US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Cooperation is always about net gain aka profit (which is not necesarily money), otherwise it is called a favor or charity.

Yes, but all 3 saw the possibility of getting the once over on the others. IE they all had ulterior motives for pushing for the agreement.

Also, it's possible that the US pushed for the agreement because it was afraid that without it they wouldn't have any tertiary markets to sell their goods, given the way the EU was consolidating and expanding. They may have pushed for it as they thought the EU would get stronger then them economically.

Likewise, the whole point of the EU was because european powers needed to be able to present a united front in order to not get consumed by the much larger US and Russian economies. If there had been no large outside powers threatening Europe, no major european country would have signed up to the EU.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Please do not tell me you are not one of those, calling Charles Darwin work "a mere theory" belittles him and shows you confuse theory with hypothesis.

I am not one of those people. I used the correct terminology for the Theory of Evolution (and I don't believe I said it was "a mere theory") as it does not qualify as a law (like gravity) or hypothesis. There are a great many things that are accepted as fact but are named theories by the scientific community (Theory of Plate Tectonics, Atomic Theory, etc.). I understood that at least a few people would entertain the idea of me being a radical evolution's-just-a-theory person by my wording but I prefer proper terminology over what people think.

Just so we're on the same page as to my scientific understanding

They don't want science they want technology. Science is dangerous because it contradict with better proof than a 2000 years book badly translated. And the peoples doing science are less likely to accept their bullshit.

You and Vexx seem more to be referring to the Christian Conservatives instead of the Republican party. I agree with both your and Vexx's statements if that is so.

However, to me at least, Republican refers more to the politicians who really don't care about such social issues, i.e. almost all of them.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

You and Vexx seem more to be referring to the Christian Conservatives instead of the Republican party. I agree with both your and Vexx's statements if that is so.

However, to me at least, Republican refers more to the politicians who really don't care about such social issues, i.e. almost all of them.

I find most of the current version of "Republican" politicians and a substantial portion of their followers to be under-educated and, to use a phrase used a lot during the Bush Administration ... incurious. There aren't more than a handful that would stand up to scrutiny from people like William F Buckley, Goldwater, Bob Dole, Eisenhower.

No,we're treated to the likes of Sarah Palin, Santorum, Perry, or even John McCain (who can no longer seem to follow a coherent thought much less express one). We have Boehner and Cantor .... who are like nearly incompetent villains in a bad situation comedy.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

"a mere theory"

You are right, you didn't used the word "mere".

There are a great many things that are accepted as fact but are named theories by the scientific community (Theory of Plate Tectonics, Atomic Theory, etc.).

Scientific theories are not accepted, they are demonstrated. The diference betwen a scientific law and a theory is that the later has yet to be demonstrated for every of its postulates, but that does not mean that a theory is somehow invalid/useless, Einstein's relativity has yet to become law but that does not prevent its use in many of todays technologies (your car GPS would not be feasible without Einstein's relativity).

I understood that at least a few people would entertain the idea of me being a radical evolution's-just-a-theory person by my wording

Indeed, it is not "a theory", it is THE theory, there are no other theories that explain evolution (nope, creationism is not a theory, it is not even an hypothesis). If you know ONE elected republican that is vocally against creationism (and therefore is not a cristian conservative) please let me know.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Yes, but all 3 saw the possibility of getting the once over on the others. IE they all had ulterior motives for pushing for the agreement (doing it before the EU or the Russians).

In most complex cooperation agreements is imposible to give every member the exact amount of profits, even without ulterior motives (i.e. backstabbing). Forming groups to get defend from other groups is one of the many kinds of net profits cooperation grants.

[RandySyler]

Indeed, it is not "a theory", it is THE theory, there are no other theories that explain evolution (nope, creationism is not a theory, it is not even an hypothesis). If you know ONE elected republican that is vocally against creationism (and therefore is not a cristian conservative) please let me know.

Jon Huntsman. I do accept that most Republican politicians (thanks for not saying "repubs" anymore, by the way) have supported creationism.

Indeed, it is not "a theory", it is THE theory, there are no other theories that explain evolution (nope, creationism is not a theory, it is not even an hypothesis). If you know ONE elected republican that is vocally against creationism (and therefore is not a cristian conservative) please let me know.

We're clear that I'm not arguing evolution or the difference of theories and laws and what makes theories not discreditable right? I was drawing attention to the usage of negative stereotype of one mainstream political party, and since that is almost always done to support the other, I called it out. I believe strongly that the two-party system is corrupt and argue almost constantly when people do things in support of it. I didn't go completely into argue mode since it wasn't and isn't clear whether or not you are knocking Republicans in favor of Democrats, which I personally don't like either.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

Jon Huntsman. I do accept that most Republican politicians (thanks for not saying "repubs" anymore, by the way) have supported creationism.

Jon was the only guy out of the original pack I thought was qualified/competent for the job and he lasted about two minutes before the barking dogs decided he wasn't "pure" enough.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Jon was the only guy out of the original pack I thought was qualified/competent for the job and he lasted about two minutes before the barking dogs decided he wasn't "pure" enough.

I have a similar view of the race except that I also hold that Ron Paul was qualified (in his ideals, at least) for presidency, however, I'm not sure of the congressman's executive abilities. I enjoyed his campaigning more for spreading something other than left/right and republican/democrat rhetoric.

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Or letting them fail, which would have been the best option.
This would have exposed the pyramid-ponzi scheme that is the Federal Reserve System, Fiat money, and Wall Street as a whole.
Why do you think it was so damn imperiative for the government to bail them out?
It wasn't to help the citizenry, it was to save Wall Street and keep the pinstripe bandits from losing their fortunes.

I take issue with this. A collapse of the financial system has ramifications you can't even begin to list: Businesses closing, complete housing market collapse (If you think the GFC was bad as it is), layoffs. Just because you didn't bailout banks doesn't mean you won't have additional expenses from the collapse of all these businesses (If you own lending facilities with a bank and the bank collapses and asks for its money back, what are you going to do?) and institutions e.g. unemployment benefits.

Dodd-Frank was the right thing to do, it's just that the American legislative process is (legally) corrupt to the core by lobbying and special interests: Whatever power it had to make changes is now hopelessly diluted.
A bank isn't a broken concept, it's the power the bank wields in politics and legislating that is broken (This whole 'Corporations are people, my friend' bullshit), which it will happily utilize and even abuse, given the chance.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

I have a similar view of the race except that I also hold that Ron Paul was qualified (in his ideals, at least) for presidency, however, I'm not sure of the congressman's executive abilities. I enjoyed his campaigning more for spreading something other than left/right and republican/democrat rhetoric.

My view on Ron Paul (I spent most of my career in/near his district) is that every Congress needs one ... He's at his best when he's the opposition to 'big gov inertial juggernaut". How he'd do as President depends on his ability to use the bully pulpit to herd Congress against its best interest (serving the corporations and plutocrats).

But it looks like they've boxed him out.

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by Vexx

My view on Ron Paul (I spent most of my career in/near his district) is that every Congress needs one ... He's at his best when he's the opposition to 'big gov inertial juggernaut". How he'd do as President depends on his ability to use the bully pulpit to herd Congress against its best interest (serving the corporations and plutocrats).

But it looks like they've boxed him out.

It is entirely possible though, that he could go directly after delegates and not play the media game of all the popularity contests like Romney and Obama are doing. So he may be boxed out of the mainstream, plutocratic ways of current politics but knowing Ron Paul the old Republican framework still exists and he will take advantage of that more.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

I take issue with this. A collapse of the financial system has ramifications you can't even begin to list: Businesses closing, complete housing market collapse (If you think the GFC was bad as it is), layoffs. Just because you didn't bailout banks doesn't mean you won't have additional expenses from the collapse of all these businesses (If you own lending facilities with a bank and the bank collapses and asks for its money back, what are you going to do?) and institutions e.g. unemployment benefits.

I wonder, would the end of the current banking system matter if the government didn't bail them out?
I'm inclined to doubt it.
The government has the authority to dismiss the debt the banks claim others owe.
The housing market could easily have been shored up in that manner by forgiving all morgage debt and letting the banks suck wind.
Money returning to being backed by specie would create an enormous amount of buying power in the hands of nearly all citizens while investors would loose their shirts.
In other words, the 1% would loose a great deal of money (though they'd still be rich by any measure) while the bottom 99% would see their savings buy far more than they do now.
That would allow small business to flourish.
Would there be turbulence during the initial months after the collapse?
Of course there would be, but that's what government is for, to provide stability during such a crisis without harming the citizenry.
That's the problem with the bailout, it hurts the citizenry by reducing the buying power and thus value of their savings and their ability to purchase.
Benefits, unemployment, etc. would have to be handled through local, state, and the Federal government. The unemployed would have to be employed (with temp-job programs like fixing the roads, picking up trash, doing actual work); benefits would be honered through the government via medicare and/or SS.
A workable system to get us out of this corporatist nightmare is possible, it's just finding the willpower to take the initiative to do it that's the problem.
Of course a complete restructuring of the current Statutory legal system would have to be apart of this.
Regulations that hamper small business would have to go, and those that give monopolies (or duopolies) an advantage would also have to go.
I not saying it would be easy or without considerable pain to the public, but it would be better in the long run to what we have now.

Dodd-Frank was the right thing to do, it's just that the American legislative process is (legally) corrupt to the core by lobbying and special interests: Whatever power it had to make changes is now hopelessly diluted.
A bank isn't a broken concept, it's the power the bank wields in politics and legislating that is broken (This whole 'Corporations are people, my friend' bullshit), which it will happily utilize and even abuse, given the chance.

I agree that Dodd-Frank (or an even more draconian form of it) was the right thing to do.
IN fact, I don't think it went far enough in restricting Wall Street's lending and trading behavior.
Thus we agree.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

Neal Boortz has it all figured out

http://theghostfighters.wordpress.co...eathly-silent/

this group with exotic degrees ought to heed to his words to save themselves!

[Vexx]

Boortz fell on his ass a few paragraphs in:

From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.”

Utter.... bullshit. It got worse but I find myself not bothering to waste the energy to refute storm of nonsense sentence by sentence. It is like refuting Velikovsky's lunacies about physics. If this is the best of today's crop, Buckley weeps...

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

it wasn't and isn't clear whether or not you are knocking Republicans in favor of Democrats, which I personally don't like either.

As a rule of the thumb I bash politicians, whichever I sense to be more pernicious ATM.

[flying ^]

man... so much hatin' going on here with the speech that's otherwise refreshing, straight-shooting tellin-it-painfully-how-it-really-is, and head & shoulders above the usual drown out cut & dry speeches I'd love to see the DVD/Bluray copy of that segment!

[Haak]

From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, the Rich, the Disadvantaged, the Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals.

Well it is a pretty funny speech...

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I wonder, would the end of the current banking system matter if the government didn't bail them out?
I'm inclined to doubt it.
The government has the authority to dismiss the debt the banks claim others owe.

You said you didn't want to nationalise the banks. Dismissing the debt would mean the government takes it on and decides to declare bankruptcy. This means an appalling credit rating (You think the downgrade was bad? Then this option wouldn't leave the US with one at all).

A bad credit rating means less foreign investment in US institutions/infrastructure/businesses.

The housing market could easily have been shored up in that manner by forgiving all morgage debt and letting the banks suck wind.

What a great idea.. Except the US Government will still owe all that money to foreign governments because the banks use offshore funds. So you want them to forgive all US Debt and default on their debt obligations? See bad credit rating and why that is bad for business. If you think all that stupid delaying in Congress to raise the debt ceiling led to a significant decrease of the US' credit rating, you have no idea what an actual bankruptcy filing would do.

Money returning to being backed by specie would create an enormous amount of buying power in the hands of nearly all citizens while investors would loose their shirts.

Except waiving everyone's debts doesn't 'create' money. Money always comes from somewhere. In this case, someone's bank account. You're a saver? You're screwed because you'll never get that money back. If you're a business and you have your money in the bank? Gone. How do you pay your employees into their accounts now? Cash? What if you have 200 employees? How about 10,000 employees? What if you have 20,000?

The money you get from not having to pay your house anymore isn't cash. If you want to sell in this environment, then you will have to compete with thousands of homeowners trying to sell their houses. It means housing prices will drop because of higher supply.
Even if you do sell your house, how long will it last before you find a new job amid much higher unemployment?

In other words, the 1% would loose a great deal of money (though they'd still be rich by any measure) while the bottom 99% would see their savings buy far more than they do now.
That would allow small business to flourish.

The environment you're describing is not conducive to any sort of business, large or small. Bad credit ratings, lack of foreign investment, no confidence in banks means less ways to pay your employees, high inflation rates, high unemployment.

That's the problem with the bailout, it hurts the citizenry by reducing the buying power and thus value of their savings and their ability to purchase.

The bailout was just fine. It's the conditions that needed to be ironed out properly and were diluted by constant lobbying. The problem is the wrench, not the wheel.

Regulations that hamper small business would have to go, and those that give monopolies (or duopolies) an advantage would also have to go.
I not saying it would be easy or without considerable pain to the public, but it would be better in the long run to what we have now.

I agree on all anti-monopoly or dual monopoly regulations. In fact, anything that gives a company unfair advantages when facing competitors should be seriously looked at.

I agree that Dodd-Frank (or an even more draconian form of it) was the right thing to do.
IN fact, I don't think it went far enough in restricting Wall Street's lending and trading behavior.
Thus we agree.

On that we agree then.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

I am not one of those people. I used the correct terminology for the Theory of Evolution (and I don't believe I said it was "a mere theory") as it does not qualify as a law (like gravity) or hypothesis. There are a great many things that are accepted as fact but are named theories by the scientific community (Theory of Plate Tectonics, Atomic Theory, etc.).

Maybe I misunderstood you, but we call a theory something that we prove with laws, formulas, interpretations but that we can't see with our own eyes. They aren't accepted as fact, they are facts, as long as you don't have something that goes against them.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Utter.... bullshit. It got worse but I find myself not bothering to waste the energy to refute storm of nonsense sentence by sentence. It is like refuting Velikovsky's lunacies about physics. If this is the best of today's crop, Buckley weeps...

It might take too long than it's worth but I thing than refuting each wrong thing of such ''speach'' should be done, and done with strong arguments or proofs. Othersize we are only declaring as they do, saying thing than could as well coming from a ass.