AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › 2012 U.S. Elections
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2012 U.S. Elections - Page 4

post #121 of 184
4/14/12 at 8:31pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
See, having ignorant fuckwads who don't know anything about science decide what is and isn't to be taught in a science classroom is BULLSHIT.

Also, with regard to Mormon idiocy...

Quote:
Translation of the Egyptian text revealed that the rediscovered portions bore no relation to the Book of Abraham text.

Stop believing in the lies and fairy tales. Stop corrupting the Boy Scouts.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #122 of 184
4/14/12 at 8:33pm
I'm not going to debate Mormonism with you. I would not be one of its defenders anyway. I don't believe in it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #123 of 184
4/14/12 at 8:46pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
You believe in magic, too--just a different, more popular, flavor.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #124 of 184
4/14/12 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You believe in magic, too--just a different, more popular, flavor.

Thanks for sharing your opinion about my beliefs.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #125 of 184
4/14/12 at 9:01pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Do you not believe in Jesus?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #126 of 184
4/14/12 at 9:04pm
Thread Starter 
Nice, BR. Now go find another thread to hijack.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #127 of 184
4/14/12 at 9:11pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
I think Romney's Mormonism should be an issue in the elections.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #128 of 184
4/14/12 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Do you not believe in Jesus?

I do believe in Jesus. But again, we're off topic of the thread. Another thread would be a better place to discuss this topic.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 184
4/14/12 at 9:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I think Romney's Mormonism should be an issue in the elections.

Undoubtedly it will be whether it should be or not.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #130 of 184
4/14/12 at 10:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I think Romney's Mormonism should be an issue in the elections.

Of course you do.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #131 of 184
4/15/12 at 5:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not going to debate Mormonism with you. I would not be one of its defenders anyway. I don't believe in it.

Agreed to me it is a sort of cult not a real religion.To many weird things going on with this religion.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 184
4/15/12 at 7:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And you're begging the question that they would occur.

I'm basing in my observation of how the market works. Those issues would be worked out.

Wait...so they wouldn't occur, but if they did they'd be worked out. Do you acknowledge the risk of those problems?

Quote:

Some additional study on money might be helpful. These issues would not likely be as bad as you think. Furthermore there would likely evolve a single or couple of widely used currencies anyway.

This is not what happened before a national currency. States and localities had their own money. And the economy was nowhere near as interconnected. You really can't support that last statement.

Quote:

Ummm...you're begging the question again on the claim of sudden money supply contraction. A transition to a sound money wouldn't have to happen that way.

The money supply would still contract dramatically, even if over a long period. I would agree, though, that if it was to happen it would need to be gradual.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I would prefer to elect a president that doesn't let the insanity of religion decide what is taught in science classrooms. I have more of a problem with a Mormon president than what we have now. The cult of Mormon is so easily debunked because it takes Christian crazy to a new absurd level much more recently, allowing evidence of the ridiculous conjob to easily be found.

Right, so only Romney's views on religion are of consequence, even though he's never displayed that those views interfere with his governing or business leadership. Obama attending a truly radical church for 20 years is inconsequential. Got it.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #133 of 184
4/15/12 at 7:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wait...so they wouldn't occur, but if they did they'd be worked out. Do you acknowledge the risk of those problems?

Sure I acknowledge that some risk exists for some of the kinds of problems. I just don't expect them to be show-stoppers. Furthermore I believe the benefits would far outweigh the risks and costs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is not what happened before a national currency. States and localities had their own money. And the economy was nowhere near as interconnected. You really can't support that last statement.

Actually I can. Because you are looking at only snapshots in time rather than the longer term trend. The fact is that some was and did evolve as a sound monetary standard (generally when governments weren't trying to con people with fiat currencies). It was the governments continually trying to create money out of thin air that caused many (if not all) of the problems you allude to. THAT is why they "needed" to create a single, national currency, outlaw any others by fiat and create a central banking system...so they could continue to create money out of thin air in a more controlled way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The money supply would still contract dramatically, even if over a long period. I would agree, though, that if it was to happen it would need to be gradual.

Not because we adopted a sound money standard. It simply would not expand at the same rate as when the money can just be printed. Furthermore the transition wouldn't necessarily have to be gradual at all.

I have no idea why you believe either of these things.

Money is a commodity. Currently it is a commodity that can be printed or removed (digitally) from circulation on a whim. When money is based on something sound, let's say gold or some such thing) it cannot simply be printed and its supply expanded on a whim. Similarly it cannot be contracted by The Fed.

It is the Fed's power of expansion and contraction of the supply of money and credit that is the root of the economic bubbles and recessions that we see. That's how it is happening. In fact, they have not fundamentally stabilized the economy over the long term and they have greatly devalued the currency (by about 95%) overt he long term. That devaluation is effectively a stealth tax on savers (bad, bad thing to do) and those on more mixed incomes (ouch) and certainly those on lower incomes. It is, in fact, a systematic mechanism for transferring wealth from ordinary people to those who get the new money first (typically the government itself and its partners including the banks).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #134 of 184
4/15/12 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Sure I acknowledge that some risk exists for some of the kinds of problems. I just don't expect them to be show-stoppers. Furthermore I believe the benefits would far outweigh the risks and costs.

Fair enough. Not sure I agree, but OK.

Quote:

Actually I can. Because you are looking at only snapshots in time rather than the longer term trend. The fact is that some was and did evolve as a sound monetary standard (generally when governments weren't trying to con people with fiat currencies). It was the governments continually trying to create money out of thin air that caused many (if not all) of the problems you allude to. THAT is why they "needed" to create a single, national currency, outlaw any others by fiat and create a central banking system...so they could continue to create money out of thin air in a more controlled way.

No, I'm talking about a time when government wasn't establishing a fiat currency. Doing so solved a lot of the fragmentation and valuation problems for various currencies.

Quote:

Not because we adopted a sound money standard. It simply would not expand at the same rate as when the money can just be printed. Furthermore the transition wouldn't necessarily have to be gradual at all.

I have no idea why you believe either of these things.

It does have to be gradual. If not, the money supply would contract so dramatically that it would destroy the economy, particularly because of the credit markets which are the foundation of our economic system.

Quote:

Money is a commodity. Currently it is a commodity that can be printed or removed (digitally) from circulation on a whim. When money is based on something sound, let's say gold or some such thing) it cannot simply be printed and its supply expanded on a whim. Similarly it cannot be contracted by The Fed.

I agree. But that doesn't mean the current system is all bad.

Quote:

It is the Fed's power of expansion and contraction of the supply of money and credit that is the root of the economic bubbles and recessions that we see. That's how it is happening.

That is a claim the Ron Paul folks make quite a bit, but I'm not sure it's a provable assertion. The real problem I see is massive spending and taxation, which causes consumers to not have any money to spend.

Quote:

In fact, they have not fundamentally stabilized the economy over the long term and they have greatly devalued the currency (by about 95%) overt he long term.

I disagree they have not stabilized the economy. Clearly, the dollar has been devalued, however. But again, I'd say that's more symptom of a deficit spending.

Quote:
That devaluation is effectively a stealth tax on savers (bad, bad thing to do) and those on more mixed incomes (ouch) and certainly those on lower incomes. It is, in fact, a systematic mechanism for transferring wealth from ordinary people to those who get the new money first (typically the government itself and its partners including the banks).

Agreed. I think the difference in our positions here is that I think the system itself is fine. It's the policy that needs to be changed. We shouldn't be spending ourselves into oblivion and printing money to pay for it. I don't think the ability to manipulate the money supply is the issue.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #135 of 184
4/15/12 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, I'm talking about a time when government wasn't establishing a fiat currency. Doing so solved a lot of the fragmentation and valuation problems for various currencies.

I'm not sure there ever has been a time in this nation's history when that happened. But OK. More to the point though...again the market will sort those differing monies out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It does have to be gradual. If not, the money supply would contract so dramatically that it would destroy the economy, particularly because of the credit markets which are the foundation of our economic system.

I think you need to explain. So far you've simply been repeating the claim without any explanation. How will stopping the printing and locking the current money supply to an underlying sound commodity contract the money supply?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree. But that doesn't mean the current system is all bad.

Perhaps. But I'd argue it is (much) more bad than good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is a claim the Ron Paul folks make quite a bit, but I'm not sure it's a provable assertion.

What's not a provable assertion? That the value of the dollar has diminished by about 95% in 100 years?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The real problem I see is massive spending and taxation, which causes consumers to not have any money to spend.

Those are certainly problems also. However they are not unrelated. The massive spending is, at least in part, funded by money printing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I disagree they have not stabilized the economy.

OK.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Clearly, the dollar has been devalued, however. But again, I'd say that's more symptom of a deficit spending.

Incorrect. The devaluation of the dollar is a direct result of the increase in the supply of money and credit (monetary inflation) which manifests itself in the form of higher prices (price inflation). While deficit spending is definitely a problem, it is also enabled and supported, at least in part, but money printing (monetary inflation).


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Agreed. I think the difference in our positions here is that I think the system itself is fine. It's the policy that needs to be changed. We shouldn't be spending ourselves into oblivion and printing money to pay for it. I don't think the ability to manipulate the money supply is the issue.

And I strongly disagree because having the power to manipulate the money supply is the root problem. It has been and will be and always will be abused. Furthermore, there's no reason to have the power if you're not going to use it. That's exactly why they want it and have it. If you're not going to do it (manipulate the money supply), then leave money to the market. The market will establish the appropriate price for (and quantity of) money (and credit).

As an additional note, credit supply and interest rates will likely stabilize and reflect the collective time preferences in the economy and the level of savings in it as well, creating fewer, shorter, smaller, less severe bubbles and busts.

Finally, what you seem to miss is that the current monetary (and banking and credit) system is basically a socialist + fascist system and suffers from the failings of both of those. One of the major failings of socialism (in any market) is central planning, the lack of requisite knowledge and appropriate pricing signals leads to unnecessary shortages and inappropriate surpluses at varying times. This is as true with money as it would be with shoes, bread, milk, houses or cars. The problem with fascism (corporatism/state capitalism/etc.) is that special, well-connected, politically-savvy parties get to rob the ordinary people by way of government.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #136 of 184
4/15/12 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not sure there ever has been a time in this nation's history when that happened. But OK. More to the point though...again the market will sort those differing monies out.

I'm talking pre-1800's. There were many different forms of money.

Quote:


I think you need to explain. So far you've simply been repeating the claim without any explanation. How will stopping the printing and locking the current money supply to an underlying sound commodity contract the money supply?

Locking the current supply would be fine. But tying it to say, gold? We have many more dollars in circulation than we have gold. If you want to lock it to something else, I see no problem with that so long as the current money supply does not contract significantly.

Quote:




Perhaps. But I'd argue it is (much) more bad than good.


What's not a provable assertion? That the value of the dollar has diminished by about 95% in 100 years?

That part is provable..the causing of bubbles and and what not is what I'm referring to.

Quote:


Those are certainly problems also. However they are not unrelated. The massive spending is, at least in part, funded by money printing.

True.

Quote:




OK.

Incorrect. The devaluation of the dollar is a direct result of the increase in the supply of money and credit (monetary inflation) which manifests itself in the form of higher prices (price inflation). While deficit spending is definitely a problem, it is also enabled and supported, at least in part, but money printing (monetary inflation).

Yes, I understand. But I'm saying the deficit spending is the problem.

Quote:



And I strongly disagree because having the power to manipulate the money supply is the root problem. It has been and will be and always will be abused. Furthermore, there's no reason to have the power if you're not going to use it. That's exactly why they want it and have it. If you're not going to do it (manipulate the money supply), then leave money to the market. The market will establish the appropriate price for (and quantity of) money (and credit).

As an additional note, credit supply and interest rates will likely stabilize and reflect the collective time preferences in the economy and the level of savings in it as well, creating fewer, shorter, smaller, less severe bubbles and busts.

Finally, what you seem to miss is that the current monetary (and banking and credit) system is basically a socialist + fascist system and suffers from the failings of both of those. One of the major failings of socialism (in any market) is central planning, the lack of requisite knowledge and appropriate pricing signals leads to unnecessary shortages and inappropriate surpluses at varying times. This is as true with money as it would be with shoes, bread, milk, houses or cars. The problem with fascism (corporatism/state capitalism/etc.) is that special, well-connected, politically-savvy parties get to rob the ordinary people by way of government.


I understand this view. I simply don't think that power must be abused. There is a role as far as managing currency and the money supply. The problem I see is on the policy end. It's no different than the government's ability to regulate. We don't end all regulation because the government abuses that power. We don't outlaw all war because some wars are misguided. We don't stop having police because some are corrupt. It's the policy of spending and politicians that allow it that are the problem. I also think it's a much easier problem to solve as opposed to redoing the entire monetary system.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #137 of 184
4/15/12 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Locking the current supply would be fine. But tying it to say, gold? We have many more dollars in circulation than we have gold.

So?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That part is provable..the causing of bubbles and and what not is what I'm referring to.

Well perhaps not provable. But you know, when the sun rises in the East every morning...plus you know, there's deductive reasoning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, I understand. But I'm saying the deficit spending is the problem.

And I'm telling you it is only part of the problem and that it itself is enabled by inflationary monetary policy which is enabled by Th Fed, which is enabled by The Fed having a monopoly over the currency and a ctarel over credit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There is a role as far as managing currency and the money supply.

Why?

But more importantly, the best solution is not for the U.S. to declare a gold standard but to allow other currencies to compete...then let the best man win...which will almost certainly not be the dollar...it would be gold or any gold-backed currency.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's no different than the government's ability to regulate. We don't end all regulation because the government abuses that power. We don't outlaw all war because some wars are misguided. We don't stop having police because some are corrupt. It's the policy of spending and politicians that allow it that are the problem. I also think it's a much easier problem to solve as opposed to redoing the entire monetary system.

Well, I guess we disagree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 184
4/15/12 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So?




Well perhaps not provable. But you know, when the sun rises in the East every morning...plus you know, there's deductive reasoning.




And I'm telling you it is only part of the problem and that it itself is enabled by inflationary monetary policy which is enabled by Th Fed, which is enabled by The Fed having a monopoly over the currency and a ctarel over credit.


Why?

But more importantly, the best solution is not for the U.S. to declare a gold standard but to allow other currencies to compete...then let the best man win...which will almost certainly not be the dollar...it would be gold or any gold-backed currency.




Well, I guess we disagree.

I understand your point of view. I suppose I just think that we can solve the problem without redoing the entire monetary system.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #139 of 184
4/15/12 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I understand your point of view. I suppose I just think that we can solve the problem without redoing the entire monetary system.

I admire your faith and optimism if not your naiveté.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #140 of 184
4/16/12 at 8:23am
Thread Starter 


SDW2001, can you please explain how any of the above will be different under a Romney presidency?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #141 of 184
4/17/12 at 5:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post



SDW2001, can you please explain how any of the above will be different under a Romney presidency?

Yes, Jazz...more of your false narrative that Romney and Obama are exactly the same. Sorry bud...not playing that game with you.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #142 of 184
4/17/12 at 6:53am
Thread Starter 
I never said they were exactly the same. But they are the same in many ways, aren't they?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #143 of 184
4/17/12 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I never said they were exactly the same. But they are the same in many ways, aren't they?

I don't know about "many?" But in some ways, yes they are the same, especially from your perspective. Neither will end the Fed. Neither will follow the non-aggression principle. Neither will privatize vast swaths of the federal government. But beyond that they are vastly different. And one of the two will be President.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #144 of 184
4/17/12 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And one of the two will be President.

Brilliant.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #145 of 184
4/17/12 at 12:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't know about "many?" But in some ways, yes they are the same, especially from your perspective. Neither will end the Fed. Neither will follow the non-aggression principle. Neither will privatize vast swaths of the federal government. But beyond that they are vastly different. And one of the two will be President.

Yes, beyond the important stuff, they are vastly different. I'm glad we agree.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #146 of 184
4/18/12 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Brilliant.

My point there is they are the choices...Romney or Obama.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Yes, beyond the important stuff, they are vastly different. I'm glad we agree.

Are debt and deficits important? Is dealing with Iran and North Korea important? Is domestic fossil fuel production important? Is fixing the tax code important? Proposing and getting a budget passed? Executive experience? Business experience? How one will conduct himself as Head of State? Not apologizing for America on foreign soil? Any of those matter to you?

You're running around claiming Romney=Obama. But what you really mean is that Romney≠Ron Paul. Well, Ron Paul is not going to win. He's probably not even going to run. So on November 6th, you'll once again have a choice between the two men. I've made my choice. What's yours? I'm sorry bud, that's just the way it is.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #147 of 184
4/18/12 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My point there is they are the choices...Romney or Obama.

I know what your point was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So on November 6th, you'll once again have a choice between the two men. I've made my choice. What's yours? I'm sorry bud, that's just the way it is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Are debt and deficits important?

Yes. I don't expect much from Romney here. A much better bet is Obama vs. Republican congress.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Is dealing with Iran and North Korea important?

Not nearly so much as you think. The U.S. is saber rattling and bullying here. If the US (and Israel and India and Pakistan) has the right to launch rockets, satellites and possess nuclear weapons then so does Iran and Korea. If the US wants to take the lead here and stand down and be consistent about their alleged "anti-nuclear" and "anti-rocket" position then they should be calling for every other country to dispose of these as well...including the US.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Is domestic fossil fuel production important?

Not really. No. Certainly not in the top 10 list of issues.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Is fixing the tax code important?

Yes. I don't expect much from Romney here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Proposing and getting a budget passed?

Yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Executive experience?

Don't know. Doesn't seem to matter much actually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Business experience?

Don't know. Doesn't seem to matter much actually. Government is not a business.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How one will conduct himself as Head of State?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not apologizing for America on foreign soil?

Don't really care that much. But then I don't taking my thinking points from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And I don't personalize how the President conducts himself as if it actually represented me in any way.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're running around claiming Romney=Obama. But what you really mean is that Romney≠Ron Paul.

Maybe. Maybe not. We won't really know until (and if) Romney becomes President.

Obama was supposed to be different from Bush. Well, yes and no. He's mostly the same but worse in the worst parts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #148 of 184
4/18/12 at 10:04am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My point there is they are the choices...Romney or Obama.

My point is that I refuse to buy into the false dilemma any longer.

Quote:
Are debt and deficits important?

Who is the only candidate proposing to cut $1 trillion in his first year in office and balance the budget by year three?

There is no difference between Obama and Romney on this point.

Quote:
Is dealing with Iran and North Korea important?

Neither of them have attacked us and they have no reason to if we stop bullying them. If they do attack us, they already know it's suicide for them. Imposing further sanctions on them and threatening them only gives their leaders legitimate reasons to blame their food shortages and poverty on the U.S. and its allies and rally their people against us.

There is no difference between Obama and Romney on this point.

Quote:
Is domestic fossil fuel production important?

Absolutely. And I'll concede Romney is at least saying enough different things about this that I can believe he'd approach this issue differently than Obama.

Still, this issue is a symptom of larger problems that neither Obama nor Romney would address.

Quote:
Is fixing the tax code important?

Romney and Obama would put band-aids on our bloated tax code when it needs a complete overhaul.

Who is the only candidate who wants to significantly reform our tax system with the eventual goal of repealing the 16th Amendment and ending the tyranny of the IRS?

Quote:
Proposing and getting a budget passed?

Neither Obama nor Romney have a specific plan to balance the budget, which is tantamount to simply getting a budget passed for its own sake.

Quote:
Executive experience?

Irrelevant and unimportant to most Americans, including myself. Obama is proof of that. Also, he is the incumbent and can tout his first term in office as all the "executive experience" he needs.

Quote:
Business experience?

Definitely one of Romney's strengths, but Ron Paul also ran a successful medical practice and has been involved in various other enterprises...or does that not count?

There is no difference between Romney or Obama on this issue because the underlying causes of the problems businesses face will not be addressed by either of them.

Quote:
How one will conduct himself as Head of State?

Important to me, but inconsequential. Clinton is proof of that.

Quote:
Not apologizing for America on foreign soil?

The idea that America can do no wrong and should not apologize for any wrongdoing (which there clearly has been in ever-increasing numbers) is dangerous and arrogant.

Quote:
Any of those matter to you?

Of course, but many of them are insignificant compared to the core issues underlying much of the problems we face.

Quote:
You're running around claiming Romney=Obama. But what you really mean is that Romney≠Ron Paul. Well, Ron Paul is not going to win. He's probably not even going to run. So on November 6th, you'll once again have a choice between the two men. I've made my choice. What's yours? I'm sorry bud, that's just the way it is.

Neither Obama nor Romney is proposing a return Constitutional government. The only difference between them is in which ways they want to use government to force others to do what they want.

Think outside the false dilemma and a whole world of possibilities will open up to you.

What's my choice? Freedom. What's yours?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #149 of 184
4/18/12 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I know what your point was.

"Brilliant?" \

Quote:

Yes. I don't expect much from Romney here. A much better bet is Obama vs. Republican congress.

Obama will just veto anything they try to do. And Romney has focused quite a bit on debt and deficits.

Quote:

Not nearly so much as you think. The U.S. is saber rattling and bullying here. If the US (and Israel and India and Pakistan) has the right to launch rockets, satellites and possess nuclear weapons then so does Iran and Korea. If the US wants to take the lead here and stand down and be consistent about their alleged "anti-nuclear" and "anti-rocket" position then they should be calling for every other country to dispose of these as well...including the US.

Iran and NK are not the moral equivalent of the United States, Israel, etc. Iran and NK having nuclear weapons and ICBMs is not the same as the U.S. and other powers having them. Iran and NK are rogue regimes who threaten not just the U.S., but our allies. NK is a brutal dictatorship. Iran is run by religious zealots. All I can say is we completely, totally disagree here. I find your position downright dangerous, to be frank.

Quote:

Not really. No. Certainly not in the top 10 list of issues.

Right...because energy security/getting off foreign off and consumer prices are not important. Are you kidding me?

Quote:


Yes. I don't expect much from Romney here.

Well, he has specific proposals. I would still like to see something more comprehensive like a complete overhaul.


Quote:
Yes.




Don't know. Doesn't seem to matter much actually.




Don't know. Doesn't seem to matter much actually. Government is not a business.


The ability to deal with a budget, manage expenses, set strategy and goals, and run an organization successfully are all extremely important. We've seen that with the disaster of a President we have.


Quote:

Don't really care that much. But then I don't taking my thinking points from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And I don't personalize how the President conducts himself as if it actually represented me in any way.

This has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or talking points of any kind. It has to do with the President "talking down" the United States...be it here or on a foreign trip. He's supposed to represent America and her ideals as Head of State. Instead, he's talked about us being less influential and exercising less leadership both economically and militarily. This matters. It matters to our allies, and it matters to our enemies. Both must know where we stand. And the world is better off with a strong America.

Quote:

Maybe. Maybe not. We won't really know until (and if) Romney becomes President.

Obama was supposed to be different from Bush. Well, yes and no. He's mostly the same but worse in the worst parts.

They obviously change somewhat once elected. I suppose we'll see. Until then I can only go by by his record and platform.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #150 of 184
4/18/12 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama will just veto anything they try to do.

Maybe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And Romney has focused quite a bit on debt and deficits.

Romney isn't president yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Iran and NK are not the moral equivalent of the United States, Israel, etc. Iran and NK having nuclear weapons and ICBMs is not the same as the U.S. and other powers having them.

Of course not. Isn't convenient to be in a position to declare that others are not your moral equivalent therefore you have a moral duty to keep them down?

Maybe I'll decide that you are morally inferior to me and should not be allowed to have any firearms. I might even decide to blockade your home and prevent you from buying things from others and others from selling things to you. This is not a hostile act on my part, it is merely me performing my role as your moral superior.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

NK is a brutal dictatorship. Iran is run by religious zealots.

I know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

All I can say is we completely, totally disagree here. I find your position downright dangerous, to be frank.

The feeling is mutual.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right...because energy security/getting off foreign off and consumer prices are not important. Are you kidding me?

No, I'm not. Come back when you know what you're talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, he has specific proposals.




Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The ability to deal with a budget, manage expenses, set strategy and goals, and run an organization successfully are all extremely important. We've seen that with the disaster of a President we have.

I agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or talking points of any kind.

If you say so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It has to do with the President "talking down" the United States...be it here or on a foreign trip. He's supposed to represent America and her ideals as Head of State.

Well...


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Instead, he's talked about us being less influential and exercising less leadership both economically and militarily.

If that translates to the US being less imperial, I'm ok with it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This matters. It matters to our allies, and it matters to our enemies. Both must know where we stand. And the world is better off with a strong America.

If you say so. \


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

They obviously change somewhat once elected. I suppose we'll see. Until then I can only go by by his record and platform.

You do that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #151 of 184
4/20/12 at 10:38am

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Maybe.
Romney isn't president yet.
Of course not. Isn't convenient to be in a position to declare that others are not your moral equivalent therefore you have a moral duty to keep them down?

Maybe I'll decide that you are morally inferior to me and should not be allowed to have any firearms. I might even decide to blockade your home and prevent you from buying things from others and others from selling things to you. This is not a hostile act on my part, it is merely me performing my role as your moral superior.
I know.
The feeling is mutual.
No, I'm not. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

I agree.
If you say so.
Well...
If that translates to the US being less imperial, I'm ok with it.
If you say so. \
You do that.

 

Making the argument that Iran and NK are the moral equivalent of the U.S and our Western allies puts you squarely out of the mainstream, my friend.  The world simply doesn't work that way.  All government systems are not created equally.  All leaders do not have the same intentions.  It would be great if the U.S. didn't have to worry about what these nations were doing, but we do. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


My point is that I refuse to buy into the false dilemma any longer.
Who is the only candidate proposing to cut $1 trillion in his first year in office and balance the budget by year three?

There is no difference between Obama and Romney on this point.
Neither of them have attacked us and they have no reason to if we stop bullying them. If they do attack us, they already know it's suicide for them. Imposing further sanctions on them and threatening them only gives their leaders legitimate reasons to blame their food shortages and poverty on the U.S. and its allies and rally their people against us.

There is no difference between Obama and Romney on this point.
Absolutely. And I'll concede Romney is at least saying enough different things about this that I can believe he'd approach this issue differently than Obama.

Still, this issue is a symptom of larger problems that neither Obama nor Romney would address.
Romney and Obama would put band-aids on our bloated tax code when it needs a complete overhaul.

Who is the only candidate who wants to significantly reform our tax system with the eventual goal of repealing the 16th Amendment and ending the tyranny of the IRS?
Neither Obama nor Romney have a specific plan to balance the budget, which is tantamount to simply getting a budget passed for its own sake.
Irrelevant and unimportant to most Americans, including myself. Obama is proof of that. Also, he is the incumbent and can tout his first term in office as all the "executive experience" he needs.
Definitely one of Romney's strengths, but Ron Paul also ran a successful medical practice and has been involved in various other enterprises...or does that not count?

There is no difference between Romney or Obama on this issue because the underlying causes of the problems businesses face will not be addressed by either of them.
Important to me, but inconsequential. Clinton is proof of that.
The idea that America can do no wrong and should not apologize for any wrongdoing (which there clearly has been in ever-increasing numbers) is dangerous and arrogant.
Of course, but many of them are insignificant compared to the core issues underlying much of the problems we face.
Neither Obama nor Romney is proposing a return Constitutional government. The only difference between them is in which ways they want to use government to force others to do what they want.

Think outside the false dilemma and a whole world of possibilities will open up to you.

What's my choice? Freedom. What's yours?

 

1.  It's not a false dilemma.  It's just one you don't like. 

 

2.  Answer:  No one that has any chance of being elected President.   And yes, there is a difference.  Romney has repeatedly focused on debt and deficits and made it a major issue.  

 

3.  "Bullying" them?  You act as if only the U.S. is concerned.  The sanctions are not by any means unilateral.  They are also in response to Iran's defiance...not of the U.S, but of the international community.  Iran has been threatening America and her allies for decades, long before this so-called "bullying."   Shall we go through the list of threats against Israel and the U.S.? Shall we discuss how many in their government may WANT a nuclear holocaust?  

 

4.  I would like to see a more aggressive plan from Romney on the budget, as well as on taxes.  However, his proposals are clearly far superior to Obama.  I'm not willing to take an "all or nothing" approach here.  Romney is far better than Obama on this point.  

 

5.  No one claimed America "can do no wrong," so kindly put away that strawman.  I am saying that the POTUS should not travel to a foreign nation and apologize for pretty much everything we've ever done.  We apologize over specific incidents, not policies that change over time.  If those policies need to change, they should change.  But Obama clearly thinks we need to be knocked down a peg, which is disgraceful.  

 

6.  Romney does favor Constitutional government.  The issue for you is that he doesn't want to go as far as Ron Paul does.  However, this doesn't mean his views are invalid, nor that he doesn't support Constitutional government.  

 

7.  Choice:  And we're back to you stubbornly refusing to accept the political reality. Fact 1:  Either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be President.  Fact 2: If you vote for a third party candidate (say, Ron Paul) you are increasing the likelihood that the latter will be elected.  Fact 3:  Romney is a better option than Obama.  That's all there is to it.  You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "freedom, freedom freedom!" all you want.  It won't change reality.  

 

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #152 of 184
4/20/12 at 10:40am

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Making the argument that Iran and NK are the moral equivalent of the U.S and our Western allies puts you squarely out of the mainstream, my friend.  The world simply doesn't work that way.  All government systems are not created equally.  All leaders do not have the same intentions.

 

Funny, I didn't make any of those arguments. I this this qualifies as a certifiable straw man.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #153 of 184
4/20/12 at 11:18am
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Making the argument that Iran and NK are the moral equivalent of the U.S and our Western allies puts you squarely out of the mainstream, my friend.  The world simply doesn't work that way.  All government systems are not created equally.  All leaders do not have the same intentions.  It would be great if the U.S. didn't have to worry about what these nations were doing, but we do. 

 

 

 

 

1.  It's not a false dilemma.  It's just one you don't like. 

 

2.  Answer:  No one that has any chance of being elected President.   And yes, there is a difference.  Romney has repeatedly focused on debt and deficits and made it a major issue.  

 

3.  "Bullying" them?  You act as if only the U.S. is concerned.  The sanctions are not by any means unilateral.  They are also in response to Iran's defiance...not of the U.S, but of the international community.  Iran has been threatening America and her allies for decades, long before this so-called "bullying."   Shall we go through the list of threats against Israel and the U.S.? Shall we discuss how many in their government may WANT a nuclear holocaust?  

 

4.  I would like to see a more aggressive plan from Romney on the budget, as well as on taxes.  However, his proposals are clearly far superior to Obama.  I'm not willing to take an "all or nothing" approach here.  Romney is far better than Obama on this point.  

 

5.  No one claimed America "can do no wrong," so kindly put away that strawman.  I am saying that the POTUS should not travel to a foreign nation and apologize for pretty much everything we've ever done.  We apologize over specific incidents, not policies that change over time.  If those policies need to change, they should change.  But Obama clearly thinks we need to be knocked down a peg, which is disgraceful.  

 

6.  Romney does favor Constitutional government.  The issue for you is that he doesn't want to go as far as Ron Paul does.  However, this doesn't mean his views are invalid, nor that he doesn't support Constitutional government.  

 

7.  Choice:  And we're back to you stubbornly refusing to accept the political reality. Fact 1:  Either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be President.  Fact 2: If you vote for a third party candidate (say, Ron Paul) you are increasing the likelihood that the latter will be elected.  Fact 3:  Romney is a better option than Obama.  That's all there is to it.  You can stick your fingers in your ears and yell "freedom, freedom freedom!" all you want.  It won't change reality.  

 

 

I'll repeat it as many times as necessary:

 

There is no substantial difference between Romney and Obama on all the issues that matter to me. There are other candidates running for president who more closely align with my views than Obama or Romney, therefore, I choose to vote for one of those other candidates.

 

Voting according to my conscience instead of buying into the false dilemma is not ignoring reality, it's embracing it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #154 of 184
4/20/12 at 11:24am

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Fact 3:  Romney is a better option than Obama.  That's all there is to it.

 

Fact: Your "Fact 3" is an opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 184
4/20/12 at 12:48pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

 

I'll repeat it as many times as necessary:

 

There is no substantial difference between Romney and Obama on all the issues that matter to me. There are other candidates running for president who more closely align with my views than Obama or Romney, therefore, I choose to vote for one of those other candidates.

 

Voting according to my conscience instead of buying into the false dilemma is not ignoring reality, it's embracing it.

 

And I'll repeat it as many times as necessary, too:  Romney and Obama all not the same on the issues you've said matter to you. You are making this claim because Romney's positions are not the same as Ron Paul's.

 

Secondly, if you want to vote your conscience, that's fine.  But at least accept that doing so makes it more likely that Obama is reelected.  And no, I don't believe for a second that you think a Romney Presidency will be the same as an Obama second term.  

 

 

 

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #156 of 184
4/20/12 at 12:51pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And no, I don't believe for a second that you think a Romney Presidency will be the same as an Obama second term.

 

I bet there were a lot of Obamatrons that didn't think (for a second) that Obama term 1 would be pretty much like Bush term 3 (only worse). lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #157 of 184
4/20/12 at 3:57pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

I bet there were a lot of Obamatrons that didn't think (for a second) that Obama term 1 would be pretty much like Bush term 3 (only worse). lol.gif

 

 

 

Well, it's not...but if you're referring to military intervention, extending tax cuts, drone strikes, etc....he did outright campaign on the opposite positions he now holds.  So I guess they can't be blamed for swallowing the lie.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #158 of 184
4/20/12 at 5:28pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

Well, it's not...but if you're referring to military intervention, extending tax cuts, drone strikes, etc....he did outright campaign on the opposite positions he now holds.  So I guess they can't be blamed for swallowing the lie.  

 

What's not? Obama 1 is not like Bush 3? Really?!?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 184
4/21/12 at 4:40am

Another loser endorsing another loser. Makes real sense.What happened to Romney?
 

Reply
Reply
post #160 of 184
4/21/12 at 4:44am

If Romney wins we are all in trouble especially the Middle Class and Poor and Seniors.He is an elitist and has no warmth or compassion for anyone except the rich and corporations.He is a double talker and a flip flopper.Poor choice for the GOP Party to have him run in 2012.
 

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › 2012 U.S. Elections