On what are you basing the claim that we can't multitask? Are you saying that government can only address one issue at a timeand can't look at any others until the current one is completely resolved?

JimmySeal Wrote:On what are you basing the claim that we can't multitask? Are you saying that government can only address one issue at a timeand can't look at any others until the current one is completely resolved?

Not that "we" or "you" can't, it's that Obama and Romney won't.

toshiromiballza Wrote:It's a fact that African-Americans are by far the most criminally inclined group in America (or Britain, for that matter), being 7 times more likely to be in prison for a crime, even though they are only 13% of the population or so. So while the first quote is exaggerated, I can definitely see the point he is making, but I guess you need to put down your PC glasses to see it..

And what do you think the reason is why they are more likely to be in prison for a crime? Why are they more "criminally inclined"?

yudantaiteki Wrote:And what do you think the reason is why they are more likely to be in prison for a crime? Why are they more "criminally inclined"?

The reasons why something is so and so are not important when you simply state a fact. It's as if I said Mt. Everest is 8,848 meters tall, and you'd ask me why?

toshiromiballza Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:And what do you think the reason is why they are more likely to be in prison for a crime? Why are they more "criminally inclined"?

The reasons why something is so and so are not important when you simply state a fact.

They certainly are important when the "stated facts" are meant to imply a particular conclusion.

toshiromiballza Wrote:

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Thirdly, we can multi-task.

No you can't. Not with Obama, and not with Romney. With Paul at least, you would have at least done the more important task of bringing the troops home, thus save thousands of potential lives, not to mention save billions of dollars. It's sad and disgusting when this is not the opinion of everyone.

Lol, I love how matter-a-factly you state that. "Nope, presidents can't multitask. Nope never. Its always just one single thing their entire time in office."

I haven't followed the Afgan war, but I suspect the campaign is in fast pull out; especially after the massacre event. Its also worth noting that Obama has also pulled out practically all our troops from Iraq too. Of course Paul didn't do it and of course it wasn't accomplished at light speed, so it makes the issue moot. Am I rite?

Quote:Being politically "correct" or not should not matter. Often, it is the politically incorrect statement that speaks the truth, but it is ignored or shunned by the masses because it is not "politically correct."

You're right. Being PC shouldn't matter, but being PC is a lot like remembering to shower, comb your hair, wear clean clothes, and not cuss. That stuff shouldn't affect people's view on you or your opinions, but it does.

yudantaiteki Wrote:They certainly are important when the "stated facts" are meant to imply a particular conclusion.

If I was trying to be PC, I'd give a lengthy explanation to "sound nicer," but I'm not, so I'm simply stating a fact, and any such philosophical debate as to how and why this is so is not important. When a murderer is in court, the court doesn't discuss the reasons why and how he turned out into a murderer, only the fact that he murdered someone.

vix86 Wrote:Lol, I love how matter-a-factly you state that. "Nope, presidents can't multitask. Nope never. Its always just one single thing their entire time in office."

This was a reply to a hypothetical situation where one needs to both allow gay marriage and pull the troops back.

vix86 Wrote:I haven't followed the Afgan war, but I suspect the campaign is in fast pull out; especially after the massacre event. Its also worth noting that Obama has also pulled out practically all our troops from Iraq too.

Heh. I guess that's why Obama increased the troops in Afghanistan from 34,000 to 68,000. Pulled them out of Iraq and straight into Afghanistan, I bet. Also, you're insane to think this will end any time soon under Obama. There's plenty more oil and "WMD" in Iran and Syria, after all.

vix86 Wrote:You're right. Being PC shouldn't matter, but being PC is a lot like remembering to shower, comb your hair, wear clean clothes, and not cuss.

You forgot two, it's a lot like "not telling the truth" and "ignoring the truth."

toshiromiballza Wrote:This was a reply to a hypothetical situation where one needs to both allow gay marriage and pull the troops back.

I guess I'm not following because looking back at the hypotheticals. It sounded like the point was "Yes, you can have a list of agendas on the table and be doing them at the same time. Both working to increase gay rights and also bring the troops back home."

Quote:Heh. I guess that's why Obama increased the troops in Afghanistan from 34,000 to 68,000. Pulled them out of Iraq and straight into Afghanistan, I bet. Also, you're insane to think this will end any time soon under Obama. There's plenty more oil and "WMD" in Iran and Syria, after all.

I looked and couldn't find anything concerning the draw out from Iraq and straight into Afgan. I did find mention that in 2009 that Obama did do a troop surge, but then in 2010 and 2011 it was decided to begin a withdrawl from the country and that is currently in progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_...fghanistan

Quote:You forgot two, it's a lot like "not telling the truth" and "ignoring the truth."

At most being PC cheapens a thing or situation. I don't think I've ever heard anything thats PC that's also a flat out lie. Really that wasn't the point though. The point is Paul can speak bluntly, but he shouldn't be surprised when the media paints him as an eccentric and the public backs off.

vix86 Wrote:but then in 2010 and 2011 it was decided to begin a withdrawl from the country and that is currently in progress.

Like I said, you are insane if you think this will be the end of it. There are still plenty of Arabic/Muslim countries to invade/attack. Plus there is no way all the troops will leave, thousands will be left, and it will take several years anyway. Not to mention with all the tension in that part of the world, a new useless intervention is bound to happen, so you can bet your a** that "anti-war" Obama will send a whole lot of new troops to "make America safer."

[Zgarbas]

IceCream Wrote:Wait, i see, it's just the minimal state concept. Ayn Rand. ew.

....How is it Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand is an objectivist, which is pretty right wing. Minarchy started out as a functional alternative to anarchy, basically from the concept that the state is a necessary factor as humans need something to keep them safe.

Basically, you're what you make of yourself. if you can't make something of yourself because of factors you can't control (no parents, poor parents, being sick, what not) then the state should be there to help you out by providing for you until you can make something of yourself. It also keeps you safe by enforcing laws which keep others from getting in the way via crime&co. But if you can't make something out of yourself it's your own fault, as it's not the state's job to nanny you around if you can take care of yourself, and people shouldn't expect that.

It isn't the state's job to reform the way the world works, and that's a pretty hard thing to do as it's the way it's always worked. If you can't fit in when you've not had any considerable disadvantages then it's your own fault.

Quote:Maybe socialist not as much offending as communist, although, thanks to communist propaganda, some people in Eastern Europe seem to think that they are the same thing.

Also, comparing to US most European states *are* socialist (even Australia is) – just watch Sicko by Michael More to see how the American (sorry, the US) system is screwed up.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well, I would agree that European countries tend to be closer to Socialism than the US. Neither are actually Socialist countries, though.

Also you shouldn't necessarily take offense unless the person is using it as an insult -- Ceauşescu was a shitbag and Eastern Europe is still struggling somewhat to escape from its Communist past, but it's not a bad thing if the governments there have some socialist elements.

toshiromiballza Wrote:Like I said, you are insane if you think this will be the end of it. There are still plenty of Arabic/Muslim countries to invade/attack. Plus there is no way all the troops will leave, thousands will be left, and it will take several years anyway. Not to mention with all the tension in that part of the world, a new useless intervention is bound to happen, so you can bet your a** that "anti-war" Obama will send a whole lot of new troops to "make America safer."

You seem to be confusing Obama with George Bush. I'm pretty sure I've never heard the "make America safer" justification for military activity in the middle east. He wasn't the one who started these wars. He hurried to get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as was reasonably possible, and he authorized a troop surge in Afghanistan to tip the scales in what was turning into a war of attrition.

If you think just yanking our troops out of the middle east indiscriminately and leaving those countries in total chaos is the right thing to do, then that's just crass and irresponsible.

Zgarbas Wrote:I wanted to also point out how rude it is to call someone a socialist in the former Eastern Bloc

oh wow I almost lost it at this point.

ya the socialism thing is really embarrassing because in america that word alongside 'liberal' have been stigmatized to the point of being an insult by itself... however in the rest of the world it just seems that american people don't know what these terms actually mean (which they dont)... which is really painful for the rest of us to watch.

for those out here who think elements of a planned economy equate to socialism... please please please read a history book. socialism is not a grey area between two extreme points...it is an extreme point itself. it's like calling someone a totalitarian for not allowing free speech... in the eyes of someone who understands these terms you look silly.

JimmySeal Wrote:If you think just yanking our troops out of the middle east indiscriminately and leaving those countries in total chaos is the right thing to do, then that's just crass and irresponsible.

Yes, because America spreading the joy of democracy across the world is totally worth killing millions of people. It's none of our business what other countries do, and whether they are democratic nations or not. And let's face it, the only reason they intervened in Iraq is because of oil. I don't see America intervening in any African disputes. Gee, I wonder why. Thanks to American military, those countries are now in bigger chaos than they ever were under any dictatorship. Not to mention the body count has quadrupled thanks to the American "liberators." Let the Islamic countries rule their own nations however they please; America has zero right babysitting them and telling them what to do so America can benefit by exploiting them. All this under the pretext of "saving them from harsh dictatorship" or some other nonsense. Without America's imperialist BS, 9/11 would have never happened. America should stop playing "World Police" and take care of her own problems first. In fact, it's the only thing America should do; let other countries decide for themselves. Let Israel fight its own wars. And I thought Saddam was a dictator...

Oh, I almost forgot: he pulled your troops out of Libya too. No, wait...

Zgarbas Wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

This may well be the case because democratic socialism and social democracy are somewhat similar yet they are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

I just want to point out for the record that the prior discussion and what JimmySeal had replied to was about how Obama handled the wars in Iraq and Afgan. vs "how obviously Ron Paul would have done it." Because this post right here is absolutely nothing about that any more. Its all about some constructed reality you have about how "the masses" of America view America's "clandestine goal in the world."

toshiromiballza Wrote:And let's face it, the only reason they intervened in Iraq is because of oil.

Most ironically though, America didn't see that much oil from the endevour. The oil
contracts only ran for a year and included numerous countries that weren't America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_..._contracts

Quote:I don't see America intervening in any African disputes. Gee, I wonder why.

Probably because no African terrorists have made a big enough impact in the media. But in all seriousness. The US has been involved in African countries in various peacekeeping operations. Yep, that's right, not everything the US does is about dropping bombs on other countries--imagine that.

Quote:America has zero right babysitting them

You know what? You're absolutely ***** right. But you know the most amusing thing though? Whenever shit hits the fan and stuff goes crazy and countries need saving. Everyone expects the US to step in and help because they have sinked trillions into defense and military. Libya is the most salient example of this. Obama stated at the up rising of the Libya conflict that Americans were not interested in getting involved in another war. And as hard as it might be for you to swallow that or believe that Americans want to always be blowing something up, the polls back this up. Americans are sick of ***** wars right now. Obama said the only way they would get involved in anything in Libya is if UN/NATO decided to act.....guess what happened? NATO decided to act and the US supported with air strikes.

Quote:he pulled your troops out of Libya too. No, wait...

Lol, he never put troops on the ground in Libya in the first place. The US and a number of other countries merely maintained a No-Fly Zone sanctioned by the UN Security Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn

EDIT: I just wanted to add on that I am not completely in disagreement with you. I do believe the US has no right playing "world police" where it sees fit. But there is also this point about how we and many other countries have an obligation to step in when we all believe there is infraction on human rights taking place. The usual example given is: If you live in an apartment building and you hear yells and screams from your neighbor and you know he beats his wife regularly. Are you going to sit there go 'I'm not the apartment police, not my job to do shit, that woman ought to do something for her self...'

vix86 Wrote:Lol, he never put troops on the ground in Libya in the first place. The US and a number of other countries merely maintained a No-Fly Zone sanctioned by the UN Security Council.

Well, I do remember a news article from January or something about several thousands of troops stationed in Malta being ready to get shipped to Libya. And you can expect future troops getting shipped to Syria or Iran. All in all, he is no different than a Republican, and only Ron Paul is against all this (and has the balls to do it).

toshiromiballza Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:If you think just yanking our troops out of the middle east indiscriminately and leaving those countries in total chaos is the right thing to do, then that's just crass and irresponsible.

Yes, because America spreading the joy of democracy across the world is totally worth killing millions of people.

I'm curious how you continue to miss my point. I'm not talking about going around the world fixing everything in sight. I'm talking about fixing the stuff we broke and not just walking away now that it's a total mess. We made the mess. It's our responsibility to fix it or at least leave it in some semblance of order. The bugging out that you're proposing would irresponsible and cowardly.

a lot to address in this thread...

For the time being, I'll just propose a thought experiment:

Imagine a hypothetical scenario whereby a section of the US (for the sake of argument, lets say Texax) is declared an independent country. A libertarian minarchist government is put in charge. This government phases in a system of reforms whereby after say 5 years there is progressive taxation peaking at say 5%. A strict per-capita limit is set dictating a certain amount of this total revenue to be used for the maintenance of domestic civil order (police and courts etc). Any remaining funds go towards a fund for people below a certain income level who lack health insurance.

How would this scenario play out?

nadiatims Wrote:A strict per-capita limit is set dictating a certain amount of this total revenue to be used for the maintenance of domestic civil order (police and courts etc). Any remaining funds go towards a fund for people below a certain income level who lack health insurance.

What about roads?

I think this is utopism...

JimmySeal Wrote:

nadiatims Wrote:A strict per-capita limit is set dictating a certain amount of this total revenue to be used for the maintenance of domestic civil order (police and courts etc). Any remaining funds go towards a fund for people below a certain income level who lack health insurance.

What about roads?

During the reform period, they are privatized. Ie. sold off to the highest bidders. During this initial privatization period some limits are placed on the amount any one individual buyer can obtain.

nadiatims Wrote:How would this scenario play out?

Since there is already been an economy in place and there are many imbalances in the system. I think what you would see is many companies moving to Texas and setting up businesses there. There would be a population surge and life would be great for a while probably. The rich would live a spectacular life because money would allow them to function much much more fluidly in Texas. I think eventually though you would hit a hiccup. Hard to say when or where, but probably would involve some company that has grown to be gigantic and absorbed multiple markets/industries (think Wal-mart). Because the people running these companies are greedy as F*** usually, they'll start trying to suck more money out somehow. This will lead to lower and lower wages, slowly pushing middle class families into lower classes. They'll lose homes because they can't pay their mortgages. There will be a number of businesses that pop up and try and 1-up the large company, but thanks to their size and stored money, they can gouge prices and force the startup companies into bankruptcy and then raise prices back up higher than before to make up on losses. There's a feedback loop in here though where as families lose money, they stop buying goods from these companies and their profits drop. The question is where the breaking point is. People will likely riot though and instill a new govt. There will be great loses though since the large companies were able to afford mercenaries and bribe officials to treat the mess as acts of civil disobedience.

Also since you said roads are privatized. Then I believe maybe 2-3 possible outcomes are likely. A) People in rural areas start to service their own roads because companies won't want to put money into something that few use. B) Companies will charge local districts to have them come out and service the road. C) Many roads return to dirt as the population decides its cheaper and easier to move into cities than to do A or B.

This is what I think would probably happen. Power and money would slowly centralize into a small minority within the system as years trudge on. The majority of the public will slowly get poorer and poorer till people get fed up and rebel or at least try. Its a lot different than it was before the 18th century; weapons have come a very long way.

EDIT: Wanted to add one other thing on. Ironically. I believe with government intervention and some mixture of socialism and capitalism, the only difference between the above is that the riots, etc (lets call them resets). The resets can come sooner due to people electing officials once in a blue-moon-meteor-strike who will steal companies hard earned exploited money and instigate various work programs to reboot the economy as well as fund new innovative research and endeavors. That will go on up till people feel complacent and the many are rich again and the cycle reboots. We'll have morphing governments and economic systems but the theme of centralizing money and power will be there regardless of whether its anarchy or socialist.

toshiromiballza Wrote:I'm pretty sure any sane and rational person would prioritize the saving of lives, both military and innocent, over some non-issue like the right to marry.

Sure, prioritization of goals is a legitimate strategy. I agree that foreign policy can be considered to be more important that homosexual rights. But consider the following: Foreign policy is a difficult problem to solve. Homosexual (equal) rights is an easy one to solve (just change the law, people who oppose it just have to deal with it like they dealt with interracial marriage and women's rights). So shouldn't we prioritize the easy-to-solve problems?

Even as a non-homosexual, I still disagree that human rights is a non-issue.

toshiromiballza Wrote:It's like your house is burning down, but you're worried that you forgot to make your bed. Looking at it from this perspective, I can see why America is being hated across the world.

I'm not sure if this analogy is completely accurate. If my house is burning down, then it would burn down in less than an hour. The effects of foreign policy, or the "burning down" has continually burned for more than 50 years. So I don't think time is an issue here, or at least, not to the extent that you make it.

I'll also introduce my own analogy: Reading native Japanese material is foreign policy. Learning basic Japanese grammar is homosexual (equal) rights. Which is easier: going straight into native Japanese material with little knowledge of grammar, or giving yourself a good foundation by studying basic Japanese grammar first?

toshiromiballza Wrote:True in that regard, but I take those differences between them as non-issues and irrelevant. My point of concern is first and foremost their foreign policy, in which both are pretty much the same s**t by taking the orders from AIPAC. Thus, I see no difference between Democrats or Republicans, as both vote for war. Being "evil" is subjective. Quite frankly, I don't think either one of them is "more evil" than the other, but indeed, both are.

This sounds like a case of "Moving the Goal Posts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) to me. So you recognize that Obama and Romney voters can be different (despite your earlier claim that they're the exact same), but now you qualify your position via "issues" and "non-issues" (Romney/Obama voters are the same in "issues" but they are different in "non-issues").

Anyway, I don't care about the rest you say, maybe I even agree. As long as you recognize that 1) you were proven wrong and 2) you acknowledge that you used the "moving the goal posts" fallacy. Finally, your "Goverments can't or won't multitask" statement is a work in progress and will eventually be disproved in this thread by other people.

toshiromiballza Wrote:It's a fact that African-Americans are by far the most criminally inclined group in America (or Britain, for that matter), being 7 times more likely to be in prison for a crime, even though they are only 13% of the population or so. So while the first quote is exaggerated, I can definitely see the point he is making, but I guess you need to put down your PC glasses to see it. The second quote follows the same logic of them being more likely to be criminals, so I see the point again. Also the context is missing, for all we know he could have been talking about some city filled with ghettos, and you won't convince anyone not to be afraid walking through one. The third one is missing context too. Likely there was a riot going on in some street, and they actually did stop when it was time to pick the welfare check. Just because it sounds racist shouldn't be a reason not to speak the truth. The MLK quote speaks the truth again. He did have sex with prostitutes, and he did beat them. The paedophilia part I have never heard before, so I can't comment. I don't know who Barbara Jordan is, so I don't have much to say, but the context is missing, and she could have actually said something moronic for all we know.

toshiromiballza Wrote:If I was trying to be PC, I'd give a lengthy explanation to "sound nicer," but I'm not, so I'm simply stating a fact, and any such philosophical debate as to how and why this is so is not important. When a murderer is in court, the court doesn't discuss the reasons why and how he turned out into a murderer, only the fact that he murdered someone.

Actually, I think the "why" is pretty important. If you don't address the "why" (the problem), then we'll forever be addressing merely the symptoms of the problem.

In your hypothetical murderer in the court case, I'm sure they would consider all facts relevant to the case. For example, if it turned out that the "murderer" was actually acting in self-defense resulting in the death of the "victim" then it wouldn't be fair to charge the murderer (or manslaughterer) with the full charge due to the how and why (person was killed due to self defense, not from a malicious and calculated attack). Or maybe this murderer was a battered wife who finally snapped after years of abuse from her drunk husband. It's the court's job to consider all available facts and implement a reasonable solution.

Anyway, you were making the claim that black people are more criminally inclined while at the same time, stating that "how and why" is not important. I disagree.

Why are black people more criminally inclined? Is it because they are naturally more criminally inclined because of black genes? If so, since you don't care about how and why, then what policy would you implement? Sterilization for all blacks? Imprisonment of all blacks? Genocide of all blacks?

Perhaps we should look at the why. I myself don't know the why of it, but there seems to be a pretty high correlation between black criminals and the poverty of the families or households they came from. I'm not a sociologist or lawmaker but to me, black criminality seems to have a higher correlation with poverty (as an example) than say, just the black skin or genes. To me, crime seems to be better explanation by the poor household they were born in than so my first strategy would be to solve poverty. Because poverty is a cycle and if we don't address that, then black criminals (something you don't like) will keep existing and in higher numbers. If that doesn't work, then we could look your other options (sterilization etc).

Finally, the last thing I want to say is that if you want mainstream support for Ron Paul, you might want to drop this whole avenue of argument. It does nobody any good, whether it's black people or Ron Paul-supporters.

nadiatims Wrote:During the reform period, they are privatized. Ie. sold off to the highest bidders. During this initial privatization period some limits are placed on the amount any one individual buyer can obtain.

Vix already laid out some of the likely outcomes of something like this, but what's the "best case" outcome of private ownership of roads? Toll booths every few blocks when you switch from one owner's road system to another owner's roads?