Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:57 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... epression/

Wow, I wasn't aware that Obama could travel back in time to implement Obamanomics way before he took office!

So, according to Freepers/WND/RedState/FoxNews -- he now has a time machine, a weather machine, a special ops unit made of thespians (insert no one died at sandy hook conspiracy theory) and drones to kill people here in the US, ok... there might be some truth to the last one.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Torquemada » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:02 pm

Uhm, the article pretty clearly states that Obama had the reins on the economy for four years, but that the Dems had Congress in 2008, so the 5 years goes back to include the last of Dubya's term. The article also puts blame on Bush's monetary policy for starting/exacerbating the problem. The key point about Obama is that his policies are reportedly the opposite of Reaganomics, thus they have failed. I don't know that I agree with that point either. Certainly the economy is not in as good a shape as is advertised, the unemployment numbers being cooked by the participation rate to keep the total around 8%.

The more I look back at the 1980s, the more I start to be convinced that it was deficit spending AND tax cuts that simultaneously grew the economy, albeit as a process that could not be continued indefinitely despite everyone's attempts to do so since. We went from gold bubble to Tokyo stock market bubble to tech industry bubble to housing bubble, with speculators making money early on but as everyone tried to get in on the "sweet deals," the bubble burst. The fact that the federal government helped foster the housing bubble through forcing Fanny and Freddie to take bad loans rather angers me to this day.

Is everything Obama's fault? No, and as much vitriol is spewed at Obama in this piece, even the author admits that. But he certainly attributes current policy to making the situation worse, which I do agree with. The part of the article I'm most offended by, however, is the misattribution the second part of that quote to Churchill rather than to William F. Buckley.
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Torquemada
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Afghanistan

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Torquemada » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:07 pm

Paxen wrote:That's a matter of definition. Agnostic is originally a very mystical philosophy that says that we cannot know anything about God. I think most people that self-identify as "agnostic" are more of the "I don't know, and maybe I don't care" variety, which I think is properly a type of atheism. Atheist just means a person that doesn't believe in god, which covers a wide range of people, from the "agnostics" to more hard line atheists who claim that all religions are unsupported by evidence, so it's sheer idiocy to believe in them.

I don't mind people calling hard-liner atheists obnoxious or pompous, but it always bugs me when they're called religious. Nobody takes the non-existence of gods as an article of faith. Rather, they find that they can find no evidence for gods or reason to believe there is one, and therefore rejects it until better evidence is presented.


Truth. The major issue with strong atheism are the rather more fervent folks who say they can "prove" through lack of evidence that there is a God, which gives tons of fodder for evangelicals to call them on their fallacies even as they hide behind their own. I personally hold to the belief that we can't know but that if there is a creator, it is an impersonal one more akin to the divine watchmaker of Deism. I don't believe we can know, or ever will know for certain. That doesn't mean that I know this for fact, and giving compelling evidence backed by reason I'd be willing to reevaluate my beliefs. But then, I'm equally inclined to change alter my political paradigm when presented the same kind of rational argument, which is part of how I shifted from very hard right to where I am now.
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Torquemada
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Afghanistan

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:27 pm

Torquemada wrote:Uhm, the article pretty clearly states that Obama had the reins on the economy for four years, but that the Dems had Congress in 2008, so the 5 years goes back to include the last of Dubya's term. The article also puts blame on Bush's monetary policy for starting/exacerbating the problem. The key point about Obama is that his policies are reportedly the opposite of Reaganomics, thus they have failed. I don't know that I agree with that point either. Certainly the economy is not in as good a shape as is advertised, the unemployment numbers being cooked by the participation rate to keep the total around 8%.

The more I look back at the 1980s, the more I start to be convinced that it was deficit spending AND tax cuts that simultaneously grew the economy, albeit as a process that could not be continued indefinitely despite everyone's attempts to do so since. We went from gold bubble to Tokyo stock market bubble to tech industry bubble to housing bubble, with speculators making money early on but as everyone tried to get in on the "sweet deals," the bubble burst. The fact that the federal government helped foster the housing bubble through forcing Fanny and Freddie to take bad loans rather angers me to this day.

Is everything Obama's fault? No, and as much vitriol is spewed at Obama in this piece, even the author admits that. But he certainly attributes current policy to making the situation worse, which I do agree with. The part of the article I'm most offended by, however, is the misattribution the second part of that quote to Churchill rather than to William F. Buckley.


In the current state of affairs, the fundamental principles of trickle-down economics would fail in the US because there are more attractive investment opportunities overseas.

That wasn't the case in the 1980s with automation and robotics making significant advances in manufacturing processes and the emergence of the desktop/personal computer as a concept. I think the technological growth of the 80's is not given anywhere near enough credit for the stimulation of the economy.

It annoys me how politicians take credit for completely unrelated events - like Clinton's economic boom due to the .com explosion and emergence of the internet - and subsequently use them to prove their theory worked and therefore is The Answer to current issues.

The issues facing the US are not so simple that a tax cut makes them go away. Military spending is crippling the economy without people willing to make sacrifices to pay for military action. People keep on spending as if they don't have to pay for multiple wars, and are surprised when buried by credit.

When I moved to New Zealand 10 years ago, the NZ dollar bought 42 US cents. As I look at it now, the exchange rate is .835 US cents to 1 NZ dollar. That's double, near as makes no difference. Part of that is the strength of the NZ economy, but a big part of that is also the devaluation of the dollar. Yet people in the US do not shop for domestic products or make any attempt to keep the wealth in the US. Rather, production is outsourced to cheap labour in foreign countries, and the drain on the US economy is worsened.

I read about a wrench a fellow in the midwest developed and marketed to Sears - it was one of their hottest selling items. Suddenly, a few months before Christmas, they called and cancelled all their orders, effectively ending the jobs of the people making the wrenches. Sears got them made in China at a cheaper cost per unit - even though they had no problems selling them at the higher price of the domestic product.

The deficit is, largely thanks to the deficit spending policies of the Regan era, largely ignored. It's Someone Else's Problem. It's treated like an unlimited credit line that will never come due. Want to fund a war? No problem - put it on the deficit. Medicine for all? No problem - charge it! It's like the US is a kid with his first credit card, not realising the money needs to be paid back somehow.
Koatanga, Capnhammer, Shapely, Sultry, Boondoggle, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:27 am

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/02/07/the-worst-five-years-since-the-great-depression/


That article is so full of lies and stupidity that it almost makes my head explode. He completely ignores that we had that little financial crisis that hit in 2008. That was not created by any policies enacted in 2008, it takes longer to build up than that. And he completely ignores the cyclical nature of economics, good times are always followed by bad times, and the bad times are worse if you overspend in good times. Who had the government in the good times? Not Obama.

Obama took over at the start of a recession. Of course his pure numbers look awful.
Paxen
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:39 am

Paxen wrote:Obama took over at the start of a recession. Of course his pure numbers look awful.


Excuses, excuses. Next you'll be telling us that he was on interrupt/dispel/kiting duty. :P
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:43 am

Nah, he just tank swapped from Bush, and the healers had gone OoM because how shitty he was, trying to grab all the adds everywhere in the room.
SO when people started going down left and right, everyone blamed the current tank.

WoW, like Guile's theme, goes with EVERYTHING.
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:02 am

Sagara wrote:Nah, he just tank swapped from Bush, and the healers had gone OoM because how shitty he was, trying to grab all the adds everywhere in the room.
SO when people started going down left and right, everyone blamed the current tank.


But...Obama is a priest!

I'm not saying everything is Bush's fault and the democrats are blameless (far from it), but attacking Obama based on how shitty the mess he inherited is is taking it to new levels of stupidity and/or dishonesty.
Paxen
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Sagara » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:22 am

Right. But the analogy was totally worth it :-p
When that day comes, seek all the light and wonder of this world, and fight.

Worldie wrote:I used to like it [mean] back on Sylvanas.

Queldan - EU Stormrage (H) - Good night, sweet prince.
User avatar
Sagara
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:04 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:57 am

On the atheistist that are religious about their atheism (being religious has nothing to do with believing in God), they fail on one very important point they as atheists should be even more aware of than religious people;
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And they are obnoxious when they try to convert theists to their faith that ther is no G/god(s).

Also, atheist, is someone who doesn't believe in (a) G/god(s) (a-theist, non-godbeliever).

Also, I use agnostic by the termdefinition, rather than by the usage of the medieval "cult".
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:47 am

Nooska wrote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


But absence of evidence means that there is no reason to give the concept of god any credence. That comes up as offensive to people who have made god the centre of their existence, but, like Steve Hughes says, that only means they are offended. Nothing happens when you're offended. You're not going to wake up tomorrow with leprosy.

As for agnosticism, my definition is the original meaning. Some people don't want to offend the (large majority of) people who are religious, and thus want to distance themselves from atheists who behave obnoxiously. Thus they say "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic". Then they proceed to bash atheism for claiming to know something that's unknowable, when atheists are the ones talking about logic and proof and such. Which means they completely miss the point of those atheists - nobody can know that there is no god, but you can take an informed position that there really is no evidence for it, and that means you can (maybe even should) discount it, until convincing evidence is presented.

And they're still atheists. Do they believe in god? They claim that they don't know. Well, isn't that the point of christianity, that you don't know but have to believe anyway. So, does an agnostic believe in god? No, he doesn't. If he did, he'd be a christian (or other kind of theist). Which makes him some kind of an atheist, even if his beliefs don't match up with the atheist who discounts the god hypothesis on grounds of insufficient evidence.

FWIW, one the big reasons I'm convinced christianity is bullshit is all the stuff about how god doesn't want you to have certain knowledge, and that you have to believe without evidence. If I made up a religion that's exactly the stuff I'd put in to counter any arguments that could come up.
Last edited by Paxen on Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paxen
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:57 am

Here's the defintion Thomas Huxley used when he coined the term in the nineteenth century:

Wikipedia wrote:Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[8]


I totally agree with this statement. It also echoes Socrates (or possibly Plato): "I know one thing: that I know nothing." It's about having an open mind, always be aware that what you think you know could be false. If people challenge your beliefs, examine them, don't dismiss it out of hand only because you "know" something.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call myself an agnostic atheist: "The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist." It does fit me perfectly if taken literally (I do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist). But even though I can't know if a deity does or does not exist, I find that, based on current knowledge, the universe, or indeed anything else, does not need a deity to exist, and so I find that there's no point in considering the question "does god exist?". Maybe. But probably not.
Paxen
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:42 am

Paxen wrote:Nothing happens when you're offended.


I strongly disagree with this point of view.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:46 am

Nooska wrote:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


That falls under argumentum ad ignorantiam, and science doesn't allow for that informal reasoning to fly.

On a personal level, I probably swing between Agnostic and Atheist...

But more importantly...
Image
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:47 am

Passionario wrote:
Paxen wrote:Nothing happens when you're offended.


I strongly disagree with this point of view.


It's just the reaction to it -- as we've seen in the frustrations threads every now and then =P
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sagara and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Sagara and 1 guest