Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:46 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2455 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 99  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 18892
Location: Somewhere in time
phydeaux3 wrote:
Caputh wrote:
Somehow, I have this terrible feeling of deja vu.



Image



I seriously miss my Disco days, man those were some good times... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5661
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3509
Location: Vancouver, BC
A rope leash wrote:
Bankers, who have heavy influence on governments, were the main force behind deregulation. It's part of the boom-bust cycle, whereupon certain individuals get fantastically rich at the expense of all others. So, deregulation was in fact more government, not less.


FACT.

But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the socialists here will EVER admit that.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Image

Image

Image


Can you not read? I said if you can bring NEW info (you know, info that hasn't been discredited and/or PROVEN wrong already) to the table, I'll debate you, douche-bag...

:roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4703
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
A rope leash wrote:
Bankers, who have heavy influence on governments, were the main force behind deregulation. It's part of the boom-bust cycle, whereupon certain individuals get fantastically rich at the expense of all others. So, deregulation was in fact more government, not less.


FACT.

But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the socialists here will EVER admit that.



Ah. So it would appear that Ron Paul himself is calling for more government, not less, as his answer to preventing certain individuals from getting fantastically rich at the expense of others would appear to be... deregulation.

"The Moral Hazard of Regulation

by Ron Paul

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it."

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-11-10/ron-p ... ngs-worse/

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5661
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Deregulation, as Ron paul supports it, only serves to promote cheap labor while stealing jobs and money from those who have worked their way up the ladder their entire lives.

I'm sure Honey Boo Boo will come up with some cocamamy reasoning and excuse, like trying to claim that Ron Paul wasn't the author of Ron Pauls racist newsletters, why collecting campaign contributions and doing photo-opts with the former head of the kkk and American Nazi party.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1776
As I understand it, the theory is that the free market becomes self-regulating due to the pressures of the market participants. That is, no one wants to get a bad reputation for poisoning the environment, selling bad loans, paying low wages, ect.

That might be a little on the hopeful side, and I do think that there should be some rules and regulations, but governments try to regulate industries they have no expertise in, and I think this is what Ron is referring to when he says more regulation will hurt.


Last edited by A rope leash on Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4703
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
A rope leash wrote:

That might be a little on the hopeful side...


IMO that is an understatement, Rope.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 18892
Location: Somewhere in time
Has anyone noticed the air problems in China and the amount of buildings that fell due to poor standards during their last big earthquack, hows that derugulation thing working there... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1776
The standards were not there in the first place, so it wasn't deregulation.

The problem with the whole regulation-deregulation issue is that the laws only apply in the country they were enacted in. If a company doesn't want to deal with regulations, they can move somewhere that has little or no regulation. So the, the nation that has regulations deregulates to get the companies to come back. It'a a slow downward spiral until there is no respect at all for ethics in general.

That's another problem with regulation. Companies can many times just pay the fines, and still make a profit. The law is just the law, and there is no "higher moral authority" unless the market participants see the benefit of it to the bottom line. That is, if the demand that is creating the profit insists upon ethical behavior, then ethical behavior will be encouraged and rewarded in the marketplace, because that's from whence the profit hails.

The law can be broken and paid off. Individuals in corporations might go to jail once in a while, but it's part of the cost of business. A higher ethical standard set by profit motives that require companies to be a clean and clear benefit to society is the free market ideal.























I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 18892
Location: Somewhere in time
Are you saying because the school caved in and killed our children we can then demand that they build better buildings...are you freaking out of your mind, the reason the US out paces every country on every aspect of design and technological breakthroughs is due to our standards, what are you thinking... :smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4703
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
I'm having a problem understanding the logic behind your POV. On the one hand, you write:
A rope leash wrote:
Bankers, who have heavy influence on governments, were the main force behind deregulation. It's part of the boom-bust cycle, whereupon certain individuals get fantastically rich at the expense of all others. So, deregulation was in fact more government, not less.


Which, as far as I understand it, seems to contain a criticism of bankers i.e. that they, as a "hidden" part of the government, "persuaded" the "open" part of the government to indulge in deregulation in order to make what you would term immoral gains.

On the other hand, you write this:


A rope leash wrote:
The problem with the whole regulation-deregulation issue is that the laws only apply in the country they were enacted in. If a company doesn't want to deal with regulations, they can move somewhere that has little or no regulation. So the, the nation that has regulations deregulates to get the companies to come back. It'a a slow downward spiral until there is no respect at all for ethics in general.

That's another problem with regulation. Companies can many times just pay the fines, and still make a profit. The law is just the law, and there is no "higher moral authority" unless the market participants see the benefit of it to the bottom line. That is, if the demand that is creating the profit insists upon ethical behavior, then ethical behavior will be encouraged and rewarded in the marketplace, because that's from whence the profit hails.

The law can be broken and paid off. Individuals in corporations might go to jail once in a while, but it's part of the cost of business. A higher ethical standard set by profit motives that require companies to be a clean and clear benefit to society is the free market ideal.


This would seem to indicate that you are against regulation of the same people you defined above as "individuals get[ting] fantastically rich at the expense of all others". Imagine if you took all regulation away - do you think that those people would suddenly start behaving ethically because of market pressure to behave ethically? Do you really have such confidence in the acumen of the general public to distinguish between ethical and unethical? Generally speaking, the unethical nature of individual corporations/banks would appear to be clear only long after the event - even to the vaguely informed like you and me.
In which time the corporations, banks etc. have made their profit, transferred the goodies to the Caymen Islands and changed the name of the corporation.

Sure, the law can be broken; (one of) the tasks of government it seems to me is to ensure a) that the laws are clearly defined and just and b) that they are enforced. It's partly on this basis that I judge how good a government is (and btw, I'm not convinced by the Obama administration in this respect).

Or have I misunderstood you completely?

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1776
Thanks for assuming that I know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure that I don't.

But the point I was trying to get across is that the corruption can be there whether or not there is regulation, so why have the regulation?

As far as those that get very wealthy, we can get rid of them, as well. End the Federal Reserve system, and return the power to issue currency back to the government.

Or something like that.

Whatever you want.

I'm not totally against regulation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3509
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
A rope leash wrote:
Bankers, who have heavy influence on governments, were the main force behind deregulation. It's part of the boom-bust cycle, whereupon certain individuals get fantastically rich at the expense of all others. So, deregulation was in fact more government, not less.


FACT.

But let's not kid ourselves into thinking the socialists here will EVER admit that.



Ah. So it would appear that Ron Paul himself is calling for more government, not less, as his answer to preventing certain individuals from getting fantastically rich at the expense of others would appear to be... deregulation.

"The Moral Hazard of Regulation

by Ron Paul

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it."

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-11-10/ron-p ... ngs-worse/


Based on A rope leash articulation of his last sentence quoted above, I don't think you understood what he meant. Though, I might not have either. We should all know that deregulation means less Government interference in the market. But in essence, when A rope leash stated, "So, deregulation was in fact more government, not less", I think he didn't literally mean that more Government = deregulation. I believe he meant that since that Corporatism greases Government with their lobbyists in order indemnify themselves and work together to make each other wealthier (which is possible in a Mixed Economy but not in a truly Capitalist Economy), that Government is still involved in some way regardless if there's a mitigated form of deregulation in place.

But maybe A rope leash can clear this up?

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Deregulation, as Ron paul supports it, only serves to promote cheap labor while stealing jobs and money from those who have worked their way up the ladder their entire lives.


RP does NOT support THAT form of deregulation.

Remember when I said you don't understand Ron Paul's platform from a hole in the wall? Well, that applies here too, genius.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
I'm sure Honey Boo Boo will come up with some cocamamy reasoning and excuse, like trying to claim that Ron Paul wasn't the author of Ron Pauls racist newsletters, why collecting campaign contributions and doing photo-opts with the former head of the kkk and American Nazi party.


1. RP wasn't the author of the particular newsletters that included racist material. I have already discredited, if not PROVEN this. Especially because he is NOT a bullshitter.

2. The campaign contribution in 2007 by the KKK was for the amount of $500. But when RP received it, he said he would use it for what he wanted it used for and not for what they wanted it used for.

3. Politicians do THOUSANDS of photo-ops during campaigns. RP didn't know them from a hole in the wall, nor did he know the vast majority of people he posed for photo-ops with.

WE'VE been over this COUNTLESS TIMES.

Admittedly, they're not the best group of supporters to be even relatively associated with. But liberty is liberty. And as far as I'm concerned, as long as you're of age and not harming anyone else, you should have the freedom to do whatever you want with your life. And in so many words, so says the US Constitution...

A rope leash wrote:
As I understand it, the theory is that the free market becomes self-regulating due to the pressures of the market participants. That is, no one wants to get a bad reputation for poisoning the environment, selling bad loans, paying low wages, ect.


And the extremely varied competition helps to self-enforce that to a large extent too.

A rope leash wrote:
That might be a little on the hopeful side, and I do think that there should be some rules and regulations, but governments try to regulate industries they have no expertise in, and I think this is what Ron is referring to when he says more regulation will hurt.


Agreed.

A free market economy (or an economy with free market principles) wouldn't be a utopian system. But it definitely would be better than the Mixed Economy we live in today - history PROVES this (Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s...and The Roaring '20s are probably the best examples). And of course, the Housing Bubble Crisis would have NEVER happened if we lived in a free market economy (or in an economy with free market principles). Ayn Rand was correct. She warned us about the evils of socialism and Government interference in...

Image

Btw, it's THE best selling novel of all time. And its sales spike whenever there's a recession/depression...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 2:54 am
Posts: 2899
Location: Sydney, OZ
get out and get a job, for fuck's sake. you're such a soft cock loser. join the real world and try to make a difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1776
That's not very helpful, Uncle B.

Ron Paul supporters are making a change in the real world. If you were in the real world you would know this.

As for the newsletters posted, I'm glad to see them. Sheets that could have been made up and printed by anyone. Remember how Dan Rather had the goods on GWB's reckless attitude during his military service? Those documents were better than these, and Dan lost his job over them.

All that is necessary for Ron Paul to do is to disavow the newsletters. A print-out with his name on it is evidence of little, and proof of nothing. The fact that SPACEBROTHER is flying them like flags is hilarious to me. If that document is a career-killer for Ron Paul, Obama's phony-ass birth certificate "reproduction" should be paraded around the Justice Department like the goddamn Nixon tapes.

Disco, Caputh...sorry I can't talk economics. Both of you have a better grasp on the subject than I do.

...but even I can see that the serious talk of a "trillion-dollar coin" is absolutely frightful amateurism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5661
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Honey Boo Boo wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Deregulation, as Ron paul supports it, only serves to promote cheap labor while stealing jobs and money from those who have worked their way up the ladder their entire lives.


RP does NOT support THAT form of deregulation.

You really don't follow his voting record too closely do you?

h.r.2310
h.r.13264
h.r.694
h.r.2962
h.r.1247
h.r.1789
h.r.1204

He did. He voted for it. He even introduced bills that were manufactured to do just that.

Next...





Honey Boo Boo wrote:
Remember when I said you don't understand Ron Paul's platform from a hole in the wall? Well, that applies here too, genius.

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
I'm sure Honey Boo Boo will come up with some cocamamy reasoning and excuse, like trying to claim that Ron Paul wasn't the author of Ron Pauls racist newsletters, why collecting campaign contributions and doing photo-opts with the former head of the kkk and American Nazi party.


1. RP wasn't the author of the particular newsletters that included racist material. I have already discredited, if not PROVEN this. Especially because he is NOT a bullshitter.

2. The campaign contribution in 2007 by the KKK was for the amount of $500. But when RP received it, he said he would use it for what he wanted it used for and not for what they wanted it used for.

3. Politicians do THOUSANDS of photo-ops during campaigns. RP didn't know them from a hole in the wall, nor did he know the vast majority of people he posed for photo-ops with.

WE'VE been over this COUNTLESS TIMES.

Admittedly, they're not the best group of supporters to be even relatively associated with. But liberty is liberty. And as far as I'm concerned, as long as you're of age and not harming anyone else, you should have the freedom to do whatever you want with your life. And in so many words, so says the US Constitution...


And YOU'VE been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. Get a clue Honey Boo Boo.

In addition to his direct ties to the former head of the KKK and American Nazi Movement, his public racist rants in his newsletters that he signed off on and the money trail that directly ties him to them, here is part of his anti-minority voting record...

h.r.3863
h.r.5842
h.r.4982


Next...


Honey Boo Boo wrote:
A free market economy (or an economy with free market principles) wouldn't be a utopian system. But it definitely would be better than the Mixed Economy we live in today - history PROVES this (Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s...and The Roaring '20s are probably the best examples). And of course, the Housing Bubble Crisis would have NEVER happened if we lived in a free market economy (or in an economy with free market principles). Ayn Rand was correct. She warned us about the evils of socialism and Government interference in...

Image

Btw, it's THE best selling novel of all time (note - it was? hahahaha funny how it didn't make any of the lists.). And its sales spike whenever there's a recession/depression...


Funny you should mention Ayn Rand -

bill kramer wrote:

Ayn Rand was a clever racist


If by clever you mean she was able to dupe racists into thinking their racism isn't racism. Ayn Rand was a racist in the same way Glenn Beck is a racist.

She knew she couldn't argue against the fundamental evil that is racism, so she attempted to cloak white supremacy in an economic philosophy and people like her have found it useful to do the same thing ever since.

She was the Glenn Beck/Karl Rove/Lee Atwater of her time, trying to use language to justify a white supremacist ideology. Her ideas are still popular with many, including her namesake Rand Paul.

For anyone confronted with an Ayn Rand sycophant, there's really no need to debate them on their adolescent beliefs. Simply direct these people to her essay "Racism".


excerpts from
"Racism"
by Ayn Rand


Pay particular attention to where she equates those in the Civil Rights movement to "barnyard animals".


Fitting. :roll:

This video also applies to Honey Boo Boo ------> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raEex1yAW7w



Disco Boy (I'm even using your actual current name on the forum) - consider yourself owned and fully debunked. :lol: smuck :roll:


Last edited by SPACEBROTHER on Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:35 am
Posts: 395
Wouldn't it be great if we could just go back to the gold standard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5661
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Even precious metals can be, and have historicaly been overvalued. The gold standard also stifles economic growth. Don't believe the hype.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3509
Location: Vancouver, BC
Uncle Bernie wrote:
get out and get a job, for fuck's sake. you're such a soft cock loser. join the real world and try to make a difference.


Translation:

I know Disco Boy is right...BUT I'm a socialist...so there's NO way in hell I'm going to admit I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'll just throw ad-hominems at Disco Boy instead.

A rope leash wrote:
That's not very helpful, Uncle B.

Ron Paul supporters are making a change in the real world. If you were in the real world you would know this.

As for the newsletters posted, I'm glad to see them. Sheets that could have been made up and printed by anyone. Remember how Dan Rather had the goods on GWB's reckless attitude during his military service? Those documents were better than these, and Dan lost his job over them.

All that is necessary for Ron Paul to do is to disavow the newsletters. A print-out with his name on it is evidence of little, and proof of nothing. The fact that SPACEBROTHER is flying them like flags is hilarious to me. If that document is a career-killer for Ron Paul, Obama's phony-ass birth certificate "reproduction" should be paraded around the Justice Department like the goddamn Nixon tapes.

Disco, Caputh...sorry I can't talk economics. Both of you have a better grasp on the subject than I do.

...but even I can see that the serious talk of a "trillion-dollar coin" is absolutely frightful amateurism.


Yep!

And flying them like flags is right.

Btw, Paul Krugman (a keynesian economist...who stated in 2002 that he ACTUALLY wanted a housing bubble to be created to replace the Nasdaq bubble) is obviously a moron and is the one who came up with the idea of a trillion dollar coin to help fix this economic mess. And what's even funnier, is that the Liberal-bias mainstream media always interview him for economic advice...

Image

... :roll:

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
RP does NOT support THAT form of deregulation.

You really don't follow his voting record too closely do you?

h.r.2310
h.r.13264
h.r.694
h.r.2962
h.r.1247
h.r.1789
h.r.1204

He did. He voted for it. He even introduced bills that were manufactured to do just that.

Next...


Complete BS.

WE'VE been over this COUNTLESS TIMES. Re-read the thread starting with page 3. Here's this link:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19887&start=50

tweedle-dumb wrote:
And YOU'VE been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. Get a clue Honey Boo Boo.


NO, I have NOT. But YOU certainly have. You don't understand RP's platform from a fucking hole in the wall and CONSTANTLY misinterpret it, you colossal moron.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
In addition to his direct ties to the former head of the KKK and American Nazi Movement, his public racist rants in his newsletters that he signed off on and the money trail that directly ties him to them, here is part of his anti-minority voting record...

h.r.3863
h.r.5842
h.r.4982


Next...


Complete BS.

WE'VE been over this COUNTLESS TIMES. Re-read the thread starting with page 3. Here's this link:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19887&start=50

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
A free market economy (or an economy with free market principles) wouldn't be a utopian system. But it definitely would be better than the Mixed Economy we live in today - history PROVES this (Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s...and The Roaring '20s are probably the best examples). And of course, the Housing Bubble Crisis would have NEVER happened if we lived in a free market economy (or in an economy with free market principles). Ayn Rand was correct. She warned us about the evils of socialism and Government interference in...

Image

Btw, it's THE best selling novel of all time (note - it was? hahahaha funny how it didn't make any of the lists.). And its sales spike whenever there's a recession/depression...


Funny you should mention Ayn Rand -

bill kramer wrote:

Ayn Rand was a clever racist


If by clever you mean she was able to dupe racists into thinking their racism isn't racism. Ayn Rand was a racist in the same way Glenn Beck is a racist.

She knew she couldn't argue against the fundamental evil that is racism, so she attempted to cloak white supremacy in an economic philosophy and people like her have found it useful to do the same thing ever since.

She was the Glenn Beck/Karl Rove/Lee Atwater of her time, trying to use language to justify a white supremacist ideology. Her ideas are still popular with many, including her namesake Rand Paul.

For anyone confronted with an Ayn Rand sycophant, there's really no need to debate them on their adolescent beliefs. Simply direct these people to her essay "Racism".


excerpts from
"Racism"
by Ayn Rand


Pay particular attention to where she equates those in the Civil Rights movement to "barnyard animals".


Fitting. :roll:

This video also applies to Honey Boo Boo ------> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raEex1yAW7w



Disco Boy (I'm even using your actual current name on the forum) - consider yourself owned and fully debunked. :lol: smuck :roll:


Consider yourself THE biggest fucking moron on this board.

Good. Fucking. Christ.

You're insane. :roll:


Though, you are right about ONE thing. And that is Atlas Shrugged is NOT the best selling novel of all time. However, it is ONE of the biggest selling novels of all time. To date, it has sold close to 9 million copies (with an average of about 500,000 copies annually since Obama has taken office)...


1 point for you!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Maybe next time, you'll earn a 2nd point? :wink:

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Even precious metals can be, and have historicaly been overvalued. The gold standard also stifles economic growth. Don't believe the hype.


How so? :roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Last edited by Disco Boy on Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5661
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Apparently you're not that familiar with Ayn Rand. You didn't even address her analogy to compare Civil Rights members to farm animals.

Better luck next time Honey Boo Boo.

Checkmate :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3509
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Apparently you're not that familiar with Ayn Rand. You didn't even address her analogy to compare Civil Rights members to farm animals.

Better luck next time Honey Boo Boo.

Checkmate :wink:


In your dreams, moron.

You'd better SPECIFICALLY point out the supposedly "racist" comments by Ayn Rand in ANY of her written texts, instead of just referring to it. :roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3509
Location: Vancouver, BC
Let's add to the list of tweedle-dumb's shortcomings, shall we?

Here are tweedle-dumb's ultra-ignorant AND stupid opinions regarding Ron Paul and his supporters, plus other extravagantly wonderful accessories (BOLDED for newness). This jabroni actually thinks/believes/feels:

~ ANYONE who wears a hoodie is a racist (when they're not)
~ I'm Isaac (when I'm not)
~ there's a significant difference between the Democrats & the Republicans (when there isn't)
~ there's no difference between Ron Paul's personal beliefs and his political platform (when there is)
~ Ron Paul is a racist (despite the OVERWHELMING evidence showing he isn't)
~ Ron Paul is a Republican (despite technically being a Libertarian)
~ the Ron Paul Revolution was a hoax (when it wasn't)
~ most of Ron Paul's supporters endorsed/joined the Romney/Ryan ticket because they hate black people (when most, if not all of them, didn't and don't)
~ Obama is some kind of saint...despite the FACT he's:
* flip-flopped and downright LIED about almost EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN '08 campaign promise
* owned and operated by the Military Industrial Complex (just like Romney)
* destroyed almost all of the 4th Amendment and part of the 1st Amendment
* has added $6 trillion to the debt - which is more than ANY other US President in history...and in only 3 1/2 years - which brings the total to $16 trillion
* doesn't know JACK SHIT ALL about economics or fiscal responsibility to save his life and hence is driving the US (and much of the world) into a double-dip recession that will make the current Housing Bubble Crisis look like a CAKE WALK
* wants stricter gun control laws, but is partially responsible for the killings of TENS OF THOUSANDS of innocent civilians through collateral damage throughout the Middle East and Afghanistan
~ figures by posting, re-posting and then re-posting again his nonsensical crap & BS claims about Ron Paul, that it provides leverage for his points (despite their baselessness)
~ Ayn Rand is a racist (despite NO compelling evidence showing this is true)

Yeah, I know. But don't laugh, folks...this fucker is serious...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5661
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
For starters Honey Boo Boo...

"Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements -- and a culture is not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men."

"The Civil Rights movement wasn't a group achievement. It was an achievement thanks to men like LBJ, a paternalistic achievement by Great Men, not the barnyard beasts"... according to Ayn Rand.


Her own words out of her own essay that she wrote. There a lot more where that came from. Want to see more of them Honey Boo Boo Shmucko Boy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5661
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
How about this Honey Boo Boo?

"the Negroes -- are now in the vanguard of the destruction of these rights." ~ Ayn Rand from her essay titled "Racism"





Don't worry Honey Boo Boo. Ayn Rand didn't have a surrogate writer, like what the Ron Paul wacko's try to claim that he did. There are a plethora of racist quotes by Ayn Rand, certainly enough that almost deserve it's own thread.

Checkmate


next...


Last edited by SPACEBROTHER on Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:35 am
Posts: 395
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Even precious metals can be, and have historicaly been overvalued. The gold standard also stifles economic growth. Don't believe the hype.

That may be true, but within its cycle it can be undervalued, just like real estate and the DOW. As far as economic growth, it is impossible for it to happen naturally. Fractional reserve banking will never last forever. But with precious metals, what you own is what it's worth, unlike fiat currency.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2455 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 99  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group