Ron Paul Slashes Newt Gingrich
- Thread starter PunchMyFace
- Start date
Earth has been both a fireball and a snowball in its history?
Glaciers many times over have covered areas such as New York City in thousands of feet of ice? Because its an inevitability that it will happen again, no matter how many sport utility vehicles are on the road.
Because all these climate change advocated seem to completely dismiss the law of large numbers, the scale of time, and refuse to compare their man made climate change evidence to documented climate changes caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions and solar cycles.
If a candidate is going to allow government to intrude on your life for the sake of controlling the climate, despite all the evidence that its unnecessary (or even possible), then what other excuses will they use to increase control over our lives?
Ron Paul is an old man, beta male who's too passive to thrive as POTUS. If you think he's legitimately suitable to be anything more than a speaking post for Libertarians then you've probably never spent any time inside The Beltway.
The guy has no understanding [to a point of SHEER IGNORANCE] of the importance of a central bank and honestly thinks that 18th Century ideologies should be held dogmatically in modern times... Without going into to much detail over currency swaps and the macroeconomic implications of switching the dollar to a gold standard all you need to understand is this:
By taking the dollar off of a gold stand the USD became the reserve currency of the world, not gold. The beauty of that is whenever other currencies are weak (the way the Euro has been the past few months) guess what institutional investors are buying? USD baby.
Then you start talking about his non-interventionalist views? If you honestly think that makes sense you need to get your head out of your books about "liberty" and ask yourself why is America a Superpower still? One reason is the reserve currency, the other reason is our military capabilities.
Point is not only does he have a rudimentary understanding of the economy [we're talking secondary school level] that would be detrimental to the system as a whole if his policies were ever in force. He would get eaten alive by Washington insiders and be as effective as the "super committee" was last week.
But, wait...
Here come the Ron Paul supporters with nothing higher than a freshmen level understand of economics and behavorial finance to flame away at me telling me why Ron Paul knows more about the economy than every other candidate.
P.S. I don't like Newt, I think when anyone becomes that blatantly Machiavellian they shouldn't be trusted. I wouldn't even trust him around my mother let alone the Oval Office.
EDIT: Something interesting about Congressman Paul's position on gold: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304881.html
The guy has no understanding [to a point of SHEER IGNORANCE] of the importance of a central bank and honestly thinks that 18th Century ideologies should be held dogmatically in modern times... Without going into to much detail over currency swaps and the macroeconomic implications of switching the dollar to a gold standard all you need to understand is this:
By taking the dollar off of a gold stand the USD became the reserve currency of the world, not gold. The beauty of that is whenever other currencies are weak (the way the Euro has been the past few months) guess what institutional investors are buying? USD baby.
Then you start talking about his non-interventionalist views? If you honestly think that makes sense you need to get your head out of your books about "liberty" and ask yourself why is America a Superpower still? One reason is the reserve currency, the other reason is our military capabilities.
Point is not only does he have a rudimentary understanding of the economy [we're talking secondary school level] that would be detrimental to the system as a whole if his policies were ever in force. He would get eaten alive by Washington insiders and be as effective as the "super committee" was last week.
But, wait...
Here come the Ron Paul supporters with nothing higher than a freshmen level understand of economics and behavorial finance to flame away at me telling me why Ron Paul knows more about the economy than every other candidate.
P.S. I don't like Newt, I think when anyone becomes that blatantly Machiavellian they shouldn't be trusted. I wouldn't even trust him around my mother let alone the Oval Office.
EDIT: Something interesting about Congressman Paul's position on gold: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304881.html
u no likey freedom?
fuck the dollar. its going down regardless, no reason to give our liberties in the process.
Serious question... Do you not see the obvious scam? The end result?
Yes and this central banking system has really helped us. I mean, your dollars are worth less, and the inflation that's coming is going to cripple our country.
There is NOTHING wrong with nonintervention. It's a policy we followed right up till WW1. It won't make us weaker - it will only make us stronger.
Do some more reading of some of these alternative view points. You'll be surprised what you find.
BTW - how's that super power bit working out for us? We are headed right towards what went down with U.S.S.R. (including the ground war in Afghanistan).
It's time to go back to what makes us strong as a nation - instead of the things that water us down to the level of the rest of the world.
do these ads ever run on tv or is it just the internet? if paul wants to win he has to persuade the older folks that can only be reached through TV since younger voters dont even go out to vote.
It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.
Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth's history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we've experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.
What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth's history. They're causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn't tell us that humans can't influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we're now causing.
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?
Russia and China have strong militaries compared to most of the world. Would you rather live in those two countries, or in places like Canada and Sweden?
They run on TV, but not nationally most of the time. They have been mainly focused on early caucus/primary locations like Iowa so far.
He runs TV ads. Right now he's targeting supervoters in early primary states with mail and some TV. Seems it's working too.
Good troll. Good.
You state that taking the dollar off the gold standard resulted in it becoming the reserve currency. I'm not contesting that. But reserve status is a tenuous position. To demonstrate, earlier this year, Geithner said the U.S. is open to China's proposal of a global reserve currency (he walked it back to cover his ass). Back in '07, Greenspan had the following to say:
At the very least, this should demonstrate (as countless examples have in the past) that central banks often fly blind.
Again, I'm not contesting that dismantling the gold standard (i.e. the Nixon Shock) led to the U.S. dollar becoming the global reserve. But wouldn't you agree that that status, along with the goodies it provides the U.S., is unsustainable? Many currencies have enjoyed that status in one form or another. If one day the dollar is removed as the reserve - as both Geithner and Greenspan have suggested - and our preeminence evaporates as a result, wouldn't it seem that breaking the gold standard was akin to a sugar high rather than a balanced diet?
Not looking for an internet argument. lol But you seem aggressive on this, and I'd like to better understand how much value you place on the reserve status. To me, it means as much as watching an unemployed guy go on a shopping spree with a new $100,000 credit card.
That is, everything looks great... for awhile.
Socialism always looks great in the beginning.
Then when there is nothing left to consume, it ends very badly.
Paul's economics are derived from Mises and Hayek, the latter of which was a Nobel Prize Winner. I'm not making an appeal to authority here, but Mises and Hayek are well enough respected I think that calling their life's work "sheer ignorance" puts the onus on you to prove why that is so.
I will gladly debate you from Paul's position on money if you feel you're ready to defend your assertions.
Paul doesn't want to switch the dollar over to a gold standard.
Paul wants to allow competition in currency.
Please argue facts, it is more helpful.
Perhaps you have never heard of Bretton Woods? The dollar became the reserve currency of the world when America was the world's storehouse of Gold post WWII.
When the US went off the gold standard, it was a default (the second major one) with the 70s featured the economic consequences of devaluation.
Institutional investors hold dollars because they are liquid, not because anyone thinks the currency is great. Dollars themselves earn a negative return over time due to central bank inflation.
The problem with people who try to talk about macro without first understanding micro is that they are operating from a series of assumptions rather than tested premises. Les petit Paul Krugmans du monde.
I wonder if you have ever traveled to non-super power countries.
The so-called American way of life isn't that exceptional compared to life in other western countries. The myth of national greatness and American excellence is strictly propaganda. It benefits elites. You don't see the benefits except a sense of tribal pride and belonging derived from a chance event of birth.
Ready to debate you any time. Step up.
See, I get accused of this, but I try like hell not to do this.
You're posting an opinion as fact. Demonstrate how it would be detrimental. If you can't prove it, don't say it. Certainly don't insist it is an obvious and irrefutable truth. Even really smart and respected people can't get away with that.
If what you are saying is true, and you understand why it is true, then articulate it. Otherwise, who cares?
No one can be effective in America politically. It is the end days of empire.
By your own argument, Paul has nothing to do with all of the dysfunction in Washington or the economy. That's a product of the system you're defending.
Let's say for argument's sake that someone else running knows more about economics.
1. Who is it?
2. How did you reach that conclusion?
3. Are they able to articulate an economic theory that is rationally consistent?
You're not being flamed as much as called out for the things you're saying. I will happily debate you. I am a college dropout who taught himself economics from discourse, ebooks and video lectures. Should be easy for you, since you claim to be very knowledgeable about economics.
What do you say? Let's do this.
Woohoo. A fun can of worms. I don't feel too strongly about Global Warming either way, but I feel that if you're going to take a position on it, it should be with the Scientists. The vast, vast majority of them agree. The closer their specialty is to energy or the environment, the more likely they are to agree.
Here's the ugly truth(easily illustrated in the posts I quoted): Whether or not climate change is happening, most people who don't "believe" in climate change don't do so not because of any actual evidence, but because it interferes with other deeply held positions. They are inherently biased and no evidence on the planet is going to convince them..because their objection isn't really even about whether or not climate change is happening. They are the logical equivalent of "new earth creationists".
These people - in my opinion - are unimaginative twats. They perceive the only "solutions" to global warming as things run contrary to lower level political beliefs - property rights, "drill drill drill", sovereignty, big government, etc. So as a result, they reflexively reject it without support. You only have to look as far as the political demographics(ones that I agree with for many issues) that are most adamantly against climate change to see this reality clear as day.
So my advice: Stop with the ignorant and fucktarded anti-intellectualism and find a solution that doesn't interfere with your beliefs. Even if scientists aren't perfect, they're a hell of a lot more accurate than the politicians and think tanks that lead the anti-climate change debate. It's fucking ridiculous.
Stop subsidizing oil entirely. Prices will go up. This creates a market incentive for a non-oil solution, which funnels money into "green" energy without a single extra tax or regulation. The higher prices go, the higher the the potential profit is and the higher the incentive to develop is. As development occurs technology gets better, eventually becoming more efficient than our current sources of power. Magic, amirite?
Just agree with facts. Don't bother agreeing with people.
Experts can be and frequently are wrong.
Authority (expertise) or popularity (vast majority) are not proof of anything.
I stated that Scientists can be wrong. Just that they are wrong less frequently than the alternative sources here. Statistically speaking, it is more likely that the Scientists are correct.
But that said, ultimately the "authority" I'm appealing to isn't the scientists themselves, it's the data from the experiment that they derived their opinions from. The data shows that it's happening. This data - initially called into question by some - has now been confirmed by a study funded by the Koch brothers to discredit it.
The other end of this is that it's pretty basic logic. Different chemicals and gasses respond differently to heat. Some disperse it, some reflect it, some absorb it. Acknowledging this for what it is (undebated scientific fact) it stands to reason that altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere will cause heat to react with it differently. The only question (one that was answered by the scientists) is whether or not we have produced enough of it to have an impact on that balance. When the total difference they're talking about is as low as a couple percent, the difference does't have to be huge. This is yet another thing that is not only logical, but is supported by the scientific data that's available on the subject.
If my opinion has to rest on something, I'd prefer it be logic and scientific data rather than conspiracy theories and anti-intellectualism.
Global Warming Petition Project
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
including 9,029 with PhDs
But that doesn't make their positions or opinions facts.
Just because you are right 80% of the time and I am right 50% of the time, doesn't mean you are always right.
Which specific facts derived from data are you referring to?
Is atmospheric composition the only way to affect temperature?
Logically, I know that the interplay of the environment is so complicated, that modeling any one portion of it, and attributing all effects to it is probably not a very honest or progressive way to perform science.
In other words, remove enough variables, and you can make data say anything.
Data?
Positivism doesn't travel well with logic. You may wish to rethink whether your position is logical or positivist.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ]32000 Scientists - YouTube[/ame]
Over the last 30 years of direct satellite observation of the Earth’s climate, many natural influences including orbital variations, solar and volcanic activity, and oceanic conditions like El Nino (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) have either had no effect or promoted cooling conditions.
Despite these natural oppositions, global temperatures have steadily risen throughout that time.
While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.
CO2 is not the only driver of climate
Click on "intermediate" for related data.
Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is negligible but I still believe the best way to combat it is to shoot some fucking hippies. They exhale the poison and they stink.
I agree with Paul 85.7342% of the time but he'll never be president and now is not the time to be ripping other not-Obamas apart. Newt sucks in a lot of ways but he sucks much less than that asshole Romney but then I'd vote for Satan himself if that's what it took to get that clueless commie fuck out of the WH.
I agree with Paul 85.7342% of the time but he'll never be president and now is not the time to be ripping other not-Obamas apart. Newt sucks in a lot of ways but he sucks much less than that asshole Romney but then I'd vote for Satan himself if that's what it took to get that clueless commie fuck out of the WH.