Ron Paul thinks the Bible dictates Monetary Policy

[mr friendly guy]

I think this accurately sums up why General Brock supports Ron Paul.

I am so saving this image to use it on another message board when Ron Paul gets brought up again.

However I can see why people would ignore Paul's shortcomings in exchange for his anti war stance. But those people are overseas and will more likely benefit when America's eyes aren't turned onto their country.

[Simon_Jester]

However I can see why people would ignore Paul's shortcomings in exchange for his anti war stance. But those people are overseas and will more likely benefit when America's eyes aren't turned onto their country.

They also stand to lose less if the US implodes from horrible misgovernment.

Hm, come to think of it... I can see why someone like Shroomy might think Ron Paul is a good choice, because Shroomy can afford to watch America bludgeon itself half to death out of random stupidity and laugh. Come to think of it, Brock can too, if he's actually a Canadian.

But an American voter can't. Brock is in the position of telling someone else to do something stupid and dangerous, when he doesn't have to face the direct consequences himself.

That actually makes me more irritated at him...

[bobalot]

Nice rationalising you got going there. Ron Paul has stated he wants abolish it and with the current Republican party, he may actually be able muster enough support to do that. Even if he cant abolish it on paper, he would have the power as President to cripple it so that it is virtually useless. When confronted with the insanity of this position, you come up with:

"LOLZ Ron Paul wont abolish it like he said on numerous occasions! He will make it run better by his mere presence in the white house!"

My 'rationalizing' does not preclude EPA abolishment, and Ron Paul's position is that it should be easier for property owners to deal with polluters. It would hardly happen overnight and without much debate.

Please explain to us how in Ron Paul's fantasy universe would "property owners" deal with issues such as air pollution or climate change? I want practical policy offerings. How about industrial waste left by companies on their company land that seeps into other people's properties decades later?

You actually did it again, you are saying "Ron Paul's policy is insane, but it has to be debated and may not be implemented!". You have no idea what would actually happen.

The latest Ron Paul EPA beef is the EPA seizure of some private land in a Supreme Court case, Sackett versus the EPA. Apparently some homeowners were found to have purchased a lot on wetland, and were required to return the land to a wetland state. Constitutionally, private property is needed for public use is taken by eminent domain, not the arbitrary decision of a bureaucracy.

wow, a single unsourced example (most likely one-sided) example. I'm impressed.

My position was, to protect the good the EPA was doing is fine, allowing the bad to continue, is not.

Nobody cares about your position, asshole. We are pointing out Ron Paul's position is retarded.

[Spoonist]

The latest Ron Paul EPA beef is the EPA seizure of some private land in a Supreme Court case, Sackett versus the EPA. Apparently some homeowners were found to have purchased a lot on wetland, and were required to return the land to a wetland state. Constitutionally, private property is needed for public use is taken by eminent domain, not the arbitrary decision of a bureaucracy.

wow, a single unsourced example (most likely one-sided) example. I'm impressed.

http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... ett-v-epa/

The Sacketts filled a half acre or so of their property with dirt and rock in preparation for a construction project. They did not seek a Clean Water Act § 404 permit. EPA, which believes the area filled was wetlands subject to federal jurisdiction, issued an order directing the Sacketts to restore the property to its condition prior to the filling. The Sacketts think they should be allowed to contest the validity of that order before EPA seeks to enforce it against them.

Several members of the Court are highly suspicious of wetlands protection. If you doubt that, re-read Justice Scalia’s opinion, joined by Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, in Rapanos v. U.S., 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The conservative wing of the court is likely to be sympathetic to the plight of these individual property owners, who they think are being strong-armed into pursuing an expensive permit process.

What the Sacketts fail to acknowledge is that they could have avoided this dilemma by pursuing a third, straightforward, option. Before filling their property, they could have asked the Corps of Engineers whether the area contained jurisidictional wetlands. The Corps has an established procedure for providing official “jurisdictional determinations” to landowners. By choosing not to ask the Corps if their property was wetlands, the Sacketts took the risk that it might prove to be, and that undoing the harm they did to those wetlands might prove far more expensive than avoiding them would have been.

This wouldn't be a supreme court case if the conservatives didn't drag a politicised personal agenda into it.

[Thanas]

The statement that "many illnesses are just malnutrition," is not just too broad and simplistic, its flat out wrong and smacks of something the alt medicine quacks will sprout.

Hey, come on, he still quotes Hippocrates as an expert on medicine. Next post, Archimedes and Platon will explain the laws of electricity, gravity and quantum mechanics.

Don't knock Archimedes, his level of mathematics and gravity was at least on the level of Newton.

[UnderAGreySky]

My position was, to protect the good the EPA was doing is fine, allowing the bad to continue, is not.

Explain the recent rules to remove mercury and air toxic standards for coal-fired plants.

EPA estimates that the new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year. The standards will also help America’s children grow up healthier – preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was issued earlier this year, are the most significant steps to clean up pollution from power plant smokestacks since the Acid Rain Program of the 1990s.

Combined, the two rules are estimated to prevent up to 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks among children, 24,500 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. The two programs are an investment in public health that will provide a total of up to $380 billion in return to American families in the form of longer, healthier lives and reduced health care costs.

Tell me how dismantling such a regulatory body would prevent the deaths, disabilities and bodily harm.

Also, can you [Brock] conceive of a scenario where parents cannot know that their children's asthma is being caused by proximity to coal plants? I can. And I cannot think of a way Ron Paul's objective of dismantling the EPA - I don't care what you personally think will happen to his objectives - would make things better, just make them measurable worse.

[Simon_Jester]

Don't knock Archimedes, his level of mathematics and gravity was at least on the level of Newton.

Mathematics, possibly, but I don't believe there's any record or evidence of him getting close to the theory of universal gravitation.

[LaCroix]

Don't knock Archimedes, his level of mathematics and gravity was at least on the level of Newton.

Ok, he was good with levers. He did the basics on hydrostatic law, but as far as I know, he attributed it only to density.

[mr friendly guy]

However I can see why people would ignore Paul's shortcomings in exchange for his anti war stance. But those people are overseas and will more likely benefit when America's eyes aren't turned onto their country.

They also stand to lose less if the US implodes from horrible misgovernment.

Hm, come to think of it... I can see why someone like Shroomy might think Ron Paul is a good choice, because Shroomy can afford to watch America bludgeon itself half to death out of random stupidity and laugh. Come to think of it, Brock can too, if he's actually a Canadian.

But an American voter can't. Brock is in the position of telling someone else to do something stupid and dangerous, when he doesn't have to face the direct consequences himself.

That actually makes me more irritated at him...

But thats like the American voter when America decides to make war on another country no? They don't have to face the consequences of collateral damage like Iraq did. Its not like the Iraqis got to vote on whether they wanted to be liberated and the manner of doing it, and how the country will be administered after (which led to sectarian violence). At least from the POV of these overseas people, Americans if they voted Paul in, did get the choice of voting for Paul, so there is less of an ethical dilemma there.

Frankly, if Americans didn't give a shit about Iraq when they invaded, then foreigners where America is turning its eyes towards, could argue why they should give a shit about Americans internal affairs.

What I do object to is statements that Paul is the only sane candidate because of his anti war stance. He is just as insane as the others. If you however just said he is insane, but his anti war stance will benefit me living in another country, then there really isn't anything left to argue.

[Simon_Jester]

But thats like the American voter when America decides to make war on another country no?

At least in that case, the American taxpayer has to pay the bills, and American people do some of the dying. In Brock's case, how much of the price would he pay if Ron Paul got elected president? Would it affect his stance if he had to pay the same share that Americans do?

Frankly, if Americans didn't give a shit about Iraq when they invaded, then foreigners where America is turning its eyes towards, could argue why they should give a shit about Americans internal affairs.

I don't expect foreigners to care about American internal affairs- half the time I'd be just as happy if they withheld comment because I'm tired of being preached at in the same language I'd get if I were a damn Teabagger.

What annoys me is when foreigners decide to care about American internal affairs, then embrace complete idiocy and lunacy and urge it on Americans, but will not themselves have to deal with the consequences of the idiocy and lunacy. Which is where we're getting Brock from.

[PainRack]

At the very least, an EPA with Ron Paul hanging over their heads might be more inclined to do their jobs better. However, I see where you are coming from, in that removing it immediately does endanger the good the EPA is doing, without something at least as effective as that clearly replacing it, and the obvious threat that nothing might replace it even if Ron Paul had something more definite than landowners suing polluters.

You're fucking kidding me. Even if we assume Ron Paul doesn't abolish the EPA, the last ten years has been THAT scenario. Landowners suing polluters. Do you see ANY improvements whatsoever? Did anybody manage to successfully sue pig farmers for polluting streams so badly that there's flesh eating bacteria swarming and killing fish, along with sores in fishermen?

The CLOSEST we ever got to this big time corporate action was one single homeowner successfully suing a bank for not reimbursing the damage it did when it falsely foreclosed on his home.And that's NOT an environmental problem.
[Environmental problems are highly resistant to non organisation/insitutional action because the damage it does is collective, spread out and marginal.

Alt Med is a bit of a joke, warning about Big Pharma pills to... sell you a pill. However, supplements are already regulated as a food. That's what they are, and they should already be safe.

In most cases, many illnesses are just malnutrition, the way a shortage of vitamin D results in rickets or vitamin C scurvy. Alt Med is already not allowed to sell, say orange peels, as a cure for any specific illness, and I'm fine with that, since only a doctor sincere in purpose should be making treatment calls for either better diet or if conventional drugs are more appropriate.

However, supplements having to put something like dried acai berries through the same approval process as a synthetic chemical nature never said people could get away with eating is ridiculous. Many supplements have been around for years without any problems, and now may be taken of the market for no other reason, it seems, that Big Pharma doesn't like people having alternatives that don't pay them off.

Dude. Did you even READ what I posted or the link I provided?

Supplements DON"T have to do that at ALL. The only time the industry needs approval is when they introduce a "new ingredient", defined as one that isn't in the American diet. That is the ONLY time a manufacturer needs to demonstrate SAFETY.

A drug on the other hand has to demonstrate safety and effectiveness EVERY SINGLE TIME. ALL drugs has to get approval.

And it gets even more annoying. Have you even seen the fucking burden of proof? The burden is on the FDA to PROVE that these supplements are dangerous BEFORE they can be taken off the market. This is different from drugs, where the companies have to PROVE that their drugs aren't dangerous before they are put ON the market. And again, unlike supplements, the FDA can issue advisories and etc that yank drugs OFF the market at will for fear of danger(as has been done for contaminated batches of hep saline, drugs and etc).

You've probably got me on the acai berries.


Quote:
According to the FDA's New Dietary Ingredient guidelines issued on July 1, 2011, the FDA believes that “new dietary supplements” must be regulated similarly to synthetic food preservatives. The FDA guidelines have modeled the outrageous safety thresholds after those in place for food additives. This appears to be in direct violation of DSHEA, the law enacted in 1994 to protect consumer access to dietary supplements, which classifies dietary supplements as foods, not food additives.


Link: http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/07 ... atives.htm

Dude. You're a fucking idiot. Instead of quoting an activist organisation, why don't you source the FDA itself? You know, the very SAME FUCKING PAGE I LINKED TO IN MY POST?

What does it say? NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT.

And frankly, there isn't any "new" problems. DSHEA has always dictated that supplements with NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT must demonstrate safety before it is approved.
Telling manufacturers that they have to submit animal tests on maximun toxicity doses is a no shit sherlock moment.
Again, ever since DSHEA, supplements aren't regulated as food but a subset of food.

[bobalot]

I think at this stage General Brock has fallen back on rationalisations, unsourced claims, predictions of Ron Paul's actions which are contrary to his stated positions, and Ron Paul talking points.

[Panzersharkcat]

And to the point where even I'm facepalming. Just... try to pretend he doesn't exist.