Dr. Pon Raul

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Servant_, Feb 22, 2012.

?

Vote for the most Ethical Moral and most Justifiable President available.

Poll closed Mar 22, 2012.
  1. Obama

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  2. Paul

    5 vote(s)
    35.7%
  3. A fluoridated chimp

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  4. A rock on the moon

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,611
    Joe, if you think Obama has done ANYTHING to turn around the economy ... well, I don't know what to say? What is a person who looks up at Rock Stars? Oh yeah, groupies. Obama has done nothing different than Bush other than came up with the brilliant solution of using the Federal Government to tax us more and spend out money less efficiently than we would. Taking a big scoop out for themselves as they do.

    Secondly, the economy is shit. You just don't know it because it's probably ok for you. It pretty ok for me too. But I know it's shit for many Americans. Namely an entire generation of 25 year olds. If you have your way another generation will go by the way side.

    As for Paul, he's got more intelligence in his little toe nail. His turds have more integrity than Obama.

    That given, it's a wonder Paul was ever elected.

    Oh, and the media is biased.
     
  2. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,627
    President Obama's actions and results in turning the economy around are very clear and demonstrable. Even Romney is not making the claims you are making. Reality just does not conform to your political ideology Michael.

    I have children in the 25 year old age group, and guess what, the economy is just fine for them too. The unpleasant fact for you is that the economy is growing and jobs, private sector jobs, are being added to the economy.

    There are potential game stoppers out there (e.g. Europe) but they are outside the control of the president and the Fed.

    LOL, yeah, the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding just does not support your claims. Some media is obviously biased (e.g. Fox News, Clear Channel Communications, etc.), biased in your favor. Even so your man Paul has not been able to command more than 20 of the vote of an extremist right wing party.
     
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,611
    Joe, have you ever heard of Unilateral Neglect? It's a real cognitive condition that arises from stoke. What happens following a stoke is it's possible to receive sensory information (the eye works it's sending the info to the brain) but the brain does not process any information from half of all it receives.

    Here's an example of a person asked to draw these pictures. Notice how they simply can not perceive the other side of the world. This is a fairly common condition. More common than you'd realize.

    [​IMG]



    Yes Joe, we agree FOX NEWS is BIASED. But so to MSNBC.
    Yes Joe, we agree Republicans are corrupt. But so to are Democrats.


    Now, as for your thinking Obama did something to turn around the economy. This just goes back to the alpha-male syndrome. It's why we generally elect men. As you know, Obama is simply a lawyer. He has no understanding of economics. He hands all the power over to the Fed where a douche who worked the University system kissed enough ass to make it to the top follows this simple formula: Press Print Button.



    Yeah, if you have a systemic infection or your leg has been blown off, taking a huge hit of morphine will make you feel good... for awhile. But its not going to cure the disease. It's only going to mask the disease. Because it does nothing to stop the disease, the disease gets worse. Soon we'll see signs of death - like convulsions or BJ Morgan loosing $2 Billion gambling.
     
  4. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    If Paul wants to avoid that, he should probably stop actually being a stuffy old throwback that explicitly proposes rewinding the clock at every chance. You're talking about a guy who's come out against the Civil Rights Act and the Civil War.

    And, in point of fact, every Constitutional Originalist who goes around stumping about the perfection of the Founding Fathers is explicitly calling for rewinding the clock back to the 1700's.
     
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,611
    His coming out against the Civil Rights Act is logical. In a Free-Market a bigot's business will eventually go bellyup as a non-bigot will set up shop right next door and drive him out of business. Thus, the bigot either volunteerism changes his mentality and actions or the free-market marginalizes him. You can't use government to change society. Not only is that immoral, it doesn't work.
    -
    -
    Think about this. An economist stated today the Germany also "benefited" by the Greeks borrowing and buying all those cars because it meant Germans had a lot of work and kept their unemployment down. Can you see the inherent stupidity in this statement? As if 'working' in and of itself is 'good'. Yeah, they didn't get paid, but, they did get to work for 'free' (essentially slavery) so that Greeks got to drive brand-new Porche's. That's how backwards mainstream Economics is. They look at Fukushima and say: "WOW! This is going to be wonderful for the Japanese. look at all the work! It'll probably take 2 or 3 generations and lots and lots of borrowing to maybe get back to a semblance of normality. That's just great for 'stimulating' the Japanese economy." This is why you see Nobel Prize winning Douche bags like Krugmen suggesting WWIII or an Alien Invasion would be just 'wonderful for the economy'. AND, guess what? That's music to the ears of the Military Industrial Complex.

    This is why Ron Paul is marginalized and made to sound like a loon by the lame-stream media. He'd cut the military budget. He'd cut a LOT of fat from government. Well, that's not what the Farmer's like to hear. They get a lot out of maintaining the statuesque.

    Did you hear Obama's response to BJ Morgan's loosing $2 BILLION (and could reach as high as $20 Billion)? That's why we instilled Regulatory Reform.
    Come again? So..... the regulation did nothing, and, this is why we have it? Sounds like more of Joe's hero Krugman-logic to me :S


    that aside, I noticed you're now reaching back to the 1700s. Look, you can reach all the way back to 500BCE. Some of those ideals are STILL the ideal. It's not like suddenly we'd unlearn math. The world would still be a modern world. Although, the situation is getting dire. Why don't you try this experiment. Ask a younger research to identify the independent and dependent variable and how to run a single factor analysis - what assumptions are made. Ask them to describe the Scientific Method.

    They won't know it. Yeah, the older ones will (or might). But not the younger ones. Or not many of them.

    Did you know one of the reason why Rome fell? As the economy tanked they hired less professionals. This in turn lead to less people being trained how to do skilled jobs. Take the Pantheon as an example. The largest single cast dome made - ever. Still in use after nearly 2000 years. It's almost perfect. And it was the peak. Why didn't they get better? Because people had less money to spend as the State sucked it up. Less money meant less people to do those sorts of works. In less then a couple hundred years people not only couldn't do those skilled jobs. They didn't even know how to make that kind of cement! They thought some of the structures their grandparents parents had made... were made by the Giants in the Bible.

    History Repeats itself. Why is that do you think?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2012
  6. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    If this logic is so sound, then why didn't slavery and segregation wither and die of their own accord?

    Oh, that's right: because they were supported by the state governments in question. That's why we had to use the federal government to force them to stop doing that and get rid of the bigotry.

    Yes we can. We have done so, successfully, repeatedly.

    And yet, we're free of slavery and segregation. Funny, that.

    Are you asserting that the moral downside of the Civil War was not justified by the moral upside of ending slavery? Or that the moral downside of forcing states to end segregation was not worth the moral upside of ending segregation?

    Because that's Ron Paul's position. He values the lives of white slave-holders over the freedom of black slaves. He values the "right" of white businessmen to racially discriminate over the right of black citizens to freedom. Those are the principles you're defending with your "turn back the clock to the 1700s" advocacy.

    That statement is both obviously true and uncontroversial. You're a crank if you think otherwise.

    Reduced unemployment is an unambiguous economic "good," in the view of almost everyone.

    They got paid. What are you blathering about?

    Nobody says that. You're attacking a strawman, as usual.

    Is there supposed to be a point in this incoherent rant, somewhere?

    That's a highly unpopular policy position, regardless of anything the media does or doesn't say. It doesn't require a conspiracy theory to marginalize a fringe candidate with radical ideas that are repellent to the overwhelming majority of voters. It should be pretty clear to anyone with even the most basic understanding of the function of markets that such a candidate will not attract a huge audience.

    Meanwhile, are you blind to the delicious irony of an incoherent crank blaming "the media" for the fact that another incoherent crank isn't taken seriously?

    Except that we don't have the regulations, exactly because the likes of JP Morgan and their apologists have been resisting such. Do try to keep up, eh?

    Pointing out that originalists are just that is not the same thing as recommending a return to the 1700s.

    Like slavery? Reserving the franchise for white, male landowners?

    In point of fact, I doubt very much that you ever learned any math that's nearly as recent as the 1700s.

    Just without a modern government to cope with it.

    If you had complete, coherent answers to how your favored approach would satisfactorily deal with the various issues that the modern government was devised to address, then we could maybe take this stuff seriously. But you're attempting the usual libertarian end-run around all that, simply invoking some idealized past and uncritically demanding we return to it.

    WTF are you going on about now?

    Again, we get treated to this rootless, masturbatory rhetoric and receive zero serious answers to any of the relevant issues. You're all empty grandstanding and bluster, and zero comprehension. Why do you imagine that you can go around lecturing people about issues you demonstrably have no grasp on?
     
  7. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    lol
     
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,611
    quadraphonics,

    *sign*

    Lets go back to our island example. Suppose 10 people now live on the island. They all work all day catching fish by hand which is just enough for each person to eat for a day. One day 1 person decides to forgo his fish and starve for the day. The others laugh at him mockingly telling him: Well, don't come crying to us when you're hungry! He spends the day and makes something. The next day he comes down to the water and tosses in his 'net' invention all day and catches enough fish for three people to eat. This has effectively put three people out of work. Unemployment has gone up 300% ... IN A DAY!

    Do you think this new society, with a much much higher unemployment number is more or less prosperous? Why?


    Over time the man makes better nets. Soon he's put everyone out of work. Only he needs to catch fish. The others are frustrated with all their free time. Worse still, he seems to be asking them to do favors in return for the fish. The elect a leader. The leader passes a regulation that nets that can only catch enough for three people to eat can be used. This greatly reduces the absolutely massive unemployment. He's applauded and praised as a hero. The people are so happy now that they can get 'back to work'.


    Do you think this new leader has increased or decreased the societies prosperity? Why?
     
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,611
    RE: Slavery

    At least we agree government WAS the cause. In this case State government. The truth is, in Brazil, they ended Slavery without any need of war. You know how? They stopped catching run away Slaves. See, it's no economically viable to keep Slaves... unless there's a government catching them. As soon as there was no one to catch the Slaves. Slaves simply walked away from their enslavement. No Civil War. No destruction. No initiation of violence. Just simple voluntarism.

    We as you know did something differently. We decided to go the route of force. Killing massive numbers of people and destroying most of the country in the process. Finally crushing the value of the "Green Back" and ushering in a depression.

    Yea us!

    See the difference?

    Also, WHY is it, do you suppose, that the Federal Government supported ending Slavery? If it was morality. Then from where did this morality come from? You said you could use the State to enforce morality (which is somewhat perverse if you stop and think about what morality is). But where did it come from if not society? If representative government is a reflection of the society, then it was the society that changed - certainly not politicians who changed society.

    AND worse still, because of taking the route of force, to this day we have a HUGE problem with bigotry. Had we instead choose voluntarism through free-market capitalism, I venture things would be much much better on that front today. While we'll never know (well, maybe some day we will) it would be nice to.
     
  10. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,611
    I was thinking today. Perhaps a Leader can change the way people in society see themselves and other people. But, I don't think 'government' can. Example: When the French passed their law banning the headscarf, I don't think Muslims who wanted to wear it are now happy not to. BUT, if a Muslim leader respected by the masses were to forgo her scarf (and made a logical case for integration). Then, yes, people might change their way of thinking a little. Particularly the younger generations.

    Also, State run education camps/the Public school system can of course change society. I'd call it brainwashing. But, yes, I think that this can have a huge effect.

    So, I suppose I've changed my mind on that. BUT if we live in a Republic, then the representatives are servants not leaders. AND that State is NOT supposed to brainwash us. Yeah, things are upside down, but, that's the way it was supposed to be.
     
  11. JohnLiberty Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Excellent read! A moon rock would be so much better than what we have now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page