriolic hatred his libertarian hero and the namesake of his child had for his silly little religion? I'm curious.
I'm kinda confused why you would bring up the federal reserve as a retort to a statement regarding too little regulation -- they fuck with the stock market, make bogus deals with investment banks using taxpayer money, handle the printing of money (if I remember correctly anyway), set interest rates, and god only knows what else.........aaaaand they're not audited. Good joke. Perhaps "end the fed" is a better idea than simply forcing a little accountability on them, I wouldn't know; but regardless of that you need to have your eyes sewed shut to really believe we don't need more regulations (or maybe we just need to actually enforce the ones we have? same difference really), what with banks playing zero-risk, hedge roulette with mortgages based on comically small amounts of cash rather than making traditional investments (while those won't crash the economy they have risk and make less money, so fuck that). Depressingly they may actually manage to convince people that allowing any nub with a few grand to get a mortgage was something politicians forced on them and that they weren't making outrageous amounts of money trading the debt from it around. I think everyone should read about industries like meat packing and how unbelievably dangerous it is, especially after their respective regulatory agencies have had their nuts chopped off by politicians like Reagan. I wonder if he did so out of his deep commitment to improving the profitability of business or if someone made it worth his while? You could write a senior thesis on all the ways deregulation contributes to corruption, exploitation, and just how few people it actually benefits.
also, have a funny comic
p.s. ron paul is a loon
I would go into specifics, and continue this discussion, but it's apparent that the thing we need to agree on first and foremost is that we have very different views on the role of government. Before I attempt to explain my/Ron Paul's positions on these things, perhaps it would be beneficial if I understood your position and understanding of the role of government.
Perhaps you've heard of Frederic Bastiat, or even read 'The Law', and maybe you can comment on agreements/disagreements with his work? If you have not, the audiobook is free to download and I would love to hear your opinion on the ideas presented in the text.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
Asking if the states "could" do worse as though it's some sort of hypothetical is disingenuous. For everything wrong with the FDA for example, it's still better than not having it at all and letting people sell poisonous food and medicine, which was the actual reality people faced when the stats weere in charge. Not all 50 states have adequate resources to ensure such safety. I'm sure you'd be fine in New York or California, but how about Alabama or North Dakota? I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it? How would you even go about such a thing? I certainly have no idea.
How about a real example? Bayer sold hemophilia blood products, some of which contained HIV. After realizing the problem and developing a method to sterilize the products, they continued to sell the old, unsterilized product in other countries, knowingly infecting people with HIV. If they could get away with it in countries in Asia and Latin America, can you really say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't get away with it in any one of the 50 states if each state had its own mini-FDA? Hell, this doesn't even need to serve as an example of a larger trend, this case alone would justify the federal government running the FDA if it didn't already exist.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine. And in the case of Bayer.... why does Bayer still exist? Isn't that what we have courts for? Oh wait, corporations are people only in ways that benefit them, and not people anytime they need to avoid the results of their actions. This isn't the FDA's problem, it's the courts. The laws exist to hold people (and ideally corporations) accountable for their actions. However, since corporations can do no wrong, there is little incentive to give a shit about the consumer's safety.
Sure, HIV is bad, but how about diabetes? Obesity? Heart Disease? Did you not read the part where more people die every year in the US from prescription drugs than car accidents? That is over 40,000 a year.
Conveniently, if you forget the youtube link, you can just google: "Sugar poison" and find it.
"I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it?"
This is actually pretty funny as I don't assume that what the FDA allows in food (either under it's own name, or hidden under a different one) to be safe. I read every label and google what it does to my body. Look up flouride. There is your mommy FDA for you. Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. And you probably didn't need your pinneal gland in the first place. Being able to sleep at night is over-rated. You assume that the FDA exists to protect your health. That's cute.
However, here is my biggest problem with the FDA. They restrict choice. And often the remaining options they give you sacrifice nutrition to grease the pockets of the markets they regulate.
Ok, any point you don't feel I've adequately addressed, let me know.
Right, this may be a little off topic but you brought it up. Besides regulation by the FDA is somewhat related. Let's take a close look at what you wrote.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine.
You seem to be suggesting that these services are adequate to determine the safety of medication. Here is a question for you, what determines whether a medication is safe? How do you find this information? I would say a safe medication is one where the side effects are determined to be of lesser importance than the clinical effect produced by the drug. An example of this balance would be chemotherapy, which has drastic side effects but obvious benefits.
How do you find this information? This is much harder. Most clinical trials which test these drugs are only published if the information is positive. In most cases this is in journals which require subscriptions. Further more if you expect the average consumer to be aware of all the different options available to them, as well as being able to balance the inherent risks in taking any medication, you are naive. The consumer would essentially be a doctor.
Further more this kind of system is open to massive abuse. Pharma companies would have a huge incentive to post crap on these sites to discredit the opposition and support themselves. How to stop that? Face it, this idea is ridiculous. Your average Joe is in no position to evaluate the risks and benefits of treatments. This is why we have the medical profession and all its associated training.
And in the case of Bayer.... why does Bayer still exist? Isn't that what we have courts for? Oh wait, corporations are people only in ways that benefit them, and not people anytime they need to avoid the results of their actions.
I am not sure what you are driving at but it is hardly an indictment of the FDA? They are not responsible for ensuring corporate accountability.
This isn't the FDA's problem, it's the courts. The laws exist to hold people (and ideally corporations) accountable for their actions. However, since corporations can do no wrong, there is little incentive to give a shit about the consumer's safety.
Too right and this has what to do with the FDA?
Sure, HIV is bad, but how about diabetes? Obesity? Heart Disease? Did you not read the part where more people die every year in the US from prescription drugs than car accidents? That is over 40,000 a year.
Nice stat, can you provide a source? In particular can you provide a source that shows it is the drug specifically that is responsible for the deaths of the patients and not the underlying disease. One that clearly states that the drugs were administered appropriately and that the patients were compliant? I am sure that most of these are explained by the disease they are treating or by substance abuse.
The FDA is actually setup to regulate exactly this. Have a look here for all the treatments that have been withdrawn from the market due to safety reasons etc. In a system without regulation these withdrawals would be voluntary and far less numerous. The fact is that drugs have to prove they are beneficial before they are allowed to be marketed. Obviously as the drugs are tested in a wider population more rare side effects become known, but that is why the FDA constantly monitors the use and safety of the medication. That is their job, who would do it without the FDA?
Conveniently, if you forget the youtube link, you can just google: "Sugar poison" and find it.
I can't youtube here but I did search sugar poison. What the hell is this shit? What does it have to do with the FDA?
This is actually pretty funny as I don't assume that what the FDA allows in food (either under it's own name, or hidden under a different one) to be safe. I read every label and google what it does to my body. Look up flouride. There is your mommy FDA for you. Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. And you probably didn't need your pinneal gland in the first place. Being able to sleep at night is over-rated. You assume that the FDA exists to protect your health. That's cute.
Flouride is a well known anti-tooth decay molecule. Here is the wiki entry "Fluoride-containing compounds are used in topical and systemic fluoride therapy for preventing tooth decay. They are used for water fluoridation and in many products associated with oral hygiene.[16] Originally, sodium fluoride was used to fluoridate water; however, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) are more commonly used additives, especially in the United States. The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay[17][18] and is considered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century".[19][20] In some countries where large, centralized water systems are uncommon, fluoride is delivered to the populace by fluoridating table salt. Fluoridation of water is not without critics, however (see Water fluoridation controversy).[21]"
The controversy is
"The water fluoridation controversy arises from moral, ethical, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation.[1] Those opposed argue that water fluoridation imposes ethical issues,[2] may cause serious health problems,[3] is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.[4][5][6]
The weight of the scientific evidence have found that at the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development. This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health.[7] Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.[8]
Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[1] During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health.[9]"
If I was your all knowing consumer I would belive that flouride is really beneficial. What is the problem? You say . Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. Yes, this happens, not because of some crazy flouride theory but because people get old. The number one killer of people is age.
However, here is my biggest problem with the FDA. They restrict choice. And often the remaining options they give you sacrifice nutrition to grease the pockets of the markets they regulate.
Of course they restrict choice, that is their purpose. Like I explained consumer cannot be expected to fully evaluate the risks and benefits of treatment in a reliable manner. For example, your doctor tells you that you need immediate heart surgery or you can take a combination of a beta-blocker, diaretic and ace inhibitor to try and control the damage. If you are going to get the surgery it needs to happen immediately? What do you do? Is this a safe combination? You trust your doctor, right? Well he has to be aware that these medications are safe in the doses and indications that he intends to use them. Where does that information come from, the FDA.
I am sorry mate but instead of spouting nosnense do a little reading. There are reasons that the FDA was established, sure it is not perfect but it improves with time. You want to know what happens with minimal oversight, check out thalidomide.
I am sorry mate, but instead of spouting nonsense, do a little reading:
Lets come back to why we put Fluorosilicic acid in our water. We put it in our water to prevent cavities! (google: cavity rates fluoridation) http://www.icnr.com/articles/national-fluoride-tooth-decay-study.html Well, I guess it doesn't help our teeth... on the bright side, we can support our businesses by buying their toxic chemicals from them to dope the population with. It'd be terrible if they had to dispose of them themselves.
If you can't admit to a little curiosity regarding this one topic, then there really is no point to this discussion as I've no direct investment in your wellbeing.
I am facepalming so hard right now at your arguments regarding these chemicals.
Yes it can come from these industrial sources, but please realize the extensive processes it goes through to make it suitable for consumption. Here's a little insight on what actually happens.
Human teeth and bones have a large percentage composition of a material known as Calcium Hydroxyapatite. Its chemical formula is: Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2
Upon being introduced to Flouride ion (F-) , the following reaction occurs.
Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 + 2F- → Ca10(PO4)6(F)2 + 2OH-
This new complex greatly strengthens tooth enamel, which is the starting point for almost all cavities.
Lets come back to why we put Fluorosilicic acid in our water. We put it in our water to prevent cavities! (google: cavity rates fluoridation) http://www.icnr.com/articles/national-fluoride-tooth-decay-study.html Well, I guess it doesn't help our teeth... on the bright side, we can support our businesses by buying their toxic chemicals from them to dope the population with. It'd be terrible if they had to dispose of them themselves.
Many other studies say otherwise, and I'm inclined to believe them.
Please do not spout that sensationalist bullshit on here regarding chemicals + and their corresponding processes that you have minimal knowledge of. It's people like you that make my profession difficult, as people hear buzzwords like "toxic" and immediately assume the worst. This type of thinking is good for nothing, and it only serves to rally the public to panic over nothing.
With only four posts I'm 100% sure this guy is just trolling from thread to thread. To just basically call people names like "loon" just makes your argument even more Invalid. The man teaches people to be self responsible and respect the constitution. Which is something very rare in this time of age.
On November 16 2011 13:42 MilesTeg wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney is the only one who has a chance at winning against Obama?
Other than him you have a collection of nutters/idiots/ignorants. Perry, Bachman and Cain are a joke, and I'd be ashamed if they were considered legitimate candidates in my country. As for Paul, he's more charismatic, but other than that the lack of media interest seems to be his biggest strength. Not only can he play the victim card, but more importantly the less he says the less people realise how horrible his ideas are.
It's not as if simply hearing libertarian ideas is enough to "realise" they're "horrible", as much as you might like it to be so. There is such a slew of people who regard Keynesian economic theory as fact only because Austrian theory has been long unpopular. I could easily make the same argument that the vast majority of advocates of Keynesian theory simply haven't been exposed to its best criticisms, precisely because of its popularity. 5 years ago, I don't even think most people had heard of libertarianism or Austrian theory.
I submit to you that the opposite has occurred. Those with understanding of economics adopted and adapted the Keynesian economic theory (and other empirical theories) because of its adherence to evidence and testable hypothesis. As economic issues arose, those without a comprehensive understanding began taking a stance with only a cursory glance at the schools of thought. They saw the "common sense" approach Austrian economics took and ran with it. It's the same reason we have people equating the government debt debate to a "kitchen table" discussion about family credit card debt.
Meanwhile, the very nature of Austrian economics makes it impervious to layman arguments. Since arguments at the pre-university/undergrad level are hinged heavily on philosophical arguments, it allows the school which relies almost solely on those arguments to prevail in layman discussion (i.e. Youtube videos). Meanwhile, empirical models are discussed and tested at a higher level, where math can be employed to substantiate claims for or against a specific argument. These are discussed in journals and periodicals outside the view of the general public.
Personally, I would equate the argument to evolution vs creationism. The only difference being that you can't effectively teach macroeconomics in 7th grade in the same way you can teach biology. In that argument, those advocating creationism always find "holes" in evolution, but that doesn't automatically make creationism any more valid of a "theory."
On November 16 2011 15:23 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @ dirtybirdy
With only four posts I'm 100% sure this guy is just trolling from thread to thread. To just basically call people names like "loon" just makes your argument even more Invalid. The man teaches people to be self responsible and respect the constitution. Which is something very rare in this time of age.
I don't understand why only having 4 posts makes me anything other than someone who doesn't post on this site very often, I don't "troll". Calling Ron Paul a loon? So inflammatory!!!!
Rare? Really? Conservatives have been circle jerking about how they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps for the last half century. And it seems to me the constitution is up there with the bible in terms of endearment for a lot of Americans.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering).
I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain.
I'm just going to preface this by saying that the ignorance in this post is infuriating, but I'll attempt to explain myself in a civil manner:
"he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general" You have to understand, he's simply attempting to adhere to the Constitution. We have so many government agencies and programs that are not even condoned within the confines of the restraints so wisely put in place by our founders. The Constitution was created to limit the power of the federal government, and was comprised of three branches just to make sure it was kept in check. His position is the Constitutional position. If the Constitution doesn't allow it, then it is a State issue, and not within the powers given to our Federal Government.
"except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing" The founders created our government with the intent that it would protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we allow a mother to kill a child (though unborn), then we create a moral atmosphere that places relevant value on life. Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, and his understanding of the Constitution (accurate, I might add) is such that the Federal Government has no role to play in this issue. This is to be regarded as a violent crime, murder, and therefore is left up to the States to regulate. He would not create any Federal legislation to stop abortions from occurring, he simply would allow each State to decide how best to approach it. This is the Constitutional approach.
"Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me." If this is your opinion, then it's obvious you haven't given much consideration to Ron Paul's views. The Federal Reserve is what is creating these bubbles, and our current economic crisis. It's using fiat money, not backed by any material value, to manipulate and "control" economies. This is the root of the problem, and until people start looking seriously into Ron Paul's End the Fed position, and the current battle between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics, we will not stop the looming financial crisis, no matter how many more government enforced regulations are created.
I apologize if at any point I came across as condescending. I am simply frustrated by the large amount of individuals who will call this man a "loon" without even attempting to understand why he holds the positions he does.
I am completely aware of how much Ron Paul leans on his interpretation of the constitution. I don't agree with it and even if I did I wouldn't really care that much, if the Fed wants to run a program that is morally or politically good or whatever (social security and federal income taxes, among other things, are commonly argued to be technically unconstitutional) then quite frankly I don't care if it hasn't been explicitly laid out as a job of the federal govt (*cue the collective gasp of you strict constructionist types*).
Your thoughts on abortion are one of the most hilarious cop outs I've ever seen on the topic, although I have to give you credit - that argument is a new one on me. I imagine he breaks that one out again with gay marriage. Like I said, he supports not restricting the rights of individuals so long as they don't conflict with his particular brand of religious idiocy, in which case he leaves the states to do the restricting instead based on "state rights".....lol, if that's the only problem he has with this country's abortion stance then I'm Honest Abe. Luckily, Republicans have been wasting shitloads of time and money for years trying to pass bogus limits on abortion at the state level and have generally failed miserably, so I can't imagine anything would change if RP was the president. By the way, you seem to know a lot about the guy, how does Ronny cope with the vitriolic hatred his libertarian hero and the namesake of his child had for his silly little religion? I'm curious.
I'm kinda confused why you would bring up the federal reserve as a retort to a statement regarding too little regulation -- they fuck with the stock market, make bogus deals with investment banks using taxpayer money, handle the printing of money (if I remember correctly anyway), set interest rates, and god only knows what else.........aaaaand they're not audited. Good joke. Perhaps "end the fed" is a better idea than simply forcing a little accountability on them, I wouldn't know; but regardless of that you need to have your eyes sewed shut to really believe we don't need more regulations (or maybe we just need to actually enforce the ones we have? same difference really), what with banks playing zero-risk, hedge roulette with mortgages based on comically small amounts of cash rather than making traditional investments (while those won't crash the economy they have risk and make less money, so fuck that). Depressingly they may actually manage to convince people that allowing any nub with a few grand to get a mortgage was something politicians forced on them and that they weren't making outrageous amounts of money trading the debt from it around. I think everyone should read about industries like meat packing and how unbelievably dangerous it is, especially after their respective regulatory agencies have had their nuts chopped off by politicians like Reagan. I wonder if he did so out of his deep commitment to improving the profitability of business or if someone made it worth his while? You could write a senior thesis on all the ways deregulation contributes to corruption, exploitation, and just how few people it actually benefits.
also, have a funny comic
p.s. ron paul is a loon
I would go into specifics, and continue this discussion, but it's apparent that the thing we need to agree on first and foremost is that we have very different views on the role of government. Before I attempt to explain my/Ron Paul's positions on these things, perhaps it would be beneficial if I understood your position and understanding of the role of government.
Perhaps you've heard of Frederic Bastiat, or even read 'The Law', and maybe you can comment on agreements/disagreements with his work? If you have not, the audiobook is free to download and I would love to hear your opinion on the ideas presented in the text.
On November 16 2011 13:42 MilesTeg wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney is the only one who has a chance at winning against Obama?
Other than him you have a collection of nutters/idiots/ignorants. Perry, Bachman and Cain are a joke, and I'd be ashamed if they were considered legitimate candidates in my country. As for Paul, he's more charismatic, but other than that the lack of media interest seems to be his biggest strength. Not only can he play the victim card, but more importantly the less he says the less people realise how horrible his ideas are.
Romney would more than likely lose. Why do you find that Paul's ideas are horrible? They're fantastic for the position America is in right now. They're terrible for France, but not us.
I can't speak for his position on social issues. But economically, none of what he wants makes any sense. Simple ideas for simple people. Didn't he talk about going back to the gold standard? About abolishing the Fed? Sometimes I wonder if all the internet Ron Paul fans realise the kind of ideas they're supporting. What good do they think would come of that? Ron Paul is nothing more than a populist.
On November 16 2011 13:42 MilesTeg wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Romney is the only one who has a chance at winning against Obama?
Other than him you have a collection of nutters/idiots/ignorants. Perry, Bachman and Cain are a joke, and I'd be ashamed if they were considered legitimate candidates in my country. As for Paul, he's more charismatic, but other than that the lack of media interest seems to be his biggest strength. Not only can he play the victim card, but more importantly the less he says the less people realise how horrible his ideas are.
It's not as if simply hearing libertarian ideas is enough to "realise" they're "horrible", as much as you might like it to be so. There is such a slew of people who regard Keynesian economic theory as fact only because Austrian theory has been long unpopular. I could easily make the same argument that the vast majority of advocates of Keynesian theory simply haven't been exposed to its best criticisms, precisely because of its popularity. 5 years ago, I don't even think most people had heard of libertarianism or Austrian theory. Neither popularity nor unpopularity makes something true. But Keynsian pundits have been relying on the same trick for too long, which is to simply laugh whenever a libertarian starts talking and hope they go away. At this point, you might find yourself in need of an actual argument.
The same vacuous arguments I keep seeing everywhere. I'd like to see someone explain to me clearly what they think instead of just throwing -ism words.
My question to Ron Paul supporters is this: do you have the faintest idea of what he's talking about?
Protecting life... A fertilized egg a few weeks into pregnancy is not a person, it doesn't yet have a conscious, it doesn't have a brain, it doesn't have a heart... Religious beliefs instill the idea that it is a person into people. Thus the idea of separation of church and state (if you really want to go by the constitution) deems that no government can stop a woman from getting an abortion.
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KxN90thvaNw/SOzPp2-rreI/AAAAAAAABSc/vZ8-vYj0crc/s400/option-three.gif)
