Credit Suisse? Fucking wankers. Makes me feel sick... Why on earth should a Swiss company get involved in US politics?
Iowa Caucuses
- Thread starter monies
- Start date
It's a multinational corp.
reimktg your logic is flawed because you're only taking into account one side of the story.
You even said it yourself that lower housing prices would be beneficial as it would be more affordable, while on the other hand you claim that if people took advantage of the boom they would have also benefited.
The problem of your logic is that who are the people on the peak of the bubble going to sell to? Buyers who are going to lose money on the price drop. Essentially, you've completed ignored the downswing of the cycle.
Bubbles are caused by speculation, not the rise of value. Price doesn't mean shit.
Have a look at this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npJ0CUT8d_Y]"What About Money Causes Economic Crises?" with Peter Schiff - Ron Paul Money Lecture Series, Pt 3/3 - YouTube[/ame]
My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain. Let me be very clear here: I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.- Statement of FaithRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
I really have no issue with this (you know as the atheist pro choicer here). Mostly because of this sentence: and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.
I know some Christians who really do believe in all that crazy crap but walk the talk when it comes to their beliefs. I have a great respect for people who do this even if can't fathom why.
But mostly I have no problem with it, because as I've said before, I think RP will stick the issues that he has talked about for 30 years which haven't really included religion or abortion.
Don't argue with the resident PHD in economics on Wickefire!
He'll beat you over the head with a pair of indifference curves and stick a Phillips curve up your arse!
Precede unceremoniously no doubt by a torture session complete with making you yell Hayek to the top of your lungs like a pair of cantab love boys caught in the backroom of a Mises Institute pep rally...
Slight tangent here, but I was looking up RP's voting record and apparently he voted twice to ban partial-birth abortion (in 2000 and 2003). Now, I believe he's stated that he thinks the abortion issue should be left to the states, and I think most here are under that impression as well, so I wonder how these votes to ban (certain, specific) abortion at the federal level square with that.
I'm not interested in an abortion debate here (I have my own problems with late-term abortion), but whether RP's voting record is truly consistent with his stated belief that it should be left to the states. Further, in light of his record, it's not a stretch to wonder if he would support a total ban on abortion at the federal level if it were ever to become politically viable.
He explained it a little bit here...
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle by Rep. Ron Paul
I just noticed that one of those bills was sponsored by Rick Santorum...
Vote number 2003-530 banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life on Oct 2, 2003 regarding bill S.3 Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA
Thanks.
So to summarize, he only supported those bills because "the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade," i.e., it's already been brought into the jurisdiction of the federal government. But he would prefer it if Roe v. Wade were overturned and jurisdiction returned to the states.
Alternatively, he supports an "outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment." Which, you know, seems pretty anti-libertarian to me.
Yeah, none of this makes any fucking sense at all. 2 months ago this guy wasn't on anyone's radar...and now I'm supposed to believe that his popularity has suddenly soared from out of fucking nowhere???
This has happened to almost all of them in the last year. Bachman, Perry, Gingrich. Santorum just happen to catch the wave on the vote of the Iowa Caucus. That wave will crash down for him like it did for the others.
Romney remains constant and the biggest threat.
Hellblazer and riddar. God must want me to post more.
Why would it be anti-libertarian for the Constitution to protect life?
I think you're on a fishing expedition. Even if Paul voted 10 times in a manner which was unexplainable, it's irrelevant. No one truly believes he is a saint, and I think most people understand he's trying to push ideas rather than a candidacy.
Far too general a question. What life? Human life? When does that begin, exactly? What measure do we use? What if we don't agree? Who decides? Isn't the libertarian position to allow people to make those decisions themselves?
Isn't your whole philosophy against any kind of authority anyway? In an anarcho-capitalist (or voluntaryist, whatever you prefer today) society, what protection would there/should there be for the unborn? According to you, do I not own my body? Is it not my property? And do I not own the product of my labor? Isn't then anything my body produces a product of my labor, and therefore my property to dispose of as I wish? Even including another human being?
Is it not worthwhile to examine the inconsistencies in his ideas and actions? That's all I'm doing.
Nope. Libertarians don't get to decide facts. Objective reality exists independent of us.
I am against aggression. There is nothing wrong with authority if it is consensual or property based.
Beats me.
By that rationale, a woman can kill her child at any point during the child's life.
You can do whatever you want, but people are into Ron Paul for the ideas of liberty, not for whatever he does personally. You don't see RP fans converting to Protestantism, or taking up bike riding, or adopting chocolate chip cookies as their favorite snack.
The classic way to discredit an idea is to discredit the messenger. In a lot of circumstances, it would work, but Ron Paul in particular has proven to be quite immune to this because he has never tried to make the ideas about him, and frankly, libertarianism is based on logic, not faith or personality.
Whose life are you protecting? You sound like Mittens.
In 1990 Mitt Romney, while an official in the Mormon Church, took it upon himself to show up at a hospital and verbally intimidate a Mormon woman who needed a devastating late term abortion to save her life. Here was the choice: abort the baby and save the woman's life OR force her to continue her pregnancy and possibly both she AND the baby would have died; the baby's survival was NOT at all assured.
She was a good Mormon who had ALREADY spoken with a Mormon bishop about her situation and he had given his approval for her to get the life-saving operation at a hospital. He valued HER life.
Mitt, a lower level official in his church (Not a bishop) took it upon himself to go to the hospital and try to intimidate this woman, tell her she needed to do the "right thing" and sacrifice her own life to continue the pregnancy. (Mitt didn't seem to worry about the high probability that the baby would die, too.)
The Curious Case of Mitt Romney, An Abortion, And Eliza Dushku's Mom
See, the ardent "pro-lifers" need to get clear about whether their own wives' lives come first or do they believe that the moment your wife gets pregnant her life should be terminated if a pregnancy goes wrong and the mother is likely to die.
I think far fewer pro life men would be getting wives if they were clearer about this stuff on the first date with a woman.
"Sure honey, I'd like to fuck you. And if you get pregnant and something goes horribly wrong and you need a life-saving abortion, I'll be happy for you to die so the baby can be saved and I can spend the next 18 years raising it myself. Now let's have a glass of wine!"
Men are also very clueless about abortions. Late term and partial birth abortions are only legally done to save the life of the mother. Period. It's a myth that this is a procedure that women obtain casually or frequently. They are rarely performed.
There are also first trimester and second trimester abortions which are legal across the US, although second trimester abortions are only available in select cities in the US and many women will never have access to them because such abortions are more expensive, require a two day stay, and might mean that they have to travel a far distance. Second trimester abortions are ONLY performed up until viability. This means that the fetus is still at a stage where it would not survive outside the womb.
It really all comes down to this: just because you have something which is medically defined as a parasite inside your body (an embryo or fetus is a parasite, entirely dependent on sucking the vital juices out of its "host" -- the mother -- to survive) should that parasite be given favoritism over YOU, its host.
If I have a tapeworm, do you let me die to save my tapeworm?
Seriously. Because medically, a fetus is a parasite.
A tapeworm is very much a live, for as long as it is still inside its host's body.
If you're pro-life you must therefore be pro tapeworms and other parasites dependent on a host for survival. Because very few abortions are legally performed in the US in which the fetus would actually be able to survive independently outside the womb. First and second trimester feti are not able to survive outside the womb.
And the partial birth/late term type of abortion is illegal UNLESS it's done in a hospital to save the woman's life. And in that situation, are you going to play God and say your wife should be killed so the baby can live?
If so, please walk away from me, and stay away from any female I have ever loved, honored, or cherished. Because you're saying, "Fuck you if you get pregnant and it doesn't go well. You get to die, bitch."
Nice!
Man I can't believe we've managed to open this infinite loop topic in this thread. But since we have, I'll say as I always say, there's no good answer where to draw the line in the libertarian sense. You have to go with what's pragmatic and most applicable under these principals. I think the easiest and most applicable is to draw the line when the two lives separate: both as autonomous humans beings with their inalienable rights. Anything else and you're in for a world of conflicting libertarian principals.
I stopped reading at this point. If you think I have anything in common with Mitt Romney, you're not paying attention at all.