Well, logically no omnipotent, omnipresent being capable of creating a universe and life would reveal the knowledge behind it to a bunch of monkeys... They wouldn't understand. If I were a deity I'd just say "Yeah I made it, all by myself. Only took me a week. Now be good or I'll spank you." After giving humans the mental capacity to figure it out for themselves of course. And what religions are we even talking about? I'm sure there are some that don't exactly attempt to disprove science, New Age Spiritualism, Pantheism, Omnism, the list goes on, but it would all really be different names for the same thing. Just suggesting that evidence to support science isn't evidence to support atheism. In fact discovering that there is a means to creating a universe, in the case of the "god" particle, only reinforces the idea that we have a creator somewhere, somewhen.
The Drug War and public education are just two examples of problems the government creates which have detrimental effects to society. This is wasted money, and I like to use the Federal Department of Education as an example of the worst case scenario with these things. I isolated them with respect to their relevance to Gov. Johnson's platform, as contributing factors to income inequality, as Vice laws force millions of dollars of legitimate business underground, and essentially wasting tax money that could be doing something useful or be back in the hands of the tax payer. I guess there is an argument that these government created jobs are completely superfluous and when the government stops performing them the demand will disappear, leaving those employees with skills they couldn't possibly use anywhere else. Even so the amount of opportunities opening up in the states under a Johnson presidency would offset anything lost by the government. With no corporate, business-to-business, income, or capital gains tax, entrepreneurs would be scrambling to open up shop in our borders. There would be plenty of investment, especially since we would be paying back our debt, things wouldn't look so risky on an international level. Who would invest in something when they know they're not going to get their money back? What I'm hearing from this Keynesian thing is that you believe that the Government can increase demand? This seems strange to me... People's demand for goods and services will be there and whatever it is with or without the government. If anything Government, in forming monopolies on certain goods and services, reduces demand by taking potential jobs from competitors off the table.... Maybe I just don't get it. Even so you admitted that the quality of the service we're getting from this administration or that we would get from the Romney administration is poor, not in so many words, but you seem to agree on most of the issues that really create disparity in this country. So we should be trusting it to someone we know has already improved an economy? Like Gary Johnson? I mean, he has proof. It's literally the best record. You can hold them up next to each other. Can we count on your vote? If not you should admit to yourself at some point that you're knowingly not voting for the best odds at recovery.
So the Congressional Budget Office tells you that Congress has to spend as much money as they want or there will be another recession, and you're just going to take their word for it? all of the recessions we've had recently were caused by government created scenarios.
Romney supports the War on Drugs, which creates poverty and increases the size of a class of people who are environmentally forced to be dependent on the government. Increasing the size of government, ere go how much it spends, ere go how much we pay/waste on a problem the government is creating itself.
They are not. The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all fifty states as of now. There aren't any foreseen ballot access problems but at the least people in 48 states will be able to vote for him, and in the electoral college as well.
Hah. Oh man. There's a lot of stuff there I want to get to but I need to start at the last part that I read. The phenomenon you cite. Starting in 1979 the inequality in this country has been rising steadily, as you said. The reason for this is mostly the creation of the Federal Department of Education by Jimmy Carter. Just think about it. Since 1979 the average test scores of students in public schools have remained the same, or within a margin so small it might as well be. Before then the average was slowly rising. School is a business. No one would pay money for a school that didn't improve your child's test scores and intelligence... unless it's in their taxes. As a result of the failing stagnant education system that simply acts as a guaranteed jobs program to keep humans addicted to government, people who don't have the benefit of living in a good school district are screwed. People have been arrested for trying to send their kids to a better school. Why this staunch resistance to school choice? A system that has worked in every country it has been implemented? The government needs stupid, weak, easily manipulated people that need the government to justify its existence. Same drill with the Drug War. These things create poverty, and if they were eliminated the need for the kind of aid people talk about would be gone. Drastically reducing the cost of government. Gary Johnson is talking about ending the Drug War and the Federal Department of Education, in addition to advocating school choice. We spend more money on education than any other country and we're still failing, I think our methods need to be changed. I just want to point this out as an example of the kind of waste Johnson is talking about cutting.
The Federal government adds thousands of pages of regulations that businesses have to work around every year. State governments add thousands of pages of regulations that businesses have to work around every year. See what I'm saying? It's redundant, not to mention county regulations, and city regulations. There are states where if an Entrepreneur thinks he can provide a better service to customers that get that service from Unionized employees, then he is legally bound not to compete with the price at the customer's benefit. This practice started after slavery ended and Black people along with Immigrants from Mexico and Central America, etc. were entering the work force, asking to work for very little, less than the Unions which were White only at that time. If you want to live in a place where progress and cheaper, better goods & services take a back seat to this impossible safety net illusion Statists have, that's perfectly alright. That's why we have state's rights. At least with the Federal regulations loosened or gone entirely the giant corporations who bought all the politicians writing those regulations won't have such a massive upperhand on small business owners who get none of the tax credits or loopholes that stem from a faulty corruptible Income tax model, when the production and sale of everything you use your income on is already taxed. Oh hey Gary Johnson wants to scrap the current tax system. He's advocating with the fair tax right now, but it's really just a model to face the rigor of diplomacy between the branches of government. It's cool because used goods aren't taxed so there's a lot of initiative to recycle and for producers to make reliable goods. Not bad for the environment.
Some of the policy you're talking about it seems like you're not on the right web site. When Gary was the governor of New Mexico, he reduced the size of state government by over a thousand jobs without firing anyone. His was one of four states with a balanced budget when he left office, term-limited. We all know that if not for the two-term limit he, as the most popular governor of NM in the past several decades at least, would have been re-elected. He took state healthcare and reformed it, delivering better care at a 20% savings, and that's just money saved on the state application of healthcare which isn't the only tax money used on it in every state. This is ludicrous, why is he wrong to say that "There is a better way to take care of people, and its cheaper too."? This has proven true with every industry opened to the free market, why not with some of the stuff we traditionally assume as the government's job? Why can't we introduce elements of the free market into the way our government operates like with School Choice so that we can implement a level of accountability to the people paying for it and maybe see some results from this alleged do-gooder instinct.
You talk an awful lot about jobs but Johnson has done an awful lot about jobs. He has the best record out of any of the candidates on growth and unemployment. The Federal government still twists the facts they put out by things like not including people who have been unemployed over a certain length of time, etc. so it's impossible to tell where Obama really is in regards to his first term. But look at his record before he took office. What kind of success did Obama display in the Executive branch of government that made people think he would be a good president? Oh that's right- NOTHING. Romney's record is... unremarkable. Literally nothing to be mentioned worthy of praise. This alone makes Johnson the only sane choice for reasonable, logical voters. People keep throwing up this wall of Keynesian economics to tell us that we can't possibly spend less money than we are and get a better service for it, even though the price has been rising for years and it still hasn't gotten any better. Something is fundamentally wrong with that picture. Here's Gary Johnson, proven to run executive government to everyone's liking, to everyone's benefit, while lessening the tax burden on everyone, and you're trying to disprove his plan for the rest of the country with theory that has only led us into massive debt that someone someday I guarantee you will come to collect, from us, whether we like it or not. That's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson and why you should too.
well I guess I'll give the point to Red Hood. But Red Robin or Tim Drake is the best Robin of all time. Let's look at the facts, 1. Tim Drake figured out Batman's identity (albeit in kind of a weird way but whatever he's the only person in Gotham to figure it out). 2. "Come on Batman... where are the pants?" First Robin to not where a bikini bottom as part of his costume. 3. Owned the entire discography of Depeche Mode. The guy followed Bruce's steps around the world investigating this massive conspiracy when everyone else threw in the towel. He's the first Robin with his own mobile, and his own series AS Robin that lasted years. Now he's kind of like a red-headed stepchild because of Damian Wayne and his only job is the Teen Titans. Even so, he's the smartest Robin, and the deadliest, because he wasn't just trained by Batman but Lady Shiva too. All that shit that Jason Todd went through in the new 52 doesn't really compare because there's magic and spirituality mixed in there, Tim Drake is grounded in physical reality like Batman and Nightwing, guns and knives are a cheat anyways.
Obama's just afraid of Gary Johnson. That's where this whole Gay marriage issue with him came from. First it was more from Ron Paul but not as direct as Johnson's whole-fisted support for Gay Rights, as well as being named ACLU's top candidate in the defense of Civil Liberties. Now I think I sense a little pressure. Obama's just not going to be able to hold the people who are Left-leaning purely because of the social issues. Everyone on the right is afraid of Johnson spoiling the election for the GOP, but honestly at the very least he'll take as many votes from both. Unless of course Obama is going to pull through in a big way the next six months. But the DEA and the president have both made statements that the Drug War is working, and if anything they'll only increase the severity. Obama even said something about Nationwide drug testing laws. I'm expecting the same kind of avoidance and politicking we got in his 2008 campaign, that we got in his first term, and people will not put up with it again. People are too upset and displeased with this crap. Or maybe they'll all be so disillusioned nobody votes. Hahah. What if absolutely no one showed up one year? I know obviously somebody would buy votes for a candidate or whatever but just imagine. Isn't everyone else feeling that sick on election day?
Well... I'm a wizard, and the statement is fundamentally false. If we take "true" by its literal meaning, true Christians know legislating Christianity as law defeats the purpose of being Christian, the faith and free will part. What politicians are afraid of are the false zealots, people who have missed the point, and really a little less than half the voters. Just trying to avoid generalization, I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that don't care what WE do in our own beds, let's just not attribute to it the blame that really belongs to the average American's environment, which is essentially the basis for uninformed views like that: family, friends, etc.
As a matter of fact, the great depression lasted until some time in 1947. Neither the New Deal or WWII solved the depression. A steadily recovering economy solved its own problems. The New Deal and WWII bringing an end to the depression is one of the most widely spread pieces of misinformation. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/
Well when you bring up Reaganomics be sure to include in your argument how Reagan did very little in accordance with Friedman's personal philosophy. Reagan increased pressure in the war on drugs, while Friedman advocated ending prohibition of all drugs. Reagan increased military spending and infrastructure while Friedman promoted the idea that trade should be the most obvious legacy of the U.S. or any country around the world. I'm sure he was also a fan of living within your means. The U.S. is facing a catastrophic devaluation of the dollar because of the deficit we have, and we can't keep spending more than our GDP if we want to turn around. It would be nice if the government could take care of everyone all the time, but as an individual entity the U.S. Federal government simply can not deliver sufficient healthcare to everyone who needs it. As a matter of personal politics, the local governments would be much more effective at delivering on this, especially since it's much easier for people to go to their local government to try and change policy. On the whole, private healthcare with fewer regulations and open trade would drive down the price of healthcare, so the minority of the population that can't afford healthcare is reduced and the price on the gov'ts tab is significantly lower. That's just one aspect of how Friedman's economic ideas work better than yours. Maybe people want universal healthcare and hand outs, who the hell wouldn't? But the U.S. is headed towards disaster if we don't start digging ourselves out of this hole, and social spending makes up the majority of it. Friedman wanted a small effective federal government in my country, that was not libel to the kind of corrupt corporate control that is so evident now. The less government has to do with business, the less control business will buy up from our politicians. This even playing field makes the market very competitive and focused on providing the best product to the most amount of customers for the lowest price. Like healthcare for example.
I think you down play the importance of Friedman's work to open trade up to countries who had not previously been so free. Introducing a free market to increase the amount of jobs and infrastructure of these countries. The man even tried to introduce a negative income tax to increase the amount of money the average worker receives on his pay check, to more than it would be even without an income tax altogether. You've just got rhetoric flooding out your gob, without any knowledge of how economies really work, or how for-profit businesses are motivated. They're not evil, they just want the most money. If we create this giant government to monitor everyone, of course some corporations are going to buy control of it trough politicians so the government can intercept capitalism with whatever they're selling. Like what's happened since Nixon started a trend of Big Gov Republicans. I'll state again, that a world as progressive as ours is trying to be, has no right to supplant natural selection, a system which has been at work for too many years to count, with this rampant interventionism that's lead us this far into our grave. It's evident in military policy, economic policy, social policy. And it needs to stop, not just here either.
I didn't call you English. But just for the record that's like saying "I'm from New Mexico, not Arizona." in the states. I only watched a portion of that Noam Chomsky guy, because he said "Privatization introduces a massive amount of bureaucracy" so obviously he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. What's bureaucratic about being able to buy something get a receipt and go home? Is he a student of Keynesian economics? It certainly seems that way, because that's the pile of horse crap that got the world in this mess in the first place, introducing government regulations that corporations can just buy off in order to run whole countries. That's where Keynes and Noam Chomsky got us. How about you listen to the man who got it right, but due to the long line of Big government elected officials that keep passing the "fuck Americans over" torch to each other, was pretty much completely ignored in his own country, but managed to bring peace and prosperity across the world by spreading capitalism and standard-of-life improving industry: Milton Friedman
See information about the Bucharest Early Intervention project: http://www.roconsulboston.com/Pages/
You can use any of those people. Except Freud, he was just a self-important coke-head with delusions of grandeur. If I'm going to listen to a drug addict philosopher it will be Aldous Huxley, or Tommy Chong. I would say I'm at least as intelligent as most of those philosophers. I had read their work and comprehended it some years ago, and I continue to expand my knowledge base to more contemporary "philosophers" such as they exist. I've never had a problem understanding anything I've read and I've never had to study for a test in my life. I didn't ace them all the time, but I never had to study. To me that proves significant mental competence stemming from a musical background since early childhood as well as a history of reading constantly. The idea that a baby without even basic motor skills is born with a set IQ that they could never escape is preposterous. Brains are all born the same but develop very differently depending on the stimuli provided in early childhood. That's why you see such a varying difference in multiple intelligences, because no two children go through exactly the same experiences.
Well, do you think that if the markets were truly free, there wouldn't be some enterprising young fellow who sees the need for a fact checking and investigatory service? Perhaps offering a seal of approval for safety and health concerns that consumers trust and buy more than products without? This way it's advantageous for a company to practice safe and responsible business practices. All I'm suggesting is that there are plenty of Free Market solutions to these problems that people have been supposing there is no solution to.
In today's United States, companies are a lot more transparent, and accountability is a lot easier to provide. I think regulatory measures for the most part don't work and only slow the process down. Maybe in the 1900's people needed to organize and form Unions to represent themselves, but that isn't the case any longer. It's been a long long time since unions accomplished anything worthy of praise. The fact of the matter is, we were still a developing country then, and technology was a lot more unproven and unsafe then. The way the world works, we would get a lot more accomplished with global free trade, open borders, and an unregulated market where the only "regulation" is a businesses wikipedia page and reviews that can spread like wildfire through the internet. Thanks to this wonderful communication device we're speaking on right now, any serious problems on the part of a business result in an almost immediate drop in sales as a disciplinary measure.
What I'm saying is, in a child's formative years their intelligence for the rest of their life depends on the parents stimulating them and providing an educational environment. This is a fact. The less parents push their children to succeed in academics the less intelligent they will be. The less parents read to their kids, and the longer they wait to teach them to read, the less intelligent they will be. The more a parent provides their child to grow with, like musical instruments, and workbooks, and lots of reading material, the better they will perform in school through out their life. This is a proven fact. Einstein was Autistic. Autistic people process information and see the world in a completely different way than "normal" functioning people, so you can't really compare Einstein to you or me. People physically develop differently because of their genes, but mental acuity is entirely under the control of the environment provided in their younger years.
You did make a personal attack. You keep supposing that European media and culture is somehow excused from the same kind of vitriol that comes at American media and culture. You can't even give a straight forward compliment to an American TV show, that does better to enlighten people than half the crap on air in your country. Hence the Daily show being broadcasted over pretty much all of Europe. By the way, I didn't say one of. In the United States, the Daily Show is the most trusted program for news and current events. This is a fact. You did single out American culture by starting this debate with "How does Fox News get away with this kind of behaviour?" I doubt you've even watched Fox News, probably just clips of O'Reilly and Hannity, probably on the Daily Show.
I also reject most of what you said about our government regarding healthcare and our isolationism. The notion that a country as large as the U.S. has the ability to Federally hand out care to everyone all the time, efficiently, is ludicrous. I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about culture and media. Yeah it's a shame more Americans don't get outside the country much, but you're forgetting that Disney World is in Florida not England. So where would we go?
I'll continue to insist that as a matter of fact, you are singling out Americans as fascist nutjobs, when the only thing that's going on here is a cultural divide in two minorities of the American population that even still watch news. It's a matter of fact that if you want to watch the news in the States, you have to put up with some kind of bias. Just because some people choose a different flavor of punch in the teeth, doesn't make them fascists. I would also contend that a lot of people watch all the news networks to get a general sense of what's going on. Fox News takes advantage of what they see as renewed interest in conservative thinking. As time progresses people will only get more progressive, and the more extremely Fox pulls against this, the more they lose credibility. I think in general I take offense to your supposition that the fine people in the news media shouldn't be allowed to get away with behaving like this, as you suggest in the original question. They have no less of a right to free speech than I do. You think what, someone's going to prosecute them for slinging BS? That we're going to, as a country, indict an industry norm, so that we can beat a trend that's just going to burn out eventually anyways? Besides these stations aren't even strictly news. Most of the programming is opinion, they're like editorial stations. Try watching ABC news, NBC news, FOX news local affiliates and national newscasters like Brian Williams. You're just pointing out how much you hate the politics on a politically based editorial station. That's ridiculous. Sorry you don't like it, I don't like the government wasting money on shit it can't possibly accomplish, but you seem to suggest it's the only sensible option like most of the other broke European countries on the verge of a banking collapse.
Difficult for someone who doesn't understand how people can think or say one thing and do another. In other terms, a simpleton. A lot more police than you probably think took the job because they wanted to help people, protect them, or maybe just because they didn't know what else to do and thought police work wasn't the worst. If their job of protecting our civil rights wasn't constantly voted down by the government then they would be our friends, our allies. The guys stopping by to make sure nobody gets trampled in a protest, and making sure nobody gets robbed. It's the legislature people have a problem with.
OH MY GOD! I just explained it to you idiots and you're still talking about genetics. First of all, that's pretty racist, to assume that based on someone's family they can be more or less intelligent. Second of all it's NOT genetics, you dumb asses just want something to blame instead of yourselves for not making full use of your potential when you were little kids. Now you're old and you didn't read enough or practice enough when you were little so you're stupid, and as a stupid person, you say "Oh, well it can't be my fault that I'm stupid it must be my genes!" Just like those fat asses who blame their weight on genetics instead of an unhealthy lifestyle. All brains are born more or less exactly the same. Depending on how your parents raised you in your toddler and childhood years, you will be smarter or dumber than other people. If your parents cared about your development enough to read a book, and taught you to read early and how to do math early and made you practice all the time, then you are lucky enough to be intelligent. If they sat you in front of a TV for most of your childhood YOU'RE DUMB! Because the brain develops more neurons and connections the more you use it as a kid. That is actually how it works. If you read any credible medical journal about the subject, that is what it will tell you. It has nothing to do with genes, or background, it has to do with DID YOU TRY TO BE SMART?
Well, in general the U.S. has a lot more people, so the audience base is a lot larger with a lot more combative viewpoints. Typically Americans feel a lot more strongly about issues than British people (mostly because of our culture and the reactionary way we take everything and turn it into a fight.) That said, British television doesn't really have the same environment that American television has, and in general British TV is a lot less entertaining. I mean sure, Doctor Who is fun, Black Adder was cool, Father Ted. But jesus have you tuned in to some of that crap? Top Gear? I mean yeah cars woo hoo! Whatever but that doesn't excuse every one of those guys from being a total puss, and they're so ignorant. At least as ignorant as anything on American TV. But we still have Dexter, and the Daily Show (which for your information is the most trusted source of news in the country) and really intelligent stuff. This attitude you're giving Americans about how uneducated and inherently dreadful our culture is, well it's bigoted first of all. This feeling of superiority you get somehow from coming out of the most posh country in the world. You know what posh means right? You know that your country doesn't always allow defendants to be tried in front of a jury right? We're the new world motherfucker. There are stupid people here and there are smart people, but there are more of both, and that's what you don't like. That so many stupid people are on the air. You realize that most people watch MTV to laugh at how asinine those people are right? Your attitude is so old world. I'm glad your country is effectively impotent in the world now. Fuck England.
You're implying that Unions improved working conditions. Unions did nothing to that effect. They organized the workers true, but the same thing could have arisen if one person took a company to court for not providing safe working conditions. The advance of technology through capitalism is what brought us these excellent working conditions we're comfortable with now.
I believe that a lot of my point was that Communism is simply impossible for the time being. It hast to come from the bottom up, and include everyone. Right now people are still trying to scramble up the socioeconomic ladder, a process only possible in capitalism. My big problem with the communist crowd that's around today, is that they keep espousing the evils of capitalism, when they really owe more to capitalism than any one person or visionary. Capitalism is the best way to get us from A (cavemen) to B (scientific and technological limits) because people want to earn something for discovering it, aside from just recognition. That's not how I feel necessarily but it is how most people feel. So yes, maybe in a few centuries, when everything that could ever be invented is, we can be communists and see that it's the only way to exist with things being like they will be. As for the here and now however, communism will simply not work. Capitalism may have some nasty pilot fish tagging along but it's the only reasonable way to achieve fast progress.
As for the soda thing, you have the power as a consumer to gather other consumers who enjoy the drink and ask the company to start selling it in your area again. What they're gonna say, "No, we don't want to make any more money, sorry, we're not going to sell it there." ?
You guys are all idiots except for whoever said it depends on how you were raised. Reading all of your responses about school and genetically inherited mental capacity, I was seriously trying to figure out where you got all that nonsense. Then after about the fourth or fifth "there" where there should have been "their" I realized, how would you know? Here's the facts. When you're little, about 2 to 6, it's different for everyone but around that range, you learn literally as fast as you try to. Kids who read a lot at that age show the best performance across the board but that's because reading affects your comprehension and memory as well as your language skills. Similarly kids who do a lot of math will be really good at math because they learn it as fast as you can teach them. Kids who only train the math parts of their brain when they are young would be good obviously, with number sense and faster altogether. Playing music and learning to play as many instruments as possible helps a kid develop coordination, good hearing and pitch, the kinds of things involved in playing music, as well as math skills. I read a lot as a kid, I was reading college level books by the third grade, and expanded from there. Never been great at math, but man can I ever play the drums. And drive. And fuck your mom. I can do that really well too.
