On January 13 2012 22:54 Focuspants wrote: [quote]
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
Liar
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
And as for why there's a revival of Keynesianism? What do you mean revival? lol. It's always been here, and the reason it's always been here is because it justifies the government's intervention in everything, and justifies increased government power by funding it with government spending...
It's very easy for the people in the government to say yes to Keynesianism, and no to Austrian theory, because Austrian theory effectively argues for limited government by minimizing its budget.
But Keynesianism has always been here as the guiding principle for the government, and look where we're at now? lol
What lol?
Austrian economic policy won't actually prevent crises. Crises are an inherent part of the system, and you can't objectively claim that a different approach would have led to a better outcome. The fact is that the current crisis goes much deeper then government overspending, it is instead the result of structural imbalances in the world economic system.
I can't wait for Paul to drop out tho, maybe this thread will become readable again instead of talk show hosts with the IQ of a monkey trying to explain economic policy in garbage youtube clips. He'll finish maybe 3rd in NC, won't participate in Florida and after that I'm guessing its lights out.
Keynesian economics are directly responsible for both the Great Depression and the current economic collapse.
On January 14 2012 01:53 bOneSeven wrote:1. It seems odd to me to think terrorist will attack from Afghanistan. They can spread trough other parts of the world where the US is not so present and engineer their attack from there. So they have more free space and time to develop their attacks.
You do realise that Afghanistan has nearly no existing government right?
Which is why it was invaded. It was bound to become a breeding ground for terrorism due to the Taliban government and how completly off the grid the country was.
Going and occupy Iraq... come on... you keep it stable while you are there, but after you leave you create a huge power vacuum... Look at Iraq...soon to be a massive civile war between the sunnis and the shiites... but then again the sunnis have been promised weapons from us paying for them like 5 billion dollars.. what will happen from this? Will the sunnis ally with Iran who is a direct threat to most of us ( altho I believe they can be easily neutralized ) and kill the shiites .. ?
What are you talking about?
On the one hand you suggest that there is going to be a civil war between Sunni and Shia muslims in Iraq. Nothing even remotely suggests that his is going to happen, but let's accept that you believe that it will.
Then you suggest that the Sunni muslims are going to work together with Iran...Which is a Shia majority country.
So you believe that the sunni minority in Iraq is going to ally with the Shia majority of Iran to work together to kill the Shia majority in Iraq. Do you seriously believe this? Because you very well might be the only person in the world that actually considers that a likely scenario.
Go in unstable place => stabilize the place => leave => make it worse than it was in the first place ... The simple idea is , you can make a better world idealy, but you don't have the resources ... That's my take on it...noob take... but still I guess it's not disconnected from reality...
Iraq's economy is on the rise. The people are receiving a greater part of the oil profits then they did under Saddam. Human rights violations are down insanely since the defeat of Saddam. Iraq now has a functional democracy.
Iraq is by all accounts, far better off then it ever was under the rule of Saddam. Whether you approach it from an ethical standpoint or a practical standpoint, Iraq has improved since the removal of Saddam.
On January 13 2012 22:54 Focuspants wrote: [quote]
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
And as for why there's a revival of Keynesianism? What do you mean revival? lol. It's always been here, and the reason it's always been here is because it justifies the government's intervention in everything, and justifies increased government power by funding it with government spending...
It's very easy for the people in the government to say yes to Keynesianism, and no to Austrian theory, because Austrian theory effectively argues for limited government by minimizing its budget.
But Keynesianism has always been here as the guiding principle for the government, and look where we're at now? lol
Well we have empirical data that Keynesianism can't, and we have empirical data showing that America's economy was at its best back when the government was comparably so small, that there wasn't even an income tax.
So... you're quite off base here.
Crises are an inherent part of the system, and you can't objectively claim that a different approach would have led to a better outcome.
But we can argue that the same old approach that we're following right now isn't helping at all.
The fact is that the current crisis goes much deeper then government overspending, it is instead the result of structural imbalances in the world economic system.
Incidentally pretty much every other part of the world also runs on Keynesianism.
I can't wait for Paul to drop out tho, maybe this thread will become readable again instead of talk show hosts with the IQ of a monkey trying to explain economic policy in garbage youtube clips.
OUCH! You've probably never even seen the show, so I don't see why you're making garbage comments.
He'll finish maybe 3rd in NC, won't participate in Florida and after that I'm guessing its lights out.
Well this will indeed be quite unfortunate as it will leave us with either Obama or one of the other Republicans.
On January 14 2012 02:18 Kiarip wrote: Well this will indeed be quite unfortunate as it will leave us with either Obama or one of the other Republicans.
What about Gary Johnson and other third party and independent candidates?
On January 14 2012 02:18 Kiarip wrote: Well this will indeed be quite unfortunate as it will leave us with either Obama or one of the other Republicans.
What about Gary Johnson and other third party and independent candidates?
It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them).
Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush
Ah, here comes Kiarip with his brilliant rebuttals again. Do explain yourself, I'm sure you have pearls of wisdom to share regarding why Dodd-Frank is not a step in the right direction. By the way, I take your failure to reply to my previous post as an acknowledgment that you were, indeed, wrong regarding the individual rights of the healthcare providers being violated by a right to healthcare.
Um no I replied to it.
Um no you didn't. The last post in our exchange is this one, which I wrote and to which you did not reply.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: You are arguing a strawman the whole way through.
No, I'm not. You, on the other hand, are about to straw man the shit out of the idea of a right to healthcare. Let's see...
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: My original post clearly said:
The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is different than the government having an obligation to provide health-care.
If someone has a right to health-care, it means they can receive it at any time regardless of whether they or anyone else is paying the health-care giver.
And BAM, there you go - straw man. The idea of a right to healthcare (which, in this discussion, was put forward by Bernie Sanders in the video I linked to) is NOT what you just described.
No it was brought forward by Derez saying that people can vote to decide that people can have a right to get health-care I wasn't responding to you when I first made that statement.
If you want to define a RIGHT differently, then that's fine, however, "a right" already has a definition, as long as the doctor has the right to refuse service, or a company has the right to not sell you or the government the drugs, it can't be a right, it is only a privilege that is ensured by the government.
No, both Derez and Biff The Understudy referred to the same idea of a right to healthcare that Bernie Sanders put forward and that I defined again for you: "individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it." At NO POINT has ANYONE argued the straw man that you keep trying to push forward (and that Rand Paul also tried to use against Bernie Sanders), namely that a right to healthcare would mean that random unwilling doctors could be forced to treat patients because the said patients invoked their right to healthcare against them. I repeat: this is NOT how Derez, Biff The Understudy, Bernie Sanders and myself define the idea of a right to healthcare. This is why you're the one who's been using a straw man from the start and why your claim that a right to healthcare "would violate the rights of the healthcare providers" is plain wrong.
See? This is by definition a straw man - you are misrepresenting the idea in question to create the illusion that you easily addressed and refuted it, when in reality your argument did not address the said idea at all.
Ummm... no, you're arguing using a complex question, you're assuming that health-care is a right, and then you are asking me how this right is violating the health-givers' rights? Well it's not, but that's because it's NOT a right. Of course the government trying to guarantee health-care socializes a lot of the unneeded expenses, but somehow that's not part of the conversation.
The idea of a right to healthcare, as notably defended by Bernie Sanders, is about individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it.
What if enough of a particular treatment doesn't exist for everyone? It's not a right it's a privilege. I don't care what Bernie Sanders calls it, you don't have the right to just walk in and receive treatment, because the doctor can refuse. The government attempts to ENSURE that you will receive treatment, so it's a privilege given by the government, or in other words the government takes on the obligation of ensuring your healthcare... still not a right.
At no point does the healthcare provider get his rights violated - he will get paid either by the individual or the government -, just like the right to counsel does not violate the rights of lawyers.
The right to counsel is a conditional right. The government HAS to provide a lawyer in order to be able to legally arrest you.
There's no viable analogy here. If it was the government that got people sick, then it would make sense that the government had to provide you with health-care, but that's not the case.
See, that's you still not paying attention (or deliberately avoiding) what I'm saying and the point of the analogy. The analogy was not about the ones who benefit from the right, it was about the rights of the providers not being violated. Lawyers don't see their rights violated by a right to counsel just like healthcare providers would not see their rights violated by a right to healthcare as we defined it (NOT as you did with your straw man).
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: My entire stance against public health-care is based on HOW it's being paid for, and you try to ignore this.
I'm ignoring this because that is a different argument to the one I was responding to (the rights of healthcare providers being violated). You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the two, but that's no reason for me to allow you to hijack the discussion by meshing the two.
It's not a different issue, because once you realize that health-care can't be a RIGHT unless you're making it ok to violate other people's rights, you have to get into a discussion of whether it's worth to make health-care a government ensured privilege.
It is a different issue. The issue I'm discussing is the rights of the healthcare providers, which you claimed would be violated, a claim I showed was wrong. The issue you're trying to bring into the discussion is the issue of taxpayers' money being used to fund the right to healthcare. Although I also disagree with you on that issue, I have repeatedly said this was not what I was replying to you about. Get it through your head.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
My "statement" was a cheeky jab at Ron Paul's economic ideas and supporters, as indicated by the smiley face I added both times. It's of course based on the reality of the status of the Austrian school in modern economics, though. But trust Ron Paul supporters to get up in arms and provide me with a youtube link of an Austrian economist supporting Ron Paul ,-) Like koreasilver pointed out, he's praising his own relics.
On January 14 2012 02:18 Kiarip wrote: Well this will indeed be quite unfortunate as it will leave us with either Obama or one of the other Republicans.
What about Gary Johnson and other third party and independent candidates?
third party can't get into the debates
Really I thought some third party candidates do get to attend some debates. For instance the Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot in the 1990s, who received like 20% of the vote and split the Republican vote.
On January 13 2012 16:55 ryanAnger wrote: Okay, look. I'm going to explain this for everyone who doesn't seem to understand. This is what is going to happen:
1- Ron Paul gets the nomination. Close race between him and Obama, Paul will probably win because he steals most of Obamas base, because they all hate him now (ie, me.)
2- Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Ron Paul goes third party and takes 20% of Mitt's vote and about 10% of Obamas. Obama wins another 4.
Right now, those are the options. So the question is not whether you want Mitt or Newt or Rick or Jon or whomever as President, because it's just not going to happen. The question is whether you prefer Ron Paul or Obama.
There is absolutely no way that 20% of the republican base would prefer to vote for Paul than to vote against Obama. Their goal is to beat Obama, even if they have to vote for Romney. They won't risk wasting their vote.
The republican caucus is a different matter entirely than the general election. But nice try with the Paul electioneering Unfortunately I'm afraid that Obama will win regardless of his poll numbers. Romney just doesn't inspire or motivate anyone to action.
This isn't true. I think you're confusing the GOP establishment with the GOP base. Most Republican voters in the primaries thus far are mostly concerned about the economy, and not so much about getting Obama out.
On January 13 2012 16:55 ryanAnger wrote: Okay, look. I'm going to explain this for everyone who doesn't seem to understand. This is what is going to happen:
1- Ron Paul gets the nomination. Close race between him and Obama, Paul will probably win because he steals most of Obamas base, because they all hate him now (ie, me.)
2- Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Ron Paul goes third party and takes 20% of Mitt's vote and about 10% of Obamas. Obama wins another 4.
Right now, those are the options. So the question is not whether you want Mitt or Newt or Rick or Jon or whomever as President, because it's just not going to happen. The question is whether you prefer Ron Paul or Obama.
There is absolutely no way that 20% of the republican base would prefer to vote for Paul than to vote against Obama. Their goal is to beat Obama, even if they have to vote for Romney. They won't risk wasting their vote.
The republican caucus is a different matter entirely than the general election. But nice try with the Paul electioneering Unfortunately I'm afraid that Obama will win regardless of his poll numbers. Romney just doesn't inspire or motivate anyone to action.
This isn't true. I think you're confusing the GOP establishment with the GOP base. Most Republican voters in the primaries thus far are mostly concerned about the economy, and not so much about getting Obama out.
Not just the economy, but JOBS seem to be really what are on people's minds, and jobs are one of the many things Obama has destroyed, along with the Constitution.
On January 14 2012 02:18 Kiarip wrote: Well this will indeed be quite unfortunate as it will leave us with either Obama or one of the other Republicans.
What about Gary Johnson and other third party and independent candidates?
third party can't get into the debates
Really I thought some third party candidates do get to attend some debates. For instance the Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot in the 1990s, who received like 20% of the vote and split the Republican vote.
Perot is a good example (although he also shows that you need basically unlimited personal wealth to run a major campaign if you're not one of the major party nominees), but just fyi:
...the impact of Mr. Perot's supporters on the campaign's outcome appears to have been minimal. If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush.
On January 14 2012 02:18 Kiarip wrote: Well this will indeed be quite unfortunate as it will leave us with either Obama or one of the other Republicans.
What about Gary Johnson and other third party and independent candidates?
third party can't get into the debates
Really I thought some third party candidates do get to attend some debates. For instance the Reform Party candidate, Ross Perot in the 1990s, who received like 20% of the vote and split the Republican vote.
Perot is a good example (although he also shows that you need basically unlimited personal wealth to run a major campaign if you're not one of the major party nominees), but just fyi:
...the impact of Mr. Perot's supporters on the campaign's outcome appears to have been minimal. If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush.
Oh that's interesting, I was always under the impression he's the reason the Republicans lost, especially since Mr. Perot and the Reform Party are (or at least were) anything but socialist/modern liberal. Thanks for pointing that out.
On January 13 2012 23:59 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh So, how many times have I destroyed you in debates? 4? I still don't understand why you support our warmongering foreign policy which is pretty terrible.
To be honest you do not act very mature or like someone who has heard anything about any other candidtes from other sources than those approved by Evangelical Paulists. What I see in your "debates" with aksfjh is you strawmanning everything he says and adding a random Paul-video to boot.
As an outsider who would not rule Pauls ideas out on principle, I am getting to agree more and more with aksfjhs assesment about some of the people supporting Paul being too zealous and blind to any potential problems in what he says.
Sorry If I came off too strong. aksfjh has already said how much he dislikes Paul because he supports Obama. This makes us clash a lot in this forum. Not only that but, he supports American Imperialism which most people from the anti-war movement hate. I'm a part of that group and I don't agree with our foreign policy of being bullies to our neighboring countrymen. I think we should have a more humble approach in our foreign policy like the Swiss...Don't ya think?
Again, as far as I have read he does not particularly side with Obama, but is an independent who does not see many real options in the republican choices. American imperialism seems more like the rethoric of the rest of the republican choices rather than Obama. If you really are for imperialism, Obama cutting the military bases in europe would be completely unacceptable.
Swiss is a very special case in it being surrounded by mountains and having relatively civilized neighbors. It has been common knowledge in europe that Swiss has been living off their banking-secrecy quite a bit economically and thus again being a very special case.
As for my opinion on war: I see it as necessary to keep the deals you have already made. Specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan there are several obstacles. Afghanistan is showing signs leading experts to believe Al Quaeda is preparing for an attack as soon as foreign troops leave the country, while soldiers in Iraq are there to train soldiers and police before leaving to avoid too much of a vacuum. I find those things necessary anti-war or not. As for Asian and oceanian military bases I am not so sure about which are necessary.
1. It seems odd to me to think terrorist will attack from Afghanistan. They can spread trough other parts of the world where the US is not so present and engineer their attack from there. So they have more free space and time to develop their attacks.
Going and occupy Iraq... come on... you keep it stable while you are there, but after you leave you create a huge power vacuum... Look at Iraq...soon to be a massive civile war between the sunnis and the shiites... but then again the sunnis have been promised weapons from us paying for them like 5 billion dollars.. what will happen from this? Will the sunnis ally with Iran who is a direct threat to most of us ( altho I believe they can be easily neutralized ) and kill the shiites .. ?
Go in unstable place => stabilize the place => leave => make it worse than it was in the first place ... The simple idea is , you can make a better world idealy, but you don't have the resources ... That's my take on it...noob take... but still I guess it's not disconnected from reality...
Your take seems entirely reasonable. Nobody can predict the future. That would be unfair for us mere mortals.
Your assumption is based on the leaving being the problem? That does not allign well with mr. Pauls political visions as far as I know.
Sorry for being unclear on why I have these opinions: The fear is not an attack on other countries, but a new take-over of Afghanistan from the area around the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan lead by Taliban and supported by Al Quaeda. If that happens the war that Bush started is made totally meaningless rather than a controversial decision. Iraq is still in a very unstable situation, I agree. Pulling troops might cause your fears to come true. As long as international troops are present I do not believe Iran is stupid enough to attack and get the international society on their back. If it was only US troops. it is still very unlikely. If no foreign forces are present I think they could cause a reason for invading Iraq to "free their opressed brothers and sisters in faith"... The question then become: Is it time to invade Iran? I would say no, for many reasons. Attacking an isolated and desperate atomic power seems unreasonable at the moment.
On January 14 2012 01:53 bOneSeven wrote:1. It seems odd to me to think terrorist will attack from Afghanistan. They can spread trough other parts of the world where the US is not so present and engineer their attack from there. So they have more free space and time to develop their attacks.
You do realise that Afghanistan has nearly no existing government right?
Which is why it was invaded. It was bound to become a breeding ground for terrorism due to the Taliban government and how completly off the grid the country was.
Going and occupy Iraq... come on... you keep it stable while you are there, but after you leave you create a huge power vacuum... Look at Iraq...soon to be a massive civile war between the sunnis and the shiites... but then again the sunnis have been promised weapons from us paying for them like 5 billion dollars.. what will happen from this? Will the sunnis ally with Iran who is a direct threat to most of us ( altho I believe they can be easily neutralized ) and kill the shiites .. ?
What are you talking about?
On the one hand you suggest that there is going to be a civil war between Sunni and Shia muslims in Iraq. Nothing even remotely suggests that his is going to happen, but let's accept that you believe that it will.
Then you suggest that the Sunni muslims are going to work together with Iran...Which is a Shia majority country.
So you believe that the sunni minority in Iraq is going to ally with the Shia majority of Iran to work together to kill the Shia majority in Iraq. Do you seriously believe this? Because you very well might be the only person in the world that actually considers that a likely scenario.
Go in unstable place => stabilize the place => leave => make it worse than it was in the first place ... The simple idea is , you can make a better world idealy, but you don't have the resources ... That's my take on it...noob take... but still I guess it's not disconnected from reality...
Iraq's economy is on the rise. The people are receiving a greater part of the oil profits then they did under Saddam. Human rights violations are down insanely since the defeat of Saddam. Iraq now has a functional democracy.
Iraq is by all accounts, far better off then it ever was under the rule of Saddam. Whether you approach it from an ethical standpoint or a practical standpoint, Iraq has improved since the removal of Saddam.
Yes I knew that Afghanistan is a bunch of tribes with warlord without government, but do you even know the meaning of the word Taliban? It merely means student.
About the Iraq, haven't done much research lately, this what it seemed to be happening right after the US troops left Iraq, I guess we will see for sure what happens in the next couple months. About Saddam, I've allways been suspicious, he has done terrible things to iraq people all the time, yet after he wanted to change the economic system, he became a "Hitler" figure so, idk, everytime the US goes into a place and invades it it's under some economic interests. There has been the idea of going there stabilizing, making democracy and what not, but only when some special interest came about, the US went in Iraq. Also the US has gain almost nothing from Iraq so it's a 4$trillion spent on , if what you say is true, helping stabilize a fucked up country and making huge spendings which didn't proffit the american people who paid for the war..
Again, my noob view, but still trying to contribute with whatever I can...Even tho I make retard remarks most of the times..you can easily evolve ideas by seeing if these stupid ideas have any real basis, or something useful in the future rather than just tossing them out the window because it doesn't fit your paradigm or whatever..
On January 14 2012 00:08 kwizach wrote: [quote] People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
And as for why there's a revival of Keynesianism? What do you mean revival? lol. It's always been here, and the reason it's always been here is because it justifies the government's intervention in everything, and justifies increased government power by funding it with government spending...
It's very easy for the people in the government to say yes to Keynesianism, and no to Austrian theory, because Austrian theory effectively argues for limited government by minimizing its budget.
But Keynesianism has always been here as the guiding principle for the government, and look where we're at now? lol
What lol?
Austrian economic policy won't actually prevent crises. Crises are an inherent part of the system, and you can't objectively claim that a different approach would have led to a better outcome. The fact is that the current crisis goes much deeper then government overspending, it is instead the result of structural imbalances in the world economic system.
I can't wait for Paul to drop out tho, maybe this thread will become readable again instead of talk show hosts with the IQ of a monkey trying to explain economic policy in garbage youtube clips. He'll finish maybe 3rd in NC, won't participate in Florida and after that I'm guessing its lights out.
Keynesian economics are directly responsible for both the Great Depression and the current economic collapse.
That's interesting considering Keynes' "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" wasn't published until 1936. Of course you might be trolling (I've certainly suspected other recent posters to be doing that) and I just didn't catch it.
Honestly by now I hope Ron Paul just drops out so some actual discussion of the election can resume.
It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them).
Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush
Ah, here comes Kiarip with his brilliant rebuttals again. Do explain yourself, I'm sure you have pearls of wisdom to share regarding why Dodd-Frank is not a step in the right direction. By the way, I take your failure to reply to my previous post as an acknowledgment that you were, indeed, wrong regarding the individual rights of the healthcare providers being violated by a right to healthcare.
Um no I replied to it.
Um no you didn't. The last post in our exchange is this one, which I wrote and to which you did not reply.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: You are arguing a strawman the whole way through.
No, I'm not. You, on the other hand, are about to straw man the shit out of the idea of a right to healthcare. Let's see...
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: My original post clearly said:
The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is different than the government having an obligation to provide health-care.
If someone has a right to health-care, it means they can receive it at any time regardless of whether they or anyone else is paying the health-care giver.
And BAM, there you go - straw man. The idea of a right to healthcare (which, in this discussion, was put forward by Bernie Sanders in the video I linked to) is NOT what you just described.
No it was brought forward by Derez saying that people can vote to decide that people can have a right to get health-care I wasn't responding to you when I first made that statement.
If you want to define a RIGHT differently, then that's fine, however, "a right" already has a definition, as long as the doctor has the right to refuse service, or a company has the right to not sell you or the government the drugs, it can't be a right, it is only a privilege that is ensured by the government.
No, both Derez and Biff The Understudy referred to the same idea of a right to healthcare that Bernie Sanders put forward and that I defined again for you: "individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it." At NO POINT has ANYONE argued the straw man that you keep trying to push forward (and that Rand Paul also tried to use against Bernie Sanders), namely that a right to healthcare would mean that random unwilling doctors could be forced to treat patients because the said patients invoked their right to healthcare against them. I repeat: this is NOT how Derez, Biff The Understudy, Bernie Sanders and myself define the idea of a right to healthcare. This is why you're the one who's been using a straw man from the start and why your claim that a right to healthcare "would violate the rights of the healthcare providers" is plain wrong.
You're using a confusing definition, in this case you're simply arguing semantics, so ok.
See? This is by definition a straw man - you are misrepresenting the idea in question to create the illusion that you easily addressed and refuted it, when in reality your argument did not address the said idea at all.
Ummm... no, you're arguing using a complex question, you're assuming that health-care is a right, and then you are asking me how this right is violating the health-givers' rights? Well it's not, but that's because it's NOT a right. Of course the government trying to guarantee health-care socializes a lot of the unneeded expenses, but somehow that's not part of the conversation. See above.
The idea of a right to healthcare, as notably defended by Bernie Sanders, is about individuals having access to treatment because the government has to guarantee their access to treatment. If people can't afford it, the government still has to make sure they have access to it.
What if enough of a particular treatment doesn't exist for everyone? It's not a right it's a privilege. I don't care what Bernie Sanders calls it, you don't have the right to just walk in and receive treatment, because the doctor can refuse. The government attempts to ENSURE that you will receive treatment, so it's a privilege given by the government, or in other words the government takes on the obligation of ensuring your healthcare... still not a right.
At no point does the healthcare provider get his rights violated - he will get paid either by the individual or the government -, just like the right to counsel does not violate the rights of lawyers.
The right to counsel is a conditional right. The government HAS to provide a lawyer in order to be able to legally arrest you.
There's no viable analogy here. If it was the government that got people sick, then it would make sense that the government had to provide you with health-care, but that's not the case.
See, that's you still not paying attention (or deliberately avoiding) what I'm saying and the point of the analogy. The analogy was not about the ones who benefit from the right, it was about the rights of the providers not being violated. Lawyers don't see their rights violated by a right to counsel just like healthcare providers would not see their rights violated by a right to healthcare as we defined it (NOT as you did with your straw man).
No it's still different. Right to counsel is a right in the sense that you can't be arrested if the government can't give you a lawyer, so it's a right that protects you from being arrested unless a lawyer is provided, so it's a right because it CAN be guaranteed, because you simply can't be detained if for whatever reason the government can't provide you with a lawyer, so the analogy isn't correct because right to counsel is a right.
"Right to health-care" isn't a right it's a privilege. I don't care whether you or Bernie Sanders or anyone calls it, it's not a right the way you guys are defining it.
On January 09 2012 02:51 Kiarip wrote: My entire stance against public health-care is based on HOW it's being paid for, and you try to ignore this.
I'm ignoring this because that is a different argument to the one I was responding to (the rights of healthcare providers being violated). You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the difference between the two, but that's no reason for me to allow you to hijack the discussion by meshing the two.
It's not a different issue, because once you realize that health-care can't be a RIGHT unless you're making it ok to violate other people's rights, you have to get into a discussion of whether it's worth to make health-care a government ensured privilege.
It is a different issue. The issue I'm discussing is the rights of the healthcare providers, which you claimed would be violated, a claim I showed was wrong. The issue you're trying to bring into the discussion is the issue of taxpayers' money being used to fund the right to healthcare. Although I also disagree with you on that issue, I have repeatedly said this was not what I was replying to you about. Get it through your head.
It's different in the sense that yes rights aren't being violated, but it's not an unrelated issue however because you have to admit that it's a government ensured privilege, and not a right, so the actual costs are very relevant.
On January 13 2012 22:54 Focuspants wrote: [quote]
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
My "statement" was a cheeky jab at Ron Paul's economic ideas and supporters, as indicated by the smiley face I added both times. It's of course based on the reality of the status of the Austrian school in modern economics, though. But trust Ron Paul supporters to get up in arms and provide me with a youtube link of an Austrian economist supporting Ron Paul ,-) Like koreasilver pointed out, he's praising his own relics.
Of course the status of Austrian school is that it's disregarded... why would any government want to support a school of economic thought that tries to promote limiting the government's budget and intervention?
On January 14 2012 00:16 AcuWill wrote: [quote] All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
And as for why there's a revival of Keynesianism? What do you mean revival? lol. It's always been here, and the reason it's always been here is because it justifies the government's intervention in everything, and justifies increased government power by funding it with government spending...
It's very easy for the people in the government to say yes to Keynesianism, and no to Austrian theory, because Austrian theory effectively argues for limited government by minimizing its budget.
But Keynesianism has always been here as the guiding principle for the government, and look where we're at now? lol
What lol?
Austrian economic policy won't actually prevent crises. Crises are an inherent part of the system, and you can't objectively claim that a different approach would have led to a better outcome. The fact is that the current crisis goes much deeper then government overspending, it is instead the result of structural imbalances in the world economic system.
I can't wait for Paul to drop out tho, maybe this thread will become readable again instead of talk show hosts with the IQ of a monkey trying to explain economic policy in garbage youtube clips. He'll finish maybe 3rd in NC, won't participate in Florida and after that I'm guessing its lights out.
Keynesian economics are directly responsible for both the Great Depression and the current economic collapse.
That's interesting considering Keynes' "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" wasn't published until 1936. Of course you might be trolling (I've certainly suspected other recent posters to be doing that) and I just didn't catch it.
Honestly by now I hope Ron Paul just drops out so some actual discussion of the election can resume.
Just because Keynes didn't release his book at the time, doesn't mean that similar ideas and policies weren't being implemented beforehand. In fact far from being a economic non-interventionist, president Hoover meddled in the economy and attempted to enforce failed big government policies and government control of the markets. Even the famous objectivist, Ayn Rand, voted for FDR in order to get Hoover out of office.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
And as for why there's a revival of Keynesianism? What do you mean revival? lol. It's always been here, and the reason it's always been here is because it justifies the government's intervention in everything, and justifies increased government power by funding it with government spending...
It's very easy for the people in the government to say yes to Keynesianism, and no to Austrian theory, because Austrian theory effectively argues for limited government by minimizing its budget.
But Keynesianism has always been here as the guiding principle for the government, and look where we're at now? lol
This is an example of correlation does not imply causation. The USA uses Keynesian economic principles, and is in a recession. The logic does not follow that Keynesian economic principles caused the recession. Perhaps the use of expansionary monetary policy exacerbated the housing bubble, but if you look at monetary policy at the time, the Federal Reserve wasn't even undertaking aggressive QE.
The current revival of Keynesian thought has mostly been focused around Market Monetary Theory (MMT), which is government targeted growth rates, and artificially hitting those targets through monetary devices. The target that is usually batted around is 5%. So if the American economy shrinks by 2%, a 7% expansion of the money supply would make up the shortfall. This allows industry and government to have stable expectations. I'm not really sure what I personally feel on the matter, I think that the system sounds solid in autarky, but would have considerably less effectiveness in the real world.
My problem with Austrian economics is it isn't based on reality. All of the criticisms for Austrianism (lack of market controls when many markets trend towards monopoly or "tragedy of the commons" type scenarios, increased inequality, no social safety net in case of negative shocks, etc.) are dismissed with reference to a market expectation that has never existed. It is not possible for people to have perfect information, and yet many examples I have read call for just that. It is not possible for markets to have free entry and exit, and yet I have seen examples that would require exactly that, the list goes on.
On January 14 2012 00:28 kwizach wrote: [quote] Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
So, tell me why we should keep propping up the debt? Doing that just makes its even worse....Does the 2008 housing crisis ring a bell?
I'm sorry, but "Austrian economist agrees that Ron Paul is right on the economy" is like the equivalent of "Catholic theologian agrees that Vatican is right on contraception".
doesn't refute the point that there ARE people have studied economics that will advise voting for Ron Paul
And in the same breathe, there are people that are professional economists that disagree with Ron Paul's economic views. It simply is not clear cut, and out of all the economically literate people I have seen on this forum, most of them have disagreed with "Austrian economics" for a slew of reasons.
Also, my post still retains the fact that providing such inane "proofs" is absolutely meaningless.
well that's the type of inane proof that kwizach's statement required.
And as for why there's a revival of Keynesianism? What do you mean revival? lol. It's always been here, and the reason it's always been here is because it justifies the government's intervention in everything, and justifies increased government power by funding it with government spending...
It's very easy for the people in the government to say yes to Keynesianism, and no to Austrian theory, because Austrian theory effectively argues for limited government by minimizing its budget.
But Keynesianism has always been here as the guiding principle for the government, and look where we're at now? lol
What lol?
Austrian economic policy won't actually prevent crises. Crises are an inherent part of the system, and you can't objectively claim that a different approach would have led to a better outcome. The fact is that the current crisis goes much deeper then government overspending, it is instead the result of structural imbalances in the world economic system.
I can't wait for Paul to drop out tho, maybe this thread will become readable again instead of talk show hosts with the IQ of a monkey trying to explain economic policy in garbage youtube clips. He'll finish maybe 3rd in NC, won't participate in Florida and after that I'm guessing its lights out.
Keynesian economics are directly responsible for both the Great Depression and the current economic collapse.
That's interesting considering Keynes' "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" wasn't published until 1936. Of course you might be trolling (I've certainly suspected other recent posters to be doing that) and I just didn't catch it.
Honestly by now I hope Ron Paul just drops out so some actual discussion of the election can resume.
Just because Keynes didn't release his book at the time, doesn't mean that similar ideas and policies weren't being implemented beforehand. In fact far from being a economic non-interventionist, president Hoover meddled in the economy and attempted to enforce failed big government policies and government control of the markets. Even the famous objectivist, Ayn Rand, voted for FDR in order to get Hoover out of office.
From his wikipedia page:
Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs.[43] However, Hoover did pursue many policies in an attempt to pull the country out of depression. In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program to combat rampant unemployment, reduce the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs. The program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico, and continued until 1937. In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover signed into law the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[44]
Sound familiar? By the time he enacted anything that could be considered Keynesian, people already labeled him a failure.
On January 14 2012 03:13 bOneSeven wrote:Yes I knew that Afghanistan is a bunch of tribes with warlord without government, but do you even know the meaning of the word Taliban? It merely means student.
Yeah it means student. I also know they choose that name because the majority of it's initial members were recruits from the madrassas where most afghanistani youth got their "eduction" post USSR invasion.
The fact that they call themselves student doesn't mean anything. A name is just a name. North-Korea still calls itself a democracy. You need to judge a book by it's content, not it's cover.
The taliban put in place a horrible regime of religious totalitarianism. That in itself wasn't even bad enough to demand action. Afghanistan was it's own little world. They didn't care for the outside world, the outside world hardly cared for them.
Then they made their first step onto the world stage by more or less hanging a sign after 9/11 that said "terrorist shelter here".
The US had to step in or Afghanistan was going to become a breeding ground for terrorism. After 9/11 a lot of people got the idea that they could defeat the USA via terrorism and Afghanistan appeared perfect. Off-grid, mountainous as all hell and a regime that actively welcomed it.
Had they kept to themselves then the Taliban could still be keeping little girls from going to school.
About the Iraq, haven't done much research lately, this what it seemed to be happening right after the US troops left Iraq, I guess we will see for sure what happens in the next couple months. About Saddam, I've allways been suspicious, he has done terrible things to iraq people all the time, yet after he wanted to change the economic system, he became a "Hitler" figure so, idk, everytime the US goes into a place and invades it it's under some economic interests. There has been the idea of going there stabilizing, making democracy and what not, but only when some special interest came about, the US went in Iraq. Also the US has gain almost nothing from Iraq so it's a 4$trillion spent on , if what you say is true, helping stabilize a fucked up country and making huge spendings which didn't proffit the american people who paid for the war..
Saddam became an unwelcome sight after his Kuwait invasion. His relation with the west went south as he failed to defeat Iran but his invasion of Kuwait sealed his fate. In my opinion he should have been taken out right then and there. The west made the mistake of believing that his regime was so weak that it would fall on it's own, we were wrong and Iraq sufferd many more years then it should have.
In my opinion Saddam was a relic of real-politik. A cold and calculating political view which is in my opinion responsible for many of the problems we have today. It's not very popular anymore, understandable since we are still cleaning up the mess.
The west should never have embraced Saddam the way that it did, but the fact is we did. It's a mistake that we have finally corrected. It's late rather then never but sometimes that is the best you can do.
EPT
Unfortunately I'm afraid that Obama will win regardless of his poll numbers. Romney just doesn't inspire or motivate anyone to action.
