techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14830
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm really still of the impression that he's a significantly better choice than Obama. Anyone else though can vote how they will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9178
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CoMF wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | Obviously trusting capitalists to set all the rules themselves was a huge mistake, considering what happened leading up to the financial meltdown of 2008. |
You forget that progressive Democrats played a large role in the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act. It has nothing to do with Capitalism or Keynesianism or Monetarism or any other economic theory and more to do with foolishly deregulating markets while a moral hazard existed. Privatizing gains while socializing losses is a relatively new concept that would have been completely foreign to Adam Smith. |
The "socialized losses" aspect wasn't planned at all. It only came about when the entire financial system came to the verge of collapse, threatening to take the whole world economy down with it. Obviously large financial companies have a heck of a lot of power when the prospect of "too big to fail" looms over us all. I mean, lets face it, the ability of people to meet their most basic needs, i.e. having an income that can provide adequate food, shelter, and medical care is tied in with banks. Small businesses everywhere rely on banks to keep employees on the payroll. I don't see why an entity with that much responsibility for the welfare of everyone should have the right to turn their company ethic from that of a public service to that of a gambling casino for rich CEOs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CoMF
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techstepgenr8tion wrote: | | I'm really still of the impression that he's a significantly better choice than Obama. Anyone else though can vote how they will. |
Fair enough. I politely disagree that he's "signifigantly" better, but I respect your choice.
| marshall wrote: | | I don't see why an entity with that much responsibility for the welfare of everyone should have the right to turn their company ethic from that of a public service to that of a gambling casino for rich CEOs. |
Once again, bad legislation and greed are to blame, not Capitalism. Capitalism for all its perceived benefits and flaws is but one of many economic theories that cannot predetermine free will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14830
Location: A beautiful vector among many
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CoMF wrote: | | Capitalism for all its perceived benefits and flaws is but one of many economic theories that cannot predetermine free will. |
Eww....that one's a hard sell. Free will is one of those things where even if 'we' cause waveform collapse, even if all the NDE's people have had are real, even if we completely blew all Newtonian thought out the window, had symmetric time, and called this reality an illusion - we still have no way of getting from point A to point B without information and misinformation, both given and withheld, all of which has to go through a mind that either can or can't piece it together in a given moment, much like even if we controlled matter with our minds there's a heck of a lot more than just one mind focused on the subject.
Corruption's IMHO a force of nature in that sense. We won't be able to touch it until we get to its roots. As for free will, I can't believe in it no matter how supernatural the world could be.
Not to wax philosophical but - we've gotta fix much bigger things to fix Washington to where we could say that we've made corruption obsolete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NarcissusSavage
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 656
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron still running for Repub nomination?
I know there is some weird media blackout on anything Dr. Paul related... but we going to do that here too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29291
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | Uh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron still running for Repub nomination?
I know there is some weird media blackout on anything Dr. Paul related... but we going to do that here too? |
No. Ron Paul is not stupid. He knows we does not have a chance to be nominated by the Republican Part. And even if he were, he would lose --- big time.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
CoMF
Deinonychus
Joined: Feb 08, 2012
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NarcissusSavage wrote: | | Uh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ron still running for Repub nomination? |
Yup. In fact, he's now the only other primary candidate in the running and could (though the chance is admittedly slim) get all of Santorum's delegates and perhaps some of Gingrich's.
| ruveyn wrote: | | No. Ron Paul is not stupid. He knows we does not have a chance to be nominated by the Republican Part. And even if he were, he would lose --- big time. |
That may have been true in 2008, but as the only real anti-war candidate and alternative to the Obamney twins, I think the margin of an Obama victory in the general elections would be much narrower than we're led to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
