Reps.

The fucking do nothing Public Servant loses a drone ......... stupid fuck

Belly35;1011881 wrote:The fucking do nothing Public Servant loses a drone ......... stupid fuck

What?

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/08/143281791/gingrichs-path-from-flameout-to-d-c-entrepreneur

If you get a chance, I found this piece on Newt to be fascinating. I can't believe this guy is gaining ground as the republican candidate.

Commander of Awesome;1012128 wrote:http://www.npr.org/2011/12/08/143281791/gingrichs-path-from-flameout-to-d-c-entrepreneur

If you get a chance, I found this piece on Newt to be fascinating. I can't believe this guy is gaining ground as the republican candidate.

Oh no, when someone was out of Congress they made money in the private sector!

jmog;1012136 wrote:Oh no, when someone was out of Congress they made money in the private sector!

Glad to see you didn't listen, nor did you read the article. Must have been too long/difficult for you to understand and plus you just know everything already, amirite? Nice fail.

Commander of Awesome;1012155 wrote:Glad to see you didn't listen, nor did you read the article. Must have been too long/difficult for you to understand and plus you just know everything already, amirite? Nice fail.

Nice ad hominem attack, typically shows you lost the argument, but whatever.

Yes I did read it, and while Newt is not my 1st choice by any stretch of the imagination to put his background to such scrutiny when the current President got nearly none of that during the last election is laughable.

Making millions lobbying the government for government organizations is not the private sector. It is theft.

Commander of Awesome;1012128 wrote:http://www.npr.org/2011/12/08/143281791/gingrichs-path-from-flameout-to-d-c-entrepreneur

If you get a chance, I found this piece on Newt to be fascinating. I can't believe this guy is gaining ground as the republican candidate.

He's gaining ground because he's the best debater of the candidates and is for all practical purposes kicking everyone's tail in the numerous debates the party has had.

I Wear Pants;1011704 wrote:If it's Paul vs Obama I'm voting Paul unless he turns batshit crazy overnight at some point which seems unlikely.

What is your standard for "batshit crazy?" To me, believing in the macroeconomic equivalent of the phlogiston theory of fire because it is "self-evident" to the point where you will generate a multi-decade crusade is getting close.

The print and tax and spend Keynesian economic model we have employed over the last 100 years can give the illusion of prosperity until too much damage is done. After that point all they can do is print more and more trying to reflate the bubble, but the hole in it gets bigger and bigger.

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion.

The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

- Ludwig Von Mises


It seems to me that trying to blow up a broken balloon is a lot more "batshit crazy" than going back to the ideas that created the Industrial Revolution and the middle class.

jmog;1012208 wrote:
Yes I did read it, and while Newt is not my 1st choice by any stretch of the imagination to put his background to such scrutiny when the current President got nearly none of that during the last election is laughable.

lol, so I take it you're one of the idiots that believe Obama is a muslim? His background including the church he went to was heavily scrutinized. Not sure how you can say it wasn't. Bottom line is that Newt lacks moral character, strong work ethic, and self discipline. All 3 are very important attributes that a president needs IMO. Newt deserves everything criticism he receives on his background. You don't think its earned?

Cleveland Buck;1012270 wrote:The print and tax and spend Keynesian economic model we have employed over the last 100 years can give the illusion of prosperity until too much damage is done. After that point all they can do is print more and more trying to reflate the bubble, but the hole in it gets bigger and bigger.

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion.

The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

- Ludwig Von Mises


It seems to me that trying to blow up a broken balloon is a lot more "batshit crazy" than going back to the ideas that created the Industrial Revolution and the middle class.

All combustible resources contain phlogiston, a substance without colour, odor, taste or mass, and is liberated in burning. Once burned, the "dephlogisticated" substance is in its true form.

^See, I can write things that have never been true and have no evidence to support them too!

Mises and Hayek's ideas are still around for political reasons rather than economic ones. Nobody would be talking about Hayek or Mises' business cycle ideas if they didn't appear to give credence to preconceived notions against big government. It doesn't matter if it's true as long as it can be used to make government smaller.

The fact that Ron Paul is able to say on live television that the reason for the financial crisis was a credit expansion by the federal reserve as if it's undoubtedly true and these supposedly "liberal elite" moderators can't even stop the debate and say that there is no evidence that such a proposition is even remotely close to true is a travesty.

Thomas Jefferson, (whom you once wrote that you missed him as our president) wrote that whenever people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government. What are we to do when a primary presidential candidate has unshakable beliefs that are not supported by empirical justification? Jefferson was of course influenced by the great empiricists like Locke, Hobbes and Boyle (who proved the phlogiston theory of fire wrong of course) and believed whole heartedly that being well informed comes from evidence and I'm doubtful he would support a candidate who's beliefs have about as much evidence for them as Unicorns.

BoatShoes;1012385 wrote:All combustible resources contain phlogiston, a substance without colour, odor, taste or mass, and is liberated in burning. Once burned, the "dephlogisticated" substance is in its true form.

^See, I can write things that have never been true and have no evidence to support them too!

Mises and Hayek's ideas are still around for political reasons rather than economic ones. Nobody would be talking about Hayek or Mises' business cycle ideas if they didn't appear to give credence to preconceived notions against big government. It doesn't matter if it's true as long as it can be used to make government smaller.

The fact that Ron Paul is able to say on live television that the reason for the financial crisis was a credit expansion by the federal reserve as if it's undoubtedly true and these supposedly "liberal elite" moderators can't even stop the debate and say that there is no evidence that such a proposition is even remotely close to true is a travesty.

Thomas Jefferson, (whom you once wrote that you missed him as our president) wrote that whenever people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government. What are we to do when a primary presidential candidate has unshakable beliefs that are not supported by empirical justification? Jefferson was of course influenced by the great empiricists like Locke, Hobbes and Boyle (who proved the phlogiston theory of fire wrong of course) and believed whole heartedly that being well informed comes from evidence and I'm doubtful he would support a candidate who's beliefs have about as much evidence for them as Unicorns.

There is plenty of "empirical evidence" for the Austrian business cycle. Read America's Great Depression by Rothbard. You can download it free at mises.org. Just because your professors say there is no evidence for it doesn't mean that is true. I don't think you want to see the evidence though, because it shoots down your whole ideology that big government knows best.

Commander of Awesome;1012298 wrote:lol, so I take it you're one of the idiots that believe Obama is a muslim? His background including the church he went to was heavily scrutinized. Not sure how you can say it wasn't. Bottom line is that Newt lacks moral character, strong work ethic, and self discipline. All 3 are very important attributes that a president needs IMO. Newt deserves everything criticism he receives on his background. You don't think its earned?

"Heavily" scrutinized? Snort. :rolleyes:

BoatShoes;1012385 wrote:All combustible resources contain phlogiston, a substance without colour, odor, taste or mass, and is liberated in burning. Once burned, the "dephlogisticated" substance is in its true form.

^See, I can write things that have never been true and have no evidence to support them too!

You are right, you can, and do so repeatedly on these forums .

Commander of Awesome;1012298 wrote:lol, so I take it you're one of the idiots that believe Obama is a muslim? His background including the church he went to was heavily scrutinized. Not sure how you can say it wasn't. Bottom line is that Newt lacks moral character, strong work ethic, and self discipline. All 3 are very important attributes that a president needs IMO. Newt deserves everything criticism he receives on his background. You don't think its earned?

Find a quote where I have ever said Obama is a Muslim, until then you just look retarded.

If you believe Obama faced the same scrutiny for his background by the main stream media as the current republicans are, then you are about as biased as possible.

Cleveland Buck;1012434 wrote:There is plenty of "empirical evidence" for the Austrian business cycle. Read America's Great Depression by Rothbard. You can download it free at mises.org. Just because your professors say there is no evidence for it doesn't mean that is true. I don't think you want to see the evidence though, because it shoots down your whole ideology that big government knows best.

See I'm not the same as you. I don't believe that "big government knows best." If we were at full employment and the economy was growing you wouldn't see me saying that we should be using expansionary fiscal or monetary policy.

I have read that book and his "history of money and banking in the united States" but I've also read "A Monetary History of the United States" by Friedman-Schwartz and find their reasoning more persuasive than Murray Rothbards. Rothbard believes the FED was right to be hands off and let the money supply contract...arguing incoherently that at the same time they didn't really let the money supply contract and yet Friedman-Schwartz reveal that it was caused by a fall in the money supply. Even Hayek and Mises did not agree with Rothbard's assertions.

Rothbard thought that the Federal Reserve engaged in inflationary policy which Friedman reveals it did not and Hayek agreed with Milton Friedman

"I agree with Milton Friedman that once the Crash had occurred, the Federal Reserve System pursued a silly deflationary policy. I am not only against inflation but I am also against deflation. So, once again, a badly programmed monetary policy prolonged the depression."

And that's just it. Friedman was sufficiently a libertarian and I agree with his view on what caused the great depression. Murray Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist who spent half the time excoriating great libertarian minds like Friedman and Robert Nozick. The Austrian schools leaders don't even have a coherent view on whether the Fed engaged in inflationary or deflationary monetary policy.

Cus that's just it. It's not really about economics. It's a thinly veiled ruse that is really used to justify the notion that government is always and forever wrong and bad.

What I find amazing about Newt's rise is that it is largely based on the cult of personality type reasons that Conservatives claim Obama was elected for. Because he's a good debater, etc. they will look past his lack of executive experience, his clear lack of embodying the values conservatives hold dear, his open and unequivocal support of bills and policies that conservatives now call "socialist," etc.

Although I've made it clear I disagree with him, the clear choice for people calling themselves conservative is Ron Paul.

BoatShoes;1012540 wrote:What I find amazing about Newt's rise is that it is largely based on the cult of personality type reasons that Conservatives claim Obama was elected for. Because he's a good debater, etc. they will look past his lack of executive experience, his clear lack of embodying the values conservatives hold dear, his open and unequivocal support of bills and policies that conservatives now call "socialist," etc.

Although I've made it clear I disagree with him, the clear choice for people calling themselves conservative is Ron Paul.

Conservatives do point to Obama, and it's a pretty clear case. But both sides do it. Sometimes the reason people vote are pretty disgusting. And politicians play the game because it works for them.

Agree on the last sentence.

BoatShoes;1012236 wrote:What is your standard for "batshit crazy?" To me, believing in the macroeconomic equivalent of the phlogiston theory of fire because it is "self-evident" to the point where you will generate a multi-decade crusade is getting close.

Please make this more stupid so I can understand it.

BoatShoes;1012540 wrote:What I find amazing about Newt's rise is that it is largely based on the cult of personality type reasons that Conservatives claim Obama was elected for. Because he's a good debater, etc. they will look past his lack of executive experience, his clear lack of embodying the values conservatives hold dear, his open and unequivocal support of bills and policies that conservatives now call "socialist," etc.

Although I've made it clear I disagree with him, the clear choice for people calling themselves conservative is Ron Paul.

Welcome to 1989. :rolleyes:

Newt would and should lose a general election.

I Wear Pants;1012709 wrote:Newt would and should lose a general election.

And he will be assisted in losing as you and the other Ronulans pull the good doctor's lever in November, 2012. Congrats for re-electing the worst President of all time.