Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on March 29, 2009, 12:30:00 PM
-
Part1
part2[/youtube]
part3
part4
part5
part6
part7
-
Part1
part2[/youtube]
part3
part4
part5
part6
part7
Good stuff...
-
Did you film this yourself?
-
sometimes he reminds me of Noam Chomsky.
-
sometimes he reminds me of Noam Chomsky.
How so? They have EXTREMELY different perspectives on almost all issues...I am curious do tell...
-
How so? They have EXTREMELY different perspectives on almost all issues...I am curious do tell...
They both are old avuncular men who speak matter-of-factly about topics that are, at times, downright horrifying.
For me the difference is that I respect Chomsky's work. I don't care for many of Paul's ideas. I think many of his ideas hurt the poor and middle class...especially his bromides for healthcare. I think he ignores the complexity of constitutional law and changed historical circumstances with his preaching of 'going back to the constitution' as it was drafted 230 years ago. Times were not better then. Things have changed dramatically making that contention to go back an impossibility. Reducing the size of federal government while increasing the power of the states still leaves us with big government at the state level. What's really being accomplished here? We should make government operate as best as we can. It is not inherently flawed like the Reaganites used to preach.
-
The federal gov is flawed no matter how good their intentions. Huge overbearing systems always are. Thats why we must control its power and not allow excessive taxation in return for more gov programs and influence.
I don't always agree with Ron Paul either but he usually means using the constitution as a guide with its general intents.
-
They both are old avuncular men who speak matter-of-factly about topics that are, at times, downright horrifying.
For me the difference is that I respect Chomsky's work. I don't care for many of Paul's ideas. I think many of his ideas hurt the poor and middle class...especially his bromides for healthcare. I think he ignores the complexity of constitutional law and changed historical circumstances with his preaching of 'going back to the constitution' as it was drafted 230 years ago. Times were not better then. Things have changed dramatically making that contention to go back an impossibility. Reducing the size of federal government while increasing the power of the states still leaves us with big government at the state level. What's really being accomplished here? We should make government operate as best as we can. It is not inherently flawed like the Reaganites used to preach.
Some of his Chomsky's views I adhere to, some of Pauls.
Try reading some of Chomsky's syntax stuff...hard as fuck... :P
-
The federal gov is flawed no matter how good their intentions. Huge overbearing systems always are. Thats why we must control its power and not allow excessive taxation in return for more gov programs and influence.
I don't always agree with Ron Paul either but he usually means using the constitution as a guide with its general intents.
Every system of government is flawed to some extent. Our Justice system is flawed. Humans are flawed. That doesn't change the fact that some federal programs happen to work. IN fact, one of the largest federal programs - Social Security - works better than any comparable private program on the planet. NOw do we dispose of that b/c of the program's size? When is big too big?
We have good government. Not perfect government. It requires effort and vigilance to keep on top of the multitude of private interests looking to direct the governmental power in undemocratic ways....i.e., special interests.
-
Some of his Chomsky's views I adhere to, some of Pauls.
Try reading some of Chomsky's syntax stuff...hard as fuck... :P
I stopped reading his linguistic works back in college. Sometimes I don't care for the Barsamian/Chomsky interview format. I always think back to the movie Rainman, when that one dude is going on and on about the fucking history of the Pony Express...that reminds me of those interview books.
-
We have and probably always will disagree some as to the size and scope of the government needed. Its a respecful disagreement. However, I think many people are concerned with the gov's actions and potentially increasing power these last 3 months. I suppose there is some reasonable balance but I believe we are currently seeing a trend of too much gov power and too much spending that will necessitate the gov taking more of our money. I feel the overall taxation imposed on the population is already too high so I wish for the gov to regulate but also show more restraint as far as spending and new programs. This is not whats happening.
-
We have and probably always will disagree some as to the size and scope of the government needed. Its a respecful disagreement. However, I think many people are concerned with the gov's actions and potentially increasing power these last 3 months. I suppose there is some reasonable balance but I believe we are currently seeing a trend of too much gov power and too much spending that will necessitate the gov taking more of our money. I feel the overall taxation imposed on the population is already too high so I wish for the gov to regulate but also show more restraint as far as spending and new programs. This is not whats happening.
Yes, it is good to debate with you. To me the question of too much power in an unresponsive/uncaring repository should be addressed. Giant private companies have decimated our economy...our standard of living...our prospects for a better life. I have zero say in how these private giants do business.
I do have a say in how our government operates. The constitution says I do. Other people like me can coalesce and make our collective voices heard to influence how government operates.
That cannot be said of big private business.
In this vein, I say government is not perfect but it's the best organizational entity we have for serving the Public interest...not the interests of a few.
I see you mention spending restraint. Why? If we restrain spending, we will have more unfunded mandates than we do now. Why? Elected officials get re-elected (elected) for bringing home the bacon (spending) to his/her constituency. People love gov. jobs. Directing politicians not to go after spending is their own suicide.
You contend that we should curb spending. No politician in his/her right mind would want to curb the spending that benefits him/her and the constituency.
Unless you have a recipe for countering fulfillment of self-interest (i.e., the very basis of capitalistic laissez faire economy), we really cannot address the issue of limiting spending in any meaningful way.
What are your thoughts?
-
"In this vein, I say government is not perfect but it's the best organizational entity we have for serving the Public interest...not the interests of a few".
I agree with this, particularly with banking. Because of the federal reserve and the international dependency of the banking system, I agree that the banking system needs regulation and oversight from our government. However, the type of oversight is important. Not oversight that creates problems like forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them for political purpose. So, I see the fed gov forcing banks to abide by good practices rather than forcing them to move away from their internal healthy regulations. Here, I agree with basic regulation as long as it is not pushing a particular political agenda.
-
Yes, the system is set up for politicians to try to spend more money. The only people that can try to restrain that impulse is us. Thats why many republicans get into office and break their packs with true conservative once they are elected. We must vote out those who cannot control spending. More spending means more money taken away from citizens in the form of taxation. (well, in our case we've been just printing it ;D). Inevitably our taxes will go up to pay for Bush 2 and Obama. I am against this.
I believe the gov must be held tighter to budgets. I do not believe in excessive deficit spending unless there is a time of war. We are becoming used to deficit spending. In fact, we will soon have nearly 20 yrs of deficit spending if the recent spending additions are approved.
-
"In this vein, I say government is not perfect but it's the best organizational entity we have for serving the Public interest...not the interests of a few".
I agree with this, particularly with banking. Because of the federal reserve and the international dependency of the banking system, I agree that the banking system needs regulation and oversight from our government. However, the type of oversight is important. Not oversight that creates problems like forcing banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them for political purpose. So, I see the fed gov forcing banks to abide by good practices rather than forcing them to move away from their internal healthy regulations. Here, I agree with basic regulation as long as it is not pushing a particular political agenda.
I agree with most of your sentiments. However, the banking system is regulated by the federal government. The feds can create a program to help lower middle class secure a home loan if they qualify. The collapse of our real estate market was not due to the loans to lower middle class people.
To me helping those kind of people out is not a political agenda, it's the american way of life. To me, a political agenda is the creation of debt laden instruments for gambling on real estate mortgages. That kind of gambling is what put us in this hole. That kind of gambling skirted regulation. That kind of gambling was created by PHil Gramm and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
-
Yes, the system is set up for politicians to try to spend more money. The only people that can try to restrain that impulse is us. Thats why many republicans get into office and break their packs with true conservative once they are elected. We must vote out those who cannot control spending. More spending means more money taken away from citizens in the form of taxation. (well, in our case we've been just printing it ;D). Inevitably our taxes will go up to pay for Bush 2 and Obama. I am against this.
I believe the gov must be held tighter to budgets. I do not believe in excessive deficit spending unless there is a time of war. We are becoming used to deficit spending. In fact, we will soon have nearly 20 yrs of deficit spending if the recent spending additions are approved.
Exactly. The finger points to us...We The People. I don't think America has the stomach to be prudent with governmental dollars. Well, that's pretty much obvious.
-
I agree with most of your sentiments. However, the banking system is regulated by the federal government. The feds can create a program to help lower middle class secure a home loan if they qualify. The collapse of our real estate market was not due to the loans to lower middle class people.
To me helping those kind of people out is not a political agenda, it's the american way of life. To me, a political agenda is the creation of debt laden instruments for gambling on real estate mortgages. That kind of gambling is what put us in this hole. That kind of gambling skirted regulation. That kind of gambling was created by PHil Gramm and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
I dont disagree with you on this, but look who they breid/ailed out???? The gangsters who created this mess. Both parties. GWB/McCain/Pelosi/Reid/Obama.
They could have spent alot less money and helped alot more people out which would have helped the banks.
Screw these gangsters on wall street. Let them reap what they sowed.