You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anybody else supporting Ron Paul for President '08?
- Thread starter ultimaonliner
- Start date
Quote from Turok:
Shoe, let me start out by stating (again) that I'm pro-choice. However, I agree with you that it is a 'states rights' issue IMO.
Now, for your comments:
Shoe:
>That's just one of the many ethical problems with the
>pro-choice argument. There is no good way any
>longer to define "early enough". With improved
>medical technology, fetuses are viable at an increasily
>early age with each passing year.
The above argument is absolutely devoid of logic -- there is now and always has been a good way to define "early enough". It's called "viability". Has viability been a moving target through the ages? -- yes, but so what ... the "early enough" line just moves with it.
Now, if I were King, in my country I would add a nice safety cushion to the viability point and currently would say no abortions after the first trimester.
>So viability and all the other worn out arguments
>just do not hold up any more.
That's so much crap Shoe. It doesn't matter how far back you go, for you there NEVER would have been any arguments that held up. Therefore, for you to say that they don't hold up "anymore" is transparently disengenuous.
Now, for the record, I have no problem whatsoever with your anti-abortion stand (if it doesn't hold any hypocritical crannies) and respect your right to it. Just don't go claiming that an argument you never would have accepted ANYTIME is now 'no longer valid'.
JB
King Turok?!? It's got a nice ring to it, I have to admit...
Well, then, let's hope it goes to the States!
Quote from Turok:
Wallet:
>Obviously you have never spent any time with those
>that have had abortions and suffer the permanent
>psychological scars of doubt and regret that are
>inflicted upon oneâs life afterwards.
You can stop with the self righteous position that your crowd cares about "psychological scars of doubt and regret". The anti-abortion crowd pushes adoption as an alternative and those same "psychological scars of doubt and regret" haunt the women who have taken that option.
Birth control, education, jobs, sex education, elimination of poverty and a less puritanical and less marketed/sensational view of sex in this country is the answer -- no scars there.
Though I disagree with it, I have no disrespect for a consistent "it's murder" position on abortion -- so argue from merit, not some tangential crap that effects all women differently.
JB
This is strictly anecdotal, but I've never known any (decent) parent who has regretted having kids. On the flip side I have known a couple of women who have had abortions and it haunts them day and night...
Shoe:
>This strictly anecdotal, but I've never
>known any (decent) parent who has
>regretted having kids.
I certainly never know any (decent) parents who would use the term "regret" when asked about their children, but that's asking the wrong question (if you want an honest answer). A better question is -- "if you could go back, would you intentionally make different/better choices, and would those choices have led to the same children you have now?".
>On the flip side I have known a couple of
>women who have had abortions and it haunts
>them day and night...
So, I suppose you will argue *against* adoption as an option for young unwed mothers since I know a couple of women who gave up their children and are haunted just the same? I didn't think so.
I think you really are one of the good guys Shoe, but I sure hate some of your double standards.
Hope things are well with your family. Peace.
JB
>This strictly anecdotal, but I've never
>known any (decent) parent who has
>regretted having kids.
I certainly never know any (decent) parents who would use the term "regret" when asked about their children, but that's asking the wrong question (if you want an honest answer). A better question is -- "if you could go back, would you intentionally make different/better choices, and would those choices have led to the same children you have now?".
>On the flip side I have known a couple of
>women who have had abortions and it haunts
>them day and night...
So, I suppose you will argue *against* adoption as an option for young unwed mothers since I know a couple of women who gave up their children and are haunted just the same? I didn't think so.
I think you really are one of the good guys Shoe, but I sure hate some of your double standards.
Hope things are well with your family. Peace.
JB
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Well, let me say why I said what I did. Many US exporters are already doing incredibly well because of the falling dollar. If the dollar drops another 20-30%, then imo this will have a drastic effect on our exports. We will almost overnight become an exporting powerhouse which is what an economy like ours was born to do. There is no country that can compete with us in terms of innovation and creativity and that should make us export kings.
But as long as China and other countries artificially prop up the dollar, it ain't gonna happen.
We are already seeing this happen, btw, due to the falling dollar:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/10/shrinking-us-trade-deficit.html
This type of scenario spells financial ruin for the United States.
Hyperinflation.
Loss of Reserve Currency Status.
Total debasement of the Countrys wealth (Poor and Middle class broke in the streets).
Standard of living flushed down the toilet.
All so we can compete globally based on LABOR.
Hyper-inflation would turn back the clock on about 150 years of economic progress.
Good idea.
Quote from Dr.Greenback:
The support for Ron Paul on the internet and these shills who promote him is scary. Ron Paul is the classic demagogue, and his cult following of conspiracy theorist and doomsayer over the internet is similar to a Howard Stern gubernatorial campaign.
Amazing how no one mentions Mr.Paul's opposition to the civil rights act 1964 or, his blatantly racist views on the LA riots.
Why don't we nominate Lou Dobbs for president or any other sensationalist out there we can find. And no, this is not a partisan viewpoint just honest opinion based on fact.
Right..he chose not to fund black and hispanic colleges with federal money because he hates blacks and hispanics...NOT!
It's called collectivism..
and that belief is inherently racist...
"We don't get our rights because we are gay, or women, or a minority. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals, so every individual should be treated the same way"
Dr. Paul...
Quote from achilles28:
This type of scenario spells financial ruin for the United States.
Hyperinflation.
Loss of Reserve Currency Status.
Total debasement of the Countrys wealth (Poor and Middle class broke in the streets).
Standard of living flushed down the toilet.
All so we can compete globally based on LABOR.
Hyper-inflation would turn back the clock on about 150 years of economic progress.
Good idea.
I disagree. I think we're headed toward a period of stagflation not hyperinflation as our economy adjusts to the "new world order". The dollar will probably fall very slowly over time and it will be ugly for awhile.
Remember that the export part of our economy will be stronger which will keep our GDP from falling. But I don't believe we'll get hyerinflation because wages can no longer spiral out of control - you said it yourself.
The picture is a slowly growing or stagnant GDP with some inflation from energy and rising import costs. That's stagflation not hyperinflation.
But my real point is this: it's going to happen. The dollar will continue to fall gradually. And as this happens our economy and society will have to adjust. We cannot impose tariffs or avoid the Chinese or any other low cost provider.
It's going to be an interesting ride...
Quote from Turok:
Shoe:
>This strictly anecdotal, but I've never
>known any (decent) parent who has
>regretted having kids.
I certainly never know any (decent) parents who would use the term "regret" when asked about their children, but that's asking the wrong question (if you want an honest answer). A better question is -- "if you could go back, would you intentionally make different/better choices, and would those choices have led to the same children you have now?".
>On the flip side I have known a couple of
>women who have had abortions and it haunts
>them day and night...
So, I suppose you will argue *against* adoption as an option for young unwed mothers since I know a couple of women who gave up their children and are haunted just the same? I didn't think so.
I think you really are one of the good guys Shoe, but I sure hate some of your double standards.
Hope things are well with your family. Peace.
JB
Things are going good overall - thx. Hope you're doing the same...
I'm not sure I understand your point here about adoption. Let's say a couple with no health or other major issues decided to adopt out their child - and I knew a couple who did this - and then years later regretted the decision and was "haunted day and night" by it.
And you could say the same thing about an unwed mother - assuming she had no health or other major issues. If she is going to be bothered by it the rest of her life, maybe it wasn't the best decision for her?
Well, that's a potential argument against adoption under these circumstances, right? In other words, if a certain behavior leads to emotional disturbances in the majority of people, then I don't see how that can be a positive?
You would (I think) use this same type of argument with me regarding certain issues dealing with homosexuality, so I don't think I'm out of line here...
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I disagree. I think we're headed toward a period of stagflation not hyperinflation as our economy adjusts to the "new world order". The dollar will probably fall very slowly over time and it will be ugly for awhile.
Remember that the export part of our economy will be stronger which will keep our GDP from falling. But I don't believe we'll get hyerinflation because wages can no longer spiral out of control - you said it yourself.
The picture is a slowly growing or stagnant GDP with some inflation from energy and rising import costs. That's stagflation not hyperinflation.
But my real point is this: it's going to happen. The dollar will continue to fall gradually. And as this happens our economy and society will have to adjust. We cannot impose tariffs or avoid the Chinese or any other low cost provider.
It's going to be an interesting ride...
No offense, but your grasp of the macro picture is poor.
For the USD to fall another 30%, Fed Money printing at home must match.
Inflation is already in the high single digits.
That kind of money printing would absolutely stimulate wage push inflation (you misinterpreted my original post. Wage push inflation has started already).
The entire middle class gets robbed on T-Bills, IRAs', Mutual Funds and Savings Accounts as the Fed sucks the nations wealth through the 'hidden tax' to the tune of 10%+ a year.
China would decouple the Yuan (even higher import prices) and the bond markets would tank.
Now the critical part.
With inflation running at 15%+, whose going to finance our bloated Deficit at 5% a year when domestic inflation is running nearly 3 TIMES THAT?
Seriously think about that for a minute.
The macroeconomic picture is far more complex then these throw-away rationalizations - "if the dollars cheaper, we export more" - lead people to believe.
Going back to the discussion, at ~15% inflation and 5% yields, foreigners will not finance our Federal Debt.
So what now?
Jack up rates and make bonds more attractive? Guess what happens then?
The markets and the entire Global Economy tank. TANK.
Whats the other option?
Monetize the deficit. ie. Print money out of thin air
This is the only viable solution and this will absolutely lead to HYPER inflation.
Prices go up by an easy 50% or more.
Guess what happens to the US Dollar then???
Guess what happens to the nations collective wealth? The elderly, the young, the middle class and poor??
GONE. OVERNIGHT.
Americans who aren't fully vested in physical assets (RE, commodities, metals), lose most of their savings to the Fed. Albeit obviously criminal and immoral, this is desirable how????
As far the as the US Dollar - the world makes a run on it.
With its coveted reserve status obliterated, so to its inflated valuation goes down the toilet (see the IMF report).
The dollar could easily drop another 50% or MORE from there.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Wild printing during inflationary times is about the worst thing Government could do.
But alas, it may very well happen.