Why Ron Paul blows.

Actually, gravity does things scientist can't explain and acts in ways that don't coincide with what it should.

And really, evolution doesn't mean anything to him. So it doesn't matter what he thinks on it.

Things have happened that the current evolutionary theory can't explain as well. But I could setup a lab and watch evolution happening. In the same way I could take a stone in my hand and watch it falling to the ground. But yeah this has gone offtopic. Probably been threads about evolution on this forum already.

The task of government is to allocate the resources of the nation under its control to best ensure the welfare of all, that's true... however unless you specify how, your statement is just another meaningless slogan.

Do we give to the rich and promote enterprise? Do we give to the poor and promote wealth-fare? How do we measure the worthiness of the individual when it comes to government assistance? How do we measure the effectiveness of the government assistance itself? Even the rich receive massive government assistance in the form of the laws, courts and police that enforce the business standards on the national, and in the form of defense on the international level.

You've so far failed to give any kind of answer to these questions... which is no wonder, as you're an angry young man without the life experience or the patience to listen to the stories of elder generations.

It's my bad though, that I took you for a Randroid, when you yourself stated you're a Fascist in your "Thesis"... though my mistake was an honest one, for your ideology is just as irrational as hard-line libertarianism. Just as Marxists and Randroids, you Fascist also cling to the fairy tale theory that since the "Perfect Communist/Libertarian/Fascist Revolution" has yet to pass, no system truly embodied your ideals... which is useless drivel. When measured with such a stick, no government on Earth will ever measure up. I recommend you re-read what I posted about Lipsey-Lancaster theorem which explains the problems with these very notions.

I know next to jack about economics. But from what I gather, you're saying that the overall price will depreciate as the demand and production increases and the amount of research decreases.

I get it this far. But if we're constantly researching, creating, testing and producing new medicine, doesn't that mean that the overall value will be higher than before, even after it depreciates again? And the more we do this, the higher the overall value gets?

If we graphed it, we would notice a pattern where the cost increases before falling down and plateauing. But every time it falls and plateaus, it will undoubtedly be higher than where it had plateaued before. So, regardless of your argument, it seems that all the variables put together will eventually lead to higher overall costs no matter what.

The other problem here is exactly how we lower production costs. By "efficient ways" you undoubtedly mean cheaper materials and cheaper labor. Seeing as how we don't want to use cheap ingredients in our medicine in lieu of the ones that actually work, for cheap medicine production, cheaper labor is needed. That's where we see these big multinational drug manufacturers going into other countries and possibly exploiting factories and sweatshops that get the job done for ridiculously low wages.

I'm not trying to say that it's wrong to go and do all that. Companies gotta make business one way or another. The point I'm making with this is that, when talking about "efficient ways" to produce not just medicine but pretty much anything, you're affecting a lot more than just the cost of the product you're receiving.

Like I said, it's not that it's wrong to do these things, but we have to at least recognize that we're doing them.

Medicine manufacturing is almost completely automated, so this is one of the few areas where outsourcing is not so much an issue. (Lost tax revenues are).

However both of you are ignoring the fact, that it was privatization that has started the rising prices... which should be obvious to anyone who uses common sense to think about it instead regurgitating Chicago School Economics 101.

What did privatization introduce to the system? Participants who were in it for a profit. Hospitals try to charge as much as the insurance industry can bear, instead how much the procedures actually cost. The insurance industry in turn have jacked up the prices of their products and try to lower costs by outright denying procedures... and in the end, it's Joe Average who gets to foot the bill in one form or another.

Countries with national health-coverage tend to have a lot lower medical costs, since the whole system is geared toward minimizing costs instead of maximizing profit. The two are *not* the same, and as I keep stressing this, in the real world, the unrestricted market doesn't produce an optimum.

...He's a medical doctor...a field in which is based off of the foundation of evolutionary theory. Not only that but he's a presidential candidate...and it doesn't matter what he thinks on it. Just...wow.

Nevermind the whole evolutionary theory is the basis behind modern biology point, that's been beaten to death.

But holy shit you honestly think it doesn't matter if someone who wants to run the country displays a total lack of critical thinking capability in the face of something so...axiomatic at this point?

I don't know about you but I care if my president is a fundamentalist dipshit or not. Belief in god is all fine and dandy but science denialism is not.

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.

No. Unless he has policies he wants to implement related to evolution I do not see why it would honestly matter what he personally thought about evolution.

The only part of the evolutionary theory that is probably crucial for a doctor is adaptation.

Just because it's ingrained into Biology is not a good argument for its validity.

And nothing in science should be taken for granted. If you are willing to do that you are no longer a critical thinker as you seem to be so apt to whine about.

Simple, it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking ability that I don't want in the white house. There you go.



That's what evolutionary theory is. Allellic frequency changes among populations of phenotypes due to natural selection of mutations in genes. Yet he looks at this theory, this basic fact that his profession is based on, and goes, "Nope. I don't buy it."

That's cognitive dissonance on a level that's unacceptable.



The fact that it's the foundation for all the medicine you've ever taken isn't a good argument for its validity? Goddamn, what WOULD be a good argument for its validity?



...Ok...I really find people like you annoying. "You can't know anything 100%, so stop acting like science is 100%."

Shut up. Seriously. That's such a childish post modernistic argument that I find annoying. Not a single person here, myself included, is trying to say anything in science is 100%, and every time you bring up this silly little fact that means literally nothing it just goes to show what little argument you actually have.

You're like those people who go, "The words separation of church and state are nowhere in the constitution!" Sure, you memorized a trivial, TRIVIAL fact, and are now using it as the spearhead of your contentions in such an annoying way, that it shows you have nothing to back up your argument that it's 'perfectly ok' for a presidential candidate to just shrug off arguably the strongest theory in all of science, that is the foundation for his chosen profession.

If you don't see the problem of someone studying something heavily, benefiting from it financially, and calling himself well versed on the subject, and then SPITTING in its face by saying, "I don't buy it." Then I honestly don't know what it would take to convince you that anyone, at any time, is wrong for holding any belief.

Or is that your position? Not to straw man you here but I have to clarify...DO you think that there are beliefs that shouldn't be held? Or do you think everyone gets to believe whatever they want, and nobody gets to say they're full of shit for it?

Giving to the rich doesn't promote enterprise, it promotes an aristocracy, it promotes anti-capitalism actually. And giving to the poor doesn't promote welfare, you may have well given the poor man money but unless he knows what to do with it and unless it's sufficient enough to cover the daily challenges a man faces, he's still poor.

It doesn't matter which way government leans economically, a government cannot create a social State. In your arrogance, you continue to proclaim I hold no political thesis, when in fact I believe it to be the other way around. I comprehend and understand the limitations of a State, but for some reason Liberals cannot grasp this common fact.

A Government cannot create a State, that's the firm belief of the Founding Fathers. That the ideal State is the one that secures the domestic peace of it's citizens for they are the ones who create the State.

What a government can do, through it's leaders and through it's lawful positions is it can guide the people, it can set an example. In this way, a government can craft a State. But even then, it's up to the people whether or not they want to heed said leadership or turn away from it.

Neither the Liberal, nor the Neo-con has any leadership. In fact, even up including to the politicians themselves, any neo-con or Liberal is merely a follower to the Status Quo. They don't know why they hold their respective ideologies and they don't even believe them, it's just that the sheep are gathering in a herd so I might as well too.

Hence, why America's declining. It's social leaders are a bunch of sheep, clueless to their political position and even more clueless to it's political consequences.

I'm of the firm belief that a civilization that has long lost any such leadership, The lack of political understanding will not only fail to uphold a Libertarian position(IE: If Ron Paul is elected, he will get no help from what will be a Democratic/Republican Congress. He will therefore be deemed to be a lame duck president when the real lame ducks are the American People) But a Neo-con/Liberal stance will also always be pro-corporate and therefore the degeneration of our State continues onward.


Which is why a Fascist Government is necessary in America now, Guided Freedom as the principal to domestic happiness with leaders who have proven themselves worthy and ethical to uphold the responsibility. The American People have never been able to craft a State, and nothing can be more evident of that then the fact that in the last 60 years the American People have grown more and more tired of the lack of leadership from both borg hives

But utterly refuses to change whatsoever, because they too(the citizens) lack leadership. How sad, a nation of sheep where the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave once resided.

"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.

He's also a supporter of the theory that the Jews did 9/11

-1 rep, someone is buttmad. But it's not like I'm making any of this up, they're actual quotations of his. People sure are overly fragile here, obviously not fit for SD.

+repped. Don't kill the messenger.

About the newsletters:

He didn't write it, didn't know about it before it was published, doesn't believe anything like it, and has apologized for and diavowed those comments. What else could you want? A time machine?

You complain ron's a racist - he's not, but fine. Why aren't you complaining about anyone else's racism? Why not santorum, who hates all Arabs?

Paul has advocated ending the war on drugs, using the disproportionate affect it has on minorities. Doesn't seem like something a racist would advocate.

He's ending the war on drugs, because he's a libertarian and libertarians don't believe in *any* federal program.

However given what I've seen he's one of those "non-racists", who never the less nod-nod & wink-wink at all those racists when it comes to denigrating blacks and Hispanics. He associates with and was funded by some of the most hard-line racists organizations... but he's "not a racist"...

...please get real. Even if Ron Paul is not a racist, he wouldn't beat an eyelash if segregation and racist laws in the South were reintroduced and would say it's all OK., since these are "state laws" and the states can do whatever they want.

facepalm.jpg




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.

Ron Paul is a silver-dime-fucking asshat who refuses to accept that he's a bigot. His insistence on almost completely destroying the power of the federal government is the kind of belief that leads to the sharp degradation of countries.

Then why does X go down in other technologically-advancing industries? such as Cameras, Cell Phones, Computers, or TVs?



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.



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?


-____-

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?



The government has deceived my trust; God hasn't. There's nothing inconsistent about my trust



We do, and a very large amount of people legally immigrate every year.



really?...
"illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002"

Those aren't X, for one, those are Y. Cell Phones, cameras, computers, and televisions upgrade and become more expensive. Mind giving me a source for the idea that in other countries the cost of all these things goes down when they become more advanced?



For the last time, Ron Paul believes public education is socialist, and wants it abolished, because it's supported in major part by the federal government Abolishing the department of education is just doing all he can do towards that goal as president.



Someone who doesn't understand evolution making a thread about it, this should be fun.

In any case, Yes,evolution has been proven to be true. Though you seem to equate something proven to be true in science to being proven to be true absolutely. Which I've gone over a million times isn't the case. What it HAS been proven to, is true, systemically so. That is, every single time it's tested, it passes. So we have every single reason to accept that it's true, and absolutely none to not. So as far as allellic frequency shifts in populations of genes, this is something everyone accepts, because it's become undeniable. The only thing people bicker about in the public is the logical conclusion from this fact, and the only thing people bicker about in the scientific community is how and why EXACTLY this happens.



*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.



Yet you can't seem to show how they've done so.



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.



So clearly we spend too much money on government public benefits projects. 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 are you bitching?

[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

So you agree that he's...you...agree that he's...trying...to....ngh...my head...f...FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU



You disapprove of the governments selection because they don't endorse homeopathy, which you claim works because your sister got better when she visited a homeopath. Great. That doesn't stop the facts of the matter. Homeopathy has been shown time and again to be nothing more than a placebo effect. I don't care about your 'experience' because personal anecdotes don't make for evidence towards a case.



*groans and rubs eyebrows* Lemme guess...another conspiracy theory?



And all of them are wrong, and it does have to do with Ron Paul since this is his policy and I'm...you know...against it...and this topic is why I think he blows as a candidate. His immigration policies are among them.



Of course I believe there's too much money spent on public welfare programs and whatnot. However unlike some people I don't think that this means we should outright get rid of it. It's a flawed system, this is to be expected with...ANY human made system. The goal shouldn't be, "If there are problems, abolish it." the goal should be, "IF there are problems, compromise to come to the best conclusion." And fucktards like Ron Paul are the types of people to go, "Screw it! Out with the whole thing!"



[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[/quote]

No you didn't, because you also made it sound like the illegal immigrants were coming over, giving nothing to society, and leeching off society's hospitality...which you showed isn't the case. So congrats, you've refuted yourself. I have no problem with the parents getting taxpayer benefits if they...pay taxes.