1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 15, 2012, 01:44:40 PM »

Are you saying that a bad economy doesn't result in people losing jobs in the private sector?

The point I was making is that industry doesn't rely on tax dollars to exist as government does.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 15, 2012, 01:24:09 PM »

I said no such thing.  Please do not put words into my mouth.

Industry does not exist without people and people make government to govern themselves.

Government is just that, a system which governs. That is what you said. My point was that your previous post made it seem like you were equating people with government as though both are necessary for their mutual existence. Yes, governments need people to run them, obviously, but people do not always organize into governments. There have been anarchic societies.

Yes they are.  The demand for police protection in a city increases due to increase in crime.  The supply of police officers, however, is low.  As a result, residents move away, reducing the tax money of the local government, which in turn reduces the demand of police officers.  As businesses also leave, the demand decreases even more.
But a local government can't exist without people so incentives are created to get people to move back.  The city blocks are made more ascetically pleasing.  Taxes for businesses and property are lowered.
These are not the acts of a system that can create money without fear.  These are the acts of a business.

But that is all after the government has already taken tax dollars out of citizens checks to pay for the police department and to pay police officers to patrol and all that. A government without industry cannot open a police station or have officers on its payroll because it has no money. That's the difference.

A business usually as an accounting department that handles all monetary needs.

Accounting departments don't print money.

Many things:
Land.
The right to gather resources.
Protection from unfair deals or damage.
Monetary protection from theft.  (FDIC)
Skilled labor force. (schools)
Stable currency.
Settling of disputes. (court system)
Safety.
And, a customer base.

Many of these things couldn't exist without a form of common law, common currency, and common culture.  If we lived in pure anarchy, a business owner could easily be murdered and all his possessions stolen.  He would have to spend goods or services (not money) to get protection from such things.  He would also have no protection should another business decide to stop him from conducting business by creating an unfair environment.  Like say... using force to keep a town from trading with someone.

But since government exists in something even as small as a family, to say that a world would exist without any government would be one where human civilization does not exist.
[/quote]

If we were in pure anarchy I think things would be a lot different, for instance, the shop owner in your example would probably be heavily armed anyway.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Is Newt Gingrich a felon?

« on: January 15, 2012, 11:58:20 AM »

Everyone knows most politicians are crooks yet we still elect them.

Ron Paul 2012. That is all.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity as a universal law

« on: January 15, 2012, 11:56:39 AM »

To be fair, I do indeed presume to know how the flat Earth was formed. My model of the universe is one where the Big Bang caused a superplasmic mixture of helium and hydrogen, which I refer to as aether, which has near infinite fluidity (it is not affected by van der Waals forces). Now, this aether abhors vacuums far more than other states of matter and can travel forever without losing significant energy (unless it hits something), both due to the aforementioned fluidity. Thus, there is an aetheric wind which expands into the universe, filling the infinite vacuum. The Earth rides on this wind, and has been flattened by the force of it.

And here I was thinking that the universe is the result of a giant orange elephant sneezing into the arm of his sweater.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 15, 2012, 11:42:00 AM »

You have repeated that several times already.  We understand that point.  We always did.  The question is, how is this any different from a job in the private sector?  Suppose I own a store, and most of my customers work in a local power plant.  My customers receive their wages from the plant, and they spend part of them in my store.  So I am making my money indirectly from the power plant.  If the plant were to suddenly shut down, I would most likely go out of business.

Does my job generate income?

The original argument was about the government creating jobs. I said that government positions aren't considered "real" jobs because they are paid for by the private sector. The difference being that the government jobs are dependent on how robust the industry in a country is (more robust more tax dollars), whereas private sector jobs are excluded from this limitation and are only dependent on supply and demand, more or less. So creating a bunch of government jobs in a poor economic climate is detrimental to the welfare of that nation. That's the point I was trying to make.

Without customers, industry has no money.
What you have not realized is that the government doesn't get money for free.  They are no different than a business.  They provide something that industry needs.  Industry does not exist without people and people make government to govern themselves.

So in essence:
Industry needs government to survive as do the customers of the industry.  And both pay for services from the government to make their lives more profitable.

Government ≠ People. As you said, a government is just a system that people create to govern themselves, it is incorrect to assert that without a government there can be no people. They are different than a business in that they aren't subject to supply and demand. A government usually has a treasury department that handles all monetary needs. It's different in our country because we have a private organization creating and inflating our money. Only in a Socialist or semi-Socialist state does the government provide services to the people (which are then subsidized by tax dollars).

What do governments provide to industry?

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 15, 2012, 10:52:20 AM »

Where does industry "generate" the fucking revenue from? Is your tenuous grasp of economics so mired in political ideology you've stopped actually thinking about it? Is this what a true Paulbot is like, just repeating the same marginally-more-valid-than-Romney's talking points without any understanding of alternatives?

Where did I say anything about Ron Paul or political ideologies in explaining how the economy works? Please try and pay attention this time, I grow weary of repeating myself. Industry pulls in a profit from the sale of goods and services. From that gross profit, the government takes money, this is called paying taxes. Still with me? Okay, so the government relies on industry to pull in a profit for them (the government) to receive money. Without industry the government HAS NO MONEY.

Let me ask you, how do you think the cop in your example gets paid?

You're either a good troll or you're just living up to your screen name.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God and Seasons

« on: January 15, 2012, 09:30:10 AM »

More than likely.

Based on the evidence, I find this to be the only likely conclusion to be draw from the "god hypothesis".

8

Flat Earth General / Re: The Moon: A Helpful Guide to Avoid its Hazards

« on: January 15, 2012, 09:28:05 AM »

The Moon, we see it on a near daily basis. We are all aware of the hazards the Moon Demons pose to life on earth, but how can we avoid them? It's not like we can run away from the moon. I will compose a short list of basic moon safety tips. The Moon Demons will be defeated in no time at all!

1. Never look directly at the moon without protective blue tinted glasses. This especially goes for telescopes (because they amplify the cold-frequency light's harmful effects).

2. Cover as much of your body as possible when the moon is out. This does not have to apply if the moon is visible during the day (The sun's effects outweigh the moon). Know that aluminum foil is the best protection, but is not necessary for everyone.

3. Properly protect pets during night time hours. Make sure your dog/cat/hamster has a proper place to sleep shielded from the moon. The moon is indiscriminate in what it harms, even plants still get moon burn after years of evolution.

4. As far as current studies are concerned, moon burn can not be avoided by "moon tanning," so please do not attempt this until further studies are conducted.

5. Do not plan any activities on full-moon nights. Stay indoors.

6. Beware of Moon Demon Acolytes. They often come out on nights of a full moon and comment, "The moon is so beautiful tonight, don't you just want to stare at it?"


There you have it, a very basic guide to avoid irreperable harm to you or your loved ones.

That is classic trolling, man. Really creative. I was rolling on the floor.   

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God and Seasons

« on: January 15, 2012, 09:25:26 AM »

Could it be possible that there is no god and that religion is just a sadistic way to live?

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 15, 2012, 09:22:43 AM »

Without individuals earning salaries, industry has nobody to make money from. Period. I can't understand why you seem to think that the private sector is just drawing wealth from the aether and government is destroying it, in reality the money is just circulating between the two. A cop gets his salary from taxes and spends it in the private sector. Their profits are then taxed by the government and used to pay the salary. At what point is wealth being magicked into reality in the private sector and destroyed in the public sector?

When did I say that people were "drawing wealth from the aether"? I never said that and for you to say it misrepresents my position. The point I was making was that a government itself cannot generate revenue.

Without industry pulling in money, what taxes would that cop get his paycheck from? Nowhere because there is no one to tax. In that case, the government would go under because they don't have enough money to support themselves. It may seem like magic to you, because you can't seem to grasp the basics of economics, but I assure you it isn't. You probably also think that our money is actually worth something. It isn't.

What is magic is the way the government can print money and cause inflation without the slightest resistance.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 15, 2012, 09:15:34 AM »

I'm impressed by your intellectual honesty. Few people (especially with low post counts) are willing to acknowledge new data when it contradicts their previous arguments.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

In what way? He's already removed 100,000 troops keeping to his combat withdrawal schedule.

His campaign promise said he would remove all troops in Iraq by 2009. How is that on schedule? Also, he only removed "combat troops", US soldiers are still there. They're still in every country we've invaded. It's nothing more than political slight-of-hand.

Soon after Obama was inaugurated in 2009 he signed an executive order for its closure. Yet in December the US Congress passed a defense funding appropriation bill with a provision that established a legal call to keep the detention center open indefinitely. Not only was he working on the logistics of releasing hundreds of prisoners of war from unjust imprisonment, he was fighting the legislative branch to do it. While trying to undermine this process, congress actually enacted bills placing bureaucratic restrictions on the prosecution of Guantanamo detainees in Federal courts.

To expand on some of those logistics, they included bringing GTMO detainees "to justice in prosecutions in either federal civilian courts or in reformed military commissions", "coordinating with court-ordered releases of detainees", and "transferring detainees from Guantanamo whenever it is possible to do so safely and humanely".

I'm not arguing that earlier isn't better... but I'm more apt to see the closure of GTMO as a victory.

Again, he promised he would close it within six months of being elected. Whether it was his fault or not, he shouldn't make promises he can't guarantee. And again, I fail to see how Guantanamo Bay is legal in the first place, but that's a whole different issue.

I agree with your criticism of the act, and will let your use of the word 'illegal' go.

Why do you have a problem with the word illegal? The PATRIOT Act is just that, it has the power to over rule the Fourth Amendment. Any law that supersedes the Constitution is null and void.

I believe we have sufficiently discussed this and are aware both of the circumstances as well as our shared disappointments.

I just listed it as another reason for why I dislike the guy.

Stephen Colbert for president.
I have little reservations about the actual parties but as far as specific candidates and media propaganda go, I prefer Obama to Bush and Fox News.

Either way you're getting a bag of lies every time you turn on the TV.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 13, 2012, 08:59:03 AM »

That's exactly the same as the private sector. The only difference is that privately you pay for every product/service individually at point of sale while you pay the government annually in your taxes (which is usually cheaper, in my little experience).

You have no idea how governments work. I've tried to explain it at least three or four times and for some reason the explanation seems to elude you. Without industry, the government has no money to tax. Period. Therefore, the government cannot turn a profit, it's impossible unless they're licensing and selling t-shirts outside the White House (I kid). It's not possible. This is not rocket science.

Then it seems the only difference between us is that I don't care about all the red tape.

I never said they don't have a right to a trial, I just don't think they need a trial to be held during hostilities.

Once again, you're making the mistake of debating (and being angry at, Dann) someone who doesn't care over much either way.

I will drop this line of inquiry given our mutual dissatisfaction only differs in semantic use of  terminology and respective definitions.

Based on your lack of rebuttal, may I assume you concede the point about 22 months of steady job growth under the Obama administration?

I guess I have to concede your point, but it still doesn't make Obama an ideal candidate in my view. He dragged his feet getting the troops out of Iraq, he dragged his feet closing Gitmo, he supported the illegal PATRIOT Act, he voted for NDAA when he promised he would veto it, it was under him that Fast and Furious happened, etc.

And I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I hate both parties equally.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why FE?

« on: January 13, 2012, 08:42:23 AM »

How do you know that none of the other planets are flat? Have you thoroughly investigated every planet to check its not flat?
Widely believed? God is widely believed. Santa is widely believed. Voodoo is widely believed. Belief and reality have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Idle speculation does little to prove earth's shape.

And what are your thoughts on the Earth's shape based on, again?

14

Flat Earth General / Re: You can't be serious...

« on: January 13, 2012, 08:39:40 AM »

I'm glad to see that after a day of not coming on, my thread has degraded into childish name calling. Way to make your points, guys.

It's not like this was a groundbreaking thread. We'll get one that's exactly the same tomorrow.

And yet, no one will have answers to any of OP's questions and everyone will resort to calling each other names. This is probably one of the reasons no one respects FET as a reasonable alternative to RET.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why FE?

« on: January 12, 2012, 09:40:32 AM »

85. There are rivers which flow east, west, north, an south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an "up" and a "down" in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

What?

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 12, 2012, 09:34:19 AM »

Um... What about the emergency services? And roads and everything else the government does (I don't know what's private or not in the US)? Those are services, which you pay for in tax.

Any government program or service is bought and paid for by tax dollars, including social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, unemployment insurance, road construction and maintenance (which is why toll roads don't make much sense to me), health insurance starting 2014, and so on. Without people to tax, the government is broke. Without being able to sell goods or services, the people are broke, so in turn, the government is broke because there is no money for them to tax.

What the Hell is all this crap about indefinite detention of US citizens? That law is very specific in saying it doesn't apply to US citizens.

Uh, no, it actually says the opposite. NDAA Section 1021 titled "Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF" allows the detention of US citizens "without trial until the end of hostilities". That is in direct violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights granting a "speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." As bad as that is, no one is asking why such language is in a budget bill.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 11, 2012, 11:39:41 PM »

How does a job "generate" money as opposed to taking it from someone else?

Because governments don't sell goods and services. Everyone on the government's payroll gets paid through taxes that come from businesses (and other places: roads, gas, etc) that sell goods and offer services (or generate revenue). If these businesses are not producing and selling their wares then the government does not receive money to pay their employees. The government itself cannot generate an income on its own, it is dependent on others. The bigger the federal government the more money that is needed to keep it running until eventually it gets to the point where the industry of the nation can't sustain the size of the government. What is so hard to understand about this?

Actually, its called changing his mind. It was his decision to make as Commander and Chief, although I was pissed about it like many other people on this board.
If you bothered to look up treason for the federal US, you'd have seen this:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I'd consider indefinite detention without charge or conviction, which is unconstitutional, an act of war by a tyrannical government. Or at the very least, a human rights violation.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why FE?

« on: January 11, 2012, 11:24:58 PM »

If the sun, moon, and other planets are round, why is the Earth flat?

Because the earth is special. Why is earth the only planet supporting life, that we know of? The fact that it is the only one that supports life doesn't bother you? Why does it being the only flat planet we know of, bother you? FErs do the cherry picking?

You must think very highly of yourself. Just because we haven't discovered another planet with life, yet, doesn't mean anything. I asked the question because the premise doesn't make any sense. If all other celestial bodies formed as spheres, why is the Earth a disc?

It is likely that a flat celestial body is a prerequisite for life. Life does not exist on any of the round ones we have observed. When we find another flat celestial body, that would likely be a place with a better chance of finding life.

  A prerequisite for life? Why are you people so opposed to the idea of gravity?

The OP is doing nothing more than being a slightly less-angry noob. Each question shows that little investigation was actually done and the search feature was not even glanced at.

It's not that I've not read the FAQ, as far as I can see, the FAQ doesn't really address any of the questions I asked. The only proof is supplied is the meaningless Bedford Level experiment which was incorrectly performed not once, but twice.

Let's be honest, you don't have the answers to any of my questions, do you?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why FE?

« on: January 11, 2012, 03:13:27 PM »

^ He's not our best salesman.

He's also one of our slowest students.
Having cherry picked a few objections of his own, it should be noted that there are rational explanations to all of them. He just chooses to ignore them. This for example is an entire chapter explaining how the tides work. It should also be noted Clocktower has a real blind spot for relativity and the equivalence principle.

I've read some threads, he seems like a fervent opponent. Your response doesn't answer my question, though. On what grounds do you deny current scientific evidence that says the Earth and other planets are round? I've heard it explained that in FET there are round planets and that (in some cases) the sun and moon are, in fact round. If the sun, moon, and other planets are round, why is the Earth flat?

Also, welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

Thanks!

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 11, 2012, 03:02:19 PM »

Um... no. The employees generate salaries, which they spend in the private sector. The only people who can afford to just hoard money are the already-rich, the ones that are apparently meant to use it to create jobs for no reason.

They get paid, if that's what you're referring to. Where do you think the money actually comes from? Government jobs DO NOT generate money. They can't by definition. It's basic economics.

For a government to give something to someone, it has to take it from someone else.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why FE?

« on: January 11, 2012, 03:00:18 PM »

Just to provide a historical perspective here...

FEers got together in the early days of this board and tackled a series of problems with FET (in an attempt to appear to avoid the appearance of special pleading). One problem was if the FE is a disc then everything would be pulled by gravity to the center, the NP. If the FE was infinite, then they'd have two problems: 1) stability and 2) another infinity 'fiat'.

They decided that they would have more fun with holding the Equivalence Principle (EP) over noobs, so they went with that. Of course, they still needed an infinity 'fiat' for the energy required to accelerate the FE and they can't explain the tidal forces (not the tides, I hope that's clear). This decision was really stupid in that they had to throw out GR to use this (GR predicts that the Earth's mass would curve space and cause what we perceive as gravity.) So they say they support GR and its EP in one sentence, and then reject GR in the next. That, as you probably know, is the cherry picking fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

But I mean why do these ideas still persist today? I guess it's more of a psychology question: why would someone be so delusional as to believe that FE is true, despite all recent scientific advancements?

Now let me comment on your request for 'believers' only. AFAIK, no believer posts much, and none ever make any sense.

I've noticed lol

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 11, 2012, 02:12:10 PM »

Perhaps, but we were talking about job growth and the federal government is the largest employer in the US so saying the no government can create jobs is very incorrect.

But they're not "real" jobs. They don't generate revenue, so it doesn't help the economy, it actually hurts it. So, no, the government cannot create jobs. That's actually pretty bad if the federal government employs more people than the private sector.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Why FE?

« on: January 11, 2012, 02:10:31 PM »

So you have no photographic evidence to support your claims. You have half-baked ideas about giant conspiracies to keep a massive ice wall a secret, with no evidence. You think the universe is constantly accelerating upwards (even though in space there is no up and down), AND from what I saw somewhere, you think that the Earth has to be flat because you don't believe in gravity, so the oceans would fall off the face of the planet (tho I'm not 100% on that last one).

Would someone please explain why, with such a great gap in scientific evidence (Bedford Level doesn't count) and really any kind of real proof, why believe in the Flat Earth Theory? Is it because it's the only alternative explanation and it sounds good? There are an infinite number of other possible theories that can be created about the universe that contradict the currently accepted standard, and have as much proof as FE, so, my question is: why FE?

Believers only, please.

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 11, 2012, 02:00:11 PM »

Lol, are you really saying the government can't employ people?

Yes, the government can employ people, but the government itself doesn't actually generate income. Government officials get paid through tax dollars which come from the private sector.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Send 'em back.

« on: January 11, 2012, 01:58:31 PM »

Incorrect.

Oh god...you're not worried about "terrorists" are you?

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 11, 2012, 11:26:17 AM »

Can someone explain to me how the fuck a president, whose main purpose is to sign legislation and make nice speeches, managed to "create jobs"?

It's true. No part of the government can create jobs no matter how hard they try. Industry has to create jobs and since we have no industry, there are no jobs.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 11, 2012, 11:21:09 AM »

Weren't you just complaining about how Obama folded on the NDAA's liberty issue so that he could pass his bill reducing the defense budget? The senate embedded that small provision into that larger financial bill, giving him a choice. He could either veto it and fail to reduce the military expenditures (giving Republicans and propaganda machines more ammunition for him "not doing anything about the war"), or veto it to protect the rights of suspected terrorists.

Secondly, please demonstrate how the effects of the bad economy are only most pressing now. As I see it, you're just critical of Obama taking a vacation at all. Any time he decided on could be scrutinized for being during a bad economy.

I should have been more specific. He said he would veto the bill if it still contained language that would allow indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or conviction. He didn't. That is treason, period. The bad economy has been a pressing issue since 2009. 

Note "Job Creation" in the title.

And how do you think they tally those figures? By adding up the people currently receiving unemployment benefits and comparing it to previous months. Numbers are fun.

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ron Paul

« on: January 11, 2012, 09:15:08 AM »

What's the imminent crisis now? Please say something extremely long term so I can make fun of it.

Take a look around. We're beyond bankrupt and yet, we keep outsourcing and these politicians keep ignoring the real problem, the federal government's budget. Yes, it's partially a long-term issue, maybe, but the effects are being felt right now.

While in office, he has yet to do anything to significantly help the US.

How about 22 months of job growth?

[/quote]

People falling off unemployment because they've used up their weeks does not constitute job growth.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Zeitgeist; moving forward

« on: January 11, 2012, 09:12:46 AM »

For the most part, the sequences about the American economy are spot on and can be verified and backed up. As for the religious sections, yes and no. Like for instance, Horus couldn't have been born on Dec 25th since it was before the invention of the Gregorian calendar.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Send 'em back.

« on: January 11, 2012, 09:08:53 AM »

I'm really at a crossroads with the whole Middle East intervention thing. On one hand, I think it's a really bad idea to spend billions of dollars a year on a foreign war that doesn't concern us, yet, on the other hand Iran is a theocracy that uses a depiction of a mushroom cloud as the symbol for one of its political parties...