PDA

View Full Version : The Ron Paul Appeal



Pages : [1] 2

NoMan
23rd October 07, 12:41 AM
Not actually intended for this board, but a college board on what I think about Ron Paul outside from his generally good guy characteristics:

The Ron Paul appeal:

If you go onto the internet now, you find Ron Paul acolytes on virtually every forum, on virtually every issue. They’re all over college now as well. I’m going to analyze his appeal and see where he’ll place us. For those who are aware of the philosophy of the Austrian School of Economics, (Ludwig von Mises and Hayek), then you can guess where he stands. For those interested in my opinion, I’ll try to present his views and what I think about them, and I’ll let the bias be known upfront to avoid ambiguity. I’ll leave out his selfless service and honesty and other “I really like this guy” characteristics.

Good Point 1:

Okay, the frontpage of Ron Paul’s website talks about this, but it’s kind of a strange thing to talk about. His bill about the Health Freedom Protection Act. The bill is pretty simple, allow consumers to know if research about dietary supplements is legitimate for curing various disorders. FDA currently regulates that until so many tests are passed, they do not approve making medical claims on any supplement. E.g. doctors knew for quite a while that aspirin is effective at preventing secondary heart attacks, but Bayer’s and other aspirin manufacturers couldn’t make the claim until enough evidence had come in.

It’s laudable to try and cut red tape, (it’s debatable about whether “Big Pharma” is really hurt by this, as some zealots seem to think), but this is a minor issue on American fronts. That it makes front page news of his campaign is kinda…..

Kind kooky idea #1:

He wants a return to the gold standard as a currency. I think most people are absolutely confused by what a gold standard is. It is not, as commonly believed, a note that says, “1 dollar of paper money gets me one dollar of gold at a bank”. Countries that tried this soon learned they ran out of gold fast. What it means is that the value of a currency is tied to the value of gold on the free exchange. This is how the U.S. ran for years, even after the establishment of the IRS and Federal Reserve, under what was known as the Bretton Woods Act, designed by economist John Maynard Keynes.

It’s very difficult to explain briefly why the Bretton Woods System failed, but let’s put it this way: It’s impossible to peg the price of any currency to any specific commodity unless you are running a huge deficit in the commodity. But, running a huge deficit up erodes confidence in the money used to peg it to that currency. Eventually, investors get the feeling you won’t ever pay off the debt, and afraid of forfeiture, start investing in other currencies, which creates a ripple effect like the 97 East Asian financial crash.

The easiest way to get around this has been China’s solution. They peg their currency to the U.S. dollar. So long as we buy more from them than us, they have a positive trade balance, meaning dollars flood their market. They buy up the dollars via government bonds and put them in reserves. This keeps the Yuen valued low relative to the dollar, and keeps them at an advantage against us. This only works when currency is floated, (stock market determines price rather than commodities). By keeping the yuen low, the Chinese ensure high levels of exports because it’s cheap to buy their products.

Additionally, when a gold system collapses, (and it has always collapsed, nature of the game), the money gets floated and the market gets to value a countries currency. The good side to a gold standard is that it greatly reduces economic volatility, as investors can’t pull money in and out quickly like they did in the East Asian financial crisis. (Imagine 2 trillion dollars less money is in circulation today and see how that would alter your spending decisions for how it impacts countries). While there should be some key reforms on international currency, as George Soros and other international bankers have noted, the gold standard is an impractical way to do it.

Good, (or bad) point number 2: Health care reform.

Ron Paul’s idea is the smart side of two gaps. The first gap is the gap of the free market, and the second gap is the gap of a monopoly. America’s current system is called the third-party payer system, in which businesses pay for health insurance for their customers. Since companies don’t know what their employees need, (called “informational asymmetry” in economics), they pick plans based upon what they want, which notoriously suck. Since the provider is far removed from the coverage, insurance premiums go up in cost. To make matters worse, insurance companies assume only people who need insurance will get it on their own. So, they hike up insurance on individuals purchasing, called “shifting costs”. For example, it costs more for car insurance because of people who are uninsured driving. When you get into a wreck with an uninsured driver, your insurance pays the bill which they offset by charging more to everyone who has insurance.

To give you the full overview of the problems: First, if you have health care provided by an employer, the costs are exempt from federal taxation. If you pay them yourself, they are still taxed. This gives a strong incentive to seek health care through an intermediary body to maintain lower costs. But this intermediary body does not know what’s best for an individual consumer, leading to inefficiency and higher costs.

What would end up happening is that health insurance would become a high-deductible, unlikely event type of insurance, the same with fire, water damage and house damage, etc., forms of insurance. There would be a host of other types of insurances offered, though with all the usual caveats of what happens in other medical fields, (denied claims, attempts to not pay like All-state did during Katrina, etc.) It would be overall cheaper by about 60% from most estimates if we switched to this form. The bad news: Many people would not be treated for serious conditions that elected not to receive health care or were denied it. Same as other forms of insurance currently available.

Scenario Two: The single payer system. The Republican boogey-man is “socialized medicine”, but that’s a misnomer. A socialized medical scheme would have the government employing people in the medical field, the way Cuba does. In the single-payer system, individual companies still provide health care, but the government pays for it. The benefits are that it’s far cheaper to deal with one company than many. In our crappy third-party system, the overhead is tremendous for dealing with each of the individual companies that are hired by corporations to provide health insurance. There are no insurance salespeople, no billing specialists in each office, no underwriters, and physicians do not have to negotiate different prices with dozens of insurance plans, or like All-state, have to fight to receive their payments over what was covered by insurance and not.
The government can’t increase the scope of benefits, its only pressure from tax-payers is to lower costs even further. As a monopoly, it enjoys the ability to have demand pressure on prices and lower them tremendously. (In an information asymmetry, the side with more access to knowledge wins. Since the insurance companies know more than the third-party payer, the costs are higher.)

The French lead the market, with Canada and the UK behind. The French pay for basic health insurance and encourage their citizens to purchase their own insurance as well. They have quicker lines than America or any other country, and they allow you to visit a specialist without a referral, which eases time and money constraints. The difficulty is the monopoly difficulty, how to avoid the moral hazard. If you pay a high cost upfront, as you do on premiums or at a buffet, you are tempted to eat more or get more medical treatments because you want the most bang for your buck. The libertarian solution is to shift the burden of cost onto the customer per unit bought, e.g. in deductibles or co-payments.

Informational asymmetry rears its ugly head here too though. Most of us are not doctors, and are bad at distinguishing necessary medical care from unnecessary medical care. E.g. most of us don’t see our dentists as much as we should, leading to more expensive problems later on down the line, and the same with checks for breast cancer, testicular cancer, etc. Some health problems are also hard to bargain with, best told by the story of the First Roman Fire Brigade. A Roman entrepreneur made the first fire fighting team. His tactic was to arrive at the scene of a fire and then start negotiating prices while the building was burning. Naturally, the owner was willing to pay a fortune. Likewise, in a major medical emergency, it can be hard to barter down prices.

The French solution has been to tier payments towards more cost effective methods, and to give less payment towards less efficient methods. This avoids the moral hazard by still requiring a payment if you choose to do something on a per-cost basis. As much as I don’t want to emulate the French in much, their health care industry is the best in the world, while ours is 37th in the world. Ours also costs more than any other nations. Either Ron Paul or a full-scale single-payer system would be more efficient, better able to help customers, and cheaper than the current model.

Good Point Three: Non-intervention.

What can I say? A man who doesn’t want to involve the U.S. in pointless wars.

Good point Four: Personal freedoms.

What can I say? The government has proven irresponsible in every country in its use of information gleaned from spying on private citizens. NO DON’T DO IT!

Good point Five: Border Security, (Sorta good point).

The downside of immigrants is they create what’s called “demand elasticity” for workers. Since workers are no longer a scarce resource in low-wage industries, their costs get driven even further down, which then leads them to unemployment or using welfare to supplement a low income, imposing a tax on the rest of us paying it. If there were a program to transfer displaced workers to new jobs and create training for them in new fields, it would help offset the costs while allowing the benefit for cheaper labor. The hard part is that it’s hard to conceive a program that could do that. Additionally, large bodies of foreign immigrants drive up costs by increasing police costs, deportation costs, any gangs that are brought over with them, etc. It’s another negative externality, even though he does realize that immigrant reform is long overdue.

Good Point Six: Pro-home schooling.

Public education sucks, and needs serious reforms. Homeschooling gives a stronger economic incentive to parents to help their kids do well, and test after test shows home schooled children do better on tests and on social skills than public school children. (Interesting books to read on this by disgruntled educators.)

Bad Point 1: Environment.

Like most libertarians, Ron Paul doesn’t believe that threats to the environment are real. Places like Bangkok are literally sinking from rising waters, and every prediction of what would happen if global warming occurred are happening now. So, he’s against regulating industry against pollution, which is essentially a subsidy to the industry called a “negative externality”. By not paying for the damage they are causing to everyone, they are getting a government hand out.

Bad Point 2: Lack of understanding on Foreign organizations.

He wants to pull out of most trade agreements without realize why they’re there. Other countries have quit trading with us due to past military maneuvers, what George Kennan called “Strategic Veto” over the U.N. With the EU formation, the European countries could retaliate with economic weapons. Ron Paul doesn’t like this because he thinks it threatens sovereignty, when in almost every case, it’s been instances where America’s actions have hurt other countries, (War in Iraq, pollution, unfair trade agreements which hurt countries).

The general idea is that America is right, because we are America, and therefore, we must be right. This fails to address legitimate grievances other countries have had with our practices.

Bad Point 3, (or good point 5): Pro-lifer.

Seeks to overturn Roe vs. Wade. His technique is a bit more subtle, he would leave it to the states to decide, which would create a demand vacuum in certain states that the more wealthy could afford, but would leave those who usually get abortions unable to in certain states. Net effect, women would visit illegal hospitals, mothers would perform self-abortions, and a spike in crime will hit in 18 years. Good side… more poor people are born?

So he gets a 2 to 1 approval rating from me, far ahead of any other Republican nominee, and even above what I give Hillary Clinton. So, go Ron Paul.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
23rd October 07, 12:44 AM
and test after test shows home schooled children do better on tests and on social skills than public school children.

You're going to have to show me these tests.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
23rd October 07, 12:46 AM
Also, I don't agree with your philosophy of supporting a candidate based on approving on his views of a few minor issues and disagreeing with him on more major ones. What the hell are you thinking?

WarPhalange
23rd October 07, 01:37 AM
If you go onto the internet now, you find Ron Paul acolytes on virtually every forum

Actually, it's the same guy registering on every forum he can find.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 04:27 AM
Several points have been mischaracterised. First of all, Ron Paul doesn't want to return to the old Gold standard, although he does believe in commodity backed money as a bullwark against peristent devaluation of the currency.

Seondly, the UK's healthcare system is much more like Cuba's than France's, I.e. We have a government run healthcare monopoloy called the NHS where doctors and Nurses are employed directly by the state.
It's bad.

Thirdly, the environmental stuff you talk about has been beaten over in other threads, please read them.

Fourthly, you completely fail to understand his policy regarding foreign trade. He does not in any sense believe in protectionism or withdrawal from foreign trade. He disapproves of these agreements precisely because they are not just 'free trade' agreements.

I'm glad you support Ron, but you seem to have misunderstood his policies in several areas and our now actually misrepresenting a candidate who you'd like to see win.

Sun Wukong
23rd October 07, 04:28 AM
I'm going to have to dissent on this because I don't place an even weight on all those issues.

As much as illegal immigration makes a nice wedge issue, and is a real problem, it's not so dire a problem as some of those other problems.

Home schooling is the answer to our education problem? I don't think so. I think that fails to take into account that most families that home school are from middle class college educated families where at least one parent is at home at all times. For poor, single parent and working parent households this is a bad idea. Doubly for poor because going to school is the only time some of these kids leave their shitty crime addled neighborhoods.

While he dwarfs the field of other republican candidates for me, he gives way too much away to the wealthiest portions of society. However, since I don't see the republican party picking up a majority in congress, if he does get elected the only place he can really affect changes is by vetoing every spending bill that comes in front of him (which he will do), and pass the few bills he actually agree's with.

He'd pretty much be a lame duck president with a shitty foreign policy unless the republican party gets back in congress... in which case, he could savagely do some damage by giving ridiculous tax cuts in progressive taxes. He says he want's to cut everyone's taxes, but a republican congress isn't going to really bust it's balls to give fair tax cuts to the poorer members of society.

Additionally, in terms of foreign policy, he's virtually a seperatist in a time when the US desperately needs to come together with other nations and build our international alliances through adept co-operation to remind everyone that we're not total dicks all the time. (seriously most american's have no clue how fucked up and bad our foreign relations really are. some of them even think we've been too nice to everyone...). Say what you want about tricky Dick and Bill Clinton, but they were foreign relations GODS whom many other countries deeply respected compared to GW.

I don't see any clear advantage of Ron Paul. Most of his other initiatives probably won't have enough support to ever really get anywhere.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 04:28 AM
Oh, and your understanding of how previous 'gold standards' worked is very wide of the mark.

Sun Wukong
23rd October 07, 04:38 AM
I will say though, that he'll do one thing that will tremendously help our foreign relations and domestic problems: stay the fuck out of stupid fucking wars we don't have any business fighting in the first place. Stop fucking around with trying to intimidate other countries and just generally leave people the fuck alone. If that's really what he wants to do, then I wouldn't lose too much sleep if he were elected as compared to an asshole like Thompson or Giuliani.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 04:49 AM
Chris, he's not in any sense a protectionist or an isolationist. Where do you get this idea from?

Sun Wukong
23rd October 07, 07:14 AM
I don't see a comparatively(to other republicans) extreme small government, anti-regulation, financial and policy conservative doing alot to mend fences or make long term diplomatic agreements that might obligate the US later.

Besides, like I said, he's not getting past the primaries. He was fielding BOO's from the crowd at the last republican debate. I'm serious, he's screwed in the Primaries in a bad way. His only chance is going 3rd party.

Link:http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1674201_1674200_1674197,00.html

Cullion
23rd October 07, 07:49 AM
I don't see a comparatively(to other republicans) extreme small government, anti-regulation, financial and policy conservative doing alot to mend fences or make long term diplomatic agreements that might obligate the US later.

You don't need to entering into long-term binding regulatory frameworks to mend fences with people. Just ending military hegemony and trading with them would be a good enough start.



Besides, like I said, he's not getting past the primaries. He was fielding BOO's from the crowd at the last republican debate. I'm serious, he's screwed in the Primaries in a bad way.

And then won the SMS poll afterwards. The crowd was stacked and he was only allowed to bring in 1000 supporters. They can stack crowds to make him seem unpopular, but unless they get really dirty, they can't change the primary votes. This guy is raising a lot more money than his supposed 'underdog' status would suggest (and almost all of it from individual americans rather than special interests) and he is spending it efficiently (i.e. not pissing it away on 5-star hotels and a private jet like the 'frontrunners').

Cullion
23rd October 07, 07:58 AM
Here are Penn and Teller on the value of the polls:-

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016355.html

Sun Wukong
23rd October 07, 09:03 AM
I know that polls aren't extremely accurate, but 2%... seriously? Also, I like Penn and Teller's work, but they aren't exactly always on the money. They did a special about recycling a while back and how much it doesn't save any money, creates alot of pollution, yadda, yadda.

I work in the recycling industry, and while a small portion of what they said had merit, quite a bit of it was extremely skewed to the point of wild inaccuracy. It's not just that I'm biased, which I'm not, it's that I see the real profit margins of recycling plastics and metals all the time and in most cases they can be fantastically greater than working from raw materials. Not just profit margins, but in creation of pollution.

They spent a fair amount of time talking about the pollution caused by recycling plastics and how it creates pollution that is just as bad and worse than manufacturing raw plastic. Yes, in the sense that the quality of the pollution is bad they are right, but in regards to the actual amount of pollution there is a mountain of difference. Recycled plastic really does protect the environment by virtue of creating less waste and also saving alot of money. It's pretty much the same across the board in other recycling industries.

More or less, I'm saying that they aren't immune to bias either.

The margin of error would have to be huge for RP to score only 2% with pollsters and then rally to win the election with modern polling practices.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 09:11 AM
I know that polls aren't extremely accurate, but 2%... seriously?

The GOP polls are drawn from people who voted for Bush last time. The SMS and online polls are open to the general public and he wins them. He also wins many of the straw polls at debates. That said, his poll ratings in the 'scientific' polls are now higher. We'll see what happens when he starts spending his funds on raising his name recognition and getting more people to register Republican who want out of the war but are unsure about voting Democrat for other reasons.



The margin of error would have to be huge for RP to score only 2% with pollsters and then rally to win the election with modern polling practices.

The GOP polls aren't polls of the general electorate, they are polls of people who voted for Bush at the last election. One of Ron Paul's main weapons is that he's signing up large numbers of people who didn't vote Republican last time.

70% of the US population is against the war. If the general populace's views were really reflected in the GOP polls, do you really think Giuliani would be winning ?

Sun Wukong
23rd October 07, 09:23 AM
well, that's a very good point. I know RP has a large independent voter draw and I wouldn't be surprised if his actual national polling was closer to 10%. With that being said, it's not going to help him much in the primary because only registered republicans are going to have a say. Registered Independents, libertarians, and democrats who support Paul aren't going to be counted unless they register right now as republicans.<------- An unlikely scenario as most american's just don't won't register with a party they don't identify with ideologically.

He might have enough support with a 3rd party run, but I don't think he'll make it past the primaries registered as a republican.

Edit: god damn i wish this forum had a spell checker.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 09:38 AM
well, that's a very good point. I know RP has a large independent voter draw and I wouldn't be surprised if his actual national polling was closer to 10%. With that being said, it's not going to help him much in the primary because only registered republicans are going to have a say. Registered Independents, libertarians, and democrats who support Paul aren't going to be counted unless they register right now as republicans.<------- An unlikely scenario as most american's just don't won't register with a party they don't identify with ideologically.

Ron Paul's supporters have been specifically producing youtube and online ads persuading people to register Republican purely to get him through the primaries. There's already been a noticeable upswing in people registering Republican. This of course is driving the Neocon wing of the GOP fucking nuts and it's why they're trying to exclude him from debates and polls.

We'll see. I'm pretty sure if he loses the Republican nomination he won't run as a Libertarian or independant.

Sun Wukong
23rd October 07, 09:58 AM
I'm glad the neo-cons are uncomfortable, I just wish they'd take a lesson from him. What I think is the most indicative of the current state of affairs in the neo-con wing is the point that drives them up the wall the most: he wants to put an end to US expansionism.

That kind of expansionism has never worked out well historically, but do they take the fucking hint? fuck no. English colonialism, the crusades, the communist euro-asiatic revolution, the facist militant movement of europe in the 1930's, the germanic hordes of the 3rd century in roman territories... it all ends the same. Do they fucking get the hint? fuck no. they just keep plugging along with this tired old shit regardless of how much it bogs everything down.

One of my best friends is addressing a major art exhibition in macedonia in march; he's prefacing his presentation with the message that he deeply regrets the role of american expansionism in creating divides among the art community in the hopes that the art community can keep building ties of unity.

This might sound like a small thing, but art has significant reflection of the cultural mood of nations. It's not just his imagination, people are getting to the point where they fucking hate americans. To me, this is heart breaking. Since WWII we've been telling ourselves that we're the good guys and it was at least partially believable. Now, the headlines go from the French, of all people, saying "Today, we are all Americans" to "Fuck the yankee pigs" or some such permutation thereof.

I wish I could say I just woke up one day and said, "How the fuck did this happen?" Instead, I know the answer before the question can form. I watched it happen, and listen the news filled with incredibly destructive rhetoric designed to turn the US into a continental torpedo.

Financially and economically, we can still recover from this shit. With any luck, we can strike out a new position in the global community. Realistically, I think we're just going to forget all about the lessons of this war by the time the next election rolls around. The question I should ask myself is "what the fuck is wrong with the voters?"

TM
23rd October 07, 10:00 AM
The last republican president the U.S. has had that wasn't a complete lier, loser , thief and warmonger was Eisenhower. Voting for a republican presidential canidate in light of their record for the last forty years would be an act of insanity. Running as a republican canidate would have to be like being the wolf character in the warner brothers cartoons where he tries to put on the sheep suit to fool the shepard.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 10:08 AM
The last republican president the U.S. has had that wasn't a complete lier, loser , thief and warmonger was Eisenhower. Voting for a republican presidential canidate in light of their record for the last forty years would be an act of insanity. Running as a republican canidate would have to be like being the wolf character in the warner brothers cartoons where he tries to put on the sheep suit to fool the shepard.

Most of the democrats were liars and warmongers too. It was Republicans who were elected to end the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Bill Clinton was the beginning of a new era of constant overseas military involvement, but he kept things controlled and with specific missions, generally, rather than trying to actually annex territory and remodel countries to be more 'America friendly'.

TM
23rd October 07, 11:10 AM
Both parties are two sides of a coin that is masonic cretins.

NoMan
23rd October 07, 12:44 PM
Several points have been mischaracterised. First of all, Ron Paul doesn't want to return to the old Gold standard, although he does believe in commodity backed money as a bullwark against peristent devaluation of the currency.

From what I get, he wants two seperate forms of currency, one backed in a commodity, (Gold is what his website talked about, so...), and a seperate floated currency. I think it would fall through and the floated currency would be the one that would stick. I think a devalued currency would greatly help America by allowing us to pull away from foreign countries which we try to keep invested in our bonds, (as one popular Iraq war theory goes), and by allowing a resurgence of domestic production. However, a pull too hard on the currency would cause a recession, so I'm mixed in that regards to it.


Seondly, the UK's healthcare system is much more like Cuba's than France's, I.e. We have a government run healthcare monopoloy called the NHS where doctors and Nurses are employed directly by the state.
It's bad.

Yep, that's why I recommend either the free market reform of the French reform over the UK model. I thought I told you in another thread that the UK had made a sucky choice in their way of dealing with the problem.


Thirdly, the environmental stuff you talk about has been beaten over in other threads, please read them.

I've seen it debated ad nauseam, and the evidence always stacks in favor of the environmentalists. I'm not going to rehash the debate, but it's a strong sticking point for me on how I view his voting record, which has been anti-environmental.


Fourthly, you completely fail to understand his policy regarding foreign trade. He does not in any sense believe in protectionism or withdrawal from foreign trade. He disapproves of these agreements precisely because they are not just 'free trade' agreements.

He believes in withdrawal from foreign organizations which regulate trade, and says he does so because they attempt to monitor trade. This is pretty consistent with his viewpoints, regulation = bad. But, those organizations monitor trade, pulling out of them will inevitably invite retaliation and the loss of a place to air grievances. His specific complaints seem to stem from the fact that other countries have used economic policies as a way of criticizing American politics in the past, which he sees as an infringment on civil liberty.

He may not intend to get economic restrictions against the U.S., but I don't see how pulling out of trade agreements and the organizations that regulate agreements can not invite a reprisal from countries.


I'm glad you support Ron, but you seem to have misunderstood his policies in several areas and our now actually misrepresenting a candidate who you'd like to see win.

That's why I'm running it by you first before I post it on more forums, as it seems to be the same group of us debating all these issues over and over again. :)

Cullion
23rd October 07, 12:56 PM
From what I get, he wants two seperate forms of currency, one backed in a commodity, (Gold is what his website talked about, so...), and a seperate floated currency. I think it would fall through and the floated currency would be the one that would stick. I think a devalued currency would greatly help America by allowing us to pull away from foreign countries which we try to keep invested in our bonds, (as one popular Iraq war theory goes), and by allowing a resurgence of domestic production. However, a pull too hard on the currency would cause a recession, so I'm mixed in that regards to it.

You have already been rapidly devaluing your currency. I don't understand your point about 'allowing America to pull away from foreign countries which we try to keep invested in our bonds'. Please explain.




He believes in withdrawal from foreign organizations which regulate trade, and says he does so because they attempt to monitor trade. This is pretty consistent with his viewpoints, regulation = bad. But, those organizations monitor trade, pulling out of them will inevitably invite retaliation and the loss of a place to air grievances.

The individuals engaged in trade already have places to air grievances in the market. The 'US' is an abstraction. Your real economy is composed of individuals and companies. Why do they need an international governmental body to conduct trade with individuals and companies in other countries ?



His specific complaints seem to stem from the fact that other countries have used economic policies as a way of criticizing American politics in the past, which he sees as an infringment on civil liberty.

No, his complaint is that these agreements simply add an extra layer of regulation and bureacracy, and often come with non-trade related stipulations attached.



He may not intend to get economic restrictions against the U.S., but I don't see how pulling out of trade agreements and the organizations that regulate agreements can not invite a reprisal from countries.

Because the US is their biggest customer, and he isn't intending to restrict sale of their goods in the US. E.g, if the US were to say to Mexico 'you know, we don't need this NAFTA thing. US companies and consumers can buy what they want from you, and you can buy what you want from us', why would you be expecting them to get angry?

NoMan
23rd October 07, 01:27 PM
Home-schooling via social capabilities:

http://murphylibrary.uwlax.edu/digital/jur/2002/koehler-langness-pietig-stoffel-wyttenbach.pdf

http://www.nheri.org/content/view/208/5/

Home-schooling versus public school education on tests:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

Laundry list of studies done on homeschooling that usually show the same thing, homeschoolers do better.

The problem with homeschooling is that many religious nut groups use it as well, but it's a good concept. Parents care more about children's success than teachers do, can devote more time to what kids are learning and how fast, and it's much cheaper.

From what I wrote about a book called "Dumbing us Down" by John Taylor Gatto, and what I read about his other views. I don't agree with everything, but some of his points are true:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/hp/frames.htm

He taught for 26 years, and this is his recollection of what he taught:

Confusion: Teachers teach too many facts and not enough connections. They don’t show the larger picture or how things work together.

Class position. Children are grouped into classes based upon intelligence, special needs, average, or gifted, and there they stay.

Indifference: Teachers demand that students get highly involved for 50 minutes, and when the bell rings, forget about it and go to the next class. The real lesson is nothing is worth considering seriously.

Emotional dependency. Teachers and higher authorities decide everything for the students.

Intellectually dependency: Teachers decide what wil be taught and how and when.

Provisional self-esteem: Students are constantly judged and evaluatied.
One can’t hide. Students have no private time or private space. They are encouraged to snitch on each other.

I think the school system needs serious reforms. While most people look to Asia, what I saw in German schools fits more closely into what I would rather see in public schools.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_199704/ai_n8774730


While he dwarfs the field of other republican candidates for me, he gives way too much away to the wealthiest portions of society.

I would rather see an increased tax back up to 45% for the richest coupled with tax cuts to the poorest, the opposite of the Bush plan. But at least Ron Paul doesn't appear to be as gluttonous as Bush, and I'm hoping he'd cut back on subsidies and earmarked spending.


I don't see any clear advantage of Ron Paul. Most of his other initiatives probably won't have enough support to ever really get anywhere.

I see one. He has balls. The Democrats are pissing me off post-elections because after voting for them, talking to people about changes needed, what do I get? Nancy fucking Pelosi and Harry Reid crying every two minutes about how sorry they are, and the only bill they get through Congress is a stupid asshat project to condemn a MoveOn org ad. But, they can't get the same thing done to Rush Limbaugh with his "phony soldiers" comments, nor can they with a Republican party riddled with people caught with prostitutes, caught soliciting sex at a men's bathroom, caught soliciting sex from his male interns, with a Justice Department appointee who hired and fired based upon political decisions and is looking at federal charges, a women's health advisor who says he can't find his ex-wife's vagina, a disaster relief program headed by a guy who said he didn't believe New Orleans was flooding, with two disasterous wars, with another looming in the background, and this isn't even ALL OF THE SCANDALS!

And they still don't do a goddamn thing. I've seen some leadership from Dodds and Obama, but man am I getting sick of these whiny fucking pussies.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 06:13 PM
From what I wrote about a book called "Dumbing us Down" by John Taylor Gatto, and what I read about his other views. I don't agree with everything, but some of his points are true:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/hp/frames.htm



John Taylor Gatto is the guy in my avatar. You need to read his 'The Underground History of American Education' ASAP. That's the book where he investigates why and how your (and to a simillar degree the British) educational system came to be the way it is.

Read, and then revisit the question of whether you still want to immitate German or Asian educational systems.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 06:15 PM
The other obvious advantage to Ron Paul is that he wants to end the war on drugs and get rid of other federal statutes pertaining to 'victimless' crimes like prostitution, gambling etc.

WarPhalange
23rd October 07, 06:20 PM
John Taylor Gatto is the guy in my avatar. You need to read his 'The Underground History of American Education' ASAP. That's the book where he investigates why and how your (and to a simillar degree the British) educational system came to be the way it is.

Read, and then revisit the question of whether you still want to immitate German or Asian educational systems.

Dunno about Germany, but the Japanese (and I assume most other Asian) schools just cram information into a student's brain without teaching them critical thinking skills.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 06:35 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't want to see my children educated the Japanese way. I know less about the German way. I know it is rigorous, and does teach critical thinking, but the German culture and economy seem incredibly institutionally dependent. It's very un-entrepeneurial and an awfully high proportion of their population seem dependent on union deals with big companies or state sector employment for their livelihood.

Zendetta
23rd October 07, 07:58 PM
Re. Gatto:
Wow! My new hero - that article was awesome.

Being in the vocational edumacation bisiness, I pick up the pieces from the wreck that is public school. Ugly stuff, and getting worse.

NoMan
23rd October 07, 08:26 PM
I know it is rigorous, and does teach critical thinking, but the German culture and economy seem incredibly institutionally dependent.

It's a tough education, and they let them choose way more options for what they want to do than at American schools. His articles made sense to me, but I haven't had a full chance to look at all his work. (I'm in college for biology, my time is limited for reading non-classwork material).

Encouraging parents to home-school their kids while simultaneously building a better system in public education would help both those who choose to raise their kids and those who have both parents working.

jvjim
23rd October 07, 09:12 PM
*tl;dr notice*


I think a devalued currency would greatly help America by allowing us to pull away from foreign countries which we try to keep invested in our bonds, (as one popular Iraq war theory goes), and by allowing a resurgence of domestic production.

I don’t understand your stance here. Do you want to weaken the spending power of the average American so they are forced to work more? Or do you want to reinvigorate domestic industries that have no comparative advantage and thus no economic right to your hard earned dollar? Do you advocate labor or consumption, leisure time or drudgery? Certainly one must work hard for financial security, or an illusion there of, but why create artificial demands on one’s time and energy?

As to claims of “protectionism” on behalf of Ron Paul, that’s totally fallacious. By speaking out against economic unions, Ron Paul isn’t condemning free trade. He is in fact doing the polar opposite by postulating an American position against selective tariffs, which are what organizations like NAFTA and the EU champion. Ron Paul follows the Republican Liberty Caucus Position: Trade for all, tariffs for none.

As to his mixed reception on twenty-first, I won’t attempt some heavy handed “neo-con” bashing by saying the audience was comprised of industrialists getting rich off of the blood of my countrymen or some other dorm-room idiocy. I will, however, give the more probable cause: the American right has been tricked into believing that wars abroad equal security at home. The only means of attaining domestic security and liberty are by both fostering a sentiment of interdependence between LEO’s and the people they protect and by engaging in legal efforts to combat foreign enemies to our freedoms (not totalitarian ideas of security). These military actions must be a last resort with Congressional approval, not constitutionally questionable extensions of Executive power. Again, these efforts must be undertaken interdependently, with both members of the right and left attempting to reach a compromise that benefits the American people.

As to the view of American’s abroad, I, like many on the board here, have had the privilege to spend time in foreign nations. I find that the attitude towards Americans isn’t hate, but a kind of disbelief of our ignorance on foreign matters. When the French say, “Baisez les cochons américains,” they mean “why don’t the Americans look beyond their borders?” I agree with them, why don’t we actually investigate the impacts our nation has on others and theirs on ours? I don’t advocate some bleeding heart attempt at destroying our national identify, but I, like Dr. Paul, support international awareness in a manner shows how we can benefit ourselves from knowledge of the outside world. How we can learn from others so we can profit from their experience as they from ours, not so we can assimilate them into our identity through force nor dilute the cultures of the world.

Forgive my divergence into personal philosophy, but I feel I needed to give my reason for supporting Dr. Paul: his protection of the Constitution not as means to further an agenda for a partisan group or a lobby, but to protect and serve his constituency, the American people. I look to JKF’s famous opening line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” What did he mean here? That we should submit totally to our government? I certainly hope not. Here he says that an American should not demand of his or her fellow countrymen, “How can I profit from our relations?” but instead, “How can we profit as Americans?” That’s the secret here, not to be divisive, but to find common ground and work from there as needed. And Ron Paul, in a sea of partisan politics and affronts to our Constitution, pushes forth this idea when he says “Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.” When Senator Clinton states “Well our government is us” or when Mr. Giuliani gives you his 12 commitments, ask yourself if they are giving you choice and supporting your constitution, or are they lobbying unnecessary power for the government you own collectively with your countrymen.

Sun Wukong
23rd October 07, 09:38 PM
...

And they still don't do a goddamn thing. I've seen some leadership from Dodds and Obama, but man am I getting sick of these whiny fucking pussies.

oh dude, I agree with you, but congress is dealing with a machiavellian presidency that will undoubtedly sabotage and purposefully mismanage any early withdrawal attempt forced upon them.

There are good ways to withdraw and bad ways to withdraw. This is what congress is facing: Bush makes his proposal for money required for the following year for the wars, congress puts forward a spending bill and requires concessions to withdraw troops. Bush vetoes it and re-submits the same or worse proposal. If congress doesn't budge, you can bet that Bush won't budge either. He'll run our servicemen into the ground before give up his position and then blame it on the democrats.

Then, forced to withdraw at the last minute without the requested preparations by congress, Iraq WILL be gauranteed to descend into chaos. Iraq will be carved up by Iran, Syria, and Kurds; and the whole place will go to hell in a handbasket. You know that the Bush white house is willing to employ a scorched earth political manuever.

Bush keeps warning about a sudden pullout would leave everyone vulnerable, but it's not really as much a warning to the citizenship, it's a threat to the democratic congress. I believe it wholeheartedly. He'll sacrifice that country, our soldiers lives, and all US interests and hopes for the middle east to protect neo-con expansionism.

If Bush can cause a big enough imbalance and enough chaos with an act he forced the democratic party to be a party to, the neo-con right can lay the blame at the feet of the democratic party.

NoMan, surely you have to see what he's willing to do? As long as he's in the whitehouse, a withdrawal is not an option. If we can get a democratic president in or one that isn't willing to fuck everyone for partisan politics, then we have a chance of ending the war without a huge bloody clusterfuck massacre for an after party.

Arhetton
23rd October 07, 10:57 PM
Dr. Pauls position on the environment is pretty much - what can you do about emissions? China will surpass the U.S this century - are you going to declare war to stop them from making emissions?

Leave the solutions to the marketplace etc - people will switch to the technology when it becomes available and convenient etc

Arhetton
23rd October 07, 10:58 PM
sorry double post

NoMan
23rd October 07, 11:06 PM
I don’t understand your stance here. Do you want to weaken the spending power of the average American so they are forced to work more?

We already work 350 more hours than the average European country, and we even beat out the Japanese for most hours work. We also take less vacation time, less sick leave, etc. So why hasn't the real wages of American workers gone up in over 30 years, not even including the equal rights movement of minorities and women, which means a 68% increase in the potential labor. Where did all this go?


Or do you want to reinvigorate domestic industries that have no comparative advantage and thus no economic right to your hard earned dollar?

As I've stated on multiple threads, I think the U.S. government needs to invest heavily in research and development for domestic industries. There's no comparitive advantage at all for America in any field. The only thing we produce are guns, missiles, and tanks. We have to have huge subsidies to maintain farms that are owned by corporations, and tarrifs that block things like sugar, corn, cotton, and other products from entering the market.

With a weakened dollar, our exports would be cheaper abroad, motivating more people to buy them and reinvigorating domestic production of things like automobiles, computers, televisions, etc. The comparative advantage of those products is in who can make the best quality products for the least amount of money, unlike things like cotton, which grows better in some places for cheaper, etc.


Do you advocate labor or consumption, leisure time or drudgery? Certainly one must work hard for financial security, or an illusion there of, but why create artificial demands on one’s time and energy?

I don't follow how a weakened dollar would create an artificial demand. I think the dollar is vastly overpriced because it's been running on a deficit for some thirty-odd years, something no other country could get away with before the collectors came calling. I just don't want the dollar to drop the way the Chinese are threatening to do it, by causing such a quick decline in the value that it fuels a recession before domestic industries can begin filling in the void of former imports.

For Cullion: Some theories say part of the motivation to invade Iraq was Saddam's switch from the dollar to the EU, and advocating other countries do so as well. People point out the US quickly reinstalled a central bank to issue dollars when we came over. They also point out terms like Henry Kissinger's talk about the "petrodollar" to maintain our position as World Dominant Currency.


As to claims of “protectionism” on behalf of Ron Paul, that’s totally fallacious. By speaking out against economic unions, Ron Paul isn’t condemning free trade. He is in fact doing the polar opposite by postulating an American position against selective tariffs, which are what organizations like NAFTA and the EU champion. Ron Paul follows the Republican Liberty Caucus Position: Trade for all, tariffs for none.

Like I've said before, I really, really, really hope that is true. I just haven't been impressed in recent years, (say the past forty), with how well Republicans have done on that issue. Certainly the incumbent President isn't a shining example of how to conduct business on this front. Ron Paul might be different, but it's one of those "I 'll believe it when I see it" deals.

Riddeck
24th October 07, 04:13 AM
Ron Paul is only really running Republican because of the severe hassle that you have to go through in order to run Independent. They make you go through hoops, I am pretty sure I heard Ralph Nader say lawsuits are involved.

Ron Paul's swing on Republican side (since EVERYONE is still caught up on this Demo/Rep left/right paradigm), is driven by his desire for 'Small Government'. This reflects in some of his views. "Pro-Lifer", well the man was a doctor, and all he is saying it is not the Governments choice. It should be decided on a smaller, more personal level (which is why everyone should vote).

Cullion
24th October 07, 05:00 AM
We already work 350 more hours than the average European country, and we even beat out the Japanese for most hours work. We also take less vacation time, less sick leave, etc. So why hasn't the real wages of American workers gone up in over 30 years, not even including the equal rights movement of minorities and women, which means a 68% increase in the potential labor. Where did all this go?

Simillar declines have happened in many other developed industrial economies. I think part of the reason is that as our central banks have increased the money supply, the proportion of that new money which gets into the hands of the middle and working classes have decreased.
This is because the top tiers of the finance industry get their hands on the new money first, and therefore get to lend, invest and spend the money before it starts to push up prices. Monetary inflation really is a tax on the poor.

There are other reasons for this decline in the UK.



As I've stated on multiple threads, I think the U.S. government needs to invest heavily in research and development for domestic industries. There's no comparitive advantage at all for America in any field. The only thing we produce are guns, missiles, and tanks. We have to have huge subsidies to maintain farms that are owned by corporations, and tarrifs that block things like sugar, corn, cotton, and other products from entering the market.

I don't agree with the first part. You have enormous media and hi tech industries. People from all over the world relocate to silicon valley every year for a slice of the action. We're talking about the problems of the US government in this thread, but American entrepeneurialism and innovation still has a lot going for it. Once you stop your nutty government standing in your way and giving you a bad name overseas it's the 'Wright Brothers' spirit that people in other countries still rightly admire that's going to dig you out of this little fix.

Labour intensive heavy manufacturing has been in decline for a long time (as it has in the UK), because it's just so expensive in countries like the USA and UK.



With a weakened dollar, our exports would be cheaper abroad, motivating more people to buy them and reinvigorating domestic production of things like automobiles, computers, televisions, etc. The comparative advantage of those products is in who can make the best quality products for the least amount of money, unlike things like cotton, which grows better in some places for cheaper, etc.

I don't think so. Trying to compete on price isn't a great strategy for a developed hi-tech economy like the US. You're better off competing on quality and innovation.
For one thing, as you weaken the dollar, the imported raw materials and parts for all that low-tech manufacturing you're keen on would go up.
I also have to break it to you: Most people outside the US think modern American cars suck, hard. On styling, engineering standard and fuel efficiency.

The dollar would have to be a lot weaker in order to make a TV plant in the USA be price competitive with one in China. For another, your country is massively in debt (both as individuals and your federal government) and has been relying on foreign borrowing for years. It will be for a long time. Weakening your dollar would mean that people would expect higher interest on loans they made to you to compensate. Higher interest rates for government borrowing means less money for all the other stuff you want to do.



For Cullion: Some theories say part of the motivation to invade Iraq was Saddam's switch from the dollar to the EU, and advocating other countries do so as well. People point out the US quickly reinstalled a central bank to issue dollars when we came over. They also point out terms like Henry Kissinger's talk about the "petrodollar" to maintain our position as World Dominant Currency.

I gotcha. Increasing the rate at which the dollar devalues will make it more likely it loses it's reserve status. You're in too much debt for that right now, don't accelerate the process.


Ron Paul might be different, but it's one of those "I 'll believe it when I see it" deals.

Only one way to find out.

NoMan
24th October 07, 05:41 PM
Simillar declines have happened in many other developed industrial economies. I think part of the reason is that as our central banks have increased the money supply, the proportion of that new money which gets into the hands of the middle and working classes have decreased.
This is because the top tiers of the finance industry get their hands on the new money first, and therefore get to lend, invest and spend the money before it starts to push up prices. Monetary inflation really is a tax on the poor.

Your the first person I've heard advance that theory, but it seems pretty much right.



I don't agree with the first part. You have enormous media and hi tech industries.

You're supporting my point. It's the government that, ironically, invests heavily in both those industries. Hell, the entire internet was a DoD project, (Department of Defense) project. The government provided funds to help develop the entrepreneurial spirit, combined with high quality education offered out there in computer fields and industry.

It goes back even further to government funding in radio wave communication, which also fueled RCA and other high-tech industries. On the creation of the Silicone Valley:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/30/MNDTSEMSJ.DTL&feed=rss.business


But in this rivalry with the industrial powers of the East, the future Silicon Valley would find a powerful customer with deep pockets - the U.S. military.

Sturgeon said U.S. naval officials, impressed by Federal Telegraph's technology, gave the Palo Alto firm huge contracts during World War I - the first but not the last time war would fuel the region's tech firms.

In another hint of the future, Sturgeon writes that around 1910, Peter Jensen and Edwin Pridham quit Federal Telegraph "to start a research and development firm in a garage in Napa" to improve loudspeakers. In 1917, they formed Magnavox, which built public address systems for destroyers and battleships in World War I.

The war's end took the wind out of Silicon Valley's sails. The Eastern radio powers, notably RCA, dominated the field during the 1920s and 1930s. The region's entrepreneurial fire cooled but, as history would show, didn't die.

Later:


In his 1995 memoir, "The HP Way," Packard himself provides a glimpse of this ecosystem in action, telling how Terman arranged for him to work evenings at Litton's shop.

"Charlie Litton had started with the Federal Telegraph Company in Palo Alto," Packard wrote, adding, "My relationship with Charlie developed into a long and enduring friendship."

Garage-era Silicon Valley also adopted the business model of the radio age - supplying the U.S. armed forces.

"Military funding was critical for the rise of Silicon Valley from the very late 1930s to the early 1960s," Lécuyer said. For instance, he said, Eitel-McCullough had about 15 people making vacuum tubes before the war. That swelled to 4,000 employees in 1943, then contracted to 200 in 1945, when peace crippled demand for tubes.

So, by the time the Traitorous Eight started Fairchild, the recipe for Silicon Valley largely had been written. Still, the notion that they founded the valley is justified by what financier Rock brought to the party - the money to bankroll bold engineers.

"The venture capital sector really arises along with the semiconductor industry," Lécuyer said. "Once the venture capital is in place, it makes all the other things possible."

And then later:


The early chip industry, like the two waves of innovation before, initially depended on military expenditures, Paul Ceruzzi, a curator at the Smithsonian Institution, writes in his book "A History of Modern Computing."

Only this time, it was the Cold War that opened the government's checkbook.

The Soviet launch of Sputnik on Oct. 4, 1957, prodded the United States to modernize its missile and space program. The newfangled silicon chips were considered vital - albeit costly - components, and Ceruzzi writes that NASA and the Defense Department bought so many "that the price dropped from $1,000 a chip to between $20 and $30."

Falling chip prices fueled development of new electronics for corporate customers and eventually individual consumers. Reliance on military purchases lessened, though defense dollars remained important in spurring research. Thus, when Larry Page and Sergey Brin later dreamed up Google, a defense research grant helped support their work. And when Stanford computer scientists won a robotic car race in 2005, the prize came from the Defense Department.

By the 1970s, therefore, Silicon Valley was poised to capitalize on new civilian technologies like PCs, as exemplified by Apple Computer.

In the 1980s, excitement shifted to scientific workstations and networking devices from firms like Sun Microsystems and Cisco Systems, and to software like the version of UNIX perfected at UC Berkeley.

In the 1990s, the point-and-click browser popularized by Netscape ignited the dot-com boom and, after a painful bust and slow recovery, the recent rise of Google and social networking sites such as Facebook signal another wave of entrepreneurship.

The government can't create entrepreneurs, nor can it create technically smart people, nor can it create a culture with a free flow of information, but it can create funding for good colleges, it can promote laws which allow the exchange of information, and it can offset the expensive and uncertain risks that come with trying to develop new technology. A lot of the current wave of solar power also comes from government financing, via rechargable battery packs for equipment used in combat.

When the government does the opposite, like enact penalties against innovation by giving huge time periods for copyrights, allow "spin-offs" of patents, (e.g. you invent something, I modify it, but I still have to pay you for it), and other such activities lead to a decline in entrepreneurship.


For one thing, as you weaken the dollar, the imported raw materials and parts for all that low-tech manufacturing you're keen on would go up.
I also have to break it to you: Most people outside the US think modern American cars suck, hard. On styling, engineering standard and fuel efficiency.

I don't think the U.S. imports too much raw materials, we have huge amounts of natural resources, and the govt. enacts tarrifs and restrictions against many foreign exporters of natural resources. Cotton, sugar, and aluminum immediately come to mind, and steel almost became monopolized until the European countries threatened to retaliate economically if we harmed them like that.

Maybe if we dropped the tarrifs and subsidies we could manufacture for cheaper. I think we both agree on what the government should *not* be doing, I just don't think we agree that the government can do good things.

|
For another, your country is massively in debt (both as individuals and your federal government) and has been relying on foreign borrowing for years. It will be for a long time. Weakening your dollar would mean that people would expect higher interest on loans they made to you to compensate. Higher interest rates for government borrowing means less money for all the other stuff you want to do.

I didn't think about this, but that's a very sticky problem.

NoMan
24th October 07, 05:55 PM
*Adding*

Your example of American cars is a good example of what the government should *not* do. Ford, GM, and one other company blocked Japanese imports from coming in, the same way that India used to have some of the world's crappiest cars by blocking imports. When they finally let foreign cars in, the American cars couldn't compete. When the government wanted to enact standards for gas mileage and emissions, the businesses protested. The Jap government made their car manufacturers do so, which created more efficient cars with better mileage. The only way car manufacturers in the U.S. could go was to create oversized trucks and SUVs. Then the manufacturers protested further and wanted tariffs against car imports, which the government enacted.

So the Japanese started building automobile plants in the U.S. and making their cars here, getting around the restrictions. Some even argued for the tax breaks that American car manufacturers received, after all, some Japanese cars have more American parts than do American automobile companies. And then there's the loans and subsidies the govt. gives to bad automobile manufacturers to keep them afloat.

Even further, the govt. subsidizes oil in other ways:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/09/20/delucchi-study-finds-that-us-motorists-do-not-pay-their-way/

Also, Japan's government helps research into their cars as well, e.g., their lightweight batteries.

Zendetta
24th October 07, 06:06 PM
Another issue: when planned obsolescence and big tailfins became part of Detroit's marketing plan, the real innovators took their efficient engineering skills to Tokyo.

The Japanese auto industry coalesced around some early expat americans who were dissed by american manufactuers.

Sun Wukong
24th October 07, 06:48 PM
Bill Clinton was the beginning of a new era of constant overseas military involvement, but he kept things controlled and with specific missions, generally, rather than trying to actually annex territory and remodel countries to be more 'America friendly'.
Bill Clinton? The problem goes beyong Bill. Korea, Vietnam, Reagan Era Cold War are all constant examples of military involvement? True, those first two wars were started by Democratic presidents, but both of them were heavily advised to do so going in by the pentagon and the CIA; they were told that if they didn't go in the communists would take control of the pacific.

Cullion
24th October 07, 07:20 PM
Your the first person I've heard advance that theory, but it seems pretty much right.

It's not my own theory. I've been reading some of the same books on economics that Ron Paul does for a couple of years now. You've probably heard the term 'The Austrian school' mentioned in my posts, or other people's before. A lot of the key texts are at www.mises.org.

I don't agree 100%, but in the areas I disagree (namely taking care of the govt. dependent whilst shriking govt.) Ron has been hinting in the right direction in his speeches.



You're supporting my point. It's the government that, ironically, invests heavily in both those industries. Hell, the entire internet was a DoD project, (Department of Defense) project. The government provided funds to help develop the entrepreneurial spirit, combined with high quality education offered out there in computer fields and industry.

You're suffering from an economic fallacy: 'a bad system has produced some successes, therefore it's good'. Where might you have got to now without those federal burdens? (you might find an answer in the growth rates of low-intervention 'tax havens' like Hong Kong, or in your own history, before WWII).




It goes back even further to government funding in radio wave communication, which also fueled RCA and other high-tech industries. On the creation of the Silicone Valley:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/30/MNDTSEMSJ.DTL&feed=rss.business


And yet, the real action in space exploration is all with the unsubsidised private sector in the US. Look to Orville and Wilbur dude, not some Ivy-league stiff with the right comittee connections.



The government can't create entrepreneurs, nor can it create technically smart people, nor can it create a culture with a free flow of information, but it can create funding for good colleges

So can private enthusiasts. That's where Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Stanford and Yale came from.



it can promote laws which allow the exchange of information

A law, by definition does not allow the exchange of information, it can only prevent it.




and it can offset the expensive and uncertain risks that come with trying to develop new technology.

You think the government should insure hi-tech early-stage investment risks. OK! Given the field I work in, I'm on your side! Seriously, next you'll be telling me that the state ought to use tax money to insure bankers' bad gambling debts on junk bonds.



A lot of the current wave of solar power also comes from government financing, via rechargable battery packs for equipment used in combat.

So what? a lot didn't. Given the bureacratic and nepotistic nature of public comittees, the govt. involvment probably slowed it down.



I don't think the U.S. imports too much raw materials, we have huge amounts of natural resources, and the govt. enacts tarrifs and restrictions against many foreign exporters of natural resources.

Those tarrifs all go up the minute you devalue your dollar because you have to pay those people in dollars and your tariffs are all percentages. If you tried to manufacture more, you'd pay more for raw materials. Besides which, it's a hopeless crusade because your workers are unbelievably expensive just in terms of minimum wage + benefits compared to the rest of the world ('illegal' in the minds of Bush's compadres means 'no minimum wage, no benefits + desperate'). That's why the evil, corporate funded sides of the Democrat and Republican parties haven't given a shit about illegal immigration for decades. It sounds good to English-speaking liberal voters, but the major stock holders who fund them think in different, more pragmatic terms.



Maybe if we dropped the tarrifs and subsidies we could manufacture for cheaper. I think we both agree on what the government should *not* be doing, I just don't think we agree that the government can do good things.

Your government ought to recognise that it shouldn't be picking which companies win and which lose in your own economy, stop reinforcing an economic caste system via a tax system which cannot really be enforced on the upper-middle and upper classes and stop taxing the working and lower-middle classes in an insidious way via inflation.

Cullion
24th October 07, 07:22 PM
Bill Clinton? The problem goes beyong Bill. Korea, Vietnam, Reagan Era Cold War are all constant examples of military involvement? True, those first two wars were started by Democratic presidents, but both of them were heavily advised to do so going in by the pentagon and the CIA; they were told that if they didn't go in the communists would take control of the pacific. Even the Bay of Pigs which ruined Carter's career was as much the brain child of our military and CIA.

Which president started Vietnam and which president ended it?

jvjim
24th October 07, 07:44 PM
Johnson started it, Nixon Vietnamisized it, and Ford had a goofy smile.

Cullion
24th October 07, 07:48 PM
I thought Nixon ended it?

jvjim
24th October 07, 08:04 PM
Vietnamization is what he called his exit strategy. He also bombed Cambodia. I don't understand why, but then again I'm a sexy college co-ed. International Politics is hard!

Sun Wukong
24th October 07, 08:08 PM
I wrote a very long well thought out explaination of what happened in vietnam with LBJ and tricky dick, but my computer crashed in the middle of it all.... FUCK FUCK FUCK.

So now I'll give you the compressed answer, LBJ got us into it but widely misunderstood communist politics. Nixon and kissenger however, kicked ass all over the place and managed to walk away with both highly improved relations with China, a strategically superior foot-hold against USSR interests, and even managed to cool the possibility of direct military action against the USSR.

It had everything to do with mastery of foreign relations over military might. I long for the return of those days. Dick was a dishonest asshole who tried his best to undermine domestic democracy, but he was a brilliant tactician on the world stage of foreign policy and effective negotiation (especially compared to fucking dumbfuck GWB. I mean, seriously, how the fuck did the republican party go from Henry Kissenger to POS rumsfeld and rice? He filled vital positions with god damn idiots.)

jvjim
24th October 07, 08:15 PM
Yep, Tricky Dick was a badass, and Kissinger was a genius.

Riddeck
24th October 07, 09:47 PM
So now I'll give you the compressed answer, LBJ got us into it but widely misunderstood communist politics. Nixon and kissenger however, kicked ass all over the place and managed to walk away with both highly improved relations with China, a strategically superior foot-hold against USSR interests, and even managed to cool the possibility of direct military action against the USSR.

It had everything to do with mastery of foreign relations over military might. I long for the return of those days. Dick was a dishonest asshole who tried his best to undermine domestic democracy, but he was a brilliant tactician on the world stage of foreign policy and effective negotiation (especially compared to fucking dumbfuck GWB. I mean, seriously, how the fuck did the republican party go from Henry Kissenger to POS rumsfeld and rice? He filled vital positions with god damn idiots.)

Yes, but let us not forget that LBJ got us into Vietnam war by having Israel attack the U.S.S. Liberty in the Gulf of Tonken.

So maybe less to do with 'Mastery of Foreign Relations" and more to do with "Mastery of Domestic Deception"

NoMan
25th October 07, 12:59 AM
You're suffering from an economic fallacy: 'a bad system has produced some successes, therefore it's good'. Where might you have got to now without those federal burdens? (you might find an answer in the growth rates of low-intervention 'tax havens' like Hong Kong, or in your own history, before WWII).


The Gilded Age? Where one in six Americans was unemployed, the average house was a shack, and big businessmen made more money than the U.S. took in taxes? America got nice bubbles following WWI and WWII when Europe shot itself to shit, making us the default winners, but we had no major literary or scientific figures until the post-WWII era. (Richard Murray, "Human Achievement" makes a long list of comparisons, America hit almost none of them prior to WWII).

Concerning Hong Kong, the government owns all the land and leases it out. The result is:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secC12.html


"The main explanation for low tax rates . . . is not low social spending. One important factor is that Hong Kong does not have to support a defence industry . . . The most crucial explanation . . . lies in the fact that less than half of the government's revenues comes from direct taxation.
"The Hong Kong government actually derives much of its revenue from land transactions. The territory's land is technically owned by the government, and the government fills its coffers by selling fifty-year leases to developers (the fact that there are no absolute private property rights to land will come as another surprise t boosters of 'Hong Kong-style' libertarianism) . . . The government has an interest in maintaining high property values . . . if it is to maintain its policy of low taxation. It does this by carefully controlling the amount of land that is released for sale . . . It is, of course, those buying new homes and renting from the private sector who pay the price for this policy. Many Hong Kongers live in third world conditions, and the need to pay astronomical residential property prices is widely viewed as an indirect form of taxation." [Daniel A. Bell, "Hong Kong's Transition to Capitalism", pp. 15-23, Dissent, Winter 1998, pp. 15-6]

It features a heavy investment in commercial industries, a welfare department, and other goodies:

http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/httpNetITFrame?ReadForm&parentunid=B764A113DEE628D4C125706D0032DA66&parentdoctype=paper&netitpath=/published_/pp_/spd_/lee/content.htm


The founding of the “residual welfare state” in the early 1970s marked the inception of welfare developmentalism in Hong Kong. Rapid industrialization, socioeconomic development and a crisis of legitimacy generated the need for more social provision. At the same time, the colonial state was careful to subsume this political need for better social provision under the wider policy parameters of economic non-interventionism and financial conservatism (which entailed a low tax rate, low public expenditure and a public sector of limited size). Sustaining this residual welfare state required high economic growth rates to generate a continuous increase in government revenue with which to fund the expansion of social programmes. A situation of full employment also gave rise to real wage increases that minimized public demands for welfare provision.

These optimal conditions started to change in the 1980s, as socioeconomic development, economic restructuring, the rise of structural poverty, an aging population and rising expectations all led to increasing demands for social programmes. The potential problem of the long-term sustainability of the residual welfare state was partly obscured in the late 1980s to early 1990s by the economic bubble generated by the real estate market. The political transition toward 1997 saw the partial democratization of the legislature. An accumulation of revenue coupled with the political transition led the government to generously increase spending on social provision. The first chief executive of HKSAR, Tung Chee-Hwa, continued increasing social spending, envisioning the construction of a Confucian welfare state as the basis of the new political order.

Later on, and more interesting:


of social spending was tied to economic growth and the financial situation of the government. Under a taxation system with minimal income redistribution, a social wage provided through collective consumption became the major form of income transfer (Tang 1994). The state in Hong Kong also lacked the strength to discipline business and industrial elites, who would not have favoured the burden of any social insurance programmes. State financing thus became the major mode of funding social programmes.

Colonial interest, financial conservatism and economic non-interventionism thus largely explain the characteristics of the welfare regime in Hong Kong. The episodic pattern of welfare development led to a high level of state reliance on the voluntary sector as service provider through corporatist arrangements. The policy of economic non-interventionism implied that the colonial state was historically not as autonomous as other Asian developmental states, and
instead of mandating industries to provide insurance to their workers, it had to assume the role of provider and financier of welfare. The residual nature of the welfare state was the direct result of financial conservatism; the social wage provided by the state assumed a particularly important role in providing for industrial peace and supporting a flexible production regime.

And then the best piece of news comes from here:




A: Year Growth in GDP (per cent)

B: Social services expenditure/total public
expenditure (per cent)

A B A B
1967/68 1.7 39.2 1985/86 0.4 44.5
1968/69 3.3 39.9 1986/87 10.8 43.9
1969/70 11.3 40.3 1987/88 13.0 44.8
1970/71 9.2 40.3 1988/89 8.0 47.2
1971/72 7.1 40.0 1989/90 2.6 45.0
1972/73 10.3 32.6 1990/91 3.4 45.8
1973/74 12.4 36.4 1991/92 5.1 45.7
1974/75 2.3 39.5 1992/93 6.3 45.4
1975/76 0.3 43.4 1993/94 6.1 44.9
1976/77 16.2 41.3 1994/95 5.4 47.5
1977/78 11.7 41.5 1995/96 3.6 47.6
1978/79 8.5 42.5 1996/97 4.5 49.9
1979/80 11.5 43.3 1997/98 c 5.0 53.1
1980/81 10.1 43.7 1998/99 -5.1 51.6
1981/82 9.2 39.0 1999/2000 2.9 54.5
1982/83 2.7 40.3 2000/01 10.2 56.5
1983/84 5.7 42.1 2001/02 0.5 54.6
1984/85 10.0 44.6 2002/03 2.3 55.1

And then:


52 percent of the population "live in subsidised housing, most of whom rent flats from the Housing Authority with rents set at one-fifth the market level (the rest have bought subsidised flats under various home-ownership schemes, with prices discounted 50 percent from those in the private sector)." Beyond public housing, Hong Kong "also has most of the standard features of welfare states in Western Europe. There is an excellent public health care system: private hospitals are actually going out of business because clean and efficient public hospitals are well subsidised (the government pays 97 percent of the costs)." Fortunately for the state, the territory initially had a relatively youthful population compared with western countries which meant it had less need for spending on pensions and help for the aged (this advantage is declining as the population ages). In addition, the "large majority of primary schools and secondary schools are either free of heavily subsidised, and the territory's tertiary institutions all receive most of their funds from the public coffers." [Bell, Op. Cit., pp. 16-7 and p. 17] We can be sure that when conservatives and right-"libertarians" use Hong Kong as a model, they are not referring to these aspects of the regime.

Given this, Hong Kong has "deviated from the myth of a laissez-faire economy with the government limiting itself to the role of the 'night watchman'" as it "is a welfare state." In 1995-6, it spent 47 percent of its public expenditure on social services ("only slightly less than the United Kingdom"). Between 1992 and 1998, welfare spending increased at a real rate of at least 10 percent annually. [Bell, Op. Cit., p. 16] "Without doubt," two experts note, "the development of public housing in Hong Kong has contributed greatly to the social well-being of the Territory." Overall, social welfare "is the third largest [state] expenditure . . . after education and health." [Simon X. B. Zhao and l. Zhand, "Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Hong Kong: Trends and Explanations," pp. 74-103, China: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 95 and p. 97] Hong Kong spent 11.6% of its GDP on welfare spending in 2004, for example.

If that's the model you suggest for America, it looks just like the model liberals propose.


And yet, the real action in space exploration is all with the unsubsidised private sector in the US. Look to Orville and Wilbur dude, not some Ivy-league stiff with the right comittee connections.

I remember the Apollo moon landings being done by the government group NASA. Am I wrong here?


So can private enthusiasts. That's where Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, Stanford and Yale came from.

The only engineering school in all the US for the longest time came from one place: West Point, New York. (US Military Academy). That's the reason why they made so much money during the railroad building years, they were the only ones with the technical know-how. All of those schools receive heavy government grants to fund their research departments and engage in scholarly publications.


A law, by definition does not allow the exchange of information, it can only prevent it.

People will want to monopolize on any idea they have and milk as much money as they can from it. It will be up to the courts to decide what constitutes a legitimate form of patent and what is considered copyright. They pass "laws", whether we like it or not.


You think the government should insure hi-tech early-stage investment risks. OK! Given the field I work in, I'm on your side!

Glad to hear it, if you move to the US, vote for me when I run for office. ;)

Yiktin Voxbane
25th October 07, 01:04 AM
He needs Jello Biafra as a running mate .

Sun Wukong
25th October 07, 02:08 AM
Yes, but let us not forget that LBJ got us into Vietnam war by having Israel attack the U.S.S. Liberty in the Gulf of Tonken.

So maybe less to do with 'Mastery of Foreign Relations" and more to do with "Mastery of Domestic Deception"
OK, I'll bite: how in hell did the USS liberty incident in 1967 start US involvement with the Vietnam war beginning in 1964? Was it a cover up for time travel experiments?

Edit: I see, you are confusing the attacks on the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy in 1964 with the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 by the israelies. You are suggesting that the Israelies also attacked the USS Madox and USS Turner Joy at the suggestion of LBJ?

Also, I never said LBJ was a master of anything, honestly, he never should have been president in my opinion. He wasn't the skilled statesman that JFK was. LBJ was laboring under alot of erroneous opinions shared by the CIA and Pentagon that the Vietnam conflict was much more significant than it was. Especially in regard to the Southern Vietnamese government's poor track record of taking care of it's citizenry. Both sides of the vietnamese warring factions were populated with murderous thugs.

Cullion
25th October 07, 05:58 AM
The Gilded Age? Where one in six Americans was unemployed, the average house was a shack, and big businessmen made more money than the U.S. took in taxes?

Are you talking specifically about the depression era with 1 in 6 unemployment or taking an average over the hundreds of years of history before then ?

Why do you automatically equate 'businessmen making more money than the government taxes the country' with 'wrong' ?


America got nice bubbles following WWI and WWII when Europe shot itself to shit, making us the default winners, but we had no major literary or scientific figures until the post-WWII era. (Richard Murray, "Human Achievement" makes a long list of comparisons, America hit almost none of them prior to WWII).

Other than Mark Twain, Edison, Ben Franklin, Tesla, Walt Whitman... Come off it man, claiming that America had no prominent thinkers or achievers until after WWII is nonsensical, I don't care which author suggested it.



If that's the model you suggest for America, it looks just like the model liberals propose.

Do you see how little the Hong Kong government has to tax people to achieve all that ? the top rate is 17%. There are other, even more libertarian examples of countries with thriving economies.




I remember the Apollo moon landings being done by the government group NASA. Am I wrong here?

Nope, you're not wrong. I'm not some nut who's going to argue that everything any government body does is always wrong.

jvjim
25th October 07, 10:37 AM
Other than Mark Twain, Edison, Ben Franklin, Tesla, Walt Whitman... Come off it man, claiming that America had no prominent thinkers or achievers until after WWII is nonsensical, I don't care which author suggested it.

Wait, wait, wait, Eurpeans aren't supposed to beleive that any American thinker has been prominent or even existed. You can't go fucking changing the rules Cullion, I get tired of making fun of the French and I need to be able to lump all Europeans into one group of rapid, America hating socialist from time to time.

NoMan
25th October 07, 01:56 PM
Are you talking specifically about the depression era with 1 in 6 unemployment or taking an average over the hundreds of years of history before then ?

Why do you automatically equate 'businessmen making more money than the government taxes the country' with 'wrong' ?

I was talking about the Gilded Age/Robber Baron Era. Major portion of American history, big businesses worked together as cartels and used unfair trade practices to gain a monopoly over markets. The net result was a large concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, with most Americans living in squalor. The govt. stepped in and enacted anti-trust legislation, and then businessmen tried to overthrow the govt.

Same thing happened in Hondurus and Hawaii. I don't see why you think that businesses want flowers and love for all, they want the maximum amount of money they can gain. Whether those practices are fair or unfair depends upon the incentives they have to pursue them. In places like Papau New Guinea, India under the East India Trade Company, Honduras, Hawaii (pre-state entry), businesses butt raped countries and did whatever they wanted. Even Adam Smith wasn't fond of the East India trade company, he recognized that there's little incentives to care about something the further away the chain of responsibility is removed from what's going on. (Same problem we have with waging wars. Bush doesn't have to pay for the disasters he causes. Not that he stands alone in this category either.)

The free market is great so long as it is actually "free" from monopolies, heavy informational assymetries, and negative externalities. The government is no better either when it is filled with monopolies, information assymetries, and negative externalities. I don't equate one as harmonious and virtuous and the other as bad, they're both the same, it's the incentives that change. Overall, I view the two as what *should* happen in our legislative and executive branches, two "checks and balances" to each other if one should get out of line. And we both know that if that doesn't happen, things go bad very fast.


Other than Mark Twain, Edison, Ben Franklin, Tesla, Walt Whitman... Come off it man, claiming that America had no prominent thinkers or achievers until after WWII is nonsensical, I don't care which author suggested it.

Hehe, I picked a libertarian author. ;) His comparison methodology is unusual, you'd have to read the book to get what he's driving at. Part of the problem stems that many of our inventors weren't "home grown", e.g. Tesla achieved his design genius in America, but wasn't educated here. Who gets the credit? Same with Alexander Graham Bell. Even a large portion of our science in things like atomic research, space exploration, and other fields came from scientists who were fleeing Russia, Germany, and other authoritarian states.

It's why I'm very sad at the sciencephobia, general xenophobia towards foreigners, and the wiretapping and harassment programs employed by our current government. It creates a hostile culture to science and deprives us of how we obtained many of our great minds. Not suprisingly, most stats on scientific publications show a drop in the U.S. output. Thank God you guys are all overcrowded, or we might have a brain drain to your countries.


Do you see how little the Hong Kong government has to tax people to achieve all that ? the top rate is 17%. There are other, even more libertarian examples of countries with thriving economies.

Hong Kong is pretty awesome, but I was pointing out the hidden tax system they use on land to supplement fees. I think their overall design on the tax system is much more equal than ours is, many of our taxes are regressive on things like land owners, e.g. the timber company example I've used, they own 70% of land, pay 2% of taxes, 30% pay 98% of taxes, not cool.


Nope, you're not wrong. I'm not some nut who's going to argue that everything any government body does is always wrong.

When the govt. makes itself responsible for a project, and defines a limited scope of what it wants to achieve, it can do good. When the opposite happens, it's disaster.

An example that comes to mind is the World Health Organization has been very effective in accomplishings its job while the IMF and World Bank haven't. The WHO is responsible for a small task, (better health), and has direct responsibility for failures or successes. The IMF and World Bank do not, and create large, sweeping, unobtainable goals. Bush did the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, sweeping, unobtainable goals in which those responsible for the plannign were not accountable for the after-effects.

Former CIA director Patrick E. Kennon wrote a bit about this in "Twilight of Democracy".

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950219/02160339.htm

Riddeck
25th October 07, 02:30 PM
OK, I'll bite: how in hell did the USS liberty incident in 1967 start US involvement with the Vietnam war beginning in 1964? Was it a cover up for time travel experiments?

Edit: I see, you are confusing the attacks on the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy in 1964 with the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 by the israelies. You are suggesting that the Israelies also attacked the USS Madox and USS Turner Joy at the suggestion of LBJ?

Also, I never said LBJ was a master of anything, honestly, he never should have been president in my opinion. He wasn't the skilled statesman that JFK was. LBJ was laboring under alot of erroneous opinions shared by the CIA and Pentagon that the Vietnam conflict was much more significant than it was. Especially in regard to the Southern Vietnamese government's poor track record of taking care of it's citizenry. Both sides of the vietnamese warring factions were populated with murderous thugs.

The actual joining of the war did not take place until the Liberty incident. We of course were 'involved' but not on the full fledge scale that turned out to be the vietnam war.

We needed a push. LBJ created one.

Sun Wukong
25th October 07, 04:10 PM
The attack on the Liberty was totally un-related to the Vietnam war conflict, it was part of the Six Day War between Israel and it's neighbors. There is plenty conspiracy theories about the USS Liberty, but NONE of them have anything to do with Vietnam.

It wasn't even in Tonkin bay when it was attacked like you stated, it was way the fuck over in the Sinai peninsula. The Tonkin bay assaults were for the USS Madox and the USS Turner Joy and allowed for hiked US military intervention in vietnam. However, the USS Liberty had nothing to do with anything in Tonkin bay or vietnam. In fact, all it served to do was harm the US/Israel alliance and had no effect whatsoever on the totally unrelated Tonkin Bay incident.

Seriously dude, you aren't even bothering to fact check your own conspiracies. Look again man. NO ONE is linking the vietnam conflict with the USS Liberty

Cullion
25th October 07, 05:24 PM
I was talking about the Gilded Age/Robber Baron Era.

Could you show me a source for the 1 in 6 unemployed figure please?

Shawarma
25th October 07, 05:25 PM
It wasn't even in Tonkin bay when it was attacked like you stated, it was way the fuck over in the Sinai peninsula.
Oh, that's what they WANT you to think....

DAYoung
25th October 07, 05:32 PM
Other than Mark Twain, Edison, Ben Franklin, Tesla, Walt Whitman... Come off it man, claiming that America had no prominent thinkers or achievers until after WWII is nonsensical, I don't care which author suggested it.

Umm. Melville.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n5/DAYoung_2006/OWNED.jpg

Sun Wukong
25th October 07, 05:43 PM
Riddeck, if you still believe that the USS Liberty was attacked in Tonkin by the israelies, please site sources for me and provide the impetus to take up increased military action against the VC derrived from the event, please provide at least some relevant link. Or be prepared admit you were wrong about the liberty.

LBJ did exploit the Tonkin Bay incident, but the USS Liberty and the israelies were never involved or indeed within a thousand miles of vietnamese waters at the time. You are amalgamating two seperate conspiracy theories.

Cullion
25th October 07, 05:56 PM
Do you understand where attention to detail comes into it now Riddeck?

'Speaking truth to power' has, and should have, 0 impact when you aren't actually speaking the truth.

Cullion
25th October 07, 05:58 PM
Umm. Melville.

Yes, your favourite with his story about the fishing trip gone wrong and everybody getting cranky too, if it makes you feel better.

Shawarma
25th October 07, 05:59 PM
Also: Why, exactly, would the Israelis want the US to attack Vietnam? Were they just really bored that day or something?

Zendetta
25th October 07, 06:37 PM
Yes, your favourite with his story about the fishing trip gone wrong and everybody getting cranky too, if it makes you feel better.

Psssht. That story is about Sperm and Gnosis.

Sun Wukong
25th October 07, 06:59 PM
Also: Why, exactly, would the Israelis want the US to attack Vietnam? Were they just really bored that day or something?

Either he's inventing a new conspiracy theory or he's confusing two seperate incidences. The israelies are suspected by some to have purposefully attacked a US naval intelligence ship off the sinai coast to keep their plans to break international treaties with a surprise attack secret during the Six Day War. However, there are alot of things wrong with that theory, like the fact that they ceased fire on the liberty, attacked with insufficient ordinance to sink a ship of the liberty's stature, attacked with far too meager forces in the beginning to sink the liberty, recorded radio dialogs where israelie pilots were discussing the liberty in terms of it being an egyption vessel, and an immediate call to the US Embassy stating what they had done after the cease fire.

The Tonkin Bay incident is when two US destroyers came under fire in seperate incidences, at least reportedly. The first incident was highly verifiably to be attempted fire from three VC torpedo boats two of which were sunk by US air power from the Tyconderoga. The second incident is the one that is the most suspect in that while several radar/sona signatures suggesting more VC boats were identified and what was thought to be a torpedo wake on sonar may well have been mis-indentified ocean tides. The second suspected attack may well have been a miscatagorized attack that never really happened but it didn't stop LBJ from using it to get permission from congress for military intervention with Vietnam without having to declare war. (ie, it was the incident that sparked heavy US military intervention).

I'd also like to add that US forces were already on the ground in Vietnam when the Liberty was attacked half a continent away off the coast of Sinai.

Zendetta
25th October 07, 07:03 PM
But the draft had yet not begun, correct?

Sun Wukong
25th October 07, 07:28 PM
The lottery draft for vietnam began in 1969 on december 1st. This still doesn't link the draft or US involvement to the USS Liberty.

Zendetta
25th October 07, 07:38 PM
LOL, no not hardly. But it does go with the general notion that Gulf of Tonkin was a made-up justification for "war" (police action).

And it reminds us of the degree that history repeats itself.

NoMan
25th October 07, 11:19 PM
Could you show me a source for the 1 in 6 unemployed figure please?

"Overthrow", by Stephen Kinzer, page 34.

“Although the American economy grew tremendously during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, much of the country’s fabulous new wealth enriched only a few thousand captains of industry. Conditions for most ordinary people were steadily deteriorating. By 1893, one of every six American workers was unemployed, and many of the rest lived on subsistence wages. Plummeting agricultural prices in the 1890s killed off a whole generation of small farmers. Strikes and labor riots broke out from New York to Chicago to California. Socialist and anarchist movements began attracting broad followings. In 1894, Secretary of State Walter Gresham, reflecting a widespread fear, said he saw ‘symptoms of revolution’ spreading across the country….

Among them [that saw this problem] was President Cleveland’s Treasury secretary, John Carlisle, who warned in his annual report for 1894 that ‘the prosperity of our people depends largely on their ability to sell their surplus products in foreign markets at remunerative prices.’ Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana came to the same conclusion. ‘American factories are making more than American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume,’ he asserted. ‘Fate has written our policy for us. The trade of the world must and shall be ours.’”

This was what led America to its first attempt at being an imperial power in Nicaragua, the Phillipines, etc. The idea was to force other countries to accept our exports and create a major demand for American products.

TM
26th October 07, 11:16 AM
Also: Why, exactly, would the Israelis want the US to attack Vietnam? Were they just really bored that day or something?

Google up Spelly's war.

Sun Wukong
26th October 07, 12:41 PM
Google up Spelly's war.


Why don't you save us the trouble.

Shawarma
26th October 07, 02:32 PM
Googling Spelly's War brought me to some webpage about how the Vatican was responsible for shooting JFK. Make of that what you will.

Sun Wukong
26th October 07, 03:32 PM
TM: Seriously, if you're going to allude to someone, don't ask other people to do your research for you.

NoMan
26th October 07, 08:15 PM
From a conspiracy website


The reason why Kennedy was assassinated was he wanted to end the Vietnam War, and he wanted to end the rule of the CIA. That begets two questions: Did Rome want the Vietnam War? And, did Rome control the CIA? The answer is yes on both counts. We know, on its face, that the Vietnam War was called 'Spelly's War'-Cardinal Spellman's war. He went over to the warfront many times and he called the American soldiers the 'soldiers of Christ'. The man who was the Commander of the American forces was a Roman Catholic, CFR member, possibly a Knight of Columbus, I don't know, but he was General William Westmoreland.

So, Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman's agent to make sure that war was prosecuted properly. And another overseer of Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman's boy, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a 33rd-degree Freemason. He was also part of the assassination, with J. Edgar Hoover, another 33rd-degree Freemason. ........Spellman wanted the Vietnam War, why? Spellman was controlled by the Jesuits of Fordham. Why did the Jesuit General want the Vietnam War? The people of Vietnam, the Buddhists, were unconvertible. They would not convert to Catholicism. They didn't need Rome.

There had been a Jesuit presence in Vietnam for centuries, so it had been decided that about a million or so Buddhists would have to be 'purged'. They would later continue this purge of Cambodia, with Pol Pot, and the purge is yet for Thailand. It was a purging of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam of all these Buddhists, just like they purged the Buddhists of China with Mao Zedong, because Mao Zedong was completely controlled by the Jesuits. So, they wanted the Vietnam War. -- Ranted by Eric Jon Phelps

Problems:

1.) The original leader of Vietnam was Catholic. JFK had that leader assassinated, to his great consternation. (He thought it would be a friendly overthrow). If the Vietnam War was meant to spread Catholicism, then killing the only Catholic leader was a dumb move.

2.) JFK had no intentions of de-escalating the Vietnam War, he initiated it.

3.) How does the Catholics and Freemasons link up, given they are rival religious organizations? And when did they join together?

"Spelly's war" sounds like the dumbest theory on a foreign war I've heard.

Sun Wukong
26th October 07, 11:03 PM
TM, seriously... you believe that crap?

Sun Wukong
26th October 07, 11:06 PM
The jesuits of the 20th century weren't exactly the same jesuits of the 17th century. They may have made some nasty knuckle cracking nuns, but waging war on communists... to kill buddhists... when the tenets of communism specifically state the buddhism and all religion is a 'bad thing' just seems a bit convoluted.

Spellman may have not liked the reds, especially given the treatment recieved by rome from the USSR, but saying that Rome was behind the JFK assasination when Kennedy was a catholic himself and that Rome is in anyway linked to the Freemasons is pretty god damn ridiculous to the point of incredulity.

My grandpa was a free mason, and you know what they did at those meetings? Drank beer, watched war docmentaries, organized community fund raisers, discussed the good of the local community and generally organized things to give each other the helping hand.

Seriously, all that quasi mystical linking between the freemasons and the jesuits/catholic church to sinister conspiracy theories seems like they're stretching things more than just a bit doesn't it?

NoMan
27th October 07, 12:12 AM
My grandpa was a free mason, and you know what they did at those meetings? Drank beer, watched war docmentaries, organized community fund raisers, discussed the good of the local community and generally organized things to give each other the helping hand.

My greatest disappointment in initiation to Mystery Schools was that above. I was hoping I would gain immediate access to power, wealth, privelege, and could control the fate of the World. I thought there would be massive orgies. Instead, I found myself re-enacting Greek dramas, learning Latin and mythology, and meeting people who wanted an excuse to dress up. People who drove hybrids, organized peace rallies, and met at coffee shops. THE EPITOME OF EVIL!

If someone you know is actually in an evil cult which can do some of the things listed above, let me know. I'm smart, and sure I have some morals, but who can resist the temptation of ultimate power? And I'm an ex-ninjer, so you know I have no shame.

Shawarma
27th October 07, 05:40 AM
Join this: http://www.gop.com/

Cullion
27th October 07, 05:45 AM
Some more offline poll support for Ron Paul.

The article is written by a Paul supporter, and the explanations given for the figures seem to assume that the support is due to people agreeing with the writer on his pet issues (i.e. govt. spending, fear of socialised healthcare) when it might well be more down to them agreeing with Ron on the war and his social liberal positions on marijuana, gambling, prostitution etc.. .

Whilst I'm a Libertarian economically, I can see that quite a lot of new Paul supporters (or people considering it) I read in forums and blogs are basically liberals who feel let down by the Democrats and are willing to go along with Paul on foreign policy and civil liberties whilst being unsure on the low tax/low government spending ideals. My guess is that these people would like to see Paul in the White House dismantling the Patriot Act, bringing troops home, ending the 'War on Some Drugs' etc.. but will be voting for Democrats with who want to look after infrastructure and take care of the poor into their State and Municipal legislatures.

The part that interests me are the figures.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016457.html

Sun Wukong
27th October 07, 06:12 AM
i didn't know paul was for legalization of marijuana, that's a fine stance to take in my opinion. if only we had another credible candidate willing to take that plunge we might have been in business with something here. I'm not a MJ smoker personally, but I god damn sure believe that if the stuff were legal around the country, things would be so much better than they are now. but, that's another topic of another day I guess. we could save so much fucking money and increase the peace by huge margins.

Cullion
27th October 07, 06:45 AM
i didn't know paul was for legalization of marijuana, that's a fine stance to take in my opinion.

He's for ending the war on drugs. He's on the record as stating that drug addiction is a medical problem rather than a question for the law. I posted a link to him getting a bit angry at a debate hosted by the christian right about the federal government busting people for medical marijuana use to alleviate pain etc.. In the same speech he goes on to talk about how prohibition didn't stop people becoming alcoholics, just made money for gangsters, and how the US had no war on drugs or anti-drug laws for centuries and seemed to do just fine.

Sun Wukong
27th October 07, 06:47 AM
i don't think under any circumstances opiates, heroin, coke or meth should be legalized. Those drugs do things to people that are extremely fucked up.

Cullion
27th October 07, 06:55 AM
I don't know how it is in the US, but Marijuana possession has been reclassified downwards to class C in the UK in the last few years.

We have category A, B and C drugs. A is stuff like Heroin and Crack, class C drugs include various legal painkillers which you aren't supposed to supply without a doctors prescription. There are steady but gradual signs that the law enforcement community and our politicians are rethinking the drug classification system with a view to decriminalising some of the softer recreationals.

In practice this means nobody gets busted for having a few pot plants growing at home, and it's not uncommon to occasionally smell cannabis smoke in the street and a passing police officer to ignore it. I think the remaining laws against supplying a class C drug are only enforced with pot when the police want to shut down some gangster operation where other drugs or violence are involved but pot supply is the only thing they have solid evidence on.

We don't have anything like the Dutch with open decriminalisation and cafe's where you can walk in and buy a joint though.

Cannabis use amongst teenagers has apparently gone down slightly in the last few years, so the fears some had that reclassifying it would lead to insane bongo music in the streets and general reefer madness have been put to bed.

Riddeck
27th October 07, 09:31 AM
i don't think under any circumstances opiates, heroin, coke or meth should be legalized. Those drugs do things to people that are extremely fucked up.

However, if these things were legal, the price would go down, and become easier to get because the drug families/CIA would no longer have a monopoly on the product, and the crack head/heroin addicts would be less likely to do fucked up things.

Less desperation, less inclination to do stupid shit.

Now I am not condoning the use of said drugs, however, the War on Drugs is simply a method for a drug monopoly in the US.

And yes, of course, it involves the CIA. Our economy depends on it!

Cullion
27th October 07, 09:36 AM
i don't think under any circumstances opiates, heroin, coke or meth should be legalized. Those drugs do things to people that are extremely fucked up.

Yes they do. However, Cocaine and Opiates used to be legal in the US. Addiction to them used to be simply considered a medical problem. Is the drug problem better now ?

Shawarma
27th October 07, 11:34 AM
Non-argument, Cullion. Actual drug abuse wasn't a major social problem in the US before the last 100 years. Legislation was not NEEDED because it was insignificant.

Cullion
27th October 07, 11:52 AM
Non-argument, Cullion. Actual drug abuse wasn't a major social problem in the US before the last 100 years. Legislation was not NEEDED because it
was insignificant.

Because you sure are winning that war on drugs, eh ?

Widespread abuse of Cocaine and Heroin came after their criminalisation.

Shawarma
27th October 07, 12:13 PM
Not mentioning the war on drugs. Just mentioning that drug abuse wasn't a problem back then. People did not know about them and/or didn't have access to them, so it wasn't a problem and didn't need any kind legislation. They do now, and it is a problem. Now to decide whether it needs legislation or not.

Cullion
27th October 07, 01:28 PM
Not mentioning the war on drugs. Just mentioning that drug abuse wasn't a problem back then, when they were legal. People did not know about them and/or didn't have access to them, so it wasn't a problem and didn't need any kind legislation.

They do now since the government announced a decades long losing war against them which has sucked in millions of dollars, enriched violent gangsters and criminalised people who have done nothing more harmful than smoke dried leaves for private entertainment, and it is a problem. Now to decide whether it needs legislation or not.

fixed.

Cullion
27th October 07, 01:34 PM
PS. People did have access to Cocaine(was an ingredient in the original Coke formula and available from pharmacies) and Cannabis (THC yielding varieties of Hemp used to be common crops in the US).

The first wave of hysteria against Cannabis was driven by racist outrage that young white kids were going to Jazz clubs and dancing/mingling with black kids as peers rather than employees/servants. I think some of those white girls may have even ended up kissing some of those handsome young black men, so I can understand the paranoia from a small cock perspective.

Cullion
27th October 07, 01:36 PM
In the original Sherlock Holmes stories, Sherlock used to relax between cases by injecting a 5% solution of cocaine and dimorphine (heroin), shutting himself in his study and playing the Violin like a man possessed. No shit.

No, the drug laws did not spontaneously emerge with ordinary white gimps suddenly 'discovering' these substances that had been around in their cultures for hundreds of years.

Shawarma
27th October 07, 03:03 PM
You can't seriously think that drug use was as widespread 100 years ago as it is today.

Cullion
27th October 07, 03:20 PM
You can't seriously think that drug use was as widespread 100 years ago as it is today.

Queen Victoria used to take Cannibis tea for her menstrual cramps. I can get sources if you don't trust me, but broadly I agree.

However, the apparent problem of social degeneration due to widespread inability to control one's illegal intoxicant intake seems to have come after the laws. Do you dispute this?

Shawarma
27th October 07, 03:42 PM
Queen Vic and Sherlock Holmes are not "widespread." I'm talking about common people. And it was NOT widespread among common people. They had their booze.

WarPhalange
27th October 07, 03:44 PM
For fucks sakes, it's proven that making something illegal makes people want it more. Look at times where education was outlawed by a dictator or a state or something. People would gather and fucking study together.

Yes, it's different because learning actually helps, but now that education is forced, how many people actually want to learn? Even from the people who go to college, how many want an education vs having a piece of paper to make some money?

Also look at abstinence vowes and stuff like that. More girls tend to get pregnant and engage in sex in general when they aren't supposed to.

bob
27th October 07, 03:51 PM
Queen Vic and Sherlock Holmes are not "widespread." I'm talking about common people. And it was NOT widespread among common people. They had their booze.

You should have a read of the long history of opium use and various periods of prohibition in China. Lots of modern parallels.

Shawarma
27th October 07, 03:57 PM
For fuck's sake, why are you making it so goddamn difficult? Let us stick to the western world, specifically the US of motherfucking A for now, ok, and not talk about what the Chinese bans on opium and the resulting opium wars. What's next, you're gonna be drawing parallels to the Hashishim?

Cullion
27th October 07, 04:50 PM
I think you're playing with us, you bad boy.

Sun Wukong
27th October 07, 08:37 PM
Because you sure are winning that war on drugs, eh ?

Widespread abuse of Cocaine and Heroin came after their criminalisation.

Not in China when opium abuse was at it's peak during the so called 'opium wars' with britain. (oh you brits and your fucked up history of doing fucked up things) It was made illegal in an attempt to help end the corrosion going on in society.

People were comitting alot of crimes in china during this period to both make money from the drug trade and to buy the drugs. addicts are so desperate to get the drugs they'll do anything for them. You see, in a free trade environment a product that is desired above others naturally gravitates to higher prices.

People are willing to pay obscene amounts of money if they can get high. Forcing the price lower, will in effect make the drugs more readily available to poorer people. Legalizing them will end some of the stigma attached to them, inclining more people to engage in using them.

These drugs are poisons and shouldn't be allowed to be sold under any conditions. This may be a controversial stance to take, but I think those drugs should be dealt with on a more severe level for dealers and growers than we do now. Of course, drug smugglers at the higher ends don't do it themself, they sacrifice pawns and stay safely at a distance.

I'd be fine with more draconian measures to go after them though. Unlike alot of liberal types, I believe wholeheartedly in killing certain members of society to benefit the benign majority of society.

Sun Wukong
27th October 07, 08:42 PM
For fuck's sake, why are you making it so goddamn difficult? Let us stick to the western world, specifically the US of motherfucking A for now, ok, and not talk about what the Chinese bans on opium and the resulting opium wars. What's next, you're gonna be drawing parallels to the Hashishim?

it's perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand. Limiting the argument to only the points that support your own argument is asinine.

Sun Wukong
27th October 07, 08:44 PM
meth, opium, heroin and coke are poisons and should be treated like poisons. What's next? do we legalize cherry flavored cyanide? Just because it makes you happy for a few moments doesn't change the fact that those drugs are poison.

Sun Wukong
27th October 07, 09:02 PM
For fucks sakes, it's proven that making something illegal makes people want it more. Look at times where education was outlawed by a dictator or a state or something. People would gather and fucking study together.

Yes, it's different because learning actually helps, but now that education is forced, how many people actually want to learn? Even from the people who go to college, how many want an education vs having a piece of paper to make some money?

Also look at abstinence vowes and stuff like that. More girls tend to get pregnant and engage in sex in general when they aren't supposed to.

I think this is a huge over simplification. Making something illegal doesn't make you want it more, it makes you more prone to go to further lengths to get what you want. It makes one more likely to engage in further crimes to protect themself for criminal prosecution of the original crime.

In the case of making education illegal, those people would have wanted an education regardless of whether it was legal before or not. They are just the people willing to go to a further distance than others.

I seriously doubt there would be guys hanging out on street corners selling text books out of the back of a van on every other corner with a 9mm wedged in their belt.

Sun Wukong
27th October 07, 09:11 PM
However, if these things were legal, the price would go down, and become easier to get because the drug families/CIA would no longer have a monopoly on the product, and the crack head/heroin addicts would be less likely to do fucked up things.
No, the people selling the drugs would be less likely to do fucked up things. The people buying it would still be doing the same shit to get their fix. The prices wouldn't come down as much as you think they would.




Now I am not condoning the use of said drugs, however, the War on Drugs is simply a method for a drug monopoly in the US.

And yes, of course, it involves the CIA. Our economy depends on it!
Drug monopoly: ok, yeah, I'm a glutton for punishment, please tell me of the great drug monopoly set up by the CIA. I know that the CIA did all kinds of fucked up things in south america and central america, but that was a giant case of the CIA having a split objective in south america. Fight the communists and fight the drug cartels. To do one, frequently they had to help the other. For the most part, if they had their choice between getting rid of communists and getting rid of drug dealers, they chose to get rid of the 'reds'.

Getting rid of the communists was alot easier to do anyway.... even if the CIA never actually managed to get rid of communism in south america. They came alot closer to suppressing them than the drug dealers at any rate even when they carried out hugely successful missions it barely put a dent on the supply of coke/heroin.

WarPhalange
28th October 07, 12:11 AM
The CIA did LSD tests on people, usually without consent. But I don't think they're on the street selling drugs or stuff like that...

Cullion
28th October 07, 06:10 AM
meth, opium, heroin and coke are poisons and should be treated like poisons. What's next? do we legalize cherry flavored cyanide? Just because it makes you happy for a few moments doesn't change the fact that those drugs are poison.

Cherry flavoured cyanide is legal. No law against possession or supply. And guess what: NO ADDICTION PROBLEM.

DAYoung
28th October 07, 06:30 AM
These drugs are poisons and shouldn't be allowed to be sold under any conditions. This may be a controversial stance to take, but I think those drugs should be dealt with on a more severe level for dealers and growers than we do now. Of course, drug smugglers at the higher ends don't do it themself, they sacrifice pawns and stay safely at a distance.

I'm assuming you want to ban cigarettes as well.

Cullion
28th October 07, 07:36 AM
And Alcohol. Causes an awful lot of violence and is a proven cause of liver disease and linked to a range of other health problems.

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 07:48 AM
Cherry flavoured cyanide is legal. No law against possession or supply. And guess what: NO ADDICTION PROBLEM.


actually cyanide is a controlled substance in the US.

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 07:58 AM
And Alcohol. Causes an awful lot of violence and is a proven cause of liver disease and linked to a range of other health problems.
are you seriously comparing the effects of heroin and coke to the effects of alcohol?

I'm guessing you've never seen a crackhead go into a psychotic fit while trying to score crack. If you're willing to expose yourself to unprotected sex or share dirty needles in order to score a fix, the odd's are your drug problems are far worse than wanting a 40 of malt liqour and a pack of camels.

I've never seen someone beg to be paid for diseased sex so they can smoke a few menthols. No no, those drugs destroy people not just physically but they burn a hole right through a persons mind.

I've seen shameless drunks, hell, I've been a shameless drunk. It never dawned on me the need to debase myself, steal, or severely risk my health to get a drink. Some alcoholics can get that bad, but the percentage of addicts to alcohol vs. the percentage of addicts to drugs like heroin, meth and coke who get that bad are far worse.

I've been smoking cigarettes for 7 years, my cousin shannon has been smoking meth for 4 years. Guess which one of us weighs more than 120lbs (54 kilograms to you metric types).

Cullion
28th October 07, 09:42 AM
are you seriously comparing the effects of heroin and coke to the effects of alcohol?

Yes.



I'm guessing you've never seen a crackhead go into a psychotic fit while trying to score crack.

No, but I've seen plenty of drunks cut people's faces up with broken beer bottles for bumping into them/staring at their woman/etc..



I've never seen someone beg to be paid for diseased sex so they can smoke a few menthols.



I've been smoking cigarettes for 7 years, my cousin shannon has been smoking meth for 4 years. Guess which one of us weighs more than 120lbs (54 kilograms to you metric types).

But Meth is already illegal. You're planning to help your Cousin out by making it more illegal. Ok, I can understand you wanting to protect her, but your DEA has been using pretty damn harsh powers of enforcement and damn strong prison sentences for decades now. It's not working.

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 10:04 AM
Shannon is a guy, and he's about 5'10". Last time he was in the hospital his weight dropped down to almost 100lbs. Honestly, I don't even remotely like him; even before he got on meth. He was a multiple felon before he got out of high school.

My family's weird like that. The first time he went up the river for a felony I asked his brother what his family was going to do. He told me, "Well, I'm thinking about getting the sound system out of his truck."

Honestly, I'd be fine with just shooting meth manufacturers in the head as soon as they're caught. I have a different morality than alot of people do. Some things deserve to be handled with a bit more of a heavier hand. Incarceration doesn't help addicts though; they need treatment they can't get in a prison. The pathology of drug addiction has to be treated as well as the physical addiction.

What I know more than anything is that some people deserve to die for their crimes. Manufacturing meth has such a catastrophic chain of effects that manifest in the real world, I don't think that meth dealers should be suffered to live if punishments are really ment to fit their crimes.

Cullion
28th October 07, 10:55 AM
Honestly, I'd be fine with just shooting meth manufacturers in the head as soon as they're caught. I have a different morality than alot of people do. Some things deserve to be handled with a bit more of a heavier hand. Incarceration doesn't help addicts though; they need treatment they can't get in a prison. The pathology of drug addiction has to be treated as well as the physical addiction.

What I know more than anything is that some people deserve to die for their crimes. Manufacturing meth has such a catastrophic chain of effects that manifest in the real world, I don't think that meth dealers should be suffered to live if punishments are really ment to fit their crimes.

How American and bloody minded. Satisfying? yes. Works? no.

"Distrust all those in whom the urge to punish is strong"

jvjim
28th October 07, 01:50 PM
The criminal system's aim should be justice, not revenge. Yes, those who run meth labs are scum, but the best way to destroy them is to take away their environment by helping to stimulate local economies and helping your neighbors educate themselves. That's what’s so disgusting about the current Wars on Drugs, Illiteracy, Teen Pregnancy, etc; is that the blame doesn't rest with the government, but with a populace who wants legislation and Gestapo to take the place of community action.

DAYoung
28th October 07, 03:01 PM
are you seriously comparing the effects of heroin and coke to the effects of alcohol?

Yes.

Cigarettes, for example, are "the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States" (more here (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm)).

Cigarettes are addictive, and full of known carcinogens, tetrogens and toxins. In many cases, these are made more potent by being burned.

By your criteria, they're poisons, and should be banned. And Big Tobacco should be shot.

DAYoung
28th October 07, 03:04 PM
actually cyanide is a controlled substance in the US.

The irony.

Cyanide is in cigarette smoke (more here (http://www.nosmokingday.org.uk/smokers/inacigarette.htm)), along with arsenic and benzene.

jvjim
28th October 07, 04:12 PM
So it comes to one question; what's the greater evil? Bladder cancer (which arises almost exclusively in cases of prolonged smoking of cigarettes) or mild short term memory loss (such as is the case with cannabis?)

NoMan
28th October 07, 06:31 PM
I've always been in support of legalizing marijuana. Compare the most rampant marijuana addict, (I've never heard of such a thing, but pretend) to any other addict, including a meth, cigarette, or alcohol addict, and I'm betting the marijuana addict doesn't have high levels of domestic abuse, high patterns of car wrecks, or join gangs and commit acts of arson, theft, and murder.

The reason it isn't probably has more to do with the early history of marijuana being banned, which was that it would turn white people lazy and ignorant like black people. Secondly, I don't think pharmaceutical companies want to compete with marijuana as a means of self-medication. Most forms of depression are minor and temporary, and marijuana is an easy form of self-medication. That would spell disaster for the following drugs:

Lexapro, Cipralex, Zoloft, Lustral, Apo-Sertral, Asentra, Gladem, Serlift, Stimuloton, Effexor XR, Effexor, Wellbutrin XR, Zyban, Cymbalta, Paxil, Seroxat, and Aropax. 11% of women and 5% of men in the U.S. are on anti-depressents, (by the way Cullion, look at that studly list of "me too" drugs, and that's not all of them), and I'm betting the legalization of marijuana would bring with it a huge downsizing in profits.

It also jams up our jails with enormous amounts of criminals, increases the demand for lawyers, judges, police officers, and other beaurocrats that drain society, (much as I recognize their use in society, a society which didn't need any of those people would be far more efficient than one that had more of them), decreases the population of working people, and is just plain dumb.There's no rational or justification for it.

And Hillary would hate to run against Ron Paul. Guiliani has had the religious right threaten to walk out from him, a major supporter of Right-Wingers and a definite cut in their voting capability, almost clinching a win for Clinton. Additionally, he has no independent appeal; a war hawk who wants to trample American freedoms into the ground and morph the U.S. into a police state. Oh yay!

Ron Paul has a solid chance at winning the religious rights support, can pull in independent voters, has a better record to brag about than Hillary, and can debate without resorting to cliches. The downside is he's going to be on the wrong side of a lot of American "third-rail" issues, like Social Security and Health Care. His ability to get around that and beat Hillary's very keen political maneuvering would be the hard part.

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 07:01 PM
How American and bloody minded. Satisfying? yes. Works? no.

"Distrust all those in whom the urge to punish is strong"

I'm not after revenge. I think there should be a place to go after life sentences. Hell, I wish there were degree's of execution from "humane", to "torn limb from limb by axe wielding maniac" or "peeled like an onion until dead (people have layers)".

Life sentences sure as hell don't seem to work very well either. Especially here in the states where they hand them out for punishments that aren't remotely equitable. Did you know that the guy given the longest series of life sentences (at one time at least) in California never once physically hurt anybody in his entire life of crime: he was given more time than Jeffrey Dahmer, the son of sam, and child murderer's for a long series of armed robberies. He never hurt anybody, even turned himself in of his own accord and even if you added up all the money he took, he never got more than $20,000 (btw, he was a meth addict trying to feed his habit).

Is that fucking equitable? You can get a life sentence for getting busted selling over a pound of pot three times thanks the 3rd strike rule and wind up sitting next to a child serial murderer/rapist. I won't deny the US justice system is fucked up and needs to take a long hard look at some of the shit they do, but putting an end to death sentences isn't necessarily one of them. They just need to put a cap on the punishments a person can recieve for some crimes, even if done alot.

The US Criminal Justice system needs a head to toe overhaul in crime and punishment in my opinion with regards to the idea of what is and isn't an excessive punishment.

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 07:06 PM
The irony.

Cyanide is in cigarette smoke (more here (http://www.nosmokingday.org.uk/smokers/inacigarette.htm)), along with arsenic and benzene.

Over enough time, cigarettes are sure to kill people.

Of course, I know how bad cigarettes are for people, but they still don't match up remotely to coke, meth and heroin. I wish pot were legal, I'd have a better place to go with my smoking habits I think. I could just quit... but I'm just not ready to give up the ghost yet.

Cullion
28th October 07, 07:07 PM
I'm not after revenge.

hmm....


I think there should be a place to go after life sentences. Hell, I wish there were degree's of execution from "humane", to "torn limb from limb by axe wielding maniac" or "peeled like an onion until dead (people have layers)".

O RLY?



Is that fucking equitable? You can get a life sentence for getting busted selling over a pound of pot three times thanks the 3rd strike rule and wind up sitting next to a child serial murderer/rapist. I won't deny the US justice system is fucked up and needs to take a long hard look at some of the shit they do, but putting an end to death sentences isn't necessarily one of them. They just need to put a cap on the punishments a person can recieve for some crimes, even if done alot.

Sure.

I think the death sentence is a bad idea on one ground only:-

Mistakes are irreversible.

And yes, from 20th century British history I know of mistakes that happened even with confessions and multiple eye-witnesses involved.

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 07:25 PM
Yes.

Cigarettes, for example, are "the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States" (more here (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm)).

Cigarettes are addictive, and full of known carcinogens, tetrogens and toxins. In many cases, these are made more potent by being burned.

By your criteria, they're poisons, and should be banned. And Big Tobacco should be shot.

Not quite. Tobacco is shitty stuff in the long run, but in comparison to other drugs it pales. It's more widely abused because the effects take far longer to manifest but there is ample room to stop smoking. If you take enough doses of tylenol everyday it will kill you by eroding your liver, as well as tons of other over the counter drugs.

Cullion
28th October 07, 07:38 PM
I know people who use Cocaine and function. Functioning Heroin use is rarer. I don't think Crystal Meth is used much in the UK, if at all. It seems to be more of a North American poor white trash phenomenon.

My point is that both these narcotics are both extremely illegal already, and the problem has gotten worse rather than better after prohibition.

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 07:48 PM
Well, they were prohibited very early in their infancy of use in the US and europe. They simply weren't in such wide demand. As highly addictive drugs, their user base has a way of expanding quickly especially among people with poor risk assessment skills regardless of legality. The dealers and manufacturers should be the prime targets of criminal prosecution.

The users themselves should be cut a little more slack to a point.

Cullion
28th October 07, 07:58 PM
Why are you mentally blanking over the point that the problem got worse after they were banned? Doesn't that suggest to you that the approach is a failed one?

Sun Wukong
28th October 07, 08:07 PM
The problem got a whole lot better in China after opium was made illegal, and after the british pushers were kicked out. Ironically, one of the ways that Mao funded the revolution was through the sale of opium to national party controlled areas.

Just because they were made illegal in the US long before the problem exploded in the US does't demonstrate causation between the two events.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 12:40 AM
Not quite. Tobacco is shitty stuff in the long run, but in comparison to other drugs it pales. It's more widely abused because the effects take far longer to manifest but there is ample room to stop smoking. If you take enough doses of tylenol everyday it will kill you by eroding your liver, as well as tons of other over the counter drugs.

I really can't see how it 'pales'. It kills more people than any other drug. It's highly addictive. And it's got more toxins than something like pharmaceutical opium (which isn't actually a toxin).

If you wanted to get rid of a dangerous drug that's addicting and killing millions, cigarettes would be the most obvious choice.

You don't think that, as an addict, you're a little biased?

Riddeck
29th October 07, 02:10 AM
No, the people selling the drugs would be less likely to do fucked up things. The people buying it would still be doing the same shit to get their fix. The prices wouldn't come down as much as you think they would.



Drug monopoly: ok, yeah, I'm a glutton for punishment, please tell me of the great drug monopoly set up by the CIA. I know that the CIA did all kinds of fucked up things in south america and central america, but that was a giant case of the CIA having a split objective in south america. Fight the communists and fight the drug cartels. To do one, frequently they had to help the other. For the most part, if they had their choice between getting rid of communists and getting rid of drug dealers, they chose to get rid of the 'reds'.

Getting rid of the communists was alot easier to do anyway.... even if the CIA never actually managed to get rid of communism in south america. They came alot closer to suppressing them than the drug dealers at any rate even when they carried out hugely successful missions it barely put a dent on the supply of coke/heroin.


I will only touch lightly, as I know you will not look for yourself, and I am frankly too lazy to put up too many links...however...

A gentleman by the name of Mike Ruppert has hours of footage from many 'lectures' he has given MOSTLY about the CIA. He touches on a lot of things, but CIA is one of his huge targets. He is an Ex LAPD drug detective (he also comes from a list of CIA employees, mother, father, uncle) who uncovered the CIA trafficking Cocaine and Heroin in the 80s, apparently he was approached to 'protect' drug dealers as well. This vid is of him confronting then CIA Director Deutch about it.

He has many interesting videos, some are pretty fun, explaining how the CIA was formed as a result of the "National Security Act" of 53(?) which was penned by a Wall Street Lawyer. I cannot recall the name. He also points out how many of the directors and assistant directors were Wall street bankers and lawyers before they joined the CIA.

There is tons of evidence to support this of course. Mike Ruppert has many of interesting things to say, and it might be worth while to check out some of his lectures.

Also, he approaches things from a much better perspective than I do of course, as a detective who would be going to trial with his evidence. (I apparently am too lazy to do the work for ya)

On the note of the Cocaine/Heroin discussion earlier...he recalls the movie "Tombstone" where Wyatt's wife was addicted to the Opium based medicine, cannot recall the name.

The point is that there was rampant drug use/addiction, but because it was not illegal, the price was low, and people did not have to do crazy shit to get it. That of course is not always the case, however. People will always do fucked up shit.

As for the Justice system...all about the money baby! Make more money holding someone prisoner than you do letting em go (Marijuana offenders in mind).


As for the Liberty attack, allow me to rephrase my entire thought on it. It 'may' not have been the catalyst pushing the US fully into the Vietnam war (still looking for that) however (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/90418.php) it was indeed a cover-up and while this article does not talk about LBJ's involvement in it, it is said to have been under direct orders of LBJ to sink the U.S.S. Liberty. Order I guess would be a request since he had Israel do it.

(http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/)

Yeah.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 02:34 AM
I really can't see how it 'pales'. It kills more people than any other drug. It's highly addictive. And it's got more toxins than something like pharmaceutical opium (which isn't actually a toxin).
Compare the statistical pure percentile of people who die from smoking out of all smokers and the percentage of people who totally ruin their lives, and die from illnesses or overdosing as directly related to meth, crack, and heroin. There are no recreational heroin users; there's junkies and there's people who don't use it.



If you wanted to get rid of a dangerous drug that's addicting and killing millions, cigarettes would be the most obvious choice.

You don't think that, as an addict, you're a little biased?
As a smoker, it certainly seems cigarettes are far easier to quit than meth. I'll stop smoking cigarettes for a week or two after waking up with a bad cough; my cousin wouldn't stop smoking meth when he was dangerously ill, under house arrest, on parole and facing a lengthy prison stay. It seems intellectually dishonest to me to compare the severity of the big tobacco sins to the pure death made by bathtub chemists.

Cigarettes kill more people because the social and life consequences of smoking are far less than other drugs. It doesn't impact your ability to function in the workplace, make you more prone to felonious acts, or encourage you to put your life at risk other than by the act of smoking tobacco itself. Did you know that some institutions today let hospitalized psychotics have cigarette breaks? You know why? It calms them down. It relaxes them just a little and helps them keep a clear mind while other drugs to calm them muddle their brains to the point of making them incapable of meaningful interactions in therapy.

I'm no fool, i know tobacco is lethal and has a tendency to cause horrible slow deaths. But I'll take lung cancer over heroin or meth addiction any day; those people live in another kind of hell.

Riddeck
29th October 07, 03:20 AM
Compare the statistical pure percentile of people who die from smoking out of all smokers and the percentage of people who totally ruin their lives, and die from illnesses or overdosing as directly related to meth, crack, and heroin. There are no recreational heroin users; there's junkies and there's people who don't use it.


As a smoker, it certainly seems cigarettes are far easier to quit than meth. I'll stop smoking cigarettes for a week or two after waking up with a bad cough; my cousin wouldn't stop smoking meth when he was dangerously ill, under house arrest, on parole and facing a lengthy prison stay. It seems intellectually dishonest to me to compare the severity of the big tobacco sins to the pure death made by bathtub chemists.

Cigarettes kill more people because the social and life consequences of smoking are far less than other drugs. It doesn't impact your ability to function in the workplace, make you more prone to felonious acts, or encourage you to put your life at risk other than by the act of smoking tobacco itself. Did you know that some institutions today let hospitalized psychotics have cigarette breaks? You know why? It calms them down. It relaxes them just a little and helps them keep a clear mind while other drugs to calm them muddle their brains to the point of making them incapable of meaningful interactions in therapy.

I'm no fool, i know tobacco is lethal and has a tendency to cause horrible slow deaths. But I'll take lung cancer over heroin or meth addiction any day; those people live in another kind of hell.

You are a smoker. Stopping for two weeks does not mean you have quit. So how can you even compare that to a meth addicted cousin, when you are both addicts? Big tobacco companies are just bathtub chemists with more money, and a larger, legal operation.

I manage a kitchen, and I feel, that cigarettes do impact some people's ability to function in the work place. If in an 8 hour shift a smoker does not get his cigarette break (which happens in multiple hour stretches, of course), he may get agitated and or distracted, which directly effects his ability to work (I am certain this applies to other areas of work as well). If then, they are allowed their breaks (in a kitchen, most of the time, breaks come when you can get them, not on a schedule), they are then impacting my work, cause I have to cover for them while they go outside and smoke for 5 minutes.

As for the relaxation...well yeah, a person addicted to nicotine and suffering from withdrawals will in fact relax when he has his fix. Why not teach them to meditate? Some say smoking's relaxation comes from the deep inhalation, as well as the nicotine.

Another kind of hell?

Hell is hell, I would say.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 03:32 AM
Seriously, when one of your employee's grabs a steak knife and threatens to kill you over a missed cigarette please let me know.

Why don't you try to teach a crack addict to meditate sometime. That should be good for an evening of transcendental enlightment.

Riddeck
29th October 07, 03:37 AM
Seriously, when one of your employee's grabs a steak knife and threatens to kill you over a missed cigarette please let me know.

Why don't you try to teach a crack addict to meditate sometime. That should be good for an evening of transcendental enlightment.

I was just making a point, an addict is an addict. The severity of course matters.

And my mother was a crack addict (tragically) for a number of years, so I am well aware how these 'zombies' act. However, an addict in a hospital should be past the point of physical withdrawal, so yeah, teaching them alternative modes of self control and awareness might be better than offering them another addiction.

Have you watched any of that vid I posted?

Here is a good one, also.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpxNRiJcS1E)

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 04:01 AM
actually i did take a few minutes to read up on the various explainations for the liberty attack. It still seems to me as though it was an unintentional attack.

Now, that first article didn't give any explaination as to why LBJ would have ordered the attack, but it did suggest why he would have insisted that it be classified an accident. To preserve the strong relationship with Israel that we hold.

There are glaring mistakes that the Israeli's would have had to make in order to assault the USS Liberty, but honestly I've watched US Apache helicopter footage of US pilots firing on what are clearly US Bradley Fighting Vehicles. At the time, I couldn't believe nobody in the cockpit didn't ID them as friendlies.

Military operations sometimes get fucked up and the details get lost in the heat of the moment. I feel that the Israeli pilots were so intent on sinking the liberty that they failed to notice they were clearly attacking the wrong vessel.

All that being said, the ship was clearly marked, flying a US flag, and twice the size of the vessel they claimed to be attacking. It's possible they really were trying to sink the Liberty intentionally, but I think it's unlikely. I do think the israeli's completely fucked up and should have ordered the israeli pilots and attacking crews to trial for incompetency at the bare minimum.

That doesn't explain why they used such ineffectual munitions against the liberty however. They could have used 'harpoon' bombs that were easily capable of sinking a 'victory' class ship and they could have easily loaded them if they wanted to make short and sweet work of the vessel. Instead, they attacked with machine guns and napalm which weren't suitable weapons against the liberty.

Of course, Israel has pulled some fast ones before, but at that time it really seems unlikely they'd directly attack a US vessel purposefully and if so, one would think they would have been loaded for bear instead of carrying 'bird shot' as it were.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:04 AM
Seriously, when one of your employee's grabs a steak knife and threatens to kill you over a missed cigarette please let me know.

Why don't you try to teach a crack addict to meditate sometime. That should be good for an evening of transcendental enlightment.

Right. So drugs are only bad when they lead to immediate violent crime.

How convenient - the most deadly drugs in our society are, by this criterion, harmless (because they take longer to kill you, and don't always lead to violence).

And you're not an addict, you're a harmless recreational drug user. You could give up any time. And so could all of the other addicts who keep tobacco companies in business.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:05 AM
As a smoker, it certainly seems cigarettes are far easier to quit than meth. I'll stop smoking cigarettes for a week or two after waking up with a bad cough; my cousin wouldn't stop smoking meth when he was dangerously ill, under house arrest, on parole and facing a lengthy prison stay. It seems intellectually dishonest to me to compare the severity of the big tobacco sins to the pure death made by bathtub chemists.

Now I realise. My problem is that I'm intellectually dishonest.

Phew.

Thanks for saving me the time.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 04:06 AM
Oh don't be so dramatic.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:07 AM
there is ample room to stop smoking

Funny how people don't.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:08 AM
Oh don't be so dramatic.

My mistake. Sorry again.

Maybe I should just leave the thinking to you.

I'm clearly not very good at it. I'm all irrational and stuff.

I blame hormones.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 04:10 AM
I'm saying that there are degree's of bad. The common cold and flu kill more people in the US every year than avian bird flu and small pox kills world wide every year. The bird flu and small pox are far more fatal and need to addressed far more severely.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:12 AM
I agree that there are 'degrees of bad'.

Smoking is worse, and should be addressed more stringently.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:13 AM
Maybe all this arguing is stressing you.

Cigarette?

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 04:30 AM
just had one thanks. I wasn't inferring that you're intellectually dishonest, I was speaking in terms of my own thoughts on the matter. I go out of my way to avoid blaming disagreements on other people's short comings; that's a bit of an argumentative weakness i'd prefer not to have. Except for Mr. Jones, who is both crazy and retarded and likes goatse for sexual relief purposes; sick bastard really.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 04:50 AM
*cough cough*

*hack hack*

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 05:10 AM
you only poison the ones you hate.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 05:21 AM
http://www.lifeeducation.com.au/media/quit.gif (http://www.quit.org.au/)

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 05:32 AM
I have my reasons for smoking, none of them are good. If I really were the bastion of willpower that i'd like to be, then I probably wouldn't have any of the problems that incline me towards carcinogenic recreational habits. Honestly, I have far worse problems on my plate. I promise you this, if I'm still posting on this website in 60 days, then I'll quit smoking or at least try to.

Cullion
29th October 07, 05:44 AM
I'll quit smoking or at least try to.

So you're promising to wait 2 months until we've all forgotten and then just.. try.. for a few hours ?

Cullion
29th October 07, 05:45 AM
Look Dr. Young, it's really this simple. Adults should be allowed to kill themselves slowly if they want.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 05:52 AM
But not quickly, right? Quickly: bad. Slowly: good.

Hmmm.

But doesn't this mean we should decriminalise heroin?

bob
29th October 07, 05:54 AM
People should be free to smoke, anywhere and anywhen they chose. Seriously.


They should all be issued with one of these first though.


http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/76/12/23211276.jpg

DAYoung
29th October 07, 06:01 AM
Drug companies own me. But cigarettes are ok - I'm one of billions, most of whom aren't crazed criminals with tire irons.

Good on you, tiger.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 06:01 AM
People should be free to smoke, anywhere and anywhen they chose. Seriously.


They should all be issued with one of these first though.


http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/76/12/23211276.jpg

mah halitosees machoine

Cullion
29th October 07, 06:08 AM
But not quickly, right? Quickly: bad. Slowly: good.

Hmmm.

But doesn't this mean we should decriminalise heroin?

No, they can do it fast too if they want. I'm for full drug decriminalisation.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 06:17 AM
No, they can do it fast too if they want. I'm for full drug decriminalisation.

Even chocolate? Surely not chocolate?

THINK OF THE MESSAGE YOU'LL BE SENDING THE CHILDREN.

http://www.erikstormtrooper.com/wedcake.jpg

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 06:52 AM
Good on you, tiger.

Drama queen.

Cullion
29th October 07, 07:00 AM
The problem got a whole lot better in China after opium was made illegal, and after the british pushers were kicked out. Ironically, one of the ways that Mao funded the revolution was through the sale of opium to national party controlled areas.

No doubt once the glorious revolution took hold figures from the Maoist government showed all kinds of other social problems were fixed over night. There are no gays or AIDS in China either. None at all.



Just because they were made illegal in the US long before the problem exploded in the US does't demonstrate causation between the two events.

It does show that the proposed solution isn't working.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 07:19 AM
No doubt once the glorious revolution took hold figures from the Maoist government showed all kinds of other social problems were fixed over night. There are no gays or AIDS in China either. None at all.

Until relatively recently, there wasn't really a large AIDS problem in China, but in the Hunan district specifically and a few other smaller places things have taken a different turn. China has a much more reserved sexual culture than the west, thankfully. So, where are you parroting this crap from anyway? It seems like you're reciting some propaganda from somewhere.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 07:22 AM
Oh, you think the communists didn't empty out the drug dens? Is that what you're saying, because you can very well bet they did. Importing and selling opium became a capital offense under Mao.

He fucked up alot of things in that country, and it's a shame that so many people have died under his incompetency, but they put the boots to the drug culture of china very heavily.

Cullion
29th October 07, 07:30 AM
Until relatively recently, there wasn't really a large AIDS problem in China, but in the Hunan district specifically and a few other smaller places things have taken a different turn. China has a much more reserved sexual culture than the west, thankfully. So, where are you parroting this crap from anyway? It seems like you're reciting some propaganda from somewhere.

Are you really trying to tell me that the chinese govt. hasn't proclaimed an awful lot of imaginary 'successes' or complete absence of social problems in the past ?

Chinese sexual culture isn't more reserved in many aspects, but it is more private.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 10:09 AM
Of course not, Mao would have taken credit for the sun coming up if he could have. But does that recrimination doesn't mean they didn't push out the opium dens? You can bet they sure as hell did.

Being labeled an enemy of the revolution was a death sentence for a long time in china. The government didn't even have to get you; an angry mob would do the job just as quickly.

I lived in China in recent years, speak a fair bit of the language, and had alot of long conversations about drugs in China; the majority of chinese guys have never seen an illegal drug of any kind in his life. The vast majority have never even known anyone who has ever even smoked pot, especially not in China.

Crack, meth and heroin? You can get it, but not from the locals and not just in any town. You'll have to buy it from Nigerians who know better than selling it to the locals; they sell it to the europeans, austrailians and americans.

Riddeck
29th October 07, 03:13 PM
actually i did take a few minutes to read up on the various explainations for the liberty attack. It still seems to me as though it was an unintentional attack.

Now, that first article didn't give any explaination as to why LBJ would have ordered the attack, but it did suggest why he would have insisted that it be classified an accident. To preserve the strong relationship with Israel that we hold.

There are glaring mistakes that the Israeli's would have had to make in order to assault the USS Liberty, but honestly I've watched US Apache helicopter footage of US pilots firing on what are clearly US Bradley Fighting Vehicles. At the time, I couldn't believe nobody in the cockpit didn't ID them as friendlies.

Military operations sometimes get fucked up and the details get lost in the heat of the moment. I feel that the Israeli pilots were so intent on sinking the liberty that they failed to notice they were clearly attacking the wrong vessel.

All that being said, the ship was clearly marked, flying a US flag, and twice the size of the vessel they claimed to be attacking. It's possible they really were trying to sink the Liberty intentionally, but I think it's unlikely. I do think the israeli's completely fucked up and should have ordered the israeli pilots and attacking crews to trial for incompetency at the bare minimum.

That doesn't explain why they used such ineffectual munitions against the liberty however. They could have used 'harpoon' bombs that were easily capable of sinking a 'victory' class ship and they could have easily loaded them if they wanted to make short and sweet work of the vessel. Instead, they attacked with machine guns and napalm which weren't suitable weapons against the liberty.

Of course, Israel has pulled some fast ones before, but at that time it really seems unlikely they'd directly attack a US vessel purposefully and if so, one would think they would have been loaded for bear instead of carrying 'bird shot' as it were.


Not sure where the quote is from, but it was from LBJ speaking to a commanding officer saying "I want that goddamned ship sunk" or something in that nature. Just something I have heard, not sure where the source for this is , offhand.

As for the drug debate, my friend is back from Korea for a short time, he is there teaching English and living life. He has not seen MJ since he left over 2 years ago. Random, I guess.

As for the legality, yes, if you can legally smoke cigarettes, you should be able to smoke weed, or shoot heroin if you so choose. I am a bit against saying you can do other things, like meth, or some other chemical, simply because it is just that, a chemical...but this is one's personal choice. I really do not care what drugs you do, and why you do them, so long as it does not fuck with me, or people I care about.

As for crazy shit that crazy people do....there will always be crazy people, weather they are crazy for food, crazy for drugs, or crazy just to be crazy. I study martial arts partially, for these reasons.

However, you gotta take out the legs or the heads of those zombies.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 03:22 PM
Drama queen.

http://www.wclynx.com/burntofferings/littlekingad.jpg

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 10:12 PM
Yeah, I'm not saying that we need to kill all the drug addicts, but I think some socially responsible measures that may offend should be taken. I'm all for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but I don't feel bad about with-holding a few of those things from dangerous people in calculated situations to those who represent a serious risk to the lives of many more people than just them.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 10:12 PM
I won't be tricked in to quitting by your clever ruse.

DAYoung
29th October 07, 10:28 PM
Yeah, I'm not saying that we need to kill all the drug addicts, but I think some socially responsible measures that may offend should be taken. I'm all for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but I don't feel bad about with-holding a few of those things from dangerous people in calculated situations to those who represent a serious risk to the lives of many more people than just them.

Right. So you agree with prohibition on cigarettes, and prison for tobacco company executives.

Good on you.

You can just bin your packets now, if you like.

Sun Wukong
29th October 07, 10:58 PM
I won't be tricked in to quitting by your clever ruse.

WarPhalange
30th October 07, 12:09 AM
prison for tobacco company executives.

I don't see why this hasn't happened yet. Pharma companies get sued all the time over drugs with adverse side-effects. Cigarrettes do what?

bob
30th October 07, 03:40 AM
C'mon chris, DA. You guys are too smart to be arguing like this.

Can't we just sit down together over a beer and sort this out?

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 04:07 AM
Damon knows I'm only fighting with him because of all the built up homo-erotic tension.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 04:11 AM
C'mon chris, DA. You guys are too smart to be arguing like this.

Hey Chris, look at what the funny man said.


Can't we just sit down together over a beer and sort this out?

Freight me some ale, and we'll talk.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 04:12 AM
Damon knows I'm only fighting with him because of all the built up homo-erotic tension.

Listen, lover boy: if you want to be my number-one man, you will remove than hyphen from 'homo-erotic', and put it in 'built up'.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 04:16 AM
I don't see why this hasn't happened yet. Pharma companies get sued all the time over drugs with adverse side-effects. Cigarrettes do what?

Laramie cigarettes hit your Y Zone with their patented Hyper-Tastol.

NoMan
30th October 07, 04:16 AM
Look Dr. Young, it's really this simple. Adults should be allowed to kill themselves slowly if they want.

This goes back to the public goods/negative externality debate that makes my liberal bleeding heart cry. So long as a pack of cigarettes pays for all costs in future health care payments and other negatives, I'm all for it. If it doesn't, the deferred cost gets transferred onto society, and that means that the packs of cigarettes are subsidized goods.

As I see it, the drugs with the lowest externalities and that are easiest to quit are the least bad. Cocaine is a high class drug, it's very potent for helping you stay up, get things done, and think more clearly. But then again, Rick James showed that cocaine can be a hell of a drug. (Then again, there's no telling what else he was using with it.) From my experience, it's not very addictive, (I can't afford much), lasts a decent amount of time (45 to an hour), and you can still function very well, no need to wreck your car into people or anything crazy like that.

So I'll go for cocaine legalization and legalization of marijuana. MDMA and steroids also, same criterion of "do what you want to yourself". But, I won't go for crack, PCP, meth, heroine, or Rohypnol legalization though.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 04:21 AM
Just to confirm: if we just upped the cost of cigarettes to pay for health care, would that be fine by you?

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 05:31 AM
Listen, lover boy: if you want to be my number-one man, you will remove than hyphen from 'homo-erotic', and put it in 'built up'.

Is there a hyphen anywhere in "Over educated bastard"?

DAYoung
30th October 07, 05:57 AM
Yep.

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:09 AM
This goes back to the public goods/negative externality debate that makes my liberal bleeding heart cry. So long as a pack of cigarettes pays for all costs in future health care payments and other negatives, I'm all for it. If it doesn't, the deferred cost gets transferred onto society, and that means that the packs of cigarettes are subsidized goods.

Only in socialised healthcare systems. I'm happy for it to be between a smoker and their insurance company via higher premiums they personally pay.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 06:22 AM
In the US, the Government tried to decrease smoking by increasing prices. One of the side effects was an increase in deaths amongst the poor, particularly the homeless. Unable to afford cigarettes, they smoked discarded cigarette butts, which were far more poisonous.

I haven't got references ready to hand, but I can get them.

Sun Wukong
30th October 07, 06:45 AM
In the US, the Government tried to decrease smoking by increasing prices. One of the side effects was an increase in deaths amongst the poor, particularly the homeless. Unable to afford cigarettes, they smoked discarded cigarette butts, which were far more poisonous.

I haven't got references ready to hand, but I can get them.

You're absolutely right. The most carcinogenic material in cigarettes is from decaying or decayed tobacco that's too dry or has been exposed to excessive moisture. Smoking butt's is the fast track to lung cancer.

bob
30th October 07, 07:29 AM
You drink don't you DA? What's the difference between alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol contributes to long term death in so many lovely ways, not to mention having a significant immediate effect. Ask any paramedic or hospital ER worker and they'll tell you that over half of what they deal with is alcohol related.

I'm not claiming any moral high ground here, I drink myself, but are we really any better than smokers?

Cullion
30th October 07, 07:38 AM
So does eating junk fund, not taking regular cardio and participating in dangerous sports. These are the options:-

1) Socialise the costs and not whine about other people's lifestyles placing an economic burden on people who don't partake in such a risky lifestyle.

2) Socialise the costs and have the gummermint enforce lower-risk lifestyles in order to control healthcare costs

3) Don't socialise the costs and let people pay insurance premiums according to the best rate they can get from insurance actuaries who need to take the risk for that person into account, but also need to compete on price.

The UK is started with 1) and is moving towards 2) (banning smoking being one example 'Junk food taxes' are commonly mooted too).

DAYoung
30th October 07, 03:02 PM
You drink don't you DA?

http://www.spirituosenworld.de/produkte/scotch/details/laphroaig_15years_gr.jpg


What's the difference between alcohol and tobacco[? ...] I drink myself, but are we really any better than smokers?


Alcohol can be more successfully socialised, i.e. enjoyed in moderate amounts, and appreciated ritualistically and/or aesthetically, without negative health effects.

I realise many people can't do this (because of psychology or physiology), but alcohol simply isn't the same kind of drug as nicotine (different neurochemistry).

Having said this, you could change the delivery system for nicotine, and it would be MUCH safer.

EuropIan
30th October 07, 03:11 PM
Having said this, you could change the delivery system for nicotine, and it would be MUCH safer.


But then you wouldn't look as cool.

DAYoung
30th October 07, 03:14 PM
But then you wouldn't look as cool.

I'm sure I don't know what you mean.

http://www.kunskapsmedia.se/img/snus.jpg

EuropIan
30th October 07, 03:20 PM
I'm sure I don't know what you mean.



I'm sure you do

http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/humphrey-bogart-by-yousuf-karsh.jpg

DAYoung
30th October 07, 04:19 PM
Sometimes a cigarette is just a cigarette.

Other times it's code for WHOPPING GREAT ROGER.

Cullion
30th October 07, 06:43 PM
Back to Ron Paul. His betting odds keep improving. William Hill bookmakers in the UK currently have him down to 12/1 (he started as a 100 to something longshot).

Barack Obama, Al Gore and Fred Thompson are all just ahead at 10/1. Ron is now ahead of McCain, Edwards and Huckabee in their estimation.

Riddeck
31st October 07, 01:46 AM
Back to Ron Paul. His betting odds keep improving. William Hill bookmakers in the UK currently have him down to 12/1 (he started as a 100 to something longshot).

Barack Obama, Al Gore and Fred Thompson are all just ahead at 10/1. Ron is now ahead of McCain, Edwards and Huckabee in their estimation.

Because Ron Paul knows the truth. People are rallying. People know the truth, and want to save this world, effectively. Yes the Bilderburg group is controlling the world. Yes they plan on takeover. Yes they use terrorism to further their agendas, and yes, NIST admits that the total collapse of the twin towers unexplainable (without the use of demolition technology?). And god knows what other ends they go to for 'their' cause.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/161007_nist_admits.htm

However, you are all in luck.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&q=Alex+Jones+End+Game&total=508&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

Watch it!

Cullion, I love you the most, I swear.

Sun Wukong
31st October 07, 01:49 AM
that's really strange because I haven't seen a poll yet that even considered him a viable candidate.

Right now it's down to Rudy, Thompson and Clinton, Obama. Clinton certainly looks like she can't lose and Rudy looks like a favorite to win over Thompson.

Though according to gallup polls 60% of voters currently say they won't vote republicadn this year. That's a pretty big hill for the republican's to climb.

Cullion
31st October 07, 10:46 AM
that's really strange because I haven't seen a poll yet that even considered him a viable candidate.

Straw polls and Internet polls and SMS polls routinely have him winning. Most of the 'scientific' polls also show his support increasing, but they are mostly polling people who voted for Bush last time, so they have a substantial inbuilt bias and are conducted upon much smaller samples. His campaign fund growth (almost entirely raised from individual american voters), and the substantial registration numbers of new republicans tell another story (these new republicans don't get polled).


That's a pretty big hill for the republican's to climb.

That's why an anti-war republican is the only shot they've got.

Shawarma
31st October 07, 11:00 AM
Paul has a strong support base on the internet. The internet is not America. He is not a viable candidate and not a threat to anyone.

Cullion
31st October 07, 11:20 AM
Paul has a strong support base on the internet. The internet is not America. He is not a viable candidate and not a threat to anyone.

It's not just the Internet, it's SMS polls and straw polls. It's funding from individual americans. I agree he's not a threat to anybody. Yep, there's still a lot of work to do, but I disagree that he's not a viable candidate.

jvjim
31st October 07, 12:52 PM
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot

Say it ain't so Dr. No!

Cullion
31st October 07, 12:55 PM
Misguided supporter or somebody trying to make him look stupid.

jvjim
31st October 07, 03:37 PM
http://www.thirdeyeconcept.com/?topic=5657.0
Maybe you're right Mercian, maybe you're right.

Cullion
31st October 07, 05:35 PM
Ron Paul needs to spell out a lot of detail on various issues, and there's no realism in expexting everybody to agree with him on every issue, but cheap tactics like that just don't strike me as his style. As far as 'net support goes I really don't think he needs to, and I think his advisors are savvy enough to see that.

bob
31st October 07, 06:04 PM
Do Americans really elect Presidents on their grasp of issues and the detail of their policies? I remember a few weeks back there was a quote from GWB about interest rates which went something like; "Well I'm not the person to ask about that. Heh, I got a 'C' in economics. That's what my advisers are for."

That really blew me away. Not that I thought he had a great grasp of the economy but to so blatantly state that he had no real idea what he was doing.

Zendetta
31st October 07, 06:08 PM
"Likeablity". Yeah, we're dipshits.

Not that Aussies can say much - Aussie politics is apparently so boring you have to be force to vote.

bob
31st October 07, 06:14 PM
"Likeablity". Yeah, we're dipshits.

Not that Aussies can say much - Aussie politics is apparently so boring you have to be force to vote.

In Australia we like our leaders to have as little colour as possible. It's kind of like when you go to choose your accountant or your lawyer - you pick the blandest, most methodical, boring guy you can find in the vain hope that that equates with honesty and competence.

And no, it doesn't seem to work any better.

Zendetta
31st October 07, 07:07 PM
LOL. I know - Howard makes white bread seem spicey by comparison.

Cullion
31st October 07, 08:07 PM
Do Americans really elect Presidents on their grasp of issues and the detail of their policies? I remember a few weeks back there was a quote from GWB about interest rates which went something like; "Well I'm not the person to ask about that. Heh, I got a 'C' in economics. That's what my advisers are for."

That really blew me away. Not that I thought he had a great grasp of the economy but to so blatantly state that he had no real idea what he was doing.

Americans elect people on at least as sound a basis as anybody else does. I think they might still have a 'heartland' core of 'nuts' who still are willing to vote against whoever is trying to just win a popularity contest by promising to hand out the biggest share of other peoples' money. Britain has been dismally failing on that score for a while, even if our pols might give the impression of being a bit more eloquent in debate whilst doing it.

Riddeck
31st October 07, 10:17 PM
Americans elect people on at least as sound a basis as anybody else does. I think they might still have a 'heartland' core of 'nuts' who still are willing to vote against whoever is trying to just win a popularity contest by promising to hand out the biggest share of other peoples' money. Britain has been dismally failing on that score for a while, even if our pols might give the impression of being a bit more eloquent in debate whilst doing it.

Considering the media pushes the two 'candidates to fight over, Americans really do not have much educated choice in the choosing of Presidents. Even when they do, it fails due to electronic voting machines fucking with the votes, and quite frankly, whoever the Bilderburgs want to be President will become President.

Bill Clinton attended a Bilderburg meeting in 1991. In 1992 he became President. Hillary attended last year in 06, and guess who the leading Democrat is in the whole flock of them.

Yeah, it is all fucked.

And I like how you ignored the my last post. Read that shit and stop fucking around.

See what is really going on and fuckin fight it, before we all lose everything.

Zendetta
1st November 07, 04:45 PM
Riddeck, the whole "Wake Up Sheepl!" approach is NEVER going to change minds.

Ever.

Its exactly what people expect to hear from a raving maniac, and so they are already conditioned to screen it out. You get me? Your conspiracy mongering is exactly what THEY want you to be doing.

.... wait a minute. I get it now.

Who sent you, Riddeck?!?!!?

Riddeck
2nd November 07, 01:39 AM
Riddeck, the whole "Wake Up Sheepl!" approach is NEVER going to change minds.

Ever.

Its exactly what people expect to hear from a raving maniac, and so they are already conditioned to screen it out. You get me? Your conspiracy mongering is exactly what THEY want you to be doing.

.... wait a minute. I get it now.

Who sent you, Riddeck?!?!!?


I am not sending a "wake up sheep' message, though I am glad you understand that the sheep exist and a lot of the folks frequenting this board are part of that grouping...

I put up some good vids to watch. Watch em, is all I ever say.

Cullion
2nd November 07, 05:18 AM
Here's Ron taking Condoleeza Rice to task. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYa9EFcvsrE&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016559.html

He's not a great, concise speaker, but he sure does his homework.

Thinkchair
2nd November 07, 02:28 PM
Most of the democrats were liars and warmongers too. It was Republicans who were elected to end the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Bill Clinton was the beginning of a new era of constant overseas military involvement, but he kept things controlled and with specific missions, generally, rather than trying to actually annex territory and remodel countries to be more 'America friendly'.

Yes that warmonger FDR who got us involved WWII was a real douche bag. Don't get me started on Woodrow Wilson and the first world war.

It is a little unfair to compare the Dems or Reps of today with counterparts almost forty years ago. Sure Bill Clinton didn't shy away from conflict, but he didn't embrace the way the current president does. Clinton was also smart in his approach to war. Just compare the outcome of Iraq with the outcome of Serbia.

Cullion
6th November 07, 03:55 AM
Ron just raised $4.2 million in a single day.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SNV5Q02

All small donations from over 37,000 individual americans. He's still refusing special interest money. Looks like he's going to make the end of year target of $12 mill.

Anybody still doubt that he's a top-tier candidate?

Sun Wukong
6th November 07, 06:56 AM
yes, i do doubt it. he should be a top tier candidate. he definitely has a top tier platform compared to his republican opponents. He isn't going to take the primary. It's like the highlander movie, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Riddeck
6th November 07, 12:08 PM
yes, i do doubt it. he should be a top tier candidate. he definitely has a top tier platform compared to his republican opponents. He isn't going to take the primary. It's like the highlander movie, THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Cause you are an idiot.

People understand now, more than ever, that he is the only hope to even have a chance to end this mess.

They do not want him to win.

But he is who should.

EuropIan
6th November 07, 12:42 PM
Being popular on the internets does not win you a Presidential Election.

Being popular on TV does.

Cullion
6th November 07, 09:00 PM
Hopefully the money will give him a shot at that too.

EuropIan
6th November 07, 09:19 PM
BUt is it too late in the race? Or do you think he will win people over with his dazzling persona?

Cullion
6th November 07, 09:38 PM
BUt is it too late in the race? Or do you think he will win people over with his dazzling persona?

He's not an amazing public speaker. It will be a question of the message and ideas.
I don't know what proportion of people wouldn't vote for him whilst knowing about him and his philsophy, and what proportion of people would, but haven't come across him in traditional media on TV or Radio yet. He certainly has the money he needs to spread the message now.

A big hurdle for him will be that a lot of his supporters are people who haven't voted Republican before, and some state GOP committees have been changing their rules to try and stem the flow of new registrants who are becoming Republicans specifically to vote for him, so time is critical.

The New Hampshire primary will be a big test. AIUI New Hampshire has the most Libertarian leaning voting traditions, so if he can't do well there, he probably won't do well anywhere.

EuropIan
6th November 07, 09:46 PM
The way I see it, he's in a pretty tight spot, he needs to create some sort media stunt and then milk it for a huge amount of publicity. Politics and opinions do work and have merit, but media jackassery AND SHOUTING REALLY LOUD works heaps better in general.

jvjim
6th November 07, 09:50 PM
BY GEORGE I THINK HE'S GOT IT! (http://familyguy.wikia.com/images/1/13/Lifeofthewife.ogg)

EuropIan
6th November 07, 10:04 PM
This correlates perfectly with my political ambiguousness.

Thinkchair
7th November 07, 01:06 AM
He's not an amazing public speaker. It will be a question of the message and ideas.
I don't know what proportion of people wouldn't vote for him whilst knowing about him and his philsophy, and what proportion of people would, but haven't come across him in traditional media on TV or Radio yet. He certainly has the money he needs to spread the message now.

A big hurdle for him will be that a lot of his supporters are people who haven't voted Republican before, and some state GOP committees have been changing their rules to try and stem the flow of new registrants who are becoming Republicans specifically to vote for him, so time is critical.

The New Hampshire primary will be a big test. AIUI New Hampshire has the most Libertarian leaning voting traditions, so if he can't do well there, he probably won't do well anywhere.

Are you really from The UK Cullion? You seem very aware of American politics for a Brit.

Sun Wukong
7th November 07, 01:22 AM
Cause you are an idiot.

People understand now, more than ever, that he is the only hope to even have a chance to end this mess.

They do not want him to win.

But he is who should.
Becaues I'm an idiot? Go fuck yourself.

What is it do you think people understand now?

His platform is better than his republican opponents IMO, however I really think you don't have the foggiest clue about what the long term implications of his platform really are. You think he's going to bring about some golden age of honest politics and shut down the illuminati coup d'etat that's raging in the mind of people who wear tinfoil hats, believe aliens are walking among us and that vastly powerful global cabal's are controlling every major government simultaneously on the planet?

You're entertaining, but if you think you've got the 4/11 on the devil's secret handshake you're sadly mistaken. You keep listing these conspiracy theory video's made by people who are just smart enough to convince a small set of people that already want to believe. I've been trying to be polite, but holy fuck, you're one of my least favorite entities on the planet: a natural born rube who is entirely too smug. What you never take into account is that your defacto positions are intellectually and factually untenable; yet you whole heartedly believe humongous amounts of 2nd page tabloid fodder based on hearsay, guess-work and your own strange desire for life to be a little less mundane.

Guess what? There's no secret global conspiracy to control the world, aliens will never visit us in a hundred thousand years, psychic powers don't exist, ghosts don't exist either, the skull and bones society is just another college fraternity at an elitist east coast university, accupuncture is for people too dumb or ignorant to visit a real doctor, teh r34l chinese medicine is almost totally worthless to the human body, and the great revolution where all of your fears and hopes come true will never fucking happen because you have chosen to live in a fantasy land of incredible happenstance, diabolical masterminds and outrageous fortunes.

jvjim
7th November 07, 02:26 AM
Your father didn't read to you as a child, did he chris?

Sun Wukong
7th November 07, 02:51 AM
No, I'm a bastard child.

Riddeck
7th November 07, 03:10 PM
Becaues I'm an idiot? Go fuck yourself.

What is it do you think people understand now?

His platform is better than his republican opponents IMO, however I really think you don't have the foggiest clue about what the long term implications of his platform really are. You think he's going to bring about some golden age of honest politics and shut down the illuminati coup d'etat that's raging in the mind of people who wear tinfoil hats, believe aliens are walking among us and that vastly powerful global cabal's are controlling every major government simultaneously on the planet?

You're entertaining, but if you think you've got the 4/11 on the devil's secret handshake you're sadly mistaken. You keep listing these conspiracy theory video's made by people who are just smart enough to convince a small set of people that already want to believe. I've been trying to be polite, but holy fuck, you're one of my least favorite entities on the planet: a natural born rube who is entirely too smug. What you never take into account is that your defacto positions are intellectually and factually untenable; yet you whole heartedly believe humongous amounts of 2nd page tabloid fodder based on hearsay, guess-work and your own strange desire for life to be a little less mundane.

Guess what? There's no secret global conspiracy to control the world, aliens will never visit us in a hundred thousand years, psychic powers don't exist, ghosts don't exist either, the skull and bones society is just another college fraternity at an elitist east coast university, accupuncture is for people too dumb or ignorant to visit a real doctor, teh r34l chinese medicine is almost totally worthless to the human body, and the great revolution where all of your fears and hopes come true will never fucking happen because you have chosen to live in a fantasy land of incredible happenstance, diabolical masterminds and outrageous fortunes.

Guess what?

Your wrong.

EuropIan
7th November 07, 03:45 PM
Showed you Chris. Filthy non-believer.

Personally I'm a fan of the five jew bankers thingy.

Cullion
7th November 07, 04:17 PM
Are you really from The UK Cullion? You seem very aware of American politics for a Brit.

I'm a brit who's never even travelled outside Europe. I read a lot about politics and economics though.

Thinkchair
7th November 07, 04:27 PM
I'm a brit who's never even travelled outside Europe. I read a lot about politics and economics though.

You don't actually think the guy has a chance I hope.

Zendetta
7th November 07, 04:29 PM
Cullion, you know alot more about American Politics than most Americans.

THat is not a compliment per se.

Zendetta
7th November 07, 04:32 PM
You don't actually think the guy has a chance I hope.

Long shot w. extra optimism: you don't hear too much about the Whigs or the Anti-Masonic Parties anymore.

Cullion
7th November 07, 04:44 PM
You don't actually think the guy has a chance I hope.

A slim one, but a chance. Kerry had 4% of the mainstream polls before winning New Hampshire.

Thinkchair
7th November 07, 05:31 PM
A slim one, but a chance. Kerry had 4% of the mainstream polls before winning New Hampshire.

fair enough. But I think John McCain has a better shot at pulling a Kerry in this election. In a general election I could see Paul being rather formidable against a Democrat. I just don't see him winning the Republican Primary. I have a feeling they are going to go with Mitt Romney.

The problem with mainstream polls is they frequently include people who are not registered or do not vote on a regular basis.

Cullion
7th November 07, 05:45 PM
fair enough. But I think John McCain has a better shot at pulling a Kerry in this election. In a general election I could see Paul being rather formidable against a Democrat.

It depends on the Democrat, he'd have more chance against Hilary than he would against Obama. A lot of Paul's supporters seem to be basically anti-war liberals who don't trust Hiliary, and who also like the talk on repealing the Patriot act and legalising marijuana, but don't really support Libertarian economic theories.

McCain struggles to raise money from pro-war corporate donors. Ron Paul gets more money in small donations of a $100 from his grass-roots. I don't see McCain in this.

An anti-war Democrat with strong civil liberties credentials is much worse for him than a Hilary.



The problem with mainstream polls is they frequently include people who are not registered or do not vote on a regular basis.

It depends on the poll. Some of the 'official' polls for the republican candidacy are drawn entirely from people who voted for Bush in 2004. Ron Paul does definitely have less name recognition amongst people who don't surf the Internet every day, but that's what all that new money is going to go some way to fixing.

Thinkchair
7th November 07, 05:58 PM
[quote=Cullion]It depends on the Democrat, he'd have more chance against Hilary than he would against Obama. A lot of Paul's supporters seem to be basically anti-war liberals who don't trust Hiliary, and who also like the talk on repealing the Patriot act and legalising marijuana, but don't really support Libertarian economic theories.

McCain struggles to raise money from pro-war corporate donors. Ron Paul gets more money in small donations of a $100 from his grass-roots. I don't see McCain in this.

An anti-war Democrat with strong civil liberties credentials is much worse for him than a Hilary.

[quote]

I think McCain still has a shot (a long one but better than Paul). I would not count him dead yet.

Sun Wukong
7th November 07, 06:13 PM
Guess what?

Your wrong.

... The logic of your rebuttal is inescapable.

EuropIan
7th November 07, 06:34 PM
So, Ron Paul. Apparantly he has money to campaign for now, or at least in making leaps and bounds in that area. So how do you think he'll get the attention of the major medias? The slumbering public, who are afraid of the great series of tubes, need to know about him if he's to capture the public eye. You won't get the same effect on people anymore with stuff like this:

sET8Rz-628k
Note. I'm only using this as an example because it was so effective at the time.

Cullion
7th November 07, 06:36 PM
He could start by getting his campaign staff to pick out his most popular youtube videos made by supporters, asking the author permission to use them and then just paying for them to be shown on TV after a little tidying up here and there.

Cullion
7th November 07, 06:56 PM
Here's an example of an actual poll question (from a Robocall poll in North Carolina) from the kind of 'mainstream scientific' polls which are currently ranking Ron so badly in comparison to his SMS, Internet & Straw Poll results, and his grass-roots fundraising success:-


Here's a North Carolina robocall survey's actual question:

There will be a number of people running for President in 2008 as Republicans. Some of the most talked about are Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. If the Republican primary were today which of these men would you vote for, or would you vote for somebody else?

Giuliani................... .19% McCain................... . 8% Romney ................. .10% Thompson.............. .24% Other...................... .14% Undecided.............. .25%


From http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/surveys/PPP_Release_110707.pdf

via http://www.lewrockwell.com

Zendetta
7th November 07, 06:58 PM
WOW. Good (creepy) to see the bias laid so bare.

Cullion
7th November 07, 07:10 PM
If you look at details in the link, the results for 'other' comes to 14%. The results for 'undecided' come to 25%. I don't know how much of the former is Ron's, and I don't know how much of the latter he can win over with that pile of money he has for mainstream advertising. It sounds a bit less improbable now though. I don't know of any 'other' Republican who has a grassroots meetup map looking like Ron's, or pulling in the kind of donations he is.

Here's their note on how they selected the sample :-


PPP surveyed 679 likely Democratic primary voters and 767 likely Republican primary
voters on November 5. The surveys have margins of error of ± 3.8% and ± 3.5%
respectively.

Maybe they picked 'likely' Republican primary voters from a list of people who voted for Bush last time. They must have had some reason for describing them as 'likely'. Ron's campaign is the only Republican campaign swinging Democrats and Independents over to the Republican side this year in substantial numbers because of his consistent anti-War/anti-Patriot act stance.

Does it make some sense why 'scientific' polls seem out of step with straw/online/SMS polls and grassroots fundraising now?

Yeah, he can win.

Riddeck
7th November 07, 10:57 PM
... The logic of your rebuttal is inescapable.

If you just spent some time and watched some videos, you would see more evidence supporting my claims then you could find against them. Watch the vids, check the facts.

And for your little alien claim, there is MORE evidence for the existence of Aliens, especially in ancient times (30k years or more) and even more recently, then there could ever be to prove that there are no aliens. Your basis for that belief is terribly unfounded.

But then again, you amongst most of the people here, are a fucking sheep.

Sun Wukong
7th November 07, 11:27 PM
As I said before, go fuck yourself.

Videos? You mean bombard my brain with mindless garbage to the point I erode the cell walls and begin to believe the pale interpretations of P.T. Barnum that pass for facts in the land o' foil headwear.

What is simultaneously awesome and incredibly lame is that you fall for this cheap parlor trick crap and just jumpr right in proclaiming that anyone else doesn't believe is the sheep. You can't even stand on your own two fucking feet in an argument with just about any person here and you have the fucking blind audacity to call other people sheep. Hell, the simple fact that I don't believe in any sort of spiritual power, UFO's, big foot sightings, snake oil tonic and/or vast global conspiracies put's me in the extreme minority statistically speaking. If you asked most people on a rolling poll if they believed in one of the many irrational beliefs people hold I'd be a far out statistical outlier.

You on the other hand, soak that crap up like Tyrone Biggum at a $500,000 free crack give away.

Riddeck
8th November 07, 03:46 PM
As I said before, go fuck yourself.

Videos? You mean bombard my brain with mindless garbage to the point I erode the cell walls and begin to believe the pale interpretations of P.T. Barnum that pass for facts in the land o' foil headwear.

What is simultaneously awesome and incredibly lame is that you fall for this cheap parlor trick crap and just jumpr right in proclaiming that anyone else doesn't believe is the sheep. You can't even stand on your own two fucking feet in an argument with just about any person here and you have the fucking blind audacity to call other people sheep. Hell, the simple fact that I don't believe in any sort of spiritual power, UFO's, big foot sightings, snake oil tonic and/or vast global conspiracies put's me in the extreme minority statistically speaking. If you asked most people on a rolling poll if they believed in one of the many irrational beliefs people hold I'd be a far out statistical outlier.

You on the other hand, soak that crap up like Tyrone Biggum at a $500,000 free crack give away.

No, I post videos of people who have devoted their career to these things. People who have real hard evidence supporting 'theories' they present. You just refuse to take the time to watch them, due to your blissful ignorance. This of course, you are allowed to do, but do not try to belittle me because you cannot think outside the box, as it would be.

The evidence is there, you refuse to see it, or acknowledge it, and instead, belittle me.

Ignorant statements about tin foil hats will only keep your mind closed.

Tell me how you explain 30,000 year old cave reliefs that depict "UFO". Or Hieroglyphics that have clear evidence of UFO. Hell, the Egyptian symbol for "God" is a UFO type object with a zig zag line horizontally above it.

But in order to find this stuff, you have to read, or watch a video, by someone who is not stuck in the 'mainstream' train of thought that you feel is so righteous.

MaverickZ
8th November 07, 04:10 PM
Riddeck, do you believe in the 12th planet hypothesis?

Zendetta
8th November 07, 04:37 PM
And for your little alien claim, there is MORE evidence for the existence of Aliens, especially in ancient times (30k years or more) and even more recently, then there could ever be to prove that there are no aliens.

No. there is fucking not. In fact, nothing characterizes the search for "proof" of aliens more than the lack of hard evidence. If you don't "get" why I bolded the above, then your critics are right and you know nothing of science.

Riddeck, just so you know: Zechariah Sitchin is not well regarded amongst scholars of ancient middle eastern archeology - not so much 'cuz he talks about aliens, but because his credentials are in economics and journalism.


But then again, you amongst most of the people here, are a fucking sheep.

Whats funny how you can't see the wool that's been pulled over your eyes.

Or do you?

Discussing alien conspiracies instead of talking about Ron Paul!!!!

I think you work for THEM.

Cullion
8th November 07, 04:44 PM
Discussing alien conspiracies instead of talking about Ron Paul!!!!

I think you work for THEM.

Excellent point. Could a mod please split this off?

This is a thread for linking interesting news about Ron Paul, or debating his policies and chances. Riddeck, I'm happy to debate your ideas in a respectful tone, but please make new threads for stuff you want to tell us about.

Sun Wukong
8th November 07, 09:09 PM
I think it would be a good idea to split the thread, it could be spliced into the thread I was authoring about the commonly accepted scientific beliefs about the universe. I've been meaning to put in a piece about space travel and extraterrestrial life, but I've been backlogged. I think now would be a good time for me to revive it though. I'm going to have to divide the part on space travel into multiple parts if I want to clearly explain why it is entirely probable we will never be able to travel beyond our own solar system during the existance of the entire human species; which, of course, means it's incredibly unlikely from a scientific standpoint that alien life has ever existed anywhere near our lonely solar system.

Riddeck
8th November 07, 10:55 PM
Yeah it went on a tangent, because Chris is so intent on everything being as it seems. My apologies.

Riddeck
8th November 07, 11:04 PM
*DOUBLE POST!*

Arhetton
8th November 07, 11:26 PM
well you all destroyed my beautiful thread :( fuckers.

Heres some ron paul news:

yAwvlDJgJbM

hZsZ0_OLer4

aNH5Xy8_0NM

Steve forbes is a senior advisor to rudy guilianis campaign (I'm assuming for financial policy) so his comments are significantly positive towards Ron Paul.

There is already a few small private competing currencies in the U.S, which are technically not legal tender but could be approved by congress to be so. I think Ron Paul has something in mind more like the greenbacks that Abraham lincoln issued and not neccesarily private currencies, but I wanted to let people know that they exist already.

https://www.libertydollar.org/ld/about/index.htm

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5714/goldcertag2.png

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7715/silvercertjc3.png

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7779/silvercertbackjw9.gif

of course coins are available too but this is an example of what money actually used to be: a promisory note for a commodity.

The charges the private institution is making for holding the gold in a warehouse is similiar to inflation. If the government held the reserves on public land there would be no keeping fee.

You could also retrieve the money in its coined form and keep it on your own property.

Sun Wukong
9th November 07, 05:15 AM
Yeah it went on a tangent, because Chris is so intent on everything being as it seems. My apologies.
Yes, I'm a certified agent of disinformation. I guess it would be incriminating if I told you my first MOS in the US Army was 96-B (intelligence analyst). I'm already a cog in the machine. [/Cue eerie music.]

You see I'm obligated to stamp out the truth regarding area-51 by way of a secret oath to Henry Kissenger and Spiro Agnew. If knowledge of the secret relationship the New World Order shares with the visitors ever leaked out into the open there would be mass chaos and our little grey friends would be forced to melt many of our citizens minds with an orbital pschic microwave anti-matter gun. If only L. Ron Hubbard hadn't been recieving secret telepathic instructions from a rebel band of intergalactic freedom fighters then no one would be any wiser and our job would be alot easier.

I'm afraid I've had to report you to my superiors and after they've followed you for a couple of weeks in unmarked helicopters they'll determine if you're a credible threat (and should thusly be brain melted) or if they'll just tag you with a sub-dermal lithium ion node to trace you back to more serious threats.

For what it's worth I told them you were harmless, so you'll probably get off with a stern warning from dick cheney in his darth vader costume.

Riddeck
9th November 07, 01:14 PM
Yes, I'm a certified agent of disinformation. I guess it would be incriminating if I told you my first MOS in the US Army was 96-B (intelligence analyst). I'm already a cog in the machine. [/Cue eerie music.]

You see I'm obligated to stamp out the truth regarding area-51 by way of a secret oath to Henry Kissenger and Spiro Agnew. If knowledge of the secret relationship the New World Order shares with the visitors ever leaked out into the open there would be mass chaos and our little grey friends would be forced to melt many of our citizens minds with an orbital pschic microwave anti-matter gun. If only L. Ron Hubbard hadn't been recieving secret telepathic instructions from a rebel band of intergalactic freedom fighters then no one would be any wiser and our job would be alot easier.

I'm afraid I've had to report you to my superiors and after they've followed you for a couple of weeks in unmarked helicopters they'll determine if you're a credible threat (and should thusly be brain melted) or if they'll just tag you with a sub-dermal lithium ion node to trace you back to more serious threats.

For what it's worth I told them you were harmless, so you'll probably get off with a stern warning from dick cheney in his darth vader costume.

No way. I hear Dick does not ever wash that thing, and plays intense games of Badminton dressed as Vader. I hear it smells worse than a hockey players gear bag.

As for your continued mockery of myself, and my thoughts, it is old. The point of this thread, the Ron Paul movement, is way off tangent, and I am bringing it back with this thought...

Ron Paul is a serious candidate, and the only Republican worth mentioning. Of course they are forcing Guiliani's criminal ass down our throats, but they cannot any longer deny Ron Paul's movement, and support.

Yes I believe he is the only real choice this time around, and yes, part of me also believes that Hillary will take the election much in the way that G.W. did BOTH times he was elected.

Only thing is, this time, more people are aware of truths, and exposed to the nonsense this group of people have been afflicting on this world, and finally want to make a change.

You may not believe the facts that support my thoughts, but just because YOU do not believe, does not mean they do not exist.

Zendetta
9th November 07, 04:44 PM
Yes I believe he is the only real choice this time around, and yes, part of me also believes that Hillary will take the election much in the way that G.W. did BOTH times he was elected.

I agree* with this.

(* agreement does not indicate an endorsement of gray alien freemasons from the 12th planet)

jvjim
9th November 07, 05:53 PM
^Truther

Sun Wukong
9th November 07, 06:00 PM
As for your continued mockery of myself, and my thoughts, it is old. The point of this thread, the Ron Paul movement, is way off tangent, and I am bringing it back with this thought...


Don't pretend you didn't start this shit and start pulling this passive aggressive bullshit. You called me out, not the other way around.