I doubt he'd be for increasing NASA's budget, a federal agency. That would contradict what he's been saying all along in terms of reducing the size of our federal government.
Ron Paul's opposed to funding of NASA. While I support space exploration I don't think government can do any better than private enterprises can.
He wants to go back on the gold standard. Because, yunno, we never had any economic problems in the 19th century.
No, but we had the Great Depression while we were on the Gold Standard. And the US did have depressions in the 1800s. There was one in 1807, another in 1837, and two more in 1873 and 1893.
His answer to whether we should consider the Chinese and Indian space programs threats or opportunities is that we shouldn't be subsidizing their defense. The only way that answer makes sense is if it means "Americans shouldn't be giving money to Chinese and Indian businesses" because that's how we're subsidizing their defense.
That's exactly what he says, "America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests".
The question then becomes, by what means does he propose to prevent this?
in question number 1. "is it a threat or an opportunity?"
in the answer for number 1 this isn't answered.
If it's not answered then if can't conflicting then can it? But you're right, he doesn't answer whether there's an opportunity or a threat. For a good answer though it should be answered as if it's both, an opportunity and a threat. The glass is both half full and half empty.
he meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2).
How so? What is not clear or is contradictory about "America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight"?
We fund China by borrowing trillions of dollars from them to fund our wars. That money is borrowed with interest, we are paying them billions just so we can fight an unconstitutional and unjustified war.
Now I interpreted his statement as meaning once we waste less money on defending other nations we will have more money to waste on our space programs. I don't know to what extent India relies on us militarily, but China sure as heck doesn't, so his answer as you interpret it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Ah but if the US didn't spend so much to supposedly defend other countries the US could use the money for US space exploration.
You need to go even further up the chain and start with the fubar'd methods by which the parties select their nominees.
Well see, my plan fixes that. Instead of having caucasus all the candidates run for president. Before the 12th Amendment was passed that's how presidential elections were held. Of course the political parties didn't want to risk a candidate from one party being elected president and another one from a different party being the VP. John Adams was elected as the USA's second president and was member of the Federalist Party. One of his opponents was Thomas Jefferson, who became the Vice President under Adams. And Jefferson was a member, and the founder, of the Democratic Republican Party. Both of these parties were ideologically opposed to each other, the Federalists wanted a large and powerful federal government whereas TJ's Democratic Republicans wanted a small federal government and the power devolved, focused, locally.
We need these large, permanent bases if we are to keep our ability to strike anywhere quickly with a consistent flow of supplies.
There is no need for the US to strike anywhere quickly, there's no reason for US military forces to be spread all over the world. Fact is is there's no credible threat to US security other than by politicians and terrorists. And the military won't help with either of these.
The problem with the 'let the states do it' concept is that the states end up in a 'race to the bottom'. Politicians go grubbing for tax revenue and what happens? Corporation X, Y, and Z come along and say
Race to the bottom? Where are this corporations going to get workers? Many people can move to someplace else. For those who can't afford it when Corporation Y moves into an area Corporation X will have competition for employees and therefore will pay more. Both Honda and Toyota have opened new factories in the US and are beating Detroit's big three. The jobs created pay better than the jobs the area already had.
'well, if you just gut your environmental laws, and forgive 90% of our taxes, and gift us with 40 million bucks to boot, maybe we'll build a factory in your state.
So then the voters need to hold their government responsible. Oh, and I'll add that because pollution crosses manmade lines on paper, or a monitor, the environment is one area the feds should be able to set minimum standards. Actually here I'd prefer something international.
Uncle SAM is big enough and the US (even now) is too big a market collectively to be entirely powerless against that. Even so you see what kind of govt we have now? Put it all on the states, it will be 10x worse.
No, it would cost powerful corporations more to bribe local officials, who are directly responsible to local voters, than it costs to bribe federal officials. As Walmart is finding out local opposition is getting stronger. At the federal level there's not much that can be done but at the local level people have more power.
While we ALL like the theory of 'small government', the reality is we live in the 21st century, not the 18th century, and pretending we can go back to an 18th century model of government is just that, pretending.
No it not, it's trying to do something. Those like you, from what you say (pretending), would have people roll over. As the old saying goes, all that's required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Paul likes to say his voting record is consistent with his beliefs, but it isn't entirely so.
Please show examples of this to support your contention Ron Paul's voting record does not match his beliefs.
to the best of my understanding there it is a stretch to say that there is a direct correlation between paying less taxes and creating more national debt.
When your income goes down either you cut spending or you go into debt. Not only has the US federal government cut income, taxes, but it has also ballooned spending. When Bush was sworn into office in 2001 there was a budget surplus of, if I recall right, $300B. Now under Bush the USA has the highest budget deficit it has ever had.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Paying more taxes does not make the economy healthier.
Agreed. However when taxes are cut spending needs to be cut as well. We can start by getting rid of waste. Paying more than a half billion dollars ( $740B so far for the world's largest embassy) for a new embassy in Baghdad? That's absolutely ridiculous. With that kind of money you could hand every Iraqi $10,000 and still leave pocket change. How many Iraqis would then hate the US?
Playing cop and peacemaker and bully across different parts of the world is expensive and contrary to our national interests. If you reverse course on those policies, you allow of lower taxes by cutting the actual need for the money. That in turn allows the country to focus on 'true national interests' which includes private research of all sorts.
Hey, didn't you know logic and reason aren't allowed?
replacing a minimal federal government with lots of local govt's seems about as good an idea as breaking up the U.S. into fifty countries with border passport checks and different currencies.
There's a place like that you can move to, it's called Russia.
Seems I like the European way of handling this (lots of smaller, discrete countries) in favour of the American one (huge but somewhat loose federation of independent states).
And I prefer having local control. I don't want someone 3000 miles away dictating to me.
Am I the only one who finds diversity (i.e. confusion) among the laws of a single country a bad idea?
How about 50 different laboratories? Would you rather have one national laboratory or a bunch of them? Isn't there more progress with more research?
Even if thoroughly checking and validating a law going in effect nationwide would take the tenfold amount of time a state spends working, 10x is quite a bit less than 50x
While Ron Paul is pro-life he would let each state decide for themselves to allow abortion or make it illegal. To him it's all a matter of states' rights.
His stance on abortion is one I disagree with but for now I generally support Ron Paul. I am both pro-life and pro-choice.
We need line by line, letter by letter editing comments for bills. I want to know which dumbass sneaked this into the Bill.
Corporate lackeys writes them. What we need for bills are for them to be written so most people can read one within a few minutes and understand it. Of course congress critters have to be able to justify spending so much tyme in Washington so they don't have to work for a living. I propose an amendment to the Constitution of the USA that, like Texas, congress can only be in session from 90 to 120 days every other year. In case of emergencies the president can call for a special session that lasts no longer that 2 weeks.
While I'm at it, proposing new amendments, there are two others I'll also propose. The first is that Amendment 12, how the President and Vice President are chosen, be repealed. Instead presidential elections would use one of the Condorcet methods. The candidate that scores the highest points becomes president and the candidate with the second highest score becomes the vice president. The other amendment I propose is that there be no laws that that makes it illegal for someone to do anything with their own bodies so long as they aren't harming anyone else, and if they do harm then they can be held liable for that harm.
This sentence describes a two-step transaction to looks something like this:
(1) Buy shares of the target company.
(2) Short shares of the acquiring company.
Okay, so the article you linked to was wrong then because you're not short short selling if you own the stock. Short selling is specifically about selling what you don't own.
The RIAA has come a long way since they were setup to regulate and maintain the technical standards on how vinyl records should be manufactured. Hopefully they will go the way of the vinyl record real soon...
What, you want to RIAA to make revival? While CD sales are decliningvinyl record sells are increasing. More and more stores are starting to carry vinyl turntables. Yes, I've noticed this as I'd like to get one myself.
What I do not understand is how they cannot see that making it LESS valuable for content creators to sign with their labels is going to result in LESS ARTISTS bothering to sign with their labels. There already has to be a certain breaking point that is leading the current boom in independent artists releasing their own content or finding alternate distribution methods. Further reducing the incentive will surely cause >0 others to do the same.
Unfortunately too many artists don't know how to go it on their own. From some posts I've seen even some/.ers don't know how to market on the net, not that I'm an expert. The Greatful Dead would have gotten it though.
Then why did you say: "Risk arbitrageurs buy shares of the target, and short shares of the acquiror"? If they are buying shares then they aren't selling short, unless of course they sell more than they buy.
a) Development focus. The telcoms in the U.S. are not just developing for NYC. They have to accommodate that vastness that is the U.S. moderately populated area. Often the case, there is a balance to be struck between high performance and range. The telcoms in the U.S. usually focus on extending the range, so they can reach more of that moderately covered area versus pushing for max bandwidth.
Oh really? Is that why they fight municipalities who want to build up their own broadband services when the telecos won't? Because the Broadband Utopia a group of communities in northeastern Utah setup Comcast was forced by market pressure to offer a bundled package for $90. When the project was proposed broadband providers pushed for a Utah law to stop it. Instead a law was passed that required any such project to allow open access, which is what UTOPIA does. Anyone who wants to offer any service it is capable of, broadband access, HDTV, and or phone service and use the system to offer them can use it.
Do you really think a telco or cableco would pay to build such a system? The only way they would is if they were paid to and were held liable. They have already been paid hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do so but they haven't.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt he'd be for increasing NASA's budget, a federal agency. That would contradict what he's been saying all along in terms of reducing the size of our federal government.
Ron Paul's opposed to funding of NASA. While I support space exploration I don't think government can do any better than private enterprises can.
FalconHe wants to go back on the gold standard. Because, yunno, we never had any economic problems in the 19th century.
No, but we had the Great Depression while we were on the Gold Standard. And the US did have depressions in the 1800s. There was one in 1807, another in 1837, and two more in 1873 and 1893.
FalconHis answer to whether we should consider the Chinese and Indian space programs threats or opportunities is that we shouldn't be subsidizing their defense. The only way that answer makes sense is if it means "Americans shouldn't be giving money to Chinese and Indian businesses" because that's how we're subsidizing their defense.
That's exactly what he says, "America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests".
The question then becomes, by what means does he propose to prevent this?
Though it's not in the Q&A he has answered it. The USA has the military stationed in 130 countries and he wants to bring them home.
Falconin question number 1. "is it a threat or an opportunity?"
in the answer for number 1 this isn't answered.
If it's not answered then if can't conflicting then can it? But you're right, he doesn't answer whether there's an opportunity or a threat. For a good answer though it should be answered as if it's both, an opportunity and a threat. The glass is both half full and half empty.
Falconhe meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2).
How so? What is not clear or is contradictory about "America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight"?
FalconWe fund China by borrowing trillions of dollars from them to fund our wars. That money is borrowed with interest, we are paying them billions just so we can fight an unconstitutional and unjustified war.
And Ron Paul would end that war.
FalconNow I interpreted his statement as meaning once we waste less money on defending other nations we will have more money to waste on our space programs. I don't know to what extent India relies on us militarily, but China sure as heck doesn't, so his answer as you interpret it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Ah but if the US didn't spend so much to supposedly defend other countries the US could use the money for US space exploration.
FalconYou need to go even further up the chain and start with the fubar'd methods by which the parties select their nominees.
Well see, my plan fixes that. Instead of having caucasus all the candidates run for president. Before the 12th Amendment was passed that's how presidential elections were held. Of course the political parties didn't want to risk a candidate from one party being elected president and another one from a different party being the VP. John Adams was elected as the USA's second president and was member of the Federalist Party. One of his opponents was Thomas Jefferson, who became the Vice President under Adams. And Jefferson was a member, and the founder, of the Democratic Republican Party. Both of these parties were ideologically opposed to each other, the Federalists wanted a large and powerful federal government whereas TJ's Democratic Republicans wanted a small federal government and the power devolved, focused, locally.
FalconWe need these large, permanent bases if we are to keep our ability to strike anywhere quickly with a consistent flow of supplies.
There is no need for the US to strike anywhere quickly, there's no reason for US military forces to be spread all over the world. Fact is is there's no credible threat to US security other than by politicians and terrorists. And the military won't help with either of these.
FalconThe problem with the 'let the states do it' concept is that the states end up in a 'race to the bottom'. Politicians go grubbing for tax revenue and what happens? Corporation X, Y, and Z come along and say
Race to the bottom? Where are this corporations going to get workers? Many people can move to someplace else. For those who can't afford it when Corporation Y moves into an area Corporation X will have competition for employees and therefore will pay more. Both Honda and Toyota have opened new factories in the US and are beating Detroit's big three. The jobs created pay better than the jobs the area already had.
'well, if you just gut your environmental laws, and forgive 90% of our taxes, and gift us with 40 million bucks to boot, maybe we'll build a factory in your state.
So then the voters need to hold their government responsible. Oh, and I'll add that because pollution crosses manmade lines on paper, or a monitor, the environment is one area the feds should be able to set minimum standards. Actually here I'd prefer something international.
Uncle SAM is big enough and the US (even now) is too big a market collectively to be entirely powerless against that. Even so you see what kind of govt we have now? Put it all on the states, it will be 10x worse.
No, it would cost powerful corporations more to bribe local officials, who are directly responsible to local voters, than it costs to bribe federal officials. As Walmart is finding out local opposition is getting stronger. At the federal level there's not much that can be done but at the local level people have more power.
While we ALL like the theory of 'small government', the reality is we live in the 21st century, not the 18th century, and pretending we can go back to an 18th century model of government is just that, pretending.
No it not, it's trying to do something. Those like you, from what you say (pretending), would have people roll over. As the old saying goes, all that's required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Paul likes to say his voting record is consistent with his beliefs, but it isn't entirely so.
Please show examples of this to support your contention Ron Paul's voting record does not match his beliefs.
Falconto the best of my understanding there it is a stretch to say that there is a direct correlation between paying less taxes and creating more national debt.
When your income goes down either you cut spending or you go into debt. Not only has the US federal government cut income, taxes, but it has also ballooned spending. When Bush was sworn into office in 2001 there was a budget surplus of, if I recall right, $300B. Now under Bush the USA has the highest budget deficit it has ever had.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Paying more taxes does not make the economy healthier.
Agreed. However when taxes are cut spending needs to be cut as well. We can start by getting rid of waste. Paying more than a half billion dollars ( $740B so far for the world's largest embassy) for a new embassy in Baghdad? That's absolutely ridiculous. With that kind of money you could hand every Iraqi $10,000 and still leave pocket change. How many Iraqis would then hate the US?
FalconPlaying cop and peacemaker and bully across different parts of the world is expensive and contrary to our national interests. If you reverse course on those policies, you allow of lower taxes by cutting the actual need for the money. That in turn allows the country to focus on 'true national interests' which includes private research of all sorts.
Hey, didn't you know logic and reason aren't allowed?
Falconreplacing a minimal federal government with lots of local govt's seems about as good an idea as breaking up the U.S. into fifty countries with border passport checks and different currencies.
There's a place like that you can move to, it's called Russia.
FalconSeems I like the European way of handling this (lots of smaller, discrete countries) in favour of the American one (huge but somewhat loose federation of independent states).
And I prefer having local control. I don't want someone 3000 miles away dictating to me.
FalconAm I the only one who finds diversity (i.e. confusion) among the laws of a single country a bad idea?
How about 50 different laboratories? Would you rather have one national laboratory or a bunch of them? Isn't there more progress with more research?
Even if thoroughly checking and validating a law going in effect nationwide would take the tenfold amount of time a state spends working, 10x is quite a bit less than 50x
Where's your scientific data to support this?
FalconWhile Ron Paul is pro-life he would let each state decide for themselves to allow abortion or make it illegal. To him it's all a matter of states' rights.
His stance on abortion is one I disagree with but for now I generally support Ron Paul. I am both pro-life and pro-choice.
FalconTo me the answer to question 2 very much conflicts with the answer to question 1.
How so? In both cases he talks about free markets and limited government.
FalconWe need line by line, letter by letter editing comments for bills. I want to know which dumbass sneaked this into the Bill.
Corporate lackeys writes them. What we need for bills are for them to be written so most people can read one within a few minutes and understand it. Of course congress critters have to be able to justify spending so much tyme in Washington so they don't have to work for a living. I propose an amendment to the Constitution of the USA that, like Texas, congress can only be in session from 90 to 120 days every other year. In case of emergencies the president can call for a special session that lasts no longer that 2 weeks.
While I'm at it, proposing new amendments, there are two others I'll also propose. The first is that Amendment 12, how the President and Vice President are chosen, be repealed. Instead presidential elections would use one of the Condorcet methods. The candidate that scores the highest points becomes president and the candidate with the second highest score becomes the vice president. The other amendment I propose is that there be no laws that that makes it illegal for someone to do anything with their own bodies so long as they aren't harming anyone else, and if they do harm then they can be held liable for that harm.
FalconThis sentence describes a two-step transaction to looks something like this:
(1) Buy shares of the target company.
(2) Short shares of the acquiring company.
Okay, so the article you linked to was wrong then because you're not short short selling if you own the stock. Short selling is specifically about selling what you don't own.
FalconThe RIAA has come a long way since they were setup to regulate and maintain the technical standards on how vinyl records should be manufactured. Hopefully they will go the way of the vinyl record real soon...
What, you want to RIAA to make revival? While CD sales are declining vinyl record sells are increasing. More and more stores are starting to carry vinyl turntables. Yes, I've noticed this as I'd like to get one myself.
FalconWhat I do not understand is how they cannot see that making it LESS valuable for content creators to sign with their labels is going to result in LESS ARTISTS bothering to sign with their labels. There already has to be a certain breaking point that is leading the current boom in independent artists releasing their own content or finding alternate distribution methods. Further reducing the incentive will surely cause >0 others to do the same.
Unfortunately too many artists don't know how to go it on their own. From some posts I've seen even some /.ers don't know how to market on the net, not that I'm an expert. The Greatful Dead would have gotten it though.
FalconTrue Capitalism - I'm talking Ayn Rand style Capitalism
Is Randian Capitalism anything like Adam Smith's Capitalism?
FalconThen why did you say: "Risk arbitrageurs buy shares of the target, and short shares of the acquiror"? If they are buying shares then they aren't selling short, unless of course they sell more than they buy.
FalconMy use of pets.com as an illustration was less a comment on dumping as a strategy, but more a comment on the general idiocy of dot-com era management.
I don't know anything of pets.com's plans so I couldn't comment on it.
Falcona) Development focus. The telcoms in the U.S. are not just developing for NYC. They have to accommodate that vastness that is the U.S. moderately populated area. Often the case, there is a balance to be struck between high performance and range. The telcoms in the U.S. usually focus on extending the range, so they can reach more of that moderately covered area versus pushing for max bandwidth.
Oh really? Is that why they fight municipalities who want to build up their own broadband services when the telecos won't? Because the Broadband Utopia a group of communities in northeastern Utah setup Comcast was forced by market pressure to offer a bundled package for $90. When the project was proposed broadband providers pushed for a Utah law to stop it. Instead a law was passed that required any such project to allow open access, which is what UTOPIA does. Anyone who wants to offer any service it is capable of, broadband access, HDTV, and or phone service and use the system to offer them can use it.
Do you really think a telco or cableco would pay to build such a system? The only way they would is if they were paid to and were held liable. They have already been paid hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do so but they haven't.
Falcon