• Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:52 AM
    There's nothing in that quote that anyone who follows Ron Paul would be surprised to read. It's not the same as saying that he would only support a tax cut after a spending cut had happened first.
    60 replies | 872 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:43 AM
    Yeah, the author mixes together different complaints. The touchy-feely ideology is one thing, the concentration of resources on departments that produce marketable degrees is another. I think liberal education is a valuable thing, and I'm sad to see its ongoing demise. But this is happening because the cost of going go college has increased so rapidly that courses on things you can't get a job in don't warrant their price any more. This problem can't be solved by throwing money at those programs that has to come from somewhere else.
    9 replies | 150 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:02 AM
    I can't prove it for specific purchases that I don't know about. But I can prove the general rule that causes those prices to go up. It's just a matter of substitutability of a good. Even if economy of scale causes the cost of production for those products to go decrease for American producers while costs of production for their foreign made substitutes go up in response to the same factors, the total demand and total supply would remain the same, and they will still be sold for as high of a price as they can demand in the market. There's no such thing as a free lunch. In the absence of any given tariff or trade restriction, Americans are getting more stuff at less cost in net. The reason they buy whatever foreign-made goods they buy in that situation is because of comparative advantages that other countries have for some products and that America has for others, and these comparative advantages involve economies of scale as well as countless other factors. Stifling the economic benefits of taking advantage of those comparative advantages is guaranteed to be a net economic loss for all parties. And this loss can't be avoided just by consumers choosing not to buy the goods with tariffs charged to them. In fact, doing that is what causes the economic disadvantage that the international trade is there to alleviate in the first place.
    60 replies | 872 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:41 AM
    So he sometimes fakes it? That sucks, because he really did it to me the time I said Whataburger was overrated.
    77 replies | 796 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:39 AM
    I don't follow your reasoning. If the tariffs resulted in the prices for imported alternatives to those American products going up, then they also resulted in the prices for those American products going up, in comparison to what the prices would be for those same products in the absence of the tariffs.
    60 replies | 872 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:30 AM
    I am not of the mindset that it's a job that could ever be finished. But it's an ideal that defines the right direction versus the wrong one. People who argue that there's no point in having this ideal because it will never be realized are missing the point of what an ideal is.
    6 replies | 208 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:14 AM
    I doubt that he said that. He might have said spending, but not exclusively debt/deficits. And I also doubt that he put it in a way that implied that cutting spending was a prerequisite to cutting taxes.
    60 replies | 872 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:12 AM
    But you paid higher prices for those American made items then you would have had to pay if the prices of imported alternatives to them weren't artificially raised by tariffs.
    60 replies | 872 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:01 AM
    "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RJB again."
    35 replies | 690 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:36 AM
    In what utopia does this guy live?
    35 replies | 690 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:29 AM
    And his supporters love it. Every time he contradicts himself in word or deed, they see it as part of a larger brilliant plan.
    85 replies | 1235 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:03 AM
    To the extent that the factors you're talking about affect their motivations, those cities are what they will naturally gravitate to anyway. How different is this than the catch and release policies he criticized so much? If it be answered that without dropping them off in sanctuary cities, they may settle down in other cities. But if it's not the case that the sanctuary policies would be sufficient to draw them into the sanctuary cities, then it also will not be sufficient to keep them there. There are lots of reasons in each individual case for people to want to go other places. But again, I hope Trump follows through on this. It's an improvement over the alternative, and may even turn out to be a more effective open-border, amnesty, immigration increasing policy than what any other recent presidents of either party ever adopted.
    85 replies | 1235 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:56 AM
    For me, the question of whether or not to engage someone involves more than just what their positions are. There's no position I'm unwilling to engage. But it depends on other factors with the person espousing it and how they go about it sometimes. Also, with a word like globalism, there's a need for precision of just what we're against. Globalism can be statist, with a goal of a one-world government. Another kind of globalism is what would emerge from libertarian policies. Ron Paul has always advocated the latter. For example, here he remarks, "There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade, and a single worldwide currency." Of course, the currency to which he is referring is whatever commodity-based or other free-market, non-fiat, currencies free people would adopt as their media of exchange with one another around the world in the absence of the governmental monopolies on currency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcfeac Also, the determination of whether or not a view represents this site's mission needs to be determined by evaluating it in light of that mission, not by what someone's site reputation score is. Reputation scores are not based on the site mission, but on other people clicking to add or subtract reputation from a person, and often people who disagree with the site mission rally around one another to boost their scores or to subtract from someone else's for things that have nothing to do with the site mission.
    77 replies | 796 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:48 AM
    If the question is what he would have tried to accomplish in a tenure as president, I'm sure that eliminating the State Department would not have been on his radar. If the question is what he would see as an ultimate goal, then yes. I don't think there's any department, office, or employee funded by involuntary taxation of any kind, that would remain if his ideology were adopted and pursued all the way to its ultimate ends. I think that those who see RP as a statist tend to mix these two different things up.
    6 replies | 208 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:43 AM
    She was present for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Tuesday of last week, April 17th, and spoke there. You can read what she said in the transcripts from that day. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/18-431_4gci.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/18-485_c0n2.pdf
    11 replies | 310 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 03:13 PM
    There's nothing nonsensical about any of that. Paul gives more than one reason to submit to rulers. One reason is that they wield the sword not in vain. Another is as a matter of conscience. Notice how every time you refer to the passage, and try to make some point about it, you put it in your own words, rather than referring to the words it actually uses. It doesn't say that disobeying a ruler is rebelling against God. It says, "whoever resists the powers resists what God has appointed." This is completely in line with everything I've said. Notice also how this meshes with the example of Jesus submitting to wicked rulers, all the way to his own death. The crucifixion of Jesus was central to Paul's entire message. It could hardly be something he failed to consider when he wrote Romans 13 or any other passage. The powers that crucified Jesus were sinning when they did so, but they were nevertheless God's servants, even in that very act bringing about praise to Jesus and shame to evil doers. In this example, where submission led to his death, it wasn't a case of submitting to the powers because they bear the sword not in vain as a practical way of avoiding death (though that reason would be perfectly valid on its own in other circumstances), but out of conscience, to accept his role in God's plan who (as Paul says in the same book of Romans) works all things for the good of those who love him. Nowhere does Romans 13 define right or wrong based on what the powers command. And it doesn't need to define right and wrong at all, because how right and wrong are defined is already something that Paul and his audience take for granted going into the passage. They're not starting from a blank slate here concerning God's moral law. Notice also that the passage doesn't even say to do whatever the powers ask of you, as you claim. It merely says to submit to them and not to rise up against them in insurrection. The words "submit" and "obey" are two different words with overlapping but distinct meanings. You can submit by obeying. To submit is to accept your position under another's power. You can submit by obeying. But even if you disobey, it's possible to do so submissively. Jesus submitted to the Roman Empire, but that didn't mean always obeying them. His crucifixion illustrates both of these things--he submitted to the cross willingly, but the cross itself was a punishment for his failure to conform to that state's demands. The apostles, including Paul, submitted to them, but not always by obeying them. Sometimes their submission involved disobeying them, and accepting being punished for doing so. Sometimes it involved disobeying them and avoiding punishments by escaping them. But by being in submission, they never rose up against them in rebellion.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 02:46 PM
    Whether or not you accept the theology that Paul presupposed when he wrote Romans 13, it's still the case that he did presuppose it, and the passage should be understood in that light, and not as if it had been written with your modern western atheist presuppositions, if you want to understand what he meant. I wouldn't put it quite the way you did, but a good passage that illustrates God's sovereignty over a wicked ruler, whom he raised up and put in power, and then used that ruler, and even explicitly used that ruler's disobedience of God's commands, to accomplish his own good purposes, is in Romans 9:17-18, speaking of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. I think it's significant that this passage is in the same letter as Romans, and in fact is the only passage in that letter that mentions a specific example of one of the powers that Romans 13 refers to. The Pharaoh of the Exodus perfectly illustrates Romans 13:1-6 in that God used him as a servant to bring praise to those who did good and shame to evildoers in spite of, and even through, the Pharaoh's own wickedness.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 02:37 PM
    That's right. They bear the sword to kill people. And if you disobey them, they will use that sword. It's not just for show. The same is true of muggers. And God uses muggers as his servants as well in precisely the same way that Romans 13 is talking about. In fact, I would say that the "powers" that the passage mention includes muggers. The fact that these powers, whether small-scale muggers, or large-scale emperors, bear the sword not in vain, is a good reason to submit to them, simply as a matter of general practical advice, which is really what that passage is.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 02:35 PM
    The passage doesn't refer to what God "wants." What you're doing is using the word "want" equivocally, where you conflate what God commands with what he ordains. As the Bible portrays God, what he commands (i.e. what he says someone ought to do) and what he ordains (i.e. his works in creation to bring about his plans) are not the same thing. God regularly uses the wicked deeds of those who disobey him to bring about his purposes in spite of them. The Bible speaks of this often, especially with respect to rulers.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 11:01 AM
    If the owner engages in an act of violent aggression against you to compel you to work for him against your will, that's slavery. If you voluntarily take the job, even if you feel you have no choice because you are compelled to take it on account of external needs that are not the result of your employer using violence against you, it isn't slavery. It's a crucial distinction. Ethically, the two things are not even remotely similar. To equate the two would be as bad as claiming that refraining from giving someone something that you are not obligated to give them is the same as stealing from them something that is theirs.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 10:01 AM
    In the passage you're discussing, a servant is someone God uses to accomplish his own ends, in spite of the intentions of that agent. This is a special case of what the same book says a few chapters earlier, that God works all things (understood there to include evils) for the good of those who love him. This may sound odd to you, and I can't blame you if it does. But for those reading Romans with a background in the scriptures of Israel, as Paul took for granted from his audience, this is a completely normal position. God uses wicked rulers, even in their wicked deeds, as his servants. There are numerous similar claims all throughout the scriptures.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 09:44 AM
    All taxes do this though. It's good to oppose a tax for this reason. But to be consistent, you then have to oppose all taxes.
    8 replies | 164 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 09:38 AM
    Why do you think I'm not? Exactly. Ergo, having to work 72 hours a week just to survive does not constitute slavery.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 09:21 AM
    You didn't pay close attention to what the verse you cited says. It only commands the paying of taxes, not the levying of them. And even at that, notice that it strictly only commands to pay what you owe, not what you don't owe (though this qualification makes no difference to my main point here). Nothing in the verse actually gives anyone, including the powers to which it refers, moral permission to steal. By analogy, when Jesus told his disciples to turn the other cheek, he wasn't saying that the person striking them was being let off the hook in God's judgment. Their act of aggression is still prohibited by God's law, despite the fact that the way of Jesus was to submit to it.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 09:09 AM
    That's irrelevant. That 100% is still the same amount as the sweatshop worker, it's barely enough to survive. So it's not a "fraction of a fraction of a penny for every dollar"? Still irrelevant though.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 08:46 AM
    The CIA may have the means to act outside of the chain of command leading up to the president. But that doesn't change the fact that much, if not most, of what they do is fully under his authority. And Trump, like every president before him, may have hated the CIA when it acted outside his authority, but he wouldn't ever want to lose the power to use it as a tool for his own ends.
    16 replies | 348 view(s)
  • Superfluous Man's Avatar
    04-18-2019, 08:38 AM
    I know what you mean, but depending on their specific jobs, in the cases you're talking about I suspect that some of those 12-hour shifts are on work schedules that only come out to 36 or 48 hours per week. It's probably not 12 hours a day for 6-7 days a week, and probably not even 5, or I suspect they would take home more. I don't know the specifics of your kids' situations, but from what I know about jobs in medical fields that sound like what you describe, that would likely be the case. Or, they could be medical doctors in their residencies. In that case, they really do work ~80 hour weeks. But that's a temporary situation, and they will either find their hours going back down to something easier while their pay also goes up considerably once they finish their residencies, or else if they do continue to work those hours, it will be by choice, and still with much higher pay.
    48 replies | 742 view(s)
More Activity
About Superfluous Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
4,166
Posts Per Day
4.52
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 06:12 PM
Join Date
10-10-2016
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. BV2 BV2 is offline

    Member

    BV2
  2. Ender Ender is offline

    Member

    Ender
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2

03-14-2019


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


No results to display...
Page 1 of 151 1231151101 ... LastLast

04-19-2019


04-18-2019



Page 1 of 151 1231151101 ... LastLast