prev <-> next
[2011-10-24 16:35:18] - mig: because "spending" can be expressed either via dollars, or GDP, or euros, or yen, money is never simple. - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:34:47] - Aaron: And I also think it's misleading to call something a "cut" because it's pecentage of something (GDP, total federal budget, etc) goes down but the dollars spent go up. -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:33:23] - paul: well i guess "severe" is "one of those words", i don't know if that's your point or what so maybe you can give me a clue? but yes. his recent budgets have had spending cuts, like $1.1T worth over the course of 10 years - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:32:54] - Aaron: I think one thing that is always important to note is the definition of a spending "cut". Personally, I think it's misleading at best to say something is a "cut" when it's just reducing future spending increases (but the dollar amount being spent is still increasing). -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:30:21] - "i guess it's arguable that an annual increase in dollars spent doesn't constitute a spending cut." I'm confused here. If I someone spends $100 dollars this year and $110 the next, in what cirumstance is that not a increase in spending? - mig
[2011-10-24 16:29:22] - Aaron: After reading the recent stuff... I think you're hitting on the points I was going to make. Even if it were true cuts of $2 trillion over 10 years, it's a drop in the bucket, and I don't even consider most of them real cuts. -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:16:30] - Aaron: "why do you think he's proposed so many budgets which had such severe spending cuts then?" I'm not sure what you are talking about there. Has he proposed ANY budgets with severe spending cuts? -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:09:02] - if i'm reading the numbers right, it looks like approximately 1 trillion of that is the result of "policy proposals" (reducing non-security programs, overseas contingency operations) and 600 billion of that is "upper-income tax provisions" - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:07:34] - mig: table S-2 indicates the impact of the bill, which is, i guess, a cumulative deficit reduction of 1.9 trillion dollars over 10 years. i guess that's arguably a drop in the bucket, these are pretty big numbers. maybe 1.9 trillion dollars isn't that much - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:05:44] - mig: hmm, i was looking at the "by GDP" numbers. but you're right, i guess it's arguable that an annual increase in dollars spent doesn't constitute a spending cut. i think the GDP numbers are more meaningful, but i guess i understand your point even if i don't agree with it - aaron
[2011-10-24 15:57:12] - And true, the defict does cut in half, by 2014, but then it starts rising again after that. - mig
[2011-10-24 15:50:46] - are you looking at the same table I am (the very first one in the summary tables section, titled Table S-1: Budget Totals). Starting in 2012, the annual total outlays are as follows: 3725,3838,4139,4359,4610,4804,5051,5345,5626. How is this cutting, let alone, "severe" cutting? - mig
[2011-10-24 15:43:18] - mig: but it seems unfair to say that they increase every year unless i'm just misunderstanding the source data... and yes this could be "cutting" depending on what the unmodified budget would be - aaron
[2011-10-24 15:41:11] - mig: the proposal was drafted in july 2010, overall outlays look like they are projected to decrease in 2012, and then stay the same right? what do you mean by "increase every year"? i understand your point that maybe, the cuts aren't "serious enough" because they only reduce the deficit by half, - aaron
[2011-10-24 15:31:58] - aaron: the summary table has overall outlays increasing every year except 2012. that's not cutting. The projected 2020 deficit is listed at 900 billion. This is not a serious proposal to address the problem. - mig
[2011-10-24 15:25:42] - ok I forgot to refresh the mboard all day so that was in re: to sucker punch, not this raging debate - vinnie
[2011-10-24 15:25:03] - aaron: haha yeah that was the one. there's like three shots in that trailer that are red or gray. before that thread, the teal and orange thing didn't really register to me (consciously), but now I feel like it's hard to ignore the sameyness... - vinnie
[2011-10-24 15:23:27] - but again i really can't read/parse this stuff, i don't really know what i'm looking at here - aaron
[2011-10-24 15:23:15] - i guess table S-5 indicates that his proposed budget would increase "receipts" (income from taxes?) from 14.8% of the GDP to 18.7% of the GDP, while "outlays" (spending programs?) would be decrased from 24.7% of the GDP to 23.2% of the GDP... if so then i guess that supports your point, that his proposals are more about increase taxes than cutting spending? - aaron
[2011-10-24 15:19:08] - paul: admittedly i'm not really savvy enough to understand budget proposals directly but i mean. it sounds like most of his proposals have emphasized spending cuts. do you think that's just to appease republicans or something? - aaron
[2011-10-24 15:14:16] - paul: that's an interesting theory. why do you think he's proposed so many budgets which had such severe spending cuts then? do you think he's suggesting non-ideal solutions because they will be more popular? - aaron
[2011-10-24 15:01:32] - Daniel: And I also think that Obama's ideal solution WOULD involve tax increases alone (assuming you don't count "freezes" or cuts in project spending increases as cuts). -Paul
[2011-10-24 14:55:52] - Daniel: "To me that puts the R's in the 'wrong'" I feel like that's a different discussion (which I would be happy to have), but I don't think that was the point of the posted article. The point I got is that raising taxes on "the rich" isn't going to help with the debt as much as some people seem to think. -Paul
[2011-10-24 14:53:01] - Daniel: Yeah, I would be willing to concede that he would probably accept spending cuts (of certain types and small enough) if he could get his tax increases (again, of certain types and large enough), but I really don't believe that he WANTS to cut spending anywhere other than possibly a few things (and I can't even think of any off the top of my head). -Paul
[2011-10-24 14:44:22] - Maybe what I said isn't quite right, I don't know that he wants to cut spending. I think he would accept spending cuts in a compromise with R's but won't do only spending cuts. To me that puts the R's in the 'wrong' since they are the ones unwilling to compromise. -Daniel
[2011-10-24 14:41:34] - paul: based on the date of the article, i'm pretty sure it's the same committee. - mig
[2011-10-24 14:41:09] - Paul: I think he wants to cut spending, but not ONLY spending. I think thats the rub, he doesn't advocate for that part because I don't think he needs to. He could get an all spending cuts bill to him I think but that isn't what he wants and what he can't get to him is a bill with less spending and more taxes so he advocates for the part that is missing. -Daniel
[2011-10-24 14:38:12] - I mean, for half his presidency his party had control of congress and for the other half, the biggest opposition he has had to deal with is an angry minority who very strongly wants to cut spending. He shouldn't have had a lot of trouble cutting spending if he had any desire to. -Paul
[2011-10-24 14:35:51] - Aaron: And I'm not sure if it's the same committee or not (based on what Miguel said, it sounds like it is), but I remember reading about how the committee came up with a list of pretty decent ideas that they gave to Obama, and how he promptly ignored nearly all of them. -Paul
[2011-10-24 14:34:26] - Aaron: And the "statement of his intentions, not a mandate" thing is what I was referring to when I was saying that Obama likes to talk about reducing the debt a lot, but only real proposals he has set forth that I know of are tax increases. -Paul
[2011-10-24 14:28:47] - Aaron: I didn't read all of both articles, so I apologize if I'm incorrect about what follows, but I'm not sure either really contradicts what I said. The first article even flatly states "freezes all discretionary government spending outside of national security for three years", which means it is not getting cut, just not increasing. -Paul
[2011-10-24 14:21:33] - aaron: right, he created the committee last winter, the committee made their recommendations, and then he proceeded to ignore most of their recommendations. Aside from the some of the defense stuff, I don't believe he has endorsed any of the recommendations the committee made (and they did make specific recommendations to entitlements).- mig
[2011-10-24 14:11:50] - all of that stuff sounds like pretty concrete spending cuts to me - aaron
[2011-10-24 14:11:30] - mig: and according to this other politifact page he created a bipartisan commission to approve a plan for fiscal reform, and their draft included things like reducing overhead for the DoD, reducing overseas bases, increasing the retirement age, - aaron
[2011-10-24 14:09:13] - but they point out that the budget was "a statement of his intentions, not a mandate" and they questioned what he would do to back it up - like, if congress spent more than his budget, would he just veto every bill he could, or stuff like that? to an extent, the budget is out of his hands, right? he can propose budgets but it's up to congress to adhere to them - aaron
[2011-10-24 14:07:14] - mig: according to politifact obama proposed a budget which would "take non defense spending to its lowest level as a percentage of the economy since JFK", - aaron
[2011-10-24 13:58:29] - a: he has been very specific in how he has wants to tax "the rich". Plans for cutting spending have been either been less than concrete, or as stated before based on dishonest washington math. He's pushing for the former a lot more than he is the latter. - mig
[2011-10-24 13:55:42] - Lengthy read, but better than most tripe I've read of late. http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/class-war-2011-10/ -- Xpovos
[2011-10-24 13:44:42] - how did you come to that conclusion? ~a
[2011-10-24 11:41:16] - Daniel: Which is pretty much my point: If Obama had his druthers, I think he would solely increase taxes on "the rich" while also increases spending as his solution for the debt. -Paul
[2011-10-24 11:40:03] - Daniel: I think it depends on the size (and types) of cuts and the size (and type) of tax increases, but I think Obama would definitely agree to it if he couldn't get his preference (which I think is tax increases on the "rich" alone). -Paul
[2011-10-24 11:31:07] - mig: Yeah I think I'm in the same boat on that as you. It does seem like totally the wrong reason and seems lame to take credit for ending the war only because the two sides couldn't agree on how to continue it. -Daniel
[2011-10-24 11:30:18] - Paul: Before I continue - are you specifically referring to things he's advocated for and not what you think he is ok with? I agree that I don't think he is advocating for spending cuts, but I think he would sign off on spending cuts as part of overall reform if it included tax increases. Or do you think he wouldn't do that either? -Daniel
[2011-10-24 11:04:32] - Uh-oh. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/vatican-economy-idUKL5E7LO1LS20111024 -- Xpovos
[2011-10-24 10:59:28] - I suppose this qualifies as good news, even if I think it's being done for the wrong reason. - mig
[2011-10-24 10:57:29] - Daniel: If I remember correctly, the only specific cuts he has advocated during his presidency so far was a fairly insignificant package which was measured by how much it cut over 10 years and was mostly based off of decreases in projected increases (not actual cuts) and expected decreases in spending due to troop drawdowns. Am I missing something? -Paul
[2011-10-24 10:54:50] - Daniel: Because other than making speeches with vague references to how the debt and deficit is bad, Obama has done nothing but work towards increasing spending in various ways and lobby for tax increases as a way to fix the debt. -Paul
[2011-10-24 10:44:30] - Paul: Hmm I don't see it that way at all. Interesting. I think Obama would cut spending and be interested in more comprehensive reform. I think during the debt ceiling talks he was open to much bigger cuts but he is insisting that tax increases are part of the final package and not only cuts. Why do you think he isn't interested in cuts at all? -Daniel
[2011-10-24 10:05:30] - bah, double negative where i did not want one. damn you character limit breaking up my thoughts. - mig
[2011-10-24 10:04:32] - Daniel: To be fair, even though possibly nobody has directly suggested it, it's been made pretty clear that the administration isn't at all interested in cutting spending while it's very keen on raising taxes on those that don't pay their "fair share". -Paul
[2011-10-24 10:04:25] - no specific outline of what his ideas for reform might be (that i'm aware of anyway, maybe he did recently and I jus didn't catch it), and virtually every democrat finds even just discussing the topic to be heresy. - mig
[2011-10-24 10:03:12] - daniel: I have yet to see any proposal from obama and the dems that actually reduces real spending (as in you will be spending less than the year before). All the plans I have seen so far are based on dishonest washington math where not increasing spending qualifies as a "cut". And while he has acknowledged that entitlement reform needs to happen he has made ...
[2011-10-24 09:13:53] - I suppose at worst I think his comments are purposeful red meat falsehoods blatantly meant to incite those that think less for themselves to just hate on the Dems and Obama. -Daniel
[2011-10-24 09:12:10] - ... package which would include changes to entitlements, budget cuts, etc. -Daniel
[2011-10-24 09:11:20] - Xpovos: I think his point about how much we would have to raise taxes on higher income people to balance the budget is at best misleading since I don't think anyone anywhere (that I'm aware of) has proposed balancing the budget only through tax increases. The position that I'm aware of by Obama is that tax increases should be part of an overall financial reform...
[2011-10-23 22:16:16] - Any comments? This is from the 'other' perspective. I think it's a little incendiary, but I can't fault the reasoning too much. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280986/biden-s-fourth-grade-economics-mark-steyn -- Xpovos
[2011-10-23 11:50:26] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzC4hFK5P3g Kyary Pamyu Pamyu - PonPonPon. weirdest music video i've seen since. well, i guess since pon de floor 4 months ago, so maybe not that long - aaron
[2011-10-22 01:29:19] - vinnie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dzikBZTUy8 SO MUCH TEAL... SO MUCH ORANGE
i think i saw a little red though so it's all good - aaron[2011-10-22 01:27:24] - http://imgur.com/QsY5N safety tips from anubis
[2011-10-21 11:27:09] - aaron: there's a rolling teal and orange thread on I Love Everything for those particularly egregious trailers for movies. I recall Sucker Punch being one of the worst offenders - vinnie
[2011-10-21 11:14:56] - http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html teal and orange hollywood please stop - aaron
[2011-10-21 05:03:57] - a was here!
~a[2011-10-20 16:15:15] - xpovos: i forget. amnesia. ~a
[2011-10-20 14:21:46] - a: Will you win one million double dollars in vegas because you placed a gun to the head of the croupier? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-20 14:16:28] - aaron: you cannot buy guns with money when the economy collapses. the economy will collapse after i win one million double dollars in vegas. ~a
[2011-10-20 14:15:07] - g: courtney is nina's friend. she just moved from SEA and temporarily living at my place while she finds a job+home of her own. ~a
[2011-10-20 12:34:41] - aaron: Woo! Chicken or egg time. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-20 12:16:21] - a: i still like andrew's answer better. you can buy guns with money - aaron
[2011-10-20 12:08:48] - a: True. But my logic works within the framework of the law as well as from without. Your logic only without. Not that it's illogical, just lawless. And contrary to popular opinion, Las Vegas is not so lawless. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-20 11:59:39] - a: umm who is courtney? ~g
[2011-10-20 11:34:17] - xpovos: yeah i'm mostly not bringing these things that she suggested. but using your logic it should be 1. gun, 2. ammo, 3. ammo, 4.gun. with a gun i can get money.
~a[2011-10-20 10:11:01] - a: I'm surprised by the order and some of the choices. My packing list for Vegas would be 1. money, 2. money, 3. money, 4. money. With money I can purchase all of your items in Vegas. And particularly the booze... I don't trust travelling with booze. My suitcase still smells like awesome scotch. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-20 00:00:12] - courtney suggested this be my packing list for vegas: 1. protection, 2. swimsuit, 3. booze, 4. cigars. she said no to "gun" but i guess i understand. ~a
[2011-10-18 22:39:26] - http://i.imgur.com/VFoxu.png (doodle or die) miraculous chocolate raining from the heavens - aaron
[2011-10-18 17:31:12] - a: no not really, but i thought it was impressive. 5 or 7 ball juggling seems very difficult to me. i guess taking a second look, they only ever do a 5 or 7 ball 100 meter dash, which isn't as bad - but still wow - aaron
[2011-10-18 15:19:22] - aaron: haha, yeah i've heard of this before. is this like chess boxing? are you going to try to get me to compete? ~a
[2011-10-18 15:18:06] - g: "It is by far the smallest Cabinet-level department, with about 5,000 employees" that's cool; so, likely that the tax impact is relatively small. "establish policy for, administer, and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights". ~a
[2011-10-18 12:40:10] - http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/224021/man-beats-dark-souls-in-less-than-2-hours/ man beats dark souls in 1 hour, 26 minutes. really just a testament to how hard the game is, given that http://howlongtobeat.com/ lists the game at ~50 hours - aaron
[2011-10-18 10:59:28] - a: Joggling - aaron
[2011-10-18 10:21:09] - So what does Dept of Education do currently? ~g
[2011-10-18 09:38:06] - Daniel: Basic research? I'm not sure what you mean, but regardless I think Ron Paul probably thinks it's not an appropriate function of government.
-Paul[2011-10-18 09:36:30] - Daniel: Well, my guess on his reasons would be (1) No constitutional authority for it (2) There shouldn't be a government agency regulating energy, leave it to the free market (3) Prime area of the federal government to cut spending, considering our debt problems. -Paul
[2011-10-18 09:20:17] - Paul: I'm sure thats true, I know he wants to get rid of a lot of stuff I just wasn't sure what the reasoning behind removing the DoEnergy was. I wasn't sure if he thought the market should handle nuclear safety or something. I guess he think the gov shouldn't fund basic research then as well? -Daniel
[2011-10-18 09:12:18] - Daniel: "Those seem like things I'm ok funding." Also, I'm pretty sure you and Ron Paul aren't going to agree on a lot of things when it comes to things you and Ron Paul are ok with the federal government funding.
-Paul[2011-10-18 09:11:01] - Daniel: The report says, "transfer the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which is responsible for managing the DOE’s nuclear-industrial complex, to the Department of Defense" -Paul
[2011-10-18 09:10:50] - Daniel: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-46.pdf I don't know if this is how Ron Paul feels about the department of energy, but CATO is considered a libertarian thinktank, so I'm sure it's similar. -Paul
[2011-10-18 08:53:15] - What are Ron Paul's (or someone else's) arguments for closing the Dept of Energy? A quick glance through the wiki page says its responsible for nuclear safety and more basic research than other parts of the gov. Those seem like things I'm ok funding. -Daniel
[2011-10-17 17:42:57] - a: I think Republican voters would probably go for those proposals, but I'm guessing independents and Democrats would be less enthusiastic and I don't see congress being for it at all. -Paul
[2011-10-17 17:41:53] - a: Well, I don't think anyone has ever accused Ron Paul of being moderate. For the record, I think eliminating the department of education was one of the planks of the Contract with America back in the 90s. -Paul
[2011-10-17 17:29:44] - "eliminating the departments of education and energy" wow, that's pretty hardcore. not very moderate either; not sure if people will go for it. ~a
[2011-10-17 16:19:57] - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html Ron Paul releases his "Plan to Restore America", which includes $1 trillion in spending cuts and balances the budget in three years. -Paul
[2011-10-17 16:04:40] - a: Well, a lot of it has to do with what issues we count, too. My numbers weren't mean to be that exact, just my feeling that maybe half the time you would agree with libertarians on some random issue, but there's a much better chance you agree with liberals. -Paul
[2011-10-17 15:59:57] - a: I'm fairly conflicted, but I think I agree that the government shouldn't make all abortion illegal. -Paul
[2011-10-17 15:58:01] - hmmm. a pretty small number of issues i'll admit, which is why i typically call myself a liberal. but non-insignificant imo. ~a
[2011-10-17 15:57:32] - a: Ew, I just realized I probably mispoke there. I don't know where Ron Paul thinks that life begins (I incorrectly said conception), other than it probably begins before birth. Sorry. -Paul
[2011-10-17 15:56:06] - a: You could be right, you think you agree with libertarians on a not-insignificant number of economic issues? -Paul
[2011-10-17 15:40:05] - paul: "To him, life begins at conception" why at conception though? that doesn't seem like a libertarian view as much as a religious view. ⸮: much like the catholics, i think life begins before conception. can't the government please use my view to regulate contraception? while we're on this: you are opposed to the government making all abortion illegal, right? ~a
[2011-10-17 15:33:33] - ah, i understand now. i wasn't sure what you were going for. still, you're trying to find things i disagree with. in conclusion, i think the 40% figure is wrong. ~a
[2011-10-17 15:14:46] - a: Thinking of individual rights as meaning you have a right not to be discriminated against instead of a right to associate (or not associate) with whoever you want, is a pretty clear distinction between how liberals and libertarians approach social issues, IMHO. -Paul
[2011-10-17 15:11:47] - a: Right, and that is a typically liberal interpretation of individual rights. I'm actually only trying to look for social issues that you disagree with libertarians on, so I absolutely do not agree that you are 2/3rds libertarian.
-Paul[2011-10-17 15:00:39] - i.e. i'm failing your "40%" even though you're probably looking for things i'd disagree with. ~a
[2011-10-17 14:54:49] - regardless. even if you could convince me that you're right and this is a libertarian (classic or contemporary) viewpoint: i'm still 2/3rds libertarian, right?
~a[2011-10-17 14:53:44] - haha, that's your interpretation. mine is that it's protecting individual rights. often times one individual's rights are at odds with another individual's rights. here i'm siding with the discriminated instead of the discriminator. ~a
[2011-10-17 14:51:44] - a: You agree that "discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin" should be illegal? I would say that is not-libertarian because it's favoring government power over individual rights. -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:47:00] - paul: ok, i mostly agree with that title of the civil rights act. not sure if that title is libertarian or anti-libertarian though. we're talking about personal liberties here, aren't we? ~a
[2011-10-17 14:41:54] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_II How about Title 2 in the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I think this is the one that Rand Paul got in trouble over. -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:37:15] - Xpovos: Although, frankly, I am more disappointed by how little attention Gary Johnson has gotten, despite having just as good of credentials (if not better) than the other candidates and similar poll numbers to the bottom tier. -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:33:45] - paul: anti-discrimination laws: which laws in specific? affirmative action: although i feel for their plight, i strongly think the government shouldn't be ordering companies to hire certain races. hate speech: assuming we're talking about racial, i think it's free speech. if you're talking about inciting violence, that's very different imo. ~a
[2011-10-17 14:32:06] - Xpovos: I've also gotten some emails from his campaign pointing out that out of the last three debates, his speaking time has come in dead last behind candidates that he is beating in the polls. -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:30:22] - a: there are too many ways to read between the lines, im confused. ~g
[2011-10-17 14:30:05] - a: All of them (social and economic), although I was making sure to say "liberal" instead of "Democratic". How about things like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, hate speech, etc? -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:20:35] - Here's an article Katie just sent me. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/10/ron-paul-media-blackout-confirmed/43747/ Some statistical evidence of the 13th floor of the hotel. I'm particularly interested not in the % of coverage vs. poll numbers but the blog buzz and mostly favorable there, moreso than any other candidate. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 14:19:25] - g: i think paul is as cool as he has always been. please read between the lines
~a[2011-10-17 14:18:44] - paul: I feel like being a liberatarian has gotten cooler in the past few years... But that might be based on my perception of you and that I think you are cooler now then I used to think you were
~g[2011-10-17 14:17:43] - paul: i think the government should get out of marriage altogether. though you probably already knew (or could have guessed) this, right? ~a
[2011-10-17 14:17:02] - "current issues" all current issues? or just the economic ones? ~a
[2011-10-17 14:16:36] - a: If I had to randomly guess, I would say you agree with libertarians on something like 40% of current issues, and agree with liberals on around 70%. Obviously it's hard to say for certain, because even if two people can agree that gay marriage should be allowed, the liberal might not agree with the libertarian that government should get out of marriage altogether. -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:13:35] - a: Maybe I said it wrong, I meant to ask areas where you agree with libertarians and disagree with liberals. I assume even on social issues you are closer to liberals than libertarians for the most part. -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:13:04] - paul: libertarians have never been cool. "I do think it's inaccurate" well i hardly call myself a libertarian. but i do agree with libertarians on a lot of things; even some of them economic. ~a
[2011-10-17 14:11:57] - Xpovos: I don't think it's hypocritical, and I do think it's good campaign strategy (referring to his new commercial). He's trying to appeal to conservatives in Iowa, so best to stick to his social conservative credentials. It's almost as if he's trying to win the nomination this time.
-Paul[2011-10-17 14:11:48] - paul: haha. yes yes. you asked the wrong question then? i assume you meant to ask what economic things i agree with libertarians on because there are a ton of social things i agree with them on. i've listed some economic things i agree with libertarians on. there are probably other things though, these are just the first things that came to mind. ~a
[2011-10-17 14:10:17] - a: If you want to describe yourself as a libertarian, I have no problem with it, but I do think it's inaccurate, and I wonder why you would want to. Are libertarians cool or something now? -Paul
[2011-10-17 14:10:15] - a: I wouldnt have considered you liberatarian... From my perspective your stance on social issues would have put you in line with liberals. Heck even my perceived stance on your tax views would have. But like xpovos said, its really about self identification. ~g
[2011-10-17 14:09:18] - a: Right, you mostly agree with libertarians on social issues, and disagree with them on economic issues. There's a word for that...
-Paul[2011-10-17 14:07:42] - So I figured maybe I'd missed a beat with culture. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 14:07:30] - I was personally just shocked. I read a CNN article yesterday which talked about the same issue, and the comments were almost universally attacking Paul for his hypocrisy, then this article today... I'm just used to any article on Paul being loaded with nothing but pro-Paul commentary, even if the article is stupid... especially if the article is stupid. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 14:05:16] - a: The issue there is that the taxes are on the net, not the gross. So they had previous years of losses which countered new profits. I don't like that, but the only alternative it seems is to tax gross, which really hurts certain business types. In the end, though that can just easily become a 'cost of business' thing, but it's also much more like a VAT. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 14:03:55] - paul: understood. i also believe in progressive taxes. some libertarians probably don't like progressive taxation. obviously there are a ton of social things where libertarians and i agree on, the economic places where libertarians and i agree are when it comes to privatization and de-bureaucracy-ization among other things. ~a
[2011-10-17 14:02:43] - Paul: Here's Camille Paglia on a similar take of the same issue as what I assume jdb would argue, even though it's buried in her anti-Sarah Palin stuff. It's logically consistent, which causes me to applaud it, even as I find it abhorent. These are people I can deal with. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 14:00:00] - a: Right, and that hardly sounds like the words of a libertarian. I'm not saying there aren't libertarians who believe that, just that most wouldn't phrase it like that. -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:59:42] - "despite earning $14.2 billion in worldwide profits, including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations, General Electric did not owe taxes in 2010. General Electric had a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. This same article also pointed out that GE has reduced their American workforce by one fifth since 2002." imo, at least one business is undertaxed? ~a
[2011-10-17 13:56:59] - taxes and spending? yes, i disagree with some libertarians on taxes and spending. i think many americans/businesses are overtaxed and many americans/businesses are undertaxed. i also generally believe that the government overspends on some things and underspends on others. ~a
[2011-10-17 13:56:20] - a: To me, that seems very weird. Maybe I just have to read that discussion again, but I would think jdb would be anti-murder, but according to you he supported making a "murderous" activity legal? I wonder what his rationale was. -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:54:46] - Xpovos: From the article you posted, sums up my thoughts much better than I did: "To him, life begins at conception, and a fundamental of libertarian philosophy is the protection of the rights of an individual life." -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:54:27] - a: Libertarian is like any other political philosophy, you certainly don't have to be in agreement with all of it to be one; but it's also about self-identification. I wouldn't call you a libertarian because you've never seemed inclined to identify yourself as one. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 13:53:24] - you were having this conversation with him. you probably don't remember since it was like a decade ago. no: he's pro-choice but also considered abortion murderous. ~a
[2011-10-17 13:53:20] - a: What areas do you agree with libertarians over liberals? -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:52:42] - a: And taxes, and spending...
-Paul[2011-10-17 13:51:33] - a: That's interesting, I wouldn't have thought that. Was he pro-life? -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:49:58] - "you seem to have much more in common with liberalism than libertarianism" like abortion?
~a[2011-10-17 13:49:27] - a: "maybe that's why many of you don't see me as a libertarian?" Do you consider yourself one? I don't consider you to be one because you seem to have much more in common with liberalism than libertarianism. -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:46:59] - paul: jdb thought abortion was murderous. i was reading over some old logs. ~a
[2011-10-17 13:45:34] - xpovos: i believe it doesn't make him a non-libertarian. it also doesn't make him a hypocrite. pro-choice/pro-life is a decision like any other. libertarianism isn't all-or-nothing. maybe that's why many of you don't see me as a libertarian? (i.e.) do you think libertarianism has to be all-or-nothing? ~a
[2011-10-17 13:44:39] - Xpovos: Even the most radical libertarians believe the government should enforce laws against murder, and if you believe a fetus is a human life, it's not hard to consider abortion murder. -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:43:43] - Xpovos: I don't think so at all. Property rights is one of the core tenants of libertarianism, and that definitely applies to right to your life. If you're a libertarian who believe a fetus is a human life (and I don't think that requires a religious belief in God), then it makes sense for you to be against abortion. -Paul
[2011-10-17 13:36:10] - We've been talking about Ron Paul a lot lately. And abortion a lot more than usual lately. But not Ron Paul & abortion. Does Ron Paul being anti-abortion make him hypocritical? How about non-libertarian? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 12:32:28] - But, they got an indictment, so that means there must be something, otherwise the judge will grant summary judgement. I still anticipate a not-guilty verdict. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 12:31:38] - g: Brief bit, having read at least your article, most of these mandatory reporting laws are very hard to enforce to start with, I suspect the DA is over-zealous. But regardless, reporting to CPS requires knowledge or suspicion about a specific child(ren) being abused. If the diocese/bishop knew the priest had a problem, they might still not have enough to report on. -- X
[2011-10-17 12:28:01] - 's problems if it made the news. ~g
[2011-10-17 12:27:51] - xpovos: yea that article seemed to be missing some crucial information. Like what made him think they knew... Hmm I will have to look at Philadelphia
[2011-10-17 12:02:23] - g: I heard about it at my training on Saturday. I haven't had a chance to read any literature. I've been much more engrossed with Philadelphia's problems. This one is just so much more minor. I guess it's making a splash because the bishop is actually being prosecuted. I'll give more details once I've read some more and can actually articulate a position. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-17 11:52:03] - xpovos: any thoughts? http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/justice/catholic-bishop-indicted/index.html?hpt=ju_c2 ~g
[2011-10-17 09:14:37] - a: Heh, good point. I would like to think that Santorum is an even easier target for liberals, but I could be wrong. -Paul
[2011-10-16 14:37:44] - haha, ok, i didn't see the "older posts" link. ~a
[2011-10-16 14:17:06] - a: Recommending escorts? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-16 10:45:51] - yeah, wow. i'm also surprised. not because apple has a sense of humor but because the responses are the kind of thing a company like apple could get in trouble for. "douche bag"? "I didn't find any public toilets"?
~a[2011-10-16 10:33:47] - http://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/ I'm amused. I never figured Apple for having a sense of humor. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-14 17:38:16] - paul isn't too easy of a target? ~a
[2011-10-14 17:37:41] - mig: Too easy of a target? Not enough name recognition? Not sure... -Paul
[2011-10-14 15:02:34] - paul: why not include santorum then? - mig
[2011-10-14 14:33:24] - aaron: Yeah, I understand why he's always left out, and I don't necessarily disagree with the thinking that he has such a small chance of winning the nomination. I'm just wondering if he was left out here because he was forgotten, or because the author had better targets to make fun of.
-Paul[2011-10-14 14:10:17] - paul: but yeah a shout-out would have been nice - aaron
[2011-10-14 14:09:37] - paul: i would like to imagine ron paul as a "republican front runner" but i feel like most people (democrats, republicans, and news outlets alike) consider him more of a third party candidate, i think that's why he was omitted here - aaron
[2011-10-14 11:32:33] - http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/opinion/carville-gop-2012-field/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 I wonder if Ron Paul should be offended that he is left out (while Bachmann, Gingrich and Huntsman are mentioned) of an article about how the Republican field is pathetic. -Paul
[2011-10-14 10:36:01] - Paul: Chuckle, but not just unfair, grossly untrue. So I guess 100% in keeping with the Occupy Wallstreet movement in general. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-14 09:56:23] - http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/10/xbox-live-users-experiencing-hacked-accounts-fifa-11-and-12-purchases.ars maybe something to keep an eye out for if you have an xbox live account. - mig
[2011-10-14 09:18:43] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20120086-71/1-year-old-thinks-a-magazine-is-a-broken-ipad/ URL says it all. -Paul
[2011-10-13 17:29:01] - http://occupyherbstreit.tumblr.com/page/2 Couldn't help but chuckle at the Frank Beamer one... even if I think it's unfair. -Paul
[2011-10-13 16:21:53] - a: I've seen OBE at work before. -Daniel
[2011-10-13 15:57:02] - g: first question: i have no idea. second question: i'd prefer not to impact lots of people: but does it really matter if you're going to be dead either way? of course in this case he didn't die, heh. ~a
[2011-10-13 15:44:57] - odd thought brought to you by my commute home on Tuesday. ~g
[2011-10-13 15:44:46] - also... I know this is odd,,, But if you wanted to commit suicide would you try to do it in a way that would impact lots of people or just yourself? ~g
[2011-10-13 15:43:57] - so the other guy got her prego or proposed? ~g
[2011-10-13 15:43:35] - a: nope I dont use it. ~g
[2011-10-13 14:57:21] - you guys don't use "OBE" as an acronym at work? when a situation changes so rapidly that previously proposed courses of action are no longer relevant. basically it's for when the train comes off of the tracks. ~a
[2011-10-13 14:51:37] - mig: idk maybe she hooked up with a guy from the british empire - aaron
[2011-10-13 14:44:07] - g: the three things i found googling that were "overcome by events", "out of body experience", and "order of the british empire" I'll guess it's the first one. - mig
[2011-10-13 14:21:26] - a: obe? ~g
[2011-10-13 13:42:39] - g: yeah i've learned from #1 and #2 and believe strongly that i'm acting differently as a result. really i think #4 was OBE. ~a
[2011-10-13 13:40:26] - a: sounds like you need to more actively pursue them... and/or maybe lock them up so they cant meet anyone else
~g[2011-10-13 13:27:40] - g: first reason (my guess): didn't take action quickly enough, second reason given: didn't take action quickly enough, third reason given: none. fourth reason given: another guy. ~a
[2011-10-13 13:24:49] - g: no they didn't use those words. i'm paraphrasing. ~a
[2011-10-13 13:24:27] - g: many of them gave reasons. ~a
[2011-10-13 13:16:21] - maybe someone should poll them and see what there reasons were... ~g
[2011-10-13 13:15:49] - a: I assume they didnt use those words? ~g
[2011-10-13 11:46:59] - old and single! i was rejected by someone else i was seeing on tuesday. bringing my recent-dating total to 0-4. katie told me to fuck off after five or so dates, jenny told me to fuck off after two dates, kathrine started ignoring me after the first date, and jessica told me on tuesday to get lost after the third date. ~a
[2011-10-13 11:46:19] - i'm guessing it's someone trying to make me feel old. the joke is on them. i already know i'm old. ~a
[2011-10-13 11:37:34] - ok, "The difference between 2011 and 1991 is the same as the difference between 1991 and 1971" was at least something i could google. i still don't get it though. ~a
[2011-10-13 11:36:04] - title: ? ~a
[2011-10-13 11:31:49] - http://imgur.com/L3BWN wil wheaton's on big bang theory tonight - aaron
[2011-10-13 11:17:51] - a: dirty dancing had that too! I think I saw cider house rules, but I dont remember seeing that part. I likely closed my eyes and blocked it from memory. ~g
[2011-10-13 10:53:59] - a: i saw the movie, but i don't remember the scene - aaron
[2011-10-13 10:41:18] - i know it's a fictional movie, but cider house rules probably played a big part in affecting my view of abortion. did anybody else see that movie and remember the scene regarding the unsafe abortion? ~a
[2011-10-13 10:38:14] - god it would certainly go down in that area. but people will travel great distances to find a place where it's legal.[ref] you'd also end up with a lot of bad bad things. like higher crime rates and a load of unsafe abortions. ~a
[2011-10-13 10:28:39] - a: I think it was a reference to what the abortion rate would do if it was made illegal in the US. -Paul
[2011-10-13 10:26:42] - a: thats a pretty good post I was surprised how much of it was focused on Amazon though based on your description. ~g
[2011-10-13 10:26:01] - a: i was referring to the number of abortions in the US, based on Paul's comment "Do you two think that there would be more or less abortions in the country if they were illegal?" ~g
[2011-10-13 09:48:53] - http://larryquach.blogspot.com/2011/10/wedding-invitations.html the meal tickets cracked me up. congratulations! you chose beef! - aaron
[2011-10-13 09:43:53] - a: nobody we know - aaron
[2011-10-12 21:44:16] - here's a google internal memo about facebook, amazon, google itself, apple, and microsoft. an interesting read the whole way through, but horribly horribly long. it's full of surprisingly frank insights. https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX ~a
[2011-10-12 20:39:22] - awww
who made the shit godzilla? ~a[2011-10-12 19:45:28] - amy: http://i.imgur.com/enUpO.png you're a shit godzilla - aaron
[2011-10-12 16:58:50] - go up? i can't see what gurkie was referring to. ~a
[2011-10-12 16:22:00] - g: Not necessarily go up, but stay the same at least. -Paul
[2011-10-12 16:21:08] - g
[2011-10-12 15:57:38] - i might be underestimating the cultural/religious implications. maybe you're right, and there's more religion/culture issues, perhaps there's a lot of catholics in latin america who are strongly against birth control, but then when push comes to shove they're willing to get an abortion to "preserve family honor" or whatever. but i think it's mostly a money issue - aaron
[2011-10-12 15:56:07] - paul: that theory (the economic reasons for abortion) also explains why western europe is low as well, and why other developed countries (such as china) with lower per-capita income would still have higher abortion rates. but of course it's still just a theory idk - aaron
[2011-10-12 15:54:10] - paul: i don't think the culture differences are as significant as the monetary ones. i think a higher percentage of americans can afford birth control compared to their latin american counterparts - stuff like birth control pills are prohibitively expensive if you don't have a health care provider, so accidental pregnancies are just lower in the U.S as a result - aaron
[2011-10-12 15:19:14] - g: I'd agree, so if we're in the minority, we're in the minority together; but intention is such a vaporous thing. Untenable and ultimately immeasurable. Very bad for statisticians. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-12 15:17:51] - g: I'll take the blame for that, then, I tend to end up muddling any discussion about abortion. It's a very muddle-able subject. Here, I'll muddle it further. Euthanasia as a pro-life issue. Or the death penalty. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-12 15:17:47] - aaron: also I think that intentional miscarriage = abortion... but I could be in the minority on that. ~g
[2011-10-12 15:17:19] - Paul: is the other side meaning it goes up? Cause I dont understand why/how that would happen. Other than based on population inflation with straight numbers rather than percentages of pregnancies ending with... ~g
[2011-10-12 15:16:19] - Aaron: Yeah, I agree with Xpovos that birth control probably plays a big role. I think it's a combination of culture and also the wealth of our country. Americans have more options to prevent pregnancy than the last ditch option of abortion. -Paul
[2011-10-12 15:15:59] - aaron: it wasnt that boring, I was just trying to identify where my understanding of your and a's views came from... Which I didn't really find except for in statements that were easy to misconstrue. ~g
[2011-10-12 15:15:36] - also life of the mother. ~a
[2011-10-12 15:12:56] - g: "pro-lifers anti abortion in all circumstances, pro-choicers pro abortion in some circumstances" mostly agree. there are tons of exceptions to this though. many people are hypocrites! also many pro-life/choice people agree that incest & rape are good exceptions. ~a
[2011-10-12 15:12:26] - aaron: Interesting. I don't think it's a completely accurate comparison since I'm sure there are big cultural differences between those Latin American countries and the United States. Personally, I think abortions would probably go down a little if it was made illegal, but I fully admit I could be wrong and understand the reasoning behind the other side. -Paul
[2011-10-12 15:06:27] - aaron: Honestly? Birth control. Lots of it. Not only is it acceptable, it's widely available and cheap to free. Even in cases of rape and incest we'll rarely end up with a pregnancy these days because such a large proportion of the female population is on hormonal birth control. Try our STD rates, though. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-12 15:06:07] - and most of the rest of the world has stronger anti-abortion legislation than america too, as far as i understand. but, i guess conditions in america are good enough that people feel comfortable carrying kids to term, giving them up for adoption or having them raised in non-traditional families? i'm not sure what the reasons are behind that statistic - aaron
[2011-10-12 15:04:40] - xpovos: i'm truly surprised that north america's abortion rate is so much lower than the rest of the world. i mean i know we're a christian nation, but, lots of other cultures/religions are strongly against it as well. - aaron
[2011-10-12 15:02:30] - g: i'm sorry! it was a long boring thread. here's a picture of barack obama and michelle obama with their faces switched. - aaron
[2011-10-12 15:01:45] - I think if abortions were made illegal they would decrease in numbers, but probably on the margins. The legality of is it less of an issue than the cultural acceptance of it; which is a generational (or more) battle. Ultimately a technological one as well. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-12 14:56:33] - Also I just re-read the whole thread on this because I felt like I was completely on opposite sides of people but I feel like lines were drawn based on vague statements that were possibly misinterpreted. ~g
[2011-10-12 14:55:43] - I told Paul offline, that I think there would be less in the country but it wouldnt necessarilty effect the number of US citizens having them... People would just go to Mexico (or a country where it is legal, no clue if Mexico allows it or not) ~g
[2011-10-12 14:52:44] - paul: compared to the USA... so i might be wrong. maybe it would have no effect, or maybe somehow it would increase, although i can't imagine why - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:52:09] - paul: according to this article most of latin america such as brazil and chile have extremely harsh laws against abortion, and according to this page they have much higher abortion rates - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:48:53] - paul: it's very morbid to talk about, but i think there would be more miscarriages. i think women who are not ready for children (think 15 16 year olds) will go to extreme measures to avoid children if they're truly that desparate. sorry. so i guess technically, there would be fewer abortions - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:47:32] - gurkie: i think you're right. for certain specific circumstances, there are people who think abortion is the best option. i think there are pro-life people who are alo pro-abortion in certain circumstances, but i don't think it's fair to call a person "pro abortion" - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:45:16] - aaaron: I have a question: Do you two think that there would be more or less abortions in the country if they were illegal? -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:44:34] - a: pro-lifers anti abortion in all circumstances, pro-choicers pro abortion in some circumstances ~g
[2011-10-12 14:43:53] - paul: i'm not sure! it's really hard to measure. they're outspokenly against it, and they want to force it on everybody. maybe that means their opinions are stronger, or that they feel more strongly than other people? but you're right, intuitively it should seem like pro-life people would have a stronger negative opinion regarding the morals of abortion... - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:42:13] - aaron: "there's nobody going out trying to encourage women to get abortions" I actually think that's untrue. I think there's a not-insignificant number of people who think that more abortions would be a good thing, either for environment reasons or eugenics reasons. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:41:08] - aaron: "or that pro-life people are against abortion" is what you had previously said. I wont argue that pro-choice is for abortion but I will say they are for individuals right to choose abortion and I dont think you can say all pro-choicers are anti abortion they are pro abortion in certain circumstances~g
[2011-10-12 14:39:58] - g: "I think pro lifers are anti abortion". most people are anti-abortion. pro lifers are more than anti-abortion. they think they should be illegal. ~a
[2011-10-12 14:39:31] - g: so i agree that pro lifers are anti abortion but i don't think that's a meaningful distinction between the two groups - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:39:12] - Aaron: Ah, I do think I get your point now. You're right, I misunderstood. I don't necessarily disagree that pro-choice individuals can be just as opposed to abortion as pro-life individuals, but my point was that it's hard to argue that pro-choicers are more strongly anti-abortion than pro-lifers, especially when we're talking groups instead of individuals. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:39:00] - g: pro-choicers are anti-abortion too though. nobody is "pro abortion". there's nobody going out trying to encourage women to get abortions. - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:35:55] - aaron: I actually strongly disagree on your definition of pro-life. I dont think it has anything to do with govt funding just on whether it should be allowed. I think pro lifers are anti abortion. ~g
[2011-10-12 14:35:11] - paul: two people who are pro-choice and pro-life might have identical views on abortion's ethicalness. they might both say parents should 100% never have an abortion. but one of them might think it should be illegal, and the other person thinks it should be the parent's decision - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:34:20] - a: I guess it is about decision making in a way, but it's not how I think about it and I think it's more directly about the legality of it. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:33:30] - paul: my point is that you can think something like the death penalty is a bad idea, while still having just as negative an opinion of convicts. you can oppose the TSA while still having just as negative an opinion of bombs/terrorist attacks. and you can have a negative opinion of abortion legislation, while still being just as opposed to abortion as other people - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:32:27] - paul: there's a different between "i think an abortion is ethical" and "i think an abortion should be allowed". and "anti-death penalty" is not the same as being opposed to criminals. i'm not trying to be pedantic but it's kind of my whole point, and you seem to be missing it - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:31:26] - i wonder if the picketers by my house will let me join their picket of the clinic even though i'm pro-choice.
~a[2011-10-12 14:31:10] - Aaron: I'm not sure I see your point. I think those that oppose the death penalty are more anti-death penalty than other people... yes. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:29:43] - Aaron: Why are you surprised? Do you think the opposite? I would say nearly all pro-lifers would say that abortions should almost never be allowed to happen, whereas I think most pro-choicers would say that it should be allowed under certain conditions. -Paul
[2011-10-12 14:29:30] - "I don't really think of either side as a debate on who 'decides' on abortion" it's definitely a debate on who decides on abortion. does the government make it illegal or legal? hmmm, maybe pro-lifers want the debate to be about abortion being right/wrong because they'll recruit more people to their cause? ~a
[2011-10-12 14:29:23] - paul: or 0% i mean. i wonder if there's statistics on that. it seems like a really cruel question to ask someone who's already in a fragile state of mind, so there's probably not any statistics available - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:28:49] - paul: hmm. what percentage of people admitted to abortion clinics are pro-life, do you think? it's probably not 50%. but it's probably not 100% either, right? - aaron
[2011-10-12 14:27:06] - a: don't we have that already? - mig
[2011-10-12 14:26:26] - i'm trying to imagine a government of parents. that would suck. ~a
prev <-> next