Mar 16, 2014 at 18:11:20
“Fat also improves satiety response. Adding butter (grass-fed, of course) means you're less likely to binge on crap later. Fat contains calories, but it's not strictly additive as it affects future consumption. Everyone's different, but I can only lose weight if I'm eating a lot of fat.”
“Actually, if you look at early instances of industrial pollution, the reason that large corporations got away with it falls on the courts (to wit: a branch of government). When property became contaminated with pollution, courts rejected the owners' damage claims against the polluters on the grounds that holding them liable for the contamination ran counter to the public interest.”
seriussam10 on May 3, 2012 at 17:58:52
“(1) A lot of those rulings were driven by legal philosophies espoused by libertarians, like government non-intervention and the idea courts shouldn't get involved in contract disputes. For example, if I was a land owners who agreed to let a coal plant operate on my land, but forgot to include adequate remediation requirements for pollution, the courts would simply say "welp, the landowner should have been more careful! A deal's a deal!"
(2) Since state courts generally adjudicate tort, property, and contract law, even if your claims were true (not saying it's not), this would still strike against the libertarian idea that state courts are better suited to address legal harms than federal courts, or that state laws were "more efficient" than federal environmental/pollution control laws (which didn't really exist until the 1970s).
Not saying you argued these points, I just hear young federalist type kids at my law school make similar claims without really considering the historical context.”
“The idea that the core of Paul's plans is to cut "programs that benefit the poor and middle class" is patently absurd if you take a moment and actually listen to him.
His biggest campaign draw is the desire to end the Federal Reserve on the premise that it favors large, connected, rich institutions while robbing the poor and middle class through inflation. The single biggest cut he wants to make is in military spending abroad. Seeing as the sons and daughters of the poor and middle classes are the ones dying in unneeded wars, that seems like a win for them. These cuts also allow him to avoid cutting other services.
He has explicitly stated that, while he is opposed to programs like social security and medicare, he would not wish to cut those programs for people who depend on them. It's critical to realize that his opposition to those programs as well as things like the Dept. of Education is AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Please excuse the caps for emphasis; it's important. The arguments he makes are based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and under that interpretation there would be no problem with individual states providing the various services that Paul wants to cut.
Locally distributed power means more accountability to the people. Governments and bureaucracies (like big banks and corporations) always suffer from inefficiency and corruption. The more localized the effects of these issues and the more transparent their operation, the better.”
Lokimom10 on May 3, 2012 at 14:42:40
“People will say anything to get votes. I checked out what all the hoopla about Ron Paul was about, read what Ron Paul stands for, and while I can appreciate some of his talking points his plan for our country scares me. What happens when granny can't work any more and wasn't able to put money away? What about the infrastructure? What about Pell grants that help people go to college who could not do so otherwise? He will roll this country back to the "Gay 90's".”
serialcoma on May 3, 2012 at 14:35:58
“What makes you believe that local governments will be any more accountable or transparent than the Federal government.. they certainly aren't now... it;ls just trading one group of corrupt incompetents for another....”
“This is a caucus, not a primary. The votes don't represent individual citizens, but the collective decisions of local precincts.”
Tea for me on Feb 5, 2012 at 02:58:15
“You are wrong.....each specific number of votes in each precinct is listed at this time.....so, it is the individual vote of the voters who bothered to show up.
Then each precincts total votes will be finalized into specific number of delegate votes at the convention in Tampa.
Some states require the delegates vote for the candidate they represent..bound votes..some do not, and allow the delegates to be woo'd and vote any way they wish at RNC.
Right now we are just seeing the total of 44.9% reporting in.
Paranoia on Feb 5, 2012 at 02:52:30
“Votes do represent the majority of the citizens in the precinct. The more supporters that show up to the caucus site the better that candidate will do... look at each county it gives the number of people that showed up to support them.”
Louis Sipher on Feb 5, 2012 at 02:45:30
“Ooooh. Thanks. I was really curious to see what kind of turnout they had.”
bsballnut15 on Feb 5, 2012 at 02:39:05
“These people just don't get it. They think nobody is coming out to vote and Obama has it wrapped up in Nov...funny stuff!”
“Since when is Ron Paul an anarchist? He has very clear views about the role of the federal government and none of them involve getting rid of it.”
TeraWatt60 on Feb 5, 2012 at 00:03:00
“None of them allow for the Federal Government to do anything to address national problems either...what he essentially advocates is a return to the Articles of Confederation with semi-independent states where everything from disasters to environmental protection is handled by localities and even then...essentially a race to the bottom”
“Supposing that humans have evolved adaptations to footware, modern running shoes would still be a radically different approach. High levels of padding (and the materials science required to produce them) didn't become prevalent until the mid-20th century. A thin strip of leather or other material might of allowed primitive man to cross jagged rocks more easily, but it wouldn't have made landing on the heel while running comfortable.
As a completely anecdotal report: I always hated running as an activity unto itself and especially loathed distance running. However, I enjoyed activities that involved running (e.g. soccer) and would often run around the house or sprint short distances to get somewhere faster. After finishing college, I read enough about 'barefoot' running to psych myself up, got a pair of Vibrams, and gave it a whirl. I eased into it by wearing them around on the weekends, then every day, then finally going on short runs.
Regardless of any structural benefits or risks, running 'barefoot' reminded me of how it felt to play as a kid. I ended up not hating it. I still don't run much or very far, but a couple of nagging issues I'd had with running were resolved by structure-less footwear (most importantly, my left toe stopped going numb mid-run).”
Ken Bob Saxton on Aug 26, 2012 at 19:15:21
“Oh yes, and we do have some adaptations to wearing footwear, even a year of habitual shoe-wearing will increase the sensitivity in our soles, as well as how hard we "hit" the ground. I suspect this is because our feet really do want to feel the surface as we walk and run.”
“Yes. Seconded. And what about the unfortunate people who live in one of those oppressive nanny states and don't have the wherewithal to move? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not ready to trust a bunch of bureaucrats to help me when I need it. More likely, their attitude is "tough, you should have known better than to get sick and expect prompt treatment. Wait in line."
Let's agree to disagree on specific policy issues like public health care. Having local control by state governments allows each of us to live in a society which better suits our needs and proclivities.
Granted, some will not have the means to move. However, I'd venture that the proportion of the population stuck under a government they can't escape would be nearly an order of magnitude less than at present.
“Crony-capitalism is not just late stage capitalism. It's late stage capitalism in an environment that has a high degree of centralized political control. This corrupt outcome is not specific to capitalism, but to centralization of any kind.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you would assert that capitalism will always lead to such a state. Though I'd tentatively disagree, it's certainly a reasonable stance given the course of history.
To avoid crony-capitalism, soviet-style communism, fascism, feudalism, etc., a resilient system of decentralized control needs to develop.”
If you don't respond to the violence in the middle east, the people there will weary of it and support for those that perpetrate those acts will wane.
If you respond by killing innocent people and destroying the livelihoods of more, then the hate of foreign oppressors becomes more pressing than a few lunatics acting out against those oppressors in terrible ways.
People do not blow themselves up for fun. They do not blow themselves up just because they think they'll get 72 virgins. The prettiness of martyrdom is a story they are sold to hide the ugliness of what they will do. The REASONS for their actions have everything to do with asymmetric warfare and perceived injustice.”
“Like Mr. Bartel, I'm not familiar with any specific program of subsidy for oil drilling, but I do not doubt they exist. If nothing else, I'm certainly willing to count our tragic involvement in the middle east as at least a partial subsidy to big oil.
So yes, "loathe" puts it mildly. I loathe, detest, and abhor the murder of innocent humans. I feel similarly about destruction of their property and breach of their liberties (such as those may have been). For the same reasons, though with lesser enmity, I oppose subsidy in most any case.
When it specifically comes to green energy as a solution for CO2 emissions, the issue at hand lies in a failure to capture negative externalities. Instead of subsidizing various green energy technologies, simply restructure the legal system so that tort claims could be made against pollution. Things actually operated in this manner prior to court decisions during the industrial revolution which abrogated that aspect of property rights in the interest of the common good.
My ultimate point is that, while imperfect, a market system with properly defined and enforced property rights can be very good for the environment. The health of the world around us is a truly scarce resource. Unlike some commodity goods, it also must necessarily remain distributed amongst many people. Scarcity makes the environment a good choice for management by a market system whereas its distributed nature makes central control a very poor choice.”