| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:33 dreamsmasher wrote: excellent argument. instead i should listen to the politician who wants to revert us back to the gold standard. You should listen to reasoning, whether it be from a book, politician or professor. What you shouldn't do is simply believe any of those sources and think that anyone exposed to the same teaching will agree with you. | ||
|
Xinder
United States2269 Posts
On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote: Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure. This makes me laugh. At what point in a presidents term does the economy become his responsibility? Please enlighten me to this as I kinda figured that after being in office for 4 years the economy becomes your responsibility? Guess it's always the other guys fault if he was a disliked president then just blame him. Why blame the savior of the country? Obama the first black president! | ||
|
dreamsmasher
816 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:37 OsoVega wrote: You should listen to reasoning, whether it be from a book, politician or professor. What you shouldn't do is simply believe any of those sources and think that anyone exposed to the same teaching will agree with you. so if i were a biology student and i met a prominent aids denialist or fundamentalist christian i should bother to listen to their views when in fact they're wrong. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Anyway, here's a more accurate reflection of where the republican party presently stands. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/gop_primary_perry_29_romney_18_bachmann_13 Perry: 29% Romney: 18% Bachmann: 13% This is about what I would have figured. Romney's a known RINO and will turn off most conservatives. Bachmann rubs too many people the wrong way for one or another (mostly because she gets hammered by the media). That basically leaves Perry as a fairly pure ideological conservative and experienced politician. He's not perfect, but he has the least baggage of all of the candidates in the views of most republicans. Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it. | ||
|
Expurgate
United States208 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:35 Bibdy wrote: I have. I understand monetary policity, fiscal policy and yada yada yippadeedoo. Apparently my basic education isn't enough and yours is superior. Again, either you enlighten me or you're just talking flat out of your ass. Like most economic policies, the use of gold to back a currency (as opposed to fiat money) has benefits and drawbacks. It is generally accepted in economics today that floating currency is a substantially stronger system, since it acts as a natural brake/accelerant on the economy, boosting exports when it is low and inhibiting them when it is high. Switching to a gold-backed currency would also mean surrendering the power of monetary policy, particularly if Paul followed through on his pledge to eliminate the Fed. While the Fed's efficacy in promoting its goals (the Fed, unlike most central banks in the world, has both inflation and unemployment mandates; most central banks have one or the other) is a subject of intensive academic debate, economic research has pretty conclusively shown that an independent central bank is strongly linked to reduced economic instability. | ||
|
Spicy Pepper
United States632 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:27 dreamsmasher wrote: except the fact that almost any undergrad econ student will tell you that most of his thought processes are stupid. Could almost any undergrad econ student have predicted what he did? I mean, actually think about this. He was right. The others were wrong. It's a debate between Keynesian economics vs Austrian economics. Have you studied both? Some of my closest friends have an Ivy League economics degree (undergrad and Masters). I have three immediate family members who work in the biggest banks, two work right on Wall Street. I have friends, who had parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, who worked and passed away in the WTC on 9/11. I remember fellow students crying on campus when this happened. They don't feel that way about RP. I mean you've decided to believe in a meme and now fit any narrative and fact to support that, while discarding the rest. So if I point out that I know undergrad econ students that agree with him, you can reply that you said "almost any"? If you don't even second guess yourself when someone that you consider an idiot is correctly predicts economic events, but resort to psychological defense mechanism or logical fallacies, then wtf? Is it just to save face, or can you can not even explain the constructs of your belief, and point out the conditions when you would have to adjust your preconceived notions, like a religious extremist? My suggestion would be to read Economics in One Lesson. It's about $10. Or follow Russ Robert's podcast Econtalk, and go back to his 2008 podcasts when he was regularly dissecting our economic collapse. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25555 Posts
Of the various presidential hopefuls from the GOP, I feel that a lot of them are beholden to the institutional party interests, and are traditionalists. Even though I disagree with a lot of what Ron Paul stands for, I think he's an honest politician, as contradictory as that phrase sounds. | ||
|
Expurgate
United States208 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:39 xDaunt wrote: This thread is generally hilarious. It's about the republican nomination process, but the average poster contributing to the discussion is ridiculously outside of the republican mainstream. It's particularly amusing to see all of these democrats/liberals come in here and support someone like Huntsman as if they have any remote intention of voting for him over Obama in a general election. Oh, and Ron Paul's not going anywhere. Yes, he had a good showing at the straw poll, but I don't think that he's ever drawn double-digit support in any real poll (straw polls are dramatically different in what they measure). Anyway, here's a more accurate reflection of where the republican party presently stands. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/gop_primary_perry_29_romney_18_bachmann_13 Perry: 29% Romney: 18% Bachmann: 13% This is about what I would have figured. Romney's a known RINO and will turn off most conservatives. Bachmann rubs too many people the wrong way for one or another (mostly because she gets hammered by the media). That basically leaves Perry as a fairly pure ideological conservative and experienced politician. He's not perfect, but he has the least baggage of all of the candidates in the views of most republicans. Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it. Your tone is unnecessarily aggressive. If Huntsman were to win nomination, I personally would probably vote him over Obama. The US could really benefit from an old-school Republican's economic policy and cost-cutting instincts. Most of the other candidates go way too far, as a matter of pure economic good sense. | ||
|
hejakev
Sweden518 Posts
| ||
|
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
Whoever the Republicans throw out to challenge Obama won't stand a chance(unless Romney or Perry). Even Perry I don't think will have much of a shot. He is very evangelical from what I've heard, and I don't think a lot of Christians like that. Though Romney is Mormon, so I guess that kinda cancels out. Oh, and btw, Huntsman will not run against Obama. Tradition is that the president is never ran against by his own party, and I don't think Democrats will let that happen. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:39 xDaunt wrote: This thread is generally hilarious. It's about the republican nomination process, but the average poster contributing to the discussion is ridiculously outside of the republican mainstream. It's particularly amusing to see all of these democrats/liberals come in here and support someone like Huntsman as if they have any remote intention of voting for him over Obama in a general election. Oh, and Ron Paul's not going anywhere. Yes, he had a good showing at the straw poll, but I don't think that he's ever drawn double-digit support in any real poll (straw polls are dramatically different in what they measure). Anyway, here's a more accurate reflection of where the republican party presently stands. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/gop_primary_perry_29_romney_18_bachmann_13 Perry: 29% Romney: 18% Bachmann: 13% This is about what I would have figured. Romney's a known RINO and will turn off most conservatives. Bachmann rubs too many people the wrong way for one or another (mostly because she gets hammered by the media). That basically leaves Perry as a fairly pure ideological conservative and experienced politician. He's not perfect, but he has the least baggage of all of the candidates in the views of most republicans. Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it. I think Perry has a legit chance against Obama but a lot of that depends on who he picks as VP. If he picks someone like Palin or Bachman i think his chances basically fall to nil. | ||
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
| ||
|
jmack
Canada285 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:20 Introvert wrote: [ Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan. if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent. This cannot be accurate. Source or I call bullshit; the BUSH TAX CUTS, prescription drug plan and the UN- ENDING WARS bush got the country into HAVE to have cost your country more than any NEEDED stimulus plan or healthcare. Bush not spending ENOUGH is not a bragging point, especially when the real solution is to tax the rich/corporations and invest it into stabilizing the plummeting wealth of the middle class. Corporations WONT hire people when there is no one purchasing their goods; the situation you get when you cripple your middle class. Corporations WILL hire people when there are people purchasing their goods despite minuscule increases in their taxes. Profit is still profit. At the end of the day though; fellow TL poster, can you really stand by the idea that national healthcare, done correctly, is a BAD thing? I man it just seems so disgustingly un-civilized to think that MEDICINE or EDUCATION is being denied to fellow citizens but it's alright because the wealthy are staying wealthy. Makes my brain explode. + Show Spoiler + I'm Canadian and we have national healthcare and I pay for it in my taxes. I pay for it proudly; I would rather trust my government to be overly kind to my countries peoples, one of which being myself, than to trust a corporation, who's ends can only ever be profit, with a service as vital as the maintenance of human life. | ||
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
Does anyone here know? | ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:39 Expurgate wrote: Like most economic policies, the use of gold to back a currency (as opposed to fiat money) has benefits and drawbacks. It is generally accepted in economics today that floating currency is a substantially stronger system, since it acts as a natural brake/accelerant on the economy, boosting exports when it is low and inhibiting them when it is high. Switching to a gold-backed currency would also mean surrendering the power of monetary policy, particularly if Paul followed through on his pledge to eliminate the Fed. While the Fed's efficacy in promoting its goals (the Fed, unlike most central banks in the world, has both inflation and unemployment mandates; most central banks have one or the other) is a subject of intensive academic debate, economic research has pretty conclusively shown that an independent central bank is strongly linked to reduced economic instability. This guy knows what he is talking about. Both monetary and fiscal policy is needed since fiscal is hard to reverse, as is evident from USA's growing debt problems. And if you scrap both, prepare to suffer some depressions my friend. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:42 hejakev wrote: I'm not voting for anyone until I see some birth certificates. Long form certificates =p | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:45 TheGlassface wrote: How many of these people signed that pledge for no new taxes? Does anyone here know? During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases. They are all against it. | ||
|
xXFireandIceXx
Canada4296 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:47 On_Slaught wrote: During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases. They are all against it. Far too radical to be considered President. I hope the Democrats have some better contenders. | ||
|
Fuoeh
Netherlands486 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:47 On_Slaught wrote: During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases. They are all against it. Well the ez way to win votes. Everybody saw that coming from their side. | ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
http://www.foil.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein "Iraq was a strategic buffer state for the United States against the Soviet Union, and Saddam was often seen as an anti-Soviet leader in the 1960s and 1970s. Some even suggested that John F. Kennedy's administration supported the Ba'ath party's takeover.[26] Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ ![[image loading]](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg) http://links.org.au/node/2179 European leaders flocked to Libya with greedy businesspeople hanging on to their coat tails and before long several European oil companies were back in business, with banks, airlines and hotel chains following. Former British Labour PM Tony Blair and scandal-plagued, right-wing Italian President Silvio Berlusconi played leading roles in the process. - Apart from the first few lines of propaganda and obvious dramatization the rest of the article is 99% accurate. Better get educated about the massive fraud that is going on in the USA and half of the European Union countries. And this fraud is purported by the business elites, the massively corrupt politicians. Right now its worst in the USA and Britain. | ||
| ||
|
|
BSL 21
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
IPSL
Dewalt vs WolFix
eOnzErG vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV Korean Royale
BSL: GosuLeague
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
