Official Ron Paul "Free At Last 2008" Money Bomb Thread

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


I couldn't care less if I knew you. If I did you wouldn't question me because you'd know you are hopelessly outmatched.

Go read some of my posts, then come back sparky and let me know whether you think I am a status-quo keeper, or that I just think RP is full of shit and so are his zealous followers.

Let me let you in on a little secret...you = nobody. Seriously, if you dropped off the face of the planet yesterday, no one but your mamma would miss you. I am sure your internet prose fills your little loins with a fuzzy, warm feeling, but really, you don't mean anything in the grand scheme of shit on the bottom of my shoe. IF you want to stop playing epenis, and get down to eviserating Ron Pauls policies than get busy, if not, stop pretending like your attitude is a substitute for intelligence.

Ohhh ouch, you hurted my feelers! Please sparky, why don't you go into other threads and try to repeat after me. "I, xj0hnx, mr. "1337" name boy, swear that Ron Paul is a fucking moron, his idea of abolishing the Fed, getting rid of the IRS, is antiquated and stupid and will only devolve the US into farmers and nobodies, it will destroy the US economy and remove us from anything resembeling world success".

OK, I could go on, but that's enough. Now go back to your existence of being a RPB shut-in with no social acceptance and little to no knowledge of finance, economics, or history.

For being a king bitchslapper, you sure don't seem to be able to do more than puke up ad hominem towards someone you know nothing about. Your retreat from the issue is duly noted.

If you wanna roll sparky, make your case for why the Fed should be eliminated. I am really looking forward to yet another series of "ZOMG, CPI!" graphs.

Then, after this, how about I convince an admin to sticky your reply up top, as a warning to all RPBs.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


I couldn't care less if I knew you. If I did you wouldn't question me because you'd know you are hopelessly outmatched.

Go read some of my posts, then come back sparky and let me know whether you think I am a status-quo keeper, or that I just think RP is full of shit and so are his zealous followers.

Let me let you in on a little secret...you = nobody. Seriously, if you dropped off the face of the planet yesterday, no one but your mamma would miss you. I am sure your internet prose fills your little loins with a fuzzy, warm feeling, but really, you don't mean anything in the grand scheme of shit on the bottom of my shoe. IF you want to stop playing epenis, and get down to eviserating Ron Pauls policies than get busy, if not, stop pretending like your attitude is a substitute for intelligence.

Ohhh ouch, you hurted my feelers! Please sparky, why don't you go into other threads and try to repeat after me. "I, xj0hnx, mr. "1337" name boy, swear that Ron Paul is a fucking moron, his idea of abolishing the Fed, getting rid of the IRS, is antiquated and stupid and will only devolve the US into farmers and nobodies, it will destroy the US economy and remove us from anything resembeling world success".

OK, I could go on, but that's enough. Now go back to your existence of being a RPB shut-in with no social acceptance and little to no knowledge of finance, economics, or history.

For being a king bitchslapper, you sure don't seem to be able to do more than puke up ad hominem towards someone you know nothing about. Your retreat from the issue is duly noted.

If you wanna roll sparky, make your case for why the Fed should be eliminated. I am really looking forward to yet another series of "ZOMG, CPI!" graphs.

Then, after this, how about I convince an admin to sticky your reply up top, as a warning to all RPBs.

I can't wait to see John's case. 😀

 

[Mavtek3100]

Citizen Kain, Drugs were bad before the FDA not because they weren't regulated but because the technology and understanding of making them along with the research that we have today weren't available. Drugs have gotten better primarily through research and technology. I'm not saying there doesn't need to be an agency that has some oversight or regulation on drug manufactures to make sure there are standards in the market to keep me safe, but my goodness what is the point of keeping me from buying the exact same drug from Canada if I want to? Isn't that a hamper on free trade, I don't see how it's a safety issue. Besides do you think a private agency might do a better job, I do.

Also Ron Paul is not advocating bringing down the government. I'm not sure where you got this notion, but transitioning agencies to the private sector or abolishing them altogether does not get rid of the governing body. The government is in place to make sure we are secure, and that's about it. Everything else they get their hands on they inevitably screw up.

It took amendments to force states to recognize women and Blacks as equal in society and they indeed have the right to vote. They most certainly weren't disallowed by the constitution in it's original intent.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Citizen Kain, Drugs were bad before the FDA not because they weren't regulated but because the technology and understanding of making them along with the research that we have today weren't available. Drugs have gotten better primarily through research and technology. I'm not saying there doesn't need to be an agency that has some oversight or regulation on drug manufactures to make sure there are standards in the market to keep me safe, but my goodness what is the point of keeping me from buying the exact same drug from Canada if I want to? Isn't that a hamper on free trade, I don't see how it's a safety issue. Besides do you think a private agency might do a better job, I do.

Also Ron Paul is not advocating bringing down the government. I'm not sure where you got this notion, but transitioning agencies to the private sector or abolishing them altogether does not get rid of the governing body. The government is in place to make sure we are secure, and that's about it. Everything else they get their hands on they inevitably screw up.

It took amendments to force states to recognize women and Blacks as equal in society and they indeed have the right to vote. They most certainly weren't disallowed by the constitution in it's original intent.

The FDA, except in recent years where it's been under increased pressure from the private sector, has kept Americans VERY safe from drugs that have caused widespread harm in other countries. Until about ten years ago, we had the most rigorous review process in the world and that was a good thing. These new drugs are incredibly powerful and drug companies are motivated by profit, not safety.

Secondly, the Constitution counted black people as 3/5 of a person - how is that not disallowing equality?

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK do you believe the Fed took the correct action this morning? Does it seem independent of political forces?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK do you believe the Fed took the correct action this morning? Does it seem independent of political forces?

I personally think they did take the correct action. I work for a european bank and I am already feeling the pressure of people worrying about a massive recession. They fear that more than inflation, because inflation can be cured quickly, a downward spiraling economy will beget more defaults, more financial turmoil...etc.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Citizen Kain, Drugs were bad before the FDA not because they weren't regulated but because the technology and understanding of making them along with the research that we have today weren't available. Drugs have gotten better primarily through research and technology. I'm not saying there doesn't need to be an agency that has some oversight or regulation on drug manufactures to make sure there are standards in the market to keep me safe, but my goodness what is the point of keeping me from buying the exact same drug from Canada if I want to? Isn't that a hamper on free trade, I don't see how it's a safety issue. Besides do you think a private agency might do a better job, I do.

Also Ron Paul is not advocating bringing down the government. I'm not sure where you got this notion, but transitioning agencies to the private sector or abolishing them altogether does not get rid of the governing body. The government is in place to make sure we are secure, and that's about it. Everything else they get their hands on they inevitably screw up.

It took amendments to force states to recognize women and Blacks as equal in society and they indeed have the right to vote. They most certainly weren't disallowed by the constitution in it's original intent.

The FDA, except in recent years where it's been under increased pressure from the private sector, has kept Americans VERY safe from drugs that have caused widespread harm in other countries. Until about ten years ago, we had the most rigorous review process in the world and that was a good thing. These new drugs are incredibly powerful and drug companies are motivated by profit, not safety.

Well I think it's ran it's course if it used to do a good job, don't you? Maybe it really does need a big overhaul.

Secondly, the Constitution counted black people as 3/5 of a person - how is that not disallowing equality?

Oh come now, please site your assertion. Which Article says this, which section?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I don't see that anywhere.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Citizen Kain, Drugs were bad before the FDA not because they weren't regulated but because the technology and understanding of making them along with the research that we have today weren't available. Drugs have gotten better primarily through research and technology. I'm not saying there doesn't need to be an agency that has some oversight or regulation on drug manufactures to make sure there are standards in the market to keep me safe, but my goodness what is the point of keeping me from buying the exact same drug from Canada if I want to? Isn't that a hamper on free trade, I don't see how it's a safety issue. Besides do you think a private agency might do a better job, I do.

Also Ron Paul is not advocating bringing down the government. I'm not sure where you got this notion, but transitioning agencies to the private sector or abolishing them altogether does not get rid of the governing body. The government is in place to make sure we are secure, and that's about it. Everything else they get their hands on they inevitably screw up.

It took amendments to force states to recognize women and Blacks as equal in society and they indeed have the right to vote. They most certainly weren't disallowed by the constitution in it's original intent.

The FDA, except in recent years where it's been under increased pressure from the private sector, has kept Americans VERY safe from drugs that have caused widespread harm in other countries. Until about ten years ago, we had the most rigorous review process in the world and that was a good thing. These new drugs are incredibly powerful and drug companies are motivated by profit, not safety.

Well I think it's ran it's course if it used to do a good job, don't you? Maybe it really does need a big overhaul.

Secondly, the Constitution counted black people as 3/5 of a person - how is that not disallowing equality?

Oh come now, please site your assertion. Which Article says this, which section?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I don't see that anywhere.

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. Don't even try to argue that it's ambiguous. It is disallowing a person to vote based on their status as slaves. Slaves who were 99.9999999% black. So much for equality in the good old days.

Secondly, no we shouldn't abandon the FDA. We need to reform it. We need to make sure its funding comes from the government, not from the companies it is supposed to regulate. We need to insulate it better. All of those things are easily fixable. Do you abandon a car because the windshield was cracked? No, you fix the damn thing because it's a lot easier to fix something than it is to build it all over again. Particularly when 90% of it is still good.

I don't think you understand the issues at heart and how simple it is to fix the FDA.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Citizen Kain, Drugs were bad before the FDA not because they weren't regulated but because the technology and understanding of making them along with the research that we have today weren't available. Drugs have gotten better primarily through research and technology. I'm not saying there doesn't need to be an agency that has some oversight or regulation on drug manufactures to make sure there are standards in the market to keep me safe, but my goodness what is the point of keeping me from buying the exact same drug from Canada if I want to? Isn't that a hamper on free trade, I don't see how it's a safety issue. Besides do you think a private agency might do a better job, I do.

Also Ron Paul is not advocating bringing down the government. I'm not sure where you got this notion, but transitioning agencies to the private sector or abolishing them altogether does not get rid of the governing body. The government is in place to make sure we are secure, and that's about it. Everything else they get their hands on they inevitably screw up.

It took amendments to force states to recognize women and Blacks as equal in society and they indeed have the right to vote. They most certainly weren't disallowed by the constitution in it's original intent.

The FDA, except in recent years where it's been under increased pressure from the private sector, has kept Americans VERY safe from drugs that have caused widespread harm in other countries. Until about ten years ago, we had the most rigorous review process in the world and that was a good thing. These new drugs are incredibly powerful and drug companies are motivated by profit, not safety.

Secondly, the Constitution counted black people as 3/5 of a person - how is that not disallowing equality?

The Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. Would you have preferred that they be counted as a whole person, so the pro-slavery states would have had even more political power?

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK do you believe the Fed took the correct action this morning? Does it seem independent of political forces?

I personally think they did take the correct action. I work for a european bank and I am already feeling the pressure of people worrying about a massive recession. They fear that more than inflation, because inflation can be cured quickly, a downward spiraling economy will beget more defaults, more financial turmoil...etc.

Educate me how can inflation be cured quickly? I'm guessing the hope is the infusion of cash will trickle down some how to consumers in the form of wage increases and it will all balance out?

My theory is though that this will actually just make the value of the dollar go down even more this time as most of this infusion will go to prop up banks who made poor loan decisions in the 1st place. Debts will be partially paid, but consumers will stay home. The infusion will serve to prop up the market, but the consumer will not reciprocate the cycle this time. More and more people are in a mountain of debt and are starting to realize that this debt is what's causing their trouble, I can see many people not wanting to start this process all over again. Who knows though this is of course betting on the nature of humans.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Citizen Kain, Drugs were bad before the FDA not because they weren't regulated but because the technology and understanding of making them along with the research that we have today weren't available. Drugs have gotten better primarily through research and technology. I'm not saying there doesn't need to be an agency that has some oversight or regulation on drug manufactures to make sure there are standards in the market to keep me safe, but my goodness what is the point of keeping me from buying the exact same drug from Canada if I want to? Isn't that a hamper on free trade, I don't see how it's a safety issue. Besides do you think a private agency might do a better job, I do.

Also Ron Paul is not advocating bringing down the government. I'm not sure where you got this notion, but transitioning agencies to the private sector or abolishing them altogether does not get rid of the governing body. The government is in place to make sure we are secure, and that's about it. Everything else they get their hands on they inevitably screw up.

It took amendments to force states to recognize women and Blacks as equal in society and they indeed have the right to vote. They most certainly weren't disallowed by the constitution in it's original intent.

The FDA, except in recent years where it's been under increased pressure from the private sector, has kept Americans VERY safe from drugs that have caused widespread harm in other countries. Until about ten years ago, we had the most rigorous review process in the world and that was a good thing. These new drugs are incredibly powerful and drug companies are motivated by profit, not safety.

Secondly, the Constitution counted black people as 3/5 of a person - how is that not disallowing equality?

The Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. Would you have preferred that they be counted as a whole person, so the pro-slavery states would have had even more political power?

Hence, the Constitution condones slavery. Hence, the constitution institutionalized inequality of rights, which was the crux of the argument.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Uh ok Article 1 section 2, paragraph 3.....................

Section 2 - The House

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

What you talkin bout Willis? You do realize that this is way to distribute representation based on Census. Those who who were not free or indentured were counted at 3/5 in this census of representation. It did not directly disavow them from voting, it did in fact recognize them as non-citizens. I think this same rule should be applied today for those who are working here illegally, we treat them as slaves surely they should get at least 3/5 representation currently they have none. Indeed the founders were more decent than we are today.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Citizen Kain, Drugs were bad before the FDA not because they weren't regulated but because the technology and understanding of making them along with the research that we have today weren't available. Drugs have gotten better primarily through research and technology. I'm not saying there doesn't need to be an agency that has some oversight or regulation on drug manufactures to make sure there are standards in the market to keep me safe, but my goodness what is the point of keeping me from buying the exact same drug from Canada if I want to? Isn't that a hamper on free trade, I don't see how it's a safety issue. Besides do you think a private agency might do a better job, I do.

Also Ron Paul is not advocating bringing down the government. I'm not sure where you got this notion, but transitioning agencies to the private sector or abolishing them altogether does not get rid of the governing body. The government is in place to make sure we are secure, and that's about it. Everything else they get their hands on they inevitably screw up.

It took amendments to force states to recognize women and Blacks as equal in society and they indeed have the right to vote. They most certainly weren't disallowed by the constitution in it's original intent.

The FDA, except in recent years where it's been under increased pressure from the private sector, has kept Americans VERY safe from drugs that have caused widespread harm in other countries. Until about ten years ago, we had the most rigorous review process in the world and that was a good thing. These new drugs are incredibly powerful and drug companies are motivated by profit, not safety.

Secondly, the Constitution counted black people as 3/5 of a person - how is that not disallowing equality?

The Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. Would you have preferred that they be counted as a whole person, so the pro-slavery states would have had even more political power?

Hence, the Constitution condones slavery. Hence, the constitution institutionalized inequality of rights, which was the crux of the argument.

Simplistic short-sighted but typical nonsense. The Const also built in a provision prohibiting the passage of legislation banning the importation of slaves until 1808, recognizing that such a promise was necessary to get the south to ratify the Const. Guess what? January 1, 1808 the Congress banned importing slaves.

The founders recognized the evils of slavery as well as its deep entrenchment in the south. The Const did not condone slavery, it paved the way for its eventual eradication.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
What you talkin bout Willis? You do realize that this is way to distribute representation based on Census. Those who who were not free or indentured were counted at 3/5 in this census of representation. It did not directly disavow them from voting, it did in fact recognize them as non-citizens. I think this same rule should be applied today for those who are working here illegally, we treat them as slaves surely they should get at least 3/5 representation currently they have none. Indeed the founders were more decent than we are today.

uhh, did you just equate the ownership of slaves to the paid employment of illegal immigrants?! Did you also just say that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote!?

uhhh, wtf?!

I can't imagine why people think you're a loon... 😕

 

[Pabster]

Its...A PAULBOT! :laugh:

Notice how a lot of these bots are fairly new registers?

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

If you wanna roll sparky, make your case for why the Fed should be eliminated. I am really looking forward to yet another series of "ZOMG, CPI!" graphs.

Then, after this, how about I convince an admin to sticky your reply up top, as a warning to all RPBs.

This is exactly why you are a clown. First off, like I said, you don't know me, or where I stand on any issue, but you make an ASSumption, and then go off railing about how you have been bitchslapping paulbots, since before I was in diapers, when you clearly have no clue to whom you are speaking. Unless you're in your late fifties, you have hardly been doing anything since I was in diapers, if you are in your late fifties, and still playing internet commando, than you seriously need to rethink your life, as it seems pretty sad and pathetic. So lay out you proof that he is crazy, or link me to your past arguments so I can read them, or don't and post another sad and pathetic tough guy response.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

If you wanna roll sparky, make your case for why the Fed should be eliminated. I am really looking forward to yet another series of "ZOMG, CPI!" graphs.

Then, after this, how about I convince an admin to sticky your reply up top, as a warning to all RPBs.

This is exactly why you are a clown. First off, like I said, you don't know me, or where I stand on any issue, but you make an ASSumption, and then go off railing about how you have been bitchslapping paulbots, since before I was in diapers, when you clearly have no clue to whom you are speaking. Unless you're in your late fifties, you have hardly been doing anything since I was in diapers, if you are in your late fifties, and still playing internet commando, than you seriously need to rethink your life, as it seems pretty sad and pathetic. So lay out you proof that he is crazy, or link me to your past arguments so I can read them, or don't and post another sad and pathetic tough guy response.

So, in response to LK's challenge to lay out a case for eliminating the Fed, you...uhhh... challenged him back?! 😕

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

If you wanna roll sparky, make your case for why the Fed should be eliminated. I am really looking forward to yet another series of "ZOMG, CPI!" graphs.

Then, after this, how about I convince an admin to sticky your reply up top, as a warning to all RPBs.

This is exactly why you are a clown. First off, like I said, you don't know me, or where I stand on any issue, but you make an ASSumption, and then go off railing about how you have been bitchslapping paulbots, since before I was in diapers, when you clearly have no clue to whom you are speaking. Unless you're in your late fifties, you have hardly been doing anything since I was in diapers, if you are in your late fifties, and still playing internet commando, than you seriously need to rethink your life, as it seems pretty sad and pathetic. So lay out you proof that he is crazy, or link me to your past arguments so I can read them, or don't and post another sad and pathetic tough guy response.

Sure, you're in your late 50's and running around the internet evangilizing RP. The way your battling back and forth, rather than answering me, belies that. Your leet name belies it. You listing your computer belies it. A matured and "late 50s" guy wouldn't be here.

Again, present your case why the Fed should be eliminated? Come on now, don't be shy. If you're so old and experienced this should be easy for you, right? If you know so much about economics and finance, it should be easy, right?

Here's is why I think RP is a loon.

1. Getting rid of the Fed.

2. Pulling out of all international bases.


Now go ahead and support both points. I am not going to do your work for you. If you think I am wrong, do your own research and counter them. If you want this to be organized I am more than willing to do that. In fact, it'll add to the fun. Now that I have addressed you in the genial manner an "older" guy requires, I expect you to reply to the points.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
What you talkin bout Willis? You do realize that this is way to distribute representation based on Census. Those who who were not free or indentured were counted at 3/5 in this census of representation. It did not directly disavow them from voting, it did in fact recognize them as non-citizens. I think this same rule should be applied today for those who are working here illegally, we treat them as slaves surely they should get at least 3/5 representation currently they have none. Indeed the founders were more decent than we are today.

uhh, did you just equate the ownership of slaves to the paid employment of illegal immigrants?! Did you also just say that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote!?

No learn to read, then think about what you just read.

uhhh, wtf?!

That's exactly what I thought about your response.

I can't imagine why people think you're a loon... 😕

I don't give a shit if people think I'm a loon. Refute the point with established evidence or get the fuck out with the loon argument. It easy to call someone a "Paulbot" which I am not I've been regular visitor to anandtech and these forums since their inception. Anand was one of the 1st Hardware reviewers I thought to bring about eloquent, thoughful, unbiased reviews to the internet. It has been my assumption that Toms, and HardOCP the other pioneers in this market were always 2nd tier to Anand. Again this is my opinion take it for what you will.

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK apparently I'm your Huckleberry as you have not responded to any of my cases for Fed abolishment or International withdrawal.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK apparently I'm your Huckleberry as you have not responded to any of my cases for Fed abolishment or International withdrawal.

I have responded to every one of your cases for Fed abolishment. Not one person outside of the bots think you were correct. I might have missed a post, but I think I have pretty much trounced everything.

As far as international withdrawal, others have handled that quite well.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
What you talkin bout Willis? You do realize that this is way to distribute representation based on Census. Those who who were not free or indentured were counted at 3/5 in this census of representation. It did not directly disavow them from voting, it did in fact recognize them as non-citizens. I think this same rule should be applied today for those who are working here illegally, we treat them as slaves surely they should get at least 3/5 representation currently they have none. Indeed the founders were more decent than we are today.

uhh, did you just equate the ownership of slaves to the paid employment of illegal immigrants?! Did you also just say that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote!?

No learn to read, then think about what you just read.

uhhh, wtf?!

That's exactly what I thought about your response.

I can't imagine why people think you're a loon... 😕

I don't give a shit if people think I'm a loon. Refute the point with established evidence or get the fuck out with the loon argument. It easy to call someone a "Paulbot" which I am not I've been regular visitor to anandtech and these forums since their inception. Anand was one of the 1st Hardware reviewers I thought to bring about eloquent, thoughful, unbiased reviews to the internet. It has been my assumption that Toms, and HardOCP the other pioneers in this market were always 2nd tier to Anand. Again this is my opinion take it for what you will.

ok, I'm not a mod, so please get off your knees... and "paulbot" is usually used for those of you who spit out Paul rhetoric without much of a clue as to what any of it really means. You tend to congregate in packs on the interweb, and whenever you get a chance, you bring every conversation around to the subject of RP. It has nothing to do with how long you've been a member here, or the manlove you have for Anand...

That said, what the hell else could you mean by: "I think this same rule should be applied today for those who are working here illegally, we treat them as slaves surely they should get at least 3/5 representation currently they have none."

 

[alchemize]

I created a cagematch thread for debating these two topics (Fed/Troops) 🙂

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2145280&enterthread=y

 

[Mavtek3100]

LK I think you have me confused with someone else? So you refute Milton Friedman? You refute my assertion that the problem of inflation will not be easily solved due to world market devaluation and consumer stagnation.

I didn't see a response from you, ever.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
LK I think you have me confused with someone else? So you refute Milton Friedman? You refute my assertion that the problem of inflation will not be easily solved due to world market devaluation and consumer stagnation.

I didn't see a response from you, ever.

Go to Alchemize's thread, we'll have fun there.