EPTHerman Cain - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
| ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
| ||
|
Attican
Denmark531 Posts
On October 02 2011 07:29 AegonC wrote: I agree that Herman Cain would be a better president than Obama. How much better though? One of my main complaints about Obama is his experience. He's a community organizer for Pete's sake! One could argue that Cain is a "business man". But is running a pizza company, albeit a large one, really good experience for running a nation? I, for one, support Mit Romney and/or Ron Paul, because of their experience. Community organizer, teacher of constitutional law, state senator, national senator, not such a bad resume compared to a guy who runs a pizza company. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On October 02 2011 14:00 Omnipresent wrote: Strictly speaking, Paul is not conservative (or rather, is only fiscally conservative). He's a libertarian. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dMHNZ.jpg) This is pretty much what western politics look like, though the words used to describe each ideology vary ("liberal" means "libertarian" in a lot of contexts). Obviously this is a rough approximation, and we can argue about the exact place each candidate falls on this chart. Also, most issues are really both economic and social, so a candidates position on a given issue can be difficult to predict based only on a chart like this. I don't care for the way definitions have become skewed over the years, but I know what you mean as far as contemporary western politics. My point is that conservatism supposedly means a small government that stays out of people's lives as much as possible. Being pro-war is not conservative, especially when we pay for these wars by going into debt; and trying to use the government to impose your social values should not be considered conservative either, although that's what it has come to mean on the spectrum. Neo-cons don't want a small government. They just want a slightly smaller government that prioritizes spending in stuff that they care more about. So the choice is between two big government parties that either want more social welfare programs or more defense spending and Christian values. For all the blustering of men in nice suits, the differences between them are pretty superficial. They have more in common with each other than they do with any of us. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7300 Posts
On October 02 2011 22:55 cerebralz wrote: Herman Cain is just another representative of the old-boy network of corporate owned politicians. There is only one issue that really matters in this country. Whether or not to end the Federal Reserve and bring the country back to using real money. The Fed is a cartel of International private banks, to which we have neither knowledge of who they really are, or have authority to oversee or audit them, or determine their motives. They print fake money, or conjure it up from nothing, to which they then lend to the public, at interest. It is at the point where all the income taxes they can collect cannot even match the interest payment on all that debt. Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a solution. Guess what? he's been preaching the same message for 30+ years, not because it's popular and gets him power, but because it's right and what the founders intended. From the inception of this country the foreign banks have always sought to gain control of the US money supply and they have, right under our noses. Ask questions, seek answers, and realize this country is a puppet for the mega corporations no matter what party is in power. That is, unless we elect real change, not just a changing of the guard. this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers. | ||
|
Mysticesper
United States1183 Posts
On October 03 2011 12:35 Sadist wrote: this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers. The primary argument for gold is that it is finite in nature, whereas printing technically has no upper limit. But yes, they are both arbitrary in terms of value. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On October 03 2011 12:35 Sadist wrote: this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers. this is dumb. the inherent value of gold is much higher than that of paper. take 2 identical pieces of paper, print $100 on one and $1 on another and that $100 paper is "worth" 100x more, even if you are getting the same amount of paper and ink. take a 1oz bar of gold and print 100oz on one and 1oz on the other and see if that changes the value of it. The value of paper is affected by its face value, which can be placed there arbitrarily. You can't change the weight/purity of a piece of gold and still pass muster. | ||
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
| ||
|
howerpower
United States619 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On October 03 2011 12:43 SpeaKEaSY wrote: this is dumb. the inherent value of gold is much higher than that of paper. take 2 identical pieces of paper, print $100 on one and $1 on another and that $100 paper is "worth" 100x more, even if you are getting the same amount of paper and ink. take a 1oz bar of gold and print 100oz on one and 1oz on the other and see if that changes the value of it. The value of paper is affected by its face value, which can be placed there arbitrarily. You can't change the weight/purity of a piece of gold and still pass muster. wut. Neither gold or paper is a human necessity. Gold, in particular, is one of the least necessary commodities to human survival and its existence as a whole. Its monetary value is completely arbitrary. Your example itself is flawed because it isn't consistent. For your comparison to hold you would have to take a 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $1 and take another identical 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $100. It is not as if we are taking one piece of paper and saying that it is, in itself, 100 pieces of paper. You don't really seem to understand that the value of money in paper has almost no relation at all to the actual price of paper. The fact that paper bills are made of paper is almost entirely irrelevant. It is simply that paper lends itself to be convenient to be used as the medium for this abstract concept of liquid value. It is the same when it comes to coins. | ||
|
Diablo3
46 Posts
On October 03 2011 12:35 Sadist wrote: this is dumb. The value of gold is just as arbitrary as paper money. It has value because we assign value to it (just like paper money). You need something like this in society otherwise we would all just be barterers. You are actually very wrong. It has value because it only has limited quantities, its not infinite. So you need to dig it out, process it and refine it. That is why it has value. Also man kind have used gold as money for thousands of years, do you want to say that you or anyone else right now is more knowledgeable about goal, than all those people who've used it for thousands and thousands of years? But about Ron Paul for example is that he want's to either use gold pr tie the paper money back to gold so it can't be devalued or print out of thin air. And everything is perception to humans, so its not an argument for anything. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On October 03 2011 13:13 koreasilver wrote: wut. Neither gold or paper is a human necessity. Gold, in particular, is one of the least necessary commodities to human survival and its existence as a whole. Its monetary value is completely arbitrary. Your example itself is flawed because it isn't consistent. For your comparison to hold you would have to take a 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $1 and take another identical 1oz bar of gold and designate it's value as $100. It is not as if we are taking one piece of paper and saying that it is, in itself, 100 pieces of paper. You don't really seem to understand that the value of money in paper has almost no relation at all to the actual price of paper. The fact that paper bills are made of paper is almost entirely irrelevant. It is simply that paper lends itself to be convenient to be used as the medium for this abstract concept of liquid value. It is the same when it comes to coins. No, I'm pretty sure that I "understand that the value of money in paper has almost no relation at all to the actual price of paper," because that's exactly the point I was trying to make in my post. You also ignore the sheer volume of monetary transactions that don't involve paper at all because they're conducted electronically. So clearly it's not the paper I have a problem with, but rather the fact that the money is backed by nothing. You seem to have trouble comprehending this issue so I'll use the term fiat currency instead of paper money. lol @ calling a commodity arbitrarily priced. I'm pretty sure it's the market that dictates the value of a quantity of gold. Whereas the face value of fiat currency is dictated by whoever issues it, because you can just print it out of thin air (or even type numbers in a computer). What is that fiat currency backed by? Nothing. Gold has inherent value to various industries. What if money was backed by gold? I have no problem with paper money as long as it's backed by something. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On October 03 2011 13:25 Diablo3 wrote: You are actually very wrong. It has value because it only has limited quantities, its not infinite. So you need to dig it out, process it and refine it. That is why it has value. Also man kind have used gold as money for thousands of years, do you want to say that you or anyone else right now is more knowledgeable about goal, than all those people who've used it for thousands and thousands of years? But about Ron Paul for example is that he want's to either use gold pr tie the paper money back to gold so it can't be devalued or print out of thin air. And everything is perception to humans, so its not an argument for anything. You also have to cut down trees, process it to make paper, then print bills on the paper through stringent requirements. Paper is also limited, and so it ink. Everything in the goddamned planet has limited quantities. Also, human societies have used cheque systems for over a thousand years, which are the precursors of modern fiat money. Paper money itself has been around less than a thousand years ago in China. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 03 2011 12:44 Flamingo777 wrote: The second link depicts Palin as the highest rated candidate, being a rational thinker, I really can't assess the validity of 'Gallup.com'. Gallup is a pretty well-respected polling organization. Also when I click the link I see Cain having the highest positive intensity, followed by Perry, Giuliani, Romney, and then Palin 5th. It's so early to really say how Cain's numbers will hold up - just weeks ago Republicans appeared ready to nominate Perry, now his stock is falling. Who knows what will happen with Cain. One thing's for sure, Romney is holding steady. He may simply outlast all of the other candidates. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 03 2011 12:44 Flamingo777 wrote: The second link depicts Palin as the highest rated candidate, being a rational thinker, I really can't assess the validity of 'Gallup.com'. How have you not heard of Gallup  | ||
|
MrKlowb
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
Donnie_Par
Canada72 Posts
'nuff said | ||
|
LaLLsc2
United States502 Posts
On October 02 2011 11:43 Diablo3 wrote: Herman Cain is a banker candidate. He is actually worse than Rick Perry and Perry went to Bilderberg. He supports the patriot act, supports secret military tribunals, supports the TSA, supports affirmative action, is "racist" towards Muslims and is uncomfortable around them, hates their religion, supports the wars, was the former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the board of directors to the federal reserve bank, was involved in a corruption scandal at Aquila. sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/herman-cain-aquila-lawsuit-2012 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/herman-cain-spying-on-americans-is-okay-but-not-assassinating-them/239400/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/herman-cains-anti-muslim-bigotry-should-be-disqualifying/240321/ http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/10/herman-cains-ugly-remarks-about-muslims/ Finally, 3 pages in to find someone who knows what they're talking about. Cain was a deputy chairman and chairman of the Federal Reserve board from 1992 - 1996. The federal reserve is one of the most important issues effecting our economy today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain (at the bottom) | ||
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
On October 02 2011 13:15 DeepElemBlues wrote: Anyone claiming to be the one true voice of patriotism and the constitution is probably not. Let's make assumptions instead of doing background checks! Yay! Politics! | ||
|
nxiety
United States36 Posts
I do not identify as a republican, but I also don't mind listening to opposing views as long as their well constructed and Cain -did- do a good job of explaining his point without it sounding like it was mostly fluff and talking points. I became disenfranchised with Cain after seeing his beliefs change when it became obvious he was going to run. | ||
| ||
