For the Ron Paul haters...

[Steeplerot]

Yep, he's a Paulbot, version 2.34.

We really need some new righties in here, Eagle is about the only one worth his salt. maybe some of the guys here who turned will flip back soon.

Picking at the garden variety Dems is no fun, I would rather go pick at the trotskyists and stalinists at revleft. But then there are enough fellow lefty libertarians dogpiled on them there where its no fun either.

 

[BoberFett]

Bobber fails at the first question he asked, as he asks', "Who supported the PATRIOT Act, Paul or Obama?

When the real answer is, GWB, as Obama was not even part of the US government when GWB passed the Patriot act in 2002.

There Bobber, I fixed it for you. Funny thing Bobber, we never hear you criticize GWB, Republirats, and neocon idiots who have led the USA into mass stupidity.

Obama did not just renew the PATRIOT Act?

And I criticize Republicans all the time.

You apparently have a selective learning disability.

 

[BoberFett]

He outed himself in a thread around 2008 as a republican

Link?

 

[RabidMongoose]

We really need some new righties in here, Eagle is about the only one worth his salt. maybe some of the guys here who turned will flip back soon.

The Paulbots are pretty entertaining, especially when you know more about their programmer than they do themselves. I wonder what they'll be like when the racist programmer retires and probably spends the rest of his life in adult diapers in a nursing home.

 

[nyker96]

I have to say, some of his positions are just pretty out there but I like him on a personal level, he's not coached, he doesn't conceal or try to tell ya what you like, he seems honest and straight forward. Can't say I want him as the president since he probably antagonizes both Rep+Dem alike but I just like him as someone not afraid to speak his mind. Honesty is so very rare in presidential candidates.

Someone this honest probably can't hold an office of presidency. He might not be right for office of presidency, but that's a compliment to his character.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't want someone in the Oval Office that I know beforehand will need to be reined in. And he's just as likely to be held up form doing the things that you want anyway. So, we end up with a President that can do nothing at best, push through a few bad things at worst.

And how the hell does bringing troops home from abroad defend us? Expecting an invasion? Deploy armored divisions and F-16 squadrons to the boarder to kill the illegal immigrants?

If Iran decides to close The Strait of Hormuz as they have threatened, do you think it might be beneficial to have the tools on location to defend international waters; a place of significant importance to the world economy that is without question in our best interest to keep open.

Should we pull back from Asia and signal the Chinese that we would not oppose them taking Taiwan by force? N. Korea to invade the S.?

Most of our overseas military is designed to be a deterrent to potentially aggressive countries. They are an instrument of peace in that role. Kind of like the big sports coach monitoring the playground, not to beat kids up, but to keep the bullies from running amok.

Do you support paying 50% more in taxes to pay for all of the above along with all the other shit we have promised?

 

[First]

You probably haven't read a single work by any Austrian economist, so where do you get that opinion from?

Austrians have been debunked many times. No one takes them particularly seriously, most especially academia. See below if you're curious.

Hayek won a Nobel, yet upon further review his theories have been widely debunked on quantitative grounds, specifically by Milton Friedman, Paul Samuelson, and Paul Krugman. Quotes:

"The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." - Milton Friedman

"I tremble for the reputation of my subject" after reading the "exaggerated claims that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning [the Austrian methods]." - Paul Samuelson

Noted economist Mark Blaug has called Austrian methodologies "so cranky and idiosyncratic that we can only wonder that they have been taken seriously by anyone."

1. Friedman, Milton. "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited". Economic Inquiry: 171–177.
2. Paul Samuelson, Economics, 6th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 736.
3. Mark Blaug, The Methodology of Economics (New York: Cambridge, 1980), p. 93.

When you're dismissed by Friedman and Samuelson, you're just not taken seriously, and it's precisely why Austrians won't be taken seriously until they learn to use econometric models. You dismiss mathematics and empirical study for economics, and this dooms your beliefs to not be taken seriously by anyone of any significance.

 

[Darwin333]

Bobber fails at the first question he asked, as he asks', "Who supported the PATRIOT Act, Paul or Obama?

When the real answer is, GWB, as Obama was not even part of the US government when GWB passed the Patriot act in 2002.

There Bobber, I fixed it for you. Funny thing Bobber, we never hear you criticize GWB, Republirats, and neocon idiots who have led the USA into mass stupidity.

GWB was an asshole for originally signing the Patriot act.

Obama is just as big of an asshole for signing its extension (which equals supporting it in my book).

 

[Steeplerot]

Link?

It was a new thread titled "why I am registered republican" or did register" something like that very close. A moment in P&N collective "Well no duh!?". It may have been 04 against kerry, I do not think you ever admitted if you voted for bush. I have been on this forum too long. Lol

 

[First]

You mean the same Austrian school of economics that predicted the 2008 financial meltdown where all other schools of economics entirely glossed over it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNp1wf1T_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

Accurate predictions in itself is the very key to confirmation of theories in science. Einsteins theory of relativity was confirmed by the predictions made for the 1929 solar eclipse. Thus, science would dictate that the Austrian school of economics currently has the strongest foothold on the economy right now.

However, given your absolutely juvenile posting style, I wouldn't expect you to grasp epistemological concepts like this without just mindlessly parroting some stuff you read on the internet.

The theory of relativity was confirmed with concrete equations verifiable by anyone with an advanced understanding of space, time and mathematics. There is nothing empirically or mathematically verifiable about Austrians economics. Nothing.

 

[yhelothar]

The theory of relativity was confirmed with concrete equations verifiable by anyone with an advanced understanding of space, time and mathematics. There is nothing empirically or mathematically verifiable about Austrians economics. Nothing.

Verification comes from empiricism in science, not equations that fits beautifully, or a confirmation with what's already known.

The Austrian economic's accurate predictions is empiricism.

 

[nageov3t]

suddenly having visions of the fence in Jurassic Park that couldn't possibly fail.

 

[First]

Verification comes from empiricism in science, not equations that fits beautifully, or a confirmation with what's already known.

Verifying equations is precisely how Einstein came to develop his theory of relativity, where he brilliantly explained Mercury's orbit mathematically for the first time. This was later confirmed, but something that was impossible without the initial math. So no amount of hair-splitting with regards to dicton obfuscates anything I said about Austrian economics in my post.

 

[First]

The Austrian economic's accurate predictions is empiricism.

Nope, and you couldn't show how if your life depended on it.

 

[woolfe9999]

A broken clock is correct twice a day. Austrian 'economics' is not economics. It's a joke and that's why it's centered around third rate universities and doesn't even believe in mathematics, scientific method, or empirical data.

More specifically, Austrian economists have been predicting economic disaster in this country for ages now, because we don't run on economic principles that they approve of. Schiff, for example, who is quoted in the second link, said that the dot.com recession of 2001 would result in a 10 year downturn and bear market. He was wrong about that and many other past predictions. If you predict a terrible recession every year, eventually you're going to get it right.

 

[Steeplerot]

Obama did not just renew the PATRIOT Act?

And I criticize Republicans all the time.

You apparently have a selective learning disability.

You critisize them on a superficial level when it is the accepted political norm, the rest of the time you side with the worst of the partisan hacks on the right, like clockwork then pull this douchey personal attacks whem confronted, like above.

Who cares if tou are a partisan? No one. If you are independent then be it, you ever see liberals in here side with me? Or I side with them? It never happens. Hell I banter more with Were then Dems and craig thinks I am the antichrist or something out to make his mother jones scripted version of safe progressivism look bad.

 

[First]

More specifically, Austrian economists have been predicting economic disaster in this country for ages now, because we don't run on economic principles that they approve of. Schiff, for example, who is quoted in the second link, said that the dot.com recession of 2001 would result in a 10 year downturn and bear market. He was wrong about that and many other past predictions. If you predict a terrible recession every year, eventually you're going to get it right.

Yup, and Schiff isn't the only Austrian to say the same thing consistently for so long before eventually getting it "right" (which I would dispute entirely btw). Ron Paul is by far the worst offender:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6epCVUppjJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMe_7-hmHHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgCq75g_M7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCnzr566RR0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTljuxZYJ9I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgK0vHZtwno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9G_XuIX_A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e9sPjflrxc

Been saying the same thing since the early 1980's.

 

[yhelothar]

Verifying equations is precisely how Einstein came to develop his theory of relativity, where he brilliantly explained Mercury's orbit mathematically for the first time. This was later confirmed, but something that was impossible without the initial math. So no amount of hair-splitting with regards to dicton obfuscates anything I said about Austrian economics in my post.

Verifying equations is not how Einstein came to develop his theory of relativity. That came from new knowledge that light travels the same speed in all frames of references, and then conducting thought experiments on its implications. Einstein developed new equations based off of these thought experiments.

Relativity is a theory he logically induced to fit in the new pieces of knowledge that has been added to the equation.

Logical induction only provides as useful information as what you can deduce off of it. This is where empiricism comes in.

Testing it and verifying it comes through empiricism. Mercury's orbit is one form of empiricism supporting Einstein's theory, so is the solar eclipse of 1929 that predicted that the gravitational pull of the sun would bend light.

Most likely Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, much like how Newton's laws of motion is wrong. But it has predictive values, and this is where the utility of the theory comes in.

The Austrian school of economics is most likely wrong, much like any other school of economics. But given it's recent predictive abilities, the fundamental principles of science would dictate it's the best that we have to work with currently.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Darwin333

"Do you support paying 50% more in taxes to pay for all of the above along with all the other shit we have promised?"

Even if I am smart enough to calculate it, I certainly do not have the necessary information at hand to figure out a cost/benefit analysis for promoting peace/stability on the planet. Do you? You do realize that there are countries that could follow courses that could cripple our economy in short order and would do so if they thought there would be no immediate consequences don't you? What value do you put on that? I believe that an ounce of prevention is much cheaper than a pound of cure.

 

[bradley]

Joe Biden Drafted the Core of the Patriot Act in 1995 … Before the Oklahoma City Bombing
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html

Drafted by Biden, signed by Bush, enforced and amplified by Obama. Enjoy your left/right paradigm and indefinite detention.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Unfortunately, that crazy racist Ron Paul is fine with states going well beyond the Patriot Act, because he thinks that states can do almost anything against individuals.

 

[nfm]

Ron Paul is here to stop tyranny, globalists, new world order, and these sick elites & banksters. Are you people blind, or need more fluoride? Wake up. F*ck mass media, it's business as usual.

 

[Franz316]

Unfortunately, that crazy racist Ron Paul is fine with states going well beyond the Patriot Act, because he thinks that states can do almost anything against individuals.

Why would the people of a state allow a bill to pass which allows discrimination and unabashed prejudice?

 

[sportage]

The Chinese would love Paul as president. Finally a US president that had a smaller weenie than they.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Unfortunately, that crazy racist Ron Paul is fine with states going well beyond the Patriot Act, because he thinks that states can do almost anything against individuals.

They can. The question is: is it constitutional.

If ANY state wanted to do the shit you suggest then we would make it unconstitutional fucking quick.

What we wouldn't pass an amendment to stop is a state from exercising is constitutional sovereignty to allow for marijuana legalization or the like.