Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Ron Paul loves the modern world, and thinks the modern world would be benefited greatly by Libertarianism. Ron Paul is the only 70+ year old I know who has his own Iphone widgets he customized

I hear he could also consume our debts with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse!!

flmao

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Yes, you are proving my point more and more Johnny, I'm a frickin loon! I'm a frickin loon because I disagree with you and I have an overwhelmingly strong belief in peaceful discourse. I believe that all ideas have merit until proven otherwise and that just because these ideas may not be the status quo or even immediate solutions to current problems they shouldn't be called loony or those who present them called fringe.

If not for those on the "fringe" or those who think "out of the box" the many innovations of those who were considered fringe or loony may have never been realized. It's up to all of us to have rational and meaningful discourse and the more we accept the label as loony or fringe the more ideas we lose.

If we took every fringe idea and ran with it... think about where we'd be. There are two sides to every coin and just because you're on the "I worship the ground Ron Paul walks on side", doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms that aren't just people trying to stifle him.

I didn't say we should take every "fringe" idea and run with it. I said we should quit calling ideas fringe. If we can completely debase an idea with logic and real world debate and analysis fine, but to immediately label them fringe simply because they aren't status quo is limiting our own ability to expand our horizons.

 

[Capitalizt]

All I can say is THANK GOD this man is running for office. Without him, we would not be having these debates at all. Internet forums would be full of pointless drivel about the personal histories of Huckabee vs Romney vs Giuliani. Instead we are having these fundamental issues being discussed...and it would not have happened if Paul wasn't bringing them up every day.

What is the proper role of government be in our lives? In the economy? In the world? Is a policy of foreign interventionism justified? Is a currency based on debt better than a currency based on gold? What does the Constitution say about all of this?

Thank you Dr. Paul for sounding the wake up call, and changing the debate in this country.

/thread

 

[halik]

I suggest you all read this paper, especially anyone that's advocating FED being directly controlled by the electorate:

Alesina, Summers, "Central Bank independence and macroeconomic performance", Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 25, 1993 pages 151-162

Empirically speaking, more independent central bank tends to lead to lower inflation.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
All I can say is THANK GOD this man is running for office. Without him, we would not be having these debates at all. Internet forums would be full of pointless drivel about the personal histories of Huckabee vs Romney vs Giuliani. Instead we are having these fundamental issues being discussed...and it would not have happened if Paul wasn't bringing them up every day.

What is the proper role of government be in our lives? In the economy? In the world? Is a policy of foreign interventionism justified? Is a currency based on debt better than a currency based on gold? What does the Constitution say about all of this?

Thank you Dr. Paul for sounding the wake up call, and changing the debate in this country.

/thread

Until he starts forcing these issues to be discussed at a national level, he hasn't changed anything. Those of us who are actually arguing against his ideas are doing so because there are 50,000 posts per day about Ron Paul, not because his ideas are gaining any traction.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: yllus

P.S. Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

actually, it, india, pakistan, and to a lesser extent, persia, are all the middle east. some yanks fucked it up during wwii when they labeled packages going to the near east as going to the middle east. the near east is arabia, iraq, syria, and turkey.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: yllus

P.S. Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

actually, it, india, pakistan, and to a lesser extent, persia, are all the middle east. some yanks fucked it up during wwii when they labeled packages going to the near east as going to the middle east. the near east is arabia, iraq, syria, and turkey.

Behold the power of the post office. :Q

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: halik
I suggest you all read this paper, especially anyone that's advocating FED being directly controlled by the electorate:

Alesina, Summers, "Central Bank independence and macroeconomic performance", Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 25, 1993 pages 151-162

Empirically speaking, more independent central bank tends to lead to lower inflation.

Nice find.

Still replying to NG. Takes a while.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I don't know for a fact that inflation would be eliminated, but I do know that is the goal of monetary policy, at least in my mind.

too bad it's not. the goal of monetary policy is predictability. we get predictability by keeping inflation at low sustainable rates that don't require much intervention in a continually fluctuating economy. predictability is good because people tailor their actions to their expectation. if the future cannot be predicted, then people will act conservatively. conservative actions lead to low economic growth and, possibly, contraction. confidence in the future is the main force for growth in the modern economy.

if the goal of monetary policy were to eliminate inflation, then, because of the overall trailing nature of intervention, we'd undershoot the needs of the economy and cause deflation.

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
I have decided I have spoken for Dr. Paul for far too long in this thread. It's time he speaks for himself.

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would

yep, none of the founding fathers ever attempted to secure trade using the barrel of a gun.

Originally posted by: halik
I suggest you all read this paper, especially anyone that's advocating FED being directly controlled by the electorate:

Alesina, Summers, "Central Bank independence and macroeconomic performance", Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 25, 1993 pages 151-162

Empirically speaking, more independent central bank tends to lead to lower inflation.

i wondered why it was taking so long to point out that central banks being politically controlled are one of the worst ideas on the planet. i guess LK had enough to do already.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
All I can say is THANK GOD this man is running for office. Without him, we would not be having these debates at all. Internet forums would be full of pointless drivel about the personal histories of Huckabee vs Romney vs Giuliani. Instead we are having these fundamental issues being discussed...and it would not have happened if Paul wasn't bringing them up every day.

What is the proper role of government be in our lives? In the economy? In the world? Is a policy of foreign interventionism justified? Is a currency based on debt better than a currency based on gold? What does the Constitution say about all of this?

Thank you Dr. Paul for sounding the wake up call, and changing the debate in this country.

/thread

Yes, it is a great thing to have a debate about new ideas. The problem stems from the fact that Ron Paul supporters don't seem to want to listen to any new ideas. Sure, you say you do:

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
If we can completely debase an idea with logic and real world debate and analysis fine, but to immediately label them fringe simply because they aren't status quo is limiting our own ability to expand our horizons.

But when logic is used to form arguments against your candidate's position, you resort to the argumentative tactic of "I don't need to understand it to know it's a good idea."

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Wow NaughtyGreek is hitting the nail on the head.... Some how I've been missing it over and over again, I've destroyed my thumbs..... I should have just said this

"You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea. A great deal of people that support this theory don't understand what's required to make that type of move, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's a bad idea. All politicians have "plans" that people support without thinking about how that plan can be executed. Look at health care for example. There are plenty of people that think the notion of free health care for everyone is great. What is often times overlooked is that it's not free. There's quite a few people who would pay more in taxes for free health care than they pay for their premiums now. That's another topic however. For now, I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something, but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair."

That's Awesome Naughty! Awesome, and it concludes both arguments. Now where is the OP when is he going to chime in like he said he would?

Ron Paul supporters don't actually want to debate their candidate's positions because they don't want to be exposed to the notion that their candidate may be wrong. Ron Paul supporters are less like political activists and more like missionaries. You have a belief that everything Ron Paul says is correct, and you stand behind it absolutely. There is no debate. You use regurgitated talking points, that have already been systematically picked apart mind you, to back up an argument while admitting that you have absolutely no idea what it is you're actually arguing for. If someone presents a logical argument for why they don't believe the same as you, you completely ignore it and move on, trying to convert the next person you talk to. It's like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness.

Quite frankly I get a little trepidatious whenever a candidate is treated like a religious figure. Ron Paul supporters seem to worship him as a messiah, thanking God that he is running for office, and refusing to question a single thing he says. In your quest for freedom you have completely devoted yourselves to the ideas of one man, which seems more than a little illogical. But it doesn't matter. Nothing I say here will phase you. You will continue to spread the gospel of Dr. Paul, riding your comformity wave of individual freedom, ignoring anyone who questions the policies of the candidate you support. In several months, when the Republican presidential nominee is announced, you will breathe a sigh of consternation, realizing that Ron Paul will never be president. You will fancy yourself a martyr, throwing your vote away in the name of freedom. In the years that come, any time any single thing goes wrong, you will say "don't blame me, I voted for Paul." But the whole thing is a damn lie; you don't actually understand Ron Paul's positions, just the talking points you saw that made them sound good. The only thing you're supporting is your own willful ignorance, your refusal to consider alternative points of view. Congratulations, you are exactly what is killing political debate in this country.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i wondered why it was taking so long to point out that central banks being politically controlled are one of the worst ideas on the planet. i guess LK had enough to do already.

You are correct with everything above. In fact, I did put, in my first post, a piece about banks being ctrolled by politicians is a bad idea. It's too bad mavtek and the rest of the bots refused to acknowledge it. They try to ignore things they don't understand, except when Ron Paul puts them forward.


I also wanted to add to this...

"You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea. A great deal of people that support this theory don't understand what's required to make that type of move, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's a bad idea. All politicians have "plans" that people support without thinking about how that plan can be executed. Look at health care for example. There are plenty of people that think the notion of free health care for everyone is great. What is often times overlooked is that it's not free. There's quite a few people who would pay more in taxes for free health care than they pay for their premiums now. That's another topic however. For now, I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something, but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair."

The problem with this statement is the fact that politicians take advantage of ignorance. They love the fact that people do not understand what they are saying and use that to their advantage. It takes enlightened people to understand whether plans are good or not. Unfortunately, RBPs think they are enlightened about the Fed, or Iraq/Military things, and ignore those who really are.

You can see that with Mavtek skipping over the points he know he has lost on, without acknowledging he has, or skipping entire posts. It's a joke that he can even pretend to have "won" anything. In fact, all he has done, is marginalize RP in my mind.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Atomic you are so wrong on so many points. I question nearly everything Ron Paul says, like for instance I heard he called Abraham Lincoln a tyrant for his policies during his presidency. I thought the idea of calling the man a tyrant certainly seemed wrong so I investigated the issue thoroughly. The status quo and indeed the "victors" do seem to write the books of History as I've always been taught that Lincoln was some great leader, a kind and wonderful man. I didn't know he clamped down on the press, and even deported some who spoke out against his policies of tyranny against his own legislature. I picked up "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo and learned that indeed Lincoln was not nearly as nice as History has portrayed him.

This is only 1 instance of course, regarding monetary policy I will completely admit to not knowing everything there is to know about monetary policy or central banking, but I will not call Ron Paul's ideas loony on the premise of what I've read they most certainly don't seem loony. That's not to say his ideas are effectively better or worse than central banking although they do seem more fair to those who aren't the banks. We absolutely must investigate thoroughly all of the ideas political candidates spout off. Mike Huckabee has been promoting the "Fair Tax" for months now. I've investigated it extensively at this point and without some major cost reduction the sales tax rate would have to be closer to 30%. Thus far Mr. Huckabee hasn't told us how he intends to cut spending to get this rate closer to 23%, I'd like to know more because while the fair tax is indeed more fair for many of us, it is a protectionist policy. Mainly because outside Foreign tourism and trade would be extraordinarily effected by this hike in sales tax.

I would love to go into more as I don't sleep much, I mostly read and watch documentaries, so many fascinating ideas so little time. Ron Paul knows he can't change everything, he knows that all his policies aren't right for America now. What we do know as supporters of Ron Paul, is that his policies are the direction we need to be heading.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i wondered why it was taking so long to point out that central banks being politically controlled are one of the worst ideas on the planet. i guess LK had enough to do already.

You are correct with everything above. In fact, I did put, in my first post, a piece about banks being ctrolled by politicians is a bad idea. It's too bad mavtek and the rest of the bots refused to acknowledge it. They try to ignore things they don't understand, except when Ron Paul puts them forward.


I also wanted to add to this...

"You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea. A great deal of people that support this theory don't understand what's required to make that type of move, but just because they don't understand doesn't mean it's a bad idea. All politicians have "plans" that people support without thinking about how that plan can be executed. Look at health care for example. There are plenty of people that think the notion of free health care for everyone is great. What is often times overlooked is that it's not free. There's quite a few people who would pay more in taxes for free health care than they pay for their premiums now. That's another topic however. For now, I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something, but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair."

The problem with this statement is the fact that politicians take advantage of ignorance. They love the fact that people do not understand what they are saying and use that to their advantage. It takes enlightened people to understand whether plans are good or not. Unfortunately, RBPs think they are enlightened about the Fed, or Iraq/Military things, and ignore those who really are.

You can see that with Mavtek skipping over the points he know he has lost on, without acknowledging he has, or skipping entire posts. It's a joke that he can even pretend to have "won" anything. In fact, all he has done, is marginalize RP in my mind.

I skipped over 1 of your posts because I simply did not see it. Again you act like you have proven how abolishing the Fed is a loony idea.

We have presented you with alternative theories to the Fed, you have not torn them apart as you claim you can so easily do. You have only told us how in your opinion the Fed is such a wonderful entity that brings us prosperity.

I have pointed out many times the ridiculousness of your argument that the Fed has brought us "prosperity" it is you whom has completely ignored that in fact it was not the "Fed" who has dealt us our prosperity. This is the type of babble that makes your argument both ridiculous and completely lacking of credibility.

Surely you are not one to seriously claim that prosperity is achieved through "Central Banking"? You are indeed throwing History out the window. America was prosperous years before the advent of a "Central Bank", and it did so even without an income tax.

These are the arguments you have tried to bring to the table and quite frankly they are absurd and ridiculous.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i wondered why it was taking so long to point out that central banks being politically controlled are one of the worst ideas on the planet. i guess LK had enough to do already.

You are correct with everything above. In fact, I did put, in my first post, a piece about banks being ctrolled by politicians is a bad idea. It's too bad mavtek and the rest of the bots refused to acknowledge it. They try to ignore things they don't understand, except when Ron Paul puts them forward.

ah, you're right. i read that post so long ago i'd forgotten that bit was in there. that and i kept scanning for 'Argentina' or 'Brazil' in all the following posts

 

[Mavtek3100]

FYI, the RP-bots have not advocated control of the money supply to Congress. Talk about not reading posts.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
[R]egarding monetary policy I will completely admit to not knowing everything there is to know about monetary policy or central banking, but I will not call Ron Paul's ideas loony on the premise of what I've read they most certainly don't seem loony. That's not to say his ideas are effectively better or worse than central banking although they do seem more fair to those who aren't the banks. We absolutely must investigate thoroughly all of the ideas political candidates spout off.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you do question Ron Paul's views, and that his rhetoric has caused you to do independent research about topics you would presumably never have explored. But this is the crux of the issue; you spent the first few pages of this thread forming half-assed arguments saying "Ron Paul does indeed have a viable alternative" but never actually expanding on what that alternative was. You simply reiterated that you were winning the debate even though you offered nothing to refute LegendKiller. Then, after a hundred plus replies have come in, you admit that you don't actually know much about the topic, but that doesn't matter because (you quoting NaughtyGeek) "You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea."

You have maintained throughout the discussion that it should fall on LegendKiller to prove that Ron Paul's ideas are loony (and he actually presented an argument as to why he thought so); I argue it is on Ron Paul to prove that the current system is flawed. As you are defending Ron Paul's arguments, it is on you to explain his viewpoint to us, back it up with evidence that explains why his argument is correct, and explore his solution to the problems of the federal reserve. You have not done this in any way shape or form. You ignored LegendKeeper because you couldn't refute his points (as it is obvious he knows way more about this than you, I, or most anyone here), you continually announced that you had won the debate, and you came off sounding like a complete jackass. Sometimes you simply have to admit defeat. Study up on Ron Paul's views on this specific topic, and if, after further research, you still like what you see, come back and lay it out for us in your own words so that we may actually debate Ron Paul's proposal.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
We have presented you with alternative theories to the Fed, you have not torn them apart as you claim you can so easily do. You have only told us how in your opinion the Fed is such a wonderful entity that brings us prosperity.

your alternative theory is a hard currency. LK has pointed out time and again why hard currencies are bad. the biggest is that they are contractionary in nature (the supply of gold doesn't go up all that fast). your argument that hard currencies provide stability is completely without merit. we had thousands of years of hard currencies, and they haven't proven stable at all.

you at one point claimed it would be based on assets. you then defined work as an asset. you fail to realize that you've defined asset so broadly that you're basically basing the currency on the continued expansion and faith in the US economy, which is what the dollar is currently based on.

you also never explained how the issuer of money would accumulate all these assets. is it just going to have 'work' sitting in a warehouse somewhere?

I have pointed out many times the ridiculousness of your argument that the Fed has brought us "prosperity" it is you whom has completely ignored that in fact it was not the "Fed" who has dealt us our prosperity. This is the type of babble that makes your argument both ridiculous and completely lacking of credibility.

the fed hasn't given us prosperity. it has given us stability. stability has reduced risk. reduced risk gave us confidence. confidence allowed a generally risk averse public to move assets into positions that generate a higher return. that is what has generated our prosperity. the fed merely provided the foundation.

happily, the fed has a bit more understanding of the effects of its actions on the economy than it did 75 years ago.

America was prosperous years before the advent of a "Central Bank", and it did so even without an income tax.

'prosperity' (i put it in quotes because that is a relative term, i certainly wouldn't trade for scratching a life out of soil, even rich soil, behind a team of oxen every day) will happen when just about everyone can go find a plot of rich soil and farm their own land. that doesn't happen much around here anymore.

so, what is your take on the income tax? is it legal?

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
[R]egarding monetary policy I will completely admit to not knowing everything there is to know about monetary policy or central banking, but I will not call Ron Paul's ideas loony on the premise of what I've read they most certainly don't seem loony. That's not to say his ideas are effectively better or worse than central banking although they do seem more fair to those who aren't the banks. We absolutely must investigate thoroughly all of the ideas political candidates spout off.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you do question Ron Paul's views, and that his rhetoric has caused you to do independent research about topics you would presumably never have explored. But this is the crux of the issue; you spent the first few pages of this thread forming half-assed arguments saying "Ron Paul does indeed have a viable alternative" but never actually expanding on what that alternative was. You simply reiterated that you were winning the debate even though you offered nothing to refute LegendKiller. Then, after a hundred plus replies have come in, you admit that you don't actually know much about the topic, but that doesn't matter because (you quoting NaughtyGeek) "You don't have to understand the logistics involved to like an idea."

You have maintained throughout the discussion that it should fall on LegendKiller to prove that Ron Paul's ideas are loony (and he actually presented an argument as to why he thought so);

Why should I present Ron Paul's ideas to him? He is the one who called them Loony. He has never presented an argument as to why he thought Ron Paul's ideas are loony. He never even talked about or explained why Ron Paul's idea is loony. He tried to show how a competing currency wasn't a correct approach because you would have uncertainty. What has been repeatedly shown to him by myself and other is you have uncertainty regardless! Hell look at the market now!

I argue it is on Ron Paul to prove that the current system is flawed. As you are defending Ron Paul's arguments, it is on you to explain his viewpoint to us, back it up with evidence that explains why his argument is correct, and explore his solution to the problems of the federal reserve. You have not done this in any way shape or form.

That's absolutely ridiculous! That's possibly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's my duty to prove how the Fed is a crappy system because LK called Ron Paul's idea, which he hasn't even investigated, loony. Can you imagine if this is how it worked in the real world of debate or even in our own Judicial system? Lets say I have been accused of murder by you, I say I didn't do it so I'm innocent. That's where we'd leave it in your system. No the accuser must back up the claim my friend. If you accuse me of murder than it is you who must prove it. LK has not given one iota of evidence showing how Ron Paul's idea is loony other than to claim it is.

You ignored LegendKeeper because you couldn't refute his points (as it is obvious he knows way more about this than you, I, or most anyone here), you continually announced that you had won the debate, and you came off sounding like a complete jackass.

Absurd, I have ignored him, he hasn't made any points. His opinion is displayed in full force. Has he displayed 1 link of information to back his position? Has he even brought forth historical relevance from esteemed economist? Has he torn down Friedman's or Mises's theories on monetary policy? Of course he hasn't because he likes to spout off his little mantra that he knows best, but in reality he has no idea what Friedman or Mises are even talking about. These are the accusers starting point, tear down Friedman and Mises, tear them down and you can claim Ron Paul is loony, otherwise STFU.

Sometimes you simply have to admit defeat. Study up on Ron Paul's views on this specific topic, and if, after further research, you still like what you see, come back and lay it out for us in your own words so that we may actually debate Ron Paul's proposal.

Oh yes I'll admit defeat, when someone can actually back up that Ron Paul's, Milton Friedman's, and Ludwig Von Mises were all indeed loony. Until then LK, and you little anti Ron's, just because you think it's cool, can wallow around this topic claiming victory when th epoints have never even been argued in the 1st place.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
[
the fed hasn't given us prosperity. it has given us stability. stability has reduced risk. reduced risk gave us confidence. confidence allowed a generally risk averse public to move assets into positions that generate a higher return. that is what has generated our prosperity. the fed merely provided the foundation.

happily, the fed has a bit more understanding of the effects of its actions on the economy than it did 75 years ago.

Nice way of putting this, more succinct than my wordy posts

 

[BeauJangles]

I have one simple question:

If the Federal Reserve has seen the United States through the longest period of prosperity it its history, why should we abolish it?

The burden of proof doesn't rest upon the current system (the Fed's record speaks for itself), but upon those who wish to implement change.

 

[Mavtek3100]

El Fenix I said Friedman claimed work to be an asset. Mises did no such thing. There's a lot to this topic and if you really want to delve into you probably would have to read it post by post.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
but in reality he has no idea what Friedman or Mises are even talking about.

do you? you've been asked to explain their policies in your own words, but so far you haven't. i guess in a previous post you quoted someone else saying "You don't have to understand the logistics [sic] involved to like an idea." i assume that means you don't know what you're talking about. and that is ok.

I'd say a little slack should be cut to those that hear "the summary" of a solution and buy into it. It never hurts to encourage folks to think about something

we're willing to cut you slack. and i agree with the second statement.

but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair.

you're not being called a loon because you've heard a message you like. you're being called a loon because you've been given an argument to the contrary and refuse to even acknowledge it.

i'm not going to call milton friedman loony. he moved the art i spent the better part of a decade of my life studying further into the modern era than just about anyone else. but he was just a man, and open to critique as much as anyone else.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
That's absolutely ridiculous! That's possibly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's my duty to prove how the Fed is a crappy system because LK called Ron Paul's idea, which he hasn't even investigated, loony. Can you imagine if this is how it worked in the real world of debate or even in our own Judicial system? Lets say I have been accused of murder by you, I say I didn't do it so I'm innocent. That's where we'd leave it in your system. No the accuser must back up the claim my friend. If you accuse me of murder than it is you who must prove it. LK has not given one iota of evidence showing how Ron Paul's idea is loony other than to claim it is.

You fail at analogies. Why do you think LegendKiller is defending the Federal Reserve? Do you think this is just something he does? He is defending it against attacks from Ron Paul that argue that the Fed should be abolished. If Ron Paul wasn't making these arguments, would LegendKiller still be here telling us why the Fed is important? No. He is presenting an argument in opposition to an assertion from your candidate that the Fed should be removed. You are trying to put the burden of proof on LegendKiller. That's stupid. You are the one advocating change, it is on you to convince us why we should change a system that seems to be working.

 

[BeauJangles]

That's absolutely ridiculous! That's possibly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's my duty to prove how the Fed is a crappy system because LK called Ron Paul's idea, which he hasn't even investigated, loony. Can you imagine if this is how it worked in the real world of debate or even in our own Judicial system? Lets say I have been accused of murder by you, I say I didn't do it so I'm innocent. That's where we'd leave it in your system. No the accuser must back up the claim my friend. If you accuse me of murder than it is you who must prove it. LK has not given one iota of evidence showing how Ron Paul's idea is loony other than to claim it is.

I didn't even see this post.

Mavtek, you are the one leveling the charge against the Federal Reserve. YOU are saying it's a failed system. Our country is innocent until proven guilty, so prove that the Fed is a failed system before we even begin to discuss how to fix it, improve it, or transform it.

Thanks.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair.

you're not being called a loon because you've heard a message you like. you're being called a loon because you've been given an argument to the contrary and refuse to even acknowledge it.

Refused to acknowledge it? Excuse me, but I responded to every point made with a counter point and even brought LK's points from another thread into this one and responded to them as well. You want to call me a loon, knock yourself out, but realize that your logic is severely flawed and you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I've even gone so far as to point out that a hard backed currency IMO is a bad idea and why. I am not the blind follower I referenced in my previous post and it ruffles my feathers quite a bit to have you insinuate such.



P.S. - Here's your for pissing me off rather than engaging in an intelligent debate.