|
|
On October 16 2012 08:55 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 08:52 DarK[A] wrote:
I honestly am close to just voting Johnson and being done with it. While I do feel that in an Obama v. Romney election, Romney will be better for the country over the next four years, I really don't agree with some of the baggage that comes with him.
Now we just need to swipe ~15% from Romney and Obama camps and we'll have a nice third candidate that might win. I'm always torn on libertarian, some of it is appealing then there are parts i dislike. if romney wasn't so batshit crazy i'd vote for Stein (curses, i miss the registration age by 4 months!) but because romney's such a tool i'd vote obama if i could.
Which parts do you dislike? Just want to make sure they aren't straw men or some anarcho-capitalist philosophy.
|
On October 16 2012 09:42 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 07:55 Djzapz wrote:Hmm! This made me laugh for like 10 seconds. Then I was sad. ![[image loading]](http://www.bonkersworld.net/images/2012.10.15_top_donors.png) In case of confusion: + Show Spoiler +This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. So government and private organizations that make tons of money a living off government funding support Obama and organizations that prefer less government involvement (when it helps them) support Romney. I really don't find this surprising or funny. What's the joke?
Even you're not that ignorant  .... (well...)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 09:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 08:55 coverpunch wrote:On October 16 2012 08:06 Souma wrote:
Top 3 Romney donors are the top 3 most corrupt pos banks in America. No way, man, Shittygroup is way worse than JP Morgan. Although the London Whale didn't do them any favors. Most corrupt bank on that list US Government. It's backed lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a large part of the major housing crash with their mortgage backed securities. What's more, it's powerful lobbyists / politically powerful connections engineered Dodd-Frank to turn a blind eye to what went on over there. Create rules for others, ignore them for themselves? It gets my vote.
If you haven't noticed Dodd-Frank hasn't been thoroughly enforced. Regulators are largely underfunded. If anything it's been really messing up with small/local banks and not doing its job with the larger firms, something I thoroughly oppose.
And Government as a more corrupt bank than Goldman Sachs and co.? rofl you live in a scary world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not for nothing he is mr. danglars
|
On October 15 2012 23:42 DarK[A] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 23:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 22:47 DarK[A] wrote:
Whatever you guys do, PLEASE watch the debates, and be sure to fact-check them.
I missed the first Presidential debate and just finished watching / reading the transcript from the VP debate last night.
From what I heard, Obama got demolished at the first Presidential debate. In my opinion, Biden started the VP debate very strong, but didn't keep pace and ended up falling behind after the first 30 minutes or so. Ryan won that debate, but by a closer margin than Romney allegedly won the first Presidential debate. While I believe he won through actual debate, others might say it was from Biden looking childish by laughing and cutting Ryan off with mockery literally somewhere between 80 and 90 times instead of offering an actual argument.
Fun Fact: Despite VP Biden painting the Romney/Ryan ticket in a negative light with regards to abortion (which is a non issue anyway, no politician will ever actually act on it - it's political suicide), Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade when he served as a Senator. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15849Also, Ryan got absolutely demolished in that debate, he couldn't respond to any of the attacks made on him and Romney. The part on foreign policy, particularly on Iran and Afghanistan made Ryan look like he had no idea what's going on. I guess that's your personal opinion and you're entitled to it. Most of Biden's "attacks" on the Romney/Ryan ticket were gross misrepresentations of policies and quotes taken out of context. I would have liked to hear why after 4 years (2 of which with a Democratic majority so Obama could pass essentially anything he wanted to) we don't have the things we were promised, while we're spending trillions of dollars over our revenue. Taxing those 120,000 families making an average of $8 million annually at, say, a ridiculous 48% in this case would erase a mere 30% of our 2011 deficit ALONE. Or, in other terms, would run the federal government from 1/1/2011 to 2/15/2011.
I love how you shake your fists at "misrepresentations of policies and quotes taken out of context" (which is basically the signature way of doing things of the Romney campaign, but ok), then proceed to use a fallacy to oppose the taxes on the wealthy proposed by Obama and Biden. NOBODY, and I said NOBODY, is saying that taxing the wealthy is supposed to be enough to get rid of deficits. Nobody. What they're saying is that it would contribute to helping reduce deficits, just like other measures would, and that taken individually it is one of the measures that would contribute the most to reducing deficits. If you're going to disqualify raising taxes on the wealthy because "it doesn't completely solve the deficit" alone, then by that same brilliant logic you literally can't do anything else because NOTHING will completely solve the deficit alone. Here's a nice clip from the daily show illustrating that.
On October 16 2012 00:45 DarK[A] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 15 2012 23:42 DarK[A] wrote:On October 15 2012 23:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 15 2012 22:47 DarK[A] wrote:
Whatever you guys do, PLEASE watch the debates, and be sure to fact-check them.
I missed the first Presidential debate and just finished watching / reading the transcript from the VP debate last night.
From what I heard, Obama got demolished at the first Presidential debate. In my opinion, Biden started the VP debate very strong, but didn't keep pace and ended up falling behind after the first 30 minutes or so. Ryan won that debate, but by a closer margin than Romney allegedly won the first Presidential debate. While I believe he won through actual debate, others might say it was from Biden looking childish by laughing and cutting Ryan off with mockery literally somewhere between 80 and 90 times instead of offering an actual argument.
Fun Fact: Despite VP Biden painting the Romney/Ryan ticket in a negative light with regards to abortion (which is a non issue anyway, no politician will ever actually act on it - it's political suicide), Biden voted to overturn Roe v. Wade when he served as a Senator. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=793#15849Also, Ryan got absolutely demolished in that debate, he couldn't respond to any of the attacks made on him and Romney. The part on foreign policy, particularly on Iran and Afghanistan made Ryan look like he had no idea what's going on. I guess that's your personal opinion and you're entitled to it. Most of Biden's "attacks" on the Romney/Ryan ticket were gross misrepresentations of policies and quotes taken out of context. I would have liked to hear why after 4 years (2 of which with a Democratic majority so Obama could pass essentially anything he wanted to) we don't have the things we were promised, while we're spending trillions of dollars over our revenue. Taxing those 120,000 families making an average of $8 million annually at, say, a ridiculous 48% in this case would erase a mere 30% of our 2011 deficit ALONE. Or, in other terms, would run the federal government from 1/1/2011 to 2/15/2011. If you don't think Ryan came off as incompetent regarding foreign policy when he was speaking nonsense about never using timelines because "they help our enemies" when they are an accepted fact of modern troop withdrawal in handover situations, being unable to present a single thing he and Romney would have done to stabilize the Middle East/Iran beyond "not what you guys did," not realizing virtually all our international allies including Afghans are on board with the withdrawal timetable, thinking it's bad to pull troops out of the most dangerous area in the world because it will put our troops in danger (this logic mandates total immediate withdrawal in reality), and not realizing that Iran is suffering under crippling sanctions, then you are in a strange place. These weren't misrepresentations, these were things Ryan actually said live on national television during the debate. Domestically everything is going to be pretty subjective because there are huge numbers of studies skewing things both ways (though I'd point out Ryan came off as a huge idiot for bashing the stimulus while requesting stimulus funds), but foreign policy? I'd have loved to see Huntsman in the chair instead, then we might have seen a competent discussion of foreign policy. Edit: I mean, if you compare Ryan's thoughts on foreign policy to the foreign policy debate between Huntsman and Gingrich in the primaries, it's honestly depressing how little he knows and understands. I admit that Ryan didn't put himself in a great place with the previous requests for aid and later bashing of the stimulus, but really if you knew the government was going ahead with $x of spending towards helping the economy, you wouldn't request any for your state?
That's the point: IT HELPS THE ECONOMY. Paul Ryan himself said so in the letters he wrote. That's what's completely hypocritical about his position: in public he declares the stimulus doesn't work in public but in private he quietly acknowledges it does.
|
On October 16 2012 10:07 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 09:50 Danglars wrote:On October 16 2012 08:55 coverpunch wrote:On October 16 2012 08:06 Souma wrote:
Top 3 Romney donors are the top 3 most corrupt pos banks in America. No way, man, Shittygroup is way worse than JP Morgan. Although the London Whale didn't do them any favors. Most corrupt bank on that list US Government. It's backed lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a large part of the major housing crash with their mortgage backed securities. What's more, it's powerful lobbyists / politically powerful connections engineered Dodd-Frank to turn a blind eye to what went on over there. Create rules for others, ignore them for themselves? It gets my vote. If you haven't noticed Dodd-Frank hasn't been thoroughly enforced. Regulators are largely underfunded. If anything it's been really messing up with small/local banks and not doing its job with the larger firms, something I thoroughly oppose. And Government as a more corrupt bank than Goldman Sachs and co.? rofl you live in a scary world.
Yes, it is a scary world. Imagine the majority of the population loving Goldman Sachs, and you start to understand it. 
I'm honestly not even sure what a "corrupt bank" means. It seems to suggest some moral standard for banks that I don't fully understand or agree with. Banks work in their own interest and everyone knows it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely to the facts, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 10:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:07 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 09:50 Danglars wrote:On October 16 2012 08:55 coverpunch wrote:On October 16 2012 08:06 Souma wrote:
Top 3 Romney donors are the top 3 most corrupt pos banks in America. No way, man, Shittygroup is way worse than JP Morgan. Although the London Whale didn't do them any favors. Most corrupt bank on that list US Government. It's backed lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a large part of the major housing crash with their mortgage backed securities. What's more, it's powerful lobbyists / politically powerful connections engineered Dodd-Frank to turn a blind eye to what went on over there. Create rules for others, ignore them for themselves? It gets my vote. If you haven't noticed Dodd-Frank hasn't been thoroughly enforced. Regulators are largely underfunded. If anything it's been really messing up with small/local banks and not doing its job with the larger firms, something I thoroughly oppose. And Government as a more corrupt bank than Goldman Sachs and co.? rofl you live in a scary world. Yes, it is a scary world. Imagine the majority of the population loving Goldman Sachs, and you start to understand it. I'm honestly not even sure what a "corrupt bank" means. It seems to suggest some moral standard for banks that I don't fully understand or agree with. Banks work in their own interest and everyone knows it.
Are you sure you don't know what "corrupt bank" means or are you just playing with semantics? >_>
|
On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems.
It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly.
what if you have a feudal lord, or a mafia. with no government.
is somalia without corruption because there is no state?
also, ownership relations do not override the causal closure of the physical world. banks do affect those who are not among its owners. consequentialist ethics (only valid option i has proofs) does dictate social responsibility for all actors regardless of property relations.
|
On October 16 2012 10:25 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:07 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 09:50 Danglars wrote:On October 16 2012 08:55 coverpunch wrote:On October 16 2012 08:06 Souma wrote:
Top 3 Romney donors are the top 3 most corrupt pos banks in America. No way, man, Shittygroup is way worse than JP Morgan. Although the London Whale didn't do them any favors. Most corrupt bank on that list US Government. It's backed lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a large part of the major housing crash with their mortgage backed securities. What's more, it's powerful lobbyists / politically powerful connections engineered Dodd-Frank to turn a blind eye to what went on over there. Create rules for others, ignore them for themselves? It gets my vote. If you haven't noticed Dodd-Frank hasn't been thoroughly enforced. Regulators are largely underfunded. If anything it's been really messing up with small/local banks and not doing its job with the larger firms, something I thoroughly oppose. And Government as a more corrupt bank than Goldman Sachs and co.? rofl you live in a scary world. Yes, it is a scary world. Imagine the majority of the population loving Goldman Sachs, and you start to understand it. I'm honestly not even sure what a "corrupt bank" means. It seems to suggest some moral standard for banks that I don't fully understand or agree with. Banks work in their own interest and everyone knows it.
There are laws and regulations that don't allow banks to do everything they please. Corrupted banks are the ones that don't merely act in their own interest, but also trespass on the laws that are there to protect the people. All banks trespass a little, in efforts to profit from screwing people - but it's sometimes technically illegal. Hence the term corrupt banks.
Also something about the illegal things being accepted by the authority which doesn't bother to prosecute...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly.
You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim.
"That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!"
|
On October 16 2012 10:38 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly. You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim. "That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!"
Actually this analogy applies MUCH better to your own logic. Banks offer bribes to government and then government accepts the bribes and use their privileged position of power to benefit the banks, and somehow you blame the banks in this scenario.
It is the party which abuses their power which is to blame, whether the case is rape or economic collusion.
|
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity!
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 16 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:38 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly. You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim. "That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!" Actually this analogy applies MUCH better to your own logic. Banks offer bribes to government and then government accepts the bribes and use their privileged position of power to benefit the banks, and somehow you blame the banks in this scenario. It is the party which abuses their power which is to blame, whether the case is rape or economic collusion.
How in the world is it logical to not put any blame on the bank? And actually I apologize for my analogy, now that I think about it it's a gross over-exaggeration and was incorrect.
I would actually put blame on both the politician that accepted the bribe and the banker that dished it out. It's really all there is to it.
|
On October 16 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity!
The power to imprison or put to death with popular sanction is about as "real" as you can possibly get.
|
On October 16 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity! The power to imprison or put to death with popular sanction is about as "real" as you can possibly get.
No, no, in your analogy it's the artificial gravity generator warping an otherwise uniformly smooth space-money fabric
|
On October 16 2012 10:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:38 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly. You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim. "That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!" Actually this analogy applies MUCH better to your own logic. Banks offer bribes to government and then government accepts the bribes and use their privileged position of power to benefit the banks, and somehow you blame the banks in this scenario. It is the party which abuses their power which is to blame, whether the case is rape or economic collusion. How in the world is it logical to not put any blame on the bank? And actually I apologize for my analogy, now that I think about it it's a gross over-exaggeration and was incorrect. I would actually put blame on both the politician that accepted the bribe and the banker that dished it out. It's really all there is to it.
The reason the blame lies primarily on the politicians is because they've been granted their power by the people and therefore owe a responsibility to the people which a private entity does not have. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and the governed would not consent to bribery for private benefit, and therefore their power is unjust, also called corrupt.
|
On October 16 2012 10:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity! The power to imprison or put to death with popular sanction is about as "real" as you can possibly get. No, no, in your analogy it's the artificial gravity generator warping an otherwise uniformly smooth space-money fabric
Wrong.... In an anarchist society there are competing planets and suns with their own gravitational pull. To create a government is to create a centralized entity holding overwhelming power, ie. a black hole.
|
On October 16 2012 10:55 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:49 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:38 Souma wrote:On October 16 2012 10:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:28 oneofthem wrote:
if a certain group of people control a lot of the power in a given society, it is not good. extend this to banks and you have it.
not that this coarse analysis applies entirely, but the idea is there.
libertarian conception of free interacting atomic agents has no concept of gravity, or so it seems. It has the most precise conception of gravity in my opinion. Government is a monopoly on force and coercion, and therefore power, they are the central black hole at the center of the galaxy. If the bank colludes with government to extend it's own power, then it is government which is corrupt and to blame, since they hold the power to coerce and therefore the responsibility to the people. Government's are responsible to the people, banks are responsible to the shareholders. It is government which must be controlled, and therefore banks are controlled indirectly. You know, this is the same kind of logic that leads people to conclude that rape is the fault of the victim. "That girl should have known better than to walk alone at night! It is not the rapist's fault he was, well, a guy!" Actually this analogy applies MUCH better to your own logic. Banks offer bribes to government and then government accepts the bribes and use their privileged position of power to benefit the banks, and somehow you blame the banks in this scenario. It is the party which abuses their power which is to blame, whether the case is rape or economic collusion. How in the world is it logical to not put any blame on the bank? And actually I apologize for my analogy, now that I think about it it's a gross over-exaggeration and was incorrect. I would actually put blame on both the politician that accepted the bribe and the banker that dished it out. It's really all there is to it. The reason the blame lies primarily on the politicians is because they've been granted their power by the people and therefore owe a responsibility to the people which a private entity does not have. Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and the governed would not consent to bribery for private benefit, and therefore their power is unjust, also called corrupt.
The term corruption isn't limited to that.
On October 16 2012 10:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2012 10:54 sam!zdat wrote:On October 16 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 16 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote:
Haha so libertarianism believes in artificial gravity but not real gravity! The power to imprison or put to death with popular sanction is about as "real" as you can possibly get. No, no, in your analogy it's the artificial gravity generator warping an otherwise uniformly smooth space-money fabric Wrong.... In an anarchist society there are competing planets and suns with their own gravitational pull. To create a government is to create a centralized entity holding overwhelming power, ie. a black hole.
They start revolving around the biggest star (not sun). Give it some time and. GGplay. You got yourself a centralized power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
