RON PAUL 2012!!!

[PayNSprayBandit]

hes not an idiot,
he is willing to tell the american people what is going on,
hes not afraid of science,
and hes willing to tell more truth then alot of politicians

Awesome, an intelligent person to debate with.

Okay, I agree with points one and three, but as for two and four they're basically the same point and only half true. He understands much better than we've seen in recent years how the public needs to be communicated with, but he it at heart a politician and does it not because he's a boy scout, but rather because he knows how to score points. I'm sure he's just as comfortable withholding information, too.

However, while character is vastly important, it isn't everything. Philosophy of governance is crucial and people are beginning to question his. Not his motivations, just his answers.

well the problem is that we wont be able to really understand his philosophy till later on since hes only been pres for just over 100 days and these days its almost impossible to do anything without the opposing party (IE republicans) yelling loudly about facism or socialism or something stupid rather then trying to really come up with a logical argument and because of this its almost impossible to do what democratic governments are there for, compromise (altho a good compromise leaves everyone angry)altho I doubt he is going to end up doing what bush did and try and rule by fear, lots of fear. so that automaticly puts hit way ahead since fear is just a step up from "think of the children" on the ass hat scale

First off, they (and by they I mean Republicans, and by Republicans I mean Fox) have been screaming Socialism at the top of their lungs for three months; and they're not entirely wrong to do so. The thing is, the right has no power right now; none. Obama's not hindered by Congress, they're his *****. A trillion dollars for this, a trillion dollars for that, he gets whatever he wants. So, we've seen his philosophies and that Washington being his private playground is expensive.

Now most philosophies of governance, as I'm apparently now calling them, can be put in one of two categories, Mother or Father. This is not my analogy, it's been around forever. Fatherly governing is freedom, do it yourself, small government, often connotes an aggressive foreign policy. Conversely, Obama has what Democrats refer to as a mommy problem, he wants to take care of everyone from cradle to grave and save everyone from any bad decision they've made. A noble effort, but, as his opposition will tell you, with disastrous results.

As for 'not ruling by fear', I agree so long as it's still accompanied by proper resolve and as we've seen, it is. Because the purpose of all that fear is mainly to justify war. So, while I don't want the president to scare his people any more than is necessary to shake them out of apathy, I do insist he know when to fight. And so far on that front, I'm fairly pleased.

BTW "think of the children" was great.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

Preemptive strike on the political flame war.
This thread shall now be used to discuss the many different uses of pumpkins:
I'll start, anyone ever had pumpkin soup?

No flaming, just intellectual debate, it's better than cocaine.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

I still have yet to hear a real argument for why Ron Paul and libertarians should be given any power.

Give me Liberty or give me Death.
-Patrick Henry, 1775

 

[McClaud]

Man -

Republicans are not Father governance by your standard.

The Republicans became pretty big spenders at the end of the Reagan era, so now there's no difference between parties in terms of spending. The Republicans have put just as many freaking earmarks into the new budget/bailout as the Democrats, because they could get away with it.

In all honesty, when it comes down to it, it works something like this:

= Republicans want a Big Brother state watching everyone everywhere all the time and less regulation for their constituents and contractor buddies to make money with.

= Democrats want a nanny state doling out money to everyone with more regulation on the upper class, except for their constituents and contractor buddies.

I hate either option, but I'd go with Democrats over Republicans when it comes to nanny vs Big Brother. I'm not a fan of this neo-Con crap that's apparently all about pushing moral agendas down peoples' throats lately, although I absolutely detest Libertarians and their "Let's not have any plan and hope that's general enough to appeal to everyone."

Ron Paul lost me when he said we need to return to a gold-standard and basically expand the military's freedom to operate on American soil. I'll never vote for him. Sorry.

 

[Worgen]

hes not an idiot,
he is willing to tell the american people what is going on,
hes not afraid of science,
and hes willing to tell more truth then alot of politicians

Awesome, an intelligent person to debate with.

Okay, I agree with points one and three, but as for two and four they're basically the same point and only half true. He understands much better than we've seen in recent years how the public needs to be communicated with, but he it at heart a politician and does it not because he's a boy scout, but rather because he knows how to score points. I'm sure he's just as comfortable withholding information, too.

However, while character is vastly important, it isn't everything. Philosophy of governance is crucial and people are beginning to question his. Not his motivations, just his answers.

well the problem is that we wont be able to really understand his philosophy till later on since hes only been pres for just over 100 days and these days its almost impossible to do anything without the opposing party (IE republicans) yelling loudly about facism or socialism or something stupid rather then trying to really come up with a logical argument and because of this its almost impossible to do what democratic governments are there for, compromise (altho a good compromise leaves everyone angry)altho I doubt he is going to end up doing what bush did and try and rule by fear, lots of fear. so that automaticly puts hit way ahead since fear is just a step up from "think of the children" on the ass hat scale

First off, they (and by they I mean Republicans, and by Republicans I mean Fox) have been screaming Socialism at the top of their lungs for three months; and they're not entirely wrong to do so. The thing is, the right has no power right now; none. Obama's not hindered by Congress, they're his *****. A trillion dollars for this, a trillion dollars for that he gets whatever he wants. So, we've seen his philosophies and Washington being his private playground is expensive.

Now most philosophies of governance, as I'm apparently now calling it, can be put in one of two categories, Mother or Father. This is not my analogy, it's been around forever. Fatherly governing is freedom, do it yourself, small government, often connotes an aggressive foreign policy. Conversely, Obama has what Democrats refer to as a mommy problem, he want to take care of everyone from cradle to grave and save everyone from any bad decision they've made. A noble effort, but, as his opposition will tell you, with disastrous results.

As for 'not ruling by fear', I agree so long as it's still accompanied by proper resolve and as we've seen, it is. Because the purpose of all that fear is mainly to justify war. So, while I don't want the president to scare his people any more than is necessary to shake them out of apathy, I do insist he know when to fight. And so far on that front, I'm fairly pleased.

BTW "think of the children" was great.

the socialism call is stupid because we are already socalist and a 3% tax hike isnt socialism, the most obvious ways we are socialist is in that we have fire and police for all (granted they dont serve all equily but everyone pays for them). The right still has power, the power of filibuster, granted its not the best power but its there and they are doing all the rule whoring they can do delay his appointees.

the problem with the "motherly or fatherly" example you use is that it assumes they work like that and to the extremes of each. For instance in your fatherly you say small govt and freedom, but republicans are more guilty of growing government and preventing freedoms then the dem or motherly govt. For instance, bush added the homeland security agency, growing government and pushing to outlaw gay marrage, preventing freedoms. Thoes are the most obvious examples but there are more, some involving reagan but Im not in the mood to look up all the examples I want for a real argument.

your only half right when you say the purpose of fear is to justify war, granted thats a large part of it but really fear is there as a false argument, to unify people against a percieved threat. Fear is one of the worst political arguments since it doesnt need to justify itself much, its not uncommon to just take mild stereotypes to use to rally the stupid into calling for the blood of your chosen target. That was shown in the recent tea party nonsense, combined with a horrible understanding of recent events and history. When someone is trying to make you fear something just remember.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

 

[Worgen]

I still have yet to hear a real argument for why Ron Paul and libertarians should be given any power.

Give me Liberty or give me Death.
-Patrick Henry, 1775

thats not a real argument

 

[flare09]

It's all about Nader.

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

Man -

Republicans are not Father governance by your standard.

The Republicans became pretty big spenders at the end of the Reagan era, so now there's no difference between parties in terms of spending. The Republicans have put just as many freaking earmarks into the new budget/bailout as the Democrats, because they could get away with it.

In all honesty, when it comes down to it, it works something like this:

= Republicans want a Big Brother state watching everyone everywhere all the time and less regulation for their constituents and contractor buddies to make money with.

= Democrats want a nanny state doling out money to everyone with more regulation on the upper class, except for their constituents and contractor buddies.

I hate either option, but I'd go with Democrats over Republicans when it comes to nanny vs Big Brother. I'm not a fan of this neo-Con crap that's apparently all about pushing moral agendas down peoples' throats lately, although I absolutely detest Libertarians and their "Let's not have any plan and hope that's general enough to appeal to everyone."

Ron Paul lost me when he said we need to return to a gold-standard and basically expand the military's freedom to operate on American soil. I'll never vote for him. Sorry.

Exactly they became this watered down party of nonsense and idiotic single issue campaigns. Which is why we need an overhaul. You'll notice I didn't say the Republicans are the fatherly party, that is because they've lost their way.

Democrats are for the nanny state, you're right, that's "the Mommy Problem".

Liberty means believing in and teaching morality but not, as Bill Maher (a Libertarian) calls it legislating taste. As for the Neo-cons I think you need to look them up, because you've described the opposite. We don't want our aesthetic choices made into law.

It's not a lack of a plan to please everyone (although I totally laughed when I saw that), it's minimal regulation, because the market solves problems better than the government and liberty is important for its own sake.

As for the Gold standard, let me start by asking why you're against it.

 

[Worgen]

we are incapable of going without a good amount of regulation, without regulation we would have lots of mercury in our water, cars that rusted to dust in 5 years, much more finacial panic (once every 5 years like before we got all thoes regulations from the great depression, things only started to unravel when we started removing the regulations) and a nationwide power grid like cali in the early 2000s.

each time I see a libertarian argue it makes me think of someone who is an eternal optimist, that never stops to think of what happens when someone tries to abuse the system, comes around

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

the socialism call is stupid because we are already socalist and a 3% tax hike isnt socialism, the most obvious ways we are socialist is in that we have fire and police for all (granted they dont serve all equily but everyone pays for them). The right still has power, the power of filibuster, granted its not the best power but its there and they are doing all the rule whoring they can do delay his appointees.

the problem with the "motherly or fatherly" example you use is that it assumes they work like that and to the extremes of each. For instance in your fatherly you say small govt and freedom, but republicans are more guilty of growing government and preventing freedoms then the dem or motherly govt. For instance, bush added the homeland security agency, growing government and pushing to outlaw gay marrage, preventing freedoms. Thoes are the most obvious examples but there are more, some involving reagan but Im not in the mood to look up all the examples I want for a real argument.

your only half right when you say the purpose of fear is to justify war, granted thats a large part of it but really fear is there as a false argument, to unify people against a percieved threat. Fear is one of the worst political arguments since it doesnt need to justify itself much, its not uncommon to just take mild stereotypes to use to rally the stupid into calling for the blood of your chosen target. That was shown in the recent tea party nonsense, combined with a horrible understanding of recent events and history. When someone is trying to make you fear something just remember.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

As for us being Socialist, we are more than I'd like, but I'm not for Anarchy. I do want some government, just little. And it's not about the 3%, it's about the bailouts. Risk isn't risk if you can't loose.

As for Bush and the like, it's as I was saying to McClaud, "they became this watered down party of nonsense and idiotic single issue campaigns. Which is why we need an overhaul. You'll notice I didn't say the Republicans are the fatherly party, that is because they've lost their way."

Again, beyond public awareness of reality, I am completely with you on the issue of fear.

 

[Worgen]

the socialism call is stupid because we are already socalist and a 3% tax hike isnt socialism, the most obvious ways we are socialist is in that we have fire and police for all (granted they dont serve all equily but everyone pays for them). The right still has power, the power of filibuster, granted its not the best power but its there and they are doing all the rule whoring they can do delay his appointees.

the problem with the "motherly or fatherly" example you use is that it assumes they work like that and to the extremes of each. For instance in your fatherly you say small govt and freedom, but republicans are more guilty of growing government and preventing freedoms then the dem or motherly govt. For instance, bush added the homeland security agency, growing government and pushing to outlaw gay marrage, preventing freedoms. Thoes are the most obvious examples but there are more, some involving reagan but Im not in the mood to look up all the examples I want for a real argument.

your only half right when you say the purpose of fear is to justify war, granted thats a large part of it but really fear is there as a false argument, to unify people against a percieved threat. Fear is one of the worst political arguments since it doesnt need to justify itself much, its not uncommon to just take mild stereotypes to use to rally the stupid into calling for the blood of your chosen target. That was shown in the recent tea party nonsense, combined with a horrible understanding of recent events and history. When someone is trying to make you fear something just remember.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

As for us being Socialist, we are more than I'd like, but I'm not for Anarchy. I do want some government, just little. And it's not about the 3%, it's about the bailouts. Risk isn't risk if you can't loose.

As for Bush and the like, it's as I was saying to McClaud, "they became this watered down party of nonsense and idiotic single issue campaigns. Which is why we need an overhaul. You'll notice I didn't say the Republicans are the fatherly party, that is because they've lost their way."

Again, beyond public awareness of reality, I am completely with you on the issue of fear.

well I agree that the bailout thing is a fiasco, altho Im not sure its as bad an idea for the auto industry as it is the insurance, if I was obama I might still have bailed out aig but I sure as hell would have broken them up, they are way to close to a monopoly, anything that is too big to fail should not be allowed to continue to be that big except the govt.

what is little govt? its never really quantified well, especialy considering that when america was founded we had a pretty small govt and it didnt work well at all

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

we are incapable of going without a good amount of regulation, without regulation we would have lots of mercury in our water, cars that rusted to dust in 5 years, much more finacial panic (once every 5 years like before we got all thoes regulations from the great depression, things only started to unravel when we started removing the regulations) and a nationwide power grid like cali in the early 2000s.

each time I see a libertarian argue it makes me think of someone who is an eternal optimist, that never stops to think of what happens when someone tries to abuse the system, comes around

Hey, the Glass-Steagall Act was great and I'm in favor of preventing companies from lying, some regulation is not only good, but necessary. It's that the government doesn't need to be giving money to failing companies or owning things like schools or trains. I'm not even a little bit of an optimist. The optimist is the one who thinks he can save everyone.

 

[Worgen]

we are incapable of going without a good amount of regulation, without regulation we would have lots of mercury in our water, cars that rusted to dust in 5 years, much more finacial panic (once every 5 years like before we got all thoes regulations from the great depression, things only started to unravel when we started removing the regulations) and a nationwide power grid like cali in the early 2000s.

each time I see a libertarian argue it makes me think of someone who is an eternal optimist, that never stops to think of what happens when someone tries to abuse the system, comes around

Hey, the Glass-Steagall Act was great and I'm in favor of preventing companies from lying, some regulation is not only good, but necessary. It's that the government doesn't need to be giving money to failing companies or owning things like schools or trains. I'm not even a little bit of an optimist. The optimist is the one who thinks he can save everyone.

I dont know, I think the govt could run schools better or at least set educational standards better then states, here we have a problem with a creationist infestation of our state textbook standards groups but the state refuses to spray since they fear loosing the religious crazies, stupid red state. With national govt and a pres who isnt stupid about science the govt could really help things by having more of a hand in schools.

If libertarians arnt optimists then why do most of the best things they can come up with seem like they would end up with the rich owning private armies and the rest of us holed up in bunkers, granted not immeadiatly but probably pretty soon.... altho shadowrun was pretty cool, somehow I doubt ron paul would make magic come back

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

well I agree that the bailout thing is a fiasco, altho Im not sure its as bad an idea for the auto industry as it is the insurance, if I was obama I might still have bailed out aig but I sure as hell would have broken them up, they are way to close to a monopoly, anything that is too big to fail should not be allowed to continue to be that big except the govt.

what is little govt? its never really quantified well, especialy considering that when america was founded we had a pretty small govt and it didnt work well at all

It worked great, how did it not work?

See, you've hit the problem on the head. Nothing is "too big to fail" and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If it can't stand up on its own, it should die. The alarmist will tell you that everyone involved will be destroyed, but that just isn't so. When a company is in trouble it can try to refinance by asking a financial institution (or in this case another financial institution) for a loan, just like anybody else and if no one thinks it's worth the risk, then it isn't. And so they may go under, but what does that look like, do they burn it to the ground? No. They sell off the parts.

Say we let GM go down, what happens to the factory? Honda (or whomever) buys it and now they make different cars, but everyone still has a job. This notion of "too big to fail" has two consequences, the second of which you've laid out perfectly. In addition to socialist waste and a corruption of the free market, the government gets it in their head that no one is allowed to be this big and they begin constraining business; like it's something they have a right to do. The system is now, do well and be punished, do poorly and be saved. What incentive is there to do well?

 

[megapenguinx]

Preemptive strike on the political flame war.
This thread shall now be used to discuss the many different uses of pumpkins:
I'll start, anyone ever had pumpkin soup?

No flaming, just intellectual debate, it's better than cocaine.

Still these things end badly as you may have noticed before....
also edit your posts instead of double posting man!

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

I dont know, I think the govt could run schools better or at least set educational standards better then states, here we have a problem with a creationist infestation of our state textbook standards groups but the state refuses to spray since they fear loosing the religious crazies, stupid red state. With national govt and a pres who isnt stupid about science the govt could really help things by having more of a hand in schools.

If libertarians arnt optimists then why do most of the best things they can come up with seem like they would end up with the rich owning private armies and the rest of us holed up in bunkers, granted not immeadiatly but probably pretty soon.... altho shadowrun was pretty cool, somehow I doubt ron paul would make magic come back

But wait, you had it. Don't own schools; do set a required curriculum, even required books.

Regulations about private armies aren't out of the question, it's the seas of tiny regulations that are a nightmare. Trust me, I know about bureaucracy, I used to work for the government. I have so many stories about idiotic regulations it would make your head hurt.

My favorite was about a wire that was hanging out of the ceiling, because of the color it was against the law for us to leave it and against the law to touch it. It was just a loose Ethernet cable, but we ended up having to call in some people to "have it removed". Insane.

Now, that's all in house, but the point remains the same.

 

[megapenguinx]

Preemptive strike on the political flame war.
This thread shall now be used to discuss the many different uses of pumpkins:
I'll start, anyone ever had pumpkin soup?

I tried it once, didn't like it though.

Great Pumpkin '12!

I thought it was a bit over creamy. But pumpkin pie is good, everyone agrees right?

 

[PayNSprayBandit]

Preemptive strike on the political flame war.
This thread shall now be used to discuss the many different uses of pumpkins:
I'll start, anyone ever had pumpkin soup?

No flaming, just intellectual debate, it's better than cocaine.

Still these things end badly as you may have noticed before....
also edit your posts instead of double posting man!

I think we're doing pretty good and I'm just keeping separate responses separate.

 

[Worgen]

well I agree that the bailout thing is a fiasco, altho Im not sure its as bad an idea for the auto industry as it is the insurance, if I was obama I might still have bailed out aig but I sure as hell would have broken them up, they are way to close to a monopoly, anything that is too big to fail should not be allowed to continue to be that big except the govt.

what is little govt? its never really quantified well, especialy considering that when america was founded we had a pretty small govt and it didnt work well at all

It worked great, how did it not work?

See, you've hit the problem on the head. Nothing is "too big to fail" and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If it can't stand up on its own, it should die. The alarmist will tell you that everyone involved will be destroyed, but that just isn't so. When a company is in trouble it can try to refinance by asking a financial institution (or in this case another financial institution) for a loan, just like anybody else and if no one thinks it's worth the risk, then it isn't. And so they may go under, but what does that look like, do they burn it to the ground? No. They sell off the parts.

Say we let GM go down, what happens to the factory? Honda (or whomever) buys it and now they make different cars, but everyone still has a job. This notion of "too big to fail" has two consequences, the second of which you've laid out perfectly. In addition to socialist waste and a corruption of the free market, the government gets it in their head that no one is allowed to be this big and they begin constraining business; like it's something they have a right to do. The system is now, do well and be punished, do poorly and be saved. What incentive is there to do well?

well the auto industy was already in a precarious situation before the crash since not only is it competing with popular japanies autos but its also dealing with high health care costs since we are annoyingly capitalist in the health care industry, so really if the auto manufacturers did fail and have to go bankrupt its entierly possible that we would end up with almost all the manufacturing leaving the country and just a couple plants still here, altho the odds are anyones guess.

the problem with the contraining buisness agrument is that buisness has shown it will grown to become as bloated and heavy as it can, thats what aig did, thats why we have monopoly laws on the books and really currently we dont have a do poorly and get punished way of reacting to ceos, how do you define bad? say a ceo fires 45000 workers and plays with the books so that it looks like he helped increase earnings by so and so much that quarter so he pulls in a big bonus for this performance, is that bad? and if it is how do you punish them since chances are that did increase the stock price and the board tends to be in favor of that, really without govt interfearence you cant do much to punish them

 

[Worgen]

I dont know, I think the govt could run schools better or at least set educational standards better then states, here we have a problem with a creationist infestation of our state textbook standards groups but the state refuses to spray since they fear loosing the religious crazies, stupid red state. With national govt and a pres who isnt stupid about science the govt could really help things by having more of a hand in schools.

If libertarians arnt optimists then why do most of the best things they can come up with seem like they would end up with the rich owning private armies and the rest of us holed up in bunkers, granted not immeadiatly but probably pretty soon.... altho shadowrun was pretty cool, somehow I doubt ron paul would make magic come back

But wait, you had it. Don't own schools; do set a required curriculum, even required books.

Regulations about private armies aren't out of the question, it's the seas of tiny regulations that are a nightmare. Trust me, I know about bureaucracy, I used to work for the government. I have so many stories about idiotic regulations it would make your head hurt.

My favorite was about a wire that was hanging out of the ceiling, because of the color it was against the law for us to leave it and against the law to touch it. It was just a loose Ethernet cable, but we ended up having to call in some people to "have it removed". Insane.

Now, that's all in house, but the point remains the same.

the main problem with small regulations like that one is that originaly it probably served a purpose but that purpose has been lost and its made delibretly hard to get rid of regulations since all regulations are treated the same and you really dont want it to be easy to get rid of some of them.

oh and the govt already does kinda own schools, its called public schools and while most of it is paid for localy they still get federal money but you also havent said why it would be bad for thoes to be owned directly by the federal govt