Further proof that Ron Paul is the most sane person in Washington

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Is original research taboo or something? :whistle2:k[/QUOTE]

Original research indeed. But she didn't even win the essay contest!
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Promiscuity leads to sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy.[/quote]

You mean promiscuity sans condoms?

He's always denied he wrote them
Click to expand...

And?

What is good enough for you isn't good enough for a non Paulista.

All points are inherently worth arguing.
Click to expand...

You haven't been on the internet long enough then.

Sure, consensuses have been reached on many topics such as Flat Earth and racism, but if somebody believes the opposite, the right thing to do is give him/her the facts rather than insult and dismiss him/her.
Click to expand...

And if giving them the facts doesn't work?
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Another underhanded tactic - dismissal. All points are inherently worth arguing. Sure, consensuses have been reached on many topics such as Flat Earth and racism, but if somebody believes the opposite, the right thing to do is give him/her the facts rather than insult and dismiss him/her.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely wrong. You cannot fight irrationality with empirical evidence.

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I'm a Paulite. Old-right/constituionalist rather than Libertarian, although I do approve of some of the libertarian agenda (the parts that R.P. also supports, obviously ;))[/QUOTE]

I like to call people like you 'Paulistinians'. It sounds much cooler ;)
 
[quote name='SpazX']Original research indeed. But she didn't even win the essay contest![/QUOTE]

The contest wasn't focused on just promiscuity. It's possible that the judges preferred other topics.

All I know is even though it's written by a 17 year old, I think it's fairly well written, and sources are included to back up many of the statistics.

[quote name='Msut77']You mean promiscuity sans condoms?[/QUOTE]

@ 2:14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvXW7wtY64

[quote name='Msut77']And if giving them the facts doesn't work?[/QUOTE]

Ignore them. If that doesn't work, then insult away. Never skip to step 3.

[quote name='IRHari']Absolutely wrong. You cannot fight irrationality with empirical evidence.[/QUOTE]

All POV's submitted in an argument, whether they are known to be wrong by the world at large or not, are up in the air as to their validity until evidence is submitted to prove/disprove them.

This is my POV. Please sumbit evidence as to why you believe it is incorrect, if you do.

P.S. "Paulite" is a fairly common term for us.
 
Well when someone thinks that Happy Days was more documentary than sitcom, most people have a hard time responding in any serious way.
 
[quote name='Clak']Well when someone thinks that Happy Days was more documentary than sitcom, most people have a hard time responding in any serious way.[/QUOTE]

It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatently obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatently obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that we should debate the benefits of gassing and killing millions of jews as seriously as say providing health care to millions of people? Euthanasia of babies with birth defects? slavery based upon race?
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatantly obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.[/QUOTE]

I am dismissive of others idiocy all the time and I have never noticed a problem.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']thrustbucket is nothing if not reliable. There's a 75% chance that if I click on "view post" when I see he's posted something preceding and following a comparative statement demonstrating how fucking miserably corrupt and/or in the pocket of multinational corporations the Republican party is, he just rolls over and plays dead, repeating the "both parties are corrupt" mantra.

Show some fuckin' backbone, man. You're not even trying.[/QUOTE]

I take that post to mean you are still operating under the age-old superstition that A) One party is more corrupt than the other and B) There is a big enough difference in the two parties to positively affect/fix this country through voting for one.

Maybe we should call you old-faithful. No surprises here.


[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Yes. What he should do is explain why and how both parties are corrupt.[/QUOTE]

Or maybe we are owed an explanation of how one is less corrupt than the other, especially through recent examples.

Edit: Maybe I'm just putting too much stock into the word "corrupt". It's entirely possible that one man's "corrupt" is another mans paradise.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Edit: Maybe I'm just putting too much stock into the word "corrupt". It's entirely possible that one man's "corrupt" is another mans paradise.[/QUOTE]

There you go. Times might be tough, but I wouldn't notice if I worked on Wall Street.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']It may be difficult, but if all topics, blatently obvious or not, aren't given the same treatment in a discussion, it will lead to problems.[/QUOTE]
I think you watch far too much television, now you're sounding like Tony Soprano.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think you watch far too much television, now you're sounding like Tony Soprano.[/QUOTE]

Discussing everything in detail, no matter thow asinine it may be, will lead to much less disagreement down the road.

In other words, ram evidence down people throats until they submit, rather than yell at them and make them think you're too cowardly to debate because you know they're right.
 
Dude, didn't you read what I said about empirical evidence and irrationality?

ex:
A: Wheres obamas birth certificate?
B: here, he was born in hawaii
A: no i want the long form
B: here
A: no thats the long form certificate of live birth, its not the same as a birth cert.
B: are you Senator David Vitter?
A: yes
 
[quote name='mykevermin']thrustbucket is nothing if not reliable. There's a 75% chance that if I click on "view post" when I see he's posted something preceding and following a comparative statement demonstrating how fucking miserably corrupt and/or in the pocket of multinational corporations the Republican party is, he just rolls over and plays dead, repeating the "both parties are corrupt" mantra.

Show some fuckin' backbone, man. You're not even trying.[/QUOTE]

I love ya myke but both parties ARE corrupt. You need to accept that both are a big load of horseshit, dung, whatever word you wanna use. Washington nailed it, being against political parties. These fucking party labels hold us back.
The only guy I respect now in any of em' is Ron Paul, ONE person. Dennis Moore, my rep., is a fucking shill for the Fed. I'm glad he's retiring and I hope his wife doesn't end up getting elected as she will likely be just as much in the pocket of the Fed as he has been.
As for ideology do you think I'd get elected to either party? I'm pro-Gun rights, pro-Choice, pro-Gay marriage, Anti-Death Penalty. I support reformation over reincarceration as I think it saves money and reincarnceration is just a pathetic way to punish someone because you're bitter or have some misguided notion. I'm referring to the people you truly have a chance at reforming.
I believe in complete deregulation though I think, as part of this, Corporations should only be able to last for 30 years, 35 if they're working on a Public Works program at the time. As part of this I don't believe in mergers.
These are just a few of my beliefs, another big one being the total sunshine on what you should list in your product, in terms of ingredients. A big part of this is listing if you use ingredients that are genetically modified.
 
Msut77 both have gotten onto the Crazy Train, putting measures to pander to Corporations and banks so much so to the detriment of individual people and especially the collective people and society, known as the Commons.
This shameless and self-destructive behavior is basically destroying our infrastructure in the process, just heading us right down the path to a 3rd world nation. Let us NOT forget that Corporatism and Capitalism are distinctly different. Corporatism is Capitalism in almost the worst scenario, turned into a malignant tumor. I can only think of Fascist China as worse.
 
The Republican MO has been to basically destroy the country for decades.

Do Democrats not fight back hard enough? Most of the time.

Are there Democrats actively helping Republicans destroy the country? Yes.

But the solution is to get better Democrats.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The Republican MO has been to basically destroy the country for decades.

Do Democrats not fight back hard enough? Most of the time.

Are there Democrats actively helping Republicans destroy the country? Yes.

But the solution is to get better Democrats.[/QUOTE]

With REAL Republicans is there any problem being true to the MO? I'm talking about Ron Paul being the only one there by the way. I'm speaking States Rights and strong state governments nationwide. A weak federal government is the way to go, as our founders intended.
I know we've gotten some positive things out of it but what about the NSA?! The CIA I wouldn't mind if not for having Mohammed Mosadeq murdered to support BP getting money from Iran's oil assets instead of letting him nationalize it. If it ended up a failure that was Iran's mistake to make NOT our choice.
The list goes on of people the CIA has had threatened in the interest of multinational Corporations. They will then be assassinated if they don't comply to sign up their country through economic slavery via the World Bank's version of the subprime mortgage. I forgot to mention the 3rd world status that stays with that.
Oh yeah and it was the CIA that overstepped their bounds by initiating MK ULTRA on American soil, which should never have been done anywhere. Trying to strip someone of their Free Will, ugh.
 
[quote name='Msut77']But the solution is to get better Democrats.[/QUOTE]

What about better Republicans?

They used to be moderate. But they've been hijacked by neo-cons.

Democrats, and all left-wingers for that matter, are for more government, more spending, more taxes. The lefties always talk about how they can do big government and big taxation RIGHT, but it's an inherently bad system. There's no point to arguing (even so, I do support properly arguing every topic even if there no point to it, as you know) about how to properly run a bad system.

Please explain how large government doesn't inevitably lead to corruption and tyranny. (Oh, and please don't use some argument like "you can't prove a negative". That's a cheap shut-up term.)
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Democrats, and all left-wingers for that matter, are for more government, more spending, more taxes. The lefties always talk about how they can do big government and big taxation RIGHT, but it's an inherently bad system. There's no point to arguing (even so, I do support properly arguing every topic even if there no point to it, as you know) about how to properly run a bad system.
[/QUOTE]

lol

more like tax-and-spend LIEberals am i rite?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Sporadic']lol

more like tax-and-spend LIEberals am i rite?[/QUOTE]

Is that sarcasm?

I ask, because from experience, there's no such thing as a right-winger on online gaming forums.
 
Every time I see a story about a game where they make fun of Bush/Cheney, theres always people who comment 'oh i hate when politics are in games'. They just hate having their boys being attacked. So yeah, based on my experience they are all over the place.

I don't think you're going to find a lot of people defending an esoteric idea of 'large government', I don't think most liberals here are statists.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']What about better Republicans?

They used to be moderate. But they've been hijacked by neo-cons.

Democrats, and all left-wingers for that matter, are for more government, more spending, more taxes. The lefties always talk about how they can do big government and big taxation RIGHT, but it's an inherently bad system. There's no point to arguing (even so, I do support properly arguing every topic even if there no point to it, as you know) about how to properly run a bad system.

Please explain how large government doesn't inevitably lead to corruption and tyranny. (Oh, and please don't use some argument like "you can't prove a negative". That's a cheap shut-up term.)[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to argue there are no Republicans in power?
 
The only thing more predictable and consistent than Republicats being equally corrupt is Mykevermin blocking those that don't agree with him or make him look the fool.
 
Damn tax and spend libruls, people making over $200,000 a year are already unfairly taxed, give them a break.
 
[quote name='Clak']Damn tax and spend libruls, people making over $200,000 a year are already unfairly taxed, give them a break.[/QUOTE]

When the Bush tax cuts expire, and you see your new pay stub, you might be singing a slightly different tune.
 
Republicans want all Bush tax cuts extended, Obama has said he'd extend them for everyone but the highest earners, those i mentioned above.

Now unless I somehow get a gigantic raise between now and then, how will this effect me negatively?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']when the bush tax cuts expire, and you see your new pay stub, you might be singing a slightly different tune.[/quote]

GODDAMN DEMOCRAPS TRYING TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR STUFF INSTEAD OF JUST LETTING THE DEFICIT GROW OUT OF CONTROL!

don't they know that they don't need to offset the cost of reducing tax rates?

WALLACE: We’re running out of time, so how are you going to pay $678 billion just on the tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year?

KYL: You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely congress has the authority and it would be right, if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zaQf9kl248
 
[quote name='Clak']Now unless I somehow get a gigantic raise between now and then, how will this effect me negatively?[/QUOTE]

mememe
 
What the Bush Tax Cuts will bring in to pay off the deficit compared to the amount of spending we are now at (or more importantly will soon be at), makes them practically inconsequential.

Regardless of whether the Bush Tax Cuts were a good idea or not, or how justified or not they were, can anyone really argue that taking more money out of the middle and lower classes paychecks right in the middle of the worst economy of our lifetimes is a good idea?

Shit. At least wait for people to stand back up before you kick them in the financial balls again.
 
Axelrod said very clearly on the sunday morning shows last weekend that there will be no tax increases for the middle class--including no increase from letting the Bush tax cuts expire. They'll either keep those in place and only let them expire for those making over $200K (or $250K if Obama sticks to his campaign talking points). Or let them expire and instantly be replaced by another tax cut for the middle and lower class taking their place.
 
If that's the case, then good.

But we need more.

I know it's an unpopular thing to believe right now, but I do think that tax cuts pretty much always result in the best economic stimulus (if done right). I am not sure how or when this economic crisis will be resolved without it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']What the Bush Tax Cuts will bring in to pay off the deficit compared to the amount of spending we are now at (or more importantly will soon be at), makes them practically inconsequential.[/quote]
Social Security paid for a large portion of those tax cuts. I don't think that's inconsequential.
[quote name='thrustbucket']I know it's an unpopular thing to believe right now, but I do think that tax cuts pretty much always result in the best economic stimulus (if done right). I am not sure how or when this economic crisis will be resolved without it.[/QUOTE]
When times are good, cut taxes. When times are bad, cut taxes. We should cut taxes to a negative rate, then everything would magically pay for itself.

Srsly tho, how do you square wanting to cut taxes against the $300 billion dollar Obama tax cut that did, by your account, absolutely fuck all for the economy?
 
[quote name='speedracer']When times are good, cut taxes. When times are bad, cut taxes. We should cut taxes to a negative rate, then everything would magically pay for itself.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that what we already do for low income families that receive more "credits" than what they paid in?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Isn't that what we already do for low income families that receive more "credits" than what they paid in?[/QUOTE]
Sure, then we take it right back in payroll taxes.
 
I would ask how everything is supposed to be paid for without an increase in tax revenue, but then most conservatives also think we should cut spending on everything also, so it makes sense in that frame of mind.

Granted I'd be all for a large reduction in military spending.
 
Why can't one reasonable person stand up and say "average income is down "X"%, so we need to reduce spending by "X" + .001% to maintain our current budget."?

Or more simply put, someone needs to stand up and say that instead of committing dollars for the budget, things get a percentage of what is taken in and has to make due with what they get.
 
[quote name='Clak']I would ask how everything is supposed to be paid for without an increase in tax revenue, but then most conservatives also think we should cut spending on everything also, so it makes sense in that frame of mind.

Granted I'd be all for a large reduction in military spending.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the simple fact of the matter is to get the debt down we're eventually going to have to increase tax revenue and cut spending. And either/or solution won't cut it.
 
It's just so silly to see these arguments about how to tax and spend correctly, when the whole financial system is messed up to begin with. The national debt hasn't been anywhere near zero since Andrew Jackson killed what was the equivilant of the Federal Reserve at the time (sadly, the good times didn't last long, as its substitute was mismanaged).

Plus, neither the Democrats or today's Republicans want to cut spending anywhere near as drastically as Ron Paul does.

@ -1:10
 
dmaul - why does it have to be the seesaw effect? Let's just have them aligned! Instead we get all this fudging with numbers and figures that are so preposturous that no one is willing to argue with them. There are so many sacred cows in the spending world that simply matching spending to previous year's tax intake will be the first step.
 
The best way to do things would be to shrink the size of government, meaning cut both taxes and spending at the same time.

But get rid of the Fed first, so debt isn't created at the same rate money is.
 
[quote name='nasum']dmaul - why does it have to be the seesaw effect? Let's just have them aligned! Instead we get all this fudging with numbers and figures that are so preposturous that no one is willing to argue with them. There are so many sacred cows in the spending world that simply matching spending to previous year's tax intake will be the first step.[/QUOTE]

It's just hard to do as it's hard to get people to agree on what to cut.

If I called all the shots, I'd:

-let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $200K

-add some more higher income brackets--currently tops out at 35% for above $373K. I'd add at least 40, 45 and 50% brackets above that current cut off, with the 50% one starting at $1 million

-End the wars and cut defense spending

-Cut must subsidies--farm subsidies, subsidies to foreign countries (i.e. paying Egypt to not attack Israel etc.)

-Increase spending on public education--coupled with merit based pay and tenure systems to tie pay to quality of education. Using GPA, student evaluations, peer evaluations etc. as part of the process--not just standardized test scores

-Increase higher education funding

-Increase research funding for the sciences (covers everything form medicine to alternative energy to social sciences etc.)

-Get everyone health insurance
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

-Cut must subsidies--farm subsidies, subsidies to foreign countries (i.e. paying Egypt to not attack Israel etc.)

[/QUOTE]

You'll get no argument from me whether or not it's a 'good' idea. But ,at this point I question if it can be done.
Its obvious that getting big corn off our tit is in the country's best interests but TPTB are going in a completely different direction. You can start a whole thread on this topic alone. Id love to hear ideas on how you push the agricultural lobby out of politicians pockets
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ public funding for elections, first and foremost.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, why don't we do this already?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah, why don't we do this already?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Wu-Tang']Cash, Rules, Everything, Around, Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all[/quote]

That's why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top