| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On January 24 2012 15:51 BlackJack wrote: I've always thought that if you're pro-life you should be pro-life in ALL circumstances, including rape. Not to mention, when the woman's life is in danger. | ||
|
farside604
Canada127 Posts
On January 24 2012 15:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I can't believe that absolutist positions these candidaties are forced to take when pandering to conservative voters. | ||
|
Raambo11
United States828 Posts
Just as a viewer its hard to think that even a minority of viewers understand what hes talking about when he says stuff like that. I guess I can understand why people like him slashing the budget so much as we are the generation who will have to bear the burden of staggering debt, but other than that please enlighten me as to why hes so popular. (Not for or against Ron Paul just curious) | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:30 Raambo11 wrote: I'm always so amazed at how many young people support Ron Paul, so for any of you more ambitious posters why do so many people like him so much? When I watch him in debates he is much less articulate than any of the other candidates, and he goes off on tangents about the federal reserve, sound money etc. Just as a viewer its hard to think that even a minority of viewers understand what hes talking about when he says stuff like that. I guess I can understand why people like him slashing the budget so much as we are the generation who will have to bear the burden of staggering debt, but other than that please enlighten me as to why hes so popular. (Not for or against Ron Paul just curious) It's all a question about trust, and right now, young people trust Ron Paul more. Paul has had the same kind of views over the world as the young generation has, war is bad, the economy is going to shit more if we don't do anything about it and getting into jail for possessing an illegal but fairly harmless drug is bad from the get go. If you take into consideration these shared views, it does not matter whether or not the candidate is articulate about them. The audience isn't expected to neccesarily understand the issues at hand, just to trust the candidate that he does know and can fix them. People in the general sense know very little about how a state is run, pretty much everywhere on the world. Everyone in one way or another has the view that the country is going in the wrong direction. But if you make the listeners understand that he or she knows about the issues at hand very well, and his information has been proven to be non-hypocritical and non-deceptive, people give that guy a certain amount of support. This is how people like Napoleon have risen to power. He showed that a democratic state for the people could work in America, so it must work in France as well. This way he gathered up a lot of followers to run rampant over the monarchy and make a democratic state for the people. Modern day politics works just like that, with politicians gaining trust from the people that he is on their side and as such will act according to how they would act. And this is how politics will continiue to work unless a lot of information is leaked to the public and they no longer believe in the omnipotency of these candidates. Because the state in terms of economics, education and whatever field is not transparent, we are forced to wait for 'leaks' of credible information to give us a second or third perspective on how things are actually done. This is the exact reason why 'Conspiracy Theorists' exist. They have lost ALL trust in the state and therefore have to rely on information that has been given to them through credible sources from either their fellow conspiracy theorist or a free news agency. If you are even mentioned in the same sentence as the word state those people will no longer believe you, simple as that. People have been steadily losing trust in how America has run a long time since a long time ago, helped by the freedom of information sharing on the internet. With the 'credible' information leaked by sources such as Wikileaks and others, people have to look for vastly different views of how to run America. And as it turns out, Ron Paul has stood the test of time for being the most credible. Whether he is right or wrong does not matter, credibility is all that matters in politics and power over the people. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
In a conference call with reporters, Brad Malt, Romney’s trustee, called the Swiss account “fully legal, fully disclosed” but said it was closed in early 2010. He added: “The income earned on that account is taxed just as any other domestic or other bank account owned by the blind trust.” Pages and pages are devoted to foreign entities in which Romney is invested. Many are located in places like Luxembourg, Ireland and the Cayman Islands, all famous tax havens. None shows much income. “These entities are not evading one dime of taxes,” Malt said. Monday’s disclosure marked the first time the former Massachusetts governor has released his personal tax returns. Though Romney has relied on his wealth to finance his political career, he did not disclose his tax returns in his three prior campaigns — not even in the 1994 Senate race, when he blasted Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) for failing to release his own taxes. This time, Romney had hoped to keep the details of his finances under wraps until he won his party’s nomination. But over the past week, as even his Republican rivals raised questions about whether he had something to hide, he concluded that the political cost of secrecy had grown too great. Source | ||
|
Corvette
United States433 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:48 Chaosvuistje wrote: It's all a question about trust, and right now, young people trust Ron Paul more. Paul has had the same kind of views over the world as the young generation has, war is bad, the economy is going to shit more if we don't do anything about it and getting into jail for possessing an illegal but fairly harmless drug is bad from the get go. If you take into consideration these shared views, it does not matter whether or not the candidate is articulate about them. The audience isn't expected to neccesarily understand the issues at hand, just to trust the candidate that he does know and can fix them. People in the general sense know very little about how a state is run, pretty much everywhere on the world. Everyone in one way or another has the view that the country is going in the wrong direction. But if you make the listeners understand that he or she knows about the issues at hand very well, and his information has been proven to be non-hypocritical and non-deceptive, people give that guy a certain amount of support. This is how people like Napoleon have risen to power. He showed that a democratic state for the people could work in America, so it must work in France as well. This way he gathered up a lot of followers to run rampant over the monarchy and make a democratic state for the people. Modern day politics works just like that, with politicians gaining trust from the people that he is on their side and as such will act according to how they would act. And this is how politics will continiue to work unless a lot of information is leaked to the public and they no longer believe in the omnipotency of these candidates. Because the state in terms of economics, education and whatever field is not transparent, we are forced to wait for 'leaks' of credible information to give us a second or third perspective on how things are actually done. This is the exact reason why 'Conspiracy Theorists' exist. They have lost ALL trust in the state and therefore have to rely on information that has been given to them through credible sources from either their fellow conspiracy theorist or a free news agency. If you are even mentioned in the same sentence as the word state those people will no longer believe you, simple as that. People have been steadily losing trust in how America has run a long time since a long time ago, helped by the freedom of information sharing on the internet. With the 'credible' information leaked by sources such as Wikileaks and others, people have to look for vastly different views of how to run America. And as it turns out, Ron Paul has stood the test of time for being the most credible. Whether he is right or wrong does not matter, credibility is all that matters in politics and power over the people. I think that's a little off. Conspiracies exist because people don't want to believe that things are so out of control. They believe that if they had the same power, they could pull off the things they believe in. For Paul, he hitches a ride on the human nature of all other politicians. His clear stances and unwavering from a set of ideals is attractive to those who believe the best person to take control of the nation if somebody we can trust. Even if we can only trust him to lead us down a path everybody else warns us about, at least he knows where he's going. That aspect is so enticing that it leads to other doors being opened. These young people learn about foreign and monetary policy for the first time through him. They attach those ideas to the obvious moral steadiness of Paul, and are persuaded that, even if some of it doesn't make sense, certainly he's not lying or misleading us. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 24 2012 15:58 Roe wrote: I know I'm being facetious here, but wouldn't that mean they couldn't eat meat or vegetables or plants? Those are alive right?  On a possibly more related issue, is killing OK in case of capital punishment in his opinion? | ||
|
Raambo11
United States828 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:48 Chaosvuistje wrote: It's all a question about trust, and right now, young people trust Ron Paul more. Paul has had the same kind of views over the world as the young generation has, war is bad, the economy is going to shit more if we don't do anything about it and getting into jail for possessing an illegal but fairly harmless drug is bad from the get go. If you take into consideration these shared views, it does not matter whether or not the candidate is articulate about them. The audience isn't expected to neccesarily understand the issues at hand, just to trust the candidate that he does know and can fix them. People in the general sense know very little about how a state is run, pretty much everywhere on the world. Everyone in one way or another has the view that the country is going in the wrong direction. But if you make the listeners understand that he or she knows about the issues at hand very well, and his information has been proven to be non-hypocritical and non-deceptive, people give that guy a certain amount of support. This is how people like Napoleon have risen to power. He showed that a democratic state for the people could work in America, so it must work in France as well. This way he gathered up a lot of followers to run rampant over the monarchy and make a democratic state for the people. Modern day politics works just like that, with politicians gaining trust from the people that he is on their side and as such will act according to how they would act. And this is how politics will continiue to work unless a lot of information is leaked to the public and they no longer believe in the omnipotency of these candidates. Because the state in terms of economics, education and whatever field is not transparent, we are forced to wait for 'leaks' of credible information to give us a second or third perspective on how things are actually done. This is the exact reason why 'Conspiracy Theorists' exist. They have lost ALL trust in the state and therefore have to rely on information that has been given to them through credible sources from either their fellow conspiracy theorist or a free news agency. If you are even mentioned in the same sentence as the word state those people will no longer believe you, simple as that. People have been steadily losing trust in how America has run a long time since a long time ago, helped by the freedom of information sharing on the internet. With the 'credible' information leaked by sources such as Wikileaks and others, people have to look for vastly different views of how to run America. And as it turns out, Ron Paul has stood the test of time for being the most credible. Whether he is right or wrong does not matter, credibility is all that matters in politics and power over the people. Haha props man I didn't expect to get such a fantastic response, and after reading it I completely agree with you. There have been signs for some time now (Occupy well street etc) people are sick of the establishment and political corruption that seems to permeate every project law etc. Your right, Ron Paul does provide a remarkably stark contrast to the likes of everyone else running, but I worry that people sometimes get behind him just for the sake of "rebellion," not in the literal sense but as sort of a backlash to the establishment. I was just talking to a friend the other day (who knows nothing about politics) and he said all the candidates were bad except Ron Paul, and I was completely baffled as to why? When Ron Paul first started running I thought he would never get any votes based on his economic policy. Everyone who knows a decent amount about austrian economics knows that following a credit expansion, there must be a credit de-leveraging to clean the system out. What this means is deflation, falling wages more unemployment, a steeper recession, until the system is cleansed and a new boom cycle (or expansionary phase) begins. Lets face it, this is the last thing ANYONE (young people included) would want to hear. I remember one question where Ron Paul was asked where should Americans expect to feel the pain, and when he answered with "why does there have to be pain" I kind of cringed inside, because he knows that it must stay bad or get worse before it gets better. I guess now I understand it a little bit more, people are less concerned over what his policies are than who he is, and who the other candidates are, I just think its fascinating how things like that work. I mean the reason I think Obama will be such a tough president to topple will be not because of his policies, what hes done, or anything like that, but because people genuinely like and admire him. He has what the typical american would see as the ideal family, and hes young etc. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
I don't see how Obama will not win if he makes taxation his priority in his campaign against Romney. All the OWSers will worship Obama like a god. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:28 farside604 wrote: I can't believe that absolutist positions these candidaties are forced to take when pandering to conservative voters. Which is an unfortunate flaw of the presidential system. Imagine the Republican Party can have not one, but several presidential candidates. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On January 24 2012 17:18 Sufficiency wrote: So apparently Romney's tax returns are finally published and this guy has several oversea accounts and derive most of his income through capital gains in order to avoid taxation - but at the same time, generously contributes to his church. I don't see how Obama will not win if he makes taxation his priority in his campaign against Romney. All the OWSers will worship Obama like a god. I fully expect Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich, especially Newt, to release ads asking how many jobs those offshore accounts created. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 24 2012 17:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I fully expect Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich, especially Newt, to release ads asking how many jobs those offshore accounts created. Yes and Gingrich wants to eliminate capital gains tax. That will only make Romney's offshore accounts even more loaded. What is Santorum's opinion on capital gains tax? Despite his retarded religious zeal, I still like him better than Gingrich. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 24 2012 17:26 Sufficiency wrote: Yes and Gingrich wants to eliminate capital gains tax. That will only make Romney's offshore accounts even more loaded. What is Santorum's opinion on capital gains tax? Despite his retarded religious zeal, I still like him better than Gingrich. Do you know how capital gains works...? Basically, instead of holding his investment capital overseas, an effective 0% capital gains tax would essentially allow Romney to import all of his earnings back to the U.S. at 0% (or close to it). His U.S. accounts would become loaded for free. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
To talk about foreign policy, the USA having such a ridiculous presence in other countries and being aggressive towards other countries such as Iran is unnecessary. We don't need to have an aggressive front to dissuade enemy hostilities, and in fact, I would say this is what causes most of our problems with other countries. That being our need to feel like the world police. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a good foreign policy (in my opinion) and realizes that we don't need to have this "the best defense is a good offense" mentality that keeps us oversees wasting retarded amounts of money. When you look at the other candidates just see how they talk about Iran, hell, I believe Santorum was quoted as saying he would straight up bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Onto unrealistic expectations. Another worthless expenditure is the war on drugs. It's a complete waste of money, and I literally agree with every one of Ron Paul's arguments about it. We as people should be free to make our own choices assuming they don't harm anyone else. Taking drugs should be a public health issue not a criminal issue. The truth is legalizing drugs would probably stabilize Mexico's actual war with drug cartels while reducing our prison population and create more revenue. There is literally so many reasons why the war on drugs is bullshit I could write an essay on it off the top of my head. The same kind of stuff is with issues like immigration, gay rights, etc. If something is fair and more efficient then why would we choose a less fair, less efficient way of doing it? While I disagree with Paul putting something like gay rights in states hands, and I disagree with him being pro life I think those are lesser issues, and I believe he articulates his point of view rationally enough, I just think he draws an emotional conclusion on abortion due to his experience as a doctor. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 24 2012 17:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Well, to expand on the Ron Paul sentiments, I am not sure if this is commonly held but some of my biggest issues with any politician is a shitty foreign policy and unrealistic goals that seem to pander to public opinion. To talk about foreign policy, the USA having such a ridiculous presence in other countries and being aggressive towards other countries such as Iran is unnecessary. We don't need to have an aggressive front to dissuade enemy hostilities, and in fact, I would say this is what causes most of our problems with other countries. That being our need to feel like the world police. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a good foreign policy (in my opinion) and realizes that we don't need to have this "the best defense is a good offense" mentality that keeps us oversees wasting retarded amounts of money. When you look at the other candidates just see how they talk about Iran, hell, I believe Santorum was quoted as saying he would straight up bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Onto unrealistic expectations. Another worthless expenditure is the war on drugs. It's a complete waste of money, and I literally agree with every one of Ron Paul's arguments about it. We as people should be free to make our own choices assuming they don't harm anyone else. Taking drugs should be a public health issue not a criminal issue. The truth is legalizing drugs would probably stabilize Mexico's actual war with drug cartels while reducing our prison population and create more revenue. There is literally so many reasons why the war on drugs is bullshit I could write an essay on it off the top of my head. The same kind of stuff is with issues like immigration, gay rights, etc. If something is fair and more efficient then why would we choose a less fair, less efficient way of doing it? While I disagree with Paul putting something like gay rights in states hands, and I disagree with him being pro life I think those are lesser issues, and I believe he articulates his point of view rationally enough, I just think he draws an emotional conclusion on abortion due to his experience as a doctor. Here's the problem. You buy into the BS that's been fed to you time after time by supporters and propaganda machines. He has a foreign policy that is easy to understand and sell. "Keep us out of it!" It makes sense at an initial glance. If you were a country and born yesterday, you would understandably want to keep to yourself in most situations. The problem occurs when you enter the dynamics the U.S. is already involved in. There are countries and regions that rely on the U.S. heavily as a local, deterrent force. So much so that even the threat of a quick withdrawal could cause instability in the region, hurting U.S. trade and other, seemingly disjointed, regions. As for the war on drugs, there are other social arguments which deal with a perpetuality in poor communities in which drug abuse is a problem. Of course, this doesn't justify locking up people for decades due to infractions, but the solution isn't necessarily a complete disregard for drug use and abuse. Drug law reform should be a priority, but just that, a reform, much like what happened to welfare in the 90s. A serious look should be given to drugs, their legality, and penalties associated with them, but a universal legalization would likely hurt everybody more than you think. These are complex subjects that Ron Paul goes at with a sledge hammer. Seemingly devoid of a compromising nature, he would likely cause great distress in the pursuit of these ideals. At the very least, his supporters should understand that policies should come in shades of grey, and in the long run, policies should lean in directions and not swerve. | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
Romney's tax returns http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1225247.html | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On January 24 2012 17:47 aksfjh wrote: Here's the problem. You buy into the BS that's been fed to you time after time by supporters and propaganda machines. He has a foreign policy that is easy to understand and sell. "Keep us out of it!" It makes sense at an initial glance. If you were a country and born yesterday, you would understandably want to keep to yourself in most situations. The problem occurs when you enter the dynamics the U.S. is already involved in. There are countries and regions that rely on the U.S. heavily as a local, deterrent force. So much so that even the threat of a quick withdrawal could cause instability in the region, hurting U.S. trade and other, seemingly disjointed, regions. As for the war on drugs, there are other social arguments which deal with a perpetuality in poor communities in which drug abuse is a problem. Of course, this doesn't justify locking up people for decades due to infractions, but the solution isn't necessarily a complete disregard for drug use and abuse. Drug law reform should be a priority, but just that, a reform, much like what happened to welfare in the 90s. A serious look should be given to drugs, their legality, and penalties associated with them, but a universal legalization would likely hurt everybody more than you think. These are complex subjects that Ron Paul goes at with a sledge hammer. Seemingly devoid of a compromising nature, he would likely cause great distress in the pursuit of these ideals. At the very least, his supporters should understand that policies should come in shades of grey, and in the long run, policies should lean in directions and not swerve. Exactly. Ron Paul's foreign policy cannot be taken seriously. On a different note, I have this tingling feeling that Gingrich wants the annexation of Cuba or something like that. | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
On January 24 2012 17:09 aksfjh wrote: I think that's a little off. Conspiracies exist because people don't want to believe that things are so out of control. They believe that if they had the same power, they could pull off the things they believe in. Let's get us some definitions what conspiracy entails, taken from thefreedictionary.com: conspiracy [kənˈspɪrəsɪ] n pl -cies 1. a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmful act, esp with political motivation; plot 2. the act of making such plans in secret and the same for conspiracy theory: conspiracy theory n the belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied. Those that believe conspiracy theories believe that the organization ( aka the U.S. in this case ) is responsible for creating certain situations. This essentially means that those that believe in conspiracy theories inheritly do not believe a thing that organization is saying because they believe it is all staged anyway. Ergo, the organization cannot, in any way shape or form, persuade the conspiracy theorist to be false. This argument is strengthened by the fact that according to the definition by thefreedictionary, if involvements in those actions are denied, it strengthens the conspiracy theorists' belief that they are lying. This is the very reason why conspiracy theorists seem so stubborn and crazy, because they de facto believe that the organization is lying, even if a truth is presented to them through the organization. Which is why they are easy to be made uncredible through saying that they are crazy. Let's get into an example: the Roswell incident. Many people believe that the goverment is holding back aliens in a hidden militairy base. They have believed for ages that the government is lying about the alien situation, so even when they were presented with the documents that entailed exactly what happened by the government, because it didn't click to their truths of the reality, they resorted to going back to saying that the government is STILL lying and holding back information. This situation is unstoppable by default, because the people want information that only the government has have no smidge of trust in the government. Even if they were presented with all the evidence that the government has, they would still resort to the 'they're lying card'. This is why they believe eye-witnesses that aren't part of the government anymore but tell the tale of aliens crashing there, because they aren't under control of the government. Roswell, Loch Ness, Sasquatch or the Chupa Cabra, these will always be conspiracy theories because there is no way to debunk them in the face of radical believers in such myths. Conspiracy theorists don't necessarily believe that they would do better, by definition they simply don't believe the words of the organization in question. That is all there is to it. On January 24 2012 17:09 aksfjh wrote: For Paul, he hitches a ride on the human nature of all other politicians. His clear stances and unwavering from a set of ideals is attractive to those who believe the best person to take control of the nation if somebody we can trust. Even if we can only trust him to lead us down a path everybody else warns us about, at least he knows where he's going. That aspect is so enticing that it leads to other doors being opened. These young people learn about foreign and monetary policy for the first time through him. They attach those ideas to the obvious moral steadiness of Paul, and are persuaded that, even if some of it doesn't make sense, certainly he's not lying or misleading us. I fail to see how this doesn't correlate to my view of trust. Ron Paul's views coincide with what most of the young people believe, while Napoleon's views coincided with those that the french people believed back then. Ron Paul tells the young people about things they had no idea about: Foreign policy in other countries/empires , Monetary policies and Austrian economics, I mean there are tons of video's out there that show how Ron Paul knew about major crashes long before they were happening. Right now he has only been right, this gives him an ENORMOUS credibility in this field to young people that do not know other candidates stances on economy much. To give you a sense of what predictions I am talking about, here's a video among them: People can relate to these predictions and simply note that 'gasp! he was right all along!'. As such, they will believe what he says about the future. Napoleon told the people of France that democracy, a state run by the people and not by kings, was working in another part of the world. People hated the monarchs rule for quite a while and naturally assumed Napoleon's views that the people can run a state to be true. As such, this gave him enormous credibility to stand by the views of the people and was able to promote such a following that he overthrew those monarchs that symbolised the oppression by the people. The Ron Paul situation is as such: The longer the country goes downhill and the more often his predictions are right, the more support he will get. As long as he stays consistant in his views for a long time and stays right, eventually his following will be enough that he could run for the US precidency. Unfortunately for Paul, this process takes a very long time. Fortunately for Paul, his predictions are such that if we don't act now, America will be done for. This means that by default, his followers are more prone to promote his ideas and views. They fear that if Ron Paul isn't elected soon, the end will be nigh. This manifests itself in the form of people that radically try to convert you to the cause of Ron Paul, which manifests itself in the thoughts that all Ron Paul followers must be as crazy and radical as him. And because he is labeled as Crazy Ron, and his followers are crazy, people will not listen to him nor his followers because nobody trusts crazy people. To be fair though, this process of manipulating people into fear and being a credible source so people have flocked to your cause is as old as society itself, so I could probably direct this notion to any of the candidates in any country given enough data about the candidate and his followers. What I'm saying is that everybody does it, Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Bush, the list goes on. Not just Ron Paul. | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
On January 24 2012 16:30 Raambo11 wrote: I'm always so amazed at how many young people support Ron Paul, so for any of you more ambitious posters why do so many people like him so much? When I watch him in debates he is much less articulate than any of the other candidates, and he goes off on tangents about the federal reserve, sound money etc. Just as a viewer its hard to think that even a minority of viewers understand what hes talking about when he says stuff like that. I guess I can understand why people like him slashing the budget so much as we are the generation who will have to bear the burden of staggering debt, but other than that please enlighten me as to why hes so popular. (Not for or against Ron Paul just curious) Ron Paul speaks of his mind alone. The other candidates regurgitate what people wrote for them. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 15252Bisu  8068Sea  4218BeSt 1364Soulkey 888EffOrt 724Pusan 479Zeus 358Soma 346Larva 241[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Flash
WardiTV Invitational
SHIN vs Nicoract
Solar vs Nice
GSL
Classic vs Cure
Maru vs Rogue
GSL
SHIN vs Zoun
ByuN vs herO
OSC
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
