Jump to content


Great American Tower 665'
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I most certainly did. It's right there in this thread. Closest you'll ever get to admitting being wrong, I suspect. What is it about facts that you libertarians hate?
  2. I win. UK Economy in Double-Dip Recession: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17836624
  3. I'm pretty sure if you buy something, you don't get to decide what the money you paid gets spent on for the guy you paid it to. Obviously Duke is in favor of the Streetcar because it runs on electricity rather than diesel, and therefore they will get to charge for its operation. I'm pretty sure we all know Towne Properties is in favor of the Streetcar. They are a big corporation.
  4. Is there a way to keep the entire length of the project if we eliminate some of the redundant spots, say, by ending at 2nd Street instead of Freedom Way, by utilizing just Findlay Street instead of that bit on Elder, and by keeping it on 12th instead of taking it down to Central Parkway as well?
  5. Why exactly is gold not fiat money? Or any other commodity for that matter? There certainly isn't enough to gold to circulate for the money that is actually circulating (not to mention that there isn't enough gold to hold in reserve, but I'll ignore that for the moment). So if you don't have gold circulating, you're left with demand notes and convertability, and unlike the U.S. government going bankrupt, we have actual recent experience with the government unilaterally suspending gold convertability. Gold backed currency is still fiat money. Gold backed currency has a notable history of suspension of convertability. Gold (for governments) doesn't pay interest (unlike Treasuries) when they are sitting around in a vault. It requires protection and physical space (unlike Treasuries). Gold back currency is a stupid idea that for some reason will not die in spite of all the facts lying about to kill it.
  6. ^I recognize that this is sort of thing that passes for an unanswerable rebuttal on this forum, but since no one has chosen to engage on any of the significant characteristics that distinguish this action from Operation Iraqi Freedom, I'll merely state that it is also a fallacy to assert that a decision quickly made is equivalent to a decision rashly made. Also, not that anyone on this thread actually cares about the intricacies of international law and security council resolutions, but it is illegal for a signatory state to oppose the implementation of a security council resolution. Since resistance is illegal there's a decent case to be made that there is no war between nations without a legal right to resist. That's one of the reasons that Switzerland did not become a member of the U.N. for so long, because such provisions would have violated their assertion of absolute neutrality and right of self-defense.
  7. "Other equally bad things happening" is not a logical reason to not stop a bad thing from happening. If you stop one bad thing out of six from happening there would be a quantitative decrease in bad things happening. Exactly. That sort of reasoning is so transparently flawed it is amazing it continues to get play. It's not arbitrary if you are paying attention. Of all the Arab revolutions that have occured within this 2011 period, Gaddafi is the only leader who deployed tanks and airpower against protesters. Refugees were pouring out of Libya into both Tunisia and Egypt (something that hasn't been happening in other countries). Our long-term allies, Britain and France, were desirous for intervention. The Arab League voted for intervention. The UN Security Council voted for intervention. The last time anyone had this consensus on and issue was Afghanistan in 2001, or Gulf War I. So I guess if you want to dismiss all of the intervention's distinguishing characteristics, then yeah, it's arbitrary. There's a big difference between the perfect sound-bite to justify something and doing a real job. Just because we are the United States doesn't mean we have absolute control over events. Military actions are particularly fluid. The incredible success in destroying Gaddafi's air capability and rendering his armor ineffective is pretty clear evidence of a plan. As for Congressional approval, I'm pretty sure Congress authorized the funds that maintain and allow the U.S. Sixth Fleet to deploy. They are aware that it patrols the Mediterranean and that we have naval bases there. Congress knows that the U.S. is party to multiple treaties including the U.N. Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They know that the President nominates the Secretary of Defense, that officers hold commissions signed by the President, and that the President is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. They know that the missiles and bombs they've funded actually do blow things up as intended. There's nothing illegal about this action, and anyone who argues so hasn't been paying attention to U.S. history for the last 60 years (or, frankly, the 150 years before that). Seeing how these guys are going up against a homicidal dictator and his tanks and aircraft with little more than AK-47s, I think you might want to give them the benefit of the doubt. This guys are risking their lives, seriously outgunned and out-organized. Seems like the type of acts we generally associate with freedom fighters.
  8. If this is the way you want to look at SS then you can't say that it is a Ponzi scheme. If the government debt held as part of the SS trust fund doesn't count as a credit or asset, then you can't view the system as "Paygo", it is simply a liability of general government that must be met by general revenue.
  9. Really? Did that just happen? You've clearly made the effort to discuss the "facts" of the 2010 election- you've compared the Republican voter turnout to the Republican voter turnout in 2008, you've done the same thing for the Democratic voter turnout, etc. Home run. "Every day, in every way, my facts are so obvious the don't bear citing and government apologists deny my writing."
  10. I'm pretty sure if you keep repeating your mantras over and over to yourself it becomes true! "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better, and the government is getting worse and worse. Every day in every way..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Cou%C3%A9
  11. What's the difference? Except, admin costs when done by the government are far less.
  12. You're not changing the route. The route remains the same. You are simply stopping construction because you can't finish it. By analogy: There once was a transportation project that had the highest ranking by state objective criteria. Then a new governor came in and decided he wanted to dismiss that criteria outright. So he said that the criteria didn't count and that by removing the funds from the highest rated project it would save money. How you can save money by spending the same amount elsewhere was never explained. Yet this happened. So if someone asks, where is the environmental report for the streetcar? You say, it's right there. If they say, but it's a different project because it won't be complete. You say, no, it's the same project. It follows the same route, you're misreading the environmental report. The only difference in the last scenario and the first is that in the first we have a politician who wants to assert his authority to bring about a certain end, regardless of the legality or ethics of it. In the second scenario, will their be a politician who stands up for the City's rights? I guess we will see.
  13. You don't receive unemployment benefits in order to feel better about yourself. You receive unemployment benefits because you've paid into the program. The program is designed to facilitate the job search/retraining of the individual during the period of unemployment, so that they are able to maintain their basic lifestyle (because your expenses that you've contracted when you were employed don't disappear when your job does) while looking for an appropriate position. And they've paid into the insurance program via the payroll deduction while they were working. The program is designed to mitigate the immediate effects of unemployment by allowing people to maintain their obligations and also provide a cushion so that they can find a more appropriate job for their skill set, rather than just grab the first job they can get and may be vastly overqualified for simply because they need a certain amount of income. But joblessness (and ill health) certainly is special in the hierarchy of misfortunes. Having no creative purpose in life or no capacity to contribute is a terrible misfortune that goes to the heart of our vary nature as humans. Federal unemployment insurance doesn't speak to this at all. But this certainly is special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.
  14. You don't understand it because you've missed the point. These social programs aren't attempts to prevent the unpreventable. They are essentially insurance devices to mitigate risks, particularly in the case of the larger ones by transferring the cost of poverty in old age to ones younger years. What an incredibly odd thing to say. Not having work and being in poor physical shape speak to our purpose as sentient beings and our very existence. Feeling worthless or without the ability to take care of yourself rank among the top in the hierarchy of misfortunes. My guess is that you can look at old data from when these programs didn't exist and get a pretty good idea, though you'd probably have to account, at least in the unemployment situation, the massive differences that mechanization has played in countless industries. One reason why studying history is important is that it lets us see that a bunch of other people have already had what we may have considered our own unique insights.
  • Create New...