So it’s cool to hate Ron Paul, right? The guy’s been holding public office for 34 years now, clearly he’s just another government parasite on the people.
Several things:
-
Seeking a foe to fight when you don’t have one. With many diseases cured by antibiotics and vaccines, one starts to turn on the things that made such a thing possible. Call it a form of cultural vandalism - you can see similar things going on in the more radical ‘Organic’ food movements - it is luxury to hate modern farming when it has prevented mass starvation - and many people forget that they have the luxury to think that way.
-
Classic Conspiracy thinking - There is a certain satisfaction when one thinks one ‘knows’ better then the public at large. To build up their case they overplay minor elements while ignoring the big picture. It is a way of feeling superior with a minimal amount of investment on the lower levels and in the upper ranks you get the admiration and borderline worship of the lower levels.
-
Just gross misunderstanding of how science works: Tell a person they are injecting a disease into them or their children and there is bound to be some flinch reaction. But when looked at in perspective (the disease is benign or even dead or doesn’t hurt human beings). It is easy to scare people, and you can get attention when you do so!
To date there is not one scrap of evidence of this whatsoever. None. Chronic health problems people face these days are a result of our lifestyle (obesity), improved diagnostics (Autism) or are a result of modern medicine letting us live longer to get problems that would be scarcely seen in days past (too many to mention).
I don’t like playing ‘what-if’ games when there is no evidence that ‘if’ even happens - especially when the subject matter is a well known saver of multitudes of lives and the only reason to doubt them is based in baseless paranoia.
To date the anti-vax movement has given society movement nothing but lies, corruption, misrepresentations, bullying, fearmongering, the occasional breakout of previously defeated diseases, and some dead children. They have given society nothing but baseless fears, and they haven’t even improved vaccines one iota.*
My mind is open, that does not mean I am going to let anti-vax liars shovel shit into it. You keep repeating this ‘open mind’ mantra as if your idea of an open mind that let’s your brain fall out and lies about vaccines come in in its place. Fact of the matter is, if anyone has a closed mind it is you: You post worthless anti-vax propaganda without even looking at it slightly, you have no idea how to think critically in the least, you ignore all criticism and spout our platitudes, make utterly baseless health claims, all the while ignoring the huge amounts of evidence to the contrary.
- Removing Thimerosal from vaccines was worthless, as the evidence has since shown, Its removal has caused more problems with vaccine preservation. This has made vaccines harder to transport to areas that need it, and can even result in more allergic reactions as they potentially spoil sooner than in the past.
Literate, my dear libertarian. The word you are looking for is literate. Or fucking literate, if you prefer.
No, you weren’t. You are now, sure, after your error was pointed out. You’re trying to erase the past by ignoring your earlier mistakes. But they won’t go away.
You’re still on record, by the way. Here is just one of many posts you no longer seem to remember writing.
That was in response to me. I pointed out that people can trade gold and silver. You denied it. Even more hilarious, you brought up the totally irrelevant Liberty Dollar case as some sort of silly proof for whatever silly thing you were arguing at the time. Completely off topic, if you had truly been arguing Hayek.
It saddens me to say this, but I believe this might be the final nail. At the very least, I’ve accomplished my own purpose here. Good night, flights of angels, et cetera.
Just to clarify, what do you think double blind studies measure?
I am riding no ones coattails. I just have noticed that Sam demonstrates I better understanding of economics than most around here do. I certainly don’t agree with him on everything. I am much more of a Mises supporter than a Hayek supporter, though both have made indisputable contributions to modern economic thought.
My OP stands on its own. My “typical libertarian rant” is not about “some insane ideology” and has EVERYTHING to do with fixing social problems. Don’t accuse me or Ron Paul of not having substantial policy ideas that are practical and applicable to normal situations. Consider these ideas:
-
End the wars overseas, close down military bases and slash the military budget drastically. Stop being the policemen of the world and restore sovereignty to nations we currently occupy. Do not start wars unless we are attacked first. Use force that is only comparable to that which threatens us.
-
Use the money saved by changing our foreign policy to pay down the debt and fund current obligations for Medicare and Social Security.
-
Audit the Federal Reserve system and find out the TRUE state of our economy so we can act accordingly. Repeal legal tender laws and remove any and all barriers to freely circulating competing currencies.
-
Audit the gold at Fort Knox
-
Abolish Crony Capitalism, ending ALL bailouts and corporate subsidies (especially farm subsidies). No regulatory or tax privileges to protect the powerful elite, especially the military industrial complex
-
Balance the budget and retain long term solvency by reducing spending
-
Regain respect for civil liberties and reign in the power of the CIA
-
Reclaim our government from the bankers and cronies that have parasitically drained our economy and lead us to financial ruin.
This seems to me to be a fairly articulate plan that actually goes a long way to “solving problems”. What do you mean “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”? What about this plan do you object to?
I should have phrased that wrong. I am not indicting lawyers who defend guilty people. Everyone is entitled to legal representation. My point was that people in our government search for any way AROUND the law and they use their lawyers to search for just such loopholes.
The point being that the people are also charged with making sure that the Constitution is defended. If a Supreme Court justice allows unconstitutional activity to continue, we don’t have to stand for it. We can rise up and protest, States can Nullify unconstitutional laws and we can force our elected representatives to follow their oath.
And you are out of line in Great Debates.
Do not resort to personal insults in this forum.
[ /Moderating ]
Dagnabit! I just got done replacing the last irony meter.
Did anyone just hear something that sounded like a pressure vessel exploding?
Thats easy.
In the 1911 book “The Purchasing Power of Money” Irving Fisher presents what is understood as the mechanical quantity theory of money. This Fisherine quantity theory is mathematical and mechanical. A major complaint against it is that it fails to take any account of the psychological valuations of individuals.
The famous equation is: MV=PT. In this equation M stands for the quantity of money, V stands for the velocity of circulation of that money. P is the average price level of goods and services and T stands for the volume of trade, meaning the quantity of goods that the money is exchanged for.
Fisher’s emphasis on the velocity of circulation is misplaced. Velocity of circulation is a result not a cause.
The value of money is determined not by mechanical factors, but rather by psychological factors. The value of money is determined not only by its quantity but also by expectations of its future quantity.
I am not saying that there is an exact relationship between the quantity of money and the average price of goods and services, but the discrepancies that exist are not due to the velocity of circulation, but rather psychological factors that can influence the perceived value of money.
The monetarist explanation of inflation, as shown in MV=PT, the quantity theory of money, is faulty and is rejected by the Austrians.
Read this quote by Ludwig von Mises about the velocity of circulation:
Average cash holding has little to do with why prices go up and down. Changes in the value people place on the monetary unit has everything to do with it. V is a result rather than a cause. There is no relation between the “velocity of circulation” and the purchasing power of the monetary unit.
I highly suggest you read The Value of Money, a 1917 book written by Benjamin M. Anderson. He brilliantly is able to refute the Fisher quantity theory of money. Value of Money
As a rule any increases in the monetary base will necessitate a corresponding increase in the prices of goods and services. But, as I have explained, psychological factors play a huge role. People place value in money when it is unfounded, like people are doing today with the dollar. This masks the inflation that really exists. In the records of hyperinflation, the mechanical quanity of money can be very great, but as long as there is a belief that there is value in the money, the system can be held together, albiet by a thread. However, when the confidence is lost, the house of cards comes tumbling down.
Inflation and its effects is a fascinating study that most people are woofully uninformed about. There is plenty in the Austrian literature to explain more precisely than I am able the effects of monetary policy and the mechanisms that necessitate an increase in prices.
My “expertise” in economics comes from the classes I DID take in college and my study of Austrian economics. I have read probably two dozen works by the Austrians. My perceived arrogence on the matter is not due to my thinking I have “mastered” the science of economics or the Austrian School, but rather the blatant irrationality of Keynesian economics which is being pushed today.
My feeling is that most people should be able to tell that Keynes worshippers like Krugman should be committed, let alone taken seriously.
Well, I see what you are getting at, but I disagree. I don’t see everything as a big conspiracy theory, as many do. Mostly bad policies are lead by ignorance and a single minded focus on benefiting from the system as much as possible, to hell with the consequences for everyone else. That is probably 95% of the problem. But there are people who make plans in secret (the definition of conspiracy) and they plan ahead.
I think people are so afraid to be “outside the mainstream” that they refuse to put two and two together on certain issues for fear of being ostracized for taking a certain position, despite the evidence.
You shouldn’t believe any old conspiracy theory, but you also shouldn’t rule it out without looking at the evidence dispassionately.
No, they were full of contradictions and faults. I am not one to deify the founders. But lets be real for a minute. I substantially believe that most of the founders were closer to libertarianism than modern liberalism. How can you dispute this?
Exactly my take on Austrian worshippers.
You know who else was Austrian?
Does he want to arrest all the Californians that voted for Ahnold?
Mozart? 
Primarily on the basis of discredited quotes that were either fabricated or misattributed.
First of all, this post is so full of desperate smears and ignorance it is hardly worth responding to. I find it funny since most of the links I have posted are to serious economic websites like mises.org yet you like to visit another link I may have posted, not read the article but instead desperately search its contents to smear me for some other opinion I have only a cursory relation to. This is a trademark of someone so ignorant and ill informed that he substitutes name calling and guilt by association to cover up his own mental deficits and trouble with even basic articulation of a coherent argument.
How often do you accuse people of being a racist, antisemitic, or anti mexican each day? If the bar is set this low, then you have serious problems. There is so much discussion that should be allowed to be had in this country but speaking your mind, or not being politically correct is conflated with being a racist thus limiting necessary discourse to move us beyond racial stereotypes and have actual dialog among ourselves on matters of substance.
**Does anyone else here see the absurdity of me being held accountable for each and every story posted on each website I link to? If I ran an alternative website and I was collecting stories that I thought would best inform people, I would post things that I didn’t agree with and things that may even be offensive. If you are offering a large degree of content from a variety of perspectives no one is expected to agree with everything. **
But let me go one with some specifics:
First of all, why are you bringing up the NAFTA Superhighway theory here? This has absolutely no bearing on what we are discussing and shows how far back you are going to try to denigrate my name.
There is nothing that pisses me off more than someone who casually throws around the word racist. Lou Dobbs is a moron, but he is not a racist. See, you disagree with him, alright? There is a big difference between that and him being a racist. He is simply unreasonbalbly focused on border security. You make the leap that he is doing that because he hates Mexicans. You don’t know that. Nobody can know what is going on in his mind.
As for Ron Paul, he is obviously not a racist. Nobody has EVER found him saying anything racist in his career.
As to the theory about a North American Union and the Amero, regardless of whether you consider that plausible (I agree it is far out there), you don’t think there are good reasons to oppose such a thing other than hating Mexicans?:smack:
What you are doing is saying that because some people use these ideas as ways to stir up racial tensions (and they do) all people who have concerns about sovereignty hate Mexicans. The absurdity of this should be self evident.
By the way, if I or someone else wanted to secure the border and restrict immigration a little, does that make us racist? To a rational person, of course it doesn’t.
I am not sure you are rational however.
I haven’t made “a huge number” of mistakes. There were TWO videos I posted on a thread from a LONG time ago that were posted by mistake. And you drag up that issue because you can’t debate the merit of the argument taking place on this thread. Everything else (the articles) that I link to I stand by.
You are pretty desperate, huh?
That doesn’t say that Hitler was a good person! Are you delusional? He was providing some much needed context to an important period in our history. The reason Hitler was allowed to come to power in the first place was due to praying upon the grievances of the German people that arose from the unfair Versailles Treaty. It has been said that our involvement in World War I set in motion the events that led to World War II. The Versailles Treaty was a large part of that.
Neither I, nor Denson are saying that Hitler was a good guy. What we are saying is that he drew upon real, justified anger of the German people against the aggression and imposition of the United States in their affairs.
Its like today when I say that Osama bin Laden had justifiable reasons for hating the United States (killing at least half a million innocents in Iraq in the 90s, occupying their holy lands and imposing our will on them). That doesn’t mean I am condoning terrorism, only that I am saying that we share some of the blame for the hatred against us.
It is the exact same thing here. Hitler was a bad guy. A bad guy that we unwittingly helped come to power based on the German peoples real, justified anger towards the United States.
You lose big time on this one. Better read up on your history, junior.
Let me note that I haven’t linked to hardly any articles from Rense.com. I only listed the website as an interesting collection of articles and news items that one could find interesting if they chose. What you are confusing is being anti Israel or anti Israel Lobby is much different from hating all Jews. Not acknowledging some of the atrocities committed by the Israeli government is horrible as well.
Let me ask you this:
Why is an Israeli life worth more than a Palestinian life?
Why can’t Israel fend for herself? Why do we have hold her hand?
Why can’t we safely eliminate the undue and disproportionate influence that Israel exerts over our foreign policy and the media?
I don’t hate Jews and I never have. But I dispute the actions of Israel often. There is a big difference.
I posted the site because some may find some of the articles interesting. I agree that quite a lot veers into conspiracy theory territory, but I can enjoy that once in a while. You never know what could be true. Confining yourself to a small box does no good.
I didn’t link to anything from Rense.com that I claimed to be definitive so your criticism is unfounded.
First answer: No, I don’t believe Hitler and the Nazis were good people
Second answer: I don’t. You apparently have all the nuance and subtlety of a baseball bat strike to the head. The information I have provided pertained to the United States misconduct during the 20s through the 40s. Hitler is not excused if I say that the German people had reason to hate us following World War I.
There is so much history you need to learn from this time period. I, nor anyone I linked to is pro Hitler or pro Nazi.
Well, I haven’t linked to any websites that promote violence and hatred towards black people, so that won’t be a problem.
I find this even funnier considering so much of my libertarian policies would be aimed at undoing the harmful policies that disproportionately hurt black americans.
If I was in charge I would eliminate the drug war and pardon all non violent drug offenders. This would eliminate the crime that plagues inner cities today.
I would have targeted school vouchers for inner city minorities to allow them to go to the school of their choice.
I would eliminate unfounded regulations and allow any and all peaceful economic activity to allow and encourage black entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses in the inner city. ALL red tape would be eliminated and tax credits would be given as a substitute.
Most of the people I know would laugh at you characterizing me as being a racist. They would see it for what it is: a tired smear from a desperate person who is losing a debate.
Its laughable really.
Now, this one is truly insane. You think THAT quote is proof of racism? Really? Your serious, aren’t you? At WORST this seems like a minor oversight. And plus, he is talking about the colonists. He has spoken out eloquently against slavery and discrimination for years. This smear is old hat.
Why don’t you actually find a REAL racist quote from Tom Woods, rather than your imaginary projections.
A “great deal”, huh? If by a great deal, you really mean “none”, then you’d be right. Your examples are insane and not substantiated. By the way, Rense.com is NOT endorsing David Duke for president.
There is a myth that Lew Rockwell wrote the racist articles that appeared in the newsletters that had Ron Paul’s name at the top. This is not true. They were written by interns and people who were hired and fired over an eight year period when Ron Paul was practicing medicine. Lew Rockwell may have had a cursory involvement at one point or another, but there is no evidence that he “wrote” those articles.
So, you really have nothing. You may, when you get bored with this charade, get back to the substance of the debate we are having. Its a little harder than throwing around baseless accusations but your intellect may yet evolve past its primitive state with a little practice.
Not racist. I don’t even agree with the Arizona law, but I see much of the rallying around this issue to be about opposing the federal government rather than hating Mexicans. Nothing in that very short article is racist.
Do you even know the definition of racism? I am starting to doubt it. You had better find something other than that to indict that website. That article was anti Obama but didn’t even strike me as overly in favor of the Arizona law.
Nope. Completely wrong. I probably couldn’t find a website where everything they post I agree with. I have a few references that I use, but I find the gems out of the many article I don’t agree with.
What website or newspaper do you read that you can vouch for EVERYTHING they ever printed? This is getting ridiculous.
Right, because I THINK INDEPENDENTLY. I am suspecting you simply read dailykos or the New York times and accept everything as gospel truth because thats what you think everyone else does. Yes, in fact I can have a different opinion from some article on some website I sometimes read. Crazy, huh?
By the way I haven’t seen anything on that website that is overly anti immigrant. Defending the borders, caring about sovereignty and concerns like that are far different from hating Mexicans. The vast majority of articles I have seen even from far right sources have belonged to the former category.
No, I’m not! I’m saying, in that case that the issue you claimed was ridiculous was in fact a part of mainstream conversation. Not to endorse Lou Dobbs.
As this goes along you are getting more pathetic.
Delusion is a hard beast to tame.
And now I find out that you don’t know what a White Supremacist is either. Stromfront is a white supremacist website. Lew Rockwell and Jeff Rense are owners of websites, one a libertarian and Austrian economist and the other an alternative news disseminator and “conspiracy” theorist. Neither is a white supremacist.
You need to get your facts together.
Hilarious. Since I am not admitting I am a racist, I owe you $10, huh? I responded and you didn’t like what I said. Tough shit. You still have absolutely no case and you will certainly be sorry you chose to go down this route with me.
Vigorous and healthy debate is fine and desirable. Once you cross the line towards accusing someone of racism, things can get ugly.
You don’t really want to go there with me, I promise you.
Those that are reading carefully will not have any doubt that, although most disagree with me, nothing I have written or linked to would imply that I am a racist, bigoted or prejudiced in any way. It is simply not believable.
You logic is lacking and your case is weak. If you drop it we can begin to discuss serious issues again. We don’t need your baseless accusations around here.
Are these two because of Ron Paul’s belief that the government has secretly been stealing from itself to fund CIA black ops and periodically dumping gold on the market to keep the price of gold low for the sinster purpose of… um… sinster stuff?
Boy, if the CIA has been dumping gold to keep the price down, then the real price would have to bee $2000-3000/ounce. :eek: