It is, if you want me to take you seriously. If you want me to think that you're a clueless idiot who has no idea about what it takes to participate in a proper debate, feel free to have unsupported opinions.
The European Union is specifically not a country, not for any intents or any purposes. What the EU has is a common foreign policy and a system of rules that minimizes the impact of national borders on commerce.That's it. And the common foreign policy is on top of the foreign policy of each member state, not a replacement for it. The EU is much more a loosely federated club with very lax rules and even laxer enforcement.
Wanna know what a weak federal government looks like? Look at the EU.
Number 1: there are a whole host of situations that are clearly child abuse. No need to bring in legalistic arguments. It makes you sound like you have no interest in an honest discussion. Number 2: why focus on becoming 17? Why not focus on becoming 6? It is possible to graduate your response based on the specific circumstances. Number 3: children lie. That's why he didn't say "when a relative of mine tells me", but "when you lay a hand on a relative of mine". It is possible to find out what happened. Number 4: no, you don't misinterpret abuse and rape.Or would you like to argue that when a 6 year old says no to some old dude who is naked in her room, with his hard-on pointed straight at her, she is "misinterpreting the situation"?
And, just to persist and demonstrate that your ignorance on the subject really knows no bounds, you mistake mercury in a compound for elementary mercury. Nice work.
No. What he is saying is that there is data indicating a trend, a physical theory to explain why the data is occurring and having predictive abilities, and further data collection that confirms the predictions. At that point, anybody coming up with a competing theory better explain why it has better predictive power than the current one, and have a general theory behind it that doesn't require new math. If that's manbearpig, so be it. But at this point, it's no longer an option to simply say "it could be something else".
They did. That's why they're claiming outright fraud with respect to the "the car is dead" segment - according to the car's logs, the car never ran out of power.
But of course that would be a legitimate function of a government: to stop one from aggressing upon another.
And now you're already in the bloody details. Define aggression. Is it only aggression when physical harm is inflicted? Are threats of physical harm also bad? Who decides whether what happened was aggression or not? Should government only step in to mop up the mess after it happened? Or should it work to prevent situations from escalating to physical violence?
And to my knowledge, no form of government resembles a corporation.
Very true. I wasn't arguing the US should do it now, but to be prepared for the fact that all the diplomatic efforts and sanctions won't amount to squat. It's either guns or economic sanctions so severe that they are worse than any benefit they can get from the mineral deposits at the bottom of the sea.
The problem isn't that Ron Paul is short on details. It's that the details are so ludicrously wrong, morally offensive and philosophically untenable that no one is paying attention to him. No one outside a small group of people who think they'd be kings in Paul's universe.
And without the guns of the government in front of them, they would hire their own. Take a wild guess as to what form of government most closely resembles a corporation.
I always thought this was a lame conspiracy theory, but the longer I'm watching Tea Partiers, libertarians and sundry neo-cons at work, the more I'm convinced that I might be wrong.
Where the fuck were you 3 years ago, when the Bush years and the abomination of the DHS were still in full swing? Yeah, nowhere. That's because you are ok with a large government, as long as it says the things you want it to say, and as long as the people at the top are your people.
Not to mention that if you want to make an assertion, it is up to you to provide the evidence for it. Otherwise, you're just playing rhetorical games, hoping that no one will notice that you have no leg to stand on.
Eeeh, wrong. What ends up happening is that North Dakota purchases from places that don't have to do extensive tsunami and earthquake monitoring. In essence, specific geographic regions get a leg up because they don't have to deal with certain natural disasters. Places that do suffer from natural disasters are permanently disadvantaged compared to other areas. In other words, people are either lucky and are born into the right places, or they have to pay money in direct and opportunity costs to move there.
Nice to see that libertarians are still the same "sucks to be you" sociopaths they've always been.
In other words, throw a passive aggressive turd in their faces and they will be shamed into backing down.
While I agree with the majority of your post, this is unrealistic. The Chinese - and their government specifically - takes geographical claims, very, very seriously. Why do you think they pitch a fit anytime anyone shakes the Dalai Lama's hands, or sells Taiwan anything more than a sling shot?
The only way to make China accept reduced geographical claims is by pointing a gun at its Army and making it crystal clear that China will not win this fight without enormous costs.
The states know better which things need a higher priority than the federal government.
Bald assertion with no supporting evidence. I thought all government was bad?
Or are you trying to say that the guy that oversees all 50 states knows each state better than the one guy in each state that is only responsible for their own state?
In a nutshell, yes. The guy overseeing all 50 states is able to understand that what might look useless in one state is actually of great benefit to the overall health of the entire US. As an example: North Dakota benefits from funding tsunami warnings because it is also hurt when California gets hit by an unpredicted Tsunami. Someone only administering North Dakota wouldn't get that.
Not to mention that for some reason, people who used to argue that all government was bad are arguing that only federal government is bad; the state governments are actually models of efficiency. What the fuck? A black guy gets elected to the federal presidency, and suddenly people think state governments are the shit? Man, you guys crack me up.
Slashdot Mirror
The EU would fall apart. Which is why everyone is terrified of pissing off Germany in the current banking crisis.
It is, if you want me to take you seriously. If you want me to think that you're a clueless idiot who has no idea about what it takes to participate in a proper debate, feel free to have unsupported opinions.
The European Union is specifically not a country, not for any intents or any purposes. What the EU has is a common foreign policy and a system of rules that minimizes the impact of national borders on commerce.That's it. And the common foreign policy is on top of the foreign policy of each member state, not a replacement for it. The EU is much more a loosely federated club with very lax rules and even laxer enforcement.
Wanna know what a weak federal government looks like? Look at the EU.
Wow, wow, wow. Jumping to conclusions much?
Number 1: there are a whole host of situations that are clearly child abuse. No need to bring in legalistic arguments. It makes you sound like you have no interest in an honest discussion.
Number 2: why focus on becoming 17? Why not focus on becoming 6? It is possible to graduate your response based on the specific circumstances.
Number 3: children lie. That's why he didn't say "when a relative of mine tells me", but "when you lay a hand on a relative of mine". It is possible to find out what happened.
Number 4: no, you don't misinterpret abuse and rape.Or would you like to argue that when a 6 year old says no to some old dude who is naked in her room, with his hard-on pointed straight at her, she is "misinterpreting the situation"?
["Citation needed" == "idiot". Never heard of IxQuick (or Google ...)?]
It's not up to me to find evidence to support your opinion. It is up to you to support your opinion with evidence.
Idiot right back atcha.
Astroturfers and shills are liars of the worst kind. They deserve to be tarred and feathered at every occasion.
Yes, because to forbid something is to forbid everything. You wouldn't be a libertarian, would you?
And, just to persist and demonstrate that your ignorance on the subject really knows no bounds, you mistake mercury in a compound for elementary mercury. Nice work.
No. What he is saying is that there is data indicating a trend, a physical theory to explain why the data is occurring and having predictive abilities, and further data collection that confirms the predictions. At that point, anybody coming up with a competing theory better explain why it has better predictive power than the current one, and have a general theory behind it that doesn't require new math. If that's manbearpig, so be it. But at this point, it's no longer an option to simply say "it could be something else".
The same group who got to the moon first?
They did. That's why they're claiming outright fraud with respect to the "the car is dead" segment - according to the car's logs, the car never ran out of power.
But of course that would be a legitimate function of a government: to stop one from aggressing upon another.
And now you're already in the bloody details. Define aggression. Is it only aggression when physical harm is inflicted? Are threats of physical harm also bad? Who decides whether what happened was aggression or not? Should government only step in to mop up the mess after it happened? Or should it work to prevent situations from escalating to physical violence?
And to my knowledge, no form of government resembles a corporation.
It's called despotism.
When is following the rule of law wrong
When the law is not legitimate.
What is morally offensive, a secret list of citizens for whom due process does not apply?
It is morally offensive to condemn people to die in misery when they did nothing wrong.
What is philosophically untenable about studying and learning from history?
When you do not study from history, make up facts about history and refuse to learn from events that you are aiming to duplicate.
What 'small group of people'? Paul has the broadest support among the Republican candidates with the second highest number of contributors.
That's why his support rate is in the same range as the loony bin candidates.
In Paul's universe, there are no kings.
In Paul's universe, king's are not only guaranteed, but unassailable. Revolution is the only way to change the system.
Very true. I wasn't arguing the US should do it now, but to be prepared for the fact that all the diplomatic efforts and sanctions won't amount to squat. It's either guns or economic sanctions so severe that they are worse than any benefit they can get from the mineral deposits at the bottom of the sea.
ROFL. Thanks for the laugh. You win this thread for most delusional libertarian rant.
ROFL. Thanks for the laugh. I think this wins the entire thread for most delusional libertarian rant in the entire thread.
The problem isn't that Ron Paul is short on details. It's that the details are so ludicrously wrong, morally offensive and philosophically untenable that no one is paying attention to him. No one outside a small group of people who think they'd be kings in Paul's universe.
And without the guns of the government in front of them, they would hire their own. Take a wild guess as to what form of government most closely resembles a corporation.
He sure is. Except his church is Atlas Shrugged, and his messiah Ayn Rand.
I always thought this was a lame conspiracy theory, but the longer I'm watching Tea Partiers, libertarians and sundry neo-cons at work, the more I'm convinced that I might be wrong.
Where the fuck were you 3 years ago, when the Bush years and the abomination of the DHS were still in full swing? Yeah, nowhere. That's because you are ok with a large government, as long as it says the things you want it to say, and as long as the people at the top are your people.
Not to mention that if you want to make an assertion, it is up to you to provide the evidence for it. Otherwise, you're just playing rhetorical games, hoping that no one will notice that you have no leg to stand on.
Eeeh, wrong. What ends up happening is that North Dakota purchases from places that don't have to do extensive tsunami and earthquake monitoring. In essence, specific geographic regions get a leg up because they don't have to deal with certain natural disasters. Places that do suffer from natural disasters are permanently disadvantaged compared to other areas. In other words, people are either lucky and are born into the right places, or they have to pay money in direct and opportunity costs to move there.
Nice to see that libertarians are still the same "sucks to be you" sociopaths they've always been.
In other words, throw a passive aggressive turd in their faces and they will be shamed into backing down.
While I agree with the majority of your post, this is unrealistic. The Chinese - and their government specifically - takes geographical claims, very, very seriously. Why do you think they pitch a fit anytime anyone shakes the Dalai Lama's hands, or sells Taiwan anything more than a sling shot?
The only way to make China accept reduced geographical claims is by pointing a gun at its Army and making it crystal clear that China will not win this fight without enormous costs.
Yes, you do. Because you benefit in Idaho when Louisiana doesn't get destroyed anytime a hurricane hits.
No man is an island, no matter what your mythology says.
The states know better which things need a higher priority than the federal government.
Bald assertion with no supporting evidence. I thought all government was bad?
Or are you trying to say that the guy that oversees all 50 states knows each state better than the one guy in each state that is only responsible for their own state?
In a nutshell, yes. The guy overseeing all 50 states is able to understand that what might look useless in one state is actually of great benefit to the overall health of the entire US. As an example: North Dakota benefits from funding tsunami warnings because it is also hurt when California gets hit by an unpredicted Tsunami. Someone only administering North Dakota wouldn't get that.
Not to mention that for some reason, people who used to argue that all government was bad are arguing that only federal government is bad; the state governments are actually models of efficiency. What the fuck? A black guy gets elected to the federal presidency, and suddenly people think state governments are the shit? Man, you guys crack me up.