|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Prescription-drug abuse is the fastest-growing drug problem in the U.S., says a report issued last month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same report states that in 2007, there were roughly 27,000 unintentional deaths from drug overdoses�or one death every 19 minutes. |
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/whitney-houston-s-death-xanax-and-alcohol-deadly-duo.html
Just for you two guys to chew over. I'm outa my depth in this one, so I'll just leave that little tidbit about the legal drugs issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Prescription-drug abuse is the fastest-growing drug problem in the U.S., says a report issued last month by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same report states that in 2007, there were roughly 27,000 unintentional deaths from drug overdoses�or one death every 19 minutes. |
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/whitney-houston-s-death-xanax-and-alcohol-deadly-duo.html
Just for you two guys to chew over. I'm outa my depth in this one, so I'll just leave that little tidbit about the legal drugs issue. |
It's not a bad point, but the number of deaths per user for medication is still incredibly low, and people generally agree that the pros of medications outweigh the potential cons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| I did, which is why I know to defend my points with supporting information. That's something you do in college. You're just refuting my points with the equivalent of "nuh uh". |
Yeah, I guess they spent 4 years teaching you to back up your grade 3 level arguments with wikipedia. You must be so impressed with yourself 
| Quote: |
| You haven't backed up anything. You gave a partisan link on black family structure with no causal link to welfare supported. |
You got owned by that link. The statistics came from professional historians. If you don't like it, then find something to refute it. Or just concede the point already.
| Quote: |
| That's not a causal link, it's a correlation. It's not showing us anything. |
Uh huh. So you think it's merely a coincidence then? You're not fooling anyone.
| Quote: |
| You weren't talking about marijuana, you were talking about crack, the drug who's arrests "affect blacks at a ridiculously disproportionate rate". |
You are the one who brought up crack specifically. I was talking about the drug laws, which include marijuana. Quite being so damn disingenuous.
| Quote: |
| It's clear that there's no way you're going to listen to anything anyone says to the contrary. You're stuck in your belief, and any effort to change your mind is clearly wasted. |
And you're a giant hypocrite, since the exact same applies to you. You also like to misrepresent what I say just to try and cover your tracks.
| Quote: |
| Yes, the war on drugs is about as damaging as a war on the pharmaceutical industry would be |
It is quite devastating, yes. But I guess you don't care since you (naively) think it doesn't affect you directly?
| Quote: |
| I know several people in my state (Massachusetts) who get by on minimum wage. It generally rises every few years, keeping up with living costs. |
Source?
| Quote: |
| Our unemployment rate is far better than the national average (6.8%). This is not me saying that minimum wage creates jobs (that would confuse correlation with causation), but it shows that minimum wage and employment rate are not inversely correlated. If you're going to make wild assertions that minimum wage kills jobs, please source it at the very least. |
According to the Bureau of Labor, the U-6 ("real") unemployment of Massachusetts in 2011 was over 14%. That's a high unemployment rate. http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
| Quote: |
| The solution is absolutely not to bring prices down, as those costs get externalized, usually to other poor people, who can no longer sustain their lives. Look at the farming situation in America: we've pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops to keep prices UP. Even still, we have benefits like FarmAid to further assist farmers. Lowering prices would be catastrophic. |
Thanks for demonstrating how completely ignorant you are about economics. Deflation in a free market system does not result in "externalized costs" (that's just something you pulled out of your rear end and hoped would stick). Deflation is only bad in a ponzi scheme. The sort of system we have now, which is unsustainable anyway. And paying big corporate farms subsidies not to grow stuff sure is working out well... The last thing we would want to do is make them lose money so the consumer could benefit
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
As for your ludicrous notion that regulation has been valuable to society: all the things it is meant to protect are not protected. The environment, for example, is trashed because government regulation allows big companies to pollute more than they would otherwise. The FDA allows all manners of poisons and to be present in our foods (even without proper labeling). Regulation of the financial system has allowed the banks to rape the whole world, get bailed out, and get away with it. Regulation is a sham.
|
So, by that logic, regulation is a problem because we don't have enough of it. |
By your abortive, non-logic, perhaps.
| Quote: |
| No system is perfect, and expecting perfection is just silly. Of course something somewhat dangerous slips through the cracks every now and then. Is there a better system? |
Yes. The free market is an infinitely better system. What you call "regulation" is actually a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats getting together with their cronies in the private sector to screw everyone. They use tax dollars to fill their own pockets while shutting down their competition, and in the meantime the public is not protected. In a free market system, any business that sold dangerous products would risk bankruptcy, not get a slap on the wrist and even more corporate welfare and unfair trade advantages to make up the difference.
| Quote: |
| Companies CANNOT be trusted to do the right thing. Throughout history, they have sold many products that were dangerous, either because of lack or research, or lack of concern for the effects they have. |
Companies can most certainly be trusted to do the right thing in a free market system where the rule of law is enforced. Break the law and risk bankruptcy (and/or prison time). Regulatory bodies in the US have not just failed to protect us, they have made us less safe. Companies like Monsanto putting poisons and GMO crud in our food would not exist without the muscle of the FDA.
| Quote: |
| You're the "noob" here. I've been siting sources, you have yet to provide one source supporting your ludicrous opinions. |
You're not a noob? You post a link to wikipedia, and suddenly you're an expert? 
You are out of your league. You don't know what the Fed is or how it works, and you can't even bring yourself to admit that the Great Depression continued for a decade after FDR came along.
| Quote: |
| They provide advancement for a small percentage of the workforce. Most people have absolutely no room for advancement. There can only be so many shift leaders (who would barely count as advancement), assistant managers, managers, etc. compared to the number of CSR's janitors, driver etc. Anyone who's worked at a minimum wage job knows this. Not everyone can be manager. |
No, but in a free market system without all the crushing taxes, inflation, regulation, unfair trade advantages etc. they could hope start their own small business someday using the skills they've acquired.
| Quote: |
| In no way is the US "fascist" in any sense of the word. That's another comment that goes in the crazy list. |
Mussolini himself defined 'fascism' (actually he usually referred to it as 'corporatism') as the "merger between state and corporate power". And you claim this definition doesn't apply to the US "in any sense of the word"? Wow, and you think I'm crazy...
Pretty much all I do is read countless articles by Austrian economists (LvM Institute, Hayek, Rothbard et al., sites like zerohedge.com etc.) written by serious professionals. Tons and tons of superb pieces that crunch the numbers and show that deflation is generally a desirable thing (in a free market, non-ponzi based system). These professional economists predicted the crises in advance and are nearly always spot on (they were writing about the impending housing crisis years before it happened). And you try and hand me some wikipedia blurb. It's really pathetic. Just for that, I'm not even going to throw you a bone.
| Quote: |
| Explain the mechanics of how inflation hurts the poor more than the rich if wage increases match inflation. |
Because "the rich" (by which I mean the super rich, ie. the bankers) literally create the money of thin air. All of the money we have in the monetary system is created as inflationary, interest-bearing debt. It is a 'debt based' monetary system (used to be fractional reserve with gold requirements, but not even that anymore).
| Quote: |
| I don't blame all Muslims for terrorist attacks. Blame the Fed, not the rest of the government. |
What a stupid analogy. The Fed couldn't exist without the government. And I do blame the government because the Fed is what allows the government to grow like a cancer. It can continually issue bonds and receive limitless funding from the Fed (at full current purchasing power) and use it expand its power, go to war, and fund the crony, corporate sector on Wall Street. The government spends all this made-up money and forces the rest of us (at gunpoint) to use this debt-based fiat money (sole legal tender), pay taxes on the massive interest, and pay through inflation.
| Quote: |
| I haven't read anything about the fed causing any of the financial crisis's (aside from failing to act), although I'm well aware of their contributions to the current US debt. |
Clearly you haven't read much of anything at all about this subject. Do you even know where our current form of money comes from? The process by which it is created?
| Quote: |
| The general consensus is that it was caused by risky loans, due to lack of regulation. |
Why were risky loans being granted? Hm? Use your head here. The money came from the Fed's lax monetary policy, and the risky loans were backed by Fannie and Freddie (ie. the US government).
| Quote: |
| Union Carbide is an EXCELLENT example of free market capitalism: they were simply unable to remain competitive and clean up their mess, so they just left the mess there. If they had done the right thing, their stock would have tanked. That's WHY we have regulation: to force corporations to do the right thing. |
Man, you are all mixed up inside... Forcing a company to pay for damages it has caused is the very essence of free market capitalism. You are free do as you will, so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others (it is not the same as anarchy). If you kill somebody, you suffer the consequences under the law. If you damage others' property you have to pay compensation for it. This has nothing to do with "regulation" as you mean it. Regulation means the government will pay for the mess and take accountability/risk out of the equation for politically well connected corporations. That is corporatism, aka 'crony capitalism', the antithesis of free market.
| Quote: |
Where does this happen in history? The trend I see is that the free market trampled individual rights until government stepped up and regulated it. |
A very limited government is required to enforce the basic rule of law, including property rights. Regulation (by which I take it you mean giant government departments that actively "regulate" what a business does day to day) simply leads to monopolies and corruption (similar to a mafia protection racket) and almost never protects the public.
| Quote: |
| Stalin was not president of the US, and the Chinese countryside is out of our jurisdiction, so both are moot points unless you want to change "the government" to "some governments". |
Oh, so you think the US government is some magical exception to the rule?? The US government is one of the worst in all of history. We had things like eugenics (including forced sterilization of people) long before Hitler borrowed the idea and expanded upon it. Not to mention slavery. Our so-called government today sends the military and black ops around the world to terrorize and bomb civilian men, women, and children like it's going out of style and you expect me to believe they are working in the interest of poor Americans?
| Quote: |
| Jim Crow has nothing to do with PRESENT government politics; it doesn't mean the US government is now actively using welfare with the intention to keep people poor. It's just speculation on your part, with no supporting information. |
Yeah, just speculation grounded in history, and that just happens to conform with reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| I did, which is why I know to defend my points with supporting information. That's something you do in college. You're just refuting my points with the equivalent of "nuh uh". |
Yeah, I guess they spent 4 years teaching you to back up your grade 3 level arguments with wikipedia. You must be so impressed with yourself
|
Really? Backing up my arguments with wikipedia is something 3rd graders do? Sad that you're not even at that level.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You haven't backed up anything. You gave a partisan link on black family structure with no causal link to welfare supported. |
You got owned by that link. The statistics came from professional historians. If you don't like it, then find something to refute it. Or just concede the point already.
|
You're the only one that got "owned", since you confused an opinion piece with proof.
There was no causal link substantiated with evidence in that link. They said: families are together less now, there is welfare, and there is a possible mechanism by which welfare doesn't encourage families to stay together. The authors said it was the case, but didn't back it up with any studies.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That's not a causal link, it's a correlation. It's not showing us anything. |
Uh huh. So you think it's merely a coincidence then? I'm not fooling anyone.
|
Fixed. Just another one of your "nuh uh" responses.
You know what else went up around the same time? Life expectancy. That doesn't mean fewer 2 parent households cause longer lives. Learn to use statistics appropriately.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You weren't talking about marijuana, you were talking about crack, the drug who's arrests "affect blacks at a ridiculously disproportionate rate". |
You are the one who brought up crack specifically. I was talking about the drug laws, which include marijuana. Quite being so damn disingenuous.
|
In my state, you cannot get arrested for marijuana possession. Other states have similar legislation. Crack is a known problem in black communities. It is also the one that is claimed to be legislated against black people specifically.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It's clear that there's no way you're going to listen to anything anyone says to the contrary. You're stuck in your belief, and any effort to change your mind is clearly wasted. |
And you're a giant hypocrite, since the exact same applies to you. You also like to misrepresent what I say just to try and cover your tracks.
|
I change my mind if I am provided with credible evidence. Since you don't post supporting information, you won't be able to. I hold you to the same standard, which is why I provide evidence to support my positions. There is no hypocrisy here, since we aren't doing the same thing.
Where have I misrepresented you?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, the war on drugs is about as damaging as a war on the pharmaceutical industry would be |
It is absolutely devastating, yes. But I guess you don't care since you (naively) think it doesn't affect you directly?
|
Oh, the war on drugs is terrible. It increases violence, both around the boarder and in cities. It costs absurd amounts of money. It doesn't even keep drugs out. It's worse than a waste of money.
It doesn't change the fact that a war on pharmaceutical companies would be much more disastrous, as it would at the very least throw us into a recession and kill people who require prescription medications to survive.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I know several people in my state (Massachusetts) who get by on minimum wage. It generally rises every few years, keeping up with living costs. |
Source?
|
http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/pdf/MinimumWage.pdf
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Our unemployment rate is far better than the national average (6.8%). This is not me saying that minimum wage creates jobs (that would confuse correlation with causation), but it shows that minimum wage and employment rate are not inversely correlated. If you're going to make wild assertions that minimum wage kills jobs, please source it at the very least. |
You have a 6.8% unemployment rate! (it's actually probably much higher than the official figures, but side issue). That's a high unemployment rate. You already answered your own question.
|
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unemployment+rate
It's low, lower than the national average (and what else would you compare it to if not the national average?). I'm sure you'll find some way to trick yourself into thinking that you're not horribly, horribly wrong.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The solution is absolutely not to bring prices down, as those costs get externalized, usually to other poor people, who can no longer sustain their lives. Look at the farming situation in America: we've pay farmers NOT to grow certain crops to keep prices UP. Even still, we have benefits like FarmAid to further assist farmers. Lowering prices would be catastrophic. |
Thanks for demonstrating how completely ignorant you are about economics. Deflation in a free market system does not result in "externalized costs" (that's just something you pulled out of your rear end and hoped would stick). Deflation is only bad in a ponzi scheme. The sort of system we have now, which is unsustainable anyway. And paying big corporate farms subsidies not to grow stuff sure is working out well... The last thing we would want to do is make them lose money so the consumer could benefit
|
That's true. The last thing we want to do is make farms lose money. Then farms go bankrupt (or at the very least scale back), people lose jobs, and the price of food goes up anyway.
Deflation is bad for the economy because it discourages investment. Whatever. I already explained this to you. Just more "nuh uh" rhetoric.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
As for your ludicrous notion that regulation has been valuable to society: all the things it is meant to protect are not protected. The environment, for example, is trashed because government regulation allows big companies to pollute more than they would otherwise. The FDA allows all manners of poisons and to be present in our foods (even without proper labeling). Regulation of the financial system has allowed the banks to rape the whole world, get bailed out, and get away with it. Regulation is a sham.
|
So, by that logic, regulation is a problem because we don't have enough of it. |
By your abortive, non-logic, perhaps.
|
Your logic, not mine.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No system is perfect, and expecting perfection is just silly. Of course something somewhat dangerous slips through the cracks every now and then. Is there a better system? |
Yes. The free market is an infinitely better system. What you call "regulation" is actually a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats getting together with their cronies in the private sector to screw everyone. They use tax dollars to fill their own pockets while shutting down their competition, and in the meantime the public is not protected.
|
Again with your cronies speech. Again with no proof.
| visitorq wrote: |
In a free market system, any business that sold dangerous products would risk bankruptcy, not get a slap on the wrist and even more corporate welfare and unfair trade advantages to make up the difference.
|
They don't face bankruptcy at all. Lysol was at one time the leading feminine hygiene product. Lysol. They're around today, with a warning that it's dangerous to skin. Where's their bankruptcy?
And what about Union Carbide? They underpaid the settlement, and no one even went to jail. That is under the free market. and happened because appropriate penalties weren't in place (and because the US didn't extradite the execs).
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Companies CANNOT be trusted to do the right thing. Throughout history, they have sold many products that were dangerous, either because of lack or research, or lack of concern for the effects they have. |
Companies can most certainly be trusted to do the right thing in a free market system where the rule of law is enforced. Break the law and risk bankruptcy (and/or prison time). Regulatory bodies in the US have not just failed to protect us, they have made us less safe. Companies like Monsanto putting poisons and GMO crud in our food would not exist without the muscle of the FDA.
|
So there would be no motivation for GMF or pesticides if it weren't for regulation? Do you know ANYTHING about farming? GMF has been around BEFORE regulation existed as we know it.
And again, companies, right now, do NOT face severe punishment for releasing dangerous products, unless there is a media scare.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You're the "noob" here. I've been siting sources, you have yet to provide one source supporting your ludicrous opinions. |
You're not a noob? You post a link to wikipedia, and suddenly you're an expert?
|
I'm neither. I'm an informed person. I post a link to Wikipedia to support my opinion. You're welcome to cite your own sources in response. Of course you won't do that, because you're wrong.
| visitorq wrote: |
You are out of your league. You don't know what the Fed is or how it works, and you can't even bring yourself to admit that the Great Depression continued for a decade after FDR came along.
|
WOW! HAHAHA! When did I ever say that? You said he CAUSED it to last 10 years longer. And that is very, very wrong.
When did I say I don't know how the Fed works? When have I been wrong about what the fed does? I think you're the one who doesn't know how the fed works, you noob (see what I did there?).
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They provide advancement for a small percentage of the workforce. Most people have absolutely no room for advancement. There can only be so many shift leaders (who would barely count as advancement), assistant managers, managers, etc. compared to the number of CSR's janitors, driver etc. Anyone who's worked at a minimum wage job knows this. Not everyone can be manager. |
No, but in a free market system without all the crushing taxes, inflation, regulation, unfair trade advantages etc. they could hope start their own small business someday using the skills they've acquired.
|
The small business owners I know have found regulations to be nothing more than minor annoyances (with one exception). However, the Walmarts of the world are the ones hurting them. My uncle owns a hardware store, and says he's only still in business because the area is too dense to fit a home depot. My dad had to close down his alarm system company because ADT came to town and did the exact same thing for a little more with the ADT logo. I'm not even saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that free market forces hurt small businesses too.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In no way is the US "fascist" in any sense of the word. That's another comment that goes in the crazy list. |
Mussolini himself defined 'fascism' (actually he usually referred to it as 'corporatism') as the "merger between state and corporate power". And you claim this definition doesn't apply to the US "in any sense of the word"? Wow, and you think I'm crazy...
|
And Hitler said:
"the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
Let's not use leaders of axis powers to define words we already know, okay?
And no, there has not been a merger between government and corporations. In fact, the Fed, is privately owned. How I wish it wasn't.
| visitorq wrote: |
Pretty much all I do is read countless articles by Austrian economists (LvM Institute, Hayek, Rothbard et al., sites like zerohedge.com etc.) written by serious professionals. Tons and tons of superb pieces that crunch the numbers and show that deflation is generally a desirable thing (in a free market, non-ponzi based system). These professional economists predicted the crises in advance and are nearly always spot on (they were writing about the impending housing crisis years before it happened). And you try and hand me some wikipedia blurb. It's really pathetic. Just for that, I'm not even going to throw you a bone.
|
Translation: "I think something, but can't find a link that's more credible than Wikipedia."
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Explain the mechanics of how inflation hurts the poor more than the rich if wage increases match inflation. |
Because "the rich" (by which I mean the super rich, ie<you mean e.g.>. the bankers) literally create the money of thin air. All of the money we have in the monetary system is created as inflationary, interest-bearing debt. It is a 'debt based' monetary system (used to be fractional reserve with gold requirements, but not even that anymore).
|
Since not all rich people are bankers, lets take a look at who pays the interest on the created money: taxpayers. Since the poor pay virtually no income tax, that doesn't hurt them. It does hurt the rich who are not bankers.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't blame all Muslims for terrorist attacks. Blame the Fed, not the rest of the government. |
What a stupid analogy. The Fed couldn't exist without the government. And I do blame the government because the Fed is what allows the government to grow like a cancer. It can continually issue bonds and receive limitless funding from the Fed (at full current purchasing power) and use it expand its power, go to war, and fund the crony, corporate sector on Wall Street. The government spends all this made-up money and forces the rest of us (at gunpoint) to use this debt-based fiat money (sole legal tender), pay taxes on the massive interest, and pay through inflation.
|
At "gunpoint". More rhetoric. I don't like the Fed anymore than you do (how many times do I have to say it?). But the FDA has nothing to do with the Fed, so lets stick to assigning blame to its proper place. Hence the analogy, which makes sense.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I haven't read anything about the fed causing any of the financial crisis's (aside from failing to act), although I'm well aware of their contributions to the current US debt. |
Clearly you haven't read much of anything at all about this subject. Do you even know where our current form of money comes from? The process by which it is created?
|
I do. Has that caused a crisis? Because it sure didn't cause the recent recession or the Great Depression.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The general consensus is that it was caused by risky loans, due to lack of regulation. |
Why were risky loans being granted? Hm? Use your head here. The money came from the Fed's lax monetary policy, and the risky loans were backed by Fannie and Freddie (ie. the US government).
|
So you DO want regulation after all. Why are we arguing?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Union Carbide is an EXCELLENT example of free market capitalism: they were simply unable to remain competitive and clean up their mess, so they just left the mess there. If they had done the right thing, their stock would have tanked. That's WHY we have regulation: to force corporations to do the right thing. |
Man, you are all mixed up inside... Forcing a company to pay for damages it has caused is the very essence of free market capitalism. You are free do as you will, so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others (it is not the same as anarchy). If you kill somebody, you suffer the consequences under the law. If you damage others' property you have to pay compensation for it. This has nothing to do with "regulation" as you mean it. Regulation means the government will pay for the mess and take accountability/risk out of the equation for politically well connected corporations. That is corporatism, aka 'crony capitalism', the antithesis of free market.
|
No. Oh dear god no. Here, I'll bust out a dictionary for you:
Regulation: an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulation
Regulation means rules for how entities (i.e. people and corporations) can do things. It does NOT mean government pays for anything. It ADDS accountability, not the other way around. It creates rules that companies have to abide by, such as "Forcing a company to pay for damages it has caused". It is "the very essence of free market capitalism."
How can you not know what "regulation" is?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
Where does this happen in history? The trend I see is that the free market trampled individual rights until government stepped up and regulated it. |
A very limited government is required to enforce the basic rule of law, including property rights. Regulation (by which I take it you mean giant government departments that actively "regulate" what a business does day to day) simply leads to monopolies and corruption (similar to a mafia protection racket) and almost never protects the public.
|
By which I mean rules the government makes that companies have to follow, then inspectors and/or whistle-blower protection laws to insure the rules are being followed. It's done a much better job than the unregulated industrial revolution.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Stalin was not president of the US, and the Chinese countryside is out of our jurisdiction, so both are moot points unless you want to change "the government" to "some governments". |
Oh, so you think the US government is some magical exception to the rule??
|
Yes, the US government, and the majority of other world governments, are an "exception" to your oppression "rule".
| visitorq wrote: |
The US government is one of the worst in all of history. We had things like eugenics (including forced sterilization of people) long before Hitler borrowed the idea and expanded upon it. Not to mention slavery.
|
The US government is worse than North Korea, China, or the USSR? How about the middle east where they subjugate their population by law? Or countries involved in ethnic cleansing? Or countries coddling their rich to the point where people regularly die of starvation? Or countries that have no government and are pretty much just ruled by competing warlords? How, exactly, is the United States worse than these countries?
Just more anti-US rhetoric with no substance.
| visitorq wrote: |
Our so-called government today sends the military and black ops around the world to terrorize and bomb civilian men, women, and children like it's going out of style and you expect me to believe they are working in the interest of poor Americans?
|
Really? They do this a lot? And these were all innocent civilians? They kill more people then, lets say, Syria? Got some actual facts to back that up?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Jim Crow has nothing to do with PRESENT government politics; it doesn't mean the US government is now actively using welfare with the intention to keep people poor. It's just speculation on your part, with no supporting information. |
Yeah, just speculation seen before in history, and no evidence that it conforms with reality. |
Fixed for you.
When I first called you crazy, I thought it might have been a little much. So I showed a couple of my coworkers (one of whom I disagree with constantly) some of the things you wrote. They both agreed that you crossed the line from "misinformed" to "crazy" several times. That, combined with what I'm seeing from you recently and the fact that you STILL refuse to back up your points, makes me think I hit the nail on the head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
You're the only one that got "owned", since you confused an opinion piece with proof.
The authors said it was the case, but didn't back it up with any studies. |
Yes he did! Go read the article. He backs it up with studies by professional historians. But I guess you just consider all history to be "opinion"?
| Quote: |
| In my state, you cannot get arrested for marijuana possession. |
The Feds can arrest you in your state.
| Quote: |
| I change my mind if I am provided with credible evidence. |
No you don't. You wouldn't change your mind if I took the absolute truth and beat you over the head with it. I would change my mind; however your sophomoric arguments and quoting wikipedia as a primary source (something a grade-school student would do) is not sufficient.
| Quote: |
| It doesn't change the fact that a war on pharmaceutical companies would be much more disastrous, as it would at the very least throw us into a recession and kill people who require prescription medications to survive. |
We aren't in a recession now? The War on Drugs spending is a huge part of our financial straights. Marijuana is also required by many people to ease their pain, yet the federal government is uncompromising on its illegality. In fact, you could probably replace most prescription drugs with marijuana (and morphine, which is essentially the same as heroine, is already a commonly used painkiller), and get by pretty well. I'm not saying prescription drugs should be outlawed; just pointing out the obvious that they're not much different from drugs that are illegal (except the latter do not bring massive profits to drug companies).
| Quote: |
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unemployment+rate
It's low, lower than the national average (and what else would you compare it to if not the national average?). I'm sure you'll find some way to trick yourself into thinking that you're not horribly, horribly wrong. |
I don't need to resort to tricks. I'll just quote the Bureau of Labor's own statistics right from its own web site to show that you are the one who is "horribly, horribly wrong".
Using U-6 figures ("real" unemployment, not the cooked numbers you use), the unemployment in Massachusetts in 2011 was 14.3%. That's high unemployment. http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
| Quote: |
| That's true. The last thing we want to do is make farms lose money. Then farms go bankrupt (or at the very least scale back), people lose jobs, and the price of food goes up anyway. |
Wait, I thought you were just saying they were overproducing and being paid to produce less? Hm? Maybe if they couldn't resort to price fixing, and had to resort to competition on the free market (while overproducing), the prices would come down? Ever think of that?
| Quote: |
| Deflation is bad for the economy because it discourages investment. Whatever. I already explained this to you. Just more "nuh uh" rhetoric. |
You didn't explain anything. It's pretty amusing seeing a noob like yourself pretend to know what he/she is talking about, but seriously...
Anyway, you are dead wrong. You can have falling prices in a growing economy for extended periods of time. The neo-Keynesian hacks in the media would label such a phenomenon a "recession", when in fact it is the opposite. In the period between 1866 and 1897, perhaps the period of greatest and most rapid growth in all of US history (real GDP increases averaging 4% growth), there was persistent deflation. The result was that the US become the greatest, most prosperous country on earth; not that investors stopped investing (or whatever nonsense you are trying to claim). This book lays it all out if you're interested:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=2XleAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
| Quote: |
They don't face bankruptcy at all. Lysol was at one time the leading feminine hygiene product. Lysol. They're around today, with a warning that it's dangerous to skin. Where's their bankruptcy?
And what about Union Carbide? They underpaid the settlement, and no one even went to jail. That is under the free market. and happened because appropriate penalties weren't in place (and because the US didn't extradite the execs). |
Oh god you are dense.... Having appropriate penalties in place IS free market. It is all about fair play. You seem to think "free market" means anarchy, where anyone can around killing and pillaging from whomever they want, so long as the make a profit. This is absurd. Big companies get away with their crimes because government regulation takes away their liability. Union Carbide actually a poor example for you to have used, since it was an accident (not a deliberate crime, as some large corporations commit), but they should have had to pay compensation to every single victim. You can thank your loving government for letting them off the hook.
| Quote: |
| So there would be no motivation for GMF or pesticides if it weren't for regulation? Do you know ANYTHING about farming? GMF has been around BEFORE regulation existed as we know it. |
No it hasn't. Quit lying.
| Quote: |
| And again, companies, right now, do NOT face severe punishment for releasing dangerous products, unless there is a media scare. |
Thank your loving government for that. You are confused if you think I am for not holding corporations liable for releasing dangerous products.
| Quote: |
| I'm neither. I'm an informed person. |
Yeah, keep that dream alive... And keep it up with the wikipedia (I'm sure you'll impress a lot of people).
| Quote: |
| WOW! HAHAHA! When did I ever say that? You said he CAUSED it to last 10 years longer. And that is very, very wrong. |
It's not wrong at all. I already brought up the "forgotten depression" of 1920-21, which lasted a mere 2 years due to government cutbacks, compared to the decade long depression caused by FDRs ruinous socialist policies. He got us out of the depression by taking us to war. No different from any other collectivist/fascist-socialist.
| Quote: |
| The small business owners I know have found regulations to be nothing more than minor annoyances (with one exception). However, the Walmarts of the world are the ones hurting them. My uncle owns a hardware store, and says he's only still in business because the area is too dense to fit a home depot. My dad had to close down his alarm system company because ADT came to town and did the exact same thing for a little more with the ADT logo. I'm not even saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that free market forces hurt small businesses too. |
And I'm saying that's not free market. Part of Wall Mart's success is due to its smart business model and hard work, but much of it is due to unfair trade advantages. Wall Mart receives billions of dollars in subsidies from the government. I'm guessing your uncle receives zilch (while paying taxes that go to pay corporate welfare to his competition). See how that works?
As for your friends having only "minor annoyances" with regulation - I'm guessing you yourself have no experience whatsoever trying to set up a business? It's very difficult, even at the best of times, but for unskilled/poor people it is next to impossible. Middle class people can pool together capital from family or secure a loan with their homes as collateral, poor people cannot. They cannot afford all the legal and licensing fees etc. to even set up even a basic business. In a country like Thailand (where I live presently), a poor person can scrounge together enough resources to set up a food stand or drive a tuk tuk or whatever. They won't be rich, but they'll own their own means of production, and as technology improves their standard of living will go up. In the US, it is increasingly difficult to even attempt to own your own business, and you need a government permit (which are kept artificially scarce) for practically everything.
| Quote: |
And Hitler said:
"the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
Let's not use leaders of axis powers to define words we already know, okay? |
What the hell does the above have to do with anything? Get serious, or get out of the debate.
| Quote: |
| And no, there has not been a merger between government and corporations. In fact, the Fed, is privately owned. How I wish it wasn't. |
Ahah, so you did a crash course and figured that out huh? But you're still a noob... The Fed could not exist without Congressional authority. The Fed chairman is also appointed by the US president. You are correct that it is privately owned by the major banks, but it is a government/corporate hybrid. It benefits the banks by allowing them a monopoly on the issuance of money, and it benefits the government by allowing it an endless supply of money (at maximum current purchasing power value, before inflation occurs) to spend without having to resort to direct taxation.
| Quote: |
| Translation: "I think something, but can't find a link that's more credible than Wikipedia." |
I've got plenty of links. I just think you deserve to stew in your ignorance and hubris for awhile (since you started this off by insulting me). It's not my job to throw pearls before swine; you need to go do some proper research on your own first 
| Quote: |
| Since not all rich people are bankers, lets take a look at who pays the interest on the created money: taxpayers. Since the poor pay virtually no income tax, that doesn't hurt them. It does hurt the rich who are not bankers. |
Nice try The rich who are not bankers? You mean the middle class? All the fortune 500 companies are controlled by the major banks. It is a giant corporate structure that is all integrated, and they are not hurt by inflation. The middle class is hurt by rising prices and, yes, taxes. The poor are obviously hurt very much by inflation (no need to bring income tax into it) since they can barely afford the bare necessities as is.
| Quote: |
| At "gunpoint". More rhetoric. I don't like the Fed anymore than you do (how many times do I have to say it?). But the FDA has nothing to do with the Fed, so lets stick to assigning blame to its proper place. Hence the analogy, which makes sense. |
The FDA and the Fed are both regulatory bodies. Duh.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I haven't read anything about the fed causing any of the financial crisis's (aside from failing to act), although I'm well aware of their contributions to the current US debt. |
Clearly you haven't read much of anything at all about this subject. Do you even know where our current form of money comes from? The process by which it is created?
|
I do. Has that caused a crisis? Because it sure didn't cause the recent recession or the Great Depression. |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The general consensus is that it was caused by risky loans, due to lack of regulation. |
Why were risky loans being granted? Hm? Use your head here. The money came from the Fed's lax monetary policy, and the risky loans were backed by Fannie and Freddie (ie. the US government).
|
So you DO want regulation after all. Why are we arguing? |
We're arguing because you, a noob, don't have your definitions straight, yet presume to call other people "crazy".
I never said I want regulation. Not having the government come in and back up bad loans is not the same as regulation. I want the government to enforce the basic rule of law, and nothing more.
| Quote: |
Regulation means rules for how entities (i.e. people and corporations) can do things. It does NOT mean government pays for anything. It ADDS accountability, not the other way around. It creates rules that companies have to abide by, such as "Forcing a company to pay for damages it has caused". It is "the very essence of free market capitalism."
How can you not know what "regulation" is? |
That is not regulation as it is practiced in the real world. That is merely the rule of law. Regulation is the government coming in and granting permits and licenses for businesses to operate. It allows the government to shut down competition for larger companies. Ex. coal power plants being shut down all over the country, except for General Electric. Or Tyson Meats getting away with thousands of infractions in their plants, while smaller operators can get shut down for a single infraction.
Regulation in actual fact is a protection racket. Those companies with the best lobbyists and biggest wallets can keep the government on their side and use that muscle to dominate their competition. Those who have less money get harassed by the government.
| Quote: |
| By which I mean rules the government makes that companies have to follow, then inspectors and/or whistle-blower protection laws to insure the rules are being followed. It's done a much better job than the unregulated industrial revolution. |
No it hasn't. Our whole country is basically imploding and bankrupt due to government interference in the economy, and you say that's a "good job"?
| Quote: |
| Yes, the US government, and the majority of other world governments, are an "exception" to your oppression "rule". |
This statement makes no sense. I'm adding it to the "crazy list".
| Quote: |
| The US government is worse than North Korea, China, or the USSR? How about the middle east where they subjugate their population by law? Or countries involved in ethnic cleansing? Or countries coddling their rich to the point where people regularly die of starvation? Or countries that have no government and are pretty much just ruled by competing warlords? How, exactly, is the United States worse than these countries? |
The US government has been involved in more wars than all those countries combined. The US also built up the Soviet Union (literally). Our government is now trying to emulate China on things like internet censorship, and ignores all of China's human rights violations (since China's slave labor is useful for the monopoly men on Wall Street).
The US president now has the power to indefinitely detain people, spy on people, and kill people. Not saying it's as bad yet domestically (because we have a long tradition of freedom in the US, which is undermined slowly but surely), but we're getting there.
| Quote: |
| Really? They do this a lot? And these were all innocent civilians? They kill more people then, lets say, Syria? Got some actual facts to back that up? |
Are you living under a freaking rock or something? Do you even watch the news? Our criminal government has killed millions of civilians over the years. Think Vietnam. Think Iraq (hundreds of thousands of dead, including children) due to sanctions and war, including massive numbers of deformed babies in places like Fallujah where DU was used. Think Obama sending in drones to massacre Pakistani civilians. Think of all the crime and terror committed by the drug-trafficking CIA. The list goes on, and on, and on...
| Quote: |
| When I first called you crazy, I thought it might have been a little much. So I showed a couple of my coworkers (one of whom I disagree with constantly) some of the things you wrote. They both agreed that you crossed the line from "misinformed" to "crazy" several times. That, combined with what I'm seeing from you recently and the fact that you STILL refuse to back up your points, makes me think I hit the nail on the head. |
Oh, well if your make-believe friends think so then it must be true
Anyway, the things I write only seem crazy to you because you live in a bubble and clearly do not really understand history, or realize how often you have been lied to throughout your life, in school and in the media etc. (your basic assumptions about how the world works are flawed and incomplete).
But maybe you'll take the time to go research this stuff in more detail and realize it's not so crazy after all (and drop the arrogant attitude). Either that, or you'll just continue to think the way you do now, and be just another schmuck... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| sites like zerohedge.com |
My favorite site, but it's likely bound to give me a coronary at some point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| So there would be no motivation for GMF or pesticides if it weren't for regulation? Do you know ANYTHING about farming? GMF has been around BEFORE regulation existed as we know it. |
No it hasn't. Quit lying.
. |
Actually yes it has. People have been cross-breeding both plants and animals for thousands of years. The foods you eat today are more likely than not a product of gene manipulation...whether in a lab or the result of many years of trial-and-error farming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| So there would be no motivation for GMF or pesticides if it weren't for regulation? Do you know ANYTHING about farming? GMF has been around BEFORE regulation existed as we know it. |
No it hasn't. Quit lying.
. |
Actually yes it has. People have been cross-breeding both plants and animals for thousands of years. The foods you eat today are more likely than not a product of gene manipulation...whether in a lab or the result of many years of trial-and-error farming. |
Yeah, I am well aware of that. It has nothing to do with shooting genes from a separate species (or biological kingdom) into the DNA of another, forming unnatural cross-species hybrids... Breeding dogs, horses or a certain variety of grape etc. is natural (as it could conceivably happen on its own in the wild), and in no way the same as creating spider/goat hybrids, or corn and soy strains that have bacteria (pesticide producing) genes implanted, or salmon with insect and eel genes, or tomatoes with fish DNA in them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
You're the only one that got "owned", since you confused an opinion piece with proof.
The authors said it was the case, but didn't back it up with any studies. |
Yes he did! Go read the article. He backs it up with studies by professional historians. But I guess you just consider all history to be "opinion"?
|
"Plus, there is the sheer fact that, from the 1960s until 1996, expanded welfare policies made it possible to stay on welfare as a mother indefinitely without job training�impossible before the �60s, and much less common today in most states than it was before 1996. This is why a man could so easily leave kids he fathered to be raised alone�and unsurprisingly, starting in the 1970s, an unprecedented number did."
That is the full extent of the author's mention of welfare. He linked another article, also without a breakdown. There's no studies mentioned at all.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In my state, you cannot get arrested for marijuana possession. |
The Feds can arrest you in your state.
|
But they don't.
The drug people claim is legislated against black people is crack cocaine.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I change my mind if I am provided with credible evidence. |
No you don't. You wouldn't change your mind if I took the absolute truth and beat you over the head with it. I would change my mind; however your sophomoric arguments and quoting wikipedia as a primary source (something a grade-school student would do) is not sufficient.
|
Another assertion with no proof. The fact that you can't argue on the same level as a grade schooler is sad.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It doesn't change the fact that a war on pharmaceutical companies would be much more disastrous, as it would at the very least throw us into a recession and kill people who require prescription medications to survive. |
We aren't in a recession now? The War on Drugs spending is a huge part of our financial straights. Marijuana is also required by many people to ease their pain, yet the federal government is uncompromising on its illegality. In fact, you could probably replace most prescription drugs with marijuana (and morphine, which is essentially the same as heroine, is already a commonly used painkiller), and get by pretty well. I'm not saying prescription drugs should be outlawed; just pointing out the obvious that they're not much different from drugs that are illegal (except the latter do not bring massive profits to drug companies).
|
Painkillers are a very small percentage of prescription medication. The rest of it has much lower rates of abuse and no illegal alternative.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unemployment+rate
It's low, lower than the national average (and what else would you compare it to if not the national average?). I'm sure you'll find some way to trick yourself into thinking that you're not horribly, horribly wrong. |
I don't need to resort to tricks. I'll just quote the Bureau of Labor's own statistics right from its own web site to show that you are the one who is "horribly, horribly wrong".
Using U-6 figures ("real" unemployment, not the cooked numbers you use), the unemployment in Massachusetts in 2011 was 14.3%. That's high unemployment. http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
|
Not compared to the rest of the country (15.9%). You're STILL horribly, horribly wrong.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That's true. The last thing we want to do is make farms lose money. Then farms go bankrupt (or at the very least scale back), people lose jobs, and the price of food goes up anyway. |
Wait, I thought you were just saying they were overproducing and being paid to produce less? Hm? Maybe if they couldn't resort to price fixing, and had to resort to competition on the free market (while overproducing), the prices would come down? Ever think of that?
|
They would go down, and farmers would lose money, and have lower standards of living, and go out of business, meaning fewer farms, increasing prices. Ever think of that?
Besides, it's not like food prices in the US are considered "high". The system in place is fine.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Deflation is bad for the economy because it discourages investment. Whatever. I already explained this to you. Just more "nuh uh" rhetoric. |
You didn't explain anything. It's pretty amusing seeing a noob like yourself pretend to know what he/she is talking about, but seriously...
|
Via link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation
| visitorq wrote: |
Anyway, you are dead wrong. You can have falling prices in a growing economy for extended periods of time. The neo-Keynesian hacks in the media would label such a phenomenon a "recession", when in fact it is the opposite. In the period between 1866 and 1897, perhaps the period of greatest and most rapid growth in all of US history (real GDP increases averaging 4% growth), there was persistent deflation. The result was that the US become the greatest, most prosperous country on earth; not that investors stopped investing (or whatever nonsense you are trying to claim). This book lays it all out if you're interested:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=2XleAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
|
That was when we were on the gold standard. It's not comparable now to our current system.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
They don't face bankruptcy at all. Lysol was at one time the leading feminine hygiene product. Lysol. They're around today, with a warning that it's dangerous to skin. Where's their bankruptcy?
And what about Union Carbide? They underpaid the settlement, and no one even went to jail. That is under the free market. and happened because appropriate penalties weren't in place (and because the US didn't extradite the execs). |
Oh god you are dense.... Having appropriate penalties in place IS free market. It is all about fair play. You seem to think "free market" means anarchy, where anyone can around killing and pillaging from whomever they want, so long as the make a profit. This is absurd. Big companies get away with their crimes because government regulation takes away their liability. Union Carbide actually a poor example for you to have used, since it was an accident (not a deliberate crime, as some large corporations commit), but they should have had to pay compensation to every single victim. You can thank your loving government for letting them off the hook.
|
I'm saying free market is about free prices. It has nothing to do with regulation (unless prices are being regulated) and is not mutually exclusive with regulation. Free market has nothing to do with anarchy, but when you say "let the free market decide", you're suggesting (at the very least) that regulation should not interfere with the workings of the market.
What kind of regulation removes liability? Regulation does not do that. In fact, regulation adds rules in place that corporations must follow or face penalties.
Union Carbide was an excellent example, since negligence IS a crime. Very few companies intentionally kill people, but many endanger lives through negligence. Whether it was UC intentionally poisoning Indians or doing it accidentally because of lax safety standards, they should be responsible for all damages.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So there would be no motivation for GMF or pesticides if it weren't for regulation? Do you know ANYTHING about farming? GMF has been around BEFORE regulation existed as we know it. |
No it hasn't. Quit lying.
|
TUM answered that just fine. You neglect to address in your rebuttal that people have been doing it before your alleged regulation forced them to.
Besides, why are mules okay, but rice GM'd to provide essential vitamins to prevent malnutrition isn't?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And again, companies, right now, do NOT face severe punishment for releasing dangerous products, unless there is a media scare. |
Thank your loving government for that. You are confused if you think I am for not holding corporations liable for releasing dangerous products.
|
You were the one complaining about regulation, which forces companies to do just that.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm neither. I'm an informed person. |
Yeah, keep that dream alive... And keep it up with the wikipedia (I'm sure you'll impress a lot of people).
|
Wikipedia is a reliable source. It's been found to be more reliable than the New York Times, and of comparable (although slightly inferior) to Encyclopedia Britannica. It has even been considered an acceptable source for general medical information, although not in depth enough for medical professionals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Go ahead, read it. Read the associated links. Now explain to me why Wikipedia is unreliable.
Don't take this as me thinking books aren't very good sources of information. Rather its that there is a certain reliability for each medium, and they don't hit 100%. Wikipedia frequently cites is's sources when it presents information (unlike a certain forum poster).
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| WOW! HAHAHA! When did I ever say that? You said he CAUSED it to last 10 years longer. And that is very, very wrong. |
It's not wrong at all. I already brought up the "forgotten depression" of 1920-21, which lasted a mere 2 years due to government cutbacks, compared to the decade long depression caused by FDRs ruinous socialist policies. He got us out of the depression by taking us to war. No different from any other collectivist/fascist-socialist.
|
Just gonna copy/paste this from now on:
Admit you're wrong, or cite your source.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The small business owners I know have found regulations to be nothing more than minor annoyances (with one exception). However, the Walmarts of the world are the ones hurting them. My uncle owns a hardware store, and says he's only still in business because the area is too dense to fit a home depot. My dad had to close down his alarm system company because ADT came to town and did the exact same thing for a little more with the ADT logo. I'm not even saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that free market forces hurt small businesses too. |
And I'm saying that's not free market. Part of Wall Mart's success is due to its smart business model and hard work, but much of it is due to unfair trade advantages. Wall Mart receives billions of dollars in subsidies from the government. I'm guessing your uncle receives zilch (while paying taxes that go to pay corporate welfare to his competition). See how that works?
|
By definition, that is free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
In fact, critics of free markets say that companies using unfair trade advantages is a downside of free markets.
What subsidies is Walmart receiving?
| visitorq wrote: |
As for your friends having only "minor annoyances" with regulation - I'm guessing you yourself have no experience whatsoever trying to set up a business? It's very difficult, even at the best of times, but for unskilled/poor people it is next to impossible. Middle class people can pool together capital from family or secure a loan with their homes as collateral, poor people cannot. They cannot afford all the legal and licensing fees etc. to even set up even a basic business. In a country like Thailand (where I live presently), a poor person can scrounge together enough resources to set up a food stand or drive a tuk tuk or whatever. They won't be rich, but they'll own their own means of production, and as technology improves their standard of living will go up. In the US, it is increasingly difficult to even attempt to own your own business, and you need a government permit (which are kept artificially scarce) for practically everything.
|
The annoyances are "minor" compared to the competition.
There are times when the scarcity of government permits is a good thing. In South America, a lack of regulation over buses has caused huge pollution problems as many families are operating buses that only have 1 or 2 passengers in them and any given time. It creates not only horrible pollution for the city but it also congests the street and the drivers make very little money because there is so much competition.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
And Hitler said:
"the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
Let's not use leaders of axis powers to define words we already know, okay? |
What the hell does the above have to do with anything? Get serious, or get out of the debate.
|
You were getting definitions of well established words from Axis leaders. I was showing you how silly that is.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And no, there has not been a merger between government and corporations. In fact, the Fed, is privately owned. How I wish it wasn't. |
Ahah, so you did a crash course and figured that out huh? But you're still a noob... The Fed could not exist without Congressional authority. The Fed chairman is also appointed by the US president. You are correct that it is privately owned by the major banks, but it is a government/corporate hybrid. It benefits the banks by allowing them a monopoly on the issuance of money, and it benefits the government by allowing it an endless supply of money (at maximum current purchasing power value, before inflation occurs) to spend without having to resort to direct taxation.
|
And that's just 1 entity, not the whole government. To say the government is fascist is just ridiculous rhetoric.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Translation: "I think something, but can't find a link that's more credible than Wikipedia." |
I've got plenty of links. I just think you deserve to stew in your ignorance and hubris for awhile (since you started this off by insulting me). It's not my job to throw pearls before swine; you need to go do some proper research on your own first
|
Again, sounds like the words of a man that has found nothing. Maybe you have 1 or 2 links, but you probably know that 1 expert saying the opposite of the majority of experts is actually less reliable than Wikipedia.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Since not all rich people are bankers, lets take a look at who pays the interest on the created money: taxpayers. Since the poor pay virtually no income tax, that doesn't hurt them. It does hurt the rich who are not bankers. |
Nice try The rich who are not bankers? You mean the middle class? All the fortune 500 companies are controlled by the major banks. It is a giant corporate structure that is all integrated, and they are not hurt by inflation. The middle class is hurt by rising prices and, yes, taxes. The poor are obviously hurt very much by inflation (no need to bring income tax into it) since they can barely afford the bare necessities as is.
|
Not every rich person is a banker.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| At "gunpoint". More rhetoric. I don't like the Fed anymore than you do (how many times do I have to say it?). But the FDA has nothing to do with the Fed, so lets stick to assigning blame to its proper place. Hence the analogy, which makes sense. |
The FDA and the Fed are both regulatory bodies. Duh.
|
Right, and one doesn't make decisions for the other, and shouldn't be blamed for the other. Duh.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I haven't read anything about the fed causing any of the financial crisis's (aside from failing to act), although I'm well aware of their contributions to the current US debt. |
Clearly you haven't read much of anything at all about this subject. Do you even know where our current form of money comes from? The process by which it is created?
|
I do. Has that caused a crisis? Because it sure didn't cause the recent recession or the Great Depression. |
|
Again with no supporting information.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The general consensus is that it was caused by risky loans, due to lack of regulation. |
Why were risky loans being granted? Hm? Use your head here. The money came from the Fed's lax monetary policy, and the risky loans were backed by Fannie and Freddie (ie. the US government).
|
So you DO want regulation after all. Why are we arguing? |
We're arguing because you, a noob, don't have your definitions straight, yet presume to call other people "crazy".
|
I got my definitions right. And backed it up with a dictionary. Or do you have some more secret sources to kill my information?
| visitorq wrote: |
I never said I want regulation. Not having the government come in and back up bad loans is not the same as regulation. I want the government to enforce the basic rule of law, and nothing more.
|
Why are you bringing up the bailout in an argument about regulation? It's completely off topic.
Who's makes the "basic rule of law"? (the government)
When applied to businesses, what is the rule of law called? (regulation)
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
Regulation means rules for how entities (i.e. people and corporations) can do things. It does NOT mean government pays for anything. It ADDS accountability, not the other way around. It creates rules that companies have to abide by, such as "Forcing a company to pay for damages it has caused". It is "the very essence of free market capitalism."
How can you not know what "regulation" is? |
That is not regulation as it is practiced in the real world. That is merely the rule of law. Regulation is the government coming in and granting permits and licenses for businesses to operate. It allows the government to shut down competition for larger companies. Ex. coal power plants being shut down all over the country, except for General Electric. Or Tyson Meats getting away with thousands of infractions in their plants, while smaller operators can get shut down for a single infraction.
|
You are making your own definition of regulation. Regulation is simply the rules put in place by the government that businesses must follow or face consequences. Your examples are examples of either bad regulation or failure of regulators to enforce current laws. There are plenty of other regulations that do not fall into your description. Don't blame the many for the failures of the few.
| visitorq wrote: |
Regulation in actual fact is a protection racket. Those companies with the best lobbyists and biggest wallets can keep the government on their side and use that muscle to dominate their competition. Those who have less money get harassed by the government.
|
That is not most regulation.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| By which I mean rules the government makes that companies have to follow, then inspectors and/or whistle-blower protection laws to insure the rules are being followed. It's done a much better job than the unregulated industrial revolution. |
No it hasn't. Our whole country is basically imploding and bankrupt due to government interference in the economy, and you say that's a "good job"?
|
The country is none of those. All workers in the US enjoy protections that were not available until recently. It's amazing. The employment is a little low now due to the recession, which was caused by a lack of regulation. If we keep businesses in check, periods like this can virtually disappear. The alternative is a situation like China, where workers do not enjoy protection from their government.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, the US government, and the majority of other world governments, are an "exception" to your oppression "rule". |
This statement makes no sense. I'm adding it to the "crazy list".
|
Since you're taking me out of context, the exact quote I responded to here:
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| Stalin was not president of the US, and the Chinese countryside is out of our jurisdiction, so both are moot points unless you want to change "the government" to "some governments". |
Oh, so you think the US government is some magical exception to the rule?? |
So yes. America is an exception to this "rule" (your word, not mine) you made up about how all countries massively subjugate their own populations for power. Or were you referring to a different "rule"? Because you certainly didn't mention one.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The US government is worse than North Korea, China, or the USSR? How about the middle east where they subjugate their population by law? Or countries involved in ethnic cleansing? Or countries coddling their rich to the point where people regularly die of starvation? Or countries that have no government and are pretty much just ruled by competing warlords? How, exactly, is the United States worse than these countries? |
The US government has been involved in more wars than all those countries combined. The US also built up the Soviet Union (literally). Our government is now trying to emulate China on things like internet censorship, and ignores all of China's human rights violations (since China's slave labor is useful for the monopoly men on Wall Street).
|
Please show me a list of all the "wars" we've been involved in. Get a list of all those other countries' wars. Now explain to me how that matters (e.g. should we NOT respond to genocide?). Then tell me who has killed more people since the end of the Korean war: the US, or North Korea? Are we allowed to count people we SAVED?
In what way is the government trying to emulate China? How, exactly, would you propose not ignoring the Chinese human rights violations. I'm all ears for some solutions buddy.
| visitorq wrote: |
The US president now has the power to indefinitely detain people, spy on people, and kill people. Not saying it's as bad yet domestically (because we have a long tradition of freedom in the US, which is undermined slowly but surely), but we're getting there.
|
Hasn't he had that power for a long time? How is it happening only "now"?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? They do this a lot? And these were all innocent civilians? They kill more people then, lets say, Syria? Got some actual facts to back that up? |
Are you living under a freaking rock or something? Do you even watch the news? Our criminal government has killed millions of civilians over the years. Think Vietnam. Think Iraq (hundreds of thousands of dead, including children) due to sanctions and war, including massive numbers of deformed babies in places like Fallujah where DU was used. Think Obama sending in drones to massacre Pakistani civilians. Think of all the crime and terror committed by the drug-trafficking CIA. The list goes on, and on, and on...
|
1) Most of the deaths in Iraq were NOT US solders killing civilians.
2) You were JUST complaining about how the US ignores China's human rights abuses? Are sanctions now off the table too? How would YOU deal with those issues, genius?
3) You take that body count (spread out over what, almost 50 years) and compare it to the pain, suffering, and death caused by NK, or the USSR. No comparison. The events you list (drone attacks and Iraqi people) are below the number of North Koreans who have starved from the regime's stranglehold on the country.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| When I first called you crazy, I thought it might have been a little much. So I showed a couple of my coworkers (one of whom I disagree with constantly) some of the things you wrote. They both agreed that you crossed the line from "misinformed" to "crazy" several times. That, combined with what I'm seeing from you recently and the fact that you STILL refuse to back up your points, makes me think I hit the nail on the head. |
Oh, well if your make-believe friends think so then it must be true
|
Whatever convinces you otherwise
| visitorq wrote: |
Anyway, the things I write only seem crazy to you because you live in a bubble and clearly do not really understand history, or realize how often you have been lied to throughout your life, in school and in the media etc. (your basic assumptions about how the world works are flawed and incomplete).
|
YOU continue to disbelieve information thrown in your face. YOU continue to have ideas about how the world works that differ from the majority of intelligent, informed people. YOU, sir, are the one in the bubble.
| visitorq wrote: |
But maybe you'll take the time to go research this stuff in more detail and realize it's not so crazy after all (and drop the arrogant attitude). Either that, or you'll just continue to think the way you do now, and be just another schmuck... |
You're the one throwing around "noob" after it has been disproven time and time again with relevant links. And you continue to argue without sources, the ultimate in arrogance: "I don't need links because I am better and I am right!" Well, not your exact words. Here are your exact words: "It's not my job to throw pearls before swine".
Learn to act like an adult; you look foolish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| So there would be no motivation for GMF or pesticides if it weren't for regulation? Do you know ANYTHING about farming? GMF has been around BEFORE regulation existed as we know it. |
No it hasn't. Quit lying.
. |
Actually yes it has. People have been cross-breeding both plants and animals for thousands of years. The foods you eat today are more likely than not a product of gene manipulation...whether in a lab or the result of many years of trial-and-error farming. |
Yeah, I am well aware of that. It has nothing to do with shooting genes from a separate species (or biological kingdom) into the DNA of another, forming unnatural cross-species hybrids... Breeding dogs, horses or a certain variety of grape etc. is natural (as it could conceivably happen on its own in the wild), and in no way the same as creating spider/goat hybrids, or corn and soy strains that have bacteria (pesticide producing) genes implanted, or salmon with insect and eel genes, or tomatoes with fish DNA in them. |
How is a horse mating with a donkey not an unnatural cross-species hybrid?
Why is "it's not natural" a valid argument against GMO's? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
You're the only one that got "owned", since you confused an opinion piece with proof.
The authors said it was the case, but didn't back it up with any studies. |
Yes he did! Go read the article. He backs it up with studies by professional historians. But I guess you just consider all history to be "opinion"?
|
"Plus, there is the sheer fact that, from the 1960s until 1996, expanded welfare policies made it possible to stay on welfare as a mother indefinitely without job training�impossible before the �60s, and much less common today in most states than it was before 1996. This is why a man could so easily leave kids he fathered to be raised alone�and unsurprisingly, starting in the 1970s, an unprecedented number did."
That is the full extent of the author's mention of welfare. He linked another article, also without a breakdown. There's no studies mentioned at all. |
The reason I quoted that article was to back up the claim that were more two parent black families historically (including during slavery) than there are today - a statement which you denied. In other words, you were refuted, as usual. Period.
| Quote: |
| Painkillers are a very small percentage of prescription medication. |
Source?
| Quote: |
| The rest of it has much lower rates of abuse and no illegal alternative. |
You're so full of you-know-what, it's coming out your ears...
"The number of deaths and hospitalizations caused by prescription drugs has risen precipitously in the past decade, with overdoses of pain medications, in particular opioids, sedatives and tranquilizers, more than doubling between 1999 and 2006, according to a new study.
In fact, by 2006, overdoses of opioid analgesics alone (a class of pain relievers that includes morphine and methadone) were already causing more deaths than overdoses of cocaine and heroin combined."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prescription-drug-deaths
"According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, prescription drugs are second to marijuana as the drug of choice for today's teens. In fact, seven of the top 10 drugs used by 12th-graders were prescription drugs."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-04-21/news/bs-ed-prescription-drug-abuse-20100421_1_prescription-drugs-opiates-addictive
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unemployment+rate
It's low, lower than the national average (and what else would you compare it to if not the national average?). I'm sure you'll find some way to trick yourself into thinking that you're not horribly, horribly wrong. |
I don't need to resort to tricks. I'll just quote the Bureau of Labor's own statistics right from its own web site to show that you are the one who is "horribly, horribly wrong".
Using U-6 figures ("real" unemployment, not the cooked numbers you use), the unemployment in Massachusetts in 2011 was 14.3%. That's high unemployment. http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
|
Not compared to the rest of the country (15.9%). You're STILL horribly, horribly wrong. |
Actually, I'm 100% right, since my claim was never that your state had higher unemployment that the rest of the nation, but rather that your state has high unemployment. But keep hurling your laughable epithets about me being "wrong" and "crazy" (while I beat the pants off you in the debate) if it makes you feel better.
| Quote: |
| They would go down, and farmers would lose money, and have lower standards of living, and go out of business, meaning fewer farms, increasing prices. Ever think of that? |
I've thought of that, but I know better. That is not how it works at all. Farmers overproduce, so prices drop. Some might go out of business (or possibly diversify their crops since subsidies are no longer there), but overall prices would just stabilize at the level people are willing to pay. Economics 101 (which I know you have no grasp of, but there you go).
| Quote: |
| Besides, it's not like food prices in the US are considered "high". The system in place is fine. |
Yeah, fine if you want to eat GMO crud. A steady diet of high-fructose syrup, corn-fed crap meat, and partially hydrogenated trans fat laden oils (and have a nation of unhealthy, obese people). These mass produced, highly processed foods are ridiculously low priced because they are subsidized (with tax dollars, which in turn leaves people with less money to spend on things they want, like healthier food). Healthy foods are too expensive for most lower-income people.
| Quote: |
| That was when we were on the gold standard. It's not comparable now to our current system. |
You mean our current mathematically unsustainable ponzi scheme system? Seems to be working out really well...
| Quote: |
| I'm saying free market is about free prices. It has nothing to do with regulation (unless prices are being regulated) and is not mutually exclusive with regulation. Free market has nothing to do with anarchy, but when you say "let the free market decide", you're suggesting (at the very least) that regulation should not interfere with the workings of the market. |
Uh huh.
| Quote: |
| What kind of regulation removes liability? Regulation does not do that. In fact, regulation adds rules in place that corporations must follow or face penalties. |
Actually it provides loopholes for corporations to not be held accountable. In pretty much every case. They get a slap on the wrist, but get away with everything else. Think million dollar fines for crimes that made them billions. Think pollution laws. Think bailouts.
| Quote: |
| Union Carbide was an excellent example, since negligence IS a crime. |
No it isn't. You just keep flubbing this stuff. Accidents happen. The point is that if a corporation has to pay a full and heavy penalty (incl. bankruptcy after compensation is dealt out), then accidents are much less likely to happen. This sort of thing can't be regulated. The government cannot (and will not) protect you.
| Quote: |
TUM answered that just fine. You neglect to address in your rebuttal that people have been doing it before your alleged regulation forced them to.
Besides, why are mules okay, but rice GM'd to provide essential vitamins to prevent malnutrition isn't? |
This is the stupidest thing ever. Mules are natural because horses and donkeys can be crossed naturally in the wild (if you don't understand the concept, go try and mate with a donkey yourself, and see what happens ). GM crops are one of the most serious environmental threats facing the world today and devastating to human health.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
| Quote: |
Wikipedia is a reliable source. It's been found to be more reliable than the New York Times, and of comparable (although slightly inferior) to Encyclopedia Britannica. It has even been considered an acceptable source for general medical information, although not in depth enough for medical professionals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Go ahead, read it. Read the associated links. Now explain to me why Wikipedia is unreliable.
Don't take this as me thinking books aren't very good sources of information. Rather its that there is a certain reliability for each medium, and they don't hit 100%. Wikipedia frequently cites is's sources when it presents information (unlike a certain forum poster). |
Wikipedia is for noobs like yourself who are either too lazy to do proper research, or will believe anything printed on the internet. I can log in to wikipedia and write whatever want. If you wanted to be serious, you would cite the actual sources contained within the wiki, and discuss in your own words the relevance, so that it would be subject to a rebuttal. Vomiting out a wiki article about deflation, and offering it as "proof" (and arrogantly asserting that you know better because of it), is the epitome of pathetic.
Unfair trade advantages granted by government to special interests is "free market"? Have you been abusing your prescription meds or something?
| Quote: |
| What subsidies is Walmart receiving? |
Billions in corporate welfare.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/
| Quote: |
The annoyances are "minor" compared to the competition.
There are times when the scarcity of government permits is a good thing. In South America, a lack of regulation over buses has caused huge pollution problems as many families are operating buses that only have 1 or 2 passengers in them and any given time. It creates not only horrible pollution for the city but it also congests the street and the drivers make very little money because there is so much competition. |
Easily debunked: http://mises.org/daily/2120#11
Saying that its okay for the government to shut off peoples' resources and enforce artificial scarcity on those without political connections also exposes you for the elitist you are.
| Quote: |
| You were getting definitions of well established words from Axis leaders. I was showing you how silly that is. |
You were showing, yet again, how ignorant you are about history. That Mussolini called fascism 'corporatism' is a matter of historical fact. Get with the program.
| Quote: |
| And that's just 1 entity, not the whole government. To say the government is fascist is just ridiculous rhetoric. |
It ALL stems from the central banking system. The government is absolutely corporatist (aka the same as fascist, if we go by Mussolini's own definition), and you are simply unable to respond.
| Quote: |
| Again, sounds like the words of a man that has found nothing. Maybe you have 1 or 2 links, but you probably know that 1 expert saying the opposite of the majority of experts is actually less reliable than Wikipedia. |
Your attempt here at sophistry is lackluster, and getting boring. Wikipedia is not a credible source unto itself. I figured you'd have at least learned the difference between good sources and fluff, or between critical thinking and just mindlessly appealing to authority (which is all you ever do) in your 4 years of university. I guess you wasted your money.
| Quote: |
| Not every rich person is a banker. |
They're all part of the same structure, controlled by banks (which finance everything through their monopoly on money creation).
Again, you clearly have no clue how the economy functions.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| At "gunpoint". More rhetoric. I don't like the Fed anymore than you do (how many times do I have to say it?). But the FDA has nothing to do with the Fed, so lets stick to assigning blame to its proper place. Hence the analogy, which makes sense. |
The FDA and the Fed are both regulatory bodies. Duh.
|
Right, and one doesn't make decisions for the other, and shouldn't be blamed for the other. Duh. |
And you were just saying they "had nothing to do with each other" (implying that no comparison could be made), which was obviously ridiculous and false. Duh.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I haven't read anything about the fed causing any of the financial crisis's (aside from failing to act), although I'm well aware of their contributions to the current US debt. |
Clearly you haven't read much of anything at all about this subject. Do you even know where our current form of money comes from? The process by which it is created?
|
I do. Has that caused a crisis? Because it sure didn't cause the recent recession or the Great Depression. |
|
Again with no supporting information. |
What, do I have to spell it out for you? Are you really that daft?
How could you be so utterly clueless as to not understand how excess money creation causes bubbles to form (like the housing bubble)?
| Quote: |
| I got my definitions right. And backed it up with a dictionary. Or do you have some more secret sources to kill my information? |
I see. You used a dictionary to define how government backing risky loans caused the housing bubble... Wow, I guess that makes you pretty god-like.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I never said I want regulation. Not having the government come in and back up bad loans is not the same as regulation. I want the government to enforce the basic rule of law, and nothing more.
|
Why are you bringing up the bailout in an argument about regulation? It's completely off topic. |
Debating with you is sheer comedy. I wonder if you're not just trolling here? Could it be that you actually don't understand what is so completely obvious?
| Quote: |
| You are making your own definition of regulation. Regulation is simply the rules put in place by the government that businesses must follow or face consequences. Your examples are examples of either bad regulation or failure of regulators to enforce current laws. There are plenty of other regulations that do not fall into your description. Don't blame the many for the failures of the few. |
Oh, so you're just talking about a worthless tautology, and not trying to discuss the actual implications of government getting involved in the private sector? In that case, spare me.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Regulation in actual fact is a protection racket. Those companies with the best lobbyists and biggest wallets can keep the government on their side and use that muscle to dominate their competition. Those who have less money get harassed by the government.
|
That is not most regulation. |
Yes it is.
| Quote: |
| The country is none of those. All workers in the US enjoy protections that were not available until recently. It's amazing. The employment is a little low now due to the recession, which was caused by a lack of regulation. If we keep businesses in check, periods like this can virtually disappear. The alternative is a situation like China, where workers do not enjoy protection from their government. |
This would be roll-on-floor-laughing sort of funny if it weren't so sad. You are completely off your rocker here (and to think you were calling me "crazy")...
15% unemployment is "a little low"?? Did you just use the word "amazing" (meaning "wonderful") in that same sentence?
The US is becoming more like China all the time. It's the new model for the future (not surprising, since China is a captive market for the US, just as the Soviet Union was).
| Quote: |
| So yes. America is an exception to this "rule" (your word, not mine) you made up about how all countries massively subjugate their own populations for power. Or were you referring to a different "rule"? Because you certainly didn't mention one. |
Newsflash: America does subjugate its own people. We have a much higher incarceration rate than any other country on earth (including China), cops going around beating up and pepper spraying peaceful protesters (loads of youtube clips), TSA rent-a-goons groping children at airports, warrantless wiretapping, heavy taxation (which, if you don't pay it will result in IRS SWAT teams coming to your home/business) and the list goes on. The president has the power to indefinitely detain or even KILL American citizens. America is becoming a police state. We are not the exception to the rule at all.
| Quote: |
| Now explain to me how that matters (e.g. should we NOT respond to genocide?). Then tell me who has killed more people since the end of the Korean war: the US, or North Korea? Are we allowed to count people we SAVED? |
How about we just use whatever ridiculous statistics you want to justify any atrocity committed by our war-mongering, criminal government? Would that suit you?
And no, we should not respond to genocide, unless you and others want to volunteer to go fight for freedom of your own initiative (then it's all good). When it comes to governments, non-interventionism is by far the most moral stance to take.
| Quote: |
| In what way is the government trying to emulate China? How, exactly, would you propose not ignoring the Chinese human rights violations. I'm all ears for some solutions buddy. |
Already explained how we're emulating China (the latest attempts to put controls on the internet was a clear example of where the government wants to take us).
As for Chinese problems, that is for the Chinese to deal with. Hopefully they'll stop cooperating with the system and bring about change. It is NOT the business of the US government to force any issues (esp. since our own government is so utterly corrupt and full of criminals).
| Quote: |
| Hasn't he had that power for a long time? How is it happening only "now"? |
Do you even watch the news? The NDAA was signed into place like a couple months ago.
| Quote: |
| 1) Most of the deaths in Iraq were NOT US solders killing civilians. |
Oh please. Now you're an apologist for the Iraq War? Are you such a petty person that you'll stoop so low just to be contrarian in this debate?
The civilian deaths were caused by war, which our criminal government started illegally (literally on par with Hitler, as the Geneva convention spelled out illegal aggression as the "ultimate war crime"). But go ahead and spin that if it makes you feel better
| Quote: |
| 2) You were JUST complaining about how the US ignores China's human rights abuses? Are sanctions now off the table too? How would YOU deal with those issues, genius? |
I'm not a genius, but unlike you I'm smart enough to realize sanctions don't work. China's human rights issues are for China to deal with.
| Quote: |
| 3) You take that body count (spread out over what, almost 50 years) and compare it to the pain, suffering, and death caused by NK, or the USSR. No comparison. The events you list (drone attacks and Iraqi people) are below the number of North Koreans who have starved from the regime's stranglehold on the country. |
Oh, so I guess that makes it okay then?
Good thing they taught you logic at college.
| Quote: |
| YOU continue to disbelieve information thrown in your face. YOU continue to have ideas about how the world works that differ from the majority of intelligent, informed people. YOU, sir, are the one in the bubble. |
I think I've pretty much trounced you in this debate. But I guess I have to defer to you, since you claim to speak for the "majority of intelligent, informed people". With credentials like that, I wonder why I even bother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
You're the only one that got "owned", since you confused an opinion piece with proof.
The authors said it was the case, but didn't back it up with any studies. |
Yes he did! Go read the article. He backs it up with studies by professional historians. But I guess you just consider all history to be "opinion"?
|
"Plus, there is the sheer fact that, from the 1960s until 1996, expanded welfare policies made it possible to stay on welfare as a mother indefinitely without job training�impossible before the �60s, and much less common today in most states than it was before 1996. This is why a man could so easily leave kids he fathered to be raised alone�and unsurprisingly, starting in the 1970s, an unprecedented number did."
That is the full extent of the author's mention of welfare. He linked another article, also without a breakdown. There's no studies mentioned at all. |
The reason I quoted that article was to back up the claim that were more two parent black families historically (including during slavery) than there are today - a statement which you denied. In other words, you were refuted, as usual. Period.
|
When did I deny that?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Painkillers are a very small percentage of prescription medication. |
Source?
|
I actually have to source the fact that most prescription medication is not painkillers?
http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/hp.asp
How many of those are pain meds?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The rest of it has much lower rates of abuse and no illegal alternative. |
You're so full of you-know-what, it's coming out your ears...
"The number of deaths and hospitalizations caused by prescription drugs has risen precipitously in the past decade, with overdoses of pain medications, in particular opioids, sedatives and tranquilizers, more than doubling between 1999 and 2006, according to a new study.
|
Pain meds.
Pain meds.
So, medication abuse is on the rise, and that makes it as dangerous and harmful as crack?
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unemployment+rate
It's low, lower than the national average (and what else would you compare it to if not the national average?). I'm sure you'll find some way to trick yourself into thinking that you're not horribly, horribly wrong. |
I don't need to resort to tricks. I'll just quote the Bureau of Labor's own statistics right from its own web site to show that you are the one who is "horribly, horribly wrong".
Using U-6 figures ("real" unemployment, not the cooked numbers you use), the unemployment in Massachusetts in 2011 was 14.3%. That's high unemployment. http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
|
Not compared to the rest of the country (15.9%). You're STILL horribly, horribly wrong. |
Actually, I'm 100% right, since my claim was never that your state had higher unemployment that the rest of the nation, but rather that your state has high unemployment. But keep hurling your laughable epithets about me being "wrong" and "crazy" (while I beat the pants off you in the debate) if it makes you feel better.
|
Again, you are 100% wrong. "High" and "low" are comparative terms. Massachusetts is "low" compared to the rest of the country. I've been saying that since the beginning. That is an objective statement supported by your information with NO room to argue.
You started this by saying that minimum wage kills jobs. I refuted that with the example from my state, which has a high minimum wage, and a low unemployment rate, compared to the rest of the country (because there is nothing else to compare it to). You're WRONG that Mass has a "high" unemployment rate, because the only thing to compare it to is higher, and you're WRONG that minimum wage kills jobs, as it has not in my state.
Just keep twisting it in your head until you think you're right and my "pants" are "beaten".
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They would go down, and farmers would lose money, and have lower standards of living, and go out of business, meaning fewer farms, increasing prices. Ever think of that? |
I've thought of that, but I know better. That is not how it works at all. Farmers overproduce, so prices drop. Some might go out of business (or possibly diversify their crops since subsidies are no longer there), but overall prices would just stabilize at the level people are willing to pay. Economics 101 (which I know you have no grasp of, but there you go).
|
And the price people are willing to pay for food (as seen in Korea) is higher than the price we pay now.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Besides, it's not like food prices in the US are considered "high". The system in place is fine. |
Yeah, fine if you want to eat GMO crud. A steady diet of high-fructose syrup, corn-fed crap meat, and partially hydrogenated trans fat laden oils (and have a nation of unhealthy, obese people). These mass produced, highly processed foods are ridiculously low priced because they are subsidized (with tax dollars, which in turn leaves people with less money to spend on things they want, like healthier food). Healthy foods are too expensive for most lower-income people.
|
Those aren't "GMO crud". That's natural crud (although I'm sure there was selective breeding at some point). They are ridiculously cheap because they are mass produced, although the price is going up thanks to the demand for bio-fuels.
Have you been to a grocery store in the States? Vegetables are all kinds of cheap. Cereal too. Food stamps can help fill in the gap. Poor people have options for eating healthy.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That was when we were on the gold standard. It's not comparable now to our current system. |
You mean our current mathematically unsustainable ponzi scheme system? Seems to be working out really well...
|
The main problem with out money system now is that it is privately owned and pays out dividends, which come from taxpayer dollars.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm saying free market is about free prices. It has nothing to do with regulation (unless prices are being regulated) and is not mutually exclusive with regulation. Free market has nothing to do with anarchy, but when you say "let the free market decide", you're suggesting (at the very least) that regulation should not interfere with the workings of the market. |
Uh huh.
|
Your superior debating skills have certainly "trounced" me here.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What kind of regulation removes liability? Regulation does not do that. In fact, regulation adds rules in place that corporations must follow or face penalties. |
Actually it provides loopholes for corporations to not be held accountable. In pretty much every case. They get a slap on the wrist, but get away with everything else. Think million dollar fines for crimes that made them billions. Think pollution laws. Think bailouts.
|
No, that's bad regulation, get it straight. Bailouts aren't even regulation.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Union Carbide was an excellent example, since negligence IS a crime. |
No it isn't. You just keep flubbing this stuff. Accidents happen. The point is that if a corporation has to pay a full and heavy penalty (incl. bankruptcy after compensation is dealt out), then accidents are much less likely to happen. This sort of thing can't be regulated. The government cannot (and will not) protect you.
|
How can "pay for the damages you cause" not be a law? The government DOES protect us, just not from everything.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
TUM answered that just fine. You neglect to address in your rebuttal that people have been doing it before your alleged regulation forced them to.
Besides, why are mules okay, but rice GM'd to provide essential vitamins to prevent malnutrition isn't? |
This is the stupidest thing ever. Mules are natural because horses and donkeys can be crossed naturally in the wild (if you don't understand the concept, go try and mate with a donkey yourself, and see what happens ). GM crops are one of the most serious environmental threats facing the world today and devastating to human health.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html
|
Your link is about ONE GMF and does not confirm your claim that they are "are one of the most serious environmental threats facing the world today and devastating to human health."
Contrast that with golden rice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
which was engineered to combat Vitamin A deficiency, which kills 1-2 million people a year and severely affects more.
The only threat is the lack of testing and safety standards from corporations, hence the need for more regulation. If you're going to pull out the one of the most serious environmental threats facing the world today" rhetoric, at least use something based in fact, like global warming.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
Wikipedia is a reliable source. It's been found to be more reliable than the New York Times, and of comparable (although slightly inferior) to Encyclopedia Britannica. It has even been considered an acceptable source for general medical information, although not in depth enough for medical professionals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Go ahead, read it. Read the associated links. Now explain to me why Wikipedia is unreliable.
Don't take this as me thinking books aren't very good sources of information. Rather its that there is a certain reliability for each medium, and they don't hit 100%. Wikipedia frequently cites is's sources when it presents information (unlike a certain forum poster). |
Wikipedia is for noobs like yourself who are either too lazy to do proper research, or will believe anything printed on the internet. I can log in to wikipedia and write whatever want. If you wanted to be serious, you would cite the actual sources contained within the wiki, and discuss in your own words the relevance, so that it would be subject to a rebuttal. Vomiting out a wiki article about deflation, and offering it as "proof" (and arrogantly asserting that you know better because of it), is the epitome of pathetic.
|
Why should I have to cite the actual sources when Wikipedia has already done it for me. If you edited Wikipedia to say something incorrect about anything important, it would most likely be changed back very quickly. Unlike random books, who have no fact checking nature at all unless the publisher or author takes the initiative. Just as you can write anything in Wikipedia, you can also write anything in a book. The difference is that other Wikipedia contributors will fix your error, something that does not always happen in books.
| visitorq wrote: |
Unfair trade advantages granted by government to special interests is "free market"? Have you been abusing your prescription meds or something?
|
No. I never said that. I said unfair trade advantages produced by powerful companies are still considered "free market" because they are not controlled by the government.
Then more regulation is needed to prevent them from getting money like that.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
The annoyances are "minor" compared to the competition.
There are times when the scarcity of government permits is a good thing. In South America, a lack of regulation over buses has caused huge pollution problems as many families are operating buses that only have 1 or 2 passengers in them and any given time. It creates not only horrible pollution for the city but it also congests the street and the drivers make very little money because there is so much competition. |
Easily debunked: http://mises.org/daily/2120#11
|
In what way have I been debunked? Your libertarian slanted article provided no rebuttal for my point (unless it was buried elsewhere).
| visitorq wrote: |
Saying that its okay for the government to shut off peoples' resources and enforce artificial scarcity on those without political connections also exposes you for the elitist you are.
|
No. It is the government's responsibility to restrict dangerous chemicals in the air, since, as was stated in your article, proving someone caused you harm through pollution "is almost always an impossible task." If the only way to do that is to restrict the number of businesses, then so be it. The alternative is a global catastrophe. But yes, I want environmental standards SO I MUST BE AN ELITIST!
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You were getting definitions of well established words from Axis leaders. I was showing you how silly that is. |
You were showing, yet again, how ignorant you are about history. That Mussolini called fascism 'corporatism' is a matter of historical fact. Get with the program.
|
And we don't use him as a source for definitions. Get with the program.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And that's just 1 entity, not the whole government. To say the government is fascist is just ridiculous rhetoric. |
It ALL stems from the central banking system. The government is absolutely corporatist (aka the same as fascist, if we go by Mussolini's own definition), and you are simply unable to respond.
|
NO IT DOESN'T. I am unable to respond because you haven't explained how the government and American business have "merged". You use silly rhetoric, provide no example or backup, and say I'M the one unable to respond? That's crazy.
How about this: the president and the executive branch is not a corporate entity, therefore the government and business have not merged.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Again, sounds like the words of a man that has found nothing. Maybe you have 1 or 2 links, but you probably know that 1 expert saying the opposite of the majority of experts is actually less reliable than Wikipedia. |
Your attempt here at sophistry is lackluster, and getting boring. Wikipedia is not a credible source unto itself. I figured you'd have at least learned the difference between good sources and fluff, or between critical thinking and just mindlessly appealing to authority (which is all you ever do) in your 4 years of university. I guess you wasted your money.
|
Did you bother reading any of the links? By anyone who has looked into the accuracy of Wikipedia, their results have determined it to be reliable as a general source of information. That would qualify it as a "good source" (not an excellent or scholarly source). The fact that you even say this shows you do not have the skills that an institute of higher learning provides (or are just lazy and full of crap).
Nice touch with the "mindlessly appealing to authority" though. Clearly, complaining about regulation falls into that category. You, on the other hand, just rehash libertarian talking points with no backing information.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Not every rich person is a banker. |
They're all part of the same structure, controlled by banks (which finance everything through their monopoly on money creation).
Again, you clearly have no clue how the economy functions.
|
YOU clearly have no clue how the economy functions. I provide proof, you provide none.
Admit you're wrong or cite your source.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| At "gunpoint". More rhetoric. I don't like the Fed anymore than you do (how many times do I have to say it?). But the FDA has nothing to do with the Fed, so lets stick to assigning blame to its proper place. Hence the analogy, which makes sense. |
The FDA and the Fed are both regulatory bodies. Duh.
|
Right, and one doesn't make decisions for the other, and shouldn't be blamed for the other. Duh. |
And you were just saying they "had nothing to do with each other" (implying that no comparison could be made), which was obviously ridiculous and false. Duh.
|
They do completely different things and are not accountable to each other. I never said no comparison could be made (and that statement does not imply it). It said one is not responsible for the actions of the other. Duh.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I haven't read anything about the fed causing any of the financial crisis's (aside from failing to act), although I'm well aware of their contributions to the current US debt. |
Clearly you haven't read much of anything at all about this subject. Do you even know where our current form of money comes from? The process by which it is created?
|
I do. Has that caused a crisis? Because it sure didn't cause the recent recession or the Great Depression. |
|
Again with no supporting information. |
What, do I have to spell it out for you? Are you really that daft?
|
Um, yea. Spell out how my source, and a history teacher of 40+ years is wrong.
Admit you're wrong or cite your source.
| visitorq wrote: |
How could you be so utterly clueless as to not understand how excess money creation causes bubbles to form (like the housing bubble)?
|
I never said otherwise. The Fed has generally been pretty good with preventing "excess" money creation.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I got my definitions right. And backed it up with a dictionary. Or do you have some more secret sources to kill my information? |
I see. You used a dictionary to define how government backing risky loans caused the housing bubble... Wow, I guess that makes you pretty god-like.
|
No. I used the dictionary to correct your crazy definition of regulation (it's only "crazy" because you still hold onto it). Apparently you're bad at reading comprehension too.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I never said I want regulation. Not having the government come in and back up bad loans is not the same as regulation. I want the government to enforce the basic rule of law, and nothing more.
|
Why are you bringing up the bailout in an argument about regulation? It's completely off topic. |
Debating with you is sheer comedy. I wonder if you're not just trolling here? Could it be that you actually don't understand what is so completely obvious?
|
So obvious you cant even respond appropriately. You even called this a "debate", yet have not supported your arguments like a debater does.
Keep dodging questions.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You are making your own definition of regulation. Regulation is simply the rules put in place by the government that businesses must follow or face consequences. Your examples are examples of either bad regulation or failure of regulators to enforce current laws. There are plenty of other regulations that do not fall into your description. Don't blame the many for the failures of the few. |
Oh, so you're just talking about a worthless tautology, and not trying to discuss the actual implications of government getting involved in the private sector? In that case, spare me.
|
I can do that too. Like all the poisons that are no longer in things we consume because of regulation. You, on the other hand, are only bringing up situations where regulation has gone wrong. That's not a problem with "regulation" it's a problem with decision makers in government. The answer isn't to remove regulation, it's to make people who put them in place accountable.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Regulation in actual fact is a protection racket. Those companies with the best lobbyists and biggest wallets can keep the government on their side and use that muscle to dominate their competition. Those who have less money get harassed by the government.
|
That is not most regulation. |
Yes it is.
|
Admit you're wrong or cite your source.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The country is none of those. All workers in the US enjoy protections that were not available until recently. It's amazing. The employment is a little low now due to the recession, which was caused by a lack of regulation. If we keep businesses in check, periods like this can virtually disappear. The alternative is a situation like China, where workers do not enjoy protection from their government. |
This would be roll-on-floor-laughing sort of funny if it weren't so sad. You are completely off your rocker here (and to think you were calling me "crazy")...
|
Keep dodging the questions.
| visitorq wrote: |
15% unemployment is "a little low"?? Did you just use the word "amazing" (meaning "wonderful") in that same sentence?
|
Yup. To describe working conditions. Not employment. Learn to read.
Also, I said 15% unemployment was a little high.
| visitorq wrote: |
The US is becoming more like China all the time. It's the new model for the future (not surprising, since China is a captive market for the US, just as the Soviet Union was).
|
Admit you're wrong or cite your source.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So yes. America is an exception to this "rule" (your word, not mine) you made up about how all countries massively subjugate their own populations for power. Or were you referring to a different "rule"? Because you certainly didn't mention one. |
Newsflash: America does subjugate its own people. We have a much higher incarceration rate than any other country on earth (including China), cops going around beating up and pepper spraying peaceful protesters (loads of youtube clips), TSA rent-a-goons groping children at airports, warrantless wiretapping, heavy taxation (which, if you don't pay it will result in IRS SWAT teams coming to your home/business) and the list goes on. The president has the power to indefinitely detain or even KILL American citizens. America is becoming a police state. We are not the exception to the rule at all.
|
1) Doesn't subjugate law abiding citizens.
2) The famous pepper spay event was not the action of the government (the UC Davis Chancellor said "violence should be avoided at all costs"): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/john-pike-pepper-spraying-officer-previously-honored_n_1108865.html
3) TSA "goons" and "groping" are just more rhetoric. I HATE the TSA, but to say that is subjugating the people is a stretch.
4) Warrentless wiretapping, while unconstitutional, is not subjugation.
5) Those taxes are not subjugation. They're not even that high. For the rich, they're lower than they've been in recent history. For lower class, they're minimal. For the middle class, they've gone down recently. For corporate taxes, they need to be lowered (with some loopholes closed).
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Now explain to me how that matters (e.g. should we NOT respond to genocide?). Then tell me who has killed more people since the end of the Korean war: the US, or North Korea? Are we allowed to count people we SAVED? |
How about we just use whatever ridiculous statistics you want to justify any atrocity committed by our war-mongering, criminal government? Would that suit you?
|
How about we fail to answer the question and instead provide a bunch of anti-US rhetoric? How about we fail to address the GOOD that America has done in parts of the world? How about instead of demonizing the government, we work to change what is bad while keeping the good? Would that suit you?
Learn the difference between "does bad things" and "one of the worst in all of history".
| visitorq wrote: |
And no, we should not respond to genocide, unless you and others want to volunteer to go fight for freedom of your own initiative (then it's all good). When it comes to governments, non-interventionism is by far the most moral stance to take.
|
So we should just let millions of innocent people die? Doesn't sound very moral to me.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In what way is the government trying to emulate China? How, exactly, would you propose not ignoring the Chinese human rights violations. I'm all ears for some solutions buddy. |
Already explained how we're emulating China (the latest attempts to put controls on the internet was a clear example of where the government wants to take us).
|
Our government didn't do it. In fact, thanks to the public's opposition to SOPA and PIPA, they probably won't do it. So no, we didn't emulate China. Quite the opposite, really; we acted like a democracy and preserved freedom.
| visitorq wrote: |
As for Chinese problems, that is for the Chinese to deal with. Hopefully they'll stop cooperating with the system and bring about change. It is NOT the business of the US government to force any issues (esp. since our own government is so utterly corrupt and full of criminals).
|
Then how are we to blame for "ignor[ing] all of China's human rights violations" if they're for China to deal with. America has no right answer with this kind of logic.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Hasn't he had that power for a long time? How is it happening only "now"? |
Do you even watch the news? The NDAA was signed into place like a couple months ago.
|
Just a bunch of media hype. It did not definitively give the president any power he did not already have. There is a controversy over whether the wording in the bill actually gives the president that authority or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Controversy_over_indefinite_detention
The solution, of course, would be to replace the murky language with clear, concise language that ends any debate on interpretation. But since congress does not do many helpful fixes like that (and could very well have made language murky intentionally), that's unlikely to happen. Frankly, i don't see why citizenship has anything to do with whether or not anyone can be detained indefinitely, and would vote for a candidate who shared that opinion.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 1) Most of the deaths in Iraq were NOT US solders killing civilians. |
Oh please. Now you're an apologist for the Iraq War? Are you such a petty person that you'll stoop so low just to be contrarian in this debate?
|
I am? I hate the (second) Iraq war. I was opposed to it on day 1 and have been ever since. I just don't think the US should be blamed for everything.
| visitorq wrote: |
The civilian deaths were caused by war, which our criminal government started illegally (literally on par with Hitler, as the Geneva convention spelled out illegal aggression as the "ultimate war crime"). But go ahead and spin that if it makes you feel better
|
Yes, on par with "Hitler", known not for illegal war, but genocide.
The civilian deaths were caused by insurgents. America is not blameless, but they were not the ones constructing IED's. Saddam wasn't the greatest either, and expected deaths under him since the start of the war should be subtracted from the body count (if you want to consider the US responsible for all aspects of the conflict, they should get credit for the positives as well). Again, I don't think the Iraq war was good at all, but to say that America is responsible for every single dead body is going too far.
Here's another way to look at it. According to this site:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
Saddam was responsible for the deaths of around 1 million people over his 24 year regime. That's a rate of around 41,666 people a year, Which is less than the Iraq war.
My biggest concern for Iraq is it's uncertain future. Time will tell the extent of the damage America is responsible for.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 2) You were JUST complaining about how the US ignores China's human rights abuses? Are sanctions now off the table too? How would YOU deal with those issues, genius? |
I'm not a genius, but unlike you I'm smart enough to realize sanctions don't work. China's human rights issues are for China to deal with.
|
Then don't blame the US for ignoring them.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 3) You take that body count (spread out over what, almost 50 years) and compare it to the pain, suffering, and death caused by NK, or the USSR. No comparison. The events you list (drone attacks and Iraqi people) are below the number of North Koreans who have starved from the regime's stranglehold on the country. |
Oh, so I guess that makes it okay then?
|
I never said that. I said that America is not one of the worst ever and compared it to one of the worst ever.
Your reading comprehension is just horrible.
| visitorq wrote: |
Good thing they taught you logic at college.
|
It's not working out for you though.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| YOU continue to disbelieve information thrown in your face. YOU continue to have ideas about how the world works that differ from the majority of intelligent, informed people. YOU, sir, are the one in the bubble. |
I think I've pretty much trounced you in this debate. But I guess I have to defer to you, since you claim to speak for the "majority of intelligent, informed people". With credentials like that, I wonder why I even bother |
You have been losing horribly and it's sad. You continue to spill drivel without any support at all, only to change the subject or my words to fit in with your argument. You have clearly demonstrated a failure to support an argument or explain a position. You have have trounced nobody with your horrible debate skills, and will only "trounce" other horrible debaters that consider "noob" or "" valid retorts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've been avidly following this thread (as I like these sorts of exchanges), but I've noticed that I enjoy it a bit more after a few beers at home rather than (let's say) lunchtime at work when I am without their benefit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| I've been avidly following this thread (as I like these sorts of exchanges), but I've noticed that I enjoy it a bit more after a few beers at home rather than (let's say) lunchtime at work when I am without their benefit. |
Let's face it, if anyone should be sued for alcoholism, it just might be you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| I've been avidly following this thread (as I like these sorts of exchanges), but I've noticed that I enjoy it a bit more after a few beers at home rather than (let's say) lunchtime at work when I am without their benefit. |
Yeah, no doubt it's more entertaining as a spectator
After awhile I just get tired of copy/pasting my way around absurdly long quote nests... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
