Support NeoGAF

[Sharp]

Global warming is pretty much a market failure and there's no way a libertarian is going to be willing to admit that fact, so it's probably not worth pursuing any further.

 

[grandjedi6]

Of course not, I'd rather he fight for TRUE equality. If he has to bow to political pressure in those circumstances and sign a civil union bill that's one thing, but he's showing no political spine on this issue, he's not willing to take the tough stand on the issue (whether out of a personal belief or political expedience), he's instead conceding second class status without a fight. THAT is what irks me. Fight for me on true equality or don't claim to be some great champion of equal rights for all Americans.

So your problem with Obama is that he advocates letting the states address same sex marriage instead of advocating full marriage rights himself? Well what is your alternative then? Nader?

Again though, how is a libertarian who believes in global warming going to make differing decisions? If there aren't any clear and obvious examples from a libertarian perspective (I don't think there are any off hand, but it's late). Speaking of, since it's 3:30 (almost) my time I'm going to bed, I'll respond tomorrow if you like though.

As Mandark said, scientific reality directly conflicts with the libertarian ideal. You can't both believe in global warming and its effects but also oppose any kind of climate change regulation/policy without being either ignorant or suicidal. While you are correct that not believing global warming has little effect on simplist libertarian policy, it does make me not trust the candidate on any climate related issues.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

What do you guys expect the popular vote to look like in November? Pretty close, like in 2004, right?

2000 was pretty close, with a 0.5 million difference between the candidates. 2004 less so, with a 3 million difference in the other direction.

I agree it will be only a few %. The primary has gotten so much media buzz I am unsure if there is this confused chunk of public out there who would suddenly switch cause he won.

I'd say it's less to do with confused voters unaware of buzz, but bitter Clinton voters clinging to their nonbamas possibly changing their minds.

Yeah, and as I was just editing in... that just seems REALLY dangerous to me, it destroys the entire notion of a person's vote mattering in the smaller states.

The vast majority of peoples' votes don't make a difference now. If you're in a minority, your vote helped your candidate in no way. If you're in a large majority, your vote in particular didn't help your candidate any more than an outcome of 1-0 would've.

 

[Kaeru]

I forget the exact quote (and who said it) but it goes something like:

Anyone who aspires to the presidency is ill prepared to receive it.

I find that to be true 99% of the time.

But to get specific:

* I am against any form of universal healthcare. I believe Barack's plan does not address the real issues causing health care costs to rise.
* I believe the government should not be anywhere near the business of creating jobs.
* I am against any knee-jerk regulation against mortgage lenders when the "crisis" we currently have is largely the fault of the people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford.
* I believe his plan for troop withdrawal in Iraq will only lead to disaster down the road.
* I am strongly against abortion in all cases that are not for rape, incest or a situation where the mother's health is in serious danger. Obama quite obviously does not share this view.

1. Name me one president who got chosen against his will?

2. What are the real issues causing health care costs to rise?

3. Goverment creates tons of job, look at your police dep, fire dep, schools, state officials etc. Be more specific please.

4. Why will it be a disaster, I mean more then it already is?

5. I wont even try to debate about the abortion issue though, we can skip that one :lol

And for the record I'm not trying to corner you or anything, I'm just a guy from Sweden who is interested in how conservative Americans resonate.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Oh, and on the mortgage crisis, that is absolutely the work of the government and the financial industry. By pushing for deregulation, and getting it, there's an entire speculative market out there on stock options that aren't taxed or overseen. Furthermore, the bundling of mortgages and the misinformation spread by the banking industry to the target market set the stage for an incoming disaster.

To lay the blame on the people for this one is quite wrong.

 

[grandjedi6]

1. Name me one president who got chosen against his will?

2. What are the real issues causing health care costs to rise?

3. Goverment creates tons of job, look at your police dep, fire dep, schools, state officials etc. Be more specific please.

4. Why will it be a disaster, I mean more then it already is?

5. I wont even try to debate about the abortion issue though, we can skip that one :lol

And for the record I'm not trying to corner you or anything, I'm just a guy from Sweden who is interested in how conservative Americans resonate.

Even though I'm an American liberal I'm fairly certain I can guess the answers for him:

1.) Washington and arguably Eisenhower

2.) Health Care is not the government's responsibility, ect.

3.) Free market + a deep hatred of regulatory economics

4.) If we leave Iraq it will become a haven for al-qaeda/chaos will erupt

5.) In before Jaydubya

So basically Oozer3993 is likely a Republican and American Conservative

 

[User 10639]

1.) Washington and arguably Eisenhower

Not to mention a bunch of Vice Presidents, i.e. Truman (at least the first term)

 

[teruterubozu]

Not to mention a bunch of Vice Presidents, i.e. Truman (at least the first term)

and Gerald Ford, to name another.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Just to weigh in on one issue from the last few pages... I don't think it's possible to "believe in" climate change. To me, "believe in" is reserved for belief in either the mythological sense or the subjective opinion sense. I think it's okay to believe in God or to believe in supply-side economics, but I don't think it's possible to believe in the Sun or a round earth or evolution or climate change. Things that are factual are not believed in, they're recognized. If no one on earth chooses to recognize them, they'll still be true.

 

[Uncooked]

Oh, and on the mortgage crisis, that is absolutely the work of the government and the financial industry. By pushing for deregulation, and getting it, there's an entire speculative market out there on stock options that aren't taxed or overseen. Furthermore, the bundling of mortgages and the misinformation spread by the banking industry to the target market set the stage for an incoming disaster.

To lay the blame on the people for this one is quite wrong.

it is a bit ridiculous to claim that all of those people who had no business buying all that real estate they couldn't afford wasn't their fault.

 

[SouthernDragon]

The original backing behind the loans, in terms of government intent, was to spur the economy by allowing people who would normally not be able to afford a home to buy one. The loans were intended to be good loans for people.

They weren't written as such. They were pitched anyway, and people bought into them. These are people who probably don't have an extensive education or time to look up the meaning of the fine print.

The mortgages were then bundled and sold to other companies. Thus, the banks that made the loans originally passed the incredibly risky loans off onto other companies. Since the bundles included good and stable loans, the details of individual loans were lost and the bundles were overvalued. This chain kept going until the very bottom of the chain, the people defaulted on their loans.

This reached the levels that it did thanks to speculation and hype, lack of regulation on behalf of the government. There's an excellent NPR podcast that details what happened exactly in this situation. If you want, I can direct you towards it. If I'm not mistaken, it's the 4/4/08 podcast of Fresh Air.

 

[Uncooked]

These are people who probably don't have an extensive education or time to look up the meaning of the fine print.

This was my point though, you can't claim ignorance as an excuse and throw all the blame on another party. There are plenty of things I don't understand, so I either take the time to educate myself or stay away. Most of the people thought they could simply not work as hard as responsible homeowners and get away with it, and it bit them in the ass. I am of course talking about the people who actually wanted to own their homes, not the ones trying to flip the houses for a quick profit. Those people truly got what they deserved, living far beyond their own means and thinking they could simply buy and sell houses like it required no proper skill or training.

P.S. I don't think 4/4/08 is the right show, that one looks to be about MLK jr.

 

[Hitokage]

This was my point though, you can't claim ignorance as an excuse and throw all the blame on another party. There are plenty of things I don't understand, so I either take the time to educate myself or stay away. Most of the people thought they could simply not work as hard as responsible homeowners and get away with it, and it bit them in the ass. I am of course talking about the people who actually wanted to own their homes, not the ones trying to flip the houses for a quick profit. Those people truly got what they deserved, living far beyond their own means and thinking they could simply buy and sell houses like it required no proper skill or training.

Maybe, just maybe, there is more than one kind of situation to be considered here? Many people were sold fraudulent loans.

Besides, there was increasing pressure on mortgage firms to sell those risky loans, especially when competitors started relaxing their standards. One of the rationales being that even if somebody defaulted the increased house price would make the collateral more valuable than the original loan.

 

[Uncooked]

Maybe, just maybe, there is more than one kind of situation to be considered here? Not everyone was house flipping.

I didn't say they were, even in my last post i mentioned not everyone was. Look, I'm not putting all the blame on the buyers here, I was just arguing that it wasn't all the banks and financial institutions' fault that the bubble burst. Everyone deserves their fair share of the blame.

 

[LCGeek]

Just to weigh in on one issue from the last few pages... I don't think it's possible to "believe in" climate change. To me, "believe in" is reserved for belief in either the mythological sense or the subjective opinion sense. I think it's okay to believe in God or to believe in supply-side economics, but I don't think it's possible to believe in the Sun or a round earth or evolution or climate change. Things that are factual are not believed in, they're recognized. If no one on earth chooses to recognize them, they'll still be true.

Belief is the basis of all perception. We learn many things and choose to behave on those beliefs based on how true or false we believe them to be.

There are those that believe in god
There are those that believe in many gods
There are those that believe in no gods
There are those that believe they are a god

The biggest problem problem with belief is right before most eyes yet most do what you did and ignore that it's all of our nature instead apply it merely to our spirtual nature.

 

[syllogism]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Barack Obama’s bounce growing to an eight-point lead over John McCain. Obama now attracts 48% of the vote while McCain earns 40%.

When “leaners” are included, Obama leads 50% to 43%. On Tuesday, just before Obama clinched the nomination, the candidates were tied at 46% (see recent daily results). Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Obama a % 95.0 chance of winning.

whoa

 

[Trakdown]

whoa

...And to think, he hasn't really started GE campaigning yet.

 

[Cheebs]

whoa

With leaners a 7 point lead?

NIIICE. That is a bigger bounce than any of us in this thread predicted.

1.) Washington and arguably Eisenhower

Gerald Ford never wanted to be President either.

One in a way could argue JFK as well. When his brother died in WWII, who was the one who was going to get into politics JFK's dad forced JFK into politics to fufill his dead brothers aspirations.

 

[Hitokage]

whoa

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24016480/

"Currently polls show McCain either narrowly ahead or even with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is impressive considering how poorly the GOP, and specifically the president, are viewed by the public.

But it is a faux lead. If the de facto Democratic nominee is clear within the next 4-6 weeks, that person will see a poll bounce. And according to GOP pollster Steve Lombardo, it could be one heck of a bounce, like post-convention. He anticipates the Democratic candidate will move up 10 points once the primary race is over."
- Chuck Todd, April 9th

 

[Cheebs]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24016480/

"Currently polls show McCain either narrowly ahead or even with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is impressive considering how poorly the GOP, and specifically the president, are viewed by the public.

But it is a faux lead. If the de facto Democratic nominee is clear within the next 4-6 weeks, that person will see a poll bounce. And according to GOP pollster Steve Lombardo, it could be one heck of a bounce, like post-convention. He anticipates the Democratic candidate will move up 10 points once the primary race is over."
- Chuck Todd, April 9th

I wouldn't take the 10 points claim from the GOP at face value. In politics you always under-predict how you do and over-predict your opposition so when expectations aren't met it is seen as a disappointment from your opposition.

I'd like to see what a Democrat pollster predicted but I dunno if any said anything.

 

[User 10639]

Global warming is pretty much a market failure and there's no way a libertarian is going to be willing to admit that fact, so it's probably not worth pursuing any further.

The second part is true, but global warming isn't a market failure, so to speak, because the only real goal of an unregulated market is to produce profit, hence the only way to reliably change problems that arise (i.e. global warming) is a variance in governing policy.

So, like, there's no invisible magical hand guiding everything in the economy, in other words.

The vast majority of peoples' votes don't make a difference now. If you're in a minority, your vote helped your candidate in no way. If you're in a large majority, your vote in particular didn't help your candidate any more than an outcome of 1-0 would've.

Your vote really doesn't matter in an uber-small state (except New Hampshire) or a really big one (except Florida) because those vote reliably one way or the other.

But if you're in NH, FL, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, or Nevada, the electoral college is gonna be good for you this year. Boo "one man, one vote" principle, boo! Californians suck.

 

[avaya]

Rasmussen was the only organisation to get Super Tuesday right weren't they? Is so, this is very good news.

 

[VistraNorrez]

Just to weigh in on one issue from the last few pages... I don't think it's possible to "believe in" climate change. To me, "believe in" is reserved for belief in either the mythological sense or the subjective opinion sense. I think it's okay to believe in God or to believe in supply-side economics, but I don't think it's possible to believe in the Sun or a round earth or evolution or climate change. Things that are factual are not believed in, they're recognized. If no one on earth chooses to recognize them, they'll still be true.

The thing is, earth has been around for a very long time with various different climates. What exactly is normal? We've only recently in human history been keeping extensive records of the climate. We have things like the Little Ice Age from the 1500s to mid 1800s, which it's coldest points happen to coincide with the Maunder Minimum.

I would agree the earth is getting warmer, we have the proof of that, but how much is man made and how much is just the earth doing it's thing is still not proven.

 

[Hitokage]

The second part is true, but global warming isn't a market failure, so to speak, because the only real goal of an unregulated market is to produce profit, hence the only way to reliably change problems that arise (i.e. global warming) is a variance in governing policy.

So, like, there's no invisible magical hand guiding everything in the economy, in other words.

You're confusing the mandate of a public corporation with that of a market.

The thing is, earth has been around for a very long time with various different climates. What exactly is normal? We've only recently in human history been keeping extensive records of the climate. We have things like the Little Ice Age from the 1500s to mid 1800s, which it's coldest points happen to coincide with the Maunder Minimum.

At no other point in history did we have over six billion people with the demand for consistent food production. Whether or not people can adapt to various situations, our economy is fairly dependent on nothing rocking the boat or disrupting the food chain.

 

[avaya]

The thing is, earth has been around for a very long time with various different climates. What exactly is normal? We've only recently in human history been keeping extensive records of the climate. We have things like the Little Ice Age from the 1500s to mid 1800s, which it's coldest points happen to coincide with the Maunder Minimum.

I would agree the earth is getting warmer, we have the proof of that, but how much is man made and how much is just the earth doing it's thing is still not proven.

The scientific community is united in their belief that the climate change is man made. It simply blows my mind people think they know better than people who've spent their entire careers researching these phenomena.

 

[Zeed]

The scientific community is united in their belief that the climate change is man made. It simply blows my mind people think they know better than people who've spent their entire careers researching these phenomena.

Evolution is just a theory.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

You're confusing the mandate of a public corporation with that of a market.
At no other point in history did we have over six billion people with the demand for consistent food production. Whether or not people can adapt to various situations, our economy is fairly dependent on nothing rocking the boat or disrupting the food chain.

You're too smart to be president Mr. Obama.

*trippin' balls*

 

[theBishop]

The scientific community is united in their belief that the climate change is man made. It simply blows my mind people think they know better than people who've spent their entire careers researching these phenomena.

You don't understand, avaya. Most of them are liberal, pinko, atheists.

 

[Stumpokapow]

You're confusing the mandate of a public corporation with that of a market.

Even then, the mandate of a public corporation is to sustain growth, and any corporation that mortgages sustainable growth for temporary growth will be dumped by its shareholders. Unfortunately, the relatively short length of time that a given shareholder or board member stays with the company lends itself very much to this sort of action.

... and that, ladies and gentlemen, is how we arrive at a tragedy of the commons.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

WELL.

I'm a little LTTP here, catching up, but I thought it was a pretty great speech by the Hill, and just what she needed to say. Boy, Olbermann really came out though as the true sore loser here. Harping on "after 6:25" and the "middle portion of the speech", it's like, dude. Come on. She did it. Give it a fucking rest.

Ship that guy off to cover the circuit court in Nebraska or some shit. He sticks out of their coverage like a sore thumb.

Anyway, I think she did a great job turning her supporters around by starting her speech focusing on them and then carrying them through to their necessary support for his campaign. Very artfully done.

 

[Zeed]

WELL.

I'm a little LTTP here, catching up, but I thought it was a pretty great speech by the Hill, and just what she needed to say. Boy, Olbermann really came out though as the true sore loser here. Harping on "after 6:25" and the "middle portion of the speech", it's like, dude. Come on. She did it. Give it a fucking rest.

Ship that guy off to cover the circuit court in Nebraska or some shit. He sticks out of their coverage like a sore thumb.

Anyway, I think she did a great job turning her supporters around by starting her speech focusing on them and then carrying them through to their necessary support for his campaign. Very artfully done.

If polls show that she largely undoes the damage she's wrecked over the past few months I'm ready to forgive her.

 

[ratcliffja]

Evolution is just a theory.

Yes, yes it is. It's a widely accepted theory, but it's still just a theory. I happen to believe in evolution, but it really annoys me when people laugh at those who don't.

 

[syllogism]

Yes, yes it is. It's a widely accepted theory, but it's still just a theory. I happen to believe in evolution, but it really annoys me when people laugh at those who don't.

Please stop

 

[User 10639]

Yes, yes it is. It's a widely accepted theory, but it's still just a theory. I happen to believe in evolution, but it really annoys me when people laugh at those who don't.

You know the scientific definition of a theory, right, and that nothing technically ever moves past the stage of "theory"?

If translated from common vernacular, "just a theory" becomes "just a hypothesis." So "global warming is just a hypothesis!" is rightly ridiculed.

You're confusing the mandate of a public corporation with that of a market.

It's from lack of sleep, I swear. I feel my normally rock-solid hold on the finer points of grammar slipping away as well.

 

[Zeed]

it really annoys me when people laugh at those who don't.

It is the basis of all modern biology and those people you mention are actively participating in the scientific retardation of our society, as are you by being complicit in it.

However I have a death-pact with a certain mod not to lose my temper over this, so I'll let you have your Pyhrric victory.

 

[ratcliffja]

You know the scientific definition of a theory, right, and that nothing technically ever moves past the stage of "theory"?

If translated from common vernacular, "just a theory" becomes "just a hypothesis." So "global warming is just a hypothesis!" is rightly ridiculed.

Indeed I do. I won't go into this further, though. I just wanted to have my say, but I don't want to derail this thread. All I'm saying is that all science is open to debate and change, and we generally learn more about our world when we keep an open mind. This goes for both sides of the debate. Again, though, let's end this here. Think of me as you will. We just don't need to go into it in this thread.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Yes, yes it is. It's a widely accepted theory, but it's still just a theory. I happen to believe in evolution, but it really annoys me when people laugh at those who don't.

Whether evolution is true or false has absolutely nothing to do with how many people accept it or do not accept it. Even operating on the assumption that it's a crock, it's still not a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. Evolution either is or it is not true, and it doesn't care how many people on Earth "believe in it".

Also, I would note that America is virtually the only developed nation where this conversation would even be possible. (source). Offline, I've met maybe a handful of people in my life who do not recognize evolution--probably around ten or so at the most.

 

[gkryhewy]

Yes, yes it is. It's a widely accepted theory, but it's still just a theory. I happen to believe in evolution, but it really annoys me when people laugh at those who don't.

:lol :lol Only in America (and taliban afghanistan). Ask your junior high science teacher to clarify scientific theory for you....

Indeed I do. I won't go into this further, though. I just wanted to have my say, but I don't want to derail this thread. All I'm saying is that all science is open to debate and change, and we generally learn more about our world when we keep an open mind. This goes for both sides of the debate. Again, though, let's end this here. Think of me as you will. We just don't need to go into it in this thread.

....because you clearly don't understand it.

 

[Mango Positive]

Yes, yes it is. It's a widely accepted theory, but it's still just a theory. I happen to believe in evolution, but it really annoys me when people laugh at those who don't.

No, no, no...

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory. It is used to explain why organisms have changed over time. The fact that they HAVE changed over time is absolute fact. Scientists only make theories based on observable phenomenon. The theory of gravity is used to explain why "what goes up must come down" in the same way. Usually, when people don't "believe" in evolution it is because they dispute the fact that organisms change over time. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific terminology. They are absolutely wrong and deserving of our scorn.

 

[Zeed]

Also, I would note that America is virtually the only developed nation where this conversation would even be possible.

We're practically the laughingstock of the world because of it (and our backwards-ass approach to stem cell research). It's a big contributor to the "stupid American" stereotype that's gotten popular lately.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Whether evolution is true or false has absolutely nothing to do with how many people accept it or do not accept it. Even operating on the assumption that it's a crock, it's still not a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. Evolution either is or it is not true, and it doesn't care how many people on Earth "believe in it".

Also, I would note that America is virtually the only developed nation where this conversation would even be possible. (source). Offline, I've met maybe a handful of people in my life who do not recognize evolution--probably around ten or so at the most.

I've never seen anyone in my life that denies evolution.

Or at least not after I get through with them. Explain Micro and Macro evolution to them, micro seen in each new generation of animals, and macro never truly "seen", but infinitely theorized.

Macro is hard to prove, but if you can get them to believe in micro evolution, macro is a small jump.

 

[Cheebs]

The "theory of gravity" is also just a theory.

 

[Hitokage]

Ok, evolution discussion stops RIGHT NOW.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Ok, evolution discussion stops RIGHT NOW.

Yessir!

Did you guys see that Rammy poll?

Obama giving McCain a big stick!

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Yessir!

Did you guys see that Rammy poll?

Obama giving McCain a big stick!

Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Obama a 94.9 % chance of winning.

:O

LAST TRAIN TO LINKSVILLE

 

[Cheebs]

:O

The primary. lol

Rasmussen gives him about a 60% for the general.

 

[User 10639]

So when the McCain advertisement that says "Is it OK to unconditionally meet with Anti-American foreign leaders?" pops up on this site, and I click yes, because it is, it still leads back to his website saying "elect a leader with good judgment," pressing me for donations. Sounds like false advertising to me, folks.

 

[gkryhewy]

LAST TRAIN TO LINKSVILLE

Hmmm...

Additionally, 78% of all voters say they could vote for an African-American for President. But, only 56% believe their family, friends and co-workers are willing to do the same.

 

[ratcliffja]

In an attempt to re-rail this thread, when might we expect these supposed town hall meetings? I am eagerly anticipating seeing Obama head-to-head with McCain in such a setting.

 

[syllogism]

Might not have to wait long as ABC News and Bloomberg today invited them to to participate in a town hall meeting at New York City’s Federal Hall.