# This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784 "2010-08-19T20:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/501 "2010-08-29T22:00:10Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Because it’s bankrupt conspiratorial thinking. Drug companies and docs could make more money in the treatment of millions of sick kids. Hospitalization and I.C.U. stays run up big bills. By your logic, the Medical Establishment should be fighting vaccination tooth and nail to protect their profits. Except that they’re fighting to keep children healthy. No, its not. Its reality. Telling me that the concept of vaccination is scientifically valid does not invalidate the danger of allowing governments to stick whatever they want in our arms, without a choice in the matter. And yes, many vaccines are unnecessary but are pushed by pharmaceutical companies in the pursuit of profits. This has been well documented. Why would this not be the case? Its simple logic. You think everyone in the Medical Industrial Complex is caring and wants to help everyone? Talk about putting your head in the sand. > [@](#): > > Yes. And you need to learn about the immune response, and how vaccines use killed and weakened pathogens to produce immunity that thwarts real infection. > > I went to some trouble here to refute your inescapable vaccine logic because it forms a significant part of why intelligent people reject Ron Paul. We figures that anyone (a doctor, no less) who is so appallingly ignorant in his own field and espouses a drastic weakening of a hugely successful public health initiative, cannot be trusted in other areas and be elected to lead our country. He’s not only extreme, he’s extremely wrong. > > Now you may attack the above as “cherry-picking” and return to the glorious example of Austrian Economics. First of all, Ron Paul is not against vaccines. Neither am I. I am speaking for me on this issue and no one else. Apparently, “intelligent” people such as yourself suck up to the establishment every chance you get. Also, why would you make the assumption that there have been no negative effects of vaccines on the health of the population? There is a rise in autism, allergies, learning disorders and numerous health problems over the last couple decades. Are you outright rejecting the notion that the increased number of immunizations is possibly contributing to that problem? Given the health of the population at large, I would say the medical establishment is failing us. Why don’t you quit sucking up to them for a minute and think about this issues objectively? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/502 "2010-08-29T22:19:18Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I think the last several posts have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this thread(and most of your other ones). You post a multi-page screed consisting of many points, and since nobody really wants to post multi-page responses to all your points they usually respond to a very limited number of them. You then wait until a great number of responses have been posted, then respond to a a number of them in a row, each response in a separate post, then you step back for a while. There remains a number of posts you haven’t responded to yet, to which are added responses to your _first_ batch of responses. You let these pile up for awhile, then you continue from where you left off with yet another multi-post run that only gets to some of the responses to some of your points, causing the pile to get even higher, then you step back yet again to let the pile increase even more. > There is no possible way to hold a debate in a format such as this. Um, yeah, that is a fair point. I concede that. I guess it is my stubbornness that makes me want to respond to each and every reply. However, I will be caught up soon, and then we can respond to current posts rather than old ones. But yes, this certainly isn’t a normal format for debate. I understand that. If someone posts a comment and expects me to respond to it immediately, they will get frustrated. I think the cumulative number of pages and posts will be valuable to people on this board to put this information out there. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/503 "2010-08-29T22:24:12Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Hey, the OP hasn’t responded to a question I asked way up at the top. And have posted in his other threads. > > **What is jrodefeld’s actual education in economics?** He may have read a bunch of books by his Austrian heroes, but he really needs knowledge of the entire discipline if he wants people to take him seriously. I’m all for autodidactism, but his lofty disdain ought to be backed up by a couple of real degrees. I did answer this question. The answer is no, I do not have a full degree in economics. I took many classes in college and read a ton of books on my own. Most colleges are putting Keynesian nonsense in the students head and I can attest that I learned far more reading von Mises and following Ron Paul than I ever did in college. We shouldn’t think that college degrees are the only indicator of intellectual achievement. In some cases they miseducate people. In many cases a person can become more educated on a subject out of the classroom than in it. Economics is a perfect example of this. I have experience both in the classroom and learning on my own. The correct predictions of the Austrian economists in predicting the crash of 2008 convinced me that this school of thought is correct. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/504 "2010-08-29T22:25:59Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > And yes, many vaccines are unnecessary but are pushed by pharmaceutical companies in the pursuit of profits. This has been well documented. > > Why would this not be the case? Its simple logic. You think everyone in the Medical Industrial Complex is caring and wants to help everyone? Talk about putting your head in the sand. I doubt that it has been well-documented, but the response to those limited cases where it occurred is to tighten the controls on how vaccines are administered, not to condemn the next generation of children to polio and pertussis because Jenny McCarthy and other kooks make a prettier case on fluff TV shows than actual researchers did. I have no trouble believing that a pharmaceutical company might push for the government to mandate one of their products. That does not mean that they have actually been successful to any great extent. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > First of all, Ron Paul is not against vaccines. Neither am I. I am speaking for me on this issue and no one else. Apparently, “intelligent” people such as yourself suck up to the establishment every chance you get. If Paul opposes mandatory vaccination for diseases such as polio and pertussis, he is every bit the crank that he has been described and he is effectively against vaccines, regardless how he softpedals his attacks. If your first response to every such challenge to your baseless assertions is to employ the line that your opponents are just “sucking up” to the Establishment or following the estblished fairy tale like sheep, then the appropriate response to you is that your line of defense is the same one employed by every crank and Conspiracy Theorist in history. If you do not want those comparisons lodged against you, then back off on those personal dismissals. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Also, why would you make the assumption that there have been no negative effects of vaccines on the health of the population? There is a rise in autism, allergies, learning disorders and numerous health problems over the last couple decades. Are you outright rejecting the notion that the increased number of immunizations is possibly contributing to that problem? Given that every alledged link between such trauma and vaccines has been disproved, (often including evidence that the original link was a lie), why would you continue to hold such a belief when there are known reasons for the rise of such phenomena that do not rely on vaccination CTs? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/505 "2010-08-29T22:29:17Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > … the lefty idea that we should tax the rich disproportionally as “punishment” for making money. > > Can you cite any “lefty” who avocates taxing the rich as “punishment”? > > I’ll save you a round of 7-paragraph screeds: No, you can’t. At the end of a few such screeds, you’ll finally concede that that example gibberish resulted from your exasperation, or some such, dealing with the stupid economists you find at SDMB! 😃 > > **jrodefeld** , do you agree your quoted statement was silly nonsense? (Just a one-word Ye/No response to this, please, not another 7-paragraph screed.) > > And when you do agree it was silly nonsense, _ **Will you understand why your requests to be treated as a serious thinker aren’t working for you here?** _ The meaning of that quote was, in my experience, much of the modern left holds a view that all wealth must be created at the expense of someone else. There is a degree of envy the endeavors to take away from the rich who make more money “than they need”. I am saying that this is childish. If people make money honestly, they deserve the money they earn because they have provided that level of value to others. I’m not asking for anyone to bow down to my superior intellect. That is not needed. I am merely proud of my intellectual achievements and feel confident in my views. You can take my positions any way you want. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/506 "2010-08-29T22:31:27Z")
> [@Clark\_K](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Get the fuck out of here. I’m serious. Don’t post on my thread again. You are cluttering up this discussion with stupid bullshit. What are you getting out of posting a reply like that? Whats the point? > > Bravo, JRod! Thank the good Lord someone around here will stand up to the riff-raff with their “opinion” that “satire” can be used in debate to highlight “pompous” statements and reveal the speaker to be “a faintly ridiculous bag of hot air.” > > After your stern warning, I certainly shall never post in this thread again. > > Wait, what? I just did? Oh my stars and garters – I’m mortified! Okay, my response was a little over the top. Now that you are here, why don’t you actually contribute something worthwhile to this thread? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/507 "2010-08-29T22:34:59Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Look, Der Trihs, I am calling you out now. If you claim to know how racist, uneducated and white trash the people who make up the Tea Party are, you had better tell us how many rallies you have attended and people you have talked to. Because unless you have first hand experience with dealing with grassroots these movements, you are talking out of your ass. > > They call themselves Teabaggers. That’s pretty damn stupid right there. Look it up some time. > > Oh, and some of them are white trash. Come on. You know very well they don’t call themselves Tea baggers. The first rallies were protests which were based on the imagery of the Boston Tea Party. The events themselves were called Tea Parties. The media then started calling the participants “Tea Partiers”. Then opponents started calling them “Tea Baggers” as a derogatory sexual slang for the group. That is the truth. The events themselves are **Tea Parties**. The participants are simply **Americans**. Got it? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/508 "2010-08-29T22:36:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Actually no. You are right in a way that we have democratic processes in this country and we are also a republic. But, in a Republic government is limited by laws and restricted to certain delegated functions. Unless the Constitution is amended, government is not allowed to do certain things no matter how many people want it to. > > > > In a direct democracy, people can blindly vote their own self interest, which frequently violates the liberties of others. This leads to progressive loss of liberty over time and lends itself to the creation of authoritarian government. > > We do not have a direct democracy; we have a representative democracy. Do you not see the difference? Yes, we are. We have democratic elections. But our government is a Constitutional Republic. Okay? Did you watch that youtube video? What is your reaction? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/509 "2010-08-29T22:45:05Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Now, machines are used because employers are forbidden from providing these low level jobs to people nowadays. > > Only because they are unsafe. Do you advocate repealing all workplace safety laws? No, I don’t. And no, those jobs are not gone because they are unsafe. They are gone because they are worth less than the minimum wage. Don’t you see? A very low level job is eliminated when the minimum wage is raised. It destroys jobs and people are laid off. What about ushers at a movie theater? Of employees to pump gas for people at gas stations? Extremely low skilled jobs such as these are gone because the cost of providing them is worth more than the value they provide to the employer. These are stepping stone jobs, for teenagers, immigrants or other people just starting out. It would provide job experience, yet these jobs are eliminated through minimum wage laws. So, most of these government regulations hurt the very people they are designed to help. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/510 "2010-08-29T22:47:33Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > I think the last several posts have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this thread(and most of your other ones). You post a multi-page screed consisting of many points, and since nobody really wants to post multi-page responses to all your points they usually respond to a very limited number of them. You then wait until a great number of responses have been posted, then respond to a a number of them in a row, each response in a separate post, then you step back for a while. There remains a number of posts you haven’t responded to yet, to which are added responses to your _first_ batch of responses. You let these pile up for awhile, then you continue from where you left off with yet another multi-post run that only gets to some of the responses to some of your points, causing the pile to get even higher, then you step back yet again to let the pile increase even more. > > There is no possible way to hold a debate in a format such as this. > > Um, yeah, that is a fair point. I concede that. I guess it is my stubbornness that makes me want to respond to each and every reply. However, I will be caught up soon, and then we can respond to current posts rather than old ones. > > But yes, this certainly isn’t a normal format for debate. I understand that. If someone posts a comment and expects me to respond to it immediately, they will get frustrated. I think the cumulative number of pages and posts will be valuable to people on this board to put this information out there. Is your evading the main problem deliberate, or just an unintentional oversight? As has been stated here and your other threads, the _main_ problem is the original posting of your many-point/many-page OPs. _This_ is what causes the difficulty in the first place, and what makes a coherent conversation with you next to impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/511 "2010-08-29T22:49:39Z")
Does anyone else get the impression that when **jrodefeld** was a kid, and was assigned a book report on _Tom Sawyer_, that he turned in a copy of the book with a note that said “The attached book will tell you everything you need to know about _Tom Sawyer_”? And that his term papers were a title page followed by the bibliography? Seriousy, **jrodefeld** , if you can’t address the simple counterpoints to your gold standard ideas _without linking to something else_, why should I take you seriously? Notice that the posters countering your points have done so in their own words, without having to resort to links or youtube videos. Why do you think that is? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/512 "2010-08-29T22:51:46Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > We do not have a direct democracy; we have a representative democracy. Do you not see the difference? > > Yes, we are. We have democratic elections. But our government is a Constitutional Republic. Okay? So you were wrong when you said people vote for their own self interest, at the expense of the liberty of others; is that your admission now? Everything the Obama Administration has proposed is consistent with a Constitutional Republic. Anyone who disagrees may avail themselves of the constitutionally mandated remedies, and file a federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court, as authorized under ther Constitution, is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress. You, on the other hand, have no Consitutional authority to decide what is consistent with a constitutional republic, nor do you have any better insight into the intent of the Founders than the Supreme Court. If you somehow decide that the democratic process as codified in the Constitution is tyranny, you may engage in whatever civil disobedience floats your boat. But, short of taking up arms, it will not change the political system, because we are abiding by the process provided in the Constitution, and you are not. Do you understand? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/513 "2010-08-29T22:52:32Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > We want government ruled by law. That is the best form of government devised in history. > > And who makes the law? The people through the Constitution. And, this may drive the Atheists crazy, but the truth is the founders harped on **God** given rights so much because they DIDN’T trust the people. They did believe the document was divinely inspired. They wanted liberty for all people and so they endeavored to constrain government to the defense of liberty through expressly delegated functions. They didn’t want the people to have too much say in the government. Thats why they made the process of amended the Constitution long and arduous. Democracy leads to despotism eventually. Therefore the best government is one which is limited and the people are prevented from having much say in the functions of the government, apart from electing the representatives to safeguard that limited, defined government. It was the only way to protect liberty for a long period of time. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/514 "2010-08-29T22:54:28Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Everything not expressly authorized in the Constitution is by default prohibited from doing and left to the States and to the people. > > Does the Constitution authorize the Congress to levy taxes and spend that revenue? Yes, but if you say that that allows the government to spend that money on ANYTHING, you are dead wrong. The Constitution allows the collection of revenue through taxes to fund the expressly limited functions delegated in the Constitution. No more than that. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/515 "2010-08-29T23:15:57Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > They call themselves Teabaggers. That’s pretty damn stupid right there. Look it up some time. > > > > Oh, and some of them are white trash. > > Come on. You know very well they don’t call themselves Tea baggers. The first rallies were protests which were based on the imagery of the Boston Tea Party. The events themselves were called Tea Parties. The media then started calling the participants “Tea Partiers”. Then opponents started calling them “Tea Baggers” as a derogatory sexual slang for the group. > > That is the truth. The events themselves are **Tea Parties**. The participants are simply **Americans**. > > Got it? They called themselves teabaggers originally. When they found out the sexual connotation they ran fast and hard from it. But tea bagger was their original terminology, not a made up term by critics. Got it? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/516 "2010-08-29T23:16:51Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > Does the Constitution authorize the Congress to levy taxes and spend that revenue? > > Yes, but if you say that that allows the government to spend that money on ANYTHING, you are dead wrong. The Constitution allows the collection of revenue through taxes to fund the expressly limited functions delegated in the Constitution. Any law that exceeded the functions delegated by the Constitutional would be unconstitutional, would it not? So why haven’t all these unconstitutional laws been challenged in federal court, and overturned by the Supreme Court? The fact is, whenever the current laws have been challenged, the Supreme Court (or a lesser court), authorized by the Constitution, have confirmed the laws under the Constitution. The system works! Your opinion is just that; a minority opinion, that is contrary to the Constitution, and really not worthy of consideration. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/517 "2010-08-29T23:22:26Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > And who makes the law? > > The people through the Constitution. That is meaningless. The Constitution does not make the law; the Congress makes the law, and the people elect their representatives. All under the authority of the Constitution. Representative democracy is enshrined in the Constitution, and mere gainsaying that fact will not change it. We are a Democracy. We are a Republic. Just the way the Founders intended. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/518 "2010-08-29T23:30:49Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Not only are you ignoring all the things that HAVE come true so far, you are criticizing him before the timetable for his concerns is even up! > > Because his “concerns”, which you’ve previously labeled as correct predictions, **are not going to come true**. He’s wrong. > He can be “right” about that when it actually happens. Not before. > Look, I have every confidence that you smugly point to every item on Ron Paul’s [list of predictions](http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul29.html) that you’ve judged as “right”, and think to yourself about how accurate a predictor he is. Yet, when it’s clear that some of them are **100% unambiguously not right** you hand wave that away, just like you’re doing now. You walk through the list, using some items as evidence of how accurate and genius Paul is, and redefine the other ones as “things to look out for” as opposed to predictions. > > Do you see how that methodology could never come to any conclusion other than “Ron Paul can see the future?” We’re getting mighty close to self-parody here. > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > And Ron Paul is not always right. > > See, if you’d just said that at the beginning, instead of talking about how he’s been right about everything, we wouldn’t have had to waste so much time. Now admit that you’re wrong, Ron Paul isn’t a visionary oracle, and we can all go home and have cake. Okay, looking at that list, I will point out the things that HAVE come true: \*\*Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act. Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending. The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict. The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives. Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas. This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened. During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security. The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East. Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos. \*\* These all sound very accurate to me. The rest could easily happen. The gist of what he said is very accurate. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/519 "2010-08-29T23:32:50Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Gold has lasted over thousands of years, fiat currencies crash and burn. > > Lasting and stability are not synonymous. Personally, I do not want the feudal economies that predominated over the majority of those thousands of years. YMMV. We wouldn’t have those kinds of economies. We could enjoy all the benefits of modern economic life without the inflation, with increased stability and financial security. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/520 "2010-08-29T23:43:20Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > Lasting and stability are not synonymous. Personally, I do not want the feudal economies that predominated over the majority of those thousands of years. YMMV. > > We wouldn’t have those kinds of economies. What is to prevent it? Good intentions? Feudalism is the ultimate culmination of the free market you envision. Those who do not own property become the economic slaves of those who do. Submit to your liegelord, or starve. Having done away with all the regulations that limit ‘consensual’ agreements, there can be no other outcome. Desperate, starving people will submit to slavery, and property owners will perpetuate the system that keeps the poor powerless, because it is in their economic interest. Of course, eventually, the poor rise up with the power of sheer numbers, drag the property owners into the streets and burn tires around their necks. That is how your vision of liberty always ends. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=27)