Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Yeapp

 

I read it but Im not on the same page. The majority of timber in the united states comes from tree farms. These tree farms are used for a lot more than just timber. They are used for parks, wildlife habitat, and/or whatever else you can do with a forest.
http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/fd/forestmgt/treefarm/treefarm.htm

From Wiki:

A renewable resource is a natural resource with the ability to reproduce through biological or natural processes and replenished with the passage of time. Renewable resources are part of our natural environment and form our eco-system.

In 1962, within a report to the committee on natural resources which was forwarded to the President of the United States, Paul Weiss defined Renewable Resources as: "The total range of living organisms providing man with food, fibers, drugs, etc...".[1]

 

I know that places I have lived, there have been sizable timber industry presences.

Pulp wood, for one, is NOT farmed..... They just cut whatever they can get their hands on.

There's also been sizable timber industry lobbieing efforts to pretty much rape parks and the like..... maybe they consider that farming, because SOMEONE watched it grow for dozens of years. But it was NOT the people making money off of it, while telling lies about some sort of sustainabse rape.

 

It never hurts to take a break.
I'm a Linux user also, Linux Mint 13 Mate Desktop, which seems to be pretty well done, and only a few minor bugs which we've managed to work around for the moment. Linux was the obvious choice for me as I worked on and with unix from its beginnings, and the differences are minimal for my purposes.

As for religion, I am a non-believer in Gods, but apply basic Buddhist principles in my life. The religious beliefs of others don't bother me as long as they don't attempt to impose them upon me.

When working at the labs, we would on occasion partake of some mind enhancing drugs, solve all the worlds problems, and later find we couldn't remember what the solutions were. But that was many years, or decades ago.

 

Indie

I know I’m not the only one that noticed you didn’t addressed what I raised with you, and none of us are surprised by that since you seem hilariously incapable of defending your ideas.

 

Indie

It is true that in the Federal Budget Social Security takes up 20% but the vast majority of that is pension’s people have paid into. Unemployment is a much smaller percentage of the budget (seems to be around 5%) and also the idea that unemployment benefits increases unemployment doesn’t seem to hold water.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-co...g-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2011_fall_bpea_papers/2011_fall_bpea_conference_rothstein.pdf

But as pointed out before when you’ve said this the problem here is that you don’t seem to want to help people realise their potential (so they can be more beneficial to society) in fact you seem to want to stifle many peoples potential.

 

Indie

Can a child ‘earn’ to be born into advantage?

Did a child born into advantage ‘earned’ those advantage through is own work?

Can a child ‘earn’ to be born into the gift of advantage?

So is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

You say yes and you have admitted that it isn’t fair but the only argument you have put up to back up your opinion is the very irrational statement that ‘shit happens’.

Also your opinions don’t seem legally based they seem to be your viewpoint I mean you seem to oppose what is presently legal and have suggested a changes to the present legal framework. If you are arguing that whatever is legal must be ‘right’ and ‘justified’ you shouldn’t be opposing or suggesting changes.

I mean you seem to be trying to hide your inability to rationally defend your ideas behind a legal smokescreen suggesting that somehow your views would be different if the laws were different.

 

And what do you feel I need to defend?

 

Indie

LOL – and so this trick pops up again – you’ve got me to repeat criticisms or re-ask questions many times and it never helps because you don’t address the criticisms or answer some questions no matter how many times they are presented.

I’ll ask again if you can’t defend your views from there critics in any rational or reasonable way why do you hold on to them?

 

The child did not earn his/her financial advantage. But the parents of said child have earned the right to place their child in a favorable spot (generally speaking.)

If through my own hard work and sacrifice I became wealthy, it should be MY choice what happened to my money when I pass. A common thread shared by parents everywhere, is that they want to work hard to give their children a better life than they had. The government has no right to overrule my last will and testament.

So to answer your question that has been answered here many times already.....yes. Yes it is justified for a child to hold an advantage over another due to the prosperity of the child's parents. You can start talking about social Darwinism, call it what you will. But the fact remains (and always will) that life isn't fair. Life is a gamble.....really many gambles strung together. Some of us have great luck, some bad, most somewhere in between. I recognize that you don't like that, but have noticed through your dozens of posts on the subject you haven't offered any kind of solution. How would you like to make the world fair while keeping liberty intact?

 

Increasing the budget size does make the cost percentages look smaller, but that method of solution only increases debt.

Since the mid sixties massive amounts of money has been spent by government social programs to accomplish goals such as you propose they would, while very little has changed for the better, except when the Republican congress forced Clinton to sign the welfare reform legislation.

Since 1970 the spending on education has increased nearly 100%, with the student to teacher ratio decreasing, while reading, math, and science scores have remained flat or decreased. Money can only accomplish so much, and already we're spending a little over $10,000 per student each year, with little or no results.

 

Ignoring your three initial nonsensical questions, and for the umpteenth time, Yes, it is justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to any and all advantages they have available to them no matter if they were earned, received as a gift or inheritance or by any other means that were not criminal. As to sharing what one has, that is a decision left to the owner as how to put his/her possessions.

I have not admitted it to be unfair, but only that depending upon your prospective it may seem to be unfair, as do many things in life.

Which of my opinions are you claiming to not be legally based?

I've not claimed that changes shouldn't occur, but in our form of government changes should come about as a result of how our Constitution provides for them to happen, not simply by electing politicians to represent us and allowing them a free hand to make the changes that more than anything else assure that their supporters will continue to re-elect them.

Re-read your first three questions, and then tell me you are acting rationally? Being born poor does not destine you to remain poor, nor does being born into wealth assure that you will remain wealthy all your life. Like any other problems we encounter in life, while they may not be any fault of your own, the solution is not to try and find someone to blame, but to instead find a solution to the problem. Adulthood used to be quite different from childhood, as it was a time when persons began to exercise their independence, not simply shift their dependency to government.

 

LOL – sorry Letlovin but what Indie already knows is that we have been through all this before and he’s still unable to address the criticisms of his ‘life’s unfair’ stance.

OK here we go again -

Once again the Social Darwinist viewpoint - by the way you still haven’t addressed the criticism of it the last time you brought it up - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7271065&postcount=1416

LOL so you think luck is a genetic trait? That children with the lucky gene get born into advantage and children with out it get born into disadvantage?

Yep Indie tried that one -

A baby cannot make informed choices or gamble in any rational way.

I think we’ve been through that before I know I have with Indie, this is not about someone’s will.

I agree and that’s why I’d try and help them do that the problem (as outlined) is that right wing libertarianism would most likely make that more difficult.

Been there – The argument that - ‘things happen and life is unfair so you just have to live with it’ - is rather weak since it would have been against any change that might improve people’s lives, for example, it would countenance slavery and child labour among other things.
To the person born into slavery it would have been – ‘that happens; life is unfair so you’ll just have to live with it’
To the child who was working sixteen hours a day in a dangerous cotton mill it would have been ‘that happens, life is unfair so you’ll just have to live with it’
Just shrugging the shoulders and saying - ‘that’s how things are so they can’t be changed’ - is not an argument that things shouldn’t or can’t be changed. It is just pronouncing that you like it to be unfair.
Thing is that it is usually possible to change an unfair socio-political system to a fairer one (as was done with slavery and child labour).

Do you understand; history is full of such improvements of peoples condition most of them fought for in one way or another against those that said such things as ‘that might be unfair but that’s life’ either because of apathy or opposition to the proposed change.

 

Yes, Bal, it's just a trick answer to your trick questions. Ask a single clearly defined question rather than a broad and vague question and you might get a more relevant response as an answer. If you wish to present an illegitimate premise to your questions then you should not expect much forthcoming in an answer.

But I have defended my views both rationally, and reasonably, simply not to your liking. People are entitled to earn what they can, and use it however they wish. It is not governments responsibility or duty to take and redistribute the property of the citizens, but only to ensure that they and their possession legally obtained are protected from criminal elements, including the government. People will help people, and that is what makes a society work, government be damned.

 

Bal,

Things do happen which may seem unfair, but I don't think anyone proposes that you just have to live with it, although that can be your choice, but there always remains the choice to try and change the situation you find yourself in to make it better. Of course you will claim that all those rich people won't allow that to happen, but that's simply a meaningless excuse.

Jobs, especially in our current environment are the answer, and if you can't find one, look harder or create one. And the best thing government could do is create an environment in which certainty exists for those who might create jobs, not temporary incentives which can quickly become costly when they expire.

Each of us as an individual, born into wealth or poor, has a choice in our lives to either accept it as it is or to make the changes necessary to improve it.

 

All you're doing here is putting words and ideas into my "mouth" while ignoring the questions asked of you. O

I didn't address that criticism because all it is is a bunch of hogwash that I don't agree with. Why would I defend an idea that I don't agree with?


We're not talking about slavery here. And we're not talking about child labor. So how bout we stick to the issue at hand. Which is a child that is born into wealth vs a child born into poverty. How would you go about making life fair for everyone involved, while maintaining liberty?

 

Abolishing corporate personhood and getting corporate money out of politics would be a start in making life more fair for everyone. It would enhance freedom. The goal would be for each individual to have equal voice (or representation) in their government.

Now why would a guy named 'individual' object to that? (See, there's that irony I was talking about.)

 

Thats like the fourth time youve quoted me as Individual. I don't understand how you could do that on accident so many times.

I do agree with your post, but it isn't really what I was asking Balbus.

 

Would it not make much better sense to simply eliminate "money" regardless of its source out of politics?
Corporate personhood simply recognizes the fact that corporations are creations of groups of people, not literally persons, and therefore are entitled to many of the same rights and subject to the same laws as are the citizens.
I do agree that our goal should be for each individual to have an equal voice in their government, but the more centralized our government becomes in application to the lives of all of us, the less possible that becomes.
Most of those on the left seem to equate allowing government the means to distribute the acquisitions of the more successful members of the societies which make up the Nation to the less successful members of those societies to be how fairness should be defined. The problem with this concept is that the equal distribution of success can result in mild prosperity for all, one failure can result in catastrophic results making recovery extremely difficult. With a powerful central government bubbles created encompass the Nation as a whole, while a limited powers central government allows each State to produce its own bubbles without creating a National crisis when one of them bursts.
Recognize as fact that where the voice of the people is heard loudest is at their most local level of government, and that each higher level of government diminishes their voices greatly. Power allowed our government should come from the bottom, the individual people who are to be governed by those they elect to represent them, and not from the political parties, or money buying influence at the Federal level of government. When you allow power to be exercised from the top, you provide those who wish to influence it a single source in which to gain influence, eliminating the people at the bottom. Money can only purchase what is made available to be sold.

 

Indie

We went through this some time ago –

I think you should read The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby.

Here is a bit from a review –
On one level this is easy to answer. Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves around the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15 year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD(3).
But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US citizens become so dumb, and so suspicious of intelligence? Susan Jacoby’s book The Age of American Unreason provides the fullest explanation I have read so far. She shows that the degradation of US politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies.
One theme is both familiar and clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing.
Jacoby shows that there was once a certain logic to its anti-rationalism. During the first few decades after the publication of The Origin of Species, for example, Americans had good reason to reject the theory of natural selection and to treat public intellectuals with suspicion. From the beginning, Darwin’s theory was mixed up in the US with the brutal philosophy - now known as Social Darwinism - of the British writer Herbert Spencer. Spencer’s doctrine, promoted in the popular press with the help of funding from Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Thomas Edison, suggested that millionaires stood at the top of a scala natura established by evolution. By preventing unfit people from being weeded out, government intervention weakened the nation. Gross economic inequalities were both justifiable and necessary(4).
Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable to the public from the most bestial form of laissez-faire economics. Many Christians responded with revulsion. It is profoundly ironic that the doctrine rejected a century ago by such prominent fundamentalists as William Jennings Bryan is now central to the economic thinking of the Christian right. Modern fundamentalists reject the science of Darwinian evolution and accept the pseudoscience of Social Darwinism.
But there were other, more powerful, reasons for the intellectual isolation of the fundamentalists. The US is peculiar in devolving the control of education to local authorities. Teaching in the southern states was dominated by the views of an ignorant aristocracy of planters, and a great educational gulf opened up. “In the South”, Jacoby writes, “what can only be described as an intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas that might threaten the social order.”(5)
The Southern Baptist Convention, now the biggest Protestant denomination in the US, was to slavery and segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the South stupid. In the 1960s it tried to stave off desegregation by establishing a system of private Christian schools and universities. A student can now progress from kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to secular teaching. Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the public school system as well. A survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of the state’s public school biology teachers believed that humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time(6).
This tragedy has been assisted by the American fetishisation of self-education. Though he greatly regretted his lack of formal teaching, Abraham Lincoln’s career is repeatedly cited as evidence that good education, provided by the state, is unnecessary: all that is required to succeed is determination and rugged individualism. This might have served people well when genuine self-education movements, like the one built around the Little Blue Books in the first half of the 20th century, were in vogue. In the age of infotainment it is a recipe for confusion.
Besides fundamentalist religion, perhaps the most potent reason why intellectuals struggle in elections is that intellectualism has been equated with subversion. The brief flirtation of some thinkers with communism a long time ago has been used to create an impression in the public mind that all intellectuals are communists. Almost every day men like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly rage against the “liberal elites” destroying America.
The spectre of pointy-headed alien subversives was crucial to the election of Reagan and Bush. A genuine intellectual elite - like the neocons (some of them former communists) surrounding Bush - has managed to pitch the political conflict as a battle between ordinary Americans and an over-educated pinko establishment. Any attempt to challenge the ideas of the rightwing elite has been successfully branded as elitism.
Obama has a good deal to offer America, but none of this will come to an end if he wins. Until the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious fundamentalism withers there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance (George Monbiot)