The Top 10 Reasons YOU Should Be Voting for John MCCain

In a socialist economy, everyone loses. The poor may lose less than the middle class or the "rich", but the poor in socialist countries are far more "poor" than the poor in free nations.

I'm not afraid of anything -- personally. I am well funded. I have options. I can leave the U.S. again and let Obama destroy it in my absence.

But for those who are forced to stay, the Reign of Obama the First will be a complete disaster.

Are you old enough to remember how badly Jimmy Carter screwed the country from 1976 to 1980?

 

Ask Will if the oil will pay for Iraq. We're over $550 billion in "on the book" expenditures. It's bad enough that he wants to play chickenhawk general with other people's lives, the question none of the neocons will address, is how they intend to pay for it and dig us out of Chinese economic slavery.

I'm no Carter fan, but this is a conservative myth. 4 years is not enough time to damage a complex economy like the US.

If you understood Austrian economics, you would know that Carter was paying for the Guns and Butter of the 60s in Vietnam. War is hyper inflationary, and going off of the Bretton Woods by declaring bankruptcy (closing the gold window) was a major event, that gets little mainstream play.

Why is it that the most unprincipled, morally confused people also do not understand the technical aspects of the economy?

 

let me guess he got the "silver star" and "legion of merit" and "distinguished flying cross" and "bronze star" and "navy commendation medal" for basically:

murdering other people?

does the word "murder" sound a bit harsh? well dont be angry at me be angry at the dictionary...they should change the word murder to "heroic peace effort" or "mercy angel" or some other nice euphemism like "colateral damage" and then it would not sound so harsh...

in any case he sounds like a fine future US president...sure is qualified...

 

Excellent post.

Somewhere along the way, boys who play soldier, became men who love war, and instead of being horrified by the loss of life in war, we create fantastic names for the people who do the killing.

McCain is and was a war criminal, he attacked civilian targets during his bombing runs. Is it any surprise he does not want his records unsealed and to see the light of scrutiny?

 

I don't know kid, why don't you understand the technical aspects of an economy?

Perhaps the reason is because it's really difficult for you to gain a deep understanding of anything from YouTube videos.

 

bush is less popular than gay marriage in some republican districts loooooooool
mccain has a long way to go.

 

I think I have a pretty good grasp on microeconomics. I'm no Ron Paul, who is probably right up there with say a Walter Williams, but could probably defeat McCain in a debate as an amateur.

Is this spoken from experience? I enjoy lectures over YouTube. But I would say that most of my experience is practical.

 

It definitely appears that real understanding has suffered severely as people have moved from books to television to the Web to YouTube as the source of their knowledge about the world.

I have significant concerns for the world as we hand the reigns of power over to this younger generation who have never been forced to use their brains rigorously.

 

That's funny. Gworld and I had and have significant concerns about turning over the war mongering to weekend militia warriors who like to play paintball, but are chickenhawks when it comes time to put millions of lives on the line.

 

Because information must be funneled and handed down to the masses? Isn't that how it really gets biased and skewerd from reality?

They don't call it the Information Age for no reason. This is a huge step forward for humanity, and I look forward to the day when all people get their information from the internet instead of the TV. The world will definitely be a better place.

 

Lazy and neurotic people fear decentralization. They can't control what who has access to knowledge, they cannot profit from their knowledge as easily due to competition, and they cannot control knowledge that hurts their ideological position.

But the future is in decentralization. I'm guessing that the internet will continue to boost home schooling, until it competes directly with state schooling, and then overtakes it. The cost of education is trending towards nil.

 

The downside to both television and YouTube is that the depth of information is very shallow.

The video medium works well to tell people what to believe, but it doesn't work equally well at telling them why or -- much more importantly forcing them to think on their own.

As a result, we have an entire generation that is strongly capable of belief -- but is almost completely oblivious to the very concept of rigorous analysis.

These people are perfect lemmings for charismatic cultists like Osama bin Laden and Ron Paul.

They can repeat anything they have been taught, but they themselves are completely incapable of original thought or critical reasoning.

 

As compared to the George Bush generation? HA!

 

We all know that Bush is the master of analytical thinking.

 

Yeah TV sucks because that's the only medium most people get their information from. YouTube is just one website among millions - Google is the real distributor of information on the internet and keywords could be considered analysis - use different keywords you get different results.

I think it would be logically difficult to say something like video or text are bad ways to distribute information, because it all depends on what the source is. Either way can present facts or be biased - althought video does have the benefit of being able to play on human emotion with pictures and sound.

But I'm more curious as to what kind of critical reasoning brought you to the belief that Ron Paul is a cultist?

 

The human brain appears to analyze text and video differently. Text allows the reader to easily move forward and backwards, comparing different passages for cohesion. Text makes it easy to isolate specific portions of a work for in-depth analysis.

In addition, text forces writers to create better content. Good writing requires deep analysis and compelling organization. Video is far more forgiving.

Probably more important than either of those two is that text has a much higher information density. Have you ever watched a half hour television documentary and counted each fact as it was presented to you? You may surprise yourself when you discover how few facts are actually used. Repetition is horrible in most television programs. They simply attempt to drill data in peoples heads.

Where is the critical analysis when one is watching TV? There is little or none. We "watch" TV, but we "read" books. Why don't we "watch" books? We don't "watch" books because watching is a passive activity, while reading is an active endeavor.

Have you spent a lot of time with the Paulistas?

Have you noticed how most of them are "true believers"? The believe, but they do not think. They accept without question. They are strongly cliqueish, as for many of them this is the first "identity" they have felt in their lives. They present themselves not as individual thinkers, but as members of a cause.

And have you heard them speak of Ron Paul? The Islamists are not even so humble before Osama bin Laden. They treat Ron Paul the way Christians would tread Jesus if he were walking among us. It is simply eerie. Everything he says is accepted without reason. Any criticism of him is taken as if the speaker has violated the sanctity of something holy.

The closest thing to this which has happened in America in my lifetime was the Moonie movement in the 1970's.

 

Killing is not murdering.

 

yes it is...you see when some US president invades some 3rd world country over bullshit politics and the army puts a gun to your head and forces you to fight the US mercenaries then:

you dont give 2 s**** about the legal ramifications and the seal of self approval that the rich countries of the world give themselves whilst unloading 10.0000s of bombs

or let me put it this way...if it was your family being bombed you would not call it "killing" you would call it murder

 

Please elucidate: How does that transform killing into murdering?

There is a very clear-cut difference. Killing is done with legal right to do so. Murdering is killing done illegally.

Murdering may be killing; but killing is in no way murdering.

 

That presumes a legal right to take life. Which I reject.