Obviously the young people want freedom while the old guys are comforted by ... Jesus , no drugs and soft information ?
Oh and by the way Biff , you're kinda coming out as rational reductionist hatin on the people who do not believe.. you know , the status quo and the major news outlets .
Or the young people are the most easily misled by promises that are too good to be true/sane...
\
Actually , the young people are mostly idealists why the old people stopped having hope or whatever , that's why they vote for corporate scum , while the young people vote for the fresh image of freedom reprezented by Dr. Paul .
I think manipulating is as easy on the both sides , and by the way , who does the serious manipulation ? The "Ron Paul propagandits" who are basically individuals with show on the internet and communities that work together to raise the Ron Paul awarness ..... Or the major news outlets who can reach EVERYONE in the country ? Come on man be serious ....
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Oh come on.
She is asking a Ron Paul supporter (note, Ron Paul) in the Ron Paul HQ (again, Ron Paul) to state his opinion on Ron Paul's foreign policy. The people at CNN honestly didn't see coming that he was going to regurgitate Ron Paul's foreign policy? They actually had to interrupt the interview because of the unexpected 'dissenting' opinion?
I personally think its intergalactic aliens manipulating solar waves in order to keep Ron Paul down. Without Ron Paul's strong leadership the world is much easier to invade. I could present proof but I know you wouldn't believe it, so I'll refrain from that.
(Point is that it is on you to provide actual proof.)
On January 06 2012 01:59 bOneSeven wrote: Check this out guys
Obviously the young people want freedom while the old guys are comforted by ... Jesus , no drugs and soft information ?
Oh and by the way Biff , you're kinda coming out as rational reductionist hatin on the people who do not believe.. you know , the status quo and the major news outlets .
You can't interpret caucus data like that. All you can say that out of caucus goers, Ron Paul was the most popular in the 17-24 group. Caucusgoers are notoriously unrepresentative of the full republican electorate, the state or the country. You need to be extremely commited to go to an actual caucus.
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
i don't know why i am posting this in a rightwing-US-biased supported thread.
I hope the next rightwing candidate won't throw the world into oblivion because of the israeli/Industrial-Military-Complex lobbies, like the Bush's did theses last 20 years.
I hope they'll introduce more thruth in History books in your schools, the youger americans really needs to know better what is really Middle East, and Islam.
But wait, looking at some of the debates, i can just facepalm myself and wait for a better future.
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization. For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
The kind of definition of "freedom" that I suppose you support is the most warped and twisted of them all.
Of course we're never really free. We have to eat. Still that's 0 points against liberty as defined by libertarians - basically the concept of negative freedom (which is the only concept actually worth contemplating).
On January 05 2012 12:15 bOneSeven wrote: Alex Jones is a crazy guy ( but imo , get in that field and try to keep yourself 100% sane , I believe it's impossible ) and most of you completely discard him , however I couldn't find the video alone ( tbh I don't really feel like searching for it because I may simply not find it , I never browsed trough CNN shows ) so here it is ... Just watch 1:04-1:50 from this video http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6c8LyUeGC8&feature=player_detailpage ---- Coincidence or deisgn ? Ron Paul getting ZERO support from any media ..
Obviously design. I don't watch any tv, movie, or show without attempting to see what underlying themes and messages are that are being conveyed. If you don't, you're just letting groups and people who's only intent is to control you and help you spend your money program your mind.
I really don't get how SO many people can be wild conspiracy theorists in this thread.
CNN lost a satellite feed during an interview with a Ron Paul supporter: MUST have been them pulling the plug, OBVIOUS.
Two days ago in this thread: If Ron Paul doesn't come in first place in Iowa, MUST be vote fraud, NO other answer.
And lets not forget yesterday and Mr '9-11 was computer controlled, US government planned attacks to get us into the middle east.
No one offers ANY proof at all, ZERO. ZERO. Is this thread/site really breaking down into a crackpot conspiracy theory core?
What is next? JFK? Moon? Did the US let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose?
If you're making a claim that is wildly offensive or different than what the majority believes, you need to offer something to back it up.
P.S. Or is asking someone to back up a wild accusation with anything at all asking too much?
Here, do some homework. Validate YOUR claim. Here is the fact. A Ron Paul supporter was cut off. You come in saying, oh poo hoo. It's 2011 or 2012 or whatever. Shit happens. However, you could easily educate yourself by taking the initiative and googling what tends to cut out satellite feeds. Was it weather? Google the weather conditions. Judging by how well satellite tv works, it'd probably have to be something pretty noticeable. Perhaps swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus... interrupting the satellite feed.
I have my view, and I don't really want to waste my time trying to change yours. Perhaps, you could ask yourself why you are making excuses for a major media outlet? My point of view is that reality is likely a whole lot more fucking complicated than what is shown on major news outlets. If it isn't, what did I lose?
However, I bet that JFK is on the moon since pearl harbor, happening on purpose.
Any number of things can interrupt satelite feeds, and it is far more common then you think. Even if there was not bad weather in the place the up-link was located, there could have been bad weather on the down-link. Most satellite communication systems operate with a very thin margin. Increased solar radiation, assorted atmospheric effects(especially around dusk), and most importantly rain on the downlink can and will cause a link to go down.
The systems are designed to have anywhere between 99-99.99% availability with local weather effects on the downlink(its assumed you can just increase uplink power), but if you do the math, 99.9% availability is around an hour and a half of downtime a year.
Any glance at a sattelite communications textbook will tell you this, but you know, its a lot easier to invent conspiracies.
Hey, have you ever watched satellite going in and out? It looks like digital distortion. Every time.
What does this video look like when it cuts out? A fake analog signal. You do know that the video traveling up the screen like that is caused by ANALOG syncing, right? Argue with me on this one, please.
That particular soldier is actually under investigation for breaching military protocol:
Military employees are not allowed to speak out on political issues while wearing their uniform. Which makes sense.
ROFL
You guys are advocatin free speak over anything.. But suddenly when some guy wears a uniform it's diffrent? Are you serious?
You can blatantly lie about the Holocaust and preach total bullshit lies that insult entire communites/countreis/religions but you can't give your polticial opinion while wearing the us-uniform?
fucking lol.
When you're wearing your uniform you're representing the military. The military can not be seen as endorsing any political candidate or influence an election in any way. That's a good rule, and should be the case in any modern democracy.
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization. For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
The kind of definition of "freedom" that I suppose you support is the most warped and twisted of them all.
Of course we're never really free. We have to eat. Still that's 0 points against liberty as defined by libertarians - basically the concept of negative freedom (which is the only concept actually worth contemplating).
Well, why don't libertarians go live in the jungle? Seems a good place to eat or be eaten and at least you can be sure there will be no solidarity, and the one who can't pay someone to bury him will rot on the floor.
Your concept of freedom, I call it egoism. For Ayn Rand, it's a virtue. Let's disconnect a little bit more from the basics of morality and humanity and we'll get there.
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs e ffect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs e ffect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
Are the republicans favorites to win this election ? I heard US guys don't like Obama anymore... From my french soul-less communist point of view that would be a desaster if the world was ruled again by one of those crazy men.
On January 05 2012 14:44 NtroP wrote: I can understand your point of view. When I was 20 or so, I was firmly on the other side of the fence. Then I visited slashdot for 10 years. Also, during this time period I got very good at using google to research whatever tickled my fancy.
Now, I trust what I can research and prove using the tools *I* have. Everything else I am skeptical of.
That's just standard conspiracy talk for 'even tho noone believes me, I know I'm right, because I found an incredibly biased youtube clip that said so'. One of the downsides of the internet is that you can find 'proof' for pretty much anything if you look hard and long enough.
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote:
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 12:18 Kiarip wrote:
On December 16 2011 19:31 kwizach wrote: Nice column by Paul Krugman about Ron Paul's off-the-mark economic ideas.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs e ffect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs e ffect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
If you're unable to afford an attorney in the event you get into legal trouble, the state provides one for you. Is this also a gross violation of individual rights?
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)". .
They key difference between "right to counsel"/"right to a jury" and "right to healthcare" is that the first 2 are NOT a right that people have.
You do NOT have the right to legal counsel. Instead The government cannot Try you unless they give you legal counsel. The government cannot Try you unless they give you a jury trial.
If the government never puts you on trial, and never arrests you, then you have No right to a jury/lawyers.
It is the government's Lack of rights (to just arrest and jail you) that is guaranteed.
In that sense there is a "right to healthcare", if the government wants to put you in prison, then "no cruel and unusual punishment" means they have to give you healthcare.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)". .
They key difference between "right to counsel"/"right to a jury" and "right to healthcare" is that the first 2 are NOT a right that people have.
You do NOT have the right to legal counsel. Instead The government cannot Try you unless they give you legal counsel. The government cannot Try you unless they give you a jury trial.
If the government never puts you on trial, and never arrests you, then you have No right to a jury/lawyers.
It is the government's Lack of rights (to just arrest and jail you) that is guaranteed.
In that sense there is a "right to healthcare", if the government wants to put you in prison, then "no cruel and unusual punishment" means they have to give you healthcare.
Sorry, but they are rights. They are defined as such in the US Bill of Rights. The fact that they can be evoked in specific cases does not change this fact (nor does it change the validity of the analogy, which is why I mentioned them in the first place).
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
Yes, ignore his entire post because of his last sentence only, which happens to be unrelated to the rest of the post. Brilliant. By the way, since Ron Paul wants to leave the UN, that's more than simply non-interventionism.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)". .
They key difference between "right to counsel"/"right to a jury" and "right to healthcare" is that the first 2 are NOT a right that people have.
You do NOT have the right to legal counsel. Instead The government cannot Try you unless they give you legal counsel. The government cannot Try you unless they give you a jury trial.
If the government never puts you on trial, and never arrests you, then you have No right to a jury/lawyers.
It is the government's Lack of rights (to just arrest and jail you) that is guaranteed.
In that sense there is a "right to healthcare", if the government wants to put you in prison, then "no cruel and unusual punishment" means they have to give you healthcare.
Sorry, but they are rights. They are defined as such in the US Bill of Rights. The fact that they can be evoked in specific cases does not change this fact (nor does it change the validity of the analogy, which is why I mentioned them in the first place).
They can Only be invoked in specific cases and can only be invoked to Stop the government from doing something, not to force the government to do something.
The right to free speech does not mean the government has to pay for your TV broadcast/newspaper/internet access The right to freedom of religion does not mean the government has to pay for your Church The right to bear arms doesn't mean the government pays for your guns
As long as the government doesn't Do anything, it is 'upholding those rights'. Same with the right to counsel, etc. as long as the government doesn't Arrest you your "right to counsel" is upheld.
So if you say "I want my lawyer" as the cops start to arrest you, they can change their mind, not arrest you, and you don't get a lawyer.
The rights in the Bill of Rights are not things you demand From the government, they are things the government is not allowed to Take.
Under that argument, a "right to healthcare" means that Medicare, Medicaid, and the FDA should all be abolished.
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
Yes, ignore his entire post because of his last sentence only, which happens to be unrelated to the rest of the post. Brilliant. By the way, since Ron Paul wants to leave the UN, that's more than simply non-interventionism.
Look man anyone who doesn't love Ron Paul just doesn't understand him or his policies!
On January 06 2012 02:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 02:29 MethodSC wrote: liberty and peace officially too good to be sane in 2012. Society sure has come far.
Liberty as defined by libertarian is a caricature of liberty. That is, unless you consider that a dear in the wild is the most free one can be, which the degree 0 of freedom's conceptualization.
For Ron Paul, an exploited unqualified worker slaving 12 hours a day and being paid virtually nothing would be "free", while a worker being paid a decent amount and a decent amount of time because the law doesn't let his boss exploit him to death would live under tyranny.
For Ron Paul, a kid with poor parents who can't pay his education and who would stay ignorant all his life (would probably not even learn to read, right?) would "free", while a kid who get a good quality education because his fellow citizen are clever enough to realize that education is a right and an investment for the future would live under tyranny.
So yeah, it's freedom, like in the wild. You better be a Lion (or a wealthy banker). Sorry if I prefer civilization to the jungle's law.
Isolationism is not peace, we have experienced it in the 30's.
Since you still think Ron Paul's policy is isolationism, then there is absolutely no reason to respond to you or for you to respond to anyone else in this thread before you go and do some research.
Yes, ignore his entire post because of his last sentence only, which happens to be unrelated to the rest of the post. Brilliant. By the way, since Ron Paul wants to leave the UN, that's more than simply non-interventionism.
Yes, because that was the only point in my post that he was actually responding to. Liberty is not libertarianism.
When he wants to argue about liberty and peace instead of libertarianism and peace, then I would gladly respond to that entire post.
EPT
