Ron Paul announces presidential bid.


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 1,385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It's hard for me to put into words myself although I will try -it, essentially takes the view that racism doesn't exist because racial identity is a social construct, and that while racism is bad, it would not exist if we did not cling to a racial construct. This pov quietly and perhaps unintentionally provides a breeding ground for hardened racists who don't care who or what you identify with, you are not like them and will suffer for it. The free market ideals he espouses here do nothing to stem the problem, they ignore the fact that people like this already have money and several organizations with which to get more regardless of government intervention, liberty in this vein will only embolden them, as they will suddenly find the discrimination they participate in quite legal and even encouraged.

Arg. Not explaining it right, will try again later.


stardust wrote:

Is this what you're referring to:

"Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" And because Dr. Paul said yes, you think he wants to indoctrinate Intelligent Design in the public school system? (Which he doesn't want to control any part of, since he doesn't believe education can be regulated at the federal level)

Laughing hysterically here. That's a huge jump in logic.

If you knew the facts of the matter -- about 180 degrees from what the question claims -- then the logic becomes more clear.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
stardust wrote:

Is this what you're referring to:

"Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" And because Dr. Paul said yes, you think he wants to indoctrinate Intelligent Design in the public school system? (Which he doesn't want to control any part of, since he doesn't believe education can be regulated at the federal level)

Laughing hysterically here. That's a huge jump in logic.

If you knew the facts of the matter -- about 180 degrees from what the question claims -- then the logic becomes more clear:

  • Denial of tenure in that instance was from failure to publish (breach of contract) -- totally unrelated to ID work;
  • Teaching that storks really deliver babies is "censored" when teaching human reproduction, because it demonstrably doesn't fit the facts (refraining from teaching random nonsense as "equally valid alternatives" is not censorship; it's common sense);
  • Evolution by natural selection continues to be subject to more scientific attempts to show it as incorrect than almost any other theory before or since (rather than being "dogmatically indoctrinated") -- and continues to pass these tests.

    If you're interested in the topic, there are a number of web sites [4 links there] specifically set up to address all of the erroneous Ben Stein movie points embedded in the "question" you quoted.

  • Liberty's Edge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Stuff

    Ah, but in a debate, if a question is asked where you don't know all the facts, I believe you are required to assume that the facts presented prior to the question are correct. (It's been a while since I was in debate class.) And even in such a case, the answer should address the question even if it does not address the facts presented prior to the question.

    So, you people are getting upset because a candidate presented the best answer he could to a question (which you claim is biased and I do not have any evidence to the contrary).

    In my personal experience, if in a debate, someone asked me whether I would encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theories of Theistic Evolution, I would say yes. I would also say yes to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict Intelligent Design, or any other origin science. I would never squash the presentation of any scientific facts, and would use the opportunity to open scientific debates by an assortment of scientific facts.

    The premise of the question is biased. The question is relatively clear. The answer to the question concise.


    stardust wrote:

    Ah, but in a debate, if a question is asked where you don't know all the facts, I believe you are required to assume that the facts presented prior to the question are correct.

    So, you people are getting upset because a candidate presented the best answer he could to a question (which you claim is biased and I do not have any evidence to the contrary).

    My issue is that a former medical doctor acts as if he has no knowledge of whether the facts are correct -- that's more or less equivalent to him not knowing if babies come from storks. A medical doctor should have some basic knowledge of biology, I should think. If not, it sort of makes me wonder about his fiscal savvy, which he doesn't claim professional knowledge of.

    As a minor side note, for the sake of accuracy, it's not me "claiming" the question is "biased" -- it's a matter of me linking to multiple places showing that the question's assumptions are outright falsehoods.


    stardust wrote:
    I would never squash the presentation of any scientific facts, and would use the opportunity to open scientific debates by an assortment of scientific facts.

    What if they're not facts at all? In an engineering class, would you teach the "fact" that internal combustion engines run on summoned fire elementals?

    Liberty's Edge

    Perhaps, as a medical doctor, he himself has access to medical or scientific facts contrary to evolution. However, I do not know. It would be a good question to ask him, though, the next time I see him.

    Speaking of which, I haven't asked my own medical professionals (whom all have told me they believe in ID, and I'm fine with, even though I believe in Theistic Evolution), why specifically they believe in ID. It never came up.

    As someone has mentioned previously, I thought that scientific organizations had already classified what specifically could or could not be considered scientific fact.

    But aside from calling Ron Paul's honesty or ability to govern into question, is there any specific reason why we should be concerned with Intelligent Design or the conflict between it and Evolution? I have never questioned my doctor's honesty or ability to perform medicine because he does not believe in evolution.

    I have always believed that medicine is a medical service built around medical facts, not a series of biological facts built around the possibility of medical service. If Dr. Paul had become a biologist rather than a medical doctor, perhaps he would agree more with evolution. Like I said, I'll have to ask him the next time I see him.


    stardust wrote:
    But aside from calling Ron Paul's honesty or ability to govern into question, is there any specific reason why we should be concerned with Intelligent Design or the conflict between it and Evolution? I have never questioned my doctor's honesty or ability to perform medicine because he does not believe in evolution.

    Google "antibiotic resistance." It's evolution in action; it was specifically predicted by the theory, prior to seeing it.


    You know what, I had a huge rant for this, but I'm just going to shut up, because no one wants to hear it except to make me look stupid for being Christian. I'll only say this: if an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, why do you follow that path? Especially when you put your eyes at a value of the national debt, and ours at a value of a penny?


    Zombieneighbours wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Judging by the number of people who didnt know what ID meant on this thread alone, (myself included. I always thought it meant what the Catholics say) why would teaching it be a bad thing? In my high school they taught us what communism and fascism were, and lo and behold, I'm neither one.

    1.It is just creationism repackaged thing and so is unconstitutional to teach in a science class room.

    2. Given that USA has only the 14th highest Scientific literacy rate (OECD, 2000) it would seem something of a waste of class room time tobe teaching something that isn't science don't you think. I mean yet again the 'only a theory' line has been pulled out in this thread. Wouldn't it be better to get to a point where children get out of school understanding what a scientific theory is, and how it is not the same thing as the common usage term theory, rather than filling their heads up with religious pseudo-science.

    Ahh ok. Like I said, I dont really know a whole lot about ID. And that makes perfect sense to me. I still dont believe that RP would force the teaching of ID, seeing as how that would run counter to his constitutionalist views.


    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    I still dont believe that RP would force the teaching of ID, seeing as how that would run counter to his constitutionalist views.

    I'd like to think that he espouses those views, rather than simply mouthing the words. Maybe Ron Paul does; I don't know yet. I hope so. But I will say that I've run across any number of self-proclaimed "libertarians" here in Texas who talk that talk, and then turn around and support the use of government to apply religious mandates to the population.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Machaeus wrote:
    You know what, I had a huge rant for this, but I'm just going to shut up, because no one wants to hear it except to make me look stupid for being Christian. I'll only say this: if an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, why do you follow that path? Especially when you put your eyes at a value of the national debt, and ours at a value of a penny?

    What does this mean? I'm not seeing what is intended to be conveyed here. And making you look stupid for being Christian (or anything else) is not the purpose of this thread, so I would hope that the relatively civil tone that has been maintained here would prevail. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm genuinely interested in what you're trying to say.


    ElCrabofAnger wrote:
    making you look stupid for being Christian (or anything else) is not the purpose of this thread

    I agree -- and I should make it clear that I have no problem with Christians, only with people who try to use government to mandate it. Fobbing off young earth creationism as "science" is one such act -- it's not so much important because of that one issue in particular, but because it demonstrates they have no knowledge of (and yet total and utter contempt for) what science actually is and does, and a very cavalier attitude towards using government to mandate their personal literalist religious views instead.

    Also, if a person is into a free market economy, evolution by natural selection already won the market in terms of the scientific sector. Using government to mandate the presentation of an inferior (in terms of observable facts) alternative is, to me, the antithesis of a free market philosophy.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    stardust wrote:
    But aside from calling Ron Paul's honesty or ability to govern into question, is there any specific reason why we should be concerned with Intelligent Design or the conflict between it and Evolution? I have never questioned my doctor's honesty or ability to perform medicine because he does not believe in evolution.
    Google "antibiotic resistance." It's evolution in action; it was specifically predicted by the theory, prior to seeing it.

    As I tried to point out before, there are some aspects that are more important and also more widely accepted, than other parts. One can be doubtful of some aspects and still be accepting of others. These issues don't have to be a false-dilemma situation.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    I still dont believe that RP would force the teaching of ID, seeing as how that would run counter to his constitutionalist views.
    I'd like to think that he espouses those views, rather than simply mouthing the words. Maybe Ron Paul does; I don't know yet. I hope so. But I will say that I've run across any number of self-proclaimed "libertarians" here in Texas who talk that talk, and then turn around and support the use of government to apply religious mandates to the population.

    That's fair. But in an election, the only thing that one has to go on, is what the candidate says and what he has already done in office. If President Obama had actually lowered the debt, passed a bipartisan healthcare bill, ended torture, Gitmo, and the Patriot Act, and got us out of 2 lengthy wars with no clear objective like he said he was going to do, that would be great. Instead, a healthcare bill was passed before anyone had a chance to read what all it entailed, we are now in 3 wars in the Middle East (one of which were we actively SUPPORT Al-Qaida in Libya), and the rest are all still around. Guess what, all politicians lie to get votes. But all we have to go on is their espoused views and their proven voting record. And by that measuring stick alone, I like RP. I cannot think of any greater champion of the 4th amendment, which I believe is under attack.

    If you decide that you dont like RP because he answered a question at a debate where not all the relevent facts were presented or because other Texas Libertarians were corrupt, then that is your prerogotive, albeit a silly one. That would be like me saying "I wouldnt vote for Obama because John Wayne Gacy was a member of the Democratic Party in Chicago. A vote for Obama is a vote for serial killers!"* or "I wouldnt vote for Newt Gingrich, he's a Republican from Georgia, just like Big Bossman, who totally attacked Hulk Hogan at Summerslam 86. He wants to make suplexes mandatory in public schools!"*

    *I dont really believe that.

    Edit- added some humor.


    Abraham spalding wrote:


    One of the things to remember about the Fed is the fact that it isn't actually a government entity -- it has a government mandate -- but it very much operates on its own, and without direct tax payer support. It puts together its own money. It is a profit based business that has congressional oversight but is private in nature (when it comes to the sector it operates from) -- all of its revenues go to the government, meaning that it very much is a socialist institution ran by capitalist (which honestly doesn't seem to be a bad way to do it). Of its $82,000,000,000 profit last year $79,000,000,000 went straight to the government.

    Also it is separate from the US treasury -- a fact I think a lot of people forget very often.

    In practice the Fed puts the private sector in charge of the constitutional duty of Congress to maintain currency and the value of said currency.

    The Federal Reserve does put together its own money, more specifically it has a government enforced monopoly of making US currency...that would be OUR money, assuming you live in the USA like I do.

    Of course it makes a profit, you would too if you can make money out of thin air. Who wouldn't?

    The problem with it issuing money however, is that profit comes from the loss suffered by everyone who already has US currency...by adding more dollars it makes all dollars already existing worth less...basic supply and demand.

    It is not a coincidence that the first World War was after central banks were installed in just about every Western nation.

    A more recent example, without the Federal Reserve, for Bush to invade Iraq he would have had to have Congress tax the average family about $10,0000 to cover war costs. The American people would have vetoed that idea.

    You also mentioned to me you weren't so sure that it is Ron Paul that is the reason Bernanke is doing press conferences. No other politician was talking about the Federal Reserve in 2007 when the economy was tanking, most Republican Presidential candidates were obviously confused when Ron Paul would bring it up. Now it is a national conversation topic, and Ron Paul gained Chairmanship of the Financial Services subcommittee when the Republicans took over the House and for the first time we have people testifying to Congress about the enormous costs the government imposes on the economy due to stupid policies like destroying cars and interfering in the real estate markets to make housing more expensive.

    The momentum is changing slowly but surely. Inevitably in fact, since the US government can't afford to keep binge spending for too many more years.


    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    If you decide that you dont like RP because he answered a question at a debate where not all the relevent facts were presented or because other Texas Libertarians were corrupt, then that is your prerogotive, albeit a silly one.

    Doesn't matter if I support him or not. As a Texas resident, the electoral college assures that all of my votes are Republican, regardless of what lever I pull on election day. My interest in candidates is therefore largely academic.

    Scarab Sages

    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Instead, a healthcare bill was passed before anyone had a chance to read what all it entailed

    Let's see: PATRIOT ACT was given to congress on a late Friday night/early Saturday morning and passed first thing on Monday.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in September of 2009. It wasn't signed into law until March 2010. Variants had been introduced even earlier. So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.


    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Instead, a healthcare bill was passed before anyone had a chance to read what all it entailed

    Let's see: PATRIOT ACT was given to congress on a late Friday night/early Saturday morning and passed first thing on Monday.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in September of 2009. It wasn't signed into law until March 2010. Variants had been introduced even earlier. So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.

    rare for me to agree with you but there you go.


    pres man wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    stardust wrote:
    But aside from calling Ron Paul's honesty or ability to govern into question, is there any specific reason why we should be concerned with Intelligent Design or the conflict between it and Evolution? I have never questioned my doctor's honesty or ability to perform medicine because he does not believe in evolution.
    Google "antibiotic resistance." It's evolution in action; it was specifically predicted by the theory, prior to seeing it.
    As I tried to point out before, there are some aspects that are more important and also more widely accepted, than other parts. One can be doubtful of some aspects and still be accepting of others. These issues don't have to be a false-dilemma situation.

    Save that it is not. What you refer erroneously to as Macro-evolution is a direct and entirely inescapable result of what you erroneously refer to as micro-evolution. They are one and the same thing. Their isn't micro-evolution and macro-evolution, their is simply evolution by natural selection.

    But of cause, if you believe otherwise, you are more than welcome to provide a hypothesis which describes the mechanism that prevents evolutionary principles form producing new forms of life, and evidence to support your hypothesis.


    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.

    Yeah, but that's sort of nitpicking the least important part of White Knife's overall point, which I agree with: for all the talk of "change," Obama's actual actions in office have been, almost item for item, a direct continuation of Bush Jr.'s.


    Zombieneighbours wrote:
    pres man wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    stardust wrote:
    But aside from calling Ron Paul's honesty or ability to govern into question, is there any specific reason why we should be concerned with Intelligent Design or the conflict between it and Evolution? I have never questioned my doctor's honesty or ability to perform medicine because he does not believe in evolution.
    Google "antibiotic resistance." It's evolution in action; it was specifically predicted by the theory, prior to seeing it.
    As I tried to point out before, there are some aspects that are more important and also more widely accepted, than other parts. One can be doubtful of some aspects and still be accepting of others. These issues don't have to be a false-dilemma situation.

    Save that it is not. What you refer erroneously to as Macro-evolution is a direct and entirely inescapable result of what you erroneously refer to as micro-evolution. They are one and the same thing. Their isn't micro-evolution and macro-evolution, their is simply evolution by natural selection.

    But of cause, if you believe otherwise, you are more than welcome to provide a hypothesis which describes the mechanism that prevents evolutionary principles form producing new forms of life, and evidence to support your hypothesis.

    Look, you can get all high and mighty if you wish. I don't really care.

    I am just saying people understand one a lot more than then the other. People understand how different breeds of dogs can be developed, but they all are still dogs (and breed as such). That is easy to understand, describing how an ancestor of the dog and the fox descended into the two is a bit harder.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.
    Yeah, but that's sort of nitpicking the least important part of White Knife's overall point, which I agree with: for all the talk of "change," Obama's actual actions in office have been, almost item for item, a direct continuation of Bush Jr.'s.

    See above, save i agree with you more often.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    ElCrabofAnger wrote:
    making you look stupid for being Christian (or anything else) is not the purpose of this thread

    I agree -- and I should make it clear that I have no problem with Christians, only with people who try to use government to mandate it. Fobbing off young earth creationism as "science" is one such act -- it's not so much important because of that one issue in particular, but because it demonstrates they have no knowledge of (and yet total and utter contempt for) what science actually is and does, and a very cavalier attitude towards using government to mandate their personal literalist religious views instead.

    Also, if a person is into a free market economy, evolution by natural selection already won the market in terms of the scientific sector. Using government to mandate the presentation of an inferior (in terms of observable facts) alternative is, to me, the antithesis of a free market philosophy.

    In the "free market place of ideas" evolution is about as successful as the class Insecta ;)

    The Exchange

    Freehold DM wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.
    Yeah, but that's sort of nitpicking the least important part of White Knife's overall point, which I agree with: for all the talk of "change," Obama's actual actions in office have been, almost item for item, a direct continuation of Bush Jr.'s.
    See above, save i agree with you more often.

    I often wonder if there is more to the situation than most of us realize. I have noticed in the past that other presidents have continued on with many policies that were laughable when done by their predecessor and confusingly continued by the current administration. The most obvious is back door politics to which we are unaware. I do have to question though if this is always the case. If there is not some other 'need' to which the public is not privy which would cause what to outside eyes would seem diametrically opposed groups to come to similar actions. No conspiracy theory, just wondering what information might being getting lost in the 'shuffle.'

    Scarab Sages

    Sadly, Obama has been forced into a corner with regards to Gitmo, and the PATRIOT ACT. I just wish he would grow a pair and just get it done and over with. AQ is nothing more than a criminal cartel and should be treated as such.

    As for bailing out the auto industry, it had to be done. The unemployment rate would have been much higher if he hadn't. I wish there had been a larger penalty on the banks and Wall Street.


    Crimson Jester wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.
    Yeah, but that's sort of nitpicking the least important part of White Knife's overall point, which I agree with: for all the talk of "change," Obama's actual actions in office have been, almost item for item, a direct continuation of Bush Jr.'s.
    See above, save i agree with you more often.
    I often wonder if there is more to the situation than most of us realize. I have noticed in the past that other presidents have continued on with many policies that were laughable when done by their predecessor and confusingly continued by the current administration. The most obvious is back door politics to which we are unaware. I do have to question though if this is always the case. If there is not some other 'need' to which the public is not privy which would cause what to outside eyes would seem diametrically opposed groups to come to similar actions. No conspiracy theory, just wondering what information might being getting lost in the 'shuffle.'

    See above, save i agree with you on most things outside of religion.

    The Exchange

    Freehold DM wrote:
    Crimson Jester wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.
    Yeah, but that's sort of nitpicking the least important part of White Knife's overall point, which I agree with: for all the talk of "change," Obama's actual actions in office have been, almost item for item, a direct continuation of Bush Jr.'s.
    See above, save i agree with you more often.
    I often wonder if there is more to the situation than most of us realize. I have noticed in the past that other presidents have continued on with many policies that were laughable when done by their predecessor and confusingly continued by the current administration. The most obvious is back door politics to which we are unaware. I do have to question though if this is always the case. If there is not some other 'need' to which the public is not privy which would cause what to outside eyes would seem diametrically opposed groups to come to similar actions. No conspiracy theory, just wondering what information might being getting lost in the 'shuffle.'

    See above, save i agree with you on most things outside of religion.

    Did we ever have much of a religious discussion??


    pres man wrote:
    Zombieneighbours wrote:
    pres man wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    stardust wrote:
    But aside from calling Ron Paul's honesty or ability to govern into question, is there any specific reason why we should be concerned with Intelligent Design or the conflict between it and Evolution? I have never questioned my doctor's honesty or ability to perform medicine because he does not believe in evolution.
    Google "antibiotic resistance." It's evolution in action; it was specifically predicted by the theory, prior to seeing it.
    As I tried to point out before, there are some aspects that are more important and also more widely accepted, than other parts. One can be doubtful of some aspects and still be accepting of others. These issues don't have to be a false-dilemma situation.

    Save that it is not. What you refer erroneously to as Macro-evolution is a direct and entirely inescapable result of what you erroneously refer to as micro-evolution. They are one and the same thing. Their isn't micro-evolution and macro-evolution, their is simply evolution by natural selection.

    But of cause, if you believe otherwise, you are more than welcome to provide a hypothesis which describes the mechanism that prevents evolutionary principles form producing new forms of life, and evidence to support your hypothesis.

    Look, you can get all high and mighty if you wish. I don't really care.

    I am just saying people understand one a lot more than then the other. People understand how different breeds of dogs can be developed, but they all are still dogs (and breed as such). That is easy to understand, describing how an ancestor of the dog and the fox descended into the two is a bit harder.

    Really? How is it hard? It isn't meant to be an attack on you Pres, but I really cannot see how it is hard. I mean, even a cursory look at the fossil records provides a stunning visual guide.

    I am sorry, but the only conclusion I can come to is that the rejection isn't based on reason, or some sort cognitive leap they cannot make, it is based on damage done to their imagination by dogma.

    'We are special! We are made in gods image!'

    'My grandpa isn't a moneky!'

    'I'm not an animal!'

    And it's so sad... so very sad, because evolution doesn't have a thing to say about god, existent or otherwise, but people shackle themselves. If I where a religious type, Evolution by natural selection would to me be gods master piece. I am sure you know I feel passionately about how beautiful I consider the process, but seriously the elegance of the system is a sources of such wonder and joy, I am astounded that people cling to the weak and rather unimaginative myths contained in Genesis.

    A god who could conceive a set of universal rules which gave rise to such an array of life by a self governing system of non-random selection is surely mightier than a magic man who animates clay.

    The Exchange

    Zombieneighbours wrote:
    If I where a religious type, Evolution by natural selection would to me be gods master piece.

    SO far about the only thing you have ever posted I can agree with.


    Sanakht Inaros wrote:


    As for bailing out the auto industry, it had to be done. The unemployment rate would have been much higher if he hadn't. I wish there had been a larger penalty on the banks and Wall Street.

    No, it did not have to be done. It was a disaster that it was done. It made most of us poorer because it was done. It even arbitrarily stole from some people in order to reward a few politically connected union workers because it was done.

    Until most people realize and understand why this is bad economically, the economy will continue to decline and poverty will increase as more of these government interventions occur.

    We can have 100% employment by rounding up everyone not working and have them dig ditches...but that will not help anyone nor revive the economy. Rewarding an industry that is failing results in more failure.


    NPC Dave wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:


    As for bailing out the auto industry, it had to be done. The unemployment rate would have been much higher if he hadn't. I wish there had been a larger penalty on the banks and Wall Street.

    No, it did not have to be done. It was a disaster that it was done. It made most of us poorer because it was done. It even arbitrarily stole from some people in order to reward a few politically connected union workers because it was done.

    Until most people realize and understand why this is bad economically, the economy will continue to decline and poverty will increase as more of these government interventions occur.

    We can have 100% employment by rounding up everyone not working and have them dig ditches...but that will not help anyone nor revive the economy. Rewarding an industry that is failing results in more failure.

    Don't forget, there was some suggestions that some of the dealerships that were closed weren't based on success or failure, but on who donated to which political campaigns.


    pres man wrote:
    Don't forget, there was some suggestions that some of the dealerships that were closed weren't based on success or failure, but on who donated to which political campaigns.

    That might explain why all the successful businesspeople I know donate to both parties.


    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Instead, a healthcare bill was passed before anyone had a chance to read what all it entailed

    Let's see: PATRIOT ACT was given to congress on a late Friday night/early Saturday morning and passed first thing on Monday.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in September of 2009. It wasn't signed into law until March 2010. Variants had been introduced even earlier. So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.

    And I think that its convenient that you ignore that I implied that the Patriot Act needs to go away too.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    pres man wrote:
    Don't forget, there was some suggestions that some of the dealerships that were closed weren't based on success or failure, but on who donated to which political campaigns.
    That might explain why all the successful businesspeople I know donate to both parties.

    dark, sarcastic chuckle


    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Instead, a healthcare bill was passed before anyone had a chance to read what all it entailed

    Let's see: PATRIOT ACT was given to congress on a late Friday night/early Saturday morning and passed first thing on Monday.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in September of 2009. It wasn't signed into law until March 2010. Variants had been introduced even earlier. So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.

    And I think that its convenient that you ignore that I implied that the Patriot Act needs to go away too.

    i dont think it was ignored, just not relevant to the point made. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, however.


    Freehold DM wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Instead, a healthcare bill was passed before anyone had a chance to read what all it entailed

    Let's see: PATRIOT ACT was given to congress on a late Friday night/early Saturday morning and passed first thing on Monday.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in September of 2009. It wasn't signed into law until March 2010. Variants had been introduced even earlier. So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.

    And I think that its convenient that you ignore that I implied that the Patriot Act needs to go away too.
    i dont think it was ignored, just not relevant to the point made. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, however.

    My bad then. I was reading as: "Oh how craptastic of you to bring up the Health Care Bill, when the Patriot Act did the same thing." I think they are both equally craptastic.

    EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavence


    NPC Dave wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:


    As for bailing out the auto industry, it had to be done. The unemployment rate would have been much higher if he hadn't. I wish there had been a larger penalty on the banks and Wall Street.

    No, it did not have to be done. It was a disaster that it was done. It made most of us poorer because it was done. It even arbitrarily stole from some people in order to reward a few politically connected union workers because it was done.

    Until most people realize and understand why this is bad economically, the economy will continue to decline and poverty will increase as more of these government interventions occur.

    We can have 100% employment by rounding up everyone not working and have them dig ditches...but that will not help anyone nor revive the economy. Rewarding an industry that is failing results in more failure.

    The auto bailout was predicated upon huge concession and givebacks on behalf of the UAW. With starting pay, benefits and pension contributions all slashed, I don't think it was the autoworkers who were rewarded.


    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    NPC Dave wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:


    As for bailing out the auto industry, it had to be done. The unemployment rate would have been much higher if he hadn't. I wish there had been a larger penalty on the banks and Wall Street.

    No, it did not have to be done. It was a disaster that it was done. It made most of us poorer because it was done. It even arbitrarily stole from some people in order to reward a few politically connected union workers because it was done.

    Until most people realize and understand why this is bad economically, the economy will continue to decline and poverty will increase as more of these government interventions occur.

    We can have 100% employment by rounding up everyone not working and have them dig ditches...but that will not help anyone nor revive the economy. Rewarding an industry that is failing results in more failure.

    The auto bailout was predicated upon huge concession and givebacks on behalf of the UAW. With starting pay, benefits and pension contributions all slashed, I don't think it was the autoworkers who were rewarded.

    Exactly. A corporation failed, yet taxpayers were burdened to save that corporation. Everyone but the failed corporation lost. Tell me again what the difference between Obama and Dubya are?

    Scarab Sages

    NPC Dave wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:


    As for bailing out the auto industry, it had to be done. The unemployment rate would have been much higher if he hadn't. I wish there had been a larger penalty on the banks and Wall Street.

    No, it did not have to be done. It was a disaster that it was done. It made most of us poorer because it was done. It even arbitrarily stole from some people in order to reward a few politically connected union workers because it was done.

    Until most people realize and understand why this is bad economically, the economy will continue to decline and poverty will increase as more of these government interventions occur.

    We can have 100% employment by rounding up everyone not working and have them dig ditches...but that will not help anyone nor revive the economy. Rewarding an industry that is failing results in more failure.

    Really? It was a disaster because they saved ten of thousands of jobs here in the States alone? Not just for GM and Chrysler, but also the parts suppliers as well. As well as jobs overseas.

    Scarab Sages

    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    And I think that its convenient that you ignore that I implied that the Patriot Act needs to go away too.
    i dont think it was ignored, just not relevant to the point made. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, however. My bad then. I was reading as: "Oh how craptastic of you to bring up the Health Care Bill, when the Patriot Act did the same thing." I think they are both equally craptastic.

    No. Didn't ignore the fact that the PATRIOT ACT needs to go away. I actually agree with that. I just get annoyed when people say that no one was given a chance to read the entire "OBAMACARE" Bill. It annoys me even further that people who complain about the Bill are pretty much the same people who haven't read it. There are a lot of Republican ideas in the bill, but because the democrats actually passed it, those ideas have now been demonized. I don't think the bill is perfect, but it's a starting point.


    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    No. Didn't ignore the fact that the PATRIOT ACT needs to go away. I actually agree with that. I just get annoyed when people say that no one was given a chance to read the entire "OBAMACARE" Bill. It annoys me even further that people who complain about the Bill are pretty much the same people who haven't read it. There are a lot of Republican ideas in the bill, but because the democrats actually passed it, those ideas have now been demonized. I don't think the bill is perfect, but it's a starting point.

    Yeah like I said I read it wrong. Its the problem with the written word. I thought you were emphasizing the first paragraph and not the second when it was vice versa. And you yourself admit that the Healthcare bill isnt perfect and just a starting point. But its not just a starting point anymore. Now its the law. I dont understand what the big rush to get it pushed through without examing it thouroghly was all about. Big changes to Law like these two examples ALWAYS have unintended consequences. For example, NAFTA indirectly helped lead to the boom in illegal immigrants, due to the US flooding Mexico with cheap corn that put Mexican farmers out of work. And this is to say nothing of the infringements upon constitutional rights that both these bills entail.

    ***EDIT - fixed BBCode Markup - Liz.***


    I dont know why the quote thing ended at the wrong point in the above post. ^ My reply begins at "Yeah like I said..."


    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    Instead, a healthcare bill was passed before anyone had a chance to read what all it entailed

    Let's see: PATRIOT ACT was given to congress on a late Friday night/early Saturday morning and passed first thing on Monday.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was introduced in September of 2009. It wasn't signed into law until March 2010. Variants had been introduced even earlier. So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.

    And I think that its convenient that you ignore that I implied that the Patriot Act needs to go away too.
    i dont think it was ignored, just not relevant to the point made. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that, however.

    My bad then. I was reading as: "Oh how craptastic of you to bring up the Health Care Bill, when the Patriot Act did the same thing." I think they are both equally craptastic.

    EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavence

    I concur.


    Crimson Jester wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Sanakht Inaros wrote:
    So saying that no one had a chance to read it is disingenious.
    Yeah, but that's sort of nitpicking the least important part of White Knife's overall point, which I agree with: for all the talk of "change," Obama's actual actions in office have been, almost item for item, a direct continuation of Bush Jr.'s.
    See above, save i agree with you more often.
    I often wonder if there is more to the situation than most of us realize. I have noticed in the past that other presidents have continued on with many policies that were laughable when done by their predecessor and confusingly continued by the current administration. The most obvious is back door politics to which we are unaware. I do have to question though if this is always the case. If there is not some other 'need' to which the public is not privy which would cause what to outside eyes would seem diametrically opposed groups to come to similar actions. No conspiracy theory, just wondering what information might being getting lost in the 'shuffle.'

    I think back room politics gets the blame much more often then is really warranted. I'm not saying its never that because it probably is sometimes but I suspect that this is actually a minority of the time.

    I think some of the time its that there is no obvious answer actually on the table or the promise was so broad that it was not particularly viable. In other words politician X promises to fix problem Y, maybe even takes some small steps to do so but problem Y is big and complex while campaign promises need to be straight forward and simple or the electorate does not get it.

    That said I think the number one reason we don't usually see change is that the electorate does not want change - they like the idea of change but not the reality. Sure everyone wants X or Y changed but the electorate as a whole does not agree on what X or Y ought to be. If one can have 'change' that amounts to giving us our cake and eating it too thats fine and that is usually what we really mean by 'change' but its usually pretty hard to find that thing so most politicians go with just a few big changes...and even these often run into massive angst from the public once they start to get under way.

    Obama probably would have given you guys British style Healthcare if he fully had his dithers...but the uproar was defining once health care reform was really put on the table and what could be shoved through and still represent some kind of movement toward more universal health care was a much watered down version...that was as far as Obama could push that and it was maybe his single biggest plan for 'change' going in.

    Its actually possible for a politician to really decide to do 'change'. Sometimes they are forced (watch the TV of Europe for examples) and Ontario once elected a conservative politician who really did almost every single thing he said he was planning on doing in his 'Common Sense Revolution'. For nearly 8 years there where riot police defending the parliament buildings because of all this 'change', and this despite the fact that he was at least respected for being honest.

    Worse yet once that little party was over his political party ended up in the wilderness because the electorate was actually pretty scared of them...they might bring more 'change'. In the end the next party elected reversed most of these changes and is widely voted for (though the voters sigh and complain that this candidate is so boring...but then they vote for him anyway).

    It seems to me that if a politician wants to get elected you really need to get out there and promise positive change...but if you want to get re-elected you had better not change much.

    In the end I think its the electorate itself that really shares the lions share of the blame here.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
    Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
    In the end I think its the electorate itself that really shares the lions share of the blame here.

    We do get the government we deserve. After all, if the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are so different, why do the same things keep happening?

    There are differences, though. But they are often not relevant to the elections. Politicians pander because it works. Society does NOT reward those who point out the fact that the Emperor has no clothes. Somehow, I doubt that any major political operative reads the Paizo boards.

    I have disagreed with many of the positions taken by many of the posters on these boards. I have also agreed with many of those same posters. It saddens me that to get even a semi-rational, mostly polite political debate I have to come here or go to other places on the web, because my family just doesn't care either way unless the threat to their self interest is so obvious that they've already lost. This isn't about calling people sheeple, it's about people actively choosing to be apathetic in the face of decisions being made that will affect their lives. Sheep don't choose to be apathetic; it's in the nature of sheep to be sheep. People do choose to be apathetic. And that's sad, but hey, at least we always get the government we as a people deserve, even if we (the individuals on the Paizo boards) don't deserve it.


    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavence
    I concur.

    It's actually very relevant. It speaks to his inability to understand fairly basic science or how his personal religious views overrule his common sense. This either speaks to someone who's not mentally fit to sit in that position or who might have his personal religious beliefs overrule his common sense in other areas.

    Either case is very troubling to quite a lot of people I would wager.

    Also, if you don't think it matters because you share those same religious beliefs, then think of it like this: What if his religious beliefs were different from yours (could be Muslim, Hindu, Scientology etc.) - would you still think it didn't matter?


    GentleGiant wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavence
    I concur.

    It's actually very relevant. It speaks to his inability to understand fairly basic science or how his personal religious views overrule his common sense. This either speaks to someone who's not mentally fit to sit in that position or who might have his personal religious beliefs overrule his common sense in other areas.

    Either case is very troubling to quite a lot of people I would wager.

    Also, if you don't think it matters because you share those same religious beliefs, then think of it like this: What if his religious beliefs were different from yours (could be Muslim, Hindu, Scientology etc.) - would you still think it didn't matter?

    Is it possible for someone to understand something and yet not agree with its fundamental premises? Or is the measure of understanding only based on acceptance of it?

    The Exchange

    pres man wrote:
    GentleGiant wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavence
    I concur.

    It's actually very relevant. It speaks to his inability to understand fairly basic science or how his personal religious views overrule his common sense. This either speaks to someone who's not mentally fit to sit in that position or who might have his personal religious beliefs overrule his common sense in other areas.

    Either case is very troubling to quite a lot of people I would wager.

    Also, if you don't think it matters because you share those same religious beliefs, then think of it like this: What if his religious beliefs were different from yours (could be Muslim, Hindu, Scientology etc.) - would you still think it didn't matter?

    Is it possible for someone to understand something and yet not agree with its fundamental premises? Or is the measure of understanding only based on acceptance of it?

    Yes it is, happens all the time in fact. There are those though, who seem to feel that only those who accept a premise actually understand it.


    GentleGiant wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    TheWhiteknife wrote:
    EDIT- Could we get the whole ID vs Natural Selection thing its own thread? Unless someone can show me evidence that Ron Paul intends to force public schools to teach it, I fail to see its relavence
    I concur.

    It's actually very relevant. It speaks to his inability to understand fairly basic science or how his personal religious views overrule his common sense. This either speaks to someone who's not mentally fit to sit in that position or who might have his personal religious beliefs overrule his common sense in other areas.

    Either case is very troubling to quite a lot of people I would wager.

    Also, if you don't think it matters because you share those same religious beliefs, then think of it like this: What if his religious beliefs were different from yours (could be Muslim, Hindu, Scientology etc.) - would you still think it didn't matter?

    No it would not matter, if the entirety of their platform is that the Federal Government and therefor, by extension, the President, has no authority to impose their morals upon the populace beyond what is constitutionally mandated. So please, unless you have some sort of quote or proof that Ron Paul wishes to make public schools bow down to some sort of Intelligent Design overlord, make a new thread wherein the ID vs evolution debate would be relevant.

    -Full Disclosure- I do not personally believe in ID, nor does a candidate's personal religious beliefs concern me if they have no desire to impose those beliefs on others.

    201 to 250 of 1,385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Ron Paul announces presidential bid. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.