Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

itistime

Joined: 23 Jul 2010

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:13 pm Post subject:

Quote:

No doubt there are many boot licking shmucks (not unlike yourself) out there who think that yes, the government should have carte blanche to do anything it wants in the name of "security"; sane people with healthy distrust of corrupt authority realize that it is the slippery slope to tyranny.

..and if one were to believe otherwise, they are not THINKING and deserve the "security" that they get.

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:59 am Post subject:

Fat_Elvis wrote:

If there was no government regulatory framework, who would have forced BP to clean up the mess they made?

You don't get it man. The government doesn't have the right to do something like that. Free market forces will clean up the oil, c02 etc. Regulation is not the answer here, since it doesn't work 100% of the time.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:44 am Post subject:

akcrono wrote:

Fat_Elvis wrote:

If there was no government regulatory framework, who would have forced BP to clean up the mess they made?

This is completely asinine. Regulation is what allowed BP to engage in risky drilling operations. The Gulf territory is owned by the US government (so it is technically the government's oil washing up on the shores), and the mineral rights are basically leased/pimped off to the highest bidders, who are encouraged to drill as much and as deeply possible (since the government actually profits directly from this).

So given this arrangement it no surprise that when a massive oil spill occurs there is no real liability. BP gets a slap on the wrist to appease public anger, the US government keeps on pimping out drilling licenses like before (business as usual), and the money rolls right in. Moreover, regulation sure as hell isn't going to clean up the mess after the fact. The only solution is to get the government out of the equation, except when it comes to strictly enforcing property rights. If a company causes an oil spill that damages other peoples' property, they should have to pay for every penny of it (even if the company subsequently goes broke). Enforcing the law after the fact is the government's true role; entrusting them with regulation proves to be a disaster time and again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_oil_and_gas_in_the_United_States#Federal_ownership

asylum seeker

Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:34 am Post subject:

Unposter wrote:

What do you think Romney's 10 biggest accomplishments will be, assuming he somehow finds his way to the white house?

1. Starts war with Iran, which drives oil prices up to over 20$ a gallon creating obscene profits for his oil baron buddies at the minor cost of tanking the world economy.

2. More tax cuts for rich.

3. etc.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:53 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

akcrono wrote:

Fat_Elvis wrote:

If there was no government regulatory framework, who would have forced BP to clean up the mess they made?

Regulatory Blowout: BP (.pdf)

I hope CPR isn't too Left a source for you, Fat Elvis.

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:42 am Post subject:

itistime wrote:

Quote:

..and if one were to believe otherwise, they are not THINKING and deserve the "security" that they get.

Agreed.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:13 am Post subject:

Quote:

This is completely asinine. Regulation is what allowed BP to engage in risky drilling operations

Exactly! Regulation allowed them to do that, SO WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS not have regulation so they won't do that. "Pure competition" will result in more responsible drilling because 3 people at Berkley will support fair trade drilling and , hey, even I could start a drilling company and compete with BP. Woohoo!

That's asinine.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:55 am Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

This is completely asinine. Regulation is what allowed BP to engage in risky drilling operations

Yeah, it is asinine. Good thing it wasn't me who said it.

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:48 am Post subject:

Apologies for the late response; the workload at my school has temporarily doubled.

visitorq wrote:

Wrong. The government gets its mandate from the Constitution, not from your made up "collective". Your logic is totally bunk, since anything the government does could be in "the peoples'" name (just look at "the Peoples'" Republic of China or similarly named countries).

Not really. Who ratified the constitution? What does it say about "promot[ing] the general welfare"?

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Not too many people think that way. Most want a happy medium between police state and anarchy.

There you go claiming to speak for other people again. While what you say right here sounds reasonable, the fact that claim to know what "most people" think shows your arrogance. You speak only for yourself.

No. I speak for a lot of people.

Please demonstrate most people wanting something else.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Which was a result of poor regulation or failure to enforce regulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Finding_of_fault
It is certainly clear from this example that the "free market" cannot be trusted to develop and adhere to acceptable safety standards.

This is such nonsense. It was a clear example of regulation encouraging development that would have been too risky to undertake in a free market. Despite all the government "safety standards" the disaster took place. In fact, some of the most polluted countries are those where governments control industry. Places like China or the former USSR. The notion that government can or will protect us from pollution is a JOKE.

�Regulation� did not encourage any development.

It would not have been too risky in a "free market". The demand for oil is high, therefore the price goes up, therefore there is motivation to go and drill for it. Suggesting free market forces wouldn't work like that is absurd.

The disaster happened because safety standards were not properly enforced, not because they didn't have them. Comparing the US government to the atrocious and unaccountable governments or the USSR or PRC is absurd.

visitorq wrote:

Free market and private property is a much better system for environmental protection, since I have the right to sue you for damages if you damage my property (including my person, or health) with your pollution. This is not "regulation", it is simply enforcing property laws. Of course this doesn't work when the government owns land and doles out pollution rights to corporate cronies - in that case we get the classic "tragedy of the commons", of which the Gulf spill was an obvious example. And yet you fallaciously blame the free market as always Rolling Eyes

Really? I can sue companies for greenhouse gasses? Those proceeds can fix the problem completely?

Free market and private property with no regulation has absolutely no effective methods for environmental protection. Why would a factory control it�s emissions without regulation?

What planet do you live on where businesses can actually pay for and/or fix the damages they cause? You sincerely think that the free market will regulate itself and cut pollution without regulation? Please source this or stop saying it, because all I've seen historically is regulation going into place because companies cannot be trusted.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Or in Fukushima where they had safety standards on par with what we have in the US?

They did not:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/opinion/fukushima-could-have-been-prevented.html

You claim to post facts and then back it up with an opinion piece? Anyway, of course the Fukushima disaster could have been prevented - the nuclear plant could simply have never been built. That it was built is thanks to government and huge subsidies; the same government that has since bailed out TEPCO and lied to the Japanese people about everything. Pretty much on par with any other government, mind you.

The piece clearly states that Japan did not follow international safety guidelines. They did not match the US safety standards. Here�s another article with the same message: http://www.economist.com/node/21549095
For you to say otherwise is wrong. They�ve also admitted their mistakes and fired some very prominent figures (although I won�t argue if you say that�s not enough).

As for the plant itself, it wasn't the earthquake that caused the disaster by itself; nuclear plants are designed to withstand earthquakes and power down safely in the event of significant seismic activity. The problem was a combination of poor planning for the resulting tsunami (which shut down the emergency generators), and leadership's failure to act appropriately (which has been blamed on management).

It is foolish to say that the plant should not have been built; how else are you going to power Japan?

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Oh yeah, they got bailed out, and both companies are still running (hell, a company like TEPCO wouldn't even have nuclear reactors built on fault lines beside the ocean if it weren't for government subsidies and assurances).

The BP disaster makes it clear that companies cannot completely cover damages they cause. Your point about bankruptcy as a threat is not mutually exclusive with regulation, but your idea alone is ignorant of human nature.

No, the BP disaster makes it clear that companies can engage in as risky behavior as they want and still get bailed out by the government when a disaster occurs. This is exactly what happened. Why the hell would BP or anyone else change the way they do business when the government actively encourages it? Your regulatory solution has a history of FAILURE. It doesn't work. The only solution is getting government out of the picture, except when it comes to enforcing the basic rule of law. BP should have been forced to pay for every single penny worth of damage caused - iow they should be bankrupt. Instead they were bailed out (with a slap on the wrist) and the "tragedy of the commons" left nobody truly accountable. This is what corporatism is all about.

Please source BP getting bailed out.

Regulation has a much higher success rate than failure rate: nuclear power in the United States is a perfect example. How can you say regulation fails when nuclear power has killed fewer people in the US than ANY other source of power generation worth charting? NO ONE has died in the US from a reactor failing. It's the nature of regulation to only see it when it doesn't work. For you to say that it is a failure is somewhere between ignorant and stupid.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

We do NOT live in a police state. Stop the rhetoric.

Make a checklist of the criteria for a police state. The US meets many of the those criteria to some degree. It is not rhetoric. It is denial on your part.

Better use of my time is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

All measures consider us free. We are not in a police state. It is rhetoric.

Here's an example of you tossing out a worthless link to wikipedia, while offering zero insight of your own. The US has many aspects that make it a police state. We have the highest prison incarceration rate on the planet (more than China, by far), we have TSA goons humiliating and molesting people in airports, we have cops that go around beating and killing people, as well as pepper spraying and arresting peaceful protesters, a president who has the power to indefinitely detain any one or even kill American citizens. And despite all that you just throw up some wiki link. Pathetic.

Incarceration rate does not equal police state. Neither does the TSA, nor the VERY uncommon incidents of cops abusing their power to that degree. The president has no such power. And despite all that nonsense, my wiki link is highly sourced, unlike your entire argument. Pathetic.

You calling the US a police state is insulting to both the US and the people who actually live in police states. You are proving just how clueless you really are.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

You said we don't need to live in a police state to feel safe. Since we don't live in a police state, that's off topic and doesn't address my point.

Your examples are anecdotal and don't reflect the overall experience people have with police in the west.

You're like a little kid with his fingers stuck in his ears pretending he can't hear you.

Guess that's what you say when the facts prevent you from having a rebuttal.

You don't post any facts. You just toss up wikipedia links, which may or may not support any of the nonsense you post.

Which DID support my argument AND is sourced. You just say things like that when your argument cant hold up to facts.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

You say over and over again that the FDA is bad, and have yet to demonstrate a net loss.

The net loss is obvious, and I've stated it before: the FDA costs a ton of money and does not have the right to impose itself onto people. The FDA also functions as a regulatory capture for big pharma and big agro to dominate their competition. The FDA is institution created to cartelize industry at the expense of the public, operating under the cover of ostensibly "protecting" us, while in fact ensuring that our food is full of poisons. It is one of the most insidious institutions ever created - a true monstrosity.

Until you link any kind of source to the contrary, the fact that the FDA's objective is listed in the constitution as one of it's purposes and the fact that the majority of Americans support the existence of an FDA makes your right to exist argument invalid.

The FDA does not cost a "ton" of money. It costs 2.8 billion, or less than .1% of the total US budget (2008). Any argument against the FDA based on cost would be MUCH more constructive in a lot of other places, such as military spending.

And again, you still haven't demonstrated a net loss. You have claimed that the FDA costs a ton of money (it does not) and have yet to prove that we would actually be better off with it gone.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

When no good answer is available, no good answer is given.

That was as good an answer as you deserve. Your claim that you seek change is untrue. You vote for the status quo, and would put up with any amount of tyranny. You would just roll over and let the "authorities" have their way with you, because, hey, that's the "sane" thing to do. So yeah, just vote for Obama again, but that's the sort of thing you stand for.

I vote for healthcare reform, environmental progress, alternative energy, and freedom of speech. Obama gives me the best spread compared to Romney.

I don't tolerate tyranny, which means Obama is fine, since he's not tyrannical. The NDAA didn't extend his powers (at least there's no proof that it does), and he opposed SOPA.

I don't know what kind of planet you're from where Obama=Tyranny, but since you are objectively wrong, you should probably stop the rhetoric before you look even dumber.

You didn't even know how to respond to me supporting Obama because you had no idea how to. There ARE good reasons not to vote for him, but your reasons aren't even reasons, they're just propaganda and rhetoric that have no base in fact. You responded because I called you out, and you demonstrated why you were so afraid to respond in the first place.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Because it's not dangerous. Bananas have naturally occurring levels of radiation. You can harvest uranium from seawater.

Yeah, and when radiation levels rise after Fukushima, the government can say 'hocus pocus, abracadabra' and magically raise the "safe" limit. Same goes for mercury levels, or anything else. And you'll always believe it, because you think the government actually gives a damn about you Laughing

Seriously, even cyanide can be harmless in small enough amounts. So taking that line of reasoning, why ban anything?

So because it's not dangerous in small levels, we shouldn't ban it at dangerous levels?

I never said I believe the government. I believe experts.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Many of these dangerous substances are banned because they were being added to our food. The FDA bans are in response to business's reckless behavior.

Such as? I'd like to see you come up with a list. And maybe limit it to companies that don't owe their entire existence to government subsidies, hm?

I already listed dangerous chemicals that were in cosmetics. Lead would be a good example as well.

I don't know of a single company that owes their entire existence to government subsidies.

Do I need to re-link all the other good stuff the FDA does?

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Dangerous substance in food -> FDA ban -> food is safer.
That is a net gain.

Dangerous substance -> FDA approved -> food is unhealthy crud.

Source?

visitorq wrote:

or, dangerous substance - FDA ban -> substance is still found in food.

All the time? Source?

visitorq wrote:

+ FDA costs huge amounts of money to fund, which is stolen from the taxpayer.

Small amount, not stolen.

visitorq wrote:

+ The FDA does not have the right to police our food supply and tell people what they can or can't feed themselves.

According to the constitution, it does.

visitorq wrote:

= Net loss. By far.

None of that was true. Source it or admit you're wrong.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Moreover, it assumes that small farmers and food producers would be adding these chemicals in the first place (very unlikely, much less so than for larger companies subsidized by government).

Really? Farmers don't want their food preserved so it becomes salable for a longer period of time? They don't want to fend off pests to improve (and stabilize) their crop yields?

Strawman. Local farmers may use some chemicals (produced by FDA approved superstar company Monsanto), but require a lot less than big industrial agriculture. Local produce is also real, whole foods that are healthy - the GMO crud produced by FDA approved giants just gets processed down into packaged/junk food with no real nutritional value and tons of chemical additivies.

There is no consensus of serious health differences between organic and industrial produce. Many GMO's are actually good, and I can't even find an incident of dangerous GMO's that isn't widely disputed.

Small farmers require fewer pesticides, but their yields are smaller.

Small farms don't produce corn to be turned into crud? Pesticides wouldn't exist without Monsanto?

Let me break this down for you nice and clearly: If big agro goes under, the demand for crappy, cheap food will still be there. Just because it won't be as cheap, doesn't mean that it won't be cheap. You read economics. You know the nature of the average consumer.

Why are you trying to suggest that we'd have this paradise of healthy food if big agro went away? Do you know it's estimated that we could only feed 4 billion people (less than 50% of our population) by switching to organic farming? Do you have any idea how much food supplies would dry up if we didn't have a major farming industry? You honestly have no freaking idea what you're talking about.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Lastly, the FDA allows many harmful chemicals to be added by big companies that otherwise would probably not be added by small farmers and producers.

Source please.

I need a source to prove that small farmers would use less Monsanto pesticides than big agro? How about the fact that without subsidies pesticides would be more expensive? Or that big agro treats farmland like a giant factory, growing monocultures that get doused in chemicals? This is all subsidized.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/industrial-agriculture-features.html#Subsidies

No. You need to source that small farmers and producers would not be using chemicals that industrialized agro uses now. Your link does not do that.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

The majority want something in a democracy and I'm a control freak for saying that's okay? What is wrong with you?

You're a control freak because you think it's okay to impose your views on others, claiming to speak for the "majority" after the fact. Even if you did speak for the majority, it is moot, since the tyranny of the majority does give a legal mandate to government - only the constitution does that. We live in a democratic republic, not a majority rules democracy. Learn the difference.

You got it wrong. YOU were the one who claimed the FDA had no right to exist, when it has rights from both the constitution and the people. I have been defending it. I am not the control freak, because I am not trying to push an unpopular view on other people. Since you are, YOU are the control freak.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

We do not live in a "democracy" per se, but a republic. It is NOT majority rule. The law is enshrined in the constitution and cannot be legally changed by a majority vote (obviously). To repeat the adage: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

A republic is a democracy. Just not a direct democracy.

A republic is a republic, with elements of democracy built in. It is not a "majority rules" democracy. It is in fact even conceivable that the US could be reconfigured into more of a direct democracy, just so long as the rights enumerated in the constitution were not infringed upon. The MAIN point is our individual liberties should not be touched.

A republic is a democracy

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Okay, so if white people (the majority) vote to enslave blacks (the minority) again, then that would be lawful and okay? Because (in your words) the "majority rules". Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds.

Is that something that's likely to happen? What non-democratic process would you like to use to prevent it?

The constitution, of course. Even if the majority voted to enslave the minority, this should be legally prevented and the will of the majority defied by the rights of each individual. Because we do NOT live in a majority rules system.

The constitution is democratic, which is why, in your example, the people could simply modify the constitution and continue on. After that, what non-democratic process would you like to use to prevent it?

visitorq wrote:

The people of the United States of America gave the FDA power to ban people from from eating what they want? Laughing

Where do you come up with this crap?

General Welfare Clause of The Constitution. A constitution ratified by elected representatives of the people.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

I've already found ways to avoid most of the poisons they're selling me. The FDA has never helped, and in fact I see it as an active enabler of all the problems that did not, and would not exist otherwise. Abolish the FDA, and Big Agro will bite the dust. No question about it.

The FDA requires all ingredients to be listed in everything you buy. They have most certainly helped you.

I rarely read the ingredients

Which means that you have before. There's some help from the FDA right there.

visitorq wrote:

(which deceptively read as some sort of benign list: instead of saying "a whole bunch of processed crud that will make you fat, cause heart disease and many other health problems"). I just buy from sources I trust, and generally avoid supermarkets. I actually shop a lot at local and farmers markets. In the US I would definitely buy things like nutritious raw milk from local farmers - except that the FDA sends around cadres of police to arrest people.

Why do you insist on calling raw milk nutritious when it hasn't been proven?

And for the last time, the FDA does not ban raw milk.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Your point was obvious, because you stated it clearly. I then proved you wrong. The study I linked demonstrates why "We have a nation of obese, unhealthy people who eat s--t, and it's all a result of government policy," is wrong.

This is a lie. Straight up.

No it's not. You can see your own words right there. You can go back and checked what you typed. It's accurate to the letter.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

A cartel is a form of monopoly, genius. You are being completely disingenuous.

You said I was defending monopolies and I'm being disingenuous?

A cartel is a form of monopoly! You are defending the cartelization of the food supply, caused by government, and then blaming it on the "free market". To say you are being disingenuous is a huge understatement.

A cartel is a oligopoly, not a monopoly. Small farms have room to compete, and do, therefore not making it a monopoly in ANY way. I blame the demand for food on free market forces, not the free market. Learn to read.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Bold claim with no evidence. Also a prediction that runs counter to what we know about consumer buying patterns. Source it.

Source what?? That big agro profits from billions in government subsidies? I already have sourced it ad freaking nauseum. Go back and read.

What? I actually put, in quotes, bolded, what you should source. Don;t run away anymore, source it:
"This cheap junk ... would probably cease to exist and people would revert back to how it used to be."

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dvmnBNj4r1wJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151663770115120.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Before 1938, when pasteurization was widely adopted, cow's milk accounted for about 25% of all food- and water-borne disease outbreaks. But with the growing popularity of raw milk products, "people don't remember the bad old days," the CDC's Dr. Tauxe says. "Pasteurization was one of the triumphs of public health that protected many people and saved many lives."

This is such absolute, unmitigated garbage. In the first place, that link is to a discussion, where the claims being made are by the same FDA that has a vested interest in banning raw milk (huge lobbying by the big dairy industry, and also just expanding FDA power over the food supply). The notion that "evil" cow's milk caused a quarter of all illnesses is just laughable.

It is, which is why no one made that assertion.

visitorq wrote:

People were drinking cow's milk for thousands of years. Where's the data proving that a quarter of illnesses throughout that period were caused by it?

Again, there is no data for that, and no one is claiming it.

visitorq wrote:

Anybody with even an iota of common sense can see how idiotic, unfounded, and unprovable that claim is.

Actually, anyone with common sense would see the historic trend in life expectancy. We WERE drinking cows milk for thousands of years, and yet had a pretty dismal life expectancy until around the late 1800's. Also something that started at the end of the 19th century: pasteurization.

The CDC attributes much of our longevity to health and sanitation services, services that includes pasteurizing milk.

visitorq wrote:

Moreover, even if cow's milk was "inherently dangerous", as the stooge at the FDA says, it's still my right to drink it if I so chose. The criminal scumbags in the government do NOT have a right to ban me from drinking it, or forcing me to drink the pasteurized crap produced by big dairy (which is full of dead, cooked bacteria and histamines found in all the blood, pus, and feces that go into their filthy factory-farmed milk before they process it).

Wanna tone down the rhetoric so we can have an adult discussion? I�ll help you this time:
�Moreover, even if cow's milk was "inherently dangerous", as the FDA says, it's still my right to drink it if I so chose. The government does NOT have a right to ban me from drinking it.�

See? Now it looks like something a normal person would say; your point sounds rational, instead of being drowned out by highly opinionated filler that hurts your position simply by being included.

I�ve addressed both points.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Hmm. Handful of people died on the toilet from unrelated issues. Does not support your point.

It supports my point perfectly. We don't need the government to run our lives.

That was your point? Who was advocating for the government running our lives?

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

I guess we need to have police patrolling toilets now. In fact, we should set up an entire government bureau and regulate the hell out of it. For your own safety and protection.

Risk is not worth the reward. Terrible idea.

Just as with the FDA and other government bodies.

Source it or admit you�re wrong.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Then why did you bring it up? It's nothing like raw milk.

It's exactly analogous to raw milk.

Knives were not responsible for a large number of infections, nor are there realistic alternatives for knives. Raw milk is not banned by the federal government. Three significant ways where they�re not analogous.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

And who the hell are you to say what people need. Maybe I believe that raw milk is necessary for my health. Some control freak like yourself certainly has no right to tell me otherwise.

But, since you're not an expert (and the experts haven't confirmed one way or the other), you'd be wrong.

Because confirmation by so-called "experts" (whom you can't even list in detail) is not a criteria for being right. Obviously. Experts are often proven wrong.

Of course I can't list experts that haven't confirmed it, that list would include all experts. I have named a few who advise caution, however.

Experts are right far more often than they are wrong. It�s funny how you haven�t produced any authority advocating for raw milk.

It�s strange why you�re even arguing with me or calling me a control freak over raw milk; I have made my position clear on raw milk multiple times.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Why would experts tell me to jump off a bridge? Isn't that an argument parents use on 10 year-olds?

Well, if the shoe fits...

If the �shoe� is a metaphor for your inability to provide an adult argument, then yes, it does.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Mindless? Lemmings? Sounds like projection to me. You do nothing but spout conservative and Austrian school talking points. I haven't seen you leave that camp once. I demonstrated a position that is not held in any camp.

Ahaha, your position is a massive cliche. You are incapable of thinking for yourself. If I wanted to hear any of your talking points I would flick on MSNBC or any other liberal hack-job media outlet. To think you're actually claiming your views don't fall under any camp Laughing

really funny.

Find me the camp favoring industrial agriculture and the sale of raw milk. That�s just from this discussion. I have many issues that differentiate me from the �liberals�. I�m perfectly capable of forming my own opinions.

You didn�t dispute my point. Seems like you are the one that isn�t capable of thinking for yourself.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

I think the will of the people should prevail. Saying otherwise makes YOU the control freak and anti-democracy. Straight up.

Democracy is not the end, it is merely a means to the end that is individual liberty. It can be a useful tool, obviously, since it decentralizes power - but the tyranny of the majority is to be resisted just as much as that of the minority. Anti-democracy, indeed... I guess anyone who resisted the Nazis (who had a democratic mandate) were guilty of just that too? Hm?

The world�s democracies were the ones fighting the Nazis, who were actually anti democracy. Hitler did not have democratically allocated power during WWII, especially once the US became involved on the western front. Don�t use Nazis to make a point about democracy.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Experts don't always come to a consensus, but they do many times. The Austrian school of economics is a perfect example.

Nice dodge to my challenge. Show me a better way to form an opinion than listening to the consensus of the expert community.

I didn't dodge anything. I stated that the best way to form an opinion is to make up your own mind, and don't simply buy into whatever is being fed you unless it actually has merit.

You make up your own mind when you have the knowledge and tools to do so. When you don�t, you should defer to the expert community.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Where do you get your information? Do you read? The experts were almost unanimously AGAINST the belief that Saddam had WMD's. The government ignored them and went ahead as planned. Read the entry.

I remember Rumsfeld and Colin Powell et al. telling us all that US intelligence had confirmed the WMDs (they even listed the locations). Of course they blatantly LIED about it, but hey that's what governments do. It's all the useful idiots that go along with it that make it possible.

Rumsfeld and Powell were not experts. The DoE and the spies in the field were the experts. They were largely ignored.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Al Gore's critically acclaimed movie says that if Greenland or Antarctica melt completely, that sea levels will rise 20 ft. How exactly is that "nonsense"?

Because they were suggesting such a thing could actually happen, obviously. It never could and never will. At least not due to CO2 emissions.

Source it or admit you're wrong.

visitorq wrote:

Al Gore (who previously owned large holding in the Chicago Climate Exchange, and whose family fortune comes from Occidental Petroleum) went and bought a $9 million dollar ocean-front mansion after making that piece of crap movie. So I wouldn't worry about it happening too much...

He didn�t say it would happen in our lifetimes; he didn�t even say it WOULD happen.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Climate gate? Where do you get your information? I see you didn't source any of that ridiculousness. However, I can source you wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Your wikipedia garbage doesn't cut it here. Go and read sources like climateaudit.com - they utterly destroy all the propaganda and lies put out by the charlatans at RealClimate.org

I have. They�re bad, but they don�t discredit the science.

visitorq wrote:

Moreover, I don't need to read your wikipedia trash. I actually downloaded all the emails myself and read through a great deal of them. It was incriminating beyond belief. I also remember all the spin and damage control that came after. It was like a sick joke, but everybody knew that given enough time it would blow over, and the sheep-like public would accept it as having been "resolved". You are case in point. You have no clue whatsoever, but you accept it because you can wikipedia it in 2 minutes without doing any any research or digging deeper.

Except that several groups have come out to say that while the letters WERE bad and WERE incriminating, the science behind global warming is still true:
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2009/12/12/climategate-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty_print.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1
Actual report found here: http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Clearly, you�re opposed to reading, or you would have found those out yourself.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Climate change is a concensus by experts and is not even up for debate anymore:

An absolute lie. True, most scientists agree that climate change is a phenomenon that is real, but to say they all agree it is caused by CO2 is a bald-faced lie and propaganda to the max.

I said there is concensus, not that they all agree. The vast majority of qualified experts agree that climate change is real and man-made from greenhouse gasses. The e-mail scandal does not change the science.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

An Inconvenient Truth
30+ thousand scientists reject the AGW myth and petition the government:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Which is basically crap:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition

Your link didn't disprove anything. There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who question the official narrative.

If we take the analysis of Scientific American: only 3 out of 30 agreed with the position, were still alive, could be found, and had relevant expertise to sign the petition. That translates into around 200 total PhD holders who are qualified to support the petition and do. My link disproves more than yours proves.

visitorq wrote:

The simple fact that governments, banks, NGOs, and big oil heavily fund the AGW crowd tells you all you need to know. It's a giant scam meant to shut off our resources, raise prices on oil, raise taxes, fill the pockets of the elite, and take away our liberties in the name of "saving the earth". That's all the eco-fascists really care about (but not real environmental issues like radiation spewing out of reactors or GMOs vandalizing the genetic health of the whole biosphere).

This is actually BAD for the energy establishment, and they have a history of working AGAINST green initiatives (Great American Streetcar Scandal and the patent encumbrance of automotive batteries). It�s silly that some uninformed people use terms like �eco-fascists" and scary that they think it�s a scam.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Hahaha no. You provided one source that failed to actually demonstrate FDR making the Great Depression worse. Heck, the source I provided supported your position better. Your explanations have been focused solely on timeline (confusing correlation with causation), without demonstrating any causes.

What a joke. My source clearly demonstrated that FDR made the Great Depression worse. There have been scholarly books written on the subject that break it down in detail. Here is one example:
https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=406&CategoryId=0&AFID=14

One book, compared to the colossal number of school textbooks on the subject. Your source didn�t demonstrate anything, which is probably why you haven�t quoted from it.

visitorq wrote:

Feel free to read and escape your ignorance, if you want.

I don�t feel like buying a book from a fringe group of economists. I�ll read articles, but the mainstream disagrees for a reason.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

From The Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The U.S. recovery began in the spring of 1933. Output grew rapidly in the mid-1930s: real GDP rose at an average rate of 9 percent per year between 1933 and 1937. Output had fallen so deeply in the early years of the 1930s, however, that it remained substantially below its long-run trend path throughout this period. In 1937�38 the United States suffered another severe downturn, but after mid-1938 the American economy grew even more rapidly than in the mid-1930s."

Very easily debunked:
http://mises.org/daily/4039

That didn�t debunk a single word I said. If anything, it supported the numbers.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

On the 1937 recession:
"One source of the 1937�38 recession was a decision by the Federal Reserve to greatly increase reserve requirements. This move, which was prompted by fears that the economy might be developing speculative excess, caused the money supply to cease its rapid growth and to actually fall again."

Very easily debunked:
http://mises.org/daily/3534

Also not debunked. First, the point I was making was not that contracting the money supply absolutely DID cause the 1937 recession, but that �some economists blame the recession of 1937 on prematurely reducing government spending� (my exact words).

Second, the article only looks at spending in a vacuum, not with the other provisions of the new deal. Because of that, it also failed to take into account the economic boom that followed the war (which is consistent for countries that win wars) as the cause of the deficit shrinkage post 1945.

Third, the article bases many of its positions on the Austrian school and its theories, which are not embraced by most experts.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

On mainstream opinion:
"One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."(Newsweek)

And yet I've listed several. So not only is your Newsweek quote total crap, but you are wrong.

NONE of the people you�ve cited are professional historians.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Stalin? Do you know the difference between democracy and totalitarianism?

I know that Hitler was voted into power, and that the US built up the Soviet Union as a captive market (Stalin was a great ally of FDR and the West during the war). So I guess it's not as clear cut as you think, hm?

Since that didn't answer my question, the only thing not clear is your point.

You know perfectly well. But if playing dumb helps you, then by all means.

No I don�t. You said FDR was akin to Stalin in the White House. None of those points you made addressed that.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

No. I just polled 4 econ grads, an econ professor, and read the Wikipedia entry (supported by 3 sources) as well as jaykim's source. They all say the same thing. That's all the proof a reasonable person needs.

That's like polling 4 Catholic priests and saying it's all a reasonable person needs to prove the Catholic faith is is based on fact.

No. It�s like poling 4 priests and a Bishop (plus multiple credible sources) about the attitudes of priests in general and using that to say �most Catholic priests believe X�. You could then logically take it a step further and say "The experts in the Catholic faith believe X to be true", which can be considered true even if there are a few dissenters.

Still waiting on your source showing the credibility of the Austrian school among experts.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

No. " and wages DO NOT keep up with inflation (our grandparents generation had more purchasing power than we do" We were talking about wages keeping (or not keeping) pace with inflation. You were using the term in a mainstream way. You can't suddenly change how you use the word.

I didn't change the way the word is used. I have been consistent in my usage throughout. It is you who simply doesn't understand the terms.

Apparently it is you who don�t understand the terms. I linked what the term means. Your failure to provide context for using it another way is not my mistake.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Either you are using the word in a different context, or you don't know what it means. If the cost of something increases at a rate higher than the CPI, then inflation cannot be the only cause of the increase. It's really that simple. If you are talking about inflation in the healthcare market, you need to say "inflation in the healthcare market", especially if you were referring to inflation as "purchasing power" earlier.

Get it through your thick skull: the CPI is not an accurate measure of inflation. Because inflation is not a price phenomenon, but a monetary one. How many times do you have be schooled before you register it in your brain?

It is still a phenomenon that affects money. The CPI is used to measure inflation, regardless of whether it is a monetary or price phenomenon. Inflation affects prices, even if it's a monetary phenomenon. The CPI checks prices to see the extent of the effects inflation has. The CPI is used to measure inflation. That is a fact. Get over it.

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

My point is that there are other forces raising healthcare costs besides inflation. Your statement adds nothing to that discussion.

You COULD have said that inflation played a part in healthcare costs. You COULD have said that relaxing regulation in healthcare could reduce costs by fostering competition. You didn't.

Factors other than inflation? Like what?? Increased demand? Fine, but in a fixed money supply that would not result in continually rising prices. So OBVIOUSLY inflation is the only factor that explains it. God, it you still can't even understand this basic point then you are hopeless...

Yes, increased demand. Also, more expensive technology and a changing definition of what �healthcare� means to include such technology. A steady rise in demand creates a steady rise in price, regardless of money system. So inflation is OBVIOUSLY not the only factor, as the same amount of money, adjusted for inflation, does not buy healthcare coverage. That is a fact.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:55 am Post subject:

There comes a time when I'm just not willing to even scroll through your mountain of crap, nevermind reply to it point for point. Now is that time (it took me like half an hour just to scroll down the page)... I guess in the battle of "who has less of a life and is willing to spend all day typing out even more of the same pointless rubbish" you win Congrats~

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:09 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

There comes a time when I'm just not willing to even scroll through your mountain of crap, nevermind reply to it point for point. Now is that time (it took me like half an hour just to scroll down the page)...

I guess in the battle of "who has less of a life and is willing to spend all day typing out even more of the same pointless rubbish" you win Wink

Congrats~

Yes, because it took a week of desk-warming to write, I must not have a life. Clearly I had no time for anything else.

Just another excuse when you don't have a valid counter-argument.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:52 am Post subject:

akcrono wrote:

Yes, because it took a week of desk-warming to write, I must not have a life. Clearly I had no time for anything else.

Clearly...

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

There comes a time when I'm just not willing to even scroll through your mountain of crap, nevermind reply to it point for point.

All I can say is Laughing

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:45 am Post subject:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

There comes a time when I'm just not willing to even scroll through your mountain of crap, nevermind reply to it point for point.

All I can say is Laughing

I'm sure you can do better than that... Why don't you touch upon the irony, or dazzle everyone with your wit?

akcrono

Joined: 11 Mar 2010

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:19 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Nowhere Man wrote:

Quote:

There comes a time when I'm just not willing to even scroll through your mountain of crap, nevermind reply to it point for point.

All I can say is Laughing

I'm sure you can do better than that... Why don't you touch upon the irony, or dazzle everyone with your wit?

God knows you've never dazzled anyone with yours.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 10 of 11

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe