Lelouch24 Posts
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
Then why does X go down in other technologically-advancing industries? such as Cameras, Cell Phones, Computers, or TVs?
Those aren't X, for one, those are Y. Cell Phones, cameras, computers, and televisions upgrade and become more expensive.
[color=#2e1a6b]no, X does go down in those industries. I could get a computer or a small TV for $20. 15 years ago, those same products would cost well over 3 times more.
tbh, this has gotten off-topic.
I'm curious about what Flaser said... though I'd like to see some sources for his claim
[color=#2e1a6b]For the last time, The dep. of Edu. is not public education. Public education would still exist without the dep. of Edu. If he wants an overhaul, it would be to increase our freedom to choose our education, which could be accomplished through school vouchers.
Abolishing the department of education is just doing all he can do towards that goal as president.
I agree.
/education discussion
[color=#2e1a6b]-____-
Your argument is based on the labeled purpose of regulation, and not the actual application of the regulation. In this instance, the labeled purpose is to "protect me from harmful medication", but the application is "to give the government control over what medication I'm allowed to take". The labeled purpose of something means NOTHING, what matters is the actual application of it. SOPA's labeled purpose was to stop online piracy. As we all know, the actual application of it was different, and had severe consequences. I'm mentioning SOPA because it shows that you cannot argue a law on the basis of its labeled purpose
I already explained why I disapprove of the governments selection. Why should I be bound by it?
*sniff sniff* I smell a conspiracy theory.
So in essence, your entire contention stems from the fact that you don't trust the government ot be able to determine what is harmful for you to take and regulate that, and keep the harmful things out.
Wonderful, if we can just get some sources for your accusations instead of just blanket assertions, I might start taking you seriously.
[size=5]starting to lose my patience...[/h]
"I already explained why I disapprove of the governments selection". I could copy-paste that instance if you want. So again I ask: Why should I be bound by the governments selection.
[color=#2e1a6b]The government has deceived my trust; God hasn't. There's nothing inconsistent about my trust
Yet you can't seem to show how they've done so.
Pearl Harbor
(FPoD could probably go on forever if he responded to this)
[color=#2e1a6b]We do, and a very large amount of people legally immigrate every year.
And just about every one of them that I've ever met bitch and complain about how difficult it is to do so, and how they have to wait a long amount of time before they're considered citizens, because they start off on a work visa, have to go through several checks of their status, and show that they;re being productive members of society before they become citizens.
MY view? Too much of a pain in the ass. If people want to work, let them, don't force them to memorize all the presidents in chronological order, learn more history and geography than the average high school graduate would know, and assert they learn complex english. None of these are logically required, but we require them anyhow. this is nonsense.
Now it seems like you're against immigration regulation. Whatever, this has nothing to do with just Ron Paul; All of the candidates support immigration regulation.
[color=#2e1a6b]really?...
"illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002"
So clearly we spend too much money on government public benefits projects.
do you really believe this? (yay!), or do you just spout out anything for the sake of contradicting my arguments?
That's...not really the immigrant's fault, now is it? IT just shows that the programs need to be tweaked. You said that the immigrants paid 16 billion dollars in taxes, that's WAY more than I ever figured. Why am I bitching?
[color=#2e1a6b]because you said:
"Still though, you made it sound like the parents were the ones getting all sorts of taxpayer funded benefits. Still no sources on that front."
[color=#2e1a6b]
I proved my point
pspkiller626 wrote...
Despite what the article says, perhaps the journalist is confusing physical punishment with domestic violence. Parents who use corporal punishment on their children do it out of love, not the other way around, and they certainly wouldn't beat a child to the point of hospitalization. The consequences listed in the article seem to adhere more to domestic violence rather than anything else. [color=#2e1a6b]That's a very important distinction to make. I've seen many spoiled brats who have no respect for authority, but I've also seen kids messed up because of abusive parents. non-painful punishments should be used if possible, though pain punishments are much more effective
I was spanked by a big wooden spoon, but I never had injuries from it.
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
actually, you perfectly set up my point.
The cost of variable Z should rise, I understand this. But the cost of variable X should decrease, but it isn't. If healthcare was a free-market system with competition, there would be motivation to lower the cost of X. It's because of the governments involvement in healthcare that there is no motivation to lower the cost of X
Ok, you don't understand how economics work. See, X? The cost of bandages? SHOULDN'T go down, because it's a base material that all people involved in the medical business use. IT's used in first aid stations, school nursing offices, hospitals, the works. Anywhere there needs to be healing done, bandages are there, because it's basic. So no, bandages shouldn't 'drop in price' because we still use them just as much as before, we just ALSO use Z. So, by your own admission, Z SHOULD go up, and X SHOULD remain the same, meaning costs in general SHOULD go up, rendering your entire objection moot.
Then why does X go down in other technologically-advancing industries? such as Cameras, Cell Phones, Computers, or TVs?
Not really sure what this video proves. it sounded like he supports school vouchers, which I highly agree with, as my family home-schools.
he called her a socialist because she made an argument similar to what you said in a different thread (I think it was in the "2 parties" thread). I don't want to revive that argument, as were already discussing too many issues at once
He called public education socialist, and he's a conservative that's against socialism. It doesn't take Scooby Doo to solve this mystery.
I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. In that video, Ron Paul never said he wanted to get rid of it, He can't get rid of it because it's not a federal service. The only federal involvement within the schools is through the dep. of edu. which he wants to get rid of.
And that involvement is the foundation of modern public education systems. Dissolving the department of education means dissolving public education as we know it. He wants a MASSIVE overhaul to the way in which these places are run, to the point where they're just about privatized.
For the last time, The dep. of Edu. is not public education. Public education would still exist without the dep. of Edu. If he wants an overhaul, it would be to increase our freedom to choose our education, which could be accomplished through school vouchers.
The idea that people evolved from a fish is not the foundation of being able to heal people.
It's "embarrassing" for evolution that it's been rejected despite it being taught to everyone.
Did you not read my link about nothing in biology making sense except in the light of evolution? By a christian?
The people who should be embarassed are those who don't accept evolution, yet claim to be a medical doctor. Your mischaracterization of what evolution is set aside, I have no tolerance for science denialism. While Obama makes speeches congratulating science, darwin, and the medical advancements that can and are attributed to the theory, Paul goes, "Nope, I don't buy it." like an ignorant backwoods hick. The rest of the world accepts evolution on a massive scale, but here, people don't. That's not embarassing for evolution, that's embarassing for the people. Because it means despite it being tuaght in science, and the fact that it is science, the public still won't accept it. That's called being a bunch of close minded idiots.
I promise, when I have more spare time, I'll start an evolution thread.
Although...
You said "Not a single person here, myself included, is trying to say anything in science is 100%"
so let me ask you, do you think evolution is proven to be true?
fine, your next statement really hits the center of my accusation anyways.
This is not at all accurate; You are giving the government the right to choose what medicine I'm allowed to use. I don't agree with the governments selection, and I already justified why I disagree. I want the freedom to take care of myself and the ones I care about, yet the government won't even let me do that.
"I don't agree with the government's selection" right, you don't agree as to the safe drugs, you want the unsafe drugs. I won't let you hurt yourself with unsafe drugs. That's my position. Sorry if you don't like that, I find that to be the ethical choice, not letting you pick drugs that won't work, or will do harm to you.
-____-
Your argument is based on the labeled purpose of regulation, and not the actual application of the regulation. In this instance, the labeled purpose is to "protect me from harmful medication", but the application is "to give the government control over what medication I'm allowed to take". The labeled purpose of something means NOTHING, what matters is the actual application of it. SOPA's labeled purpose was to stop online piracy. As we all know, the actual application of it was different, and had severe consequences. I'm mentioning SOPA because it shows that you cannot argue a law on the basis of its labeled purpose
I already explained why I disapprove of the governments selection. Why should I be bound by it?
I trust and believe in God; I don't trust and believe in the government. They break their promises, they lie, they deceive us, etc.
So you trust and believe that which you don't see, you just don't trust and believe what you don't see when the government's involved. Nice to see you being logically consistent /sarcasm.
The government has deceived my trust; God hasn't. There's nothing inconsistent about my trust
They should be deported. Otherwise, we're just motivating more illegal immigrants to come here
They should be naturalized, so that they're no longer a burden on society, but able to support themselves in the light of being an actual citizen. Don't we WANT people coming here?
We do, and a very large amount of people legally immigrate every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_Costs_of_Undocumented_Immigrants
"illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes"
So they do pay their taxes. Billions of dollars of them in fact.
Now...what's the problem?:
really?...
"illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002"
it's not like I'm making any of this up, they're actual quotations of his.
facepalm.jpg
mainstream media Stenta wrote...
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."-Ron Paul
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
-Ron Paul
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."
-Ron Paul
This list is actually very long.
wow, I thought the media over-exaggerated this, but I can't believe someone would go so far to actually cite these comments as the words of Ron Paul. Ron Paul was the president of the RP&A; The RP&A published a newsletter that contained those racist comments. Ron Paul did not make those comments; those comments actually contradict what Ron Paul says. For example, one of the comments condemned Martin Luther King Jr., but Ron Paul has repeatedly said that MLKJ was a hero.
If you're trying to say that Ron Paul is racist, give some examples in which Ron Paul is the one being racist.
if you're trying to say that Ron Paul supports racism, your wrong. Ron Paul is the only candidate that acknowledges the discrimination within the courts & jails, and wants to pardon those imprisoned for non-violent crimes.
I'll be gone the next few days; I only have my itouch (I'm not making a long reply with my itouch).
[color=#2e1a6b]actually, since I started visiting the forums, I haven't seen a thread specifically devoted to evolution. I think we really need to start one, since biglundi thinks that it is a 100% proven theory.
Koyori wrote...
Probably been threads about evolution on this forum already.[color=#2e1a6b]actually, since I started visiting the forums, I haven't seen a thread specifically devoted to evolution. I think we really need to start one, since biglundi thinks that it is a 100% proven theory.
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
the increased technology increases the range of conditions they can treat. It should not increase the cost of treating something that they can already treat. Let's take a broken collarbone for example; The cost of X-rays, The cost of making a cast or whatever, the cost of having it examined, the cost of the brace, should all be lower, as we find cheaper ways to treat it. what kind of advancement makes it more expensive to do the same thing?
Indeed. Let's make an example.
Say I'm able to mend your broken bones. This is represented by variable Y. Currently I only use bandages. Bandages cost...X.
Now say I have a more effective way of figuring out how exactly to BETTER mend your broken bones, along with the bandages.This new cost variable is represented by variable Z. This is represented by the equation X+Z=Y.
So yes, having new, improved ways to care for you will cost more. This is a logical, mathematical conclusion that is easily derived from what's going on. Your point is null.
actually, you perfectly set up my point.
The cost of variable Z should rise, I understand this. But the cost of variable X should decrease, but it isn't. If healthcare was a free-market system with competition, there would be motivation to lower the cost of X. It's because of the governments involvement in healthcare that there is no motivation to lower the cost of X
You changed your accusation. You said
"4. He wants to dissolve public education"
Obviously you don't understand this issue, and are now arguing the need of the dep. of Edu. to hide your lack of understanding. The federal government doesn't need to enact uniform rules that apply to every school in the entire U.S. If a state prefers one curriculum over another, they should be allowed to use it.
*yawn* Ron Paul, take it away.
(Paul)" Public education is socialist!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xO2EA5KGOc
Not really sure what this video proves. it sounded like he supports school vouchers, which I highly agree with, as my family home-schools.
he called her a socialist because she made an argument similar to what you said in a different thread (I think it was in the "2 parties" thread). I don't want to revive that argument, as were already discussing too many issues at once
But no...he doesn't want to get rid of it. *facepalm*
I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. In that video, Ron Paul never said he wanted to get rid of it, He can't get rid of it because it's not a federal service. The only federal involvement within the schools is through the dep. of edu. which he wants to get rid of.
interesting choice of words. Our education system doesn't teach creationism, it teaches evolution, yet 44% still don't believe it.
I don't know why you're making such big deal out of this; Ron Paul has a very neutral stance on this issue.
Why do I have a problem with a doctor being scientifically illiterate in a theory that is the very foundation of his field of study?
Oh, and again, the fact that 44% of the united states' public doesn't accept evolution despite evolution being taught in classrooms is...well...not something you might want to promote. That's...negative. That's...a bad thing. That's... embarrassing. The only country that denies science more than us is Turkey.
The idea that people evolved from a fish is not the foundation of being able to heal people.
It's "embarrassing" for evolution that it's been rejected despite it being taught to everyone.
She couldn't drink water, people die without water, something was wrong with her. The emergency room spent $3000 running tests trying to figure out what was causing it. So all you can say is "nothing seriously wrong with her"
just stop
F*ck this example
Let's just stop this particular discussion
fine, your next statement really hits the center of my accusation anyways.
I shouldn't suffer because people like you are against it.
I'm supporting keeping you from being able to use harmful drugs on yourself, and I'm making you suffer by doing so?
This is not at all accurate; You are giving the government the right to choose what medicine I'm allowed to use. I don't agree with the governments selection, and I already justified why I disagree. I want the freedom to take care of myself and the ones I care about, yet the government won't even let me do that.
I'm not saying we should cut taxes that pay for firefighters and police, I'm saying we should cut taxes that pay for foreign aid.
I can't prove that the money doesn't help poor people, nor can you prove that it does.
So you're against taxes for anything that you can't personally see directly benefiting you or someone else.
Haven't you ever heard of, "Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening'? I mean I'm an atheist, I hear that argument often enough, I would think you would too...
I trust and believe in God; I don't trust and believe in the government. They break their promises, they lie, they deceive us, etc.
fixed
not really sure what to say... well, I find this to be a NEGATIVE thing. I don't want illegal immigrants to be able to go to a taxpayer funded school, and for the schools to be forced to teach them even though they're illegal immigrants.
Right, you support the idea of punishing kids and putting them in bad situations without any education because of who their parents are. I'm against that.
They should be deported. Otherwise, we're just motivating more illegal immigrants to come here
I'm too tired to find sources; I didn't say "parents" anyways, so I don't feel obliged to find a source
...Since we're talking about Paul's position on being born here and becoming a citizen, and you're saying that the ILLEGALS(which would be the parents of these non illegals) are recieving benefits...well...yeah, you very much implicitly said 'parents'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Economic_Costs_of_Undocumented_Immigrants
"illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes"
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Spending
advancements in Technology cause the prices to decrease in every industry except for health care. This is because the government healthcare and regulations have kept the free market from healthcare. There is not motivation to lower the prices because the government makes the decisions instead of the market.
From your own source:
"The Congressional Budget Office has found that "about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology." Other factors included higher income levels, changes in insurance coverage, and rising prices."
So...yeah. See...the advancement in technology increases the prices...because it's expensive to install them, expensive to teach people to use them, expensive to actually implement them...so yes, the prices SHOULD go up with advancement in technology. Also, none of those sources said, "If we got rid of public health care, then prices would go down enough so the impoverished could afford it." at all.
the increased technology increases the range of conditions they can treat. It should not increase the cost of treating something that they can already treat. Let's take a broken collarbone for example; The cost of X-rays, The cost of making a cast or whatever, the cost of having it examined, the cost of the brace, should all be lower, as we find cheaper ways to treat it. what kind of advancement makes it more expensive to do the same thing?
was your source that ABCnews source? that only said he wanted to eliminate the department of education. the department of education does NOT establish schools or colleges; Public schools existed long before the Dep. of edu. existed. Do you really think they're the same thing?
No, they don't ESTABLISH schools and colleges, firstly, colleges are usually privatized organizations, secondly, they DO regulate the content,the level of education, and how schools go about their curriculum, to an extent. They keep schools from making huge inefficient budget cuts like grouping all the grades together into one auditorium to teach classes, or firing most teachers and putting most of the curriculum on the shoulders of one or two. These aren't allowed by public schools.
Plus, it's well known that public schools are better with their curriculum than private schools.
I'd provide more specific links than this, but for some odd reason, google's decided I don't get to click on anymore links.
*broken link
You changed your accusation. You said
"4. He wants to dissolve public education"
Obviously you don't understand this issue, and are now arguing the need of the dep. of Edu. to hide your lack of understanding. The federal government doesn't need to enact uniform rules that apply to every school in the entire U.S. If a state prefers one curriculum over another, they should be allowed to use it.
That's because the scientific community basically requires that you believe in evolution to be one of them. even so, Ron Paul wouldn't govern just the scientist, he would govern everybody; how the hell can you say "I don't care what the general public thinks".
Ahhh that's the stuff, "IT's a conspiracy in the scientific community." So, in essence, even though you thought it was a reasonable position to deny evolution because the general public denies it in the united states at a rate of 44%, when I point out that people who are actually EDUCATED on the matter overwhelmingly accept evolution, and, the quote "Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" was made over 40 years ago by a russian orthodox christian biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
interesting choice of words. Our education system doesn't teach creationism, it teaches evolution, yet 44% still don't believe it.
I don't know why you're making such big deal out of this; Ron Paul has a very neutral stance on this issue.
I did more research on the FDA and why Ron Paul is against it. It seems more like an excuse to give the government control over the healthcare market. I strongly support alternative healthcare, which the FDA restricts. My older sister was dehydrated and couldn't hold down water. We took her to the emergency room where they spent $3000 testing on her; they found nothing. We went to a different doctor who uses homeopathic medicine and stuff. He found the problem right away and healed her.
With water and placebo. Clearly there was nothing seriously wrong with her if a homeopath could cure her.
[color=#2e1a6b]She couldn't drink water, people die without water, something was wrong with her. The emergency room spent $3000 running tests trying to figure out what was causing it. So all you can say is "nothing seriously wrong with her"
just stop
independent study will protect people from dangerous medicine without restricting their options.
Right, it allows people to say, "Oh, that's a drug that doesn't work and could cause harm, but I believe in something as silly as homeopathy, so I'm giving it to my kid anyway."
I'm against that. So...yeah.
[color=#2e1a6b]I shouldn't suffer because people like you are against it.
It would be similar to the API certification that motor oil uses. An independent company researches medicine, and a medication can have the company certify it, so that the patient can know that it's safe.
But there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from prescribing a medicine that doesn't work, or been shown by independent companies to not work, or really anything. There's absolutely nothing limiting the sales of medicine that doesn't do anything, or could even cause harm.
This leads to a complex discussion on self-responsibility. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to start another thread.
"Um...did you read your own source?" he said in the above article that "it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does -- through state laws."
Did YOU read my source? He signed a pledge to protect fetuses under the 14th amendment. That's the constitution. That's federal. You're done.
You got me there
but constitutionally, the enforcement of abortion would still be left to the states.
I question whether that money actually supports poor people, or if it just goes to the government leaders
people donate money to charity for foreign aid. people donated over 24 billion dollars in 2010. If the government taxed us less, we would be able to donate more.
people donate money to charity for foreign aid. people donated over 24 billion dollars in 2010. If the government taxed us less, we would be able to donate more.
And we'd take hits in other places. Seriously, can I ask you what you think happens to taxes? Do you think all taxes just go into government worker paychecks? And even then, you are aware that's the reason we have firefighters, police...literally all government workers that make your life better and more safe. Your belief is that "I don't believe all the money being put into foreign aid goes to poor people. I think they're keeping some of it for themselves" without any sources for that specific claim, and then you go off to say, "Screw it altogether, just donate if you want to help poor people." I want poor people helped, not just to help them personally. There's a bit of a difference there that the government's foreign aid can help.
I'm not saying we should cut taxes that pay for firefighters and police, I'm saying we should cut taxes that pay for foreign aid.
I can't prove that the money doesn't help poor people, nor can you prove that it does.
Also I find it comical that you didn't feel Ron Paul's conspiracy theory that we need to pull out of the UN before "america disappears altogether" was worth addressing.
I don't really know much about the issues going on in the UN.
First off, I didn't say that they were never deported; I'm saying that they use their children to argue for illegal immigrant rights.
you're asking me for a source that proves that something never happens? aren't you supposed to prove that it does happen?
So they use their children, but it doesn't matter because they get deported anyway. IS THAT your argument?
no... If all the illegal immigrants were deported, we wouldn't be discussing the issues of illegal immigration. my argument is that the ones that aren't deported "use their children to argue for illegal immigrant rights"
And besides, you're the one making the claims here that the illegals are taking advantage of the system and being supported with taxpayer money without contributing. So yes, you DO have to provide sources to prove that.
(see line below)
Lelouch24 wrote...
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Public-schools-reminded-not-to-turn-away-illegal-1687878.phpYay! Children get to have a public education despite their parents not being legal immigrants. Good. I find this to be a POSITIVE thing. I WANT children to be educated. Thank goodness there's a supreme court ruling saying they have the right to have an education, legal or not.
fixed
not really sure what to say... well, I find this to be a NEGATIVE thing. I don't want illegal immigrants to be able to go to a taxpayer funded school, and for the schools to be forced to teach them even though they're illegal immigrants.
Still though, you made it sound like the parents were the ones getting all sorts of taxpayer funded benefits. Still no sources on that front.
I'm too tired to find sources; I didn't say "parents" anyways, so I don't feel obliged to find a source BigLundi wrote...
3. He's against public health care. And evidently thinks that in a private system...doctors will just pro bono help poor people.
The governments involvement in public health care has caused the price of health care to be exceedingly more expensive than it should be. In a private health system, poor people could actually afford health care.
Source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Spending
advancements in Technology cause the prices to decrease in every industry except for health care. This is because the government healthcare and regulations have kept the free market from healthcare. There is not motivation to lower the prices because the government makes the decisions instead of the market.
4. He wants to dissolve public education. No srsly.
He wants to dissolve the department of education
Yes, which includes public education. Again, I sourced it...go ahead and take a look. Seriously it's one of his policies, he doesn't think there should be any public education, and thinks it's a waste of taxpayer money.
was your source that ABCnews source? that only said he wanted to eliminate the department of education. the department of education does NOT establish schools or colleges; Public schools existed long before the Dep. of edu. existed. Do you really think they're the same thing?
5. He thinks Global warming is a hoax And he doesn't think evolution is valid. Which, considering he's a doctor, surprises and scares and confuses the hell out of me.
I don't see how being a doctor means he must support evolution...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw#t=0m43s
Considering that evolution isn't believed by a large majority, I think this is a fair position on the issue.
Um...did you read your own source? You are aware that it says 95% of scientists believe in evolution...right? And those are the people who's opinions on scientific matters...matter. I don't care what the 'general public' thinks...I care about what the people who know what they're talking about think. All that source does is make me sad for america, but hopeful for scientists.
That's because the scientific community basically requires that you believe in evolution to be one of them. even so, Ron Paul wouldn't govern just the scientist, he would govern everybody; how the hell can you say "I don't care what the general public thinks".
6. he's against Federal testingthat prevents products that will kill you from being sold in mass retailers.
could you post what Ron Paul said about this issue.
Testing does not have to be done by the federal government; it could easily be done by an independent organization.
I did. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39a7mP1JoUA
That make it clearer? Also, independent study and regulation of product to protect citizens doesn't guarantee anything. Unlike if the federal government says something can't be sold, or has to be recalled, if an independent organization does the research, nothing's stopping people from going, "Yeah, that's not too bad a consequence for that product, we'll sell it anyway." And what about the general public that...you know...don't research that kind of stuff? That don't have the time or researches to keep up to date on that kind of stuff? Those people are kind of eff'd out of luck in that scenario now aren't they?
I did more research on the FDA and why Ron Paul is against it. It seems more like an excuse to give the government control over the healthcare market. I strongly support alternative healthcare, which the FDA restricts. My older sister was dehydrated and couldn't hold down water. We took her to the emergency room where they spent $3000 testing on her; they found nothing. We went to a different doctor who uses homeopathic medicine and stuff. He found the problem right away and healed her.
independent study will protect people from dangerous medicine without restricting their options. It would be similar to the API certification that motor oil uses. An independent company researches medicine, and a medication can have the company certify it, so that the patient can know that it's safe.
7. He's radically pro life And wants to make abortion federally considered murder.
He's pro life, but he doesn't intend to make a law saying that abortion is murder. He wants this to be decided by the states, and not get the federal government involved.
*sigh*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-personhood-pledge_n_1170373.html
Yeah he does. Now hush.
"Um...did you read your own source?" he said in the above article that "it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does -- through state laws."
8. He wants to do away with Foreign aid as well as pull out of The United Nations because...well...hey...isolationism worked so well in the past, right?
The government can't afford foreign aid, and I don't think foreign aid really helps poor people on other countries. If you want to help poor people in other countries, donate to charity.
Ah, common libertarian rhetoric, "If you want poor people to be helped, you do it. Don't pay the government to give your money to them."
Why not? Seems like a valuable expenditure of resources to me.
I question whether that money actually supports poor people, or if it just goes to the government leaders
people donate money to charity for foreign aid. people donated over 24 billion dollars in 2010. If the government taxed us less, we would be able to donate more.
And he wants to end Birthright citizenship. Fuck those babies, what have they done for 'MERRICA?!
illegal immagrants have been taking advantage of this law. They illegally immigrate across our border, have children, and say "we can't leave because of our children". I live in Texas; illegal immigrants are a big problem, as they reap the benefits of taxpayer-funded services even though they don't pay taxes
So what you're saying is that parents of children born in the united states are never deported. Source?
First off, I didn't say that they were never deported; I'm saying that they use their children to argue for illegal immigrant rights.
you're asking me for a source that proves that something never happens? aren't you supposed to prove that it does happen?
You're saying that...
*re-wording of my quote even though you already quoted me
Source?
*re-wording of my quote even though you already quoted me
Source?
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Public-schools-reminded-not-to-turn-away-illegal-1687878.php
BigLundi wrote...
Ron Paul...is both socially...and economically conservative. However since he's also pro taking the government out of...everything, libertarians have fallen in love with this ancient douchebag doctor. I knew...well..next to nothing about the guy until a few months ago when my brother and all his friends decided to start talking him up. I don't like to jump to conclusions just becuase libertarians support him, or just because he's considered a 'conservative' or a r 'republican'.However, after doing a lot of research...I can safely say...fuck Ron Paul.
Here's some reasons why.
1. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
2. He's against the Americans with Disabilities Act.. Sidenote: He's not pro discrimination, he just thinks regulating people to not discriminate is bad...which I still disagree with . Heavily. Seriously. Fuck. Bigots.
You and FPoD already debated this issue, I think in this thread
3. He's against public health care. And evidently thinks that in a private system...doctors will just pro bono help poor people.
The governments involvement in public health care has caused the price of health care to be exceedingly more expensive than it should be. In a private health system, poor people could actually afford health care.
4. He wants to dissolve public education. No srsly.
He wants to dissolve the department of education
5. He thinks Global warming is a hoax And he doesn't think evolution is valid. Which, considering he's a doctor, surprises and scares and confuses the hell out of me.
I don't see how being a doctor means he must support evolution...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw#t=0m43s
Considering that evolution isn't believed by a large majority, I think this is a fair position on the issue.
6. he's against Federal testingthat prevents products that will kill you from being sold in mass retailers.
could you post what Ron Paul said about this issue.
Testing does not have to be done by the federal government; it could easily be done by an independent organization.
7. He's radically pro life And wants to make abortion federally considered murder.
He's pro life, but he doesn't intend to make a law saying that abortion is murder. He wants this to be decided by the states, and not get the federal government involved.
8. He wants to do away with Foreign aid as well as pull out of The United Nations because...well...hey...isolationism worked so well in the past, right?
The government can't afford foreign aid, and I don't think foreign aid really helps poor people on other countries. If you want to help poor people in other countries, donate to charity.
9. He's against the minimum wage which was established for the exact reason he feels it's unnecessary. Paul thinks that companies should be able to pay whatever they want to their workers...it was established in the first place because CEO's and company owners are assholes that don't WANT to pay their workers well. That's how illegal immigrants get work.
I haven't studied economics enough to really say anything on this issue. if another member could respond to this, please do. 10.He voted to build a fence along mexico's border to, in his words, keep americans in.
He was talking about what would happen if the suggested fence was built. the video didn't describe what the suggested fence was, which is kinda important. I don't think it's the same fence as the one he voted on, because that fence already exists, and he wouldn't be discussing it.
And he wants to end Birthright citizenship. Fuck those babies, what have they done for 'MERRICA?!
illegal immagrants have been taking advantage of this law. They illegally immigrate across our border, have children, and say "we can't leave because of our children". I live in Texas; illegal immigrants are a big problem, as they reap the benefits of taxpayer-funded services even though they don't pay taxes
Border collie (dog). They're very smart, physically gifted, and very playful. The one I had would bark when around people, but was quiet when alone. He loved playing with anything, water, balls, rope, etc. I think he represents my personality best, except for 1 thing: Whenever he was sprayed by a sprinkler, he would stand in the sprinkler and chase his tail, I don't know why, but it was funny
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
I don't understand what the stuff in italic means. You implement this by acting like a human being living a normal life, and not by acting like you're in a delusional world where nothing matters.
*rubs eyes* Really? You don't understand what it means to draw a logical line to a piece of knowledge like, "Existence is independent and objective"
I never said that, nor did you ask that.
Again, simply saying...
*another re-quote of me even though you already quoted me
...is not only not an implementation, but it's just one, not TERRIBLY convincing justification.
*another re-quote of me even though you already quoted me
...is not only not an implementation, but it's just one, not TERRIBLY convincing justification.
I don't see how that's not an implementation, but whatever.
maybe it would be easier if you would explain the same thing. So far, your explanation of your belief is "without any justification, without any pathway to get there, without any explanation as to how you implement this."
um...
That was my opinion of a philosophical quote that I posted in a topic titled "Opinion on philosophical quotes regarding reality".
The reason why I find the quotes annoying is because I have trouble understanding all these alternate reality dream theories. You say my position "oversimplifies" this concept, but (in my opinion) I think philosophers over-complicate this concept.
That was my opinion of a philosophical quote that I posted in a topic titled "Opinion on philosophical quotes regarding reality".
The reason why I find the quotes annoying is because I have trouble understanding all these alternate reality dream theories. You say my position "oversimplifies" this concept, but (in my opinion) I think philosophers over-complicate this concept.
Wonderful cop out.
*another re-quote of me even though you already quoted me
you said that my opinion was "completely unjustified", I don't know how it's a "cop out" to say something so obvious
Great, then you'll be perfectly ok when I say that your statement being steeped in ignorance is 'my opinion' and you won't feel any need to argue it, nor ask me to justify the attack, now will you?(nevermind the fact that I already did before you even asked me to)
are you talking about my opinion that it's annoying? or my belief that we should just act upon what we perceive to be reality?
Also, is that not a tacit admission of ignorance? "I find these quotes annoying because I have trouble understanding them."
I understand what the quote is saying, but I've never seen enough evidence or reason to convince me that alternate realities could exist. I guess "unconvinced" would be a much better word than "not understanding"
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
I really find quotes like this to be very annoying. I just accept that the present is reality, and act upon that.I hardly ever dream, so this is really easy for me
What a dickish mentality steeped in ignorance...
*re-quoting of me even though you already quoted me
...Well sorry, but the fact of the matter is that reality ISN'T as easy as, "I see it, so it's there."
That's not what I said; that statement is implying that what I see becomes objective reality. A quote that would more accurately describe my position on this would be "I see it, so I act like it's there"
I'd prefer you explain what's wrong with my beliefs before you go on insulting them
[Your position is an oversimplified utilitarian, "Things are as they appear." without any justification, without any pathway to get there, without any explanation as to how you implement this.
I don't understand what the stuff in italic means. You implement this by acting like a human being living a normal life, and not by acting like you're in a delusional world where nothing matters.
your original response "I really find quotes like these to be very annoying." without any explanation as to why, is still completely unjustified
um...
That was my opinion of a philosophical quote that I posted in a thread titled "Opinion on philosophical quotes regarding reality".
The reason why I find the quotes annoying is because I have trouble understanding all these alternate-reality dream theories. You say my position "oversimplifies" this concept, but (in my opinion) I think philosophers over-complicate this concept.
Rito Ayasaki wrote...
Reikshiryo wrote...
Where did the first post go? WOAH.
She's right.
Where did the masterlist go?
With all the pack DL's?
so there is supposed to be a download packs? (I just started lurking around nosebleed, so I don't know)
I'm really confused about the first post... was the download hosted by megaupload?
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
I really find quotes like this to be very annoying. I just accept that the present is reality, and act upon that.I hardly ever dream, so this is really easy for me
What a dickish mentality steeped in ignorance...
*re-quoting of me even though you already quoted me
...Well sorry, but the fact of the matter is that reality ISN'T as easy as, "I see it, so it's there."
That's not what I said; that statement is implying that what I see becomes objective reality. A quote that would more accurately describe my position on this would be "I see it, so I act like it's there"
I'd prefer you explain what's wrong with my beliefs before you go on insulting them
