gvg

i just realized what i said. i meant anti-choice, not anti-abortion.

First off, i didn't mean bad name as in he's a bad guy, i meant he isn't as libertarian as, say, you. I may very well be ignorant though, i just can't see a guy who wants closed borders & is anti-abortion can be 'true-blue libertarian' as I said. but believe me, I like him; he's definitely a decent guy, and not as 'politiciany'. i just don't think he has a chance in hell of winning, which you recognize. (Just to throw it in there, i personally like Huntsman, but that's just me). As for the lord of the rings thing, that is a reasonable way of looking at it, though i've only seen the movies so i can't say much =) But either way, don't they crown Aragorn as king or whatever? And to add another book, i just finished reading Anthem by Ayn Rand in English class. I acutally liked it, and i liked some of the ideas (reflecting on our discussion has in fact sent me moveing right on the economic scale (not much, but noticeable) and even more libertarian on the social scale than i already was, UtF. Just to let you know =)). Although liberty seems awfully submissive; is there any particular reason she put the major woman character in the book in such a stereotypical way? i mean, i know it was the way of the time, but I would think Rand would want more woman's right and what not. Just wondering if any of you can explain that to me.

i loved that the kids listened =) Guess we lose some knowledge over time huh? Does get me frightened though. What've i missed?

We actually did get a couple of videos recorded, some intro videos explaining what we're doing, but we haven't had a chance to put it on youtube or anything yet. Thanks for showing some interest though =) We'll try to get an actual debate recoreded, but you know, we do have to have everyone agree on a date, which is hard at the moment. But we'll keep trying =)

http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/storysupplement/obama_jobs_timeline/?hpt=hp_c1 More proof. notice the stimulus.

Ron Paul gives libertarians a bad name, honestly, and plus, i'm not entirely sure that he's a true blue libertarian.

And also, once again, realize that sweatshops to them are like if you got 10 promotions in a day and are suddenly in the top 1/3 of the population income wise. To see how it will eventually turn out, just look at 19th century America (those countries now) vs Modern America (their future). And it'll be even faster for them, since they have the support of an already industrialized world (for instance, it took 130 years for the US/britain, but only 30 years for places in Asia (like japan i think), which went through it afterwards)

OK, from reading the articles, here is your answer: 1. Of course it violates those laws. No one is doubting that. Few bathroom breaks, cramped conditions, etc. But the point of it is, that's what the US went through over 130 years, and what Asia went through over 30. It is the beginning of industrialization, and always leads to better conditons over time (bascially, the more work they do as they get more machines/experience, the more pay and benefits they get, which gets them to do more work, and so on). so in actuality, supporting sweat shops would lead to an end to sweatshops. And no, that isn't a paradox. 2. You are viewing it from a western standpoint. but what's going on where they live? For instance, over cries of child labor, 50000 children were fired by a compnay. What happened to them? Well, most ended up as prostitutes. So yes, here in the west, we went through that, we built up the labor, etc. and we have a responsibility to make sure people do as well as possible. but there, sweatshops ARE as well as possible. And closing down sweatshops would get them less money, less opprotunity, less benefits (besides sweatshops, they have farming. not a big money maker there, and no benefits), etc. They don't have education, they don't have what we have. That's basically it. To get there, we went through this. Here we are. If we want the third world to join us, we have to support these things. i think the best thing to read of these articles is with the one with the interviewed guy. he did the data collecting. (Though i suggest reading all of them, as they have different viewpoints politically i think.) And yes, your view, like mine was, was altered by the media (always is). That's why i did some snooping. And in fact, they are the best thing for third world workers.

Thalia: It points out in the article that half the population in those countries lives on less than a $ a day, and almost all less than 2. That's why it's the best job for them, since some clothing things pay them $3.10 (notice what I said before about 2$) and in bangladesh, some get free healthcare.

So i was watching a show on youtube, Penn and Teller's 'bullsh*t.' this particular episode was about walmart. In that show, Penn brought up that many people don't like Walmart cause of sweathshops (he had brought up other reasons in the show as well). then, he went ahead and defended sweatshops, using a bunch of statistics and such. i was shocked; i had actually never seen anyone do that before. i immediately headed to Google to see what he was talking about. I found: http://www.cracked.com/funny-5759-sweatshops/ http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/sweatshops-child-labor.php http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html (This guy was interviewed in the show) http://library.thinkquest.org/17749/gather/cgi-bin/rnix.html http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1517 And all the others: http://www.google.com/search?q=do+sweatshops+help+thrid+world+nations%3F%5C&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADRA_en I couldn't believe it. Penn seemed to be right. And he had facts. A political view supported by facts is shocking in itself, but when the facts are so conclusive and well known... Well, i took the plunge. I really don't think sweatshops are that bad anymore. i can't believe i'm saying that, but facts are facts. What does everyone else think? (Note: if you only read one or two sites, don't make any of them the first one, as it is a comedy website. i just inlcuded it cause it was on the google search page.)

Alright, to conclude: Basically, I think we should focus more on Jobs than the debt. wait until we get rid of this high unemployment problem, which would therefore give us more taxpayers and help the debt cause. How to get people to hire is another question. like i said above, we need to get rid of overregulations on small businesses (I'm sure people could come up with a few, like this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576118030935929752.html 'The theory and practice' of shampooing? Give me a break). For instance, maybe a 2% tax cut from the 28% I said before for every, I dunno, couple of hundred thouseand you hire? Something like that? I dunno. But we have to encourage. A second stimulus would help, but government alone can't do it. But austerity measures wouldn't help at all. i think Dawh explains it right. The cycle must be broken in some way, and really, i can only see a public solution.

I will begin what will probably be a rant by saying that i've decided that the debt does matter, but we have bigger issues now. Specifically, unemployment. We should definitely begin to take steps to reduce the debt. Cut military spenidng, raise the SS and Medicare age to 68 for those below 50 (or whatever)... yes, those we should do. but there's a reason that I chose more taxes than cuts: As Dawh said, austerity measure would cripple us. We can't move to fast and we can't slice too much. What we need to do is to get more people working. I care more about that. I'm going to quote Dawh here: and dawh's right. in my view, the debt is something we have to work on when we are NOT on the borderline of another recession with unemployment as high as it is. i know this may not be what i implied above, but the tea party was right to lady about the debt. What they didn't do right was the timing, and the method (and of course, they have a political thing going behind it, as Dawh pointed out, but that's a seperate issue). We need to put people to work, THEN focus on the deficit/debt. we currently have 47% of Americans who dont pay income tax. Why? They're either unemployed or too poor. We need to change this, not with the flat tax or other similar proposals, but with pushing people OUT of this set. That's why I can't agree to cutting government jobs. They may be funded by tax payer dollars, but they're jobs, and they give people money to pour back into the economy (thus indirectly funding the economy... with government. Who knew? =)) Of course, we can't fix it with only public jobs... obviously that wouldn't work. o, we have to take a few hits and possibly do some things that may or may not negate and of the changes i mentioned above to reduce the debt (of course, tax raises would help get rid of this problem... but that won't happen anytime soon, i assure you). the things i'm talking about include possibly a second stimulus and the like. but they also include common sense things. For instance, lowering the Corporate tax rate (and closing loopholes). Common sense, in my view. i'm not going to go reduce it to like 10%, but I could see how lowering it (instead of just closing loopholes and keeping the rate as is) would help lure corporations back. And add tax money. Also, there are overregulations that have to be dealt with. For instance, in some cases it's very hard to get a small business. For instance, to get a taxi company going, you need a medallion ( i think that's what it's called) that costs something like 800k to 1 million dollars. WTF? Why? you are already getting a business license.. why the hell is that needed? it just reduces the number of people who try to make a business. Even if it's just you, you need to pay that. Anyone could see that it's an unnecessary burden. I would continue, but i have to go eat dinner. i'll have to finish later.

.... No one can figure it out? Want a hint?

In that case, i'm not moving. I continue to pretend to be unconcious, wondering what brought me to consider my outfit =)

I'd wait for events to play out. There is no way in hell that I'm moving. I would like to know if I have anything on me. A weapon, any other object? A knife maybe?

Open your eyes slightly, just enough to see but (hopefully) not enough for them to see you awake.

Um...

I suppose i can go then? Now in the White flames of burning flags we found a world worth dying for, yeah We've been battered so hard that we don't feel anymore Take me From this world Save me What if we All die young? So take me From this world Save me What if we All die young? Dunno how many of you will get this....

I did the NY Times thing again, and i do think this time I'm a bit more balanced. Still though, it doesn't have some of the things I'd want.But anyway: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=gmusn9qt

Uh... could you give another hint? Or the artist? I know it's been a month, but i can't figure it out and don't feel like cheating. =)

Dawh: Yeah, you're probably right. Ah well. Oh, and what do you all think of the roller-coaster ride known as the stock market this month? Quag: I'm sorry that I haven't answered your stuff, but with vacation and school work (only two weeks of summer vacation left =() I haven't really done much. I dunno when i'll get to it.

It LIVES! I didn't know that was a part of secular humanism. Of course it's naive to think that all of a sudden human selfishness will just 'poof' away. And yes, the conclusion is a good one. i agree =) I'll read the whole article when I get the chance (damn my summer school work), but yeah, it seems right.