On January 27 2012 13:03 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: Sure it does. Not everybody thinks that Newt's resolutions are as ridiculous as you or I believe them to be.
And as much as I hate to admit that delivery plays a significant role in people's decision making, it certainly does.
It's precisely why I wish that Romney's vocal chords were somehow medically implanted into Dr. Paul.
Ehh, as he goes on (and deeper into "out there stuff") I'm honestly just struggling to understand how his support is that high. Even if Romney is one of the biggest flip-flopping candidates I've ever seen, his proposals at least aren't that, you know.+ Show Spoiler +
I don't want to say retarded
Oh and I know, unfortuneately I just overesitimate the average American's perception a lot. (Same for the liberals as well). It's freaking ridiculous. Someone can make the most retarded of claims, but as long as they bash X, or mention Y it comes off as good to a lot of people.
This is true, after watching every debate over the last few months (except the one tonight have to watch it later), I have to say my faith in American politics (what little I had) has been mostly flushed down the toilet. There are numerous times when candidates who I don't support at all say something intelligent and reasonable (a lota stuff hunstman said) and there is dead silence, then someone like Newt says something so utterly ridiculous that's its almost comical and he gets wild applause. To me it seems these debates are less about the issues and more about bashing the front runner, even the candidates gang up on whoever the front runner is at the time.
I guess the final point is people usually vote with their hearts and not their heads, they vote for who they like as a person. Obama will get a lot of votes again because, guess what? people like him as a person and who can blame them. No one really likes Mitt Romney as a person (maybe cuz they cant relate?) which is why hes had all these problems with conservatives.
Mmmm definetely. I just can't stand how stuck people are on some of their beliefs.
I was born in one of the Liberalist
Firstly, you're trying to say liberalest. It still isn't a word but you're using the 'est' ending to indicate that it is the most of something, for example biggest or richest. I'm honestly surprised that you don't know this, it should be your mother tongue. The 'ist' ending indicates that a person is associated with the activity, for example a scientist who does science professionally, an arsonist who just does arson or a nationalist who subscribes to a nationalistic set of ideas.
Furthermore the capilisation of the L in liberal is hugely important. Liberalism is one of the founding principles of the United States and pretty much sums up all the things you were trying to say you support. Liberalism means freedom from interference, the right to property, freedom of speech and ideas, freedom from oppression, freedom of worship and all that stuff. You are a capital L Liberal, also known as a classical liberal. I believe what you were trying to say about where you were born is that it was one of the most liberal areas. Here you mean liberal as the antithesis of the old established value system. Classical liberals believe all men and women are born equal, that the personal lives of people are their own business and not that of the state or church and all people have the same inalienable rights. This set them at odds with the established family values/religious groups on topics such as abortion, race, gay marriage, national language, prayer in schools and a host of others. In a multi party system liberals, socialists, libertarians and conservatives would all have their own parties and their own distinct platorms but from the two party system emerged a strange union of socially conservative people (white Christian males) and economic Liberals while the social Liberals who subscribe to the exact same set of core beliefs as the economic ones, allied themselves with the more socialist party. Liberal became a term for the latter and the socialist ideas which are by definition the opposite of liberal became known as liberal.
Hmm. You do realize when I posted that I was incredibly tired, having been studying for the prior three hours. (Which is why I added "Is that even a word?" after Liberalist, something you forgot to quote I see )
Ugh I suppose a better word would have been Democratic, not necessarily "Liberalist". You know what I mean.
And @Raambo11 I wasn't actually necessarily saying Paul was doing well at the debates. (He makes a lot of good points that simply get washed over because of certain sections of the Republican base and their idiocy) I was more rerferencing that I thought several of his idea/policies were good (compared to the crap flowing out of the other candidate's mouths), although I don't necessarily agree with all of them.
On January 27 2012 17:50 Sufficiency wrote: Not all GOPers are dumb, right? Watch this guy:
I wonder what will happen if all everyone in GOP is like him.
Yea I mean he's saying marriage is about babies and sex. It's actually rather insulting to straight marriage everywhere to be honest and is a blatantly sexist, unrealistic argument. Adoption breaks it so dramatically to make him look silly. How is he not a dumb GOPer who is obviously using post hoc rationalization to justify measures against civil rights. I am not impressed and you shouldn't be either.
On January 27 2012 11:58 ronpaul012 wrote: As an American, I'm embarrassed how we treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For Newt to compare Fatah and Hezbollah as equals is disgusting. Whether or not one agrees with a 2 state solution or not, being ignorant about the situation is NOT acceptable.
I wonder who ronpaul012 supports for president?
Santorum I'd bet.
lol. Well actually I don't entirely agree with ronpaul. I've just used this tag for about 5 years on different sites. I love his domestic policy, but I see no reason to leave NATO like he has suggested. But yes, I do support him.
Well really, NATO has no reason to exist anymore. It was created to counter act the Warsaw Pact of the Soviet Union. NATO is currently just a tool to send American soldiers to specific locations without having to actually declare war, a proxy if you will. We also pay a very high percentage of its funding if I remember correctly. I just do not see the point of keeping it around when there is no world evil.
This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election.
In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency:
Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights.
Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights.
What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position?
On January 28 2012 01:33 ShoCkeyy wrote: Ron Paul 2012.... Nuff said.
Moon colony by 2020....nuff said.
Comparing Ron Paul with a moon base, I would honestly pick the moon base
It would mean more funding to NASA, which I would enjoy immensely, but with his economic policy of lowering taxes WHILE expanding the government is just silly.
I wonder what will happen if all everyone in GOP is like him.
Yea I mean he's saying marriage is about babies and sex. It's actually rather insulting to straight marriage everywhere to be honest and is a blatantly sexist, unrealistic argument. Adoption breaks it so dramatically to make him look silly. How is he not a dumb GOPer who is obviously using post hoc rationalization to justify measures against civil rights. I am not impressed and you shouldn't be either.
He's arguing about the origin of marriage, and its definition and to me it seems that his argument is pretty strong. On the other hand the real question in my opinion is should marriages be subsidized or should they simply be contracts between two people? Because we have a right to contracts regardless of our gender and sexual orientation, and so if it's just a contract then there's no reason why two gay people shouldn't be able to sign a equivalent contract.
I don't really think that giving subsidies to married families is a responsibility of the government, it doesn't even make sense like you said, because some people get married and don't start families, while same sex couples can adopt children... I feel like if you just let marriage be what originally was before massive state intervention, an agreement between two people supported by a legal contract, and either their religious vows, or simply their word and character, then there will be no reason for homosexual couples to argue for the right to get married, since they will practically be able to do that.
On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote: This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election.
In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency:
Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights.
What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position?
Well, I do support Obama. But if a repub has to win, I want it to be Paul.
I wonder what will happen if all everyone in GOP is like him.
Yea I mean he's saying marriage is about babies and sex. It's actually rather insulting to straight marriage everywhere to be honest and is a blatantly sexist, unrealistic argument. Adoption breaks it so dramatically to make him look silly. How is he not a dumb GOPer who is obviously using post hoc rationalization to justify measures against civil rights. I am not impressed and you shouldn't be either.
He's arguing about the origin of marriage, and its definition and to me it seems that his argument is pretty strong. On the other hand the real question in my opinion is should marriages be subsidized or should they simply be contracts between two people? Because we have a right to contracts regardless of our gender and sexual orientation, and so if it's just a contract then there's no reason why two gay people shouldn't be able to sign a equivalent contract.
I don't really think that giving subsidies to married families is a responsibility of the government, it doesn't even make sense like you said, because some people get married and don't start families, while same sex couples can adopt children... I feel like if you just let marriage be what originally was before massive state intervention, an agreement between two people supported by a legal contract, and either their religious vows, or simply their word and character, then there will be no reason for homosexual couples to argue for the right to get married, since they will practically be able to do that.
Well that sounds like civil unions for everybody and marriage is just religious (which means gay marriage is totally ok in both forms anyway because of religious freedom). I don't think anyone has an issue with that, but that is absolutely not what he's advocating.
I wonder what will happen if all everyone in GOP is like him.
Yea I mean he's saying marriage is about babies and sex. It's actually rather insulting to straight marriage everywhere to be honest and is a blatantly sexist, unrealistic argument. Adoption breaks it so dramatically to make him look silly. How is he not a dumb GOPer who is obviously using post hoc rationalization to justify measures against civil rights. I am not impressed and you shouldn't be either.
He's arguing about the origin of marriage, and its definition and to me it seems that his argument is pretty strong. On the other hand the real question in my opinion is should marriages be subsidized or should they simply be contracts between two people? Because we have a right to contracts regardless of our gender and sexual orientation, and so if it's just a contract then there's no reason why two gay people shouldn't be able to sign a equivalent contract.
I don't really think that giving subsidies to married families is a responsibility of the government, it doesn't even make sense like you said, because some people get married and don't start families, while same sex couples can adopt children... I feel like if you just let marriage be what originally was before massive state intervention, an agreement between two people supported by a legal contract, and either their religious vows, or simply their word and character, then there will be no reason for homosexual couples to argue for the right to get married, since they will practically be able to do that.
The problem is that no one is ever realistically going to take away the government benefits that come with marriage, even if it's unfair. Ron Paul touched a bit on it during yesterday's debate but I doubt even he wants to make a case out of it - there's a huge amount of welfare that goes towards the middle and upper class, but it's labeled a tax credit or benefit instead.
So if government funding has changed the modern concept of marriage and there's no foreseeable change in the benefits provided, is it fair to exclude a group of people from those benefits?
I wonder what will happen if all everyone in GOP is like him.
Yea I mean he's saying marriage is about babies and sex. It's actually rather insulting to straight marriage everywhere to be honest and is a blatantly sexist, unrealistic argument. Adoption breaks it so dramatically to make him look silly. How is he not a dumb GOPer who is obviously using post hoc rationalization to justify measures against civil rights. I am not impressed and you shouldn't be either.
He's arguing about the origin of marriage, and its definition and to me it seems that his argument is pretty strong. On the other hand the real question in my opinion is should marriages be subsidized or should they simply be contracts between two people? Because we have a right to contracts regardless of our gender and sexual orientation, and so if it's just a contract then there's no reason why two gay people shouldn't be able to sign a equivalent contract.
I don't really think that giving subsidies to married families is a responsibility of the government, it doesn't even make sense like you said, because some people get married and don't start families, while same sex couples can adopt children... I feel like if you just let marriage be what originally was before massive state intervention, an agreement between two people supported by a legal contract, and either their religious vows, or simply their word and character, then there will be no reason for homosexual couples to argue for the right to get married, since they will practically be able to do that.
The problem is that no one is ever realistically going to take away the government benefits that come with marriage, even if it's unfair. Ron Paul touched a bit on it during yesterday's debate but I doubt even he wants to make a case out of it - there's a huge amount of welfare that goes towards the middle and upper class, but it's labeled a tax credit or benefit instead.
So if government funding has changed the modern concept of marriage and there's no foreseeable change in the system or benefits provided, is it fair to exclude a group of people from those benefits?
I think the funniest thing of that video is not Kaye's argument. The funniest thing is Obama's expression... I think he was kind of confused over Kaye's argument (frankly, I was also confused the first time I heard it; I can't even imagine how many GOP supporters can understand it).
On January 27 2012 07:52 Velr wrote: The problem is... That ideology has lead us into this debt crisise in the first place. There is never a "good" time to pay back debt.. Thats why most countries never did it and suddenly.. Oh shit, debt is out of control! (really sherlock? how come...).
The only country in crisis because of high debt is Greece.
You might want to look at other countries with high debt and the prospects for them borrowing in the future.
Portugal is paying 15% on 10 year money now. That is not sustainable.
Japan has over one QUADRILLION yen in public debt. That's over 200% of their GDP. Even though their interest rates are low on that debt, I think it takes something ridiculous like 40% of their government spending to just cover interest payments. Let that sit in your head for a second.
As you can see, countries in crisis like Spain have very low debt level. In fact, Spain ran surpluses (meaning debt was decreasing) before the crisis hit. The debt was not the cause of the Eurozone crisis for all countries except Greece.
And as you've pointed out, Japan's debt level is 200% of GDP and interest rates have over many years been very very low, about 1%. It's sustainable in the sense, that it's been sustained for like 20 years without signs of catastrophe.
When you have to take on more debt to pay down old debt, I consider that a crisis. It's like maxing out a credit card to cover a different credit card. Just because the Eurozone, Japan, etc. have other problems as well doesn't mean that they are not experiencing a debt crisis in addition. When it costs, for example, Italy an additional $20 billion to service their debt if rates go up 1%, that's a problem.
Japan is not floundering because their debt is incredibly internal. However, with the US it is not this way. And that is the reason why we need to cut the shit out of spending and reduce our ridiculous levels of indebtedness, before something goes wrong and/or we get into the spot where we spend too much just to pay off past excessive spending. Talking about lowering taxes and building space stations right now is just outrageous.
On January 27 2012 07:52 Velr wrote: The problem is... That ideology has lead us into this debt crisise in the first place. There is never a "good" time to pay back debt.. Thats why most countries never did it and suddenly.. Oh shit, debt is out of control! (really sherlock? how come...).
The only country in crisis because of high debt is Greece.
You might want to look at other countries with high debt and the prospects for them borrowing in the future.
Portugal is paying 15% on 10 year money now. That is not sustainable.
Japan has over one QUADRILLION yen in public debt. That's over 200% of their GDP. Even though their interest rates are low on that debt, I think it takes something ridiculous like 40% of their government spending to just cover interest payments. Let that sit in your head for a second.
As you can see, countries in crisis like Spain have very low debt level. In fact, Spain ran surpluses (meaning debt was decreasing) before the crisis hit. The debt was not the cause of the Eurozone crisis for all countries except Greece.
And as you've pointed out, Japan's debt level is 200% of GDP and interest rates have over many years been very very low, about 1%. It's sustainable in the sense, that it's been sustained for like 20 years without signs of catastrophe.
When you have to take on more debt to pay down old debt, I consider that a crisis. It's like maxing out a credit card to cover a different credit card. Just because the Eurozone, Japan, etc. have other problems as well doesn't mean that they are not experiencing a debt crisis in addition. When it costs, for example, Italy an additional $20 billion to service their debt if rates go up 1%, that's a problem.
Japan is not floundering because their debt is incredibly internal. However, with the US it is not this way. And that is the reason why we need to cut the shit out of spending and reduce our ridiculous levels of indebtedness, before something goes wrong and/or we get into the spot where we spend too much just to pay off past excessive spending. Talking about lowering taxes and building space stations right now is just outrageous.
Well if you read my post, you will actually see that its a big problem why japan debt is financed by its own people. A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme, no matter who is financing it.
On January 28 2012 01:33 ShoCkeyy wrote: Ron Paul 2012.... Nuff said.
Moon colony by 2020....nuff said.
Maybe a colony of roaches.
But wait for it... it won't be Sovie-err... whats the country we're campaigning against? Oh right, Chinese roaches. But they will be AMERICAN roaches with a great living standard and it will be RIGHTEOUS.
Sure it would boost the economy a little by having the government spend on this rediculous project. But what happens after the investment? What resources are actually on the moon that we need that would be cost-effective to return back to Earth, where the rest of the people live? I haven't heard of any atleast. And I think it would be a pretty big gamble to guess for a drilling space for resource X.
These bloated promises of Gingrich have almost as much comedy value as how Jon Stewart is presenting them. Which is really not a great standard to go into presidency.
Then again, I'd take a wild guess and say that not anything close to 10% of a population is into politics. In which case Jon Stewart would probably the closest they would come to a political report. In that respect I wish we had a popular show like that over here in Holland that revolves around parodying politics constantly.
Well moonbase from a financial perspective definitely isn't going to be coste-effective. You dont boost the economy if everybody decided they would need twice as many haircuts/year, and we dont boost the economy by sending people to the moon. We are destroying value. These ressources could have been used on making products which consumers demanded or invested in machines with a positive Net Present Value. This Newt. Ginrich seems like a terrible person, who only cares about power, and doesn't care about other people or US as country.
EPT
)
