Well, it's hard for me to disagree with you on this specific point. While there are those that I disagree with politically, I don't mind disagreeing with them so long as they at least make solid points, whether I agree with them or not. While it's pretty arrogant for me to 'guess', when it comes to online forums such as VideoSift, Digg, Reddit, I'd say 95% of those posting/responding know very little [or are void of self-opinion] and are merely repeating what they've heard/read from others. And that goes for those on the far left and those on the far right.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't mean it as an insult, they are literally lacking in political knowledge. If you'd like me to use a more respectful term for ignorance, I'd be happy to oblige. Knowledge impaired? Intellectually disabled? I'll go with whatever you like best...

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

I don't mean it as an insult, they are literally lacking in political knowledge. If you'd like me to use a more respectful term for ignorance, I'd be happy to oblige. Knowledge impaired? Intellectually disabled? I'll go with whatever you like best...

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

Hmmm, I'm annoyed or otherwise perturbed that Mohammad is the most popular name as well and that for the religious aspects-It's a gauge on the backward-thinking majority being kept slaves by a system of disinformation, economic servitude, etc. What's the most popular aristocratic European name? Hindi? Dutch? Who gives a damn but to know that the fact that Mohammad is popular is due to lack of knowledge regarding the origins of world religions and the grip those that know the truth have over masses of people.

People have used the race card with me as well when cogent, reasonable discourse eluded them-I usually end up telling them to go fuck themselves and shove their pompous, self-righteous bullshit, firmly in their assholes.

Talk about a loaded response of nothing.

First, if you want to have a discussion, start by talking to me, not at me [or others] as if I'm some uneducated schlub.

Second, and most importantly, think before you type. If you even though about what you posted you'd know it would be impossible to have not been born, raised, fed, clothed, educated, etc. This entire point is completely pointless, since it's goes against the grain of reality, physics, bio-science, etc. Had those things not occurred, I wouldn't be here, now would I? The idea that you thought you had to ask if I was ever born, raised, clothed, etc...is just so amazingly ignorant.

Now then, to answer the valid parts of your post:

Yes, I've bought a car, on a loan.

Yes, I've made investments, on loans, such as my house/mortgage (which I pointed out earlier and you conveniently ignored, by the way).

Yes, I've had loans of other sorts, too.

None of those things contribute to a person being fiscally responsible.

I repeat. Having affordable loans do NOT contribute to fiscal irresponsibility. You don't have to be completely liquid in order to live within your means, and I never claimed that you did. What you CANNOT do, however, is eat expensive dinners every night when you cannot afford them. You cannot buy a 50,000$ car when all you can afford (even on a loan) is a 17,000$ car. You cannot buy new televisions when you're still paying off the one you own now. This should be common sense, and in that common sense, you should have understood that was my point to begin with.

Being fiscally responsible does NOT mean you have to be liquid. It merely means you should be able to afford the loans you do have, without drowning beneath them. If you cannot pay off your current loans without going further into debt, then don't get new loans.

It's a simple concept.

>> ^jwray:

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?
Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.
Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.
>> ^hPOD:
Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

Ever started a business? Ever bought a car? Ever made an investment in anything that required taking out a loan? Ever get fed/clothed/educated by your mother?

Just because you are fully self-sufficient now doesn't mean everyone can magically become such the moment they fall out of the womb.

Also, if businesses had to do everything with cash reserves instead of taking out loans, the economy would be slow as fuck. Ask any economist.

>> ^hPOD:

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.
Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

Calling people ignorant because they have different views/opinions than yourself is, in and of itself, ignorant.

Fiscal Responsibility isn't a vague-to-the-point-of-meaningless slogan unless applied to politicians/politics, be it on the right or the left, as IMO, neither are fiscally responsible. It's hard to be fiscally responsible when you aren't spending your own money. I live my life in a fiscally responsible way. Aside from my mortgage, I have no debt. None. I do not live beyond my means. I do not spend more now expecting everything to work out later, as sometimes it doesn't work out as we expect. That is fiscal responsibility.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans

Preposterous. Fiscal responsiblity is very simple and very specific. Actual reductions in Federal spending as opposed to perpetual YoY baseline budget increases. Cuts in spending as opposed to reallocating percentages while keeping overall expenditures up. Mandatory limits on federal spending based on a percentage of GDP. Reduction or elimination of programs that are insolvent. Requirement that budgets remain in the black, with hard limits on spending tied to a 0% deficit floor. Complete elimination of federal dollars for state projects. Complete elimination of specifically allocated taxes (like SS) being used as slush for general funds. Complete removal of federally funded loans, with all such programs being remanded to the states where they can be voted in referendum.

I could keep going for days here, but "fiscal responsibility" is a very specific thing in the minds of Tea partiers. It means the reduction of federal government in size, scope, and spending to the point that the budget is actually solvent in real terms - not just a bunch of dreams held together with lies and spit.

^'Fiscal Responsibility' is a vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness slogan designed for use by those too stupid to formulate their own arguments. It will indeed be interesting to see how well the tea party does tomorrow, as a gauge of just how easy it is to manipulate ignorant Americans.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

That was good, but am I in bizzaro world or is the last minute and a half or so repeated two times in succession in the vid? They went straight from gauging audience reaction to Bongo to writing and screening it again.

Ok thank god I thought I was going crazy.

That was good, but am I in bizzaro world or is the last minute and a half or so repeated two times in succession in the vid? They went straight from gauging audience reaction to Bongo to writing and screening it again.

There have been a number of books that dealt with the subject:

The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein

Freakonomics had a section about how terrible we as humans are in gauging the likelihood of something awful happening. The authors illustrate their point by asking you if your child would be safer visiting a friend who had a swimming pool in the back yard, or a friend whose parents owned a handgun. As you could guess, the swimming pool is 100 times more dangerous than the handgun.

Of course, each of these books have extensive references in the back.

>> ^marinara:

i would respect the judge more, but he's 100% against net neutrality. he loves turning over my internet connection over to abc/disney so they can profit off my tube.


Would your rather the government control that tube? I assure you, they would be far more restrictive, ask Howard Stern. I would like to see what his take on it is if you had any links on that I would love it

I think a better cure would to let other providers into these non-compete zones so people can have real consumer choice instead of governments legislating people into these horrible situations in the first place. >> ^NetRunner:

"At least [newspapers] go out of business when they don't tell the truth."
Uh, it's a little rich for someone on Fox News to say that truth has anything to do with the business model of modern press organizations.
For example, that's not part of the quote from Jefferson...


To me, it was rather clear that was his own attribution, not part of the quote. He was also (Jefferson) big on reading, by which I mean, having a free press doesn't matter if most of the population is illiterate. He is usually seen as the champion of small government, but it was mainly he who made the push for public education. In that, if the public was smart enough, it would be able to see that Fox and other news companies are more interested in news that leads and bleeds than gauges the pulse of history.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I can get behind Ronnie on this one. The GDP is a poor gauge of the general well being of regular folk.

On that narrow subject, I agree.

Otherwise, Paul doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. In Paul's example, anyone who just thinks for a few minutes about why he's wrong.

Guy with $200k/yr job, and has $300k in existing debt, and loses his job. Paul neglects to mention assets. Generally speaking, people don't take out loans, and then light the borrowed money on fire. If the guy has $300k debt on a mortgage for a home worth $1 million, he's actually in pretty good shape fiscally speaking, though he may have to sell his house. If he can get a million dollar loan even in that situation, say to start a business, he'll probably have a negative net worth for a few years, but it seems to me that if he can get a million dollar loan for a business in that situation, people believe he will be able to make it work...

Same applies with his insinuation that we should subtract debt from GDP. This is like saying that the only number you should look at to judge your financial situation in your private life is your yearly salary, minus all of your debts. That's seriously negative for me, while a homeless unemployed guy would be only $0. Is the homeless guy really better off than me?

The adbusters clip implies that there should be a social utility factor involved in our measurements of economic growth, otherwise we have perverse incentives that lead us into broken window fallacies (e.g. cigarettes are awesome because not only are they profitable in their own right, they also boost sales in the lung cancer treatment industry). Paul makes that argument too, but he myopically picks an example that's government-specific (i.e. war), when it's a problem all over the place in private industry too.

Common ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I can get behind Ronnie on this one. The GDP is a poor gauge of the general well being of regular folk. Reminds me of an adbusters spot on the subject:

I can get behind Ronnie on this one. The GDP is a poor gauge of the general well being of regular folk. Reminds me of an adbusters spot on the subject: