War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,957
- 82,718
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Oh god, I thought that was an avatar making fun of Obama by showing a Lenin image behind him. I had no idea the nobel peace prize looked like that. Now I feel quite silly.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
We had a huge, several hundred page thread on foh detailing him and his views. My go-to thing for crazy Ron Paul shit is the whole "FDA is unconstitutional" thing, which is dumb. And the idea that he thinks turning that over to the states would be a better or more efficient system is ludicrous. And wrong.
Falstaff
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,453
- 3,409
Dis
Confirmed Male
- 748
- 45
OK that is an opinion or point of view. You cannot say he is "wrong". You just disagree with him on this issue. I agree with you myself, I love Ron Paul, but the you have to have some kind of oversight. Not that the FDA is doing a great job, but it is better than nothing or taking it away completely. Either way I or you cannot prove he is wrong, because the odds of the FDA going away or nil. So there we are, just disagreeing.
What I am talking about is being RIGHT and being WRONG. Not about an opinion but about facts. In this case, Iran all of sudden becoming the new headline it seems like what Ron Paul has been saying to anyone that has been wanting to listen. This is not about Syria, this is about Iran. He has not been proven 100% correct, but as the days pass, and more and more information is reported from government sources, he seems like he was spot on.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 81,671
- 163,360
fanaticskin is right on this one
in world war II you had a lot of politicians sons as well as hollywood actors serving in front lines
those guys signed up voluntarily. it was a different time with a different sense of civic duty
in world war II you had a lot of politicians sons as well as hollywood actors serving in front lines
those guys signed up voluntarily. it was a different time with a different sense of civic duty
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Sure I can, I can say his opinion is wrong. Although I get that isn't what you were saying.
Ultimately, his view on Iran as the focus is wrong. This isn't about Syria or Iran, this is about global dominance just like anything else. Overthrowing Assad takes a card out of Russia's deck. Weakening Russia is just as good as strengthening the US. No one cares about Iran except that Iran is another card in that deck.
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,037
- 138,821
that's not really true, if you look at the negative aspects of federalism such as forcing everyone to do the same thing. You could argue that maybe there are aspects of the FDA that are wrong and harmful, and by disallowing states choice you are forcing wrong and harmful decisions on everyone.
by concentrating power instead of distributing power you make it easier for corporations to dominate the system and rig it for themselves.
that's the problem with powerful centralized government vs distributed government, it's just begging for powerful entities to take control of it and thus take control over everyone.
if you look at lobbying in the FDA you can see things like cancer drugs being denied approval because some cancer drug company doesn't want it's profits undermined by a cheaper drug and stuff like that. If there wasn't monolithic centralized government forcing everyone to abide by that shitty decision at least some states would approve that drug for consumption and some people would take the risk and prove it works (or not but they where ALLOWED choice to begin with).
Haast
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 3,281
- 1,636
That is the positive aspect of distributing responsibility. The negative aspect is that if you had 50 sets of regulations for the 50 states, the regulatory burden would be mind-bottling. It would also again favor large companies, who can afford to keep a large regulatory affairs staff.
Getting approval from the FDA is difficult; Getting approval from 50 FDAs would be a shitstorm. Unless they had harmonized regulations and recognized each other's approvals, in which case, why does each state need its own?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
There's no such thing as "mandatory" when you have money and power. If no loopholes exist, you can afford to create some.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,037
- 138,821
because there are no perfect answers in life only trade offs.
and corporations taking over local fda's yes that would happen but it would happen regardless of how big or small you make them, you would however be making it harder to control EVERYONE vs a smaller area, the concept is the same as the balance of power between the branches of government, you need some kind of competition between agencies and they would naturally keep each other in line even if they aren't pure minded because it fits with human nature.
I don't think it would be such a shit storm as people make it out to be, every state has a separate government to begin with. like California has separate car emission standards than other states do now Anyways, does that make it impossible to import a car to america? no. But that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
-----
You can make a parallel with what's going on right now, technically congress is the only body that should be able to allow war, but the executive branch also claims that power, it's the competition between the branches of government that are keeping us out of war right now.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
By concentrating you ensure standards both for companies and consumers. By distributing you create some kind of mad max free for all crazy shit. Regulation doesn't need "choice" it needs standards.
And lol at making it easier for corporations to dominate. Because no way corporations could dominate smaller organizations.
It highlights Paul's basic MO, ideology over everything. Logic be damned, he believes something so the world should adapt to his beliefs.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 29,046
- 47,040
Err you do not draft if you are not currently involved with heavy boots on the ground (TM) fighting. So there would be no draft with the military having nothing to do.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,037
- 138,821
first assumption is that "standards" are always good, they aren't, if you make everyone follow a wrong "standard" then you made it wrong for everyone.
of course they would, but it would be harder to control 50 states worth of fda's than one federalist fda, it would be ALOT harder, that's the whole point vs centralization. not that it's infallible but that it's harder to control than one gatekeeper agency.
It has it's own logic to it, it's not "illogicial" the country was founded on some of this "illogic" by the way.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you fundamentally trust government some people do, I think they are nuts. Government needs to be split up and pitted against itself or it will naturally bully the population it controls. this is what the country was founded on it's not a "new" concept and america is relatively unique in history because of it's decentralization and balance of power vs authoritarian regimes at the time of it's inception. at least it used to be this way until recently, we've kinda drifted into the empire era like the roman republic did.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
No, it isn't about "trust the government." That is a libertarian strawman. And it doesn't even make sense. As if it solves the problem by splitting a regulatory agency into 50 even more fucked up organizations. Now we can trust them!
You make the assumption that there are "wrong standards" and that somehow that will be fixed by decentralizing, and the assumption that it would be harder to "control" (what does that even mean in this context??) 50 small organizations over one large one. Those are some pretty big assumptions that I definitely do not agree with.
You make the assumption that there are "wrong standards" and that somehow that will be fixed by decentralizing, and the assumption that it would be harder to "control" (what does that even mean in this context??) 50 small organizations over one large one. Those are some pretty big assumptions that I definitely do not agree with.
