Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Cythraul]

I'm just glad that I don't have to listen to his protectionist rambling anymore.

 

[Dak]

I'm just glad that I don't have to listen to his protectionist rambling anymore.

So you are for free trade agreements between imbalanced economies? Or am I making a wrong assumption based on a false premise?

 

[cookiecutter]

How convenient for you. You have no argument whatsoever, but you couldn't possibly be wrong, so you'll just dismiss all this as "conspiracy theories" and loonie-talk. Maybe you should do a little critical thinking here instead of just resting on your faith in Obama's good-natured campaign promises to save you the trouble.

You just don't get it. I am not so naive as to think every campaign promise would have been fulfilled. I am not so naive as to think the US government has been, is, or will ever be completely moral and righteous. But I am also not so naive as to think I can read some articles on the internet and discover the shocking secret that people are corrupt and things don't work perfectly.

You want to know why I support Obama? Because he is the best option and the politician who supports the most things I support. He wants to pass some sort of health care bill. He wants to withdraw from Iraq. He wants to work amicably with other world powers. Even if I were to take all your accusations as true he's all I've got. You want to call that uncritical faith in good-natured campaign promises that's your prerogative.

Some people react to this rather depressing scenario by adopting radical and unreasonable political views which never have to be practically justified because thankfully most people don't buy into them. I prefer to go the pragmatic route and support a leader who will get done a lot of what I support.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Nick, I love you.

 

[Dak]

He wants to pass some sort of health care bill. He wants to withdraw from Iraq.

The short-sightedness and niavety in these sentences speak volumes.

 

[Cythraul]

So you are for free trade agreements between imbalanced economies? Or am I making a wrong assumption based on a false premise?

I need to know what you mean by 'free trade agreements' because iirc the last time I looked at a "free trade" agreement I found page after page of tariff rates. I'd also like to know what you mean by 'imbalanced economies.'

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, I just like the fact that you criticize Obama so much. And in fact, most of the problems you have with him are things that I have problems with too even though we're on different ends of the spectrum.

Yeah, I figure since I fell for his promises last year I may as well do my part to debunk them now. I like a lot of the ideals he seemed to represent back then, but he's pretty much taken a giant shit on those since he got elected.

I too can post articles from dubious places that aren't fact-checked by independent experts and assume the absolute worst, most ridiculous things from them. But I'll def. leave that to him since it is usually amusing, if painful.

I didn't say his sources are legitimate, I was just pointing out that his general narrative of the country's future differs markedly from that of the mainstream political dialogue.

 

[Dak]

I need to know what you mean by 'free trade agreements' because iirc the last time I looked at a "free trade" agreement I found page after page of tariff rates. I'd also like to know what you mean by 'imbalanced economies.'

Without going into details, which I lack on this subject at the moment, the general problem is that we have trade deals worked out with countries with poor economies and little or no worker's rights or environmental regulations allowing companies to outsource manufacturing and then import it for cheaper than they can manufacture it here.

This is the economic equivalent of national suicide when we have the technology, resources, and manpower to be self-sufficient.

That's the general gist of a US protectionist ideology. Illegal immigrants didn't take "our jerbs", the jobs moved outside the country.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I didn't say his sources are legitimate, I was just pointing out that his general narrative of the country's future differs markedly from that of the mainstream political dialogue.

It also is not quite desirable nor close enough to reality.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You just don't get it. I am not so naive as to think every campaign promise would have been fulfilled. I am not so naive as to think the US government has been, is, or will ever be completely moral and righteous. But I am also not so naive as to think I can read some articles on the internet and discover the shocking secret that people are corrupt and things don't work perfectly.

When a health care bill originally intended to model our system after successful European ones gets reduced to essentially "mandatory private insurance", and the government's 'expert' panel on preventive care policy recommends against mammography for women in their 40s in order to save costs despite a significant statistical likelihood of breast cancer at that age, we're too far from "perfect".

When a bill to audit the Federal Reserve is gutted by a Congressman whose district houses the headquarters of Bank of America, and the government thinks it's better to toss hundreds of billions of dollars at monopolistically-large financial companies instead of breaking them up at a time when our national debt is already at alarming levels, we're definitely too far from "perfect".

If you can look honestly at these problems and tell me we'll get along well enough with the status quo, I think you're the one being naive.

You want to know why I support Obama? Because he is the best option and the politician who supports the most things I support. He wants to pass some sort of health care bill. He wants to withdraw from Iraq. He wants to work amicably with other world powers. Even if I were to take all your accusations as true he's all I've got. You want to call that uncritical faith in good-natured campaign promises that's your prerogative.

Obama is not "all we've got". There are independent and minor party candidates out there, and a lot of people vote for them, but not enough vote for them because the majority of us continue to buy into the self-defeating notion that there's "no other choice" but a Republican or a Democrat.

Let me try an idea on you that I hope you will give a moment of consideration before dismissing as "radical nonsense". There is a website/program called VotePact that proposes a solution to the problem of "lesser evilism". They encourage people to pair up with someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum and make an agreement with that person to mutually vote for the minor/independent political candidates they most agree with (i.e. the liberal partner would agree to vote Green and the conservative partner would agree to vote Constitution). Thus, neither partner in the pact will feel that their vote is simply a "handout to the opposition".

If people started talking about - and advocating - ideas like that on a wider scale, we might possibly stand a chance at breaking the Republican/Democrat duopoly. It's certainly better than going "oh, there's just no choice" and handing over our rights and tax dollars to crooks.

Some people react to this rather depressing scenario by adopting radical and unreasonable political views which never have to be practically justified because thankfully most people don't buy into them. I prefer to go the pragmatic route and support a leader who will get done a lot of what I support.

What in God's name is "radical and unreasonable" about anything I'm saying? Is it crazy to think we may just need someone other than Democrats and Republicans running the government if we're going to keep big business from wreaking havoc over our economy for profit decade after decade, or trampling our civil rights in the name of "national security"? Your idea of "pragmatism" sounds like an excuse to not even bother thinking of an alternative to pursue, let alone pursue it. I would ask you show a little more intellectual courage than that.

 

[skeptik]

I'm just posting to make sure that everybody realizes that the supposed effort of Obama intentionally decreasing the value of the dollar is not a new phenomenon by any means. Bush very heavily, and I argued actively, devalued the dollar with the intent of strengthening the Euro in relation to OPEC. I actually wrote a paper about this in 2003 and my teacher looked at me pretty oddly when he handed back the paper, but I got an A so obviously I was right. *insert YOU OWN EMOTICON here because all of my emoticon choice are incorrect*

Also, my position is still pretty well encapsulated in vihris-gari's signature quote. I do not and have not actively supported any politician or pin-pointed myself on any particular dot on the political spectrum, and I don't intend to start doing so.

 

[Dak]

I'm just posting to make sure that everybody realizes that the supposed effort of Obama intentionally decreasing the value of the dollar is not a new phenomenon by any means. Bush very heavily, and I argued actively, devalued the dollar with the intent of strengthening the Euro in relation to OPEC. I actually wrote a paper about this in 2003 and my teacher looked at me pretty oddly when he handed back the paper, but I got an A so obviously I was right. *insert YOU OWN EMOTICON here because all of my emoticon choice are incorrect*

Also, my position is still pretty well encapsulated in vihris-gari's signature quote. I do not and have not actively supported any politician or pin-pointed myself on any particular dot on the political spectrum, and I don't intend to start doing so.

Well of course devaluing the dollar is not new. It's been going on since 1913. It temporarily covers government debt (while creating more) but steals from the individual worker by reducing buying power. It's like using credit cards to pay credit cards, while simultaneously stealing from your employer.

@ V5: Of course these ends I list aren't desirable (hyper-inflation, extreme government control, etc.). But they are a very possible reality in *our lifetime* if the current political direction is not changed, and real change, not another big money puppet.

Whether or not you want to consider it "goofball ranting" is on you, but at least I create the conversations for a few pages by throwing something different out there, and that is the best I can hope for.

Also, I would like to point out that I don't buy into the "popular" gloom and doom (like manmade global warming and the swine flu). The Al Gore's of the world are the gloomndoomers that are full of shit.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The thing about the global warming issue that really irritates me is that people fixate on that so much while ignoring several much more credible and similarly serious environmental threats - overfishing, coral reef destruction, deforestation, etc. Any of these could be just as dangerous as global warming, if not more so, but "global warming" has become the prevailing sound bite of all things environmentalism.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

If people started talking about - and advocating - ideas like that on a wider scale, we might possibly stand a chance at breaking the Republican/Democrat duopoly. It's certainly better than going "oh, there's just no choice" and handing over our rights and tax dollars to crooks.

Do you honestly believe that what makes the president a "crook" is the fact that he's part of the duopoly of the US party structure? Have you ever thought it is the power that comes with the job which is the cause of corruption? I am willing to bet that all of your third-party candidates would stop being so perfect if they were in charge of the whole country. I find it funny that you and many others claim to be so open-minded and undeceived as to think this, because it is not necessarily true by any stretch.

 

[Dak]

Do you honestly believe that what makes the president a "crook" is the fact that he's part of the duopoly of the US party structure? Have you ever thought it is the power that comes with the job which is the cause of corruption? I am willing to bet that all of your third-party candidates would stop being so perfect if they were in charge of the whole country. I find it funny that you and many others claim to be so open-minded and undeceived as to think this, because it is not necessarily true by any stretch.

Corruption is generally easy to prove by voting records prior to achieving higher office. Very rarely do voting records change, regardless how the rhetoric changes.

 

[skeptik]

I hate the fact that global warming has become a political issue over time.

 

[Dak]

That's because there's big money involved (obviously).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Do you honestly believe that what makes the president a "crook" is the fact that he's part of the duopoly of the US party structure? Have you ever thought it is the power that comes with the job which is the cause of corruption? I am willing to bet that all of your third-party candidates would stop being so perfect if they were in charge of the whole country. I find it funny that you and many others claim to be so open-minded and undeceived as to think this, because it is not necessarily true by any stretch.

Of course I realise that power causes corruption, genius. That doesn't mean there aren't some politicians who are immensely more honest than others (even among the Dems and Repubs), and it certainly doesn't mean a minor party is going to be EXACTLY AS CORRUPT (on the whole) as the Dems and Repubs currently are (on the whole) if it happens to displace them in Congress, the White House, or wherever. Sure, they may become worse over time, but that's why you're supposed to start voting for someone else!

I find it funny that you continue to play one of the biggest know-it-alls on the forums when your actual knowledge of what you're talking about comes nowhere near what you seem to think you know.

Silver has no intrinsic value!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm not playing a know-it-all...I'm merely calling into question your "know-it-all"-ness. I may not be correct in my assertions, as I'm not the biggest proponent of caring about politics as some people here are, but I'm just expressing my personal view of the silliness of all of this. If that makes me "dumb", so be it; I'm over it on this forum. Y'all are a bunch of random armchair philosophers anyway, so it barely matters to me if I'm considered stupid by you

Are said politicians really honest, or are even their voting records engineered in such a way to make them seem honest to people like you guys who consider yourselves undeceived by the obvious corruption of the Fed? Sure, statistics tell some of the story, but they don't tell it all, and I'm willing to bet that even if Ron Paul (ew) got into office, he'd do just as much ridiculous shit as a major-party candidate and would piss off basically everyone in the country with his antics (which you just so happen to agree with).

 

[Dak]

The only people who would be pissed off would be those who quit getting the handouts. If you are aware of some other reason anyone would be pissed off at Ron Paul or others who hold similar views I would love to hear it.

I would much rather the group of people who are a drain on the country be unhappy than those who produce.