Ron Paul announces presidential bid.


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 1,385 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

back on track
It gets really good around the 7 minute mark.

Liberty's Edge

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. I thought it was a crime, but can get confused sometimes when I read (or become involved in) political (or religious for that matter) arguments. It gives me a headache.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

back on track

It gets really good around the 7 minute mark.

"...beating the drums of fear."

Well said.


Distorting the Tax Policy Debate


Gold vs. The Dollar- What Gold is Telling Us. Pt 1

Gold vs. The Dollar- What Gold is Telling Us. Pt 2

Liberty's Edge

The mp3 interview on this site is great:

Click


stardust wrote:

The mp3 interview on this site is great:

Click

That is great. I also recommend "for our liberal friends" and "for our neoconservative friends". Thought provoking stuff. Turns out, according to Webster's, I am a liberal.

Liberty's Edge

Abraham spalding wrote:

If Ron Paul is such a great leader why hasn't he managed anything in his time in office already?

Normally when you spend 21 years on a job you expect to have something to show for it.

Ron Paul is basically a Libertarian. To say he hasn't managed anything is a joke: plenty of the things he voted for are law. But, of course, it's not because of a plethora of libertarians (right leaning like him or otherwise) that said bills passed.

Ron Paul is a successful politician by absolutely any measure. You certainly don't have to agree with him, but in terms of total stuff gotten done, he definitely had, say, Barack Obama licked in numbers before he was elected president.

Aka, totally irrelevant.


I like this video


weird, no?


TheWhiteknife wrote:
weird, no?

Just like last time. It struck me as interesting in the 2008 cycle how intensely hostile Fox was to Ron Paul.

Liberty's Edge

Anyone notice the media black out since Ron Paul won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference's straw poll by 200 votes. (a lot better than his "tie" with Mitt Romney, who won by 1 vote last year)

I think this just goes to show how flawed the system really is. Elections apparently aren't decided by votes or the electoral college but by the media.


stardust wrote:

Anyone notice the media black out since Ron Paul won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference's straw poll by 200 votes. (a lot better than his "tie" with Mitt Romney, who won by 1 vote last year)

I think this just goes to show how flawed the system really is. Elections apparently aren't decided by votes or the electoral college but by the media.

The media definitely has their favorites.


Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.


Kruelaid wrote:
Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.

Huge corporations are rarely if ever fans of free markets and competition. They reap enormous benefits from the current system of big government control.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
stardust wrote:

Anyone notice the media black out since Ron Paul won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference's straw poll by 200 votes. (a lot better than his "tie" with Mitt Romney, who won by 1 vote last year)

I think this just goes to show how flawed the system really is. Elections apparently aren't decided by votes or the electoral college but by the media.

The media definitely has their favorites.

Just as the sun rises in the east.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.
Huge corporations are rarely if ever fans of free markets and competition. They reap enormous benefits from the current system of big government control.

As usual, we disagree here. The free market has its loopholes as well.


Freehold DM wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.
Huge corporations are rarely if ever fans of free markets and competition. They reap enormous benefits from the current system of big government control.
As usual, we disagree here. The free market has its loopholes as well.

You don't think big business requires the right regulatory conditions to maintain their corner on the market?

Just looking at corporate food industry as I roll this around in my mind... they'd be screwed if subsidies and regulation didn't keep them afloat. Honestly I don't understand how anyone could fail to see this. They grow, use money to bend regulation in their favor, and then the become supergiants.


Freehold DM wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.
Huge corporations are rarely if ever fans of free markets and competition. They reap enormous benefits from the current system of big government control.
As usual, we disagree here. The free market has its loopholes as well.

The market is imperfect, and subject to abuses. I'm simply pointing out that the largest corporations are the best positioned to game the current system. Why would they want to change the system that strangles smaller competitors and lets them write the rules?

Ninja'ed by Kruelaid!

Liberty's Edge

The market is imperfect but its the best system we've got. Laissez Faire and Caveat Emptor. I think it might be able to be planned, but not centralized planning, or governmental interference (aside from the regulation of a sound currency). The Better Business Bureau, for example, acts sometimes like a regulatory agency. And it would be possible, in a nation which allowed us to, to establish other publicly owned businesses interested in regulating the market by a system of observations and public declarations. All without governmental interference. And of course, to support this, we need a larger freedom of the press, and for investigative journalism. Although we also need independent journalists, as well, who might be able to rebuff some of the dangers that a mass media can cause (such as bankrupting Food Lion through fictional news media).

Caveat Emptor is the rule here. Let the buyer beware. A free market system requires that purchasers be informed. The government does not need to be the informant, but there might be private shopping clubs or the like that do inform their customers of products, goods, and services.

What alarms me is how Ron Paul is painted as a fringe candidate because he wants to get rid of the Federal Department of Education. My parents were the first to applaud when he said that, and I was confused until they explained how Federal regulations had forced a dumbing down of most of the public schools in the states we have lived in. There's a chart out there showing how the more federal regulations we have in public education, the less effective public education is.

There are a few objectivist blogs that have this line chart. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but they have a lot to bring to the table in the form of debate and idea.


stardust wrote:
There's a chart out there showing how the more federal regulations we have in public education, the less effective public education is.

That would depend entirely on your definition of "effective," and I would posit that Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, and I would give three definitions that barely if at all intersected one another.

Liberty's Edge

I believe they based it on reading, math, and science test scores.


stardust wrote:
I believe they based it on reading, math, and science test scores.

Like I said, there would be little, if any, overlap. As one of the teachers who got stuck with those tests, I realized quickly that they weren't measuring anything that had anything to do with education.

Liberty's Edge

I see... so in your experience, the Federal Department of Education is a good thing? I'm interested in comparing your experiences with my parents.


stardust wrote:
I see... so in your experience, the Federal Department of Education is a good thing?

In my experience, NOTHING is all good or all bad. They do some good things, like trying to make sure no one is hijacking the public classroom for use as an intoctrination center for fundamentalist jihadism, or the Flat Earth Society, or whatever. In theory, they should be making sure the superintendent isn't pocketing the entire budget and leaving the kids with no texts (although I question how effective they are in this regard, still, it's a goal). Etc.

On the flip side, there's a lot of idiocy there, too, such as any number of the things we've been talking about.

I would be all in favor of a big overhaul of the Department of Education. However, I would definitely not be in favor of handing over tax dollars to run a school with no standards and no accountability. I would likewise not be in favor of scrapping public education in favor of an "anything goes" private system in which the only rubric was how many dollars went to the shareholders.

Liberty's Edge

I see. Dr. Paul believes in letting the School Board control the public schools in their county, with some state oversight, rather than having federal interference. I believe he wants the parents to be the main ones in control of their children's education, so keeping control of curriculum at the local government seems an effective way to do that. What do you think?

Of course, this is also a 10th amendment issue, since the Constitution does not provide the federal government the right to oversee education, and therefore it should be delegated to the states. I don't know if I would be opposed to ammending the constitution to allow for federal oversight of State and local-controlled schools, but right now it seems like a bad idea.


stardust wrote:
I see. Dr. Paul believes in letting the School Board control the public schools in their county, with some state oversight, rather than having federal interference. What do you think?

I agree 100% with Judge Jones on this one.


stardust wrote:

The market is imperfect but its the best system we've got. Laissez Faire and Caveat Emptor. I think it might be able to be planned, but not centralized planning, or governmental interference (aside from the regulation of a sound currency). The Better Business Bureau, for example, acts sometimes like a regulatory agency. And it would be possible, in a nation which allowed us to, to establish other publicly owned businesses interested in regulating the market by a system of observations and public declarations. All without governmental interference. And of course, to support this, we need a larger freedom of the press, and for investigative journalism. Although we also need independent journalists, as well, who might be able to rebuff some of the dangers that a mass media can cause (such as bankrupting Food Lion through fictional news media).

Caveat Emptor is the rule here. Let the buyer beware. A free market system requires that purchasers be informed. The government does not need to be the informant, but there might be private shopping clubs or the like that do inform their customers of products, goods, and services.

What alarms me is how Ron Paul is painted as a fringe candidate because he wants to get rid of the Federal Department of Education. My parents were the first to applaud when he said that, and I was confused until they explained how Federal regulations had forced a dumbing down of most of the public schools in the states we have lived in. There's a chart out there showing how the more federal regulations we have in public education, the less effective public education is.

There are a few objectivist blogs that have this line chart. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but they have a lot to bring to the table in the form of debate and idea.

Stardust, Kirth and I are reading this differently. Are you saying that there should be absolutely no government regulation of any business what so ever?

Liberty's Edge

I am probably in the minority, but I feel that the way federal judges interpret or apply the 14th Amendment, is more likely to interfere with the 10th Amendment, than not.

That's all I'll say about that.


BT--

Stardust is probably busy reading the 130 page document that KG used as a reply to a three-word question. I'd check back tomorrow.

KG--

Evil, man, evil.

Spoiler:
Hee hee!

EDIT: Damn it, Stardust, you ruined my joke!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
stardust wrote:
I see. Dr. Paul believes in letting the School Board control the public schools in their county, with some state oversight, rather than having federal interference. What do you think?
I agree 100% with Judge Jones on this one.

Does this have anything to do with the Dept of Education as opposed to federal courts over riding a local school?

Do you think the dept of Education adds value to education in the US in a way that matches the hundreds of billions of dollars it has consumed?

Liberty's Edge

Bitter Thorn wrote:
stardust wrote:

The market is imperfect but its the best system we've got. Laissez Faire and Caveat Emptor. I think it might be able to be planned, but not centralized planning, or governmental interference (aside from the regulation of a sound currency). The Better Business Bureau, for example, acts sometimes like a regulatory agency. And it would be possible, in a nation which allowed us to, to establish other publicly owned businesses interested in regulating the market by a system of observations and public declarations. All without governmental interference. And of course, to support this, we need a larger freedom of the press, and for investigative journalism. Although we also need independent journalists, as well, who might be able to rebuff some of the dangers that a mass media can cause (such as bankrupting Food Lion through fictional news media).

Caveat Emptor is the rule here. Let the buyer beware. A free market system requires that purchasers be informed. The government does not need to be the informant, but there might be private shopping clubs or the like that do inform their customers of products, goods, and services.

What alarms me is how Ron Paul is painted as a fringe candidate because he wants to get rid of the Federal Department of Education. My parents were the first to applaud when he said that, and I was confused until they explained how Federal regulations had forced a dumbing down of most of the public schools in the states we have lived in. There's a chart out there showing how the more federal regulations we have in public education, the less effective public education is.

There are a few objectivist blogs that have this line chart. I don't consider myself an objectivist, but they have a lot to bring to the table in the form of debate and idea.

Stardust, Kirth and I are reading this differently. Are you saying that there should be absolutely no government regulation of any business what so ever?

Well, what government regulations would you like to have? If there is a contract, then of course the judicial system should be available to enforce the contract, but thats not really regulation.

As Ron Paul says, politicians aren't really smart enough to run the economy. They're good at being politicians, but usually clamp down on the innovations that a free market system comes up with.

Most of the government regulatory administrations have done nothing for the economy. Banning of hemp (one of this nation's largest cash crops), arresting farmers who sell raw milk (when before 1900 raw milk was a staple of American diet. So, what regulations do you want?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

BT--

Stardust is probably busy reading the 130 page document that KG used as a reply to a three-word question. I'd check back tomorrow.

KG--

Evil, man, evil.

** spoiler omitted **

EDIT: Damn it, Stardust, you ruined my joke!

I made it to page 51 and lost interest.

Liberty's Edge

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
stardust wrote:
I see. Dr. Paul believes in letting the School Board control the public schools in their county, with some state oversight, rather than having federal interference. What do you think?
I agree 100% with Judge Jones on this one.

Does this have anything to do with the Dept of Education as opposed to federal courts over riding a local school?

Do you think the dept of Education adds value to education in the US in a way that matches the hundreds of billions of dollars it has consumed?

No, its a federal judge who says that a public school can't even question certain sciences without "establishing a religion". I'm grateful for my Critical Thinking instructor who taught us that questioning of science was the primary method of reinforcing it.


stardust wrote:

Well, what government regulations would you like to have? If there is a contract, then of course the judicial system should be available to enforce the contract, but thats not really regulation.

As Ron Paul says, politicians aren't really smart enough to run the economy. They're good at being politicians, but usually clamp down on the innovations that a free market system comes up with.

Most of the government regulatory administrations have done nothing for the economy. Banning of hemp (one of this nation's largest cash crops), arresting farmers who sell raw milk (when before 1900 raw milk was a staple of American diet. So, what regulations do you want?

I want the government to prosecute theft and fraud and protect property against pollution and such.

I was simply pointing out that I don't think you are an anarchist because you want less government.

Liberty's Edge

Bitter Thorn wrote:
stardust wrote:

Well, what government regulations would you like to have? If there is a contract, then of course the judicial system should be available to enforce the contract, but thats not really regulation.

As Ron Paul says, politicians aren't really smart enough to run the economy. They're good at being politicians, but usually clamp down on the innovations that a free market system comes up with.

Most of the government regulatory administrations have done nothing for the economy. Banning of hemp (one of this nation's largest cash crops), arresting farmers who sell raw milk (when before 1900 raw milk was a staple of American diet. So, what regulations do you want?

I want the government to prosecute theft and fraud and protect property against pollution and such.

I was simply pointing out that I don't think you are an anarchist because you want less government.

Of course they would do that. Free Market economy is based on contract. And the Highest Law of the Land (or contract if you prefer), is the Constitution. What the Constitution doesn't apply to, the States regulate, according to their State Constitutions, and so forth. No contractual obligation, unless one signs away their Constitutional rights, can prevent theft or fraud from being prosecuted.

Right of contract stems from Self-ownership. Theft, fraud, and the right to protect oneself from pollution or other property invasions are included in that. That's what the courts and police are for.

Of course, I think it would be easier for a privately owned business that specialized in such to recognize fraud in business and market transactions than any governmental agency.


stardust wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
stardust wrote:

Well, what government regulations would you like to have? If there is a contract, then of course the judicial system should be available to enforce the contract, but thats not really regulation.

As Ron Paul says, politicians aren't really smart enough to run the economy. They're good at being politicians, but usually clamp down on the innovations that a free market system comes up with.

Most of the government regulatory administrations have done nothing for the economy. Banning of hemp (one of this nation's largest cash crops), arresting farmers who sell raw milk (when before 1900 raw milk was a staple of American diet. So, what regulations do you want?

I want the government to prosecute theft and fraud and protect property against pollution and such.

I was simply pointing out that I don't think you are an anarchist because you want less government.

Of course they would do that. Free Market economy is based on contract. And the Highest Law of the Land (or contract if you prefer), is the Constitution. What the Constitution doesn't apply to, the States regulate, according to their State Constitutions, and so forth. No contractual obligation, unless one signs away their Constitutional rights, can prevent theft or fraud from being prosecuted.

Right of contract stems from Self-ownership. Theft, fraud, and the right to protect oneself from pollution or other property invasions are included in that. That's what the courts and police are for.

Of course, I think it would be easier for a privately owned business that specialized in such to recognize fraud in business and market transactions than any governmental agency.

Thank you.


stardust wrote:
No, its a federal judge who says that a public school can't even question certain sciences without "establishing a religion". I'm grateful for my Critical Thinking instructor who taught us that questioning of science was the primary method of reinforcing it.

More correctly, it's a federal judge who says you can't introduce Biblical creationism in science class as a "viable alternative" to actual science. Natural Selection is getting tested all the time -- by actual scientists, doing actual experiments. Saying "I think any story I pick out of a hat deserves equal classroom time" is what Judge Jones (and I) disagree with.

  • Should alchemy be presented as a "viable alternative" to chemistry in science class?
  • Should astrology be presented as a "viable alternative" to astronomy in science class?
  • Should spontaneous generation be presented as a "viable alternative" to genetics?
  • When teaching how reproduction works, should we give equal time to "storks bring babies" as a "viable alternative" to sex leading to pregnancy?
  • Should Norse, Cherokee, Hindu, etc., etc., etc. creation myths all be presented as "viable alternatives" to biblical creation and natural selection in science class?

  • Liberty's Edge

    From what I read in the argument, it seemed to me that saying that Evolutionary Theory having gaps and blanks for certain questions was interpreted as a promotion of Creationism. They base that on historical pretext, however, and not on the actual policy issued by the Board. There is also a difference between an introduction of creationism and the promotion of it.

    Unless I read it incorrectly. From what I read, I interpreted it that I would not be allowed to say the following.

    "We're going to be studying Evolutionary Theory in this class. But there are some gaps and blanks in it that aren't completely accounted for. If you'd like to read more about the alternatives, you can look at People and Pandas on your own time." Or whatever the name of the book is.

    I don't particularly see a problem with that. Saying that Evolutionary Theory has its problems, and that there are alternative views, and if you want to look at these alternative views there's a book out there, sounds like the Board was doing what it could to inform the students of their choices. Which is exactly what I would expect an educational facility to do instead of limiting choices.

    I wonder if I could sue a school board for not allowing for differences of religious beliefs and attempting to enforce the religion of Atheism.


    stardust wrote:
    "We're going to be studying Evolutionary Theory in this class. But there are some gaps and blanks in it that aren't completely accounted for. If you'd like to read more about the alternatives, you can look at People and Pandas on your own time." Or whatever the name of the book is. I don't particularly see a problem with that. Saying that Evolutionary Theory has its problems, and that there are alternative views, and if you want to look at these alternative views there's a book out there, sounds like the Board was doing what it could to inform the students of their choices.

    So let me ask this: would it be OK if all teachers had to read a statement that said, "the idea that the Holocaust happened has many gaps and problems, and if you want a more balanced view youi should read this neo-Nazi pamphlet instead of your textbook" ? Why or why not?

    stardust wrote:
    I wonder if I could sue a school board for not allowing for differences of religious beliefs and attempting to enforce the religion of Atheism.

    News flash: most mainstream Christians, and the Catholic Church, have no problem with evolution. It's not "atheistic" any more than, say, the internal combustion engine is.

    Liberty's Edge

  • Should alchemy be presented as a "viable alternative" to chemistry in science class?

    Since alchemy actually has more to do with metallurgy than chemistry, no. Although, the influence of alchemy on prehistoric and classical era arts should at least be mentioned. Most pigments were generated from alchemical science.

  • Should astrology be presented as a "viable alternative" to astronomy in science class?

    Two completely different sciences. One is the study of celestial bodies and their effects on each other. The other is the study of celestial bodies and their effects on human personality and culture.

  • Should spontaneous generation be presented as a "viable alternative" to genetics?

    If there is a significant number of people who believe in it, it should be at least mentioned, yes.

  • When teaching how reproduction works, should we give equal time to "storks bring babies" as a "viable alternative" to sex leading to pregnancy?

    I don't remember seeing 12 to 15 books written about the observations of storks bringing babies.

  • Should Norse, Cherokee, Hindu, etc., etc., etc. creation myths all be presented as "viable alternatives" to biblical creation and natural selection in science class?

    If there are students who are or might be interested in those creation myths, there should be an unrestricted mention of them. I would leave the decision of whether or not to teach them to the school board acting under whatever state guidelines they are allowed to.


  • stardust wrote:
    If there are students who are or might be interested in those creation myths, there should be an unrestricted mention of them.

    I agree -- in a comparative mythology class. But to remove the science content from Biology class in order to make room for them basically means you're for abolishing science education. I personally would like to see it improved, not destroyed, because I think history shows us that scientific literacy and entrepreneurism in new technologies go hand in hand. I don't want all biomedical research to go to Singapore because a generation of Americans were taught in science class that the earth sits on the back of a turtle, instead of them being taught science.

    Liberty's Edge

    I didn't say that they should be taught these things, necessarily, unless the school board and state decide that they are relative to a student's ability to be an effective member of their community (or whatever other goals the students' education is a part of).

    What I am opposed to is that instructors are not even allowed to mention them. I didn't even know about a lot of alternative theories to evolutionary theory until I took Physical Anthropology in college. It would have been nice to at least have been told about them in high school.

    I remember it quite clearly, actually. On the back of the Syllabus were a list of things that would not be taught in the Physical Anthropology class. I think I spent a week in the library after that just researching the things that weren't being taught. Enough to get a basic view of most of the alternatives.

    I feel that most courses should be willing to cultivate open-mindedness regarding their subject matter. Even science ones. What generally matters is not how one thinks about these sciences, but how they are used and applied. Uniformity of application may be a necessary evil, but even where uniformity of application is expected, difference of meta-opinion can be a great relief to the free-thinker.


    stardust wrote:
    I feel that most courses should be willing to cultivate open-mindedness regarding their subject matter. Even science ones.

    You seem to be using "open-mindedness" in the sense of meaning refusal to distinguish between the validity of differing ideas, rather than in the sense of compare all the ideas, and throw out the ones that don't carry their weight, while looking for a new crop. The difference there is vitally important.

    Check this out.


    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    Kruelaid wrote:
    Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.
    Huge corporations are rarely if ever fans of free markets and competition. They reap enormous benefits from the current system of big government control.
    As usual, we disagree here. The free market has its loopholes as well.

    The market is imperfect, and subject to abuses. I'm simply pointing out that the largest corporations are the best positioned to game the current system. Why would they want to change the system that strangles smaller competitors and lets them write the rules?

    Ninja'ed by Kruelaid!

    the violin I am playing for the easily abused (yet inherently superior) free market is quite small. At least you believe fraud should be prosecuted.

    Liberty's Edge

    Freehold DM wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    Kruelaid wrote:
    Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.
    Huge corporations are rarely if ever fans of free markets and competition. They reap enormous benefits from the current system of big government control.
    As usual, we disagree here. The free market has its loopholes as well.

    The market is imperfect, and subject to abuses. I'm simply pointing out that the largest corporations are the best positioned to game the current system. Why would they want to change the system that strangles smaller competitors and lets them write the rules?

    Ninja'ed by Kruelaid!

    the violin I am playing for the easily abused (yet inherently superior) free market is quite small. At least you believe fraud should be prosecuted.

    Absolutely fraud should be prosecuted. And I would be in favor of a private institution that actively prevents it, if at all possible. There are three means of acquiring needs: Fraud, Force, and Free Trade. Of these, Free Trade should be the only one protected.

    I think we can see how making certain trades illegal removes a good amount of Free Trade from the system. By example, illegal drugs and prostitution. Since prostitution is not a free trade contracted agreement between parties, force and fraud can easily enter the equation. It is the same for illegal drugs. Where ethnobotanics and other drugs now considered illegal are made legal, free trade economics and the protection of contracted agreements would control these exchanges rather than violence, theft, and deceit.

    Liberty's Edge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    stardust wrote:
    I feel that most courses should be willing to cultivate open-mindedness regarding their subject matter. Even science ones.

    You seem to be using "open-mindedness" in the sense of meaning refusal to distinguish between the validity of differing ideas, rather than in the sense of compare all the ideas, and throw out the ones that don't carry their weight, while looking for a new crop. The difference there is vitally important.

    Check this out.

    I'm sure you mistake me. There can be no refusal to distinguish between the validity of differing ideas where differing ideas are not taught or mentioned. As I mentioned above, my Physical Anthropology class was extremely enlightening in this regard since the instructor laid out (by mentioning) the differing ideas so that we could research them and form our own opinions.

    I would love for sciences to be more focused on comparing all the ideas and throwing out the ones that don't carry their weight, while looking for a new crop. If we did, you'd probably form a slightly different opinion of alchemy (or the science and use of metallic salts). But science classes are apparently not allowed to compare anything. It just says, "This is the way things are. Don't question it or else."


    Freehold DM wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:
    Kruelaid wrote:
    Clearly certain elements in the corporatocracy are not comfortable with RP's candidacy. Interesting.
    Huge corporations are rarely if ever fans of free markets and competition. They reap enormous benefits from the current system of big government control.
    As usual, we disagree here. The free market has its loopholes as well.

    The market is imperfect, and subject to abuses. I'm simply pointing out that the largest corporations are the best positioned to game the current system. Why would they want to change the system that strangles smaller competitors and lets them write the rules?

    Ninja'ed by Kruelaid!

    the violin I am playing for the easily abused (yet inherently superior) free market is quite small. At least you believe fraud should be prosecuted.

    The free market is not easily abused. It takes laws and regulations to make it so.

    For example, The latest and greatest abuse is the Federal Bailout programs that bailed out banks that had failed, mostly due to toxic mortgages and reliance on derivatives. In a free market, those banks would have failed and the market would be glutted with cheap housing. But, in a free market, derivatives would no longer be seen as a viable money-making scheme and eventually the housing market would stabilize due to the people actually buying the now-cheaper housing. All with exactly 0 tax-payer money involved.

    Instead we get the bailouts, derivatives are still in use, housing is still failing, but not fast enough to encourage new buyers, and we the people are on the hook for it.


    stardust wrote:
    It just says, "This is the way things are. Don't question it or else."

    Then your science teachers were doing a lousy job, which admittedly is often the case -- given that we require no actual science credentials. Science is a method, not a body of knowledge.

    P.S.: When I was teaching high school science, I always included a bit on Astronomy -- to demonstrate that (a) it was not based on evidence, and (b) its predictions were easily falsified with simple experiments. THAT'S what science is about -- evidence-based approaches. (What I absolutely did NOT do is then go on to give it equal time during the rest of the school year, which is what "teach the controversy" is all about.)

    But I get the feeling from you that you don't want a biology class in which the instructor shows that "Intelligent Design" isn't actually based on evidence, has no experimentation backing it up, and indeed is structured in such a way that experimental results pertaining to it are automatically thrown out (in contrast to the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution). And points out that all of the books on it are published by the same group -- the Discovery Institute -- and all of the arguments for it come from the same guy -- Michael Behe.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    stardust wrote:
    It just says, "This is the way things are. Don't question it or else."

    Then your science teachers were doing a lousy job, which admittedly is often the case -- given that we require no actual science credentials. Science is a method, not a body of knowledge.

    P.S.: When I was teaching high school science, I always included a bit on Astronomy -- to demonstrate that (a) it was not based on evidence, and (b) its predictions were easily falsified with simple experiments. THAT'S what science is about -- evidence-based approaches.

    thats the kind of classes I had in High School. Im finding out that Im pretty lucky that way. My History and Science teachers were pretty awesome and I only graduated with 48 other students. So Kudos to you, KG!

    401 to 450 of 1,385 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Ron Paul announces presidential bid. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.