Jon Stewart sticks up for Ron Paul.

[matt0611]

Until Mr Paul shows he has more support inside the GOP than his 6% fan base. He is going to be ignored. The posters on this forum who insist that anyone who does not support Mr Paul and his policies are do-do heads are part of that 6% fan base.

All the polls I've seen have him at least 10-12%.
And he does the best against Obama out of any of the other candidates.

And this is with the blatant media bias as evidenced in the OP.

Realistically I know Paul will not win the GOP nomination. If I had to bet it would Perry or Romney and then Obama will most likely win again. Just the way things are.

 

[momeNt]

Until Mr Paul shows he has more support inside the GOP than his 6% fan base. He is going to be ignored. The posters on this forum who insist that anyone who does not support Mr Paul and his policies are do-do heads are part of that 6% fan base.

True, he can be as right as he wants, but he needs the votes.

 

[momeNt]

You get style points for presenting a wrong opinion with that.

You don't understand the difference between 'throwing money at a problem', which is intended to be about WASTING the money, and investing the money well.

If a business or government agency has a plan to spend big bucks to do something, it can be 'throwing money at the problem' wasting it - or a great program.

You treat them the same - with that attitude, no business or agency would invest in any program.

The fact is, you clearly are uninformed (or misinformed) about economics and the stimulus benefits, so you throw out a misguided attack.

YOUR policy would be highly destructive to the economy.

Tell me examples of when YOUR approach has solved an economic downturn?

As I've asked before - and had no answer - name one nation that has 'cut its way out of a recession'?

Matt061 presented a good example. The problem with doing nothing and letting the market correct itself, is that politicians can't be seen as heroes.

I posted that commercial because your signature has Paul Krugman as one of your favorite economists. The main advocate of QE3 and anything to do with pumping money into the system.

I really can't take anybody who follows krugman seriously.

 

[Siddhartha]

All the polls I've seen have him at least 10-12%.
And he does the best against Obama out of any of the other candidates.

And this is with the blatant media bias as evidenced in the OP.

I was going by how well Mr Paul did in the last election cycle. He had a highly committed group of supporters who donated large amounts of money to his campaign and overwhemed almost every online poll. But did Mr Paul get more than 6% of the vote in any primary?

Please provide a link that shows Mr Paul doing the best against Mr Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

As someone who watches the Daily Show regularly and has never been(NY fucking sucks), I find it highly unlikely anyone could speak for anyone else who watches the Daily Show.

Luckily for you, I didn't attempt to speak for anyone who watches the Daily Show, merely my perception of them as informed by considerable contact with the show's viewers. (I was also at the Rally to Restore Sanity. Not a Ron Paul sign to be seen!)

If you don't like NYC, don't come. The demand to live here is already greater than almost any place in America. Really, the demand to come here is greater than all but a fairly small number of places on Earth. I sincerely doubt the city will miss you, but you will definitely be missing out on an amazing place.

 

[airdata]

I was going by how well Mr Paul did in the last election cycle. He had a highly committed group of supporters who donated large amounts of money to his campaign and overwhemed almost every online poll. But did Mr Paul get more than 6% of the vote in any primary?

Please provide a link that shows Mr Paul doing the best against Mr Obama.

Maybe Ron Paul would have alot more backing if there wasn't a complete media black out against him.

I first noticed this black out a month or 2 ago when they had some debate and instead of talking about Ron Paul, the news was talking about some unknown governor from Minnesota and completely snubbed Ron Paul.

And of course as this video shows, this has continued w\ all major media outlets. And since there are alot of voters who probably rely on main stream media to get their information, paul gets screwed.

 

[fskimospy]

Matt061 presented a good example. The problem with doing nothing and letting the market correct itself, is that politicians can't be seen as heroes.

I posted that commercial because your signature has Paul Krugman as one of your favorite economists. The main advocate of QE3 and anything to do with pumping money into the system.

I really can't take anybody who follows krugman seriously.

Ahh epistemic closure, you're so well represented on this forum.

Nobody cares if you take Krugman seriously. Everyone else does.

 

[matt0611]

I was going by how well Mr Paul did in the last election cycle. He had a highly committed group of supporters who donated large amounts of money to his campaign and overwhemed almost every online poll. But did Mr Paul get more than 6% of the vote in any primary?

Please provide a link that shows Mr Paul doing the best against Mr Obama.

Oh ok, I was talking about this time.

Let me see if I can find it, it was a CNN poll...

EDIT: Found it, granted this did not have Rick Perry in it or Michelle Bachmann, but everything I've seen shows Bachmann does TERRIBLE against Obama. Will have to wait for a bit to get that info for Perry though.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/05/cnn-poll-still-no-front-runner-in-the-battle-for-the-gop-nomination/

"Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama."

 

[BoberFett]

Nobody cares if you take Krugman seriously. Everyone else does.

Everyone who agrees with him, at any rate.

 

[matt0611]

Ahh epistemic closure, you're so well represented on this forum.

Nobody cares if you take Krugman seriously. Everyone else does.

Krugman thinks it would be good if we had an alien invasion bubble to help get us out of the recession.

He's always good for the lolz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEmlgfEGYo&feature=player_embedded

My favorite economist ever

 

[bfdd]

Luckily for you, I didn't attempt to speak for anyone who watches the Daily Show, merely my perception of them as informed by considerable contact with the show's viewers. (I was also at the Rally to Restore Sanity. Not a Ron Paul sign to be seen!)

If you don't like NYC, don't come. The demand to live here is already greater than almost any place in America. Really, the demand to come here is greater than all but a fairly small number of places on Earth. I sincerely doubt the city will miss you, but you will definitely be missing out on an amazing place.

Leaving California to go to NYC would be a step in the wrong direction. All you yankees are terrible.


Also, Krugman is an idiot. He spouts non-sense for other non-sensical people to eat up. Anyone who is FOR QE is a piece of shit and you're a moron for thinking otherwise.

 

[Craig234]

Krugman thinks it would be good if we had an alien invasion bubble to help get us out of the recession.

He's always good for the lolz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEmlgfEGYo&feature=player_embedded

My favorite economist ever

Actually, this idea of an 'alien invasion' as on that could unite humanity was one I had as a child; I was surprised to learn Reagan had said the same thing.

Rachel Maddow did a nice piece with clips from both:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/

More recently, I was considering a similar issue looking at ancient history as the few humans on the planet in the days of ancient Greece spent society's resources on war.

How much better could mankind have advanced if the human race had been more cooperative and less warlike?

But even when faced with nuclear annihilation, mankind took hugely unnecessary risks and let the danger get far higher than needed, and got lucky (so far).

We had people at the senior military level favoring starting nuclear war.

I've come to the view that groups of people always tend to break into these competing groups. If the most fundamentalist sect in the US took total global power tomorrow, it'd be no time before they found something over which to break into fighting groups over which was the only 'real' best group. Perhaps the split of the Muslim world with Sunnis and Shiite fits this, as does stages with divides like Catholics versus Protestants and other such divides.

This is where a leader like a JFK who realized the need to say 'back off, we need to remember we and the USSR are all human beings' contrasts with this tendency.

It helps explain why I'll see small villages filled with purported "progressives" often fragment into fiercely bickering factions. Did they forget their values? Some do.

I have to give credit to Reagan for making the point where did - like the United Nations. Not many presidents could have done that without massive ridicule.

Reagan actually had great political capital for peace, mostly squandered, because 'everyone was so worried he was a war nut' he could get away with peace initiatives.

I actually have a small collections for 'are you a progressive or conservative', and the first on the list is 'do you think you are a member of the human race first and your nation second, or as a member of your nation first and a member of the human race second?' I think the answer largely divides the groups.

So progressives will often consider issues from the view of 'the human race', while people on the right are more willing to consider the needs more of 'their group'.

 

[matt0611]

Actually, this idea of an 'alien invasion' as on that could unite humanity was one I had as a child; I was surprised to learn Reagan had said the same thing.

...

Yeah, it probably would unite humanity, but how would our economy do? All we would have are useless weapons to fight off aliens who never actually exist. Great...what a waste.
And then once we realize that their were no aliens? back to hate and wars with each other.

 

[fskimospy]

Leaving California to go to NYC would be a step in the wrong direction. All you yankees are terrible.


Also, Krugman is an idiot. He spouts non-sense for other non-sensical people to eat up. Anyone who is FOR QE is a piece of shit and you're a moron for thinking otherwise.

I've lived in both California and NYC, they are both great. (well, it depends on the part of California) You're missing out.

I'm sure that you believe that a Nobel Prize winning economist is an idiot. I'm also quite sure that nobody cares what you think because you are unqualified to make such a judgment.

 

[fskimospy]

Krugman thinks it would be good if we had an alien invasion bubble to help get us out of the recession.

He's always good for the lolz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEmlgfEGYo&feature=player_embedded

My favorite economist ever

You do realize that he was joking, right? He was talking about the inability of governments to act in a manner that would actually help the economy. Shockingly enough he does not actually believe that an alien invasion would be a good thing for humanity. That much should be obvious to anyone who isn't invested in believing otherwise.

 

[Craig234]

I really can't take anybody who follows krugman seriously.

As I can't anyone who doesn't. I'll listen, but haven't heard any credible disagreement.

Matt061 presented a good example. The problem with doing nothing and letting the market correct itself, is that politicians can't be seen as heroes.

That's an example of the sort of logical error that has some truth to it, but greatly exaggerates it. It'd be like saying the only reason Obama got bin Laden was politics.

It suggests some sort of obsessive anti-politician ideology to the point that you can't understand the benefit of a policy other than claiming it's all about their 'boost'.

I certainly think that politicians are highly prone to exaggerate things for their own benefit, but that you are greatly exaggerating it to say that explains the stimulus.

I posted that commercial because your signature has Paul Krugman as one of your favorite economists. The main advocate of QE3 and anything to do with pumping money into the system.

He seems to be uselessly right, by which I mean, he advocates much more than that which won't happen, so he's just pointing out what we should and won't do.

There was no telling the US in the 'roaring 20's' the need for large regulation in the financial sector. It took the great depression.

 

[momeNt]

You do realize that he was joking, right? He was talking about the inability of governments to act in a manner that would actually help the economy. Shockingly enough he does not actually believe that an alien invasion would be a good thing for humanity. That much should be obvious to anyone who isn't invested in believing otherwise.

He believes a POTENTIAL alien invasion would be good for the economy, because the military buildup would spur fiscal growth. He even said, it would get us out of this crisis in 18 months...

Just as the clip ends he even begins to say that he completely disagrees with the notion that mass ditchdigging won't work. The guy is a hack.

 

[xj0hnx]

I've lived in both California and NYC, they are both great. (well, it depends on the part of California) You're missing out.

I'm sure that you believe that a Nobel Prize winning economist is an idiot. I'm also quite sure that nobody cares what you think because you are unqualified to make such a judgment.

But you don't follow and praise Friedman even though he won the same prize about 20 years prior. Then again Obama preemptively won the Nobel Peace prize, right before he launched attacks against Libya, and continued the same policies of Boooooosh, so what's the point of bringing up the Nobel again?

 

[Craig234]

I'm sure that you believe that a Nobel Prize winning economist is an idiot.

I've wanted to make that argument, except that Milton Friedman is such a counter-example. The guy had great skills in a narrow area, but sorry, not in most.

This happens a lot, where they are greatly overrated - the same thing happened with Alan Greenspan, "The Maestro". Sorry, formerly "The Maestro".

So I can't actually just defend Krugman as a Nobel-Prize winning economist; I have to qualify that as he was one of the GOOD Nobel-Prize winning economists.

And I also have to recognize that my opinion was just as good of him before he won the prize, as it should be even if he didn't have a specialty and didn't get it.

There just isn't a way around the subjective issues judging these people.

 

[Craig234]

He believes a POTENTIAL alien invasion would be good for the economy, because the military buildup would spur fiscal growth. He even said, it would get us out of this crisis in 18 months...

Just as the clip ends he even begins to say that he completely disagrees with the notion that mass ditchdigging won't work. The guy is a hack.

Because contrary to the opinion of experts like you, it DOES work.

Remember the history lesson that having the government borrow to pay for huge numbers of people to just put things together and then destroy them, and go run around all over the world for years before coming home - also known as "World War II" - was the turning point in the economy's recovery?

He's making the point people like you are ideologically opposed to what's needed.

 

[momeNt]

Because contrary to the opinion of experts like you, it DOES work.

Remember the history lesson that having the government borrow to pay for huge numbers of people to just put things together and then destroy them, and go run around all over the world for years before coming home - also known as "World War II" - was the turning point in the economy's recovery?

He's making the point people like you are ideologically opposed to what's needed.

So the ditchdigging does work? Or throwing an entire country into war works.

None of the new deal stimulus packages worked, it wasn't until the war that the depression ended. So what Krugman concludes is that the new deal spending wasn't large enough, it took WWII levels of spending in order to get them out of the depression.


So why bother with the QEs? Lets invade somebody! Iran has nukes, N. Korea has nukes, China is stealing our aircraft carrier designs. Financial recovery is one red button away apparently...

With a theory like that it's true that you can always think you'll be right, because whatever spending didn't work just wasn't big enough.

 

[MotF Bane]

Because contrary to the opinion of experts like you, it DOES work.

Remember the history lesson that having the government borrow to pay for huge numbers of people to just put things together and then destroy them, and go run around all over the world for years before coming home - also known as "World War II" - was the turning point in the economy's recovery?

He's making the point people like you are ideologically opposed to what's needed.

So, to save our economy, we just need to go to war.

No, you'll kick and scream about Iraq hurting our economy by wasting so much money.

So which is it?

 

[momeNt]

So, to save our economy, we just need to go to war.

No, you'll kick and scream about Iraq hurting our economy by wasting so much money.

So which is it?

Iraq war isn't big enough.

 

[Genx87]

Until Mr Paul shows he has more support inside the GOP than his 6% fan base. He is going to be ignored. The posters on this forum who insist that anyone who does not support Mr Paul and his policies are do-do heads are part of that 6% fan base.

In the straw poll he finished higher than the people the commentators were talking about. Regardless of how he did in 2008. He did better than quite a few other candidates and nobody talks about him. That is the point.

 

[Genx87]

Because contrary to the opinion of experts like you, it DOES work.

Remember the history lesson that having the government borrow to pay for huge numbers of people to just put things together and then destroy them, and go run around all over the world for years before coming home - also known as "World War II" - was the turning point in the economy's recovery?

He's making the point people like you are ideologically opposed to what's needed.

Then I am sure you enjoy the endless wars and reagans military build up right? Didnt think so. A common theory on why we finally recovered after a world war instead of the decade of keynesian economic theory. War rationing forced saving that built up over 4 years of war. And it was unleashed on the economy after the rationing was lifted and industry went back to building consumer instead of war related goods. It also helped we were the worlds factory.