That's pretty much every political argument in our current state. There's no point. That's too vague. What I mean is arguments that try to put the blame on one person in particular.
I rethought this whole thing, and I wrongly gave you -rep. I will give you rep+ as soon as possible to sort it out. I will also read the sources you have named in this post. Peace, stay smokin'
What you guys don't realize is that it's on a larger scale. There is really no left or right side. Everything is carefully mapped out and calculated to the point where you have the illusion of free will and choice. Is that really too difficult to understand? Listen, I could spoon feed you guys for days and all you would do is complain about the taste. I don't have to prove anything to you if I can see it's a waste of my time. At this point all I can ask is that you be open minded and aware of the deception that has plagued man since the dawn of time. I could say much more but I can see that it is just going to lead to more 'arguing" instead of debating. The difference is that one is done with good intention. The other is done irrationally and is completely destructive and useless. I have only spoken my opinion and I was received with hostility. We are supposed to live in a society that encourages a free flow of new ideas but instead people choose to shut that free flow off. This is neglecting novelty. Novelty is the pillar of evolution. I'm done. This thread was apparently a waste of time and I am sorry for disturbing your monkey brains. Now insult me and flame me all you want but if you read half of the books I've consumed you would see my view point with so much more clarity. Free your mind and save your soul. 2012 Till Infinity ~~~1~~~
Why are you getting so defensive? I don't see where anyone has attacked you on this page. Or is it because you don't feel like looking up all the information you'd need to support your theories? You say we have "monkey brains" then you go on to say we can insult you? Thanks for the permission. Oh, and reading more books has the possibility of clouding your thoughts just as much as opening your mind, when you consume more information than you can handle. If you have any solid information I'm sure people would be willing to look at it. Mind you none of this was a flame, so please don't respond with a "Saw that coming, I'm done with you monkies."
I understand what you are trying to say with your message. But I also think you are giving too little credit to a lot of citizens (NOTE: "a lot" and NOT "the majority"). Most of the people that I really, really know understand that the government is just a show, the president just a figurehead... We are just trying to make our situation liveable. There's not a lot we can do as far as change, the system is already in effect and has been for too long, but there's still a possibility of making it a little more comfortable the American people.
Wow. So my last post was really just a waste of my time huh? You ARE delusional, as I said sorry for insulting you as well as apologizing in general and was trying to make amends. I even agreed to read up on the points you stated. Fact is, you just obviously crave attention and are using the forums to get it. Too bad, because you have no more of mine, as you are a waste of valuable time. You also contradict yourself with, "Novelty is the pillar of evolution." If this is so, then why not accept Obama? Is he not new to our society? Yes he is. You are talking random bullshit trying to seem smart, and get extra defensive at the wrong times. Well, now is the right time. Take this as the official insult, and I'm not taking it back, as you are a very messed up person. Also, don't try to be sentimental when you can't even make sense of it.
It's more complex than you know. If you would like then I will suggest some material that is along the lines of my train of thought. The Psychopath's Bible - Christopher Hyatt The Lucifer Principle - Howard Bloom The Invisible Landscape - Terrence Mckenna True Hallucinations - Terrence Mckenna Exegesis - Phillip K. Dick Liber Null & Psychonaut - Peter J. Carroll Condensed Chaos - Phil Hine Disinformation (TV Series) Everything By Edgar Allen Poe Stuff from H.P LoveCraft Stephen King stuff I know that I probably haven't organized all of this information in the easiest format to digest. That is the ONLY reason some of you think what I'm saying isn't credible information. If I had taken the time to rigorously do such a thing then maybe I would have gotten better reactions. The thing is that I'm not obsessed with attention or anything lame like that. I have a life. I don't even like the internet. I'm only telling you the truth in a way that, while not the most effective, is still the truth. You don't have to agree with everything I say but I at least hope that you can read between the lines that are being drawn in this day and age. Magic(k) is the art of deception. That alone should speak volumes. It's like the one sheep that tries to tell the others what happens to them. Each sheep follows the other because of herd mentality and they verbally (or physically) attack that black sheep. It's because they are conditioned into doing so. We are constantly being manipulated and when you awaken yourself from this illusion you are perceptive to things that you had never even thought existed. Why is it that Aristotle can talk metaphysics but when I do it I'm somehow insane or on "mephedrone"? Why is it that spiritual subject matter makes people uneasy and gives them the impression that there is "something wrong with me."? Whatever. I'm not asking you guys to believe me. I'm doing a noble deed whether you realize it or not. ~~~1~~~
To question your logic is not to attack you. Simply saying, I am so smart and you are so dumb does not betoken intelligence - its the logic of children. Clearly, you can not address basic flaws in your argument whatsoever. All you can do is whine. You said to read Nietzsche to learn about how we are all herd mentality, but funny how you can not respond when I point out your own logic runs counter to the source you cite. How is saying I am just attacking you and how stupid I am because I don't get your point (in your fevered mind) logical? You can't even address basic contradictions in your argument, are you unable to see them or are you just ignoring them so you can whine? Well, since your principal answer to everything is to tell people to read your sources and how smart you are, rather than address logical points, I guess I will abandon your silly thread and offer the following - and yes, NOW I am insulting you. You are rather inarticulate and I do not think I have seen worse basic sentence structure and use of the English language. You claim to be an author, well read, and have amazing intelligence but quite frankly your writing style and word choice is on par with a 12 year old. I truly have never seen such horrid fundamental construction of a paragraph in a very long time. If you are so smart, why do you structure your points and write like a child? All you can do is employ simpleton reductions to the absurd. I think you are a liar and mentally ill, and not because I disagree with you. I believe you are a liar because no one who scored so high on the SAT English section like you claim to would write the way you do with so many fundamental writing errors. Spoon feed? Learn what a sentence fragment and chopped paragraph is first...you should know what it is, given your claim of being so genius. Pick up an elementary English textbook and learn how to write before you spoon feed anyone. Anyone who is as wise as you would not have the drive and need to repeat over and over again how smart you are. You look utterly ridiculous otherwise claiming to be smart but writing like a fool. I think you are mentally ill because you exhibit a napoleon complex, visceral empathetic response reflexes and bipolar thought process. I feel sorry for you, I truly do. I know you want to be hailed as a visionary who is providing truth to all, some sort of neo-prophet. You have such a need to have others think you are intelligent it's pathetic and quite sad - the desperation of your need that people think you are brilliant is so clear. Finally, you can think and call me anything you like. Unlike yourself, I am secure in my intellectual abilities, have no need to play your childish game of listing my CV and do not care what complete strangers on the internet think of me. Someday I hope you can achieve that yourself, but I highly doubt it. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
It's not a "bad" thing, but it is extremely misleading. Saving $2 trillion sounds a lot better than saving $400 billion. Plus, considering the economic volatility in the world today, which often leads to political, social, and military volatility, those $1.6 trillion not spent on Iraq could easily be eaten up through some other, unforeseen situation. I see no reason to put faith in economic predictions going out 10 years made by the same people who had been continually downplaying the impending market collapse over the last 2 or so years. I love this argument. This is Obama's presidency, and those who fail to see that are chugging down a little too much Kool-Aid. The man is not going to come out on day and say "Ok, problem solved, let's embrace capitalism again." Since being elected, the Dow Jones has dropped something like 30%, an unprecedented drop and one directly related to Congress and the Administration's actions. There is far more fear than confidence amongst the people who, quite literally, control the economy. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. Consider his voting record and background, including admittedly aligning himself in college with Marxist professors and student organizations, and tell me that he or anyone who truly believes in his policies (which is a much smaller group than those who support the man himself) do not see the benefits of running the economy into the ground to start anew on his terms.
No matter what you think of Obama's policies, it is very clear that his budget projections contain unrealistic assumptions about GNP growth and the net effect of tax raises. To be fair, all previous presidents did the same, however, I think it is fair to point out that Obama has said he wants transparency and end politics as usual and his projections most certainly do no. The stock market is generally, but not always completely, a leading indicator of future economic actives. One very large component of the price of a stock is the expectation of how that stock itself or the underlying company will perform in the future - most people generally plan to hold their investments over the long term. That is why many companies (Google for example) have share prices that outstrip their current earnings (the P/E ratio). Think about 9/11, the market suffered significant declines after the event not because profitable companies suddenly became less profitable after that event. It declined because of the uncertainty that future economic activity would continue as it always did. -
I'm getting mixed messages from XxChaosXLovexX, but that may be my fault. I'm trying to make sense of it, and here's how I interpret his assertions (which are paraphrased and in boldface): XxChaosXLovexX: Life is an illusion We are always being deceived You cannot see that, or you don't want to Okay, we're being deceived. Now what? If everything is an illusion, shouldn't we still think as rationally as possible and always choose what we think is best? Or should we be so skeptical of everything that we never choose anything, and the Machine chugs on as we sit on the sidelines? EG, Obama vs. McCain. Let's say we assume both are misleading us because they're in power. If you want to call one better than the other or simply the lesser of two evils, aren't we still to choose one? In other words, we have two choices: rail against it, or work with it. I would agree that railing against it can certainly be the more noble choice (provided our actions mirror our rants), but if we don't, then shouldn't we at least participate in the best way we can? XxChaosXLovexX: I am very smart You are not smart because I assume you haven't read what I have You hunt for deception, but I suspect you're deceiving yourself first and foremost. You praised Socrates and Terrance McKenna, but I doubt either of them would support your self-elevation. XxChaosXLovexX: You're all attacking my words, not my ideas All of you are posting hostile responses We use words to express our ideas, and your words are hostile. For someone who claims to see deception and reality clearly (I inferred this, admittedly), you don't seem to understand that an abrasive post will invite abrasive responses. And honestly I think those responses have been more civil than you've been. Perhaps you say, "Ah, the hell with civility, you're all a bunch of little girls living in a dream world," or something to that effect. Well, like it or not, civility in discourse allows for the greatest flow of ideas. --- I think most of us understand that people in power are going to deceive us to some degree or another. In the recent election I watched more than my fair share of pundits and politicians argue their sides, and I couldn't find any reasons why to vote for the Republican party, the party that opposes everything I believe. Like anyone else who voted, I had to make a choice and I did. My question: when the conversation is over and the dust has settled, what are we supposed to do?
Lucifer means bringer of the light. It DOES NOT means satan. You're using logic thoughts in realistic world. It does not work. AND, I don't see you backing up the evidence.
Oh and appearance isn't important for republicans, What about all the racist west virginians who didn't vote for obama soley BECAUSE he was black? What if a black man , or a mexican ran for republican nominee? Do you think they would gain huge support from the base of the republican party? This is whats wrong with our politics. Everything comes down to petty bullshit argueing about about your party did this or that. Shut the fuck up and get something done.
When did I mention parties? Notice how I didn't capitalize the "d" in democratic? Both parties are equally devoted to perpetuating their false dichotomy, and you prove that point very well. You are clown shoes.
Haha Kool-aid... Good one. I've never failed to accept this as Obama's presidency, but he is not at fault for our current situation. If you expected things to rebound instantly once he was elected, I think you're the one that needs to lay off the kool-aid for a little while Haven't you seen The Dark Knight? Remember the line Harvey delivered, "The night is darkest just before the dawn... " Who the hell are they to say what the "normal process of economic recovery" would be in this situation? Has any of those salty economists ever seen a scenario like ours before in U.S. history? Well you know what they say, once you hit rock bottom things can only get better.
Examine the 1921 depression; started off worse than the great depression, but only lasted 1 year. What's the difference between that one and the Great Depression? Government intervention. The hands off approach allowed the market to liquidate the bad debt, or mark to market the toxic assets, and real prices were recognized instantly allowing the economy to carry forward. Instead of using corporate welfare to fix prices (like we're trying to do now with housing) the government let the private sector deal with it. Hoover's interventionism throughout the next decade created an unsustainable boom (parallels the 90s) and then FDR comes in with the destructive New Deal. Nobel prize winning economists then, such as Hayek, recognized then the negative effects this had on the recovery process... as that depression lasted 15 years. Sadly, history is written by the statist victors so you were indoctrinated through public education to believe that FDR was a saint and the New Deal benefited anybody. Obama's policy only helps the private interests that control DC, the corporatocracy; the various industrial complexes that lobby congress and support the political campaigns of corrupt politicians. It is not Obama's fault, but he hasn't changed any of our policies. We are spending our way out of a problem that arose from spending... does that make sense to you?
Definately, I agree with that. But I also think that part of our current problem was because we have been using an entirely hands-off system, where private entities are completely in control of our economy. What I don't think anyone truly knows is how to fix this... At least right now.
I think arronman stated it pretty much right. Of course it is not Obama's fault personally that we are in the muck we are in. One might advance the point that previous administration/congress that shared Obama's fiscal policy ideology was a cause of the situation in terms of US Debt. But, this is rather fair to say because Mr. Obama himself, and others, quite openly claim that the limited government policys of the past have been repudiated as failure. This factually is not correct, however, because Bush did not follow a 'conservative' fiscal policy whatsoever. Yes, one might rail against the cost of the Iraq war, but if you go back and take a look, Bush's medicare drug program cost, and will cost, extremely more than the entire supplemental defense spending for the wars. Social Security entitlements alone cost us roughly 150% more than the defense budget. If you notice, many many people who are harshing on Obama also harsh on the Republican party - I would bet arronman et al doesn't care for the Republican party much either. But, just so there isn't a digression - no one in their right mind would blame Obama personally for getting us into this mess. It is entirely logical to judge Obama on his plans to 'fix' the situation - I think he has said to his credit, that the success or failure of his administration will be judged on his ability to do this. In that vein, I believe his programs are going to be incredibily harmful in the long run. Any short term benefits of the stimulus program will be outweighed by the long term effects of it. Many economists, including many who initally supported Mr. Obama, share this opinion. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (the CBO) stated this exact point in their analysis. One very much can say a big factor in the continued decline of the stock market is due to the markets not finding his programs beneficial in the long run. I'll be fair and say perhaps the markets would decline the same, or even more, if the stimulus failed and a supply-side solution was passed instead, but there is no way to know that obviously. I would be happy to bore you to death and give you complete specifics on why I, the CBO, and large numbers of economists think this. Very basically, the stimulus package will end up costing significantly more over than the long term than the administration claims. They use projections that basically assume that interest paid on the debt issued will not be 'rolled over' and rather paid per year. As well as growth rates that are not accurate (3.9% growth in 2009? Seriously now). Impossible and wont happen. Although every previous president used this trick, that doesn't mean Obama should get a pass for doing it as well. So you don't think I am pulling it out of my ass, the formula for net cost is below. One final point. Does anyone seriously believe that Tim Geithner was the BEST person to manage the Treasury Department during this crisis? One of the reasons that it costs more to withdraw funds from many bank's ATM than it is to purchase one share of said bank is the fundamental inability for the Obama administration to detail an exact plan how to address the banking crisis. We still have no clue if we are going to do a nationalization program, a 'bad bank' solution like we did in the S & L crisis, or what we are going to do. Indeed, people in the administration, when asked who the "go to guy" is on economic matters, whom do they say? Mr. Geithner, no, Lawrence Summers. When Paul Krugman, definitely no conservative whatsoever, criticizes Geithner, can anyone doubt that his performance thus far has been a disaster? [To calculate the net cost of the stimulus (or any government spending done in deficit, use the formula of: The interest q/N applies to the newly evaluated debt of P(1 + q/N) which leads to P(1 + q/N) + P(1 + q/N)·q/N = P(1 + q/N)2. After the N-th evaluation, the actual debt will grow to P(1 + q/N)N]
My apologies that I actually gave concrete information than jumped up and down making non sequitur, illogical statements then whine that you are all stupid and sheep because you haven't read the books I have and you can't keep up with me. Waaa, my IQ is higher than yours, waaaa, you said I got pwned, waaaa you are all sheep and my SAT score is high (by the way, I know its been years since I went to University, but are people seriously using SAT scores as an indication of intelligence). lol. I'll leave that treat for someone else to amuse us with I couldn't help myself but to toss one final barb that the moron of this thread (I think you all know whom I refer to) and I know I shouldn't because he has problems and it is not nice to make fun at the mentally handicapped.