Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Obama is in the office!
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Pages: 1, 2
Mohawk
Ok... Congratulations to all of you, big libs, blacks and whoever was crazy enough to vote for Obama, or to not vote against him!
Obama is in power now, and scandals already happened, he already said he won't be able to do what he said he would during his campaign... Well, the most liberal president of the history of the United States is sitting in the chair now, I really wish the best for y'all, and I hope I don't feel glad for not living in America anymore (before you bash me, I'm not American, I was just living in the US for studies)...
But Obama might be good, a new Reagan might appear in 2012, and who knows, Obama might not be able to do the stuff he wants to, common sense might come to him and he may actually govern from the center, I hope that happens. I'd feel sorry for all the Americans I know, that are doing good and will have to pay for those that don't move a finger to get a job. Universal Health Care? A reality here, I dare you to find someone that will say something good about it down here in Brazil.
Well... CONGRATULATIONS! YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED! They tried to warn you, but you were way too high on hope and change to listen... By the way, the same people as in the Clinton adminstration is change? I guess you can hope for it... yes you can...

oh... and btw... I only have CNN here, but the Obama inauguration seemed to be on every news channels, I tunned into Limbaugh, and even he was broadcasting it, didn't you get tired of all that show? All day long OBAMA, gez... I can't say the samething about Bush, I was too young and I didn't care about the US, so I never paid attention to it...
psychø
You clearly didn't do much studying while you were their or you might have slightly more intelligence, America is fuck in many ways not just economically, socially or in international relations.

He won't be able to do everything he wants, no, especially in the current economic climate, I would say that is a pretty good reason why he won't be able to, but if he does any of the things he is claiming which some of will happen then it will make America a better place overall, yes all the selfish bastards who can already afford these luxuries will complain, but to be honest they should just shut up and live with it, if they really don't care about their fellow countrymen can they really claim to be a patriotic American as they so do.
PabloHoneyOle
Obamarama at the Mr. and Mrs. Person Eater's house.

We have the entire collector set of Obama decorative plates, statuettes, coffee mugs, t-shirts and official Barack Obama "Time for a change" Afro-Sheen.

I keep thinking that in 30 years from now, kids will be taught that Obama was the first "African American" president and there will probably be a damn holiday.
scarface1616
So after getting elected he was supposed to flip a switch and everything he said he was going to try to get accomplished was supposed to happen?

Of course he won't get everything done the country is is bad shape and he has to do what he can to turn it around, but that doesn't mean he won't get anything done. He and McCain both said during their debates that because of the economy they would have to cut certain things they had said before and that everything they said would not be able to be accomplished in one term. If someone voted for Obama thinking everything single thing he said he was going to do was going to be accomplished then they're an idiot. And the same goes for anyone that voted for any other canidate thinking the same thing. We know he won't get it all done, but it's what he does get done, and what he's on his way to getting done at the end of four years that matters.
Qdeathstar
I think im going to give him a couple of weeks at least before i start to judge him.

Its a real shame he couldn't get the swearing in bit right though.... and the speech was more of the same. Time to move on from campaign rhetoric, no?
koneko
To be honest, I'm optimistic. Big party tonight--serving up Obamarettos and Barackoli salad, among other things. It will be a momentous, delicious, pun-filled evening.
Darth Sexy
I'm simply looking forward to the bitter disappointment everyone will feel when Obama fails to "fix" America.
Skinny 
QUOTE(psychø @ Jan 21 2009, 01:58 PM) [snapback]1479930[/snapback]
He won't be able to do everything he wants, no, especially in the current economic climate, I would say that is a pretty good reason why he won't be able to, but if he does any of the things he is claiming which some of will happen then it will make America a better place overall

This assumes that what he wants to do is good for the country to begin with. A weapons ban? Then all the law abiding citizens hand over their guns, while them murderous thugs hold onto them. Further economic regulation? No Obama supporter has ever been able to show me a part of the economy that requires any further regulation, because there is none. Some say the housing market regulation and regulations to stop big business are necessary, but predator loaning and merger regulations are as strict as they can get; anymore regulation is just kicking shit, not to mention after his hyperbole about creating jobs, he's supporting policies that ship jobs overseas - hooray for the minimum wage and pro big business price fixing! Bailouts? I don't understand why we want to keep these jobs in a recession, there is no demand for them. It sounds harsh, but it's how the market works and it's necessary to stop everyone spending money they don't have; medicine tends to taste bad. On top of all that new stuff, he's going to continue with the same failing policies of his predecessors.

If he wants to help the economy, he should stop printing money and reinstate a gold standard, this would severely reduce inflation, as the value of money would be determined by the value of gold. He should stop price fixing and the minimum wage to help small businesses and to keep jobs from being shifted overseas. A welfare reform may be necessary to lower taxes for working men, and to encourage people in welfare dependent areas to open there own businesses. During the depression, alcohol prohibition being repealed helped the economy as places began paying tax, there was less of a burden on government funds and the taxpayer due to reduced crime and it created legitimate jobs - ending the war on drugs as well as legalizing prostitution and gambling could help there. Farms can also be very helpful to the economy, eliminating farm subsidies could prove helpful. He'll never do any of that though, the big businesses that own the democrats in congress (and probably him, too) won't let him.
bOnEs
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 20 2009, 11:44 PM) [snapback]1479953[/snapback]
I think im going to give him a couple of weeks at least before i start to judge him.

a couple weeks?!?! more like a couple years... we've got a long long road ahead of us as obama would say... and it might take longer than his first term to get some of these situations hammered out...

quite frankly, i don't like the vision he has in store for our future but, the vision is necessary if this country is gonna rebound from state of despair its currently in right now... bush set up the domino's for obama and his "change" is exactly what the government wants... and if the government wants it, it can't be good for the people...

all i know is he was necessary... when our only choices come from only two parties (which is a joke), there's not much to choose from and we're kinda forced to pick the lesser of the two evils...
neko_ceko
Well he just closed Guantanamo. First day at job and he did something smart. Kewl
Indy
Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther could walk
Martin Luther walked so Barack Obama could run
Barack Obama ran so all the children could fly
So ima spread my wings, you can meet me in the sky
- Jay Z

Sorry I jus thought it was sik

/continue debate
psychø
QUOTE(Ind¥ @ Jan 22 2009, 08:04 PM) [snapback]1480240[/snapback]
Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther could walk
Martin Luther walked so Barack Obama could run
Barack Obama ran so all the children could fly
So ima spread my wings, you can meet me in the sky
- Jay Z

Sorry I jus thought it was sik

/continue debate

That wasn't originally said by Jay Z...

QUOTE
A weapons ban? Then all the law abiding citizens hand over their guns, while them murderous thugs hold onto them.
And...you shouldn't have had them in the first place
QUOTE
Further economic regulation?
Hedge funds...

QUOTE
Some say the housing market regulation
That is because it does, ever heard of 125% mortgages...

QUOTE
I don't understand why we want to keep these jobs in a recession, there is no demand for them.
That is because there is a recession, there is no demand for a lot of thing that doesn't mean that people won't want new cars, kitchens, bathrooms ect. at some point.

QUOTE

If he wants to help the economy, he should stop printing money and reinstate a gold standard
Excellent idea, now no one can trade money with you on the open market and the exchange rate system doesn't work(which you clearly have no concept of), that is the stupidest idea of them all.

QUOTE
The minimum wage to help small businesses and to keep jobs from being shifted overseas.
Another amazing idea, so when people go to work they don't actually earn enough to own a house/car/food dispite however many hours a week they work, the minimum wage is put in place so your average joe who can be replaced in a heart beat gets paid enough to live rather than just claiming welfare.

QUOTE
to encourage people in welfare dependent areas to open there own businesses.
Yes, with all the excess capital the banks are willing giving away at a low interest rate...oh no with all their savings they have earn from workign in a state with no minimum wage.

QUOTE
During the depression, alcohol prohibition being repealed helped the economy as places began paying tax, there was less of a burden on government funds and the taxpayer due to reduced crime and it created legitimate jobs - ending the war on drugs as well as legalizing prostitution and gambling could help there.
Then you can spend all the money on stopping crime, I don't really see a problem with gambling on a small scale, but not in the form of massive super casinos.

QUOTE
Farms can also be very helpful to the economy, eliminating farm subsidies could prove helpful.
What so the farmers can no longer make enough money to make a living and just give up making A) Even less jobs and cool.gif More dependence on foreign food supplies.

QUOTE
He'll never do any of that though, the big businesses that own the democrats in congress (and probably him, too) won't let him.
What, you don't even make sense, big business doesn't want the minimum wage, the gold standard or legalisation of prostitution, gambling and drugs.
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jan 21 2009, 08:26 AM) [snapback]1479976[/snapback]
This assumes that what he wants to do is good for the country to begin with. A weapons ban? Then all the law abiding citizens hand over their guns, while them murderous thugs hold onto them.


I think, due to a huge blairing problem with the Constitution ( the second amendment) and the fact that Republicans are stauchly against this, and the fact that many Democrats are against the idea too, and the fact that a lot of American Citizens are against a weapns ban, means this will be extremely difficult to get enacted into law.

QUOTE

Further economic regulation? No Obama supporter has ever been able to show me a part of the economy that requires any further regulation, because there is none.
Thats because you don't understand economics. See below.

The subprime mortgage crisis occured because financial companies OVERSTATED the value of "paper" (which caused artificially inflated profits)...

QUOTE
If he wants to help the economy, he should stop printing money and reinstate a gold standard, this would severely reduce inflation


Yeah right.

GDP represents how much is "produced", which is determined by how much is bought, and since capital goods bought are investment, if GDP increases, investment is going up and people are holding less money.

When GDP goes down, there is less investment and people hold more money because they believe that their cash will give them a higher rate of return than buying things. For example, if you hold onto 100,000 cash, you'll still have that buying power in the short term, which would yeild a rate of return of zero. On the other hand if you believe that if you chose to invest that money in a house for 1 year, and the value of the house dropped by 10,000 to 90,000 then your rate of return would be -10%.

That encourages you to hold onto your money.

That is the current situation we find ourselves in.

To fix that, increasing the supply money makes that same 100,000 worth less in terms of buying power which results in a lower rate of return on your money. Therefore you'd have less interest in holding onto the money and would instead want to invest in material items.



Lastly, your wrong about inflation. We definately do not need to worry about inflation. Inflation is at around .2 percent.. in a decent economy it should be around 3 or 4%



QUOTE(bOnEs @ Jan 21 2009, 04:38 PM) [snapback]1480013[/snapback]
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 20 2009, 11:44 PM) [snapback]1479953[/snapback]
I think im going to give him a couple of weeks at least before i start to judge him.

a couple weeks?!?! more like a couple years... we've got a long long road ahead of us as obama would say... and it might take longer than his first term to get some of these situations hammered out...



he doesn't need to get everything fixed, i think we'll know in 2-3 weeks if he is up to the task. If it takes him more than 2-3 weeks to get something started with the economy then he might as well not even bother...

Darth Sexy
QUOTE(neko_ceko @ Jan 22 2009, 05:49 AM) [snapback]1480025[/snapback]
Well he just closed Guantanamo. First day at job and he did something smart. Kewl

Bush also wanted to, but couldn't find anywhere to put the prisoners. I eagerly await Obama's solution.
Mohawk
QUOTE(neko_ceko @ Jan 21 2009, 10:49 AM) [snapback]1480025[/snapback]
Well he just closed Guantanamo. First day at job and he did something smart. Kewl


He didn't close it. He said he was going to in about a year. And I think he won't do it, what are you going to do with all those terrorists?
You can't take them to your country, not even their country wants them back. They are bad people and there is just no way they are getting better, some were realeased and are back in there again. And how do you explain to the people who lost realtives during the 9/11 that those people will be realeased fom guantanamo, and will have a trial in American soil with lack of evidences, since those weren't collect during the war.

By the way, I didn't think there were so many right wing people here, maybe it's becuase it's the internet, so it easier to say what you realy think, instead of being quite just to not seem weird disagreeing with the other wackos... XD.png
Skinny 
QUOTE(psychø @ Jan 23 2009, 10:33 AM) [snapback]1480288[/snapback]
And...you shouldn't have had them in the first place

Great logic. So if the law abiding citizens don't have their guns, but all the murderous thugs do, then how do we protect ourselves from them? This is what happened in Australia and the rate of homocides with firearms shot up 300 percent in some states.

QUOTE
Hedge funds...
He wants to do alot more than that. He even said himself "only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy" . LOL. He also promised to double the amount spent on schools, while he forgets about the ten trillion dollar debt.

He's voted with the house democrats most of the time he was in the senate, but lets hope he does whats best for everyone; learns how to say "VETO!"

QUOTE
That is because there is a recession, there is no demand for a lot of thing that doesn't mean that people won't want new cars, kitchens, bathrooms etc. at some point.

The recession will go on for years; at least that's what people were saying before it happened (well, the non interventionists knew about it anyway, no liberals had a clue). Businesses that fail should fail, that's how things work. Not to mention companies have been producing way more than they should have (the fake economy that even the mega-libs like yourself agree was behind the recession).

QUOTE
That is because it does, ever heard of 125% mortgages...
I love how people love bringing up problems in the housing market that started with Fannie/Freddy, completely ignoring the fact that they are government sponsored entities. Meaning if the government stayed out of things like they should have, these institutions would have never existed and things would be fine. Imagine that.

QUOTE
Excellent idea, now no one can trade money with you on the open market and the exchange rate system doesn't work

People can trade on the open market when the money has value, you're going to have to give some elaboration there. And the exchange rate system would still operate, except instead of comparing the dollar to another foreign currency, you compare the value of gold to it. Plus, we would use Ron Paul's plan, which is to have the banks start using a gold standard and keep the federal reserve in operation until it fails to compete with it's unstable, worthless fiat currency.

QUOTE
Another amazing idea, so when people go to work they don't actually earn enough to own a house/car/food despite however many hours a week they work
Job value is determined by supply and demand, not what the government says (have you ever wondered why we don't all get minimum wage and nothing else), this only makes it impossible for larger firms to hire enough employees, and they end up shipping the jobs overseas, while smaller firms can't afford to compete where they are paying a few employees a large amount, and other firms are paying millions of workers next to nothing.

QUOTE
Yes, with all the excess capital the banks are willing giving away at a low interest rate...

Actually, gold standards can insure for lower interest rates. Look at what happened with these gold denominated loans:








QUOTE
oh no with all their savings they have earn from workign in a state with no minimum wage.
Do you know what welfare dependent areas are? They are areas in the middle of no where full of black people who don't' work because they collect welfare; they don't' work because they have no incentive to do so, they think mummy government as their backs. Reform welfare and people will have incentive to do some work and stop living off the taxpayer. They won't be working in a state with no minimum wage, because they aren't working at all, because there are no businesses when everyone is on welfare! Get a clue. They can afford collateral for a loan if they want, they can go fishing/hunting and sell that, but having entire communities with only one or two stores in the whole county is completely unacceptable. Although I suppose you bleeding heart libs will disagree on the grounds that "meh, if they don't want to work and only live off money from me AND the working poor, then let them - here we have freedom in this nation, freedom to other people's money!"

QUOTE
Then you can spend all the money on stopping crime

This analysis doesn't make much sense. If drugs/prostitution are legal, then there are no prostitute or drug dealers to catch, and there are no mobsters controlling them that we have to spend billion arresting. As it is, we are tying up our judicial system as well as our police force catching non violent offenders such as prostitutes and drug dealers, but if they weren't they could work on catching those who commit violence, fraud or coercion.

QUOTE
What so the farmers can no longer make enough money to make a living and just give up making
ROFLMAO!!! This is typical or a liberal (or a market socialist, whatever you are) - always only looking at things on their face, with no analysis on what actually happens:

[youtube]rTI9r4pUYh4&feature=related[/youtube]


So if all the subsidies go to people who already make more money than the average farmer, then how are farmers going to go out of business if this is stopped? AND if New Zealand can do BETTER in their farming business after removing the subsidies, then why are farm subsidies necessary?

QUOTE
big business doesn't want the minimum wage

Of course they do. Small firms can't afford workers, while they can by going overseas. If the minimum wage was removed, we would be able to buy products made locally - big businesses don't want that.

QUOTE
the gold standard or legalisation of prostitution, gambling and drugs.
Exactly, that was the point I just made thanks for agreeing with me. >>

Good to see your at least well researched... oh wait, no you're not, you just spouted off in theory and opinion, without any real world examples like the ones I provided.

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 24 2009, 10:04 AM) [snapback]1480434[/snapback]

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jan 21 2009, 08:26 AM) [snapback]1479976[/snapback]
This assumes that what he wants to do is good for the country to begin with. A weapons ban? Then all the law abiding citizens hand over their guns, while them murderous thugs hold onto them.

I think, due to a huge blairing problem with the Constitution ( the second amendment) and the fact that Republicans are stauchly against this, and the fact that many Democrats are against the idea too, and the fact that a lot of American Citizens are against a weapns ban, means this will be extremely difficult to get enacted into law.

Not a complete weapons ban, but the democrats will come up with something - just like they did last time they controlled the houses. Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban. As for the republicans, they are out of it out the moment, they are quite scarce in positions of power in the federal government... just like the last big weapons ban in america.

QUOTE
The subprime mortgage crisis occured because financial companies OVERSTATED the value of "paper" (which caused artificially inflated profits)...
Read what I wrote above to psycho. Fannie/Freddy are GOVERNMENT Sponsored Enterprises. That means your mummy government is responsible for their existence. Too bad we don't have laissez faire, then these companies would have never existed. And people have the nerve to claim laissez faire is responsible for the crisis... ROFL!

QUOTE
On the other hand if you believe that if you chose to invest that money in a house for 1 year, and the value of the house dropped by 10,000 to 90,000 then your rate of return would be -10%.

100 years ago, a $20 gold piece would buy you four loaves of bread. one hundred years ago, a $20 federal reserve note would do the same, but today, the gold piece would still buy you 400 loaves of bread, where as the federal reserve note would only buy you 10. You tell me which is more stable.

The value of gold doesn't change very often, regardless of how much more of it enters the market. Where as with a house, the value constantly changes depending upon variables in the location it's in. So you're way off with that analogy.
Mohawk
I love when Skinny gets this involved with a topic!
Great answers to all those crap they said ^^
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jan 24 2009, 10:33 AM) [snapback]1480487[/snapback]
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 24 2009, 10:04 AM) [snapback]1480434[/snapback]

QUOTE(Skinny. @ Jan 21 2009, 08:26 AM) [snapback]1479976[/snapback]
This assumes that what he wants to do is good for the country to begin with. A weapons ban? Then all the law abiding citizens hand over their guns, while them murderous thugs hold onto them.

I think, due to a huge blairing problem with the Constitution ( the second amendment) and the fact that Republicans are stauchly against this, and the fact that many Democrats are against the idea too, and the fact that a lot of American Citizens are against a weapns ban, means this will be extremely difficult to get enacted into law.

Not a complete weapons ban, but the democrats will come up with something - just like they did last time they controlled the houses. Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban. As for the republicans, they are out of it out the moment, they are quite scarce in positions of power in the federal government... just like the last big weapons ban in america.


Why do you need to own assault weapons for anyway? Aren't hand guns and rifles enough?
QUOTE

QUOTE
The subprime mortgage crisis occured because financial companies OVERSTATED the value of "paper" (which caused artificially inflated profits)...
Read what I wrote above to psycho. Fannie/Freddy are GOVERNMENT Sponsored Enterprises. That means your mummy government is responsible for their existence. Too bad we don't have laissez faire, then these companies would have never existed. And people have the nerve to claim laissez faire is responsible for the crisis... ROFL!


Who cares and what does that have to do with what i said? Nothing....

Fannie and freedie weren't the only ones, and what i'm talking about in regarding to overstated value of paper has nothing to do with them. Fannie and Freddie gave LOANS based on overstated incomes because the banks selling the mortgage product didn't do their job and make sure that their clients provided proof of income. But, companies like Bear Stearns, Bank of American, Morgan Stanley, ect also all overstated the value of paper.

Also, don't be so stupid. Just because the government sponsors mortgages it doesn't mean they have control over freddie or fanny or are involved in anyway in their operations. Also, how does the fact that Fannie and Freddy are sponsored by the government change anything... Bush has been in office for eight years, and we've seen several disasters, this is just one more?
QUOTE



QUOTE
On the other hand if you believe that if you chose to invest that money in a house for 1 year, and the value of the house dropped by 10,000 to 90,000 then your rate of return would be -10%.

100 years ago, a $20 gold piece would buy you four loaves of bread. one hundred years ago, a $20 federal reserve note would do the same, but today, the gold piece would still buy you 400 loaves of bread, where as the federal reserve note would only buy you 10. You tell me which is more stable.

The value of gold doesn't change very often, regardless of how much more of it enters the market. Where as with a house, the value constantly changes depending upon variables in the location it's in. So you're way off with that analogy.


Its not an analogy.. and btw, YES YES YES MONEY HAS A LOW RATE OF RETURN! THATS THE HOLE POINT THE FEDERAL RESERVE DOES NOT WANT PEOPLE INVESTING IN RESERVE NOTES! THATS WHAT I SAID. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

A house historically has always increased in value over the long term. > 10 years. (it has had a greater rate of return that gold, as well.

That's why people don't invest in gold, because it has a low rate of return equal to or just over the rate of inflation, where has a house or the stock market has a rate of return of between 5 and 7 percent over the rate of inflation.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Mohawk @ Jan 20 2009, 11:14 PM) [snapback]1479885[/snapback]
Well, the most liberal president of the history of the United States is sitting in the chair now
I too believe the US was founded in 1976.
Indy
QUOTE(psychø @ Jan 22 2009, 11:33 PM) [snapback]1480288[/snapback]
QUOTE(Ind¥ @ Jan 22 2009, 08:04 PM) [snapback]1480240[/snapback]
Rosa Parks sat so Martin Luther could walk
Martin Luther walked so Barack Obama could run
Barack Obama ran so all the children could fly
So ima spread my wings, you can meet me in the sky
- Jay Z

Sorry I jus thought it was sik

/continue debate

That wasn't originally said by Jay Z...


Who originally said it?


EDIT: Nvm, the original:
"W.E.B. Dubois taught so that Rosa Parks could take a seat. Rosa took a seat so we all could take a stand. We all took a stand so that Martin Luther King Jr. could march. Martin marched so Jesse Jackson could run. Jesse ran so Obama could WIN." - Cleo Fields (former Congressman and State Senator from Louisiana)
NIGGALICIOUS
Sad thing is, If Obama was white most people would shut the fuck up and not complain about him being elected. Sad but true.

Reality is that some people dont like him based on his beliefs, actions, etc. Then there are the others who will never like him because he is part 'black' and they come up with any little thing to try to make him look bad.

McCain would have been more of the same, and I can honestly say that me being black, I still would have voted for Obama even if he was white, although I know a lot of blacks who voted for Obama just because his race which imo is not right.

Too many racists in this country and for what? You cant help what color you are when you are born. And to call Obama black is just rediculous. Hes more white than anything, being raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Hes not black he is mixed and people who are racist can just fuck off. I dont agree with everything Obama says or has done yet but I dont think McCain was the right choice.

Btw you dont live in America so you have no say so. You couldn't vote. Worry about your own country
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Phil Mipe Enos @ Jan 28 2009, 01:16 AM) [snapback]1480913[/snapback]
Btw you dont live in America so you have no say so. You couldn't vote. Worry about your own country
This is a well thought-out and all-encompassing view and I feel more people should think like this, America only deals in its own affairs within its own borders.
1UP
QUOTE(Phil Mipe Enos @ Jan 27 2009, 09:16 PM) [snapback]1480913[/snapback]
Sad thing is, If Obama was white most people would shut the fuck up and not complain about him being elected. Sad but true.

Reality is that some people dont like him based on his beliefs, actions, etc. Then there are the others who will never like him because he is part 'black' and they come up with any little thing to try to make him look bad.

McCain would have been more of the same, and I can honestly say that me being black, I still would have voted for Obama even if he was white, although I know a lot of blacks who voted for Obama just because his race which imo is not right.

Too many racists in this country and for what? You cant help what color you are when you are born. And to call Obama black is just rediculous. Hes more white than anything, being raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Hes not black he is mixed and people who are racist can just fuck off. I dont agree with everything Obama says or has done yet but I dont think McCain was the right choice.

Btw you dont live in America so you have no say so. You couldn't vote. Worry about your own country

Making one another look bad? They have always done that when they run for president, where have you been? Sounds like your trying to make one thing into another.

The people I see as the biggest racists are the ones pointing the fingers most the time (The way you word that makes me think you are). During Obama's campaign, they were subtly implying if you don't vote for him your racist all the time even now that hes president he's got all these people around him implying such stupid nonsense still. No racism isn't gone, but you and Obama's people (Not black people alone tard, I know you thought that) over blowing it. Yes they were racist only to get more votes, doesn't change what they did. Any way to fight dirty, both sides always will.

Despite saying that, I did vote for Obama on my own accord of reasons, but your a retard if you believe what you just said.

Also other countries can say whatever they want, and so can we. Fact of the matter is what we do effects them and vice versa, no country is just gonna stand by an say nothing at their own expense. Criticism isn't any different.
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Phil Mipe Enos @ Jan 28 2009, 01:16 AM) [snapback]1480913[/snapback]
Sad thing is, If Obama was white most people would shut the fuck up and not complain about him being elected. Sad but true.


well, i reckon if the white man was compared to the likes of Kenedy BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE, and if he continued to hold meaningless election rallies way after his election, then i'd have to say i'd be pretty suspicious of him.

Obama hasn't done anything yet, he's just like the rest of 'em till he proves otherwise. Politicians are after all, politicians.




This topic sums up my feels thus far about the "election"

http://www.gta4.tv/forums/index.php?showtopic=790009
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
I love how you distance yourself from the term "election"...
new major on the block
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 28 2009, 04:40 AM) [snapback]1480938[/snapback]
QUOTE(Phil Mipe Enos @ Jan 28 2009, 01:16 AM) [snapback]1480913[/snapback]
Sad thing is, If Obama was white most people would shut the fuck up and not complain about him being elected. Sad but true.


well, i reckon if the white man was compared to the likes of Kenedy BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE, and if he continued to hold meaningless election rallies way after his election, then i'd have to say i'd be pretty suspicious of him.

Obama hasn't done anything yet, he's just like the rest of 'em till he proves otherwise. Politicians are after all, politicians.




This topic sums up my feels thus far about the "election"

http://www.gta4.tv/forums/index.php?showtopic=790009


Politics- Breakdown: pol⋅i⋅tics [pol-i-tiks]

–noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
Pol⋅i [pol-ee] pol⋅y

-made of or containing more than one element or object

Tics (tĭk) ticks

-Any of numerous small bloodsucking parasitic arachnids of the family Ixodidae, many of which transmit febrile diseases, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease.
-Any of various usually wingless, louselike insects of the family Hippobosciddae that are parasitic on sheep, goats, and other animals.

So when you place them together you get Politics-meaning more than one bloodsucking parasitic asshole affiliated with any political party and is involved in running local, state, or federal government office from the presidency to a councilman. Steer clear of them they are a dangerous creature and are very good at fucking things up. No one is immune, once you get near one you'll regret it.


Theres POLITICS for any of you that are new to the subject






IV...Whudyadoooooooooooon?
QUOTE(new major on the block @ Jan 28 2009, 04:52 PM) [snapback]1480992[/snapback]
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 28 2009, 04:40 AM) [snapback]1480938[/snapback]
QUOTE(Phil Mipe Enos @ Jan 28 2009, 01:16 AM) [snapback]1480913[/snapback]
Sad thing is, If Obama was white most people would shut the fuck up and not complain about him being elected. Sad but true.


well, i reckon if the white man was compared to the likes of Kenedy BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE, and if he continued to hold meaningless election rallies way after his election, then i'd have to say i'd be pretty suspicious of him.

Obama hasn't done anything yet, he's just like the rest of 'em till he proves otherwise. Politicians are after all, politicians.




This topic sums up my feels thus far about the "election"

http://www.gta4.tv/forums/index.php?showtopic=790009


Politics- Breakdown: pol⋅i⋅tics [pol-i-tiks]

–noun (used with a singular or plural verb)
Pol⋅i [pol-ee] pol⋅y

-made of or containing more than one element or object

Tics (tĭk) ticks

-Any of numerous small bloodsucking parasitic arachnids of the family Ixodidae, many of which transmit febrile diseases, such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever and Lyme disease.
-Any of various usually wingless, louselike insects of the family Hippobosciddae that are parasitic on sheep, goats, and other animals.

So when you place them together you get Politics-meaning more than one bloodsucking parasitic asshole affiliated with any political party and is involved in running local, state, or federal government office from the presidency to a councilman. Steer clear of them they are a dangerous creature and are very good at fucking things up. No one is immune, once you get near one you'll regret it.


Theres POLITICS for any of you that are new to the subject



Whhhhhhhhssssssstttt!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

At least he's black. Or sort of....whatever.
Now maybe the Black community will "simmer down" on Whitey...

Now maybe the White community will "simmer down" on the Black community...

Or it could all be fucked.....

I'm leanin' towards the latter....

Optimism is hard to sustain in this day and age....

I'm just sick to death of hearing propaganda from both sides...
He said...She said.....Republican...Democrat....

Can a brother get a Libratarian one time!?!?!?!?

I'm not a "brother" btw.....

I'd just like to see someone totally off the fuckin' wall get in there....

But who would that be..... Psy!

Up to the task?

Well...





Fuckin'.


....


....
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
^Great post^

Why is there a sudden surge in support for lolbertarianism on this forum? Everywhere else in the world, it seems to have been recognised as being discredited, at least in its most rampant forms...
Qdeathstar
its fashionable and trendwhorish... thats why.

Mello, those posts seem arrogantly foolish, not great.


LOL POLITICS!
Skinny 
Sorry for taking so long, back to school this week >>

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 25 2009, 07:27 AM) [snapback]1480521[/snapback]
Why do you need to own assault weapons for anyway? Aren't hand guns and rifles enough?

Please do some research. If you had, you would know that “Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the firearm lexicon, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. The closest relative is the “assault rifle”, which is a machine gun or “select fire” rifle that fires rifle cartridges. In most cases, “assault weapons” are functionally identical to hunting rifles, though cosmetically similar to military guns.

QUOTE
Fannie and Freddie gave LOANS based on overstated incomes because the banks selling the mortgage product didn't do their job and make sure that their clients provided proof of income.
And look what happened to them. They didn't do their job and they're going out of business, not Obama and his liberal ilk support giving them a bailout to say "it's okay, don't do your job, the government will always have you back at the expense of the taxpayer".

QUOTE
Also, don't be so stupid.

Stay classy, liberals...

QUOTE
Just because the government sponsors mortgages it doesn't mean they have control over freddie or fanny or are involved in anyway in their operations.
It does mean that the government promoted mortgages to people with bad or no credit, when they shouldn't have:

[youtube]e11-_cE63Us[/youtube]


QUOTE
YES YES YES MONEY HAS A LOW RATE OF RETURN! THATS THE HOLE POINT THE FEDERAL RESERVE DOES NOT WANT PEOPLE INVESTING IN RESERVE NOTES! THATS WHAT I SAID. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

When did I say anything about the rate of return? Both have low rates of returns, that's why they were used, gold is more stable, and the value thereof is controlled by the market, where as fiat currency, is controlled by the federal reserve, who thought it would be a good idea to double the money supply after they were opened. Look how that worked out.

QUOTE
it has had a greater rate of return that gold, as well.
YES YES YES GOLD HAS A LOW RATE OF RETURN! THATS THE HOLE POINT GOLD'S VALUE DOESN'T CHANGE TOO OFTEN SO IT HAS A LOW RATE OF RETURN! THATS WHAT I SAID. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Jan 29 2009, 12:16 PM) [snapback]1481016[/snapback]

Why is there a sudden surge in support for lolbertarianism on this forum? Everywhere else in the world, it seems to have been recognised as being discredited, at least in its most rampant forms...

Discredit by who? Your collectivist liberal college professor who loves to teach people that if the government is big enough then all problems will be solved and gum drop trees will plop up everywhere while children play in the chocolate rivers that run through the land?

Libertarianism is gaining so much appeal over socialism because people are starting to see the negative effects of too much government. Look how well the war on drugs turned out. Look how well welfare turned out. Look how well the war in Iraq turned out etc.

I probably shouldn't have bothered responding, since you made no valid political or economic comment, you merely made a pun and used an appeal to authority.

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 30 2009, 03:54 PM) [snapback]1481098[/snapback]
its fashionable and trendwhorish...

ROFLMAO!

A political ideology is trendy? Nevermind all the countless works done by the Austrian school that explain much about economics, nevermind that Milton Friedman won a nobel prize and was an economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, nevermind that Margret Thatcher's understanding of economics came from the work of Hayek, and nevermind that Peter Schiff predicted the financial crises while the democrats and republican liberals were telling everyone how good things were. it's just a "trend". rolleyes.gif LOL.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 1 2009, 07:55 AM) [snapback]1481334[/snapback]
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Jan 29 2009, 12:16 PM) [snapback]1481016[/snapback]

Why is there a sudden surge in support for lolbertarianism on this forum? Everywhere else in the world, it seems to have been recognised as being discredited, at least in its most rampant forms...

Discredit by who? Your collectivist liberal college professor who loves to teach people that if the government is big enough then all problems will be solved and gum drop trees will plop up everywhere while children play in the chocolate rivers that run through the land?

Libertarianism is gaining so much appeal over socialism because people are starting to see the negative effects of too much government. Look how well the war on drugs turned out. Look how well welfare turned out. Look how well the war in Iraq turned out etc.

I probably shouldn't have bothered responding, since you made no valid political or economic comment, you merely made a pun and used an appeal to authority.
I study medicine. There's no need to be so presumptuous. I know, who the Hell am I, you've been learning about politics for 4 months or something now, what on Earth can a scientist know? Well I have this much on you: My views on politics are my own, and were not force-fed to me by some narrowly-read dickbag with a goatee, a degree in comparative politics, an Inland Revenue audit and no real life experience.

That you consider the war in Iraq and the war on drugs socialist conspiracies really shows that you need to read a few more books with a more open mind.

There aren't many things I know for sure, but I can recognise when a political movement recedes (no pun intended) in popularity because of a series of events. The basic point is, banks were not regulated, and the economy fell apart. I'm aware of all the libertarian arguments against that. These don't hold water out side of hardcore lolbert circles. I'm not going to derail the topic and argue about socialism against libertarianism (like I said, I don't know many things for sure, but you seem to have life figured out so I'll leave you to it) but it's quite clear that if there was anyone with mainstream political views could be bothered reading your long-ass posts and debunking them, the zeitgeist in this forum would be different. And it's no coincidence that the dumbest and most impressionable political community I've been part of has taken to libertarianism, against the prevailing tides of public opinion.

QUOTE
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Jan 30 2009, 03:54 PM) [snapback]1481098[/snapback]
its fashionable and trendwhorish...

ROFLMAO!

A political ideology is trendy? Nevermind all the countless works done by the Austrian school that explain much about economics, nevermind that Milton Friedman won a nobel prize and was an economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, nevermind that Margret Thatcher's understanding of economics came from the work of Hayek, and nevermind that Peter Schiff predicted the financial crises while the democrats and republican liberals were telling everyone how good things were. it's just a "trend". :rolleyes: LOL.
Do you have any idea what a trend is?

in b4 a specific definition that clearly isn't the one everyone else means.

[Edit] To stop weaseling, I'll just define it:

"1. the general course or prevailing tendency; drift: trends in the teaching of foreign languages; the trend of events.
2. style; vogue: the new trend in women's apparel.
3. the general direction followed by a road, river, coastline, or the like.
–verb (used without object)
4. to have a general tendency, as events, conditions, etc.
5. to tend to take a particular direction; extend in some direction indicated.

6. to veer or turn off in a specified direction, as a river, mountain range, etc.: The river trends toward the southeast. ."
- Random House

"trend noun 1 a general direction or tendency. 2 the current general movement in fashion, style, taste, etc. verb (trended, trending) intrans to turn or have a tendency to turn in a specified direction - Chambers

"Trend, n. Inclination in a particular direction; tendency; general direction; as, the trend of a coast." - Webster

"Thinking with a tendency toward or centreing on a particular idea with a particular affect." - Newcastle University medical school reference site

Synonyms (Thesaurus.com):
bias
cast
disposition
leaning
partiality
penchant
predilection
predisposition
proclivity
propensity
squint
tendency
Skinny 
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 2 2009, 08:19 AM) [snapback]1481393[/snapback]
you've been learning about politics for 4 months or something now

Wow. An appeal to ridicule. Didn't see that one coming.

QUOTE
Well I have this much on you: My views on politics are my own, and were not force-fed to me by some narrowly-read dickbag with a goatee, a degree in comparative politics, an Inland Revenue audit and no real life experience.
If they were your own, that would mean you reached your conclusion that the government was inherently a positive economic agent through an analysis. Since you gave no valid anti-libertarian response, I assumed this wasn't the case; you merely said "I thought it had been discredited" which is a clear appeal to authority.

QUOTE
That you consider the war in Iraq and the war on drugs socialist conspiracies really shows that you need to read a few more books with a more open mind.

Did I say socialist conspiracies? No, I implied that neoconservatism fails for the same reason socialism fails: too much government. Tell me, how is it that you think controlling people personal lives will fail, yet running their economic lives will be a rousing success? Because it seems there is a double standard applied here by the anti-war socialist. Tell me now, why can I have freedom over my body, but not freedom over the contents of my bank account?

And I have read some socialist work, and it was very hard not to dismiss it has a morality rant. I read some of Socialism After Hayek, and it basically said that people who buy things don't really own them, people only own what they build. It also advocated seizing all property owned by corporate stakeholders and handing it over to the workers (then what are people going to retire on?). This wasn't some crackpot junk found on a conspiracy site, this is an actual work often refereed to by socialists in debate.

QUOTE
I can recognise when a political movement recedes (no pun intended) in popularity because of a series of events.
Then why aren't you an anti-socialist? You would think once price control started destroying small businesses, the labour unions raped employment and welfare dependency started raping poor communities, you would give a sympathetic ear to the working class you think you are protecting, and denounce statism. So obviously you can't recognize when a serious of events make an ideology lose credibility. >>

QUOTE
The basic point is, banks were not regulated

Actually, that's not true at all. Watch the video I posted. The government, in their attempts to "make home ownership more achievable" sponsored thousands of bad loans from the financial institutions that them, and all the liberals thought were sound. You claim that only the interventionists understand the economic problems, then why was it a noninterventionist that predicted them?

[youtube]2I0QN-FYkpw[/youtube]


This actually rapes your argument that libertarians don't understand the problems, since we were the ones predicting it while the liberals fought us on the position (the man in that video was going to be Ron Paul's main economic adviser). Very amusing.

Also, would you care to explain why banks that want all their money back, are going to lend to someone who can't give it to them? That's like saying we should regulate football coaches to make sure they pick good players. The problem was that they were sponsored mortgages and they thought they had nothing to lose.

QUOTE
and the economy fell apart.
Also thought I'd point out that the economy hasn't fallen apart. The housing bubble burst so majority of companies have to downsize to meet the now lower demand for most products.

QUOTE
it's quite clear that if there was anyone with mainstream political views could be bothered reading your long-ass posts and debunking them, the zeitgeist in this forum would be different.

right, the zeitgeist on this forum is so libertarian because nobody has tried to debunk any of my posts... oh wait, punxtr tried in the drugs topic and psycho tried in this topic, so that flies in the face of your "nobody can be bothered arguing, that's why you don't get raped all over the forum for your absurd and radical beliefs" argument.

Also, I don't know where you argument that libertarianism isn't highly thought of in the eyes of the public came from. Ever heard of Ron Paul? The guy who won every text message/internet poll during the republican primaries? The guy who collected record amount of campaign donations? Clearly not, or you wouldn't be making such painfully simplistic statements.

QUOTE
Do you have any idea what a trend is?

QD's post implied that it was a trend, in the sense that people like the exotic label (hence why it followed the word 'fashionable'), this isn't the case, as the theories obviously have much basis in reality.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Looks like an appeal to wasting my time tbh.

I made an anthropological observation, and you try to cut it down with a factual argument. That shows a basic misunderstanding of what the hell either of us is talking about.

I made a factual argument, and you then started appealing to authority (Nobel prizes etc.).

I said nothing of the merit of either system. Stop trying to draw me into arguments so you can wag your dick around. I don't have an hour to answer each of your posts, I'm busy these days and frankly I have better ways to spend my rare free time than arguing with a testosteronal brick wall.

One thing I would like to say about all your arguments though: People's personal lives are made up of a series of tangible effects. The economy is an imaginary construct which cannot exist without enforcement, and did not exist before enforcement. The two are distinct, and this is an unanswerable truth. Call it an appeal to compassion and realism, if that suits you better.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 2 2009, 06:44 PM) [snapback]1481463[/snapback]
I made an anthropological observation, and you try to cut it down with a factual argument.

Actually, when you say things like "The basic point is, banks were not regulated, and the economy fell apart." or question how popular something is, you are using a factual argument, although you didn't provide any facts, where as I did...

QUOTE
I made a factual argument, and you then started appealing to authority (Nobel prizes etc.).
That wasn't an appeal to authority. You said it had been discredited everywhere except this forum; a libertarian winning a Nobel prize for his economic theories shows otherwise.

QUOTE
I said nothing of the merit of either system.

Actually, you did when you referred to it as "lolbertarianism" and said The basic point is, banks were not regulated, and the economy fell apart."

QUOTE
Stop trying to draw me into arguments so you can wag your dick around.
This is the political section. Why did you come in here and make a post if you weren't looking for a debate? Maybe next time you should keep your thought to yourself if you feel you are incapable of putting them down on paper (or in this case, a screen, whatever). And despite you "not having the time" you still seemed to respond to my posts.

QUOTE
I don't have an hour to answer each of your posts

It takes you an hour to make one of these posts? LOL.

QUOTE
People's personal lives are made up of a series of tangible effects.
You really need to elaborate more on this...

QUOTE
The economy is an imaginary construct which cannot exist without enforcement, and did not exist before enforcement.

No, this is a clear fallacy. Price fixing, minimum wages etc. are all somewhat new in the western world. There was free trade for hundreds of years before the new deal. Get your facts right.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Read back, you quoted the wrong part of my posts and answered them with information relevent to different kinds of arguments, as already specified.

I didn't come to the political board to have the argument you want to have, regardless of the topic.

It takes time to answer an argument properly. I know you're used to something a five year old could scrawl at recess.
Qdeathstar
Skinny, you must be taking English 101 or Philosophy 101... with all this "poor argument".... appeal this and appeal that...

thats great in philosophy class, but in the real world its meaningless.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 3 2009, 11:07 AM) [snapback]1481575[/snapback]
Skinny, you must be taking English 101 or Philosophy 101... with all this "poor argument".... appeal this and appeal that...

If an argument is poor or if someone is using an appeal to ridicule or authority fallacy, why not point it out?

And it applies perfectly well in real life. Appeals to ridicule (aka, personal attacks or ad hominem) are not valid in debate. I was simply pointing that out.

QUOTE(mello)
I didn't come to the political board to have the argument you want to have, regardless of the topic.

You came in and said "lolbertarianism was discredited lawls" then you backtracked and said you didn't want to have a discussion over the validity of such an system. Then why did you even make that post at all?

QUOTE
It takes time to answer an argument properly.
Yes, but it doesn't take an hour to respond to a post on this site, since they are usually a maximum of 50 lines >>

QUOTE
I know you're used to something a five year old could scrawl at recess.

Oh shit... another appeal to ridicule, didn't see that coming!!
cuda is your boi
QUOTE(Phil Mipe Enos @ Jan 28 2009, 01:16 AM) [snapback]1480913[/snapback]
Sad thing is, If Obama was white most people would shut the fuck up and not complain about him being elected. Sad but true.

Reality is that some people dont like him based on his beliefs, actions, etc. Then there are the others who will never like him because he is part 'black' and they come up with any little thing to try to make him look bad.

McCain would have been more of the same, and I can honestly say that me being black, I still would have voted for Obama even if he was white, although I know a lot of blacks who voted for Obama just because his race which imo is not right.

Too many racists in this country and for what? You cant help what color you are when you are born. And to call Obama black is just rediculous. Hes more white than anything, being raised by his white mother and white grandparents. Hes not black he is mixed and people who are racist can just fuck off. I dont agree with everything Obama says or has done yet but I dont think McCain was the right choice.

Btw you dont live in America so you have no say so. You couldn't vote. Worry about your own country

Political debating, still going strong @ gta4.tv

God bless America.
PabloHoneyOle
I heard a rumor that Obama is going to come over and fix the muffler that's been hanging off my car.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Whenever I make a valid point by hyperbole you call it an appeal to ridicule, every time I make a point which validly invokes a widely held opinion, you call it an appeal to authority and expect the argument to be done with.

QD is exactly right, it's freshman logic class fare, and isn't nearly as smart as you think it is.

As for the libertarianism post, it was in answer to one individual rant which was about nominating Psy for a white house run in 2012. I think an appeal to authority is not just the most insane thing when comparing this site with it's 14 year old userbase (AAAH APPEAL TO RIDICULE APPEAL TO RIDICULE FOURTEEN) to the wider world. It was not an invitation to argue about whether libertarianism or socialism is better. I didn't even mention socialism until you did. If you were smart, you would let this die. But you won't.

[Edit] By the way, appealing to popularity is closer to what I've been doing -- I've not dropped any names or that sort of thing. Close though, and I'm sure you'll learn about it next semester.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 4 2009, 07:38 AM) [snapback]1481747[/snapback]
Whenever I make a valid point by hyperbole you call it an appeal to ridicule

No, when you say use ad hominem or use ridicule, it's an appeal to ridicule. The only thing close to valid arguments you came out with was when you said there was deregulation in the banking sector, although you failed to show a previously existent regulation that could have prevented this crisis, that Bush supposedly did away with, and when you said that the market never existed without enforcement, although it has for hundereds of years before the new deal.

QUOTE
every time I make a point which validly invokes a widely held opinion, you call it an appeal to authority and expect the argument to be done with.
You really think that saying "the majority agrees with me, therefore, I am the victor" is a valid argument? Clearly not, as you shot down that line of logic in the drugs thread.

QUOTE
[Edit] By the way, appealing to popularity is closer to what I've been doing -- I've not dropped any names or that sort of thing. Close though, and I'm sure you'll learn about it next semester.

PROTIP: popular opinion is an authority. Although I haven't actually taken a class on this sort of thing, it's things that have been said on other online debates, don't assume.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 14 2009, 02:47 AM) [snapback]1483944[/snapback]
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 4 2009, 07:38 AM) [snapback]1481747[/snapback]
Whenever I make a valid point by hyperbole you call it an appeal to ridicule

No, when you say use ad hominem or use ridicule, it's an appeal to ridicule. The only thing close to valid arguments you came out with was when you said there was deregulation in the banking sector, although you failed to show a previously existent regulation that could have prevented this crisis, that Bush supposedly did away with, and when you said that the market never existed without enforcement, although it has for hundereds of years before the new deal.
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

QUOTE
QUOTE
every time I make a point which validly invokes a widely held opinion, you call it an appeal to authority and expect the argument to be done with.
You really think that saying "the majority agrees with me, therefore, I am the victor" is a valid argument? Clearly not, as you shot down that line of logic in the drugs thread.
Are you reading every second word? Or just ignoring the point? I don't expect that people should defer to public opinion, just highlighting that a concensus here means even less.

QUOTE
QUOTE
[Edit] By the way, appealing to popularity is closer to what I've been doing -- I've not dropped any names or that sort of thing. Close though, and I'm sure you'll learn about it next semester.

PROTIP: popular opinion is an authority. Although I haven't actually taken a class on this sort of thing, it's things that have been said on other online debates, don't assume.
Still, for all this weak philosophical language, I'd have hoped you'd have heard of the appropriate phrase.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 19 2009, 03:00 AM) [snapback]1484868[/snapback]
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

Partly. Many countries had massive trade tariffs or completely blocked all foreign trade back then, but other than that, the main factors weren't related to government: there were a lot of banks failing due to speculation by economists who thought they would fail, leading to mass with drawls from them. What would the government have done to stop this? Find better financial analysts and censored the rest? Oh, I forgot, the government is magic, and if we pay enough taxes and give up enough of our freedom, the government will be able to completely control what everyone does with, and says about their money, thereby ending all financial crisises, while Parliament house will shoot rainbows from it's flag pole, and children will frolic in the magic cola river that will run through the land.

Now how about actual proving that the great depression and the current crisis were caused by too much freedom, rather than making baseless blanket assertions?

QUOTE
I don't expect that people should defer to public opinion, just highlighting that a concensus here means even less.
And you also claimed that libertarianism had been discredited, although you were wrong. You also called it "lolbertarinanism" as though the idea that society can function as anything other than a collective oligarchy was laughable - and didn't back it up.

QUOTE
Still, for all this weak philosophical language, I'd have hoped you'd have heard of the appropriate phrase.

It was the appropriate phrase. The opinion of the majority is an authority.

And it's not philosophical language, not philosophical at all, it's purely systematic. Saying "you guys are stupid lolz" is ridicule, ridicule is not valid in debate, and therefore, you are using an appeal to ridicule.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 19 2009, 03:00 AM) [snapback]1484868[/snapback]
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

Partly. Many countries had massive trade tariffs or completely blocked all foreign trade back then, but other than that, the main factors weren't related to government: there were a lot of banks failing due to speculation by economists who thought they would fail, leading to mass with drawls from them. What would the government have done to stop this? Find better financial analysts and censored the rest? Oh, I forgot, the government is magic, and if we pay enough taxes and give up enough of our freedom, the government will be able to completely control what everyone does with, and says about their money, thereby ending all financial crisises, while Parliament house will shoot rainbows from it's flag pole, and children will frolic in the magic cola river that will run through the land.

Now how about actual proving that the great depression and the current crisis were caused by too much freedom, rather than making baseless blanket assertions?

QUOTE
I don't expect that people should defer to public opinion, just highlighting that a concensus here means even less.
And you also claimed that libertarianism had been discredited, although you were wrong. You also called it "lolbertarinanism" as though the idea that society can function as anything other than a collective oligarchy was laughable - and didn't back it up.

QUOTE
Still, for all this weak philosophical language, I'd have hoped you'd have heard of the appropriate phrase.

It was the appropriate phrase. The opinion of the majority is an authority.

And it's not philosophical language, not philosophical at all, it's purely systematic. Saying "you guys are stupid lolz" is ridicule, ridicule is not valid in debate, and therefore, you are using an appeal to ridicule.
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 14 2009, 02:47 AM) [snapback]1483944[/snapback]
You really think that saying "the majority agrees with me, therefore, I am the victor" is a valid argument?



yes, extremely valid argument. That is generally the case in society. Societal norms are, after all, created by and maintained by society.



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 19 2009, 08:37 AM) [snapback]1485157[/snapback]
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 19 2009, 03:00 AM) [snapback]1484868[/snapback]
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

Partly. Many countries had massive trade tariffs or completely blocked all foreign trade back then, but other than that, the main factors weren't related to government: there were a lot of banks failing due to speculation by economists who thought they would fail, leading to mass with drawls from them. What would the government have done to stop this? Find better financial analysts and censored the rest? Oh, I forgot, the government is magic, and if we pay enough taxes and give up enough of our freedom, the government will be able to completely control what everyone does with, and says about their money, thereby ending all financial crisises, while Parliament house will shoot rainbows from it's flag pole, and children will frolic in the magic cola river that will run through the land.



First of all, trade was a much smaller part of a nations GDP in the early 1930s, and its not like tarriffs were new, so its hard to make the argument that pre-existing tarriffs caused the great depression. You could make the argument that the tarrifs made the depression worse and the recovery slower, though.

Anything not related to government is something that is not regulated by government. AMIRITE? Im not sure if you noticed but Mello's "say overregulation plz" was sarcasm in case you missed it.

As you ramble on, you say that banks were failing to do a run on the banks. This is true, the reason this is true is like you said, people thought the banks would fail. The reason that the people thought the banks would fail is because there was no control over how much in costs banks to borrow money from other banks, making if difficult to determine whether or not banks could "borrow" enough money at a low enough cost to cover short term debts such as withdraws. The 'economists' decided the answer was no, so a run on the banks occurred, as people attempted to "get in before the lock". XD.png

As far as what the government could have done about that, you should look up something called a "federal reserve system". I'm guessing you'll find answers to your questions there.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 20 2009, 09:53 AM) [snapback]1485336[/snapback]
yes, extremely valid argument. That is generally the case in society. Societal norms are, after all, created by and maintained by society.

No, it's not a valid argument. Saying that libertarianism is unlikely to be used because people don't agree with it is valid, but saying it is a bad system, simply because the majority disagree with it, is not. You'll find that where ever you go, the majority always agrees with the government or else the government would not be there. You would basically be saying that every system of government that ever lasted more than 50 or so years, is effective and preferable.

QUOTE
You could make the argument that the tariffs made the depression worse and the recovery slower, though.
I didn't specify what damage the tariffs actually did. I merely said that some over regulation was a factor in the severity of the depression - although he was being sarcastic, it's important that this be pointed out.

QUOTE
Anything not related to government is something that is not regulated by government. AMIRITE?

Not necessarily. To say this is to say that every problem in the economy happens because the government fails to stop it. Sometimes the government can't do anything; but the utopian liberals insist on pushing their fallacies in saying the government can fix all problems simply by controlling everything that can cause a problem.

QUOTE
The reason that the people thought the banks would fail is because there was no control over how much in costs banks to borrow money from other banks, making if difficult to determine whether or not banks could "borrow" enough money at a low enough cost to cover short term debts such as withdraws.
Actually, the main cause for confusion and such in the banking sector wasn't too much freedom (or if it was, you will have to prove it). I'd say it was the sudden increase in the money supply before the 1920s, then the removal of more than a third of the currency in circulation:

"Following Friedman and Schwartz (1965), most U.S. economists nowadays seem to agree that the severity of the Great Depression cannot be explained without reference to the unprecedented contraction of the U.S. money si.tpply. From August 1929 to March 1933, the broad money supply (M2) decreased by more than a third."

If a free banking system had been used, there would have been no federal reserve board with the power to increase/decrease the money supply, this wouldn't have been an issue.

QUOTE
As far as what the government could have done about that, you should look up something called a "federal reserve system".

Yeah they should have used one of this in 1929... oh wait, one had been in operation for sixteen years prior to the stock market crash. Imagine that.

Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 20 2009, 05:19 AM) [snapback]1485491[/snapback]
No, it's not a valid argument. Saying that libertarianism is unlikely to be used because people don't agree with it is valid, but saying it is a bad system, simply because the majority disagree with it, is not. You'll find that where ever you go, the majority always agrees with the government or else the government would not be there. You would basically be saying that every system of government that ever lasted more than 50 or so years, is effective and preferable.


No, i would actually be saying that any government which doesn't currently exist was uneffective and unpreferable.

Secondly, your wrong.


QUOTE

didn't specify what damage the tariffs actually did. I merely said that some over regulation was a factor in the severity of the depression
OOOOHHHH.

You could look at the tarrifs in more than way. The tarrifs helped to isolate economies so one could make the argument that the tarrifs slowed the pace of the expansion of the recession. Im not going to argue that point, but you could if you wanted to. Secondly, like i said before, tarrifs played a small roll in this and really only came into facter AFTER the recession had started. The recession started for reasons i've already mentioned.

QUOTE

QUOTE
Anything not related to government is something that is not regulated by government. AMIRITE?

Not necessarily. To say this is to say that every problem in the economy happens because the government fails to stop it.


Do you say "to say this" when you speak, if you don't you should try to type with fake eloquence. Because its painfully fake.

Finally, your analogy makes no sense. I said nothing about the economy, problems, are what the government does or doesn't do. I say does not you say i say does too.


As far as your last bit, prior to 1929 the federal reserve system had very limited powers and a very limited knowledge of how the economy worked. Economics is a new science, remember.

We are talking about today however, and no matter what happened in 1929 its incorrect to say today that deregulation of the banks was the best thing since sliced bread. Because thats obviously wrong. look where we are at now.
Skinny 
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 20 2009, 05:08 PM) [snapback]1485507[/snapback]
No, i would actually be saying that any government which doesn't currently exist was uneffective and unpreferable.

Duh, but many that do exist are ineffective and not preferable. Communism, for one.

QUOTE
You could look at the tarrifs in more than way. The tarrifs helped to isolate economies so one could make the argument that the tarrifs slowed the pace of the expansion of the recession.
That's exactly what they did. What's your point? Large tariffs and isolationism, like most policies, have many negatives and positives. The negatives outweigh the positives, when it comes to isolationism.

QUOTE
Secondly, like i said before, tarrifs played a small roll in this and really only came into facter AFTER the recession had started.

I even said that they were not a major factor. But they are a form of over regulation and did contribute to the severity of the depression, amirite?

QUOTE
Do you say "to say this" when you speak, if you don't you should try to type with fake eloquence. Because its painfully fake.
I think you've just made the least relevant point I have ever seen, congratulations. If you really wanted to know how I speak in comparison to how I type, you should have asked me on MSN, since it has nothing to do with our debate about political economy. V_V

QUOTE
Finally, your analogy makes no sense.

It wasn't an analogy. I'm simply saying the government can't fix everything, as the collectivists would have us believe.

QUOTE
prior to 1929 the federal reserve system had very limited powers
And yet it managed to play around with the money supply and contribute greatly to bank failures (see the source in my last post).

QUOTE
its incorrect to say today that deregulation of the banks was the best thing since sliced bread.

What deregulation was this? You still haven't pointed to a regulation in the banking sector that was used prior to the Bush years, that he removed.
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 20 2009, 10:29 AM) [snapback]1485526[/snapback]
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 20 2009, 05:08 PM) [snapback]1485507[/snapback]
No, i would actually be saying that any government which doesn't currently exist was uneffective and unpreferable.

Duh, but many that do exist are ineffective and not preferable.


ineffective and not preferable, from whose perspective? Yours. I'm sure that Kim Jong Ill (or whatever) finds his form of government very effective and very preferable, and he's subjects are just fine with it aswell.

As far as your jip on communism, China appears to be doing just fine under communist rule.

QUOTE

QUOTE
You could look at the tarrifs in more than way. The tarrifs helped to isolate economies so one could make the argument that the tarrifs slowed the pace of the expansion of the recession.
That's exactly what they did. What's your point? Large tariffs and isolationism, like most policies, have many negatives and positives. The negatives outweigh the positives, when it comes to isolationism.


Thats why i said i wouldn't make that argument, only that you could. The argument im making is that the tarriffs didn't matter as far as the start of the depression. And, maybe not at all. America is the most pro-free-trade government in the world but it didn't help out this time around..

QUOTE

QUOTE
Secondly, like i said before, tarrifs played a small roll in this and really only came into facter AFTER the recession had started.

I even said that they were not a major factor. But they are a form of over regulation and did contribute to the severity of the depression, amirite?


There's no evidence in this specific case that free trade would have helped, because in this case there were other much more significant barriers to trading. And there were also much more significant factors that contributed to the severity of the depression. If you want a cookie for your point, have one, but tarriffs didn't pay a significant role, and if they didn't they don't matter as far as im concerned.


QUOTE

QUOTE
Do you say "to say this" when you speak, if you don't you should try to type with fake eloquence. Because its painfully fake.
I think you've just made the least relevant point I have ever seen, congratulations. If you really wanted to know how I speak in comparison to how I type, you should have asked me on MSN, since it has nothing to do with our debate about political economy. V_V


Cookie. Im not the one arguing argumentative stylings, but since you brought it up id figured id give you a few pointers...

QUOTE

QUOTE
Finally, your analogy makes no sense.

It wasn't an analogy. I'm simply saying the government can't fix everything, as the collectivists would have us believe.



Key words, IS LIKE SAYING. It was an analogy. A stupid one, but then again you don't even know what an analogy is... shame.

QUOTE

QUOTE
prior to 1929 the federal reserve system had very limited powers
And yet it managed to play around with the money supply and contribute greatly to bank failures (see the source in my last post).


They still had very limited powers compared to what they have today. Selective quoting makes you look like an idiot.

QUOTE

QUOTE
its incorrect to say today that deregulation of the banks was the best thing since sliced bread.

What deregulation was this? You still haven't pointed to a regulation in the banking sector that was used prior to the Bush years, that he removed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Skinny 
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 21 2009, 11:30 AM) [snapback]1485722[/snapback]
I'm sure that Kim Jong Ill (or whatever) finds his form of government very effective and very preferable, and he's subjects are just fine with it aswell.

And that's the exact point I'm trying to make. Even though communist countries suck to live under, the majority still agrees with it. You could argue that communism works in some places, but we both know it doesn't.

QUOTE
As far as your jip on communism, China appears to be doing just fine under communist rule.
Nice try. China is no longer Communist, that's why there are private businesses everywhere. And Hong Kong is one of the least regulated economies on earth.

QUOTE
The argument im making is that the tarriffs didn't matter as far as the start of the depression.

Yes, I know they were a minor factor, I was only mentioning them and their effects to be a smart arse to Mello, who seemed to reject the idea that it was a lack of freedom that contributed to the depression.

QUOTE
There's no evidence in this specific case that free trade would have helped
I've already provided a link that showed the damage done by the federal reserve, and isolationism, although a minor contributer, was a contributer non the less. New departments of government and anti-trust regulations set the stage for the collapse, as well.

QUOTE
It was an analogy.

It wasn't. Blaming every problem in the economy on too much freedom, literally is pretending that the government can fix all problems in the economy.

QUOTE
They still had very limited powers compared to what they have today.
Yes, and this isn't a good thing. You didn't debunk the link about an increase then a decrease in the money supply and how that contributed to confusion and other problems.

QUOTE

That was done in 1999 so that lies on Billy Bob Clinton, if it did any damage. You still need to show that allowing people to invest and save at the same bank crumbled the world economy, as you would suggest.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.