Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (928115)	3/28/2016 10:07:17 PM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1589259

As usual Ten, you got things a little mixed up. If you understood what pragmatic meant, you wouldn't even use the word "proof" in the same breath, for proof is a theoretical term, as in proof for the existence of G-d. For instance, I have the idea of perfection in my mind. Where did this idea of perfection come from? The idea could not have come from me since I'm not perfect. Moreover, the idea could not have come from any other human being, because no human being is perfect. So, the idea of perfection had to come from the perfect being, which proves that G-d exists. That reasoning constitutes the Ontological argument for the existence of G-d as set forth by Saint Anslem and Rene Descartes. One can easily object to the proof by saying, as Martin Luther did, that it is impossible to form the idea of perfection to begin with. I only digress here because the essential meaning of pragmatism not only goes against the inner nature of proof, but has nothing to do with proof whatsoever, which not only shows that you have no notion what pragmatism is, but goes to prove how obsessed you are as a rigid inflexible ideologue. I want to backtrack a bit here because I agree with Trump's view that companies that move (or have moved) their operations overseas should be severely penalized. This is a sentiment, which does not admit of proof. I admit that outsourcing jobs certainly means greater profits for companies since lower wages translates into a higher bottom line. But I don't give a hoot about the profits of multinational companies. I only care about that when I temporarily invest in stocks. My allegiance lies in maximizing income for individuals who work for companies. If companies earn less as a result, so be it. I support Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton because he is more liberal and open-minded than she is. A lot of people get caught up in party affiliation, but I only care who is the more liberal candidate. I was a fan of Lowell Weicker (CT) and Chaffee from Rhode Island because they were quite liberal and independent. If Sanders ends up getting the nomination, my vote goes to Bernie because he is the most liberal, progressive candidate. As a humanist, my allegiance lies in empowering individuals in every aspect of their existence. I vote based on these considerations. I couldn't care less what Milton Friedman or any other economist has to say in regard to these matters. If a candidate's policy supports the human, I support it unequivocally.