|
On October 05 2013 23:19 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 22:16 narkissos wrote:On October 05 2013 21:36 Talin wrote:On October 05 2013 20:40 narkissos wrote:On October 05 2013 20:21 Talin wrote:On October 05 2013 19:48 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On October 05 2013 19:30 Talin wrote:On October 05 2013 19:08 narkissos wrote:On October 05 2013 18:43 Talin wrote:On October 05 2013 17:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means. Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist. I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity). Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well. It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another. It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination. If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right. It's your interpretation of freedom that's extreme. Think about who is effectively "silenced" by such a regulation. Almost all opinions, beliefs, convictions and political principles can be expressed by speaking in a civil manner, so it is absolutely not possible to use a hate speech rule to silence them. I imagine punishable offenses would be calling for a genocide or preaching xenophobia or racism. In general, radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. So while you may not be allowed to express the full spectrum of beliefs and ideologies in Canada, it is pretty clear that those specific ones that are naturally hindered by hate speech regulations are simply not welcome there to begin with. Ultimately, the rule encourages a culture of civil behavior and discourse, and makes it somewhat more difficult for extremists to gain access to a wide audience, spread their ideology and gain popular support to the point where they can disrupt the society or cause even worse things to happen. Even then, anti hate speech regulations usually only impose soft limitations - radical ideologies are outright banned in some countries, hate speech or not. Who gets to decide which views are radical or extreme? Generally people will label people that disagree with them extreme just look at this thread. There is no decision to be made. If one's views are both radical and extreme, then they are radical and extreme. You don't need to make decisions in order to describe something that you see. People in this thread call each other radical and extreme because they see things differently to such an extent that it's no longer a mere disagreement over specific issues, but two fundamentally different, conflicting world views. Unfortunately under such circumstances, the fact is either that one side is superior to the other and knows it, whereas the other is inferior and unaware of just how inferior it is or that they have different goals entirely and criteria to measure how close they are to their goals. If you want government to ban certain speak for being radical you must of course define what kind of speech is as you put it "radical ideologies that go against the fundamental values of a society. " These are the same kind of charges leveled against Socrates, do you think he deserved the poison cup? In case of anti hate speech laws, it's the manner of addressing the public that is the subject of the law, not a specific ideology. Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 22:16 narkissos wrote:
As you yourself say what is considered radical and extreme is always subjective in nature and further I would ad determined by the people presently in power. Thus acknowledging a right to criminalize certain views as radical or extreme is only to acknowledge the right of the strong to impose their will on the weak. To infringe on the right to freedom of expression I would demand some sort of objective criteria such as causing direct harm to a or multiple victims. Example on this could be threats or depending on definition slander. First of all, you seem to be jumping between arguing about hate speech and arguing about extremist ideologies. There's nothing about hate speech that I will agree on being subjective or a matter of personal choice. Promoting violence, discrimination, and denying basic human rights of individuals or groups of people are all unacceptable. Second of all, if your right of freedom of expression doesn't extend to public hate speech then no right is being infringed upon by you being punished for hate speech. The term "infringement" implies that a guaranteed right has been unjustly denied, which in a society that bans hate speech obviously isn't the case.
The ideologies part was a quote from you but perhaps I misunderstood and we are closer in opinion than I thought. I also think there are room for hate speech laws protecting groups against threats or defamation in the same way as laws against threats and slander does for individuals.
I would however take objection to the notion that our rights are derived from government "legal positivism" and take the opposing view that our rights are natural or inherent to our humanity. If you take the position that rights are derived from government you will always run in to trouble when the government is unjust or evil. Is a law that grants a man the right to rape his wife valid? . A man raping his wife would bee acting in accordance with the law and the wife have no right to her body because the government had´t granted her one. I would make the claim that such laws violates our natural rights and are as such always invalid no mater the opinions of the government or the majority.
These are of course also the ideas that underpin human rights declarations whether it bee the American Bill of rights, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The European Convention on Human Rights or the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights all I might ad granting the freedom of speech.
|
On October 05 2013 19:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned.
The problem is that they have been borrowing for the last 50 years, its only a matter of time until we can't pay the interest payments and default if we keep racking up debt.
|
On October 06 2013 03:19 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 19:47 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned. The problem is that they have been borrowing for the last 50 years, its only a matter of time until we can't pay the interest payments and default if we keep racking up debt.
We can always pay it because all US debt is owed in dollars. The USFG can print dollars. Therefore there will never be a case that the US has a debt that they can't pay.
|
On October 06 2013 03:21 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:19 Jisall wrote:On October 05 2013 19:47 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned. The problem is that they have been borrowing for the last 50 years, its only a matter of time until we can't pay the interest payments and default if we keep racking up debt. We can always pay it because all US debt is owed in dollars. The USFG can print dollars. Therefore there will never be a case that the US has a debt that they can't pay.
Not sure if serious. oO
|
On October 06 2013 03:19 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 19:47 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned. The problem is that they have been borrowing for the last 50 years, its only a matter of time until we can't pay the interest payments and default if we keep racking up debt.
Most sophisticated governments have been borrowing for hundreds of years. In fact, the English have a form of government borrowing that was forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consol_(bond)
|
On October 05 2013 19:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? Spending the Public's money buys votes? Keynesian stimulus is very much in vogue? You believe brighter days are just around the corner? The political left is better at spending money that generating money? The reasons for this abound. I haven't even covered the more legitimate end of the spectrum, like when you're fighting a war and debt doesn't matter if you're dead. If you've just suffered a catastrophe and it makes sense to borrow to rebuild and have the infrastructure to pay back the debts. Trying to nail the US's political left on how unaffordable the growth in spending is on bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security, and you'll quickly be called a rich elitist unconcerned with the needs of the poor. Would you rather be seen as the penny-pinching miser or the magnanimous friend of the poor?
You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on!
|
On October 06 2013 03:25 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 06 2013 03:19 Jisall wrote:On October 05 2013 19:47 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned. The problem is that they have been borrowing for the last 50 years, its only a matter of time until we can't pay the interest payments and default if we keep racking up debt. We can always pay it because all US debt is owed in dollars. The USFG can print dollars. Therefore there will never be a case that the US has a debt that they can't pay. Not sure if serious. oO
it's true.
what could happen though is the dollar value going near zero (too much printed) which means hyperinflation and that's also pretty bad.
|
On October 06 2013 03:29 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:25 m4inbrain wrote:On October 06 2013 03:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 06 2013 03:19 Jisall wrote:On October 05 2013 19:47 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned. The problem is that they have been borrowing for the last 50 years, its only a matter of time until we can't pay the interest payments and default if we keep racking up debt. We can always pay it because all US debt is owed in dollars. The USFG can print dollars. Therefore there will never be a case that the US has a debt that they can't pay. Not sure if serious. oO it's true. what could happen though is the dollar value going near zero (too much printed) which means hyperinflation and that's also pretty bad.
It's not what "could" happen but what "would" happen. That's why a government is in debt in the first place, because they can't print money to their liking.
|
On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 19:51 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? Spending the Public's money buys votes? Keynesian stimulus is very much in vogue? You believe brighter days are just around the corner? The political left is better at spending money that generating money? The reasons for this abound. I haven't even covered the more legitimate end of the spectrum, like when you're fighting a war and debt doesn't matter if you're dead. If you've just suffered a catastrophe and it makes sense to borrow to rebuild and have the infrastructure to pay back the debts. Trying to nail the US's political left on how unaffordable the growth in spending is on bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security, and you'll quickly be called a rich elitist unconcerned with the needs of the poor. Would you rather be seen as the penny-pinching miser or the magnanimous friend of the poor? You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on!
facts ?
![[image loading]](http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4bf7f0947f8b9ac23f940400-619-449/gross-federal-debt-as-a-percent-of-gdp.jpg)
i dont see any correlation between democrat/republican and debt levels.
|
On October 06 2013 03:33 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 19:51 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? Spending the Public's money buys votes? Keynesian stimulus is very much in vogue? You believe brighter days are just around the corner? The political left is better at spending money that generating money? The reasons for this abound. I haven't even covered the more legitimate end of the spectrum, like when you're fighting a war and debt doesn't matter if you're dead. If you've just suffered a catastrophe and it makes sense to borrow to rebuild and have the infrastructure to pay back the debts. Trying to nail the US's political left on how unaffordable the growth in spending is on bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security, and you'll quickly be called a rich elitist unconcerned with the needs of the poor. Would you rather be seen as the penny-pinching miser or the magnanimous friend of the poor? You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on! facts ? i dont see any correlation between democrat/republican and debt levels.
yeah, just ignore little events like WW2 and the GFC. nothing happened there.
|
On October 06 2013 03:33 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 19:51 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? Spending the Public's money buys votes? Keynesian stimulus is very much in vogue? You believe brighter days are just around the corner? The political left is better at spending money that generating money? The reasons for this abound. I haven't even covered the more legitimate end of the spectrum, like when you're fighting a war and debt doesn't matter if you're dead. If you've just suffered a catastrophe and it makes sense to borrow to rebuild and have the infrastructure to pay back the debts. Trying to nail the US's political left on how unaffordable the growth in spending is on bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security, and you'll quickly be called a rich elitist unconcerned with the needs of the poor. Would you rather be seen as the penny-pinching miser or the magnanimous friend of the poor? You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on! facts ? i dont see any correlation between democrat/republican and debt levels.
He means facts like in r/politics your German perception of reality clouds your judgement.
|
On October 06 2013 03:31 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:29 Gaga wrote:On October 06 2013 03:25 m4inbrain wrote:On October 06 2013 03:21 packrat386 wrote:On October 06 2013 03:19 Jisall wrote:On October 05 2013 19:47 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned. The problem is that they have been borrowing for the last 50 years, its only a matter of time until we can't pay the interest payments and default if we keep racking up debt. We can always pay it because all US debt is owed in dollars. The USFG can print dollars. Therefore there will never be a case that the US has a debt that they can't pay. Not sure if serious. oO it's true. what could happen though is the dollar value going near zero (too much printed) which means hyperinflation and that's also pretty bad. It's not what "could" happen but what "would" happen. That's why a government is in debt in the first place, because they can't print money to their liking.
if you want to put the central bank as a non goverment entity ... fine.. but it is put there by a goverment so that there is a lender of last resort. Which means that there is always someone who the goverment can lend money from. which results in the same thing.
otherwise you should really read up what central banks do.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/07/17/bernanke-to-congress-we-are-printing-money-just-not-literally/
|
On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:
You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on!
I don't know what you've been smoking, but:
What was the debt when President Obama took office ?
What is the debt now ?
|
United States24690 Posts
I think some of the large debt increase since GW Bush can be considered unavoidable due to the state of affairs GWB left behind. The variations in debt for each president are in part contributed to by the policies and actions of recent prior presidents (and other factors).
|
On October 06 2013 03:49 micronesia wrote:
I think some of the large debt increase since GW Bush can be considered unavoidable due to the state of affairs GWB left behind. The variations in debt for each president are in part contributed to by the policies and actions of recent prior presidents (and other factors).
That's fine. But SubAPM's statement is absolutely, demonstrably false. Yet, he's the one making statements about facts getting in the way.
edit: And attributing debt to Presidents by some method other than as occurred during their Presidency is subjective. Not to mention there is also Congress involved. Debates over what President is responsible for how much, using means other than temporal, can never be boiled down to "truth", and thus will always be something over which people will never agree.
|
On October 06 2013 03:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:
You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on!
I don't know what you've been smoking, but: What was the debt when President Obama took office ? What is the debt now ?
Trending down unlike under Bush? Obama isnt a magician, collapse of tax revenues due to a depression isnt under his control.
|
On October 06 2013 03:33 Gaga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 19:51 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? Spending the Public's money buys votes? Keynesian stimulus is very much in vogue? You believe brighter days are just around the corner? The political left is better at spending money that generating money? The reasons for this abound. I haven't even covered the more legitimate end of the spectrum, like when you're fighting a war and debt doesn't matter if you're dead. If you've just suffered a catastrophe and it makes sense to borrow to rebuild and have the infrastructure to pay back the debts. Trying to nail the US's political left on how unaffordable the growth in spending is on bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security, and you'll quickly be called a rich elitist unconcerned with the needs of the poor. Would you rather be seen as the penny-pinching miser or the magnanimous friend of the poor? You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on! facts ? i dont see any correlation between democrat/republican and debt levels.
You dont see the difference between Carter -- Reagan and Clinton-Bush 2?
|
|
|
On October 06 2013 03:57 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:42 Kaitlin wrote:On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:
You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on!
I don't know what you've been smoking, but: What was the debt when President Obama took office ? What is the debt now ? Trending down unlike under Bush? Obama isnt a magician, collapse of tax revenues due to a depression isnt under his control.
The statement you made was patently false. Now you're walking it back with "trending down" and deflecting blame.
|
On October 06 2013 03:58 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 03:33 Gaga wrote:On October 06 2013 03:28 Sub40APM wrote:On October 05 2013 19:51 Danglars wrote:On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote:
I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income? Spending the Public's money buys votes? Keynesian stimulus is very much in vogue? You believe brighter days are just around the corner? The political left is better at spending money that generating money? The reasons for this abound. I haven't even covered the more legitimate end of the spectrum, like when you're fighting a war and debt doesn't matter if you're dead. If you've just suffered a catastrophe and it makes sense to borrow to rebuild and have the infrastructure to pay back the debts. Trying to nail the US's political left on how unaffordable the growth in spending is on bankrupt programs like Medicare and Social Security, and you'll quickly be called a rich elitist unconcerned with the needs of the poor. Would you rather be seen as the penny-pinching miser or the magnanimous friend of the poor? You realize that conservative presidents like Reagan and Bush II added more to the US debt than liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama? Well, dont let facts in the way of a good hate on! facts ? i dont see any correlation between democrat/republican and debt levels. You dont see the difference between Carter -- Reagan and Clinton-Bush 2?
Is there a chart with the same graphic, but with Congress instead of Presidencies ? I remember Republicans took over Congress after Clinton's first couple of years, exactly when the trend downward begins. Contract with America, Newt Gingrich, government shutdown. Those aren't highlighted in the graph, but they are predecessors to the downward trend in debt as a % of GDP...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
