Slashdot Mirror

By the way, you are missing part of the formula for GDP, it's the deflator that they are supposed to apply to discount inflation. Of-course their deflators are ridiculously low, I have an 'informative' post with many numbers and links in it here, which shows a few things about inflation and GDP. AFAIC GDP has been shrinking for a long time now in 2 ways.

1. The 'production' part of GDP is shrinking all the time. Look at the trade deficit numbers, here is a page with history on it in PDF or text. For the year 2011 the trade deficit was 559Billion dollars and it's growing all he time. Of-course the total personal consumption in USA is mostly on services, not on goods, in fact 2/3 of all consumption is services and only 1/3 is goods. 11Trillion was spent by US consumers in 2011, so about 3 Trillion was spent on goods and the rest was energy, food and services (like healthcare and education for example), so in that sense US consumer consumes mostly 'US' service. However if you look at the goods (go to Walmart and compare how many things are made in USA vs foreign made, like China), you'll find that most of the goods bought and sold (and even food, 90% of sea food comes from Asia) is made elsewhere.

2. The deflator that is used is reverse engineered to fit the propaganda. With the nominal and pre-deflator GDP being 2.9%, the deflator is set to be 1.6. (read the linked comment, I give quotes and links there), that's GDP revised down from 1.7% to 1.3% (post deflator) for the second quarter.

70% of GDP could very well be consumption, at least in countries with unusually low government spending

- I am sorry, this sentence makes no sense. 70% of GDP is consumption, that's not because of low gov't consumption, the exact opposite is the case, that's because of very high consumption stimulated by gov't (especially non-existing interest rates and free money allocated by the Fed to the member banks, who then buy T-bills and bonds and allow gov't to keeps spending). It's low production that is the problem, that's why GDP is 70% personal consumption, it's the actual number, what can I say? You see, when the production portion of GDP shrinks, the consumption portion becomes bigger and bigger part of the number, and if the consumption is stimulated artificially with fake money and 0% interest rates, and as long as the foreigners are willing to take dollars for their exports, then consumption even grows, doesn't just stay the same.

The reason that the consumption is mostly of foreign goods is exactly because the production part of GDP is disappearing.

Arguments abound for both views. At least one SCOTUS member disagreed with you. Given the obvious unethical nature, and the tenuous claim to legality, I'll stand by my assertion that purists believe Lincoln acted illegally. I doubt many people could convincingly argue that Bush II or Obama have not acted illegally. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance4.html

but I don't think there is some big conspiracy to block it or actual cures. I think the much simpler solution is that curing most diseases is much harder than curing it. And drug companies do come out with things like antibiotics that do in fact cure disease.

With all due respect, like most people inside and outside the medical community, you've been fed a line of complete bullshit.

I've got karma to burn so here goes (this is just scratching the surface):

Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Harvard Medical Students Rebel Against Big Pharma Ties

"More Marketing Than Science" - An Anonymous Confession About Deceptive Marketing Published in the British Medical Journal

Big pharma loves the (non-stop) war on cancer

The Nature of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Big Pharmaâ(TM)s War on Health

The drugs donâ(TM)t work: a modern medical scandal ~ Ben Goldacre

Money, Politics, and Health Care: A Disease-Creation Economy â" Part I by Mark Hyman, MD

Corruption in Drug Research and in Medicine

A.M.A. and the Drug Cartel

The Disease Economy

25 Shocking Facts That Prove That The Entire U.S. Health Care Industry Has Become One Giant Money Making Scam

Scientific Sleight of Hand: Two Ways Big Pharma Lies to You

People & Power - Drug Money

The 6 Types of Pills Big Pharma Wants You Hooked On for Life

Should We Stop Trying To Cure Cancer?

Top Ten Reasons To Avoid Your Doctor

Doctored - The Movie

The Cure For Cancer Suppressed

This problem could probably be fixed without regulating and fining textbook manufacturers. If a few major colleges revolted against the current textbook paradigm, refused to buy from any of these companies, until they implemented the policies you describe, it would have the same effect---without creating any new laws. The only reason companies get away with abusive behavior like this is because the consumers put up with it.

As for health care, if you want real reform, start by repealing the HMO Act. That's what gave the insurance companies the lock on health care they have now and what led to the exorbitant prices everyone has to suffer nowadays.

that may be the worst offenders: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/

This health disaster was made in part by a US RDA for vitamin D that was more than ten times too low for pregnant women, coupled with dermatologists and pediatricians frightening all parents about sun exposure for their children as creating a later in life risk for (generally easily treatable) skin cancer. Those two things together, along with an increasingly indoor lifestyle from all the fancy gadgets we have, have cause a expensive health disaster of unprecedented proportions in all industrialized countries. And it is not just autism, it is also cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, depression, and others. Diet is part of that too though, but lack of sunlight (or proper supplements) is the single worst part that is easiest to fix.

The La Leche league (pro-breastfeeding) also contributed to the disaster with saying "breast is best" while ignoring that if the mother was vitamin D deficient, she could not pass enough on to her children via breast milk. The have recently been improving on that score, but only after a vast number of children were harmed. Vitamin D was probably one of the few things infant formula got right (as bad as formula is in many other ways).

So, in that sense it was the most conscientious up-to-date parents, listening to their doctors and the government, that have been hardest hit by this disaster. The parents who did not pay attention to the dermatologists, who got sun tans themselves, who let their kids play in the sun a lot anyway like the parents did when they were young, their kids were probably better off in this sense. That is not exactly the irony you mentioned (various synthetic chemicals can indeed be bad for the health, especially as endocrine disruptors), but it is related.

See also:
"A Decade Of Vitamin D Supplementation Would Save $4.4 Trillion Over A Decade; Would Save $1346 Per Person Per Annum"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html

By the way, 100 years ago pretty much most of what most people ate was organic and vegetarian, so it is hard to call that kind of diet "modern" or a "fad". It is precisely because it is what humans are adapted for which is why it is healthiest to eat that way. What is modern and a fad is eating lots of fatty factory-farmed meat raised on pesticide-laden grains and eating lots of refined starches and sugars and eating stuff with artificial colors and such. In the past, only the very richest could afford that fancy stuff, and eating that way produced the diseases of kings, like heart disease, diabetes, gout, cancer, etc.. Now almost everyone in the industrialized world suffers from the diseases of kings, with most of us stuck in "the pleasure trap":
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

Separation of Church and State does not mean that religious people cannot have their voices heard.
While a theocratic country is oppressive, an ideological atheist country is oppressive too. Freedom lies in the middle.
See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"

Separation of Church and state was preached by Jesus, and it is no coincidence that it emerged in Christian Europe, even if Europe took centuries to start following that teaching.

People who complain of the medieval European theocracies are guilty of anachronism. The whole world was theocratic then, and it took centuries for someone to think "outside the box".

See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html

This is what you get when you base your life on what you imagine your invisble friend in the sky wants you to do.

It is mind-blowing to blame Christians for what Muslims do.

With a brush of the same breadth, I can point to the 100,000,000 deaths caused by Marxism and say "this is what you get when you don't believe in God"

If you want to know what Christians actually believe, you should hear them.

www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html

The link above does not deal with female education, but it deals with totalitarian theocracy, which is one of the underlying problems in Iran.

Theocracy is rule by clerics, like happens in Iran. The people of Iran have no choice but to obey the Supreme Leader.

In America, however, as long as the Constitution is respected, theocracy is impossible. However, this does not mean that religious people cannot (or should not) influence law. Religious people are first-class citizens and have a right to influence politics, through democratic means, respecting the Constitution. If religious people think prostitution is wrong and harms society, they have a right to try to pass a law forbidding prostitution.

See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html

The state is supposed to be _neutral_, not antitheist.

Fortunately, even with the last president, the country resisted turning into the full-fledged theocracy so many of his supporters wanted.

Do you have solid sources for your alegation that many GOP supporters wanted theocracy?

Sure, he gave away a few tens of billions of dollars of our tax money to specific churches, which was bad and wrong, but not nearly as bad as forcing teenage rape victims to marry their rapists and stoning gays to death like these people promote in other more theocratic countries.

The fact that you have to change the subject to Islamist theocracy says a lot.

The old "Christian"* theocracies ended many centuries ago, so Americans who fear of "theocracy" are forced to speak of Iran and Saudi Arabia... which simply aren't applicable to America.

* I put "Christian" under quotes because authentic Christianity is against theocracy; "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".

See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html

PS: No, linking to lewrockwell.com does not make me a Libertarian. I just agree with that particular essay.

A politician kissing babies is just one of those things. Political advertising campaigns are using pictures from sites like istockphoto.com while pretending that the people in the pictures have anything to do with reality.

Not that you know much about reality - or anything about critical thinking. Hearing you talk about critical thinking is like hearing Rick Perry talk about the biological sciences - the speaker has no credibility on the subject whatsoever.

And by the way, here is your lord kissing a baby. Here he is riding a tractor with a baby on his lap. Here he is holding another baby at a religious rally. And here is yet another picture of him with a baby.

Or were those photos just doctored?

as long as there is real liability on the militia, and no bullshit corporate veil, this isn't entirely unreasonable.

as for the treaties, some folks would disagree about their relevance: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/swann1.1.1.html

Thing is, I'm actually rather against Islam myself (or really anti-religion in general, just seeing Islam as the most dangerous and aggressive of the bunch at the moment)

How strong is that dislike for religion?
Do you agree with churches having an active voice in society (see link 1 below)?
Do you agree with the legally-enforced marginalization of Christian viewpoints on family values (see links 2-6)?
Do you believe in conspiracy theories involving Jews or Opus Dei?
Does Mitt Romney's or Rick Santorum's religion bother you?
Do you support the right of a valedictorian to pray?

I found your comments well-balanced, except for this one. I would like to know your opinion on this matter.

If you find 6 links to be too much, please read at least links 1 and 2. I guarantee you will find them informative.

==Links==
===Church-state balance===
1. "Why Church and State Must Be Separate" by Benedict XVI, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html

===Legally-enforced marginalization of Christianity===
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
3. "Christian foster couple lose 'homosexuality views' case", http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
4. "Last Catholic adoption agency faces closure after Charity Commission ruling"
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html
5. "Defining Religious Liberty Down", http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/douthat-defining-religious-liberty-down.html
6. "Controversy over Heaven" http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/controversy-over-heaven

When was the last time Switzerland was attacked by another country? Their "army" is for show and tell. That's about it. Switzerland did do one thing "right", though. They made it their policy to hold people's money in secrecy - Even gold from the Nazi regime most of which was from theft from their enemies which included gold from concentration camp victims. The Swiss have a very nice country - I've been there many times. None the less, their "success" has long been based upon their support of thieves and murderers by protecting their money. Nobody attacks the Swiss. Not even the Swiss attack the Swiss; their crime rate is minuscule. Not to mention, the population of Switzerland is less than 8M people.

I think every citizen has a RESPONSIBILITY to vote.

I don't think forcing people at gunpoint to throw a dart and select a random crook is the goal you were aiming for. Also voter intimidation for no candidate is only slightly less reprehensible than voter intimidation for a specific candidate.

Voting gives people a chance to feel that they have the power to make a difference in who makes decisions

Key word is "feel". No REAL impact. The aristocracy will select two of its own princes, as a prole you get to "feel" you can "make a difference" by selecting one crook or another. Maybe that'll "feeling" will stop you from rioting. If so its done its job of being the opiate of the masses.

You can probably learn a lot about your opposition by going to google and searching for "why I do not vote". A typical example and some tasty quotes, not the best, by far not the worst:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html

"The Constitution has no legitimate authority over me. I have never signed off on it."
"I do not wish to endorse a system that has produced and continues to produce what I think are evil results"
"I get no psychological satisfaction from identifying myself with a party or candidate."

Now watch the haters descend with idiotic sophistry. I wonder how many logical fallacies we can find to oppose my/this viewpoint. "he sucks" "you suck" "everyone should have to follow my irrational belief because I say so even if at the point of a gun", etc. A real logical argument would be nice but I'm not expecting very much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

I have seen people argue that George W. Bush was naive in believing
that he could bring democracy to Iraq. The separation of Church and
state (the kind proposed by the American Founding Fathers, not the
bigoted anti-theist kind proposed by Richard Dawkins) comes from a
Christian concept: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's". Even though many Catholics
used to defend theocratic absolutist monarchy, the seed of political freedom
existed in the religious/cultural ethos of Europe, and the Enlightenment
intellectuals (who brought us great evils, but also great goods) were able
to rescue it and bring down theocratic absolutist monarchy.

Islam, however, lacks this seed. Bringing down secularist dictatorships
(such as that of Saddam Hussein) only results in Islamist repressive
regimes taking their place, including religious cleansing (specially
against Jews and Christians).

I am _not_ saying that we should invade Muslim countries and plant
secularist dictators there; I am merely saying that, when a secularist
dictator is _already_ in power, removing him by violence only makes
things worse.

Pope Benedict has written on the subject. See
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
(Don't worry, the link above is a verbatim excerpt from the Pope's
writing; the Lew Rockwell site seems to be the only place to have
published it online, but it is free of anarcho-capitalist rhetoric).

Absolutely. The USA may have made mistakes (such as using atom bombs against Japanese men, women and children - see http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html), but it is not even close to the level of evil seen in the Soviet Union, the PRC, or Al Qaeda.

Speaking of Islamic terrorism: do you know of any studies/argumentations about the likelihood of
Iran using atom bombs against Israel? There are 1,573,000 Israeli Arabs and 1,240,000 Israeli Muslims (many, but not all, of the Arabs are Muslims) - not counting the people in the Palestinian territories that are not Israel citizens.
Would Iran really kill countless innocent Muslim civilians, including women and children?
I mean, Ahmadinejad may be a buffoon, but AFAIK he is no Hitler and no Stalin.
I would like to see this debated.

Please see http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html.

It argues that those 170,000 people died unnecessarily.

Check out what lack of religion did to the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and others.

No doubt totalitarian socialism had nothing to do with their outcomes, though.

(an all-powerful State can't tolerate any parallel power structures, such as a Church)

But Marxist Socialism is caused by the very same doctrine that today is advanced by Richard Dawkins.
The ideology if Richard Dawkins has at least two tenets:
1) Materialism - that is, reality (including the human mind) can be explained by the laws of Physics (see http://richarddawkins.net/articles/490048-the-blue-brain-blues-materialist-ethics-and-simulated-minds)
2) Anti-religious intolerance: religion is irrational, superstitious and must not be tolerated. It must be wiped out. While it still exists, it must be contained to the private sphere - that is, the political rights of people of faith must be curtailed.

And these two tenets are at the core of Marxism. Marx took the idea of materialism and developed it into his "materialistic conception of History", which is the root of Marxism. And he fully incorporated anti-religious hatred.

Therefore, the ideology of Dawkins (which of course existed centuries before Dawkins) is a clear cause of Marxism, and therefore 100,000,000 deaths, torture, general suffering, terror, repression, censorship, bigotry and societal decay.

In other words, Dawkins is the *last* person that can complain about the "evils" of religion.

There is a wise analysis about the ideal relationship between state and Church, which must be balanced to avoid oppression. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html (Why Church and State Must Be Separate, by Benedict XVI)

James P. Hogan on Global Warming: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/hogan2.html
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1171
http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/category.php?id=21
"But even if the recent warming trends were shown to be largely of our own doing, there's more reason for celebration than the panic that we're witnessing. Warm worlds are cheerier, healthier, more secure, and better able to support a richer and more abundant biosphere than cold ones. On land and in the oceans, life thrives in the green equatorial and temperate zones, not the icy higher latitudes. A warmer world would transform the vast wastes of Siberia and northern Canada into forests, gardens, granaries, and habitats, opening up huge areas to accommodate the growing population that some view as a blight, and bring water back to such regions as the Sahara and Middle East, that were once verdant. So, if human activity is capable of making a measurable difference, one would think that a good policy to adopt would be to help things along by using the abundance of energy that the world offers, to increase wealth and living standards generally, and enjoy the environmental benefits."

The deeper issue is the unfairness that some people benefit from this (Canadians, Russians) while others lose out (islanders, those with beachfront property, those in places where the weather worsens, etc.). Our form of geographical sovereignty and related economics of real estate are not designed to deal with the consequences of global changes from "externalities".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality.

Let's just shut down schools, hospitals, and such.

See my earlier post about what the U.S. Government spends its money on, and how little you'd have to reduce the U.S. Government in size in order to completely eliminate the income tax. The words "schools" and "hospitals" appears nowhere in that post.

On the topic of hospitals, here is what government intervention in what used to be a free market system has accomplished.

"Going Galt" is a breaking of the social contract ...

A contract requires consent. Please show me where I consented to this contract.

He gives such a hoot that he wants to repeal the civil rights act!

I don't see how simply being a theocracy automatically makes it "better", and death penalty for adultery and stoning may seem grotesque to a Western mind, but to a society that accepts and considers that to be just, well, that's their choice. Having spoken to Iranians, they don't have a problem with either punishment, as they consider those "crimes" to be undermining of the social fabric.

Don't even attempt to claim the moral high ground when it comes to justice as delivered from the state. Modern legal systems are no better (arguably worse) than the systems that went before them. Theyshoot people with no cause, blatantly imprison people for no valid reason and deliberately frames its own people for military ends. Not to mention such famous institutions as Guantanamo and those black op torture programs carried out by the CIA.

But wait, we have democracy I hear you say? If you call the circus that is the two party system "democracy", then I'm a flee on a baboon's arse. There's no meaningful difference between the parties, and on those occasions where they promise to fix the mistakes of the previous administration ("I'll close Guantanamo" said Barak), if the people actually give them the chance to carry out the promise, they simply renege when the time comes.

I think it's time the so-called "Free World" got off its moral high horse and recognised that it is no better than the barbaric hordes it's fighting against. Indeed, when viewed from the Other Side, we're the barbaric hordes.

Please. did you forget about the War on Drug Users? The ascendency of the religious right? Are you even aware of how many times Reagan raised taxes? Do you understand that his Reaganomics is responsible for the extreme economic inequality we are burdened with today?

Almost everything that is wrong with our government now can be traced back to Ronald Reagan.

As for Ron Paul, he claims he's pro-constitution, but stated he would have voted for a law that repealed Full Faith and Credit as defined in the Constitution

I believe you are incorrectly referring to Ron Paul's position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional . (Before the House of Representatives, July 22, 2004)

Here's the text of Article IV, Section 1:

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof .

Feel free to elaborate your position if you think I misread what you were saying.

A high school buddy of mine made good friends in college with a guy who went on to become a public defender. This guy worked hard, got good grades, went to a good school. He chose to be a public defender on principle and to get good experience for becoming a criminal defense attorney. He has said that his experience with the courts has shaken his confidence in the legal system, and this coming from a guy who has one of the highest acquittal rates in the history of that office. I also don't advocate violence, but I do recognize that there is some point when there is no other option. We're not quite there yet, but we're getting close.

Thanks for the reply. Glad you liked the links.

"The horror of them, though -- consider the amount of money our citizens have spent on inferior medical treatments, which have negative side-effects up to and including death, when if we had not passed unconstitutional laws and enforced them as if they were constitutional (i.e., that is conspiracy), we would be more healthy as a society and thus would be better able to out-compete other countries."

Sadly all too true... I probably posted this before, but its worth reposting:
"A Decade Of Vitamin D Supplementation Would Save $4.4 Trillion Over A Decade; Would Save $1346 Per Person Per Annum"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html

Thanks for the recommendation of "The Diamond Cutter". One thing the Dali Lama says, when US Christian-raised people say they want to become Buddhist is that there are a lot of bad Buddhists out there, and they should think hard about growing within their own religious roots. The thing about reason is it is so useful for justifying what we want to do anyway. :-) So, there is a very wealthy Buddhist who presumably justifies the great wealth desparitiy somehow?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Diamond-Cutter-Strategies-Managing/dp/0385497903

What you outline about seeing the other person's perspective a good strategy for developing empathy. I've heard people say that empathy is like a muscle; the more you use it, the more you develop that ability. You might like Dale Carnegie stuff that develops that theme, if you haven't seen it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

I've been trying that with thankfulness, trying before I go to sleep each night to make a list of all the things I'm thankful for (like things I'd still want to be there in the morning). An "attitude of gratitude" helps in having a healthier life.

Yeah, I think you are right about the "inverse rat park" thing from prohibition laws; interesting point. Kind of like a "positive feedback" loop making society worse and worse... Hard to break out of those...

A while ago (sorry, no link) I read an essay about someone going on about environmental destruction, nuclear waste, the depletion of fish stocks, maybe mass unemployment, and so on, and saying, if space aliens were doing this to the Earth, what would we be doing? It was a good metaphorical question, even if I did not agree with his proposed solution.

Yeah, I love all those RSA animate talks. TED seems to have started something similar, but without a political edge:
http://education.ted.com/

I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but I think he misses the big picture on ongoing socio-economic changes that are making many paid jobs go away (bringing us back to the robotics theme). But that's all a very complex issue, how to get the most people safely from where we are now to a prosperous healthy future for all (or at least almost all)... None of the major candidates are even in the ballpark on any of that... The ones closest to that in some ways (some Greens and a basic income?) often come encumbered with a very anti-technology and even anti-people bias or (like Ron Paul might suggest) too much overt big unaccountable government in people's daily lives to be healthy (a point many conservatives make that has some truth to it). We need both good social policy and good technical policy IMHO (or "good government" regardless of the size). Realistically, it seems like we are still many years away from mainstream politics being about such themes. I just hope we can survive everything to come before then with a culture of denial. Clearly the failed drug war (lasting decades) shows how bad policies can get entrenched and last for a very long time in all denial of t

Well, that's easy to fix, your lack of this particular knowledge.

link fail
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

It always amazes me how a curmudgeonly old paleocon has managed to successfully re-brand himself as a champion of personal freedoms.

His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.

He opposes the Civil Rights Act as government overreach, yet he voted in favor of federal abortion legislation on the grounds that stopping abortions was more important than limiting government power. I think that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about him.

It always amazes me how a curmudgeonly old paleocon has managed to successfully re-brand himself as a champion of personal freedoms.

His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.

He opposes the Civil Rights Act as government overreach, yet he voted in favor of federal abortion legislation on the grounds that stopping abortions was more important than limiting government power. I think that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about him.

It'd be nice if people knew what they were talking about before they started moving their fingers...

Excess calories and inactivity cause weight gain and eventually type 2 in many people. You may most certainly fully reverse this by losing the weight you gained, eating smarter and exercising more.

Carbs? Other than having a world population that is so big that its dependent on grains, roots and whatnot to feed all these people, I'm not sure why we consume carbs that require processing to be edible.

Who I find funny are people who look at a macdonalds value meal and want to crucify the meat and cheese. Its the drink, fries and bun.

For quite some time we've been told by doctors to eat margarine and transfats instead of butter and lard. We were told eggs would kill us. We've been told to eat mostly grains, root vegetables and sugar laden fruits along with considerable amounts of dairy. For quite some time we were told that cigarettes were good for you. We even had special cigarettes for asthma sufferers. I wonder how that worked out.

As a result of all of these ridiculously serious missteps, we're all fat, have coronary problems and diabetes. 75 years ago before all of this dietary "improvement" these illnesses werent anywhere near as common.

Hasnt anyone noticed how we feed cattle? We let them eat grass and whatever else they can find along with some cheap feed thats even included parts of other cows. But when they're ready to butcher, we send them to a feedlot to gain weight and fat marbling. Eating what? Grains.

Diet-wise, we're doing almost everything backwards. Not buying it? Last year I was 50lbs overweight, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, not in particularly good condition. I stopped eating most carbohydrates (but I'm not militant about it), eating mostly pasture raised eggs and meat from a local farm. I raised my exercise level slightly (like 30 minutes of walking or using a wii fit for an hour). I've now lost 43 pounds, my blood pressure is actually a little low, and my blood sugar is so low I have to sip a little orange juice once in a while to stop feeling faint.

Besides eating good foods, look for the biggest nutritional and flavor punches. Lets get off the feedlot.

http://www.spacedoc.com/saturated_fat_is_good_for_you_1

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller38.1.html

http://www.menshealth.com/health/saturated-fat

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/US-bases-Iran11.jpg

2) Smart people don't vote (which makes you question how smart they really are).

Here is an excellent list of reasons not to vote, titled "Why I Do Not Vote by Michael S. Rozeff". I don't support everything rockwell and/or rozeff has ever said because I'm not the blind follower type; arguments based on guilt by association are not going to have much impact. I do strongly support everything in this individual article of theirs. You're operating from a position of weakness by assuming intelligence = voting with absolutely no reasoning to back it up. The article contains a considerable amount of reasoning for the opposing view. Please read it, think about it, share it, etc. You might even like it, or change your mind.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html

You are confused about what "inflation" means. If there are more goods and services to purchase, then without more money with which to purchase them, prices fall. That is deflation. By the same token, if only the right amount of new money is introduced, then prices stay the same. No inflation, no deflation, and yet more money was printed.

This is true, yet doesn't contradict what I stated. The government still prints money faster than new wealth is created. Thus there are now more dollars per "unit" of wealth, therefore prices rise.

And as I said, governments siphon off people's wealth using this trick nowadays, because they get to spend the full face value of the new money purchasing resources and services, before the new money enters the market and depresses the value of everyone else's dollars. Some call this a "hidden tax". These governments do exactly what North Korea is doing: They print money, they spend it, and everyone else suffers as a result. The only reason it's deemed illegitimate is because it's someone else printing the money, not the government itself. The harm is the same.

So happy together!

Pretty much, in the sense that slavery and female oppression are symptoms of human behavor

Except they don't exist without laws that enforce them...

There's always going to be a bully and people who follow him, and then BAM! Instant dictator.

I'm all about not having dictators, but governments have been the most useful tool of dictators throughout history. When Hitler passed a law forbidding Jews to own guns in 1938, that was a government action. Then we have governments like the US supporting every dictator around since WWII.

Get rid of the government, and you'll find yourself needing to solve a lot of problems.

No doubt. But laziness doesn't excuse the killing of half a billion people. As Gandhi always said, "the means are everything."

How many did governments save?

You tell me (my number has easy citations). Governments saving people from other governments wouldn't count. Governments saving people from problems it created wouldn't count either.

There's a few places in the world that don't have government in any meaningful sense. Lessee... Darfur, Somalia...

Somalia's conditions are improving without a government. The fair measure is before and after, and comparing with neighbors.

Darfur was a mess because one group of people who want to be the government was at war with the other group.

Besides, who works the problems out? Everyone just magically agrees to the obvious solutions?

As I mentioned earlier, check out the works of Bob Murphy and other private law scholars, or Dubai's private law. I know in all my contracts I use a binding arbitration clause - the courts are the worst place to wind up with a problem.

My city maintains asphalt and concrete streets in poor neighborhoods. It doesn't maintain brick streets (even ones in upper middle class neighborhoods).

I don't get why you wouldn't be happier taking $50 off your tax bill and giving it to a private company (with all your other brick-street neighbors) to have a road that's in top shape. Can you expand on how your current situation is better?

Like... when the Israeli's held American's hostage for over a year?

Amazing how the Tehran hostage crisis manages to completely shut off any thinking sense. America waged war on Vietnam, Ho Chi Min totally humiliated the US, and here we are a few decades later with diplomatic relations with Vietnam, all buddy-buddy.

More generally, Israel downed an American navy ship, and waged a terrorist campaign against US interests in Egypt. So I guess the US should nuke Israel?

The fact is, if you want to keep diplomatic relations, you'll find a way to do so, even if someone shoots civilian aircraft down (like the USSR did to KAL007, or the US did to an Iran civilian aircraft.

Or like in 1988 , during the Israeli mass executions of political prisoners?

Regarding the 1988 executions: a quick Google search shows you're referencing the execution of
People's Mujahideen. Interestingly, Wikipedia says the source for this is none other than the People's Mujahideen. The People's Mujahideen is (from a NPOV) a terrorist group (a group that uses violence to achieve political aims).

Or when the Israeli's stood in huge crowds, cheering, as their leader crowed about nuking the US?

Sorry, what? That never happened. Or are you referring to their President quoting Khomeini talking about the current Israeli government vanishing from the pages of time (like the USSR did)? If so, how do you get from there to nuking the US?

Or the 2 year detention of US hikers by the Israeli's?

Hardy har har. Hikers. I hear there's some great hiking to be done on the border between one unstable country (Iraq), and another one that's been targeted as an "Axis of Evil" by the US (Iran). After they get done with this hiking tour, I think they'll be checking out the sights in Chechnya, then the Korea Demilitarized Zone after that. Some great hiking in Kashmir, too.

Try this on for size: Iranian "tourists" found "lost" in the Arizona or Texas desert. "We were just hiking--honest, officer!" Do you think the American public would accept a weaselly excuse like that? Why do you expect other countries to do so?

And it is mostly all ironic too... http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-arch.html

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Many liberals who think George Soros is a great guy for supporting this "tax on the rich" don't realize that Soros is one of the rich guys who stands to profit handsomely from it:

With markets less liquid, the market makers that make the markets liquid and efficient will be hampered by a Tobin tax (they will now need a spread of over 1%) and this will create more profit opportunities for the position trading that Soros does.

In other words, it's not clear that the Tobin tax would actually make the markets safer for small investors or hold the high-power players at Goldman Sachs accountable. The only thing that is clear is that very rich position traders with the ability to move significant amounts of capital will gain a very profitable advantage.

Part of this is aimed at punishing the high speed traders. I think a better approach to that would be to pass a law requiring full access to the stock exchanges at very low rates. The stock exchanges are hardly capitalist to begin with, so pushing a massive unfunded mandate on them is just a price they pay for the privilege of maintaining one of the last vestiges of mercantilist privilege in the modern world.

http://lewrockwell.com/spl3/global-warning-lie-exposed.html

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST projectâ(TM)s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious âClimategateâ(TM) scandal two years ago.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia Universityâ(TM)s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to âhide the declineâ(TM) in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the projectâ(TM)s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties â" a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

âThere is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasnâ(TM)t stopped,â(TM) she said. âTo say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.â(TM)

You are 99% right. Only one slight nit to pick (but it only bolsters your point).

If anyone was in a position to personally gain from what was going on, they would most likely not have stopped it.

Ron Paul did personally gain from what was going on, and he did indeed do everything he could possibly do to stop it.

Exactly right. Ron Paul made his money by correctly assessing that 533 of fellow congressmen and the occupant of the White House will continue to screw everything up

I vehemently disagree. Anti-trust laws, like so many other laws, are paved with good intentions but in reality they are an abomination.

I wish I had more time and energy to expound here and now. For now, check out http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/brown-c4.html

That's easy. I like: "the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another". I subscribe to the Axiom of Non-Aggression (a.k.a. the Non-Aggression Principle):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dYNk0QGdBw

Enjoy,

-Mike