On November 23 2011 12:36 koreasilver wrote: Some serious anti-intellectualism going on over here.
Keep it going, guys. It's always good to be reassured about the public mentality of my birth-country.
Yeah, the recent surge in anti-intellectualism is truly worrisome. The long term solution to the economy is to embrace intellectualism, teach our kids to embrace it, or slowly fall behind to the countries that do.
Meh, I don't think it's getting worse. We're just noticing it more. That being said, your solution holds water.
As for Ron Paul, his gold standard stuff and "fairtax" is nothing short of crazy, so if that's the best you've got, you're in for a fun ride.
IMO, the reason he's the best they have is that he's ideologically consistent and has some integrity. I might not like his ideas either, but I don't think he's the type to sell out to the highest bidder, which is something that every single other candidate on that stage will do if they are elected.
On November 23 2011 12:56 MilesTeg wrote: Ron Paul certainly looks more genuine and convincing than any other candidate. Looking at Perry/Bachman/Cain's eyes it looks like they're desperately trying to remember what their campaign advisors told them...
That being said I still don't understand why anyone would agree with his economic policies. I think it's a primal reaction to the crisis. People just want something different, anything. But if Paul had it his way more US major banks would've died and things would be 10 times worse right now. If anything now is the time we should dismiss his ideas for good.
this would make sense if this was a recent revelation of his. But he's been saying the same thing for 20 years now, and the farther America got away from what he preaches, the worse things have gotten.
On November 23 2011 12:56 MilesTeg wrote: Ron Paul certainly looks more genuine and convincing than any other candidate. Looking at Perry/Bachman/Cain's eyes it looks like they're desperately trying to remember what their campaign advisors told them...
That being said I still don't understand why anyone would agree with his economic policies. I think it's a primal reaction to the crisis. People just want something different, anything. But if Paul had it his way more US major banks would've died and things would be 10 times worse right now. If anything now is the time we should dismiss his ideas for good.
Because banks created the problem and when you bail them out you prop up the problem and increase it.
If they were let to fail, it would have probably been very bad for about a year and then the economy would sort itself out as smaller banks become medium sized banks and medium sized banks took over the market of the now bankrupted banks.
What if governments all over the world let the free market decide the currency value and not central banks, it would be a lot better for the common man like me and you, but right now your president Sarkozy is deeply imbed with the globalists who want one world currency and one world bank with control of all the nations finances. Do you know what that would mean? There is corruption even at the smallest things, having few people control the finances of all the countries like Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, etc... by one body and few people? Its going to be hell on earth.
Plus look at what deficits don't matter and government can provide jobs did in Greece. They had 40% working or dependent on government and 60% working to support those 40% percent. Its impossible and governments are not productive and are unable to manage economies.
If they had a more sensible policy and more people working in the private sector, such catastrophe may have been avoided. Right now 90% of the debt of Greece is country debt, which means government made and most of it is in derivatives that are pretty much worthless.
Its a fake economy that is collapsing and the more bankers and politicians and the less farmers and hard working factory men the worse its going to get.
If anything Ron Paul economic policies now that the world have been engaged in keynesian economics for more than 30 years and its only created a huge debt crisis should be confirmed and understood even by lower IQ people.
The reason why Ron Paul is not a viable candidate is because:
1) He looks and talks crazy. Has a weird face, wild eyebrows, strange smile, gets overexcited.
2) Americans refuse to give up social handouts (they're free, after all) and many millions of people make a living administering these government agencies.
3) military/CIA interventionism has been around for almost as long as anybody's been alive. People don't like rash change. Also the military is like our nation's football team. We need something to cheer for every so often.
I understand the enthusiasm people have for Ron Paul, especially if you're a young fella that hasn't been around the block much. But the fact is that the great majority of voters are boring middle-aged people living boring lives with children. Their main concern is stability. They're simply not looking to overhaul everything overnight.
@ TheBomb Nice write up and I'm curious what you think of this:
@jdsowa Never judge a book by its cover. If you listen carefully you will see that he's telling the truth like when he debated Newt Grinrich on the patriot act. We didn't have a patriot act when we arrested timothy mcveigh. We don't need to give up our civil liberties in order to have more "security". Also, on the "social handouts" as you call it. He's not cutting any of those and he's the only republican that is going to refinance Social Security/Medical by bringing back the troops home. On your 3rd option...are you saying you advocate for more war? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice so we can have "something to cheer for every so often".
Give me a fucking break. This is what I don't get, why some people enjoy sacrificing others for the benefit of themselves. We don't need war and it's bankrupting our country by doing that alone. I don't care if your an old boring middle-aged man with children. Those are just excuses that makes you avoid the real issues and the reality around you. The truth is we can't keep living like this. Printing more money and starting unnecessary wars. One of these days we will default on our debt or have hyper inflation from the destruction of our currency. What then?
On November 24 2011 07:55 koreasilver wrote: edit: pointless
Why do Canadians care so much about our political system?
What exactly does someone's residence have to do with the relevance of their opinion?
A few thoughts from an Australian
The US is the world's largest economy, you sneeze we catch a cold.
The US has the worlds largest army, and we're allies. You invade we follow meekly.
The US is has been the world power for the last two decades. What happens there affects us. Our political system mirrors yours.
Aside from these obvious ones, perhaps people are just interested in politics in general. Your post reeks of someone not able to put their view across and getting all pissy because of it. Finally, Canadians are going to be particularly interested as they share a border with you.
Let me tell you, having some these nutjobs (Bachmann, woah!) as potential presidents of the US is scary. We know what happend last time someone not quite up to the job got into power. This shit is important to others as well, so please don't write off people's opinions just because they aren't from your backyard.
@Djzapz You know nothing about his policies by just saying "fair tax" and "gold standard".
"Saying it" doesn't make me know anything about those things, that's true. Having a bachelor in political science, working on my masters degree and reading into that stuff many many hours a week does. I should have elaborated more or pointed out things that were more relevant to his campaigning but he's keeping the crazy on a short leash.
On November 24 2011 09:39 Probulous wrote: Finally, Canadians are going to be particularly interested as they share a border with you.
Not just that, our politicians decided that we should mimic whatever the US do, even when it's awful. What mandatory baby-seal clubbing rampage weekly? We need that too!
On November 24 2011 07:55 koreasilver wrote: edit: pointless
Why do Canadians care so much about our political system?
I'm an American citizen that is studying in Canada. As an American citizen I would care about what happens in America. As I have noted a few pages back, I was born in the States. Now, even if I wasn't an American, your reply is just a rhetorical schtick. We might as well wallow in complete subjectivity where nothing can be said, ever.
On November 24 2011 07:55 koreasilver wrote: edit: pointless
Why do Canadians care so much about our political system?
Canadians are interested because US's economic policy directly effects us. All that dependence on foreign oil that presents a security concern? Yeah, most of that is from us. Free trade, tariffs and subsidies effects us. In addition, all those American production companies and publishers can't necessarily get their draconian policies passed in the US, but they sure as hell breathe down our necks to adopt those same policies.
Furthermore, having a sympathetic American president is beneficial for our Conservative party who prefers to get along with America. Bush was a hard guy to support for Canadian politicians and fed anti-Americanism in our elections. Whereas no one could have been happier to see Obama replace Bush than Stephen Harper as Canadian sympathy would allow him to drop token anti-American rhetoric (which I would argue Cretien's anti-Americanism was more rhetoric than policy).
US casts a wide shadow throughout the world. Because of that, the US will need to tolerate greater attention from the world. Military bases in 130 different countries, I think all 130 countries will have a vested interest in what America does.
On November 24 2011 10:06 Falling wrote: Furthermore, having a sympathetic American president is beneficial for our Conservative party who prefers to get along with America. Bush was a hard guy to support for Canadian politicians and fed anti-Americanism in our elections. Whereas no one could have been happier to see Obama replace Bush than Stephen Harper as Canadian sympathy would allow him to drop token anti-American rhetoric (which I would argue Cretien's anti-Americanism was more rhetoric than policy).
Interesting; I wouldn't have guessed Canadian Conservatives would prefer a Democrat, but your explanation makes sense.
On November 24 2011 10:06 Falling wrote: Furthermore, having a sympathetic American president is beneficial for our Conservative party who prefers to get along with America. Bush was a hard guy to support for Canadian politicians and fed anti-Americanism in our elections. Whereas no one could have been happier to see Obama replace Bush than Stephen Harper as Canadian sympathy would allow him to drop token anti-American rhetoric (which I would argue Cretien's anti-Americanism was more rhetoric than policy).
Interesting; I wouldn't have guessed Canadian Conservatives would prefer a Democrat, but your explanation makes sense.
That reminds me of something that someone said on Blizzard's forum that had me laughing to tears. Something like a Canadian conservative is equivalent to a Democrat in the US and showed by other comparisons how far right-leaning US politics are. I wish I could link to it, but it's long been deleted as you can imagine.
On November 24 2011 10:06 Falling wrote: Furthermore, having a sympathetic American president is beneficial for our Conservative party who prefers to get along with America. Bush was a hard guy to support for Canadian politicians and fed anti-Americanism in our elections. Whereas no one could have been happier to see Obama replace Bush than Stephen Harper as Canadian sympathy would allow him to drop token anti-American rhetoric (which I would argue Cretien's anti-Americanism was more rhetoric than policy).
Interesting; I wouldn't have guessed Canadian Conservatives would prefer a Democrat, but your explanation makes sense.
Well it all depends who that Democrat is. I doubt our Lester Pearson was all that happy with LB Johnson (Camp David meeting). ... mind you Pearson was a Liberal, so maybe that's different? I really varies on the personalities and policies. The dynamics between JFK and Diefenbaker (Con) weren't all that great- I think Dief thought JFK was too young and inexperienced and JFK thought Dief was a blowhard. I forget some of the dynamics, but Trudeau's (Lib) insistence on visiting Communist China and Cuba was rather frowned upon. Mulroney (Con) was very happy to work with the US to the point of being called a sell-out.
However, it really depends which regional interests they're trying to gain. For a few decades now, Conservatives have been for free trade and for trade with US which tends have greater support in the west so that we can have cheap US imports. So that tends to make Conservatives want to be somewhat pro-American whoever may be in office.
Liberal's core support has been Ontario with its manufacturing sector. Historically this has meant Ontario is against free trade and for protective tariffs for manufacturers. This also means that a little anti-American rhetoric get's thrown in.
Plus for any election cycle, a little anti-Americanism can spice things up with as a form of rah, rah, go Canada. (Ultimate insults being American-style healthcare and American-style prison system/ justice system. The Liberals successfully pinned both of these and more on the Reform/ Alliance party which then took them a decade to move beyond a regional party.)
In addition, Democrats are pretty right of centre. No Conservative politician would dare tamper with public healthcare. You do get a bit of social welfare vs personal responsibility and federal vs provincial jurisdiction. But it's all pretty tame compared to down south.
However, most of our politics are tied in some way or another to the States as our biggest trade partner (softwood lumber anyone?) And that's why we look over the border so often.
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped.
Interesting; I wouldn't have guessed Canadian Conservatives would prefer a Democrat, but your explanation makes sense.
They don't, ask what they think of the delaying of a ruling on Keystone XL. Just like everyone else, they got tired of G-Dub's X-Pac Heat. Just like most Americans, they also don't much care about that anymore now that he hasn't been president for almost 3 years. The same can't be said for lots of people, they still act like it's 2003.
On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote: Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped.
I have to agree. If I were to vote for a candidate in the US election, either conservative or democrat, I would probably pick Paul. Sure, he can go a little overboard with his libertarian rhetoric sometimes, causing people to label him "crazy," which is a real exaggeration. But I have to say that his ideas make more sense than all the other candidates combined. At least with Paul you know you are getting his real opinions, instead of the politically correct bullshit they culled from some polling data.
the only "fanatical libertarian" who thinks ron paul's a loon.
lol elem.... what the hell is with this quote? We all know Paul isn't a true libertarian. That doesn't mean you should act too hip to support him, if you are a "fanatical libertarian." Which candidate is better, honestly?
On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote: Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped.
Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot.
For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate?
On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote: Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped.
Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot.
For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate?
My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<).
VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal.
I support Ron Paul primarily because he wants Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy. He understands that we need to restructure our military, and that we are spending far too much money on it. Anyone with any recent military service knows that our Armed Forces are completely fucked and inefficient. It's a waste, and quite possibly the biggest waste in American spending.
I don't care too much about what his economic views are (I know what they are, but to me it doesn't matter) because as we've seen for the last year, the President has no real say in the decisions that Congress makes. What the President does have substantial power over, however, is what we do with our military, whether we invade, etc. and Paul is on point as far as that is concerned.
He's also outrageously consistent, he's not a "politician" and he doesn't take legal bribes. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his opinions, it's hard to deny that Ron Paul is one of, if not the most honest people in Washington.
EPT
