Iowa Caucuses
- Thread starter monies
- Start date
Objective reality can't decide for us what is and what is not a life that ought to be protected.
So the fact that Ron Paul supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, are you against that?
Isn't any government, absent explicit consent, non-consensual according to your beliefs? Isn't Ron Paul just for less government (and not no government), except where it conflicts with his personal beliefs?
Yeah, that would seem to be the logical conclusion of strong property rights in the anarcho-capitalist school of thought. Does that conclusion sit well with you? Would you care to attempt to logically refute it?
Well, we're not talking about what he does personally. At all. A federal ban (or constitutional amendment) on abortion is an attempt to impose his own values on others through government force, isn't it.
I don't actually. I like progress and production, creation and sharing. Money is just the means of exchange to accomplish that stuff.
People who like money as an end are like people who like the ice cream cone more than the ice cream. That's their call, but its not my choice.
Objective reality can tell us what is and is not a life. It's up to us to place a value on it, which is ultimately going to be subjective and not falsifiable, so I don't see much point in debating it.
Insofar as one believes in the Constitution and the amendment process, why not? Procedurally, within the context of American political culture, he is going about it the right way. It's not something he could do without a lot of people agreeing with him.
Ron Paul's campaign is a lot deeper than abortion or evolution. People who get hung up on single issue stuff like that won't understand Paul's candidacy, which is rooted in a philosophy and is based on particular principles. Without an understanding of that philosophy and those principles, its very hard to discuss his positions except wrt Paul the man, rather than Paul the candidate.
I'd hope most people would see it that way, otherwise I could form the government of guerillastan in the next 3 minutes and claim to be able to make rules for you.
You'd have to ask Ron Paul about that, but again, anyone who has taken the time to follow Ron Paul with a sincere curiosity, will understand that he isn't promoting his personal beliefs. He's not campaigning to end abortion. He's not campaigning to remove evolution from school curriculum. He is campaigning for free choice as protected by the Constitution.
I've recently made a couple posts explaining Paul's position on abortion, and I don't see any need to hijack this thread about the caucuses to explain it again. If you want to discuss Ron Paul and abortion, post to this thread indicating so, and I will start a new thread, copy paste my previous posts and we can start the discussion there.
In fact, I welcome anyone to start or show enthusiasm to participate in a "What does Ron Paul really stand for? / What are the consequences of Ron Paul's ideas" type of thread. I will do my best to the limits of my knowledge to explain his positions and hope others will do the same.
You're making an objective claim about reality if you think I am wrong, thus making my point.
What you're engaging in is called a performative contradiction.
Like making the statement, "I always lie." which cannot be true.
Logic 101.
The multiplier effect is the problem. Momentum means more pockets to donate money, that's the only thing that was lost Tuesday. Every quarter, donations to candidates exponentially grow and if RP is pulling from the same base, his won't.
And we've finally arrived at the core issue.
If Ron Paul is strategically savvy enough to work this system against itself, not a single person on the earth will doubt his ability to strategically lead our country's military. With the knowledge he's got, RP would make a stellar general. We'll see over the next few months but it's still a longshot.
Barring that, only a major event can turn the tides because all it takes is people to just wake up and look around ... then the whole system crumbles and we get to rebuild (which, by the way, is a helluva lot less painless than letting the system work itself out).
________________________
I've been reflecting recently and all of previous revolutions around the world might have been fought so we can get to this point in civilization. Right now, it won't require a single bullet to rid ourselves of corruption. Ron Paul won't be our George Washington, who paid in blood for a pure government. Ours is a revolution of ideas and it will be peaceful due to the sacrifice that's been made by our forefathers.
According to Iowa, ~20% might have woken up already. It may not happen this election, but it will happen. A bloody 2nd American Revolution isn't going to be necessary. Exciting fucking times we live in.
With the Gutenberg Press came the Renaissance
With the Internet came the _________________
i'm_back.gif
This would apply in the same way to constitutional amendments about "free" health care, or about banning the killing of animals. It's an appeal to authority and also to majority.
This would apply in the same way to constitutional amendments about "free" health care, or about banning the killing of animals. It's an appeal to authority and also to majority.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. He glosses over the question and says it doesn't matter to him and wouldn't matter in a libertarian society. That's great... but he's not running for president of a libertarian society and his opinion on the subject *would* matter the second he was elected.
Not that any of it matters. He's not going to be elected and nobody with his ideals will ever be elected.
The United States of America would not exist today if people with his beliefs had never existed.
Yeah, but do you know why The United States of America exists? Because there was no changing the British Empire from the inside out. They had to move to the other side of the world and fight/kill to get what they wanted. Once a country becomes large enough and has enough people under its control, you can't change it by following the rules it created.
You don't live in the United States of the 1700's with only 3 million people roaming around. You live in the 2000's, with 300 million under its control and a large percentage dependent on its programs. People who think they can go back in time are delusional.
1. Sell at the peak, take cash, rent, buy at the bottom - or buy several at the bottom and live the rest of their lives as landlords.
2. Buy at the peak, do not pay pymts for 24-48 months & bank the cash, sell at short sale, rent the house down the street for 1/2 their previous pymt for 2 years, buy again at low prices.
Scenario 1, the people walk with hundreds of thousands. Scenario 2, the people walk with 48K-96K (saved pymts), buy 2 years later. I am not arguing that investors (bankers etc) did not lose money, they took risk and lost - they also reaped mega rewards leading up to and getting out of the mess to compensate for the risk.
All the while, the working class, now can live in neighborhoods with fiber optics, new plumbing, healthy homes, good sewer systems etc instead of the slums that they would have had to live in had their not been a boom cycle. You see, not all is lost.
By the way, where is all of that money that was made during the boom? I know, its sitting on the sidelines with my investors waiting for blood in the streets so they can buy up all the homes for $50K that they once built and sold for $300K.
So lets see, is it all bad? the 90% that are working, is it all bad? That same 90% can now refinance their homes, up to 125% underwater at 4% interest without income documentation. Sure there are many that do not qualify, but there are also many that do. It's not all doom and gloom. Not to mention there are many people that bought new boats, Glamis Mobiles, RV's, and good reliable cars with the boom equity in their homes - those cars are still serving them well today.
So tell me - how is it all bad?
LMAO at REIMktg continuing to think like a selfish investor while arguing against people who are thinking about the design of system to benefit all people equally...
It's like watching a kid try to snatch some money off the table at a church where the clergy are divvying it up for the poor...
It's like watching a kid try to snatch some money off the table at a church where the clergy are divvying it up for the poor...
LMAO at REIMktg continuing to think like a selfish investor while arguing against people who are thinking about the design of system to benefit all people equally...
It's like watching a kid try to snatch some money off the table at a church where the clergy are divvying it up for the poor...
The system will never benefit all equally - and hardly the selfish investor - I am thinking of how the boom bust cycle can work for the benefit of the working class and even the first level investor.
Try and tell me where I was stealing from the poor? There are some topics that cross the line - substantiate your comment.
1. I'm not accusing you personally of doing it, just saying it is laughable how you don't get that this is what you sound like...
2. Your example is LIKE stealing from the poor in that some homeowners get the shit end of the stick. Those are the poor in this situation.
You keep introducing ways to GIVE the shit end of the stick to someone, when the topic here you're doing it to is basically "let's find a stick without shit on it."
Fine I will stop being a sensitive puss.
All I am introducing into the conversation is that the boom/bust cycle, allowed by remaining off the gold standard, does not necessarily damage nor wipe out the working class. In most cases the working class that bought homes and did not cash out financed those homes with 3% or less down payment. They then were able to live in those homes for 12-48 months without making payments. This more than makes up for their investment. At the same time, they can leave one home and rent the home across the street for the same amount in rent they would have previously had to pay to live in a 1950's bungalow with small closets, asbestorrs, lead paint, and energy inefficient. Now they can rent, a nice home built in 2004-2006 for the same amount in rent and yet enjoy fiber optics, sewer over septic, modern HVAC, and energy efficient systems - not to mention no lead and no asbestos.
Are then the working class better off? I can argue, Yes. Had we not had the boom, these same people would be living a lower standard of living - 3rd world style, instead of enjoying 1st world amenetites at poverty income.
Open you mind for a moment and think - is the working class better off or not?
As for the middle class, they may have been able to afford the first world amenities all along, but the boom allowed them an unparalleled opportunity to bank serious cash and/or spend serious cash for many years. They too could have benefited greatly.
As for the rich, well they always benefit.
With what many argue, they want no boom cycle, no risk, no irrational exuberance that brings first world living standards to the working classes and even the poor. How am I giving anyone the shit end of the stick?
People look at the loss of their home, the same home they put 3% or less down to buy, and then have lived in for 24-48 months without payments, and think - wow the banks screwed me. Really? Is that really what happened?
I am simply providing a contrarian way to look at things.
It's pointless trying to discuss policy with people who do not understand economics. As if these discussions weren't a big enough waste of time, then you have the people who lack any first principles or premises grounded in objective reality who insist upon being taken as seriously as someone who has spent a lot of time understanding and researching the issue.
Granted, they could get it right. They could get lucky. They could have some natural instinct. They could have some anecdotal insight that is really powerful.
But usually they don't. They just say nonsensical stuff, and then when things don't go their way, blame someone else.
Oh well.
Granted, they could get it right. They could get lucky. They could have some natural instinct. They could have some anecdotal insight that is really powerful.
But usually they don't. They just say nonsensical stuff, and then when things don't go their way, blame someone else.
Oh well.