his arguement is the international community shouldn't take a hard stance against their missile research, because even when they make nukes they are unlikely to use them?
It's not nuclear research, but it's still an aggressive action. With how fucked up a country North Korea is, I think many countries would be signiciantly less safe if they suddenly announced they had nuclear technology - how can anyone disagree with that
because of this, the international community should take a hard stance on any aggressive behavior from them

*beg

I honestly do not think the judge should have the power to force the guy into hearing his morality speech. If the accused just wants to hear his sentence and that is all, wtf is the problem

Calling mccain here a liar, saying he is selling lies and telling racist jokes, would not have happened if not for the politician campaign we just saw making him out to be the villain.

A clear example of this is Obama vs Clinton, where they share basically the exact same political polices... yet one was turned into a villain quickly by the digg/videosift communities. I think this happens when you have people who only get their news from user content sites (digg.com, blogs), where since they give exactly what the users want to see (from others voting on it) it just enhances their views, never challenges, never going towards objectivity.

he is the paris hilton of politics
no one wants him in the news, everyone thinks he is a joke, yet he still is on the news because he is such a joke
just like paris hilton, he is a media virus that will never go away

>> ^imstellar28
don't have a 401k champ. If you were versed in Austrian economics you would've seen this coming a mile away too

The videos you posted on here of people predicting this was ridiculous. Ayn Rand saying (50 years ago!) that there will someday be a market collapse... others simply say that someday the dollar will heavily drop. These aren't predictions
Why do these people say this about the future of the economy? Because of the dropping of the gold standard, and this has nothing to do with that. You can find some stat on a website, some source, that blames this on some obscure government regulation, I am sure, but when every other single person who analyzes this situation tells you it's a problem with deregulation, who isn't a insane fundamental capitalist, you should maybe start to see past your biases.
You really are no different than a religious lunatic with this, and have seriously made me think twice about my libertarian views,

*beg

Monopoly and price fixing would can hurt the free market, and is possible under a free system.... how can you deny that.

Do you not think it is possible for the government to aid in the free market?
Such as to enhance competition?

I consider myself a libertarian, but I do think it is possible for some type of control of the markets to be beneficial.

>> ^imstellar28:
Adding millions of sellers, millions of buyers, and millions of goods changes nothing about the underlying principle of voluntary cooperation. Two people trade because each thinks they benefit. That is free market theory. It predicts that given a choice, two people will trade if and only if both perceive that they gain something from the transaction. This simple fact leads to many corollaries such as supply and demand curves. It is a theory as firmly planted in science and reality as the theory of gravity.


So, you think having absolutely no regulations on the market will result in the best economy? That it's that simple, that it's a science as just as true as gravity?
What about anti trust laws? Laws against price fixing? Since it's as true as gravity, obviously not have these laws would result in a better economy.

The point of the government intervening is to HELP free markets, to help them stay free and operate. To enhance competition, to ENHANCE the benefits of a free market. This is not me arguing for socialism, this is arguing against fundamentalist capitalists like yourself who rely entirely on theory
Why must it be exactly pure free markets? Is it just the simplicity that is so appealing to you?

>> ^rougy:
You crack me up, stellar.
Your precious "free market capitalism" is defunct and will crumble from greed every time unless it is properly regulated--the evidence is right in front of your nose--yet you keep posting these "free market" icons of yours as if nothing's wrong.


Yep. The free market/libertarian viewpoint is simple and appealing, but things are not that simple.
Ayn Rand and her objectivism reminds me of scientology. Where you have a shitty writer, tricking people into thinking their work is brilliant, then wrapping it all in some neat little marketable philosophical package with a name meant to sound scientific/rational. Getting people to join in and intellectually jack off each other in a fucking cult.

It reminds me of current preachers of communism, how capitalists claim that until a perfect exact system is reached, it isn't truly 'free markets'. Russia apparently didn't do it correctly. And the US didn't have entirely free markets, so I guess that is to blame

Do you understand, what the situation would be without any government intervention? If the stock market wasn't halted after 911, and a plan put through to boost the economy, the entire system would have collapsed. Everyone looking out for themselves, without control, would have stopped buying. NO one looking over the entire situation. You need CONTROL in times of crisis. A free market can not stand everyone to just stop buying at once, which is exactly would have happen the days after 911.

Even Al Greenspan, the hardcore Randian bastard, admits that the regulation of the federal reserve is necessary for stabilization. Most economists also agree with this, and yet still hold Laissez Fair viewpoints. Ron Paul on the other hand, is basically a fundamentalist libertarian. He will never get past his viewpoint, and always view this as the only solution, and will argue anything at all against it. It is very respectable to have a politician like this, but would also be horrible to have someone so closed minded in office.

The great depression was allowed to ruin the economy because the government did nothing. And it was solved, by CONTROL, by having a organization to look over the economy and move it to the right direction. When it works well, let it go, let it be free, but it requires direction for stabilization.

Edit: I just want to make the disclaimer, that I do agree with Ron Paul's main platform, and do believe in small government and limiting government as much as possible. But I have to argue against taking this sort of viewpoint to far.

It's funny how Ron Paul fans still talk about the polls being skewed, even after the results came in and they turned out to be about exact in every state. Based on 5%, the media covered him a lot more than other Republican/Democratic candidates in that same range, mostly just because of his fund raising abilities though.
I am not sure what to think about his views on the economy. While other economics seem to have a very laissez faire viewpoint, they admit this sort of government interaction is needed to calm extreme times, since the market can't stand a complete 2 day meltdown and recovery (if nothing is done). I think Ron Paul just can't think past his philosophy, and can't look at the situation critically rather how it just hasn't implemented true free markets.

they also did a sweet cover of this wipers song,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5SxzET4CJY&feature=related

nirvana version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er2T4_9pNcA&feature=related

this song is called D7, and is a cover of the Wipers by Nirvana.

Wipers version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRa5BWOOGZM