Ron Paul trending #10 on Yahoo Search
-
Ok, this could be more fun than another Fed debate, so I'll join in.
josda1000 wrote:
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office?
When Dubya was running back in '00, don't you think it would have been a different ballgame if people thought he might die during his first term, leaving CHENEY in charge, of all people?
josda1000 wrote:
someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all
I can see the campaign commercials already... "I promise to get things done, while my esteemed opponent, Senator Paul, promises only to sit in the White House and do NOTHING. Don't elect a seat warmer. Vote for me this fall!" I know what you're getting at here, Josh, but try explaining that to the general population. They'd just see that as laziness.
josda1000 wrote:
and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense
Sure, he can veto, but wouldn't it take an act of Congress to repeal the Patriot Act? A Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans, who won't cooperate on anything unless you play "the game."
josda1000 wrote:
Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
Using this[^] as a reference... 1) Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot? I'm all for letting stupid people kill themselves[^], but those are just people unlucky enough to be born in the wrong area. 2) Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that. (Side note: In scanning through his policies, I was surprised to note that he does NOT support any 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling it merely incompetence on the part of the government, not any sort of inside job or false flag operation. Agree with him on this point.) 3) Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of
The main reason I was unwilling to vote for McCain was that I didn't think he'd last 3 years in the high stress environment that is being President. Given that, his running mate would be in charge, and well, yea... So yea, whether or not he can survive is important, especially when you have to consider the running mate. ;)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I imagine habit is one, just like the way people vote.
Bingo. I think you're seeing my point now. That's why I'm trying to post these messages, along with CSS, to see if one would vote for a different party than their own. Basically it's just coming down to a party vote thing. (Just vote for your team and hope they win!) That's the most idiotic thing ever. You should be voting your conscience, not for your team. I've been trying to get this message out in different forms, and it's like yelling at a wall.
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)
-
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Horde vs Alliance
:laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
The main reason I was unwilling to vote for McCain was that I didn't think he'd last 3 years in the high stress environment that is being President. Given that, his running mate would be in charge, and well, yea... So yea, whether or not he can survive is important, especially when you have to consider the running mate. ;)
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok, this could be more fun than another Fed debate, so I'll join in.
josda1000 wrote:
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office?
When Dubya was running back in '00, don't you think it would have been a different ballgame if people thought he might die during his first term, leaving CHENEY in charge, of all people?
josda1000 wrote:
someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all
I can see the campaign commercials already... "I promise to get things done, while my esteemed opponent, Senator Paul, promises only to sit in the White House and do NOTHING. Don't elect a seat warmer. Vote for me this fall!" I know what you're getting at here, Josh, but try explaining that to the general population. They'd just see that as laziness.
josda1000 wrote:
and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense
Sure, he can veto, but wouldn't it take an act of Congress to repeal the Patriot Act? A Congress dominated by Democrats and Republicans, who won't cooperate on anything unless you play "the game."
josda1000 wrote:
Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
Using this[^] as a reference... 1) Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot? I'm all for letting stupid people kill themselves[^], but those are just people unlucky enough to be born in the wrong area. 2) Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that. (Side note: In scanning through his policies, I was surprised to note that he does NOT support any 9/11 conspiracy theories, calling it merely incompetence on the part of the government, not any sort of inside job or false flag operation. Agree with him on this point.) 3) Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of
Wow Ian, what a thorough response. Very good sir, this is how I know you're definitely a statist, and I hate you lol jk OK! Let's get to it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot?
No, not at all. The policy of a libertarian in this respect is to "be friends with all, but have entangling alliances with none." What's going on here is we're overseas spending money on militaristic issues that, you and I may agree, may be futile. I 100% believe that we should pull the troops home, permanently, from all bases far and wide, no matter what the original intentions were. This will save a ton of money, and may even be much safer than having foreign wars that were never declared in the first place. As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately. Case in point, when hurricane Katrina happened in Louisiana, people from all over the United States contributed money to the cause, and I believe it still goes on today. When the earthquake happened in Haiti a month or two ago, people piled on money to be sent there to help out the people that live there as well. There are so many different funds for different things, but that can definitely be handled so much better in the private sector. When trying to set up funds for foreign aid through the government, the CIA usually gets a handle on it, and gets to prop up dictators instead of having it sent to the people who actually need it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that.
I side with Paul on this, though yes, it could be a very bad decision for the short term. I see one main problem being that the United Nations is actually on New York soil... and we just created INTERPOL... etc. But I still think it would be in the long term best interest of the people of the states. The Constitution is supposed to be our main law, not some other bureaucracy of nations. We are supposed to be a sovereign nation, not governed by a consensus of nations. It's just the principle of the thing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of shrinking government. Some of this, I can agree with..
-
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)You know, I don't know why, but certain folks make me want to reach through the TV and choke them. ALL are conservatives. It may have to do with their incredible attitude and the sheer joy they get in being complete effing morons and hypocrits... "I can see Russia from my porch, so I know about diplomacy!" "Using retard offends me, they should be fired, unless of course it is a Conservative radio or tv personality." "Drug users are all criminals and need to be put away for life, excuse me, I need some Oxycotin." "If you question the President in the time of war, you are a traitor. Unless he's a Democrat..." "I never said that, that's what you call lying. (oh, did we say that in a press conference? no one will remember.)" "Waterboarding isn't torture, I volunteer to undergo it for charity to prove it. But I won't actually have it done, cause that crap is scary and I don't care about charities, no one will remember in 2 months, right?"
-
But... but... She can see Russia from her back porch, don'cha know!
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Hmm, I didn't get an e-mail for this reply... Bad CP! As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry. Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk. Anyway, you're right about the taxes being a Congressional issue, but I wonder if the influx of these things would add a financial burden to the government, in terms of extra enforcement and such... Actually, that would probably be offset by no longer having to hunt down the drug lords... Ok, I'll revise my position. I do still think the FDA (Or similar) would need to keep an eye on it, but an extra tax (beyond normal sales tax) might not be necessary.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry.
So your position, theoretically, since the Toyota incidents, would be to create ANOTHER bureaucracy for the automobile industry, agreed? This is another argument in my favor: it's just too much government with no output. It's a sucker of wealth all in all.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk.
I can appreciate your position. But the point is, they do it quicker, more accurately and with less capital. I really do see your point, believe me. But security (which is what this all is, government is created on the basis of security) is such a relative term. Accidents will always happen, no matter the situation or problem. You might as well let people be free to make mistakes, and the lessons will be learned, and the rights will be made from the wrongs. All the FDA does is test, nothing more, nothing less. They make rules off of the tests. If they actually produced something, they would learn more much quicker than scrutinizing every move the private sector makes.
-
The problem is that people (especially in the US) are pack animals. We want to be around people that re-inforce our decisions so we don't feel stupid. We need the support and get angry at people with another group because they make us question our decision and wonder if we are wrong. Ford vs Chevy, Dem vs Rep, Coke vs Pepsi, Horde vs Alliance. I have seen all of these start fights... So basically, we are all creatures that are incredibly lacking in self-confidence and need to feel like we are right, otherwise we question our worth. We are right, they are wrong, or we suck. (This seems especially true in America.) So yea, everyone does vote for their party and hopes that they win. When you have the people with the guts to look at things with perspective, they don't. But they are rare. (Not saying I agree with this, but it is how it is)
-
Wow Ian, what a thorough response. Very good sir, this is how I know you're definitely a statist, and I hate you lol jk OK! Let's get to it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot?
No, not at all. The policy of a libertarian in this respect is to "be friends with all, but have entangling alliances with none." What's going on here is we're overseas spending money on militaristic issues that, you and I may agree, may be futile. I 100% believe that we should pull the troops home, permanently, from all bases far and wide, no matter what the original intentions were. This will save a ton of money, and may even be much safer than having foreign wars that were never declared in the first place. As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately. Case in point, when hurricane Katrina happened in Louisiana, people from all over the United States contributed money to the cause, and I believe it still goes on today. When the earthquake happened in Haiti a month or two ago, people piled on money to be sent there to help out the people that live there as well. There are so many different funds for different things, but that can definitely be handled so much better in the private sector. When trying to set up funds for foreign aid through the government, the CIA usually gets a handle on it, and gets to prop up dictators instead of having it sent to the people who actually need it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that.
I side with Paul on this, though yes, it could be a very bad decision for the short term. I see one main problem being that the United Nations is actually on New York soil... and we just created INTERPOL... etc. But I still think it would be in the long term best interest of the people of the states. The Constitution is supposed to be our main law, not some other bureaucracy of nations. We are supposed to be a sovereign nation, not governed by a consensus of nations. It's just the principle of the thing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of shrinking government. Some of this, I can agree with..
josda1000 wrote:
FEMA: 1. Think of what happened at Katrina. They were slow in the first place, and did not do a good job at all. The private sector did a much better job at helping people. They were more efficient, effective, and overall just nicer people as well. Of course I wasn't there, so this is just what I saw on video and other opinion pieces. 2. All of their real authority could be done on a more local level anyway. FEMA is mostly about helping in emergencies, when that is precisely what is done with firefighters, police, nurses, doctors, EMTs, emergency vehicles, etc. As for shelter, they can stay at local shelters or be shipped anywhere. I might be missing something, but lay it on me. 3. At Katrina, they disarmed the public. Because of weather. Yes, riots may have started... but this is the only thing that FEMA was good at: disarming the public. Is that really a good thing? That's just more government power.
Everyone points to Katrina. Now I will counter. Iowa, floods demolish Cedar Rapids. Like most of downtown was under the flood water. FEMA came in like a lightning bolt and quickly co-ordinated with every local authority. The reason they were able to was simple. Iowa welcomed them in as soon as it was obvious something bad was happening. Resources were made available and the city and state did what they could to not only help FEMA, but to work with them. Using the resources that they have at their disposal Iowa departments had a ton more communication and coordination. Efforts to save equipment and people were much more efficient. Yes, the local authorities did most of the work, but they had an overall picture of what was happening, more equipment to make things happen and more assistance to get it done. Thanks to FEMA the loss of life and material was much smaller than what would have happened had they done all of it locally. After the immediate danger was done, they helped with clean up and getting the city back on its feet. Assistance with federal forms for disaster relief, getting priority established for repairs and generally showing themselves to not suck was what they did then. As for the disarming thing, New Orleans superintendent Eddie Ocampo said that "No one will be able to be armed." And ordered the disarming. Local law enforcement did that. No such operation happened in Iowa. New Orleans did not do much to help on a state or local level. There was plenty of warning time and no evacuation
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry.
So your position, theoretically, since the Toyota incidents, would be to create ANOTHER bureaucracy for the automobile industry, agreed? This is another argument in my favor: it's just too much government with no output. It's a sucker of wealth all in all.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk.
I can appreciate your position. But the point is, they do it quicker, more accurately and with less capital. I really do see your point, believe me. But security (which is what this all is, government is created on the basis of security) is such a relative term. Accidents will always happen, no matter the situation or problem. You might as well let people be free to make mistakes, and the lessons will be learned, and the rights will be made from the wrongs. All the FDA does is test, nothing more, nothing less. They make rules off of the tests. If they actually produced something, they would learn more much quicker than scrutinizing every move the private sector makes.
josda1000 wrote:
So your position, theoretically, since the Toyota incidents, would be to create ANOTHER bureaucracy for the automobile industry, agreed?
There is an agency in place for this already. It does this along with a ton of other stuff and is fairly efficient. The Toyota thing angers me, actually. They found a problem, checked it and figured out it was something big so they did a recall. This is how it is supposed to work. From what I heard, less than 20 incidents were what caused the recall in one of the 2 cases. They are now being attacked for being too slow. huh?
josda1000 wrote:
All the FDA does is test, nothing more, nothing less. They make rules off of the tests. If they actually produced something, they would learn more much quicker than scrutinizing every move the private sector makes.
The FDA has a mandate to keep your ass safe. If they produced something, they would then have an incentive not to keep your ass safe for their product as their bottom line would be affected. Regulation agencies insure that you don't have a wolf in charge of the hen house. People need to start remembering this because it is pretty important. A corporation's only responsibility is to the people that it pays, not to the people that are its customers.
-
Wow Ian, what a thorough response. Very good sir, this is how I know you're definitely a statist, and I hate you lol jk OK! Let's get to it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to stop foreign aid. So what, just let the third world rot?
No, not at all. The policy of a libertarian in this respect is to "be friends with all, but have entangling alliances with none." What's going on here is we're overseas spending money on militaristic issues that, you and I may agree, may be futile. I 100% believe that we should pull the troops home, permanently, from all bases far and wide, no matter what the original intentions were. This will save a ton of money, and may even be much safer than having foreign wars that were never declared in the first place. As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately. Case in point, when hurricane Katrina happened in Louisiana, people from all over the United States contributed money to the cause, and I believe it still goes on today. When the earthquake happened in Haiti a month or two ago, people piled on money to be sent there to help out the people that live there as well. There are so many different funds for different things, but that can definitely be handled so much better in the private sector. When trying to set up funds for foreign aid through the government, the CIA usually gets a handle on it, and gets to prop up dictators instead of having it sent to the people who actually need it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Paul wants to withdraw all participation and funding from the UN, ICC, NATO, WTO... I could rant on for a half hour about how stupid I think that is, but I'll just keep this brief and say that I STRONGLY disagree with that.
I side with Paul on this, though yes, it could be a very bad decision for the short term. I see one main problem being that the United Nations is actually on New York soil... and we just created INTERPOL... etc. But I still think it would be in the long term best interest of the people of the states. The Constitution is supposed to be our main law, not some other bureaucracy of nations. We are supposed to be a sovereign nation, not governed by a consensus of nations. It's just the principle of the thing.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Wants to remove a lot of federal agencies as part of shrinking government. Some of this, I can agree with..
josda1000 wrote:
As for the aid itself, people always contribute to causes, no matter what they are, privately
I can see your viewpoint on this, but I still think the government is better equipped to make a real difference. Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity. Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it. Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)... The government has large amounts of money that can be put into play rather quickly, even if the issue isn't that popular. If the CIA is getting their hands on it, then that's a reason to smack the CIA out of the way, not to stop aid entirely.
josda1000 wrote:
Soooo... which agencies would you be OK with actually dismantling?
Homeland Security (That's what the CIA, NSA, and FBI are for). CIA should be kept out of domestic affairs, possibly reduced somewhat. I'm not familiar with all of the various commerce agencies, but I assume that some could be trimmed away. The Dept. of Energy helps with regulation... Keep the power flowing, keep the plants as safe and clean as possible. Also funds some energy research (Keeping in mind that anything discovered privately becomes locked up and patented, not available for everyone to develop). Also works with the country's nuclear materials stockpile... Important stuff, and I think better kept at the federal level. FEMA has been a joke lately, but it still has a valid reason for existing... It's for when the local police/fire/EMS are outgunned by mother nature, and need some extra help. Restructure it, sure... Redesign it... Rethink it... But don't remove it. Dept. of Education: Actually, I might backpedal on this one... Just looked them up specifically in WP... "...the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.". This probably could be handled on the state level.
josda1000 wrote:
It can get quite a bit better. The price of a letter is now 44 cents (is it just
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As China has shown us, the market doesn't necessarily solve problems with contaminated products. I mean, look at the recent scandals with lead in kiddie toys, poisonous cat food, etc etc. That's unregulated industry.
So your position, theoretically, since the Toyota incidents, would be to create ANOTHER bureaucracy for the automobile industry, agreed? This is another argument in my favor: it's just too much government with no output. It's a sucker of wealth all in all.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Sure, they were found and fixed, but it's a matter of how many people have to get sick or die before a problem is discovered... The FDA, for the most part, catches these things BEFORE the general public is put at risk.
I can appreciate your position. But the point is, they do it quicker, more accurately and with less capital. I really do see your point, believe me. But security (which is what this all is, government is created on the basis of security) is such a relative term. Accidents will always happen, no matter the situation or problem. You might as well let people be free to make mistakes, and the lessons will be learned, and the rights will be made from the wrongs. All the FDA does is test, nothing more, nothing less. They make rules off of the tests. If they actually produced something, they would learn more much quicker than scrutinizing every move the private sector makes.
josda1000 wrote:
So your position, theoretically, since the Toyota incidents, would be to create ANOTHER bureaucracy for the automobile industry, agreed? This is another argument in my favor: it's just too much government with no output. It's a sucker of wealth all in all.
There already is one. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/[^]. The fact that this Toyota scandal is such a huge news item suggests that MOST of the time, the regulation works.
josda1000 wrote:
All the FDA does is test, nothing more, nothing less. They make rules off of the tests. If they actually produced something, they would learn more much quicker than scrutinizing every move the private sector makes.
Yes, but what guarantee is there that these tests would be done without regulation? Remember the old Fight Club quote... "A is the number of cars on the road. B is the chance of a breakdown. C is the average cost of an out-of-court settlement. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one." Sure, it's a fictional quote, but it illustrates how corporations "think." It's all about profits. I'd rather have a watchdog out there whose sole purpose is to ensure safety, regardless of profits.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
So your position, theoretically, since the Toyota incidents, would be to create ANOTHER bureaucracy for the automobile industry, agreed?
There is an agency in place for this already. It does this along with a ton of other stuff and is fairly efficient. The Toyota thing angers me, actually. They found a problem, checked it and figured out it was something big so they did a recall. This is how it is supposed to work. From what I heard, less than 20 incidents were what caused the recall in one of the 2 cases. They are now being attacked for being too slow. huh?
josda1000 wrote:
All the FDA does is test, nothing more, nothing less. They make rules off of the tests. If they actually produced something, they would learn more much quicker than scrutinizing every move the private sector makes.
The FDA has a mandate to keep your ass safe. If they produced something, they would then have an incentive not to keep your ass safe for their product as their bottom line would be affected. Regulation agencies insure that you don't have a wolf in charge of the hen house. People need to start remembering this because it is pretty important. A corporation's only responsibility is to the people that it pays, not to the people that are its customers.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The FDA has a mandate to keep your ass safe.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A corporation's only responsibility is to the people that it pays, not to the people that are its customers.
This is backwards, according to a person like me. You're saying that the government will protect you while the private sector has no care for its customers. I have a healthy distrust for government. I can see your point of view on corporations, I dislike them as well... the bigger anything is, the less it cares about the little people, whether it's a government or a corporation. But I have to say, if it's a small business, they will tend to care for its customers, because consumerism is where business flourishes, whether big or small. But the smaller the company, the more any one sale matters to its everyday activity. A corporation does have to pay its clients, partners, employees, expenditures, whatever. But in order to pay all of those, in order to actually exist, it must have customers. The bigger it is, the less they care about each and every sale, true. But it still must have those customers, in order to thrive (if really good quality), or just exist at all (if just average). As for the FDA, in order to exist, it has to just be average. It doesn't care about quality, it doesn't care about each and every customer. It will be paid necessarily. First off, it was created outside of the realm of the Constitution in the first place. Second, if it was created without authority, why should it obey its own authority? It won't just randomly do whatever it wants, but it will skirt anything that is inconvenient if it chooses. It will get paid either way, through mandatory taxation created by the Congress. So why should it do a great job? It can get by with an average job. There's no competition, it is the monopoly.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
He is a politician, his age is a matter of record, it is the only pertinent attribute one can vote on that cannot be discarded once in office.
So you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years than having a very sound president that will possibly die in office? That is very poor judgement in my view, and you really need to reexamine your philosophy. Think about what you're saying: you'd rather have some guy that would usurp power than to have someone in office that would rather NOT use power at all, and in fact veto bills, repeal the Patriot Act and other such nonsense. Who's to say that Paul won't live another 20 years? He looks vital, thinks completely soundly, etc. Again, if that's the only reason you have going for you, you have no real reason not to vote for him.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
Agreed. But you haven't been talking about policy. Name one policy you're against that Paul is for. Otherwise, I think my argument is more than sound.
josda1000 wrote:
you'd rather have a pig that is able to live for at least four years ... you'd rather have some guy that would usurp power
These are your assumptions. I did not say who I would (were I a citizen of the USA) vote for. You asked me "What did you like about McCain over Paul? Obama over Paul?", to which I replied that two of them were too old. The only thing I rated Obama on was his age: i.e. he was young enough to undertake the office of president. I made it clear that I do not give much credence to any politician's pre-election promises - policies are negotiable.
josda1000 wrote:
Who's to say that Paul won't live another 20 years? He looks vital, thinks completely soundly, etc.
I don't think you really appreciate the stress of the office of president of the USA.
Bob Emmett wrote:
They are all professional politicians, policies are negotiable.
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed. But you haven't been talking about policy. Name one policy you're against that Paul is for.
You have just agreed that policies are negotiable, so what does it matter what Paul says he will would like to do, when he may discover it to be impractical once he is in office?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
josda1000 wrote:
FEMA: 1. Think of what happened at Katrina. They were slow in the first place, and did not do a good job at all. The private sector did a much better job at helping people. They were more efficient, effective, and overall just nicer people as well. Of course I wasn't there, so this is just what I saw on video and other opinion pieces. 2. All of their real authority could be done on a more local level anyway. FEMA is mostly about helping in emergencies, when that is precisely what is done with firefighters, police, nurses, doctors, EMTs, emergency vehicles, etc. As for shelter, they can stay at local shelters or be shipped anywhere. I might be missing something, but lay it on me. 3. At Katrina, they disarmed the public. Because of weather. Yes, riots may have started... but this is the only thing that FEMA was good at: disarming the public. Is that really a good thing? That's just more government power.
Everyone points to Katrina. Now I will counter. Iowa, floods demolish Cedar Rapids. Like most of downtown was under the flood water. FEMA came in like a lightning bolt and quickly co-ordinated with every local authority. The reason they were able to was simple. Iowa welcomed them in as soon as it was obvious something bad was happening. Resources were made available and the city and state did what they could to not only help FEMA, but to work with them. Using the resources that they have at their disposal Iowa departments had a ton more communication and coordination. Efforts to save equipment and people were much more efficient. Yes, the local authorities did most of the work, but they had an overall picture of what was happening, more equipment to make things happen and more assistance to get it done. Thanks to FEMA the loss of life and material was much smaller than what would have happened had they done all of it locally. After the immediate danger was done, they helped with clean up and getting the city back on its feet. Assistance with federal forms for disaster relief, getting priority established for repairs and generally showing themselves to not suck was what they did then. As for the disarming thing, New Orleans superintendent Eddie Ocampo said that "No one will be able to be armed." And ordered the disarming. Local law enforcement did that. No such operation happened in Iowa. New Orleans did not do much to help on a state or local level. There was plenty of warning time and no evacuation
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Iowa, floods demolish Cedar Rapids. Like most of downtown was under the flood water. FEMA came in like a lightning bolt and quickly co-ordinated with every local authority.
I do want to clear something up: I'm not saying that it's not good at anything. But I do want to point out that it's not perfect, therefore Katrina was a good example. I do appreciate the fact that it is competent when it gets together and the "chain of command" actually does efficient work.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Using the resources that they have at their disposal Iowa departments had a ton more communication and coordination. Efforts to save equipment and people were much more efficient.
You just helped my argument here. I was talking about the federal level being much more inefficient, nevermind the fact that FEMA is unconstitutional and has no authority at the base level. You're now talking about the state instead of the federal level. Unless I misunderstand your thought process somehow.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Yes, the local authorities did most of the work, but they had an overall picture of what was happening, more equipment to make things happen and more assistance to get it done. Thanks to FEMA the loss of life and material was much smaller than what would have happened had they done all of it locally.
I don't think I understand your point. You're saying that "yes, the local authorities did most of the work, but they had an overall picture of what was happening..." Who is "they"?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
As for the disarming thing, New Orleans superintendent Eddie Ocampo said that "No one will be able to be armed." And ordered the disarming. Local law enforcement did that. No such operation happened in Iowa.
This, I didn't know. I take it back. So I shall yell at the superintendent, he deserves a beating. That was totally wrong.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
New Orleans did not do much to help on a state or local level. There was plenty of warning time and no evacuation notice was given so the city was close to full.
This may make my point clear... The local level should take care of it. The federal government is inefficient. If the local government, or even state government, did do it instead of the fede
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Iowa, floods demolish Cedar Rapids. Like most of downtown was under the flood water. FEMA came in like a lightning bolt and quickly co-ordinated with every local authority.
I do want to clear something up: I'm not saying that it's not good at anything. But I do want to point out that it's not perfect, therefore Katrina was a good example. I do appreciate the fact that it is competent when it gets together and the "chain of command" actually does efficient work.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Using the resources that they have at their disposal Iowa departments had a ton more communication and coordination. Efforts to save equipment and people were much more efficient.
You just helped my argument here. I was talking about the federal level being much more inefficient, nevermind the fact that FEMA is unconstitutional and has no authority at the base level. You're now talking about the state instead of the federal level. Unless I misunderstand your thought process somehow.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Yes, the local authorities did most of the work, but they had an overall picture of what was happening, more equipment to make things happen and more assistance to get it done. Thanks to FEMA the loss of life and material was much smaller than what would have happened had they done all of it locally.
I don't think I understand your point. You're saying that "yes, the local authorities did most of the work, but they had an overall picture of what was happening..." Who is "they"?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
As for the disarming thing, New Orleans superintendent Eddie Ocampo said that "No one will be able to be armed." And ordered the disarming. Local law enforcement did that. No such operation happened in Iowa.
This, I didn't know. I take it back. So I shall yell at the superintendent, he deserves a beating. That was totally wrong.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
New Orleans did not do much to help on a state or local level. There was plenty of warning time and no evacuation notice was given so the city was close to full.
This may make my point clear... The local level should take care of it. The federal government is inefficient. If the local government, or even state government, did do it instead of the fede
josda1000 wrote:
You just helped my argument here. I was talking about the federal level being much more inefficient, nevermind the fact that FEMA is unconstitutional and has no authority at the base level. You're now talking about the state instead of the federal level. Unless I misunderstand your thought process somehow.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Using the resources that [FEMA] have at their disposal Iowa departments had a ton more communication and coordination. Efforts to save equipment and people were much more efficient.
See correction in bold. I think that's what he meant. FEMA provided the resources and manpower to let the state/local guys do what they knew needed to be done. Basically... "Hey, we see you guys in Iowa are in trouble... Here's a ton of people, a lot of financial support, and all the machinery and communication networks you need... Tell us where to put them."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
The FDA has a mandate to keep your ass safe.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A corporation's only responsibility is to the people that it pays, not to the people that are its customers.
This is backwards, according to a person like me. You're saying that the government will protect you while the private sector has no care for its customers. I have a healthy distrust for government. I can see your point of view on corporations, I dislike them as well... the bigger anything is, the less it cares about the little people, whether it's a government or a corporation. But I have to say, if it's a small business, they will tend to care for its customers, because consumerism is where business flourishes, whether big or small. But the smaller the company, the more any one sale matters to its everyday activity. A corporation does have to pay its clients, partners, employees, expenditures, whatever. But in order to pay all of those, in order to actually exist, it must have customers. The bigger it is, the less they care about each and every sale, true. But it still must have those customers, in order to thrive (if really good quality), or just exist at all (if just average). As for the FDA, in order to exist, it has to just be average. It doesn't care about quality, it doesn't care about each and every customer. It will be paid necessarily. First off, it was created outside of the realm of the Constitution in the first place. Second, if it was created without authority, why should it obey its own authority? It won't just randomly do whatever it wants, but it will skirt anything that is inconvenient if it chooses. It will get paid either way, through mandatory taxation created by the Congress. So why should it do a great job? It can get by with an average job. There's no competition, it is the monopoly.
josda1000 wrote:
A corporation does have to pay its clients, partners, employees, expenditures, whatever. But in order to pay all of those, in order to actually exist, it must have customers. The bigger it is, the less they care about each and every sale, true. But it still must have those customers, in order to thrive (if really good quality), or just exist at all (if just average).
Every company sees the following as a business decision: If you make something a specific way that has a problem (defect in design, materials, or a byproduct that is a hazard) you look at the cost of making it vs how much less you would make were you to fix it. You then figure out how much you have to pay in law suits from people hurt. If you make more money with the problem in place than with redoing it, you simply keep going. The Big Three knew for years that tempered glass would save people who got thrown through windshields because there were no seat belts. It was cheaper not to have seat belts and tempered glass. How many people died until they were forced to? Give me someone who's only job is to make sure these folks stay honest anyday.
-
I did. I think these would need some extra regulation along the same lines... Keep in mind, though, that if these were legalized, I think the price would already drop WAY down from what we see now. A lot of the high prices of illegal drugs are due to the difficulty and risk involved in getting them into the country. With weed in particular, though... I don't think anything beyond normal sales tax would make sense for that. I mean, you can grow the stuff in your back yard. For more sophisticated drugs, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style) would require a bit of extra tax on them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style)
I think laws requiring accuracy in dosing, purity, and potency are needed, but I don't see how the FDA would be able to enforce it. The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity. The FDA as it is now is just an over-bloated bureaucracy designed to line the pockets of the corporate entities that influence the bureaucracy. Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
You just helped my argument here. I was talking about the federal level being much more inefficient, nevermind the fact that FEMA is unconstitutional and has no authority at the base level. You're now talking about the state instead of the federal level. Unless I misunderstand your thought process somehow.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Using the resources that [FEMA] have at their disposal Iowa departments had a ton more communication and coordination. Efforts to save equipment and people were much more efficient.
See correction in bold. I think that's what he meant. FEMA provided the resources and manpower to let the state/local guys do what they knew needed to be done. Basically... "Hey, we see you guys in Iowa are in trouble... Here's a ton of people, a lot of financial support, and all the machinery and communication networks you need... Tell us where to put them."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Almost dead on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Basically... "Hey, we see you guys in Iowa are in trouble... Here's a ton of people, a lot of financial support, and all the machinery and communication networks you need... "
Add the following at the end. "Here's where to put it best, if you think otherwise we will get that figured out and we will help with anything you need." The best reason to have FEMA is that the sort of things that require them to come in would be a HUGE financial drain on every state. Having that equipment available "just in case" you get a 100 year flood sucks. But having a federal version makes sense. Someone is bound to have a disaster needing this sort of equipment, manpower and logistics support pretty much every year or close enough in the 50 states. So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?