Quote :

"I'll allow that these technologies would be delayed. But that says not a damn thing about quality of life improvements regarding those technologies. For all we know the money spent by the government on those technologies was done inefficiently and the private market would have found them at the efficiently optimal time."

You're basically saying that you were wrong all along, and you're shifting your goal post to saying "sometimes it's better if we allow private industry to retard the advancement of technology"

LOL

Very nice... It's strange how on some days the things you say are perfectly cogent, then on others, it's completely illogical. I get that some people have a hard time admitting when they're wrong, but you are taking this WAY too far by trying to convince yourself to believe something completely idiotic.

Quote :

"Hilarious, yet another reason to not have bureaucrats squandering taxpayer dollars on such endeavors. "

I don't think your understand what "squander" means, and you STILL clearly don't get what the "fundamental" part of "fundamental research" means either.

12/26/2011 2:21:06 AM

I've had some reasonable conversations with Republicans who were opening up to Paul, using this line of thought:

Every single candidate whose last name is not Paul will, after 4 years, leave a bigger government that spends more than it does now.

If you think debt and spending levels need to go down, you need to vote for Paul.

If you think debt and spending levels don't need to go down or aren't that important, you can pick whether that spending has a Republican face or Obama's face.

Many on the right have claimed that they see the national debt, deficit, and crazy spending as the biggest threats to our national security. If they mean that, Paul is the only game in town.

I don't care if you think he's a racist, a pacifist, a conspiracy theorist, or just generally a crack-pot (literally or figuratively), he's the only one on the right side of fiscal sanity vs. fiscal insanity. The only hail-mary hope for a balanced budget and lower spending is Ron Paul holding a veto pen.

Some Republicans may think that's the nuclear option, and would wipe out too many other things that are important to them. But if their rhetoric about spending is anything other than rhetoric, the nuclear option is all that is left.

Because not even the re-animated corpse of Ronald Reagan would cut spending. He didn't in his first two terms, and he wouldn't in a third. Do they think Romney or Gingrich is willing to do what Reagan wouldn't? Paul is. They need to put up and get on the Ron Paul train or forever shut up about cutting spending.

12/26/2011 3:39:00 AM

Quote :

"You're basically saying that you were wrong all along"

No, you clearly don't understand what you read. I'm allowing that there would be delays to 'best case' your argument to make the point that even in the best case you still can't assign quality of life improvements on government vs private spending. Thats your best case. In the worst case there were delays BECAUSE of government spending. The bottom line is, despite your continued postings without any sort of reasoning behind it, we don't know one way or the other how things would have been different.

Quote :

"you STILL clearly don't get what the "fundamental" part of "fundamental research" means either"

No, I clearly get everything you're saying. And by everything I mean it's about 10 posts of:

"The government spending on investment is good because...well, every argument i make about it gets shot down and I don't have logical rebuttals".

I asked you which technologies wouldn't have been invented, you said you'd guess they'd be delayed but of course you have no idea.

You said if the government didn't spend on research we'd be some backwards 3rd world nation which was such a stupidly absurd argument that I didn't bother addressing it.

Everything you post is just garden variety liberal talking points with no meat to your arguments. Then you're going to have the audacity to say I don't make logical arguments? L fucking O fucking L.

[Edited on December 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .]

12/26/2011 10:48:54 AM

Ron Paul, the racist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA2ehvB-_Ac

12/27/2011 10:21:14 AM

Ron Paul, champion of state's rights, defender of personal freedoms, except .......

http://www.personhoodusa.com/press-release/ron-paul-signs-personhood-pledge-personhood-usa-questions-commitment

Quote :

""The pledge requires that the candidates “stand…with the Republican Party platform in affirming that [they] “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”"

12/27/2011 11:37:23 AM

whats your point wee-man?

12/27/2011 11:51:43 AM

Not being killed sounds like a pretty good personal freedom to me.

12/27/2011 11:57:02 AM

Quote :

"Indeed, says Donna Paul, when Ron Paul first set up shop in 1968, he was the only obstetrician in town. "So he went for like three years without ever leaving Lake Jackson; 24-7," she says. "He had no [other doctor] to sign out to." Eventually Paul got so busy he took on a partner. Jack Pruett, who was then fresh out of his obstetrics/gynecology residency, says when he first sat down in Paul's office, he was told there were two stipulations he would have to agree to before joining the practice. "He said, 'No. 1 is we will not perform any abortions.' And I said, 'That's fine; I can live with that. What's No. 2?' " he remembers. No. 2, says Pruett, was that the practice would not participate in any federal health programs, which meant, as Paul described it, "that we will see all Medicare and Medicaid patients free of charge, and they will be treated just like all of our other patients, but we're not going to charge them and accept federal funds." Still in debt from his medical training, Pruett said that was a little harder for him to swallow. "But I liked Ron, so I decided that I would agree to that, too. And in all those 20 years, we never accepted one penny of federal money. We saw all those patients for free, delivered their babies free, did their surgeries free; whatever they needed we did, and we didn't charge them." Of course, Lake Jackson being a small town, occasionally Paul would get paid in other ways. "Some of the people would bring chickens, or they would bring vegetables from their garden if they couldn't afford to pay for their obstetrical fee," recalls Richard Hardoin, a pediatrician who used to care for the babies Paul delivered. In the mid-1970s, Paul decided to run for Congress to fill an unexpected vacancy — and won. But he didn't give up his practice, at least not at first. "Back in those years Congress didn't work on Friday, and so every Friday he would fly back to Lake Jackson," says Pruett, "and he would help me then on Friday and Saturday, and oftentimes take call on Sunday, and oftentimes catch the red-eye back to Washington on Monday. And I guess he did that every single week for nine years.""

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 12:11 PM. Reason : thanks NPR]

12/27/2011 12:08:46 PM

Quote :

"A former Ron Paul staffer named Eric Dondero, who worked closely with the Texas congressman and presidential candidate over the course of 15 years, has issued a statement in which he both defends his old boss from charges of racism and anti-Semitism and reveals damning new details about about the "sheer lunacy of [Paul's] foreign policy views". First, Dondero claims that his old boss is such an extreme isolationist that "he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that 'saving the Jews,' was absolutely none of our business." Second, Dondero writes that that Paul himself is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration. And lastly, Dondero reveals that Paul wanted to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 but lacked the courage of his convictions to do so: There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty: Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ex-aide-says-ron-paul-911-truther-isolationist-who-thinks-us-shouldnt-have-fought-hitler_614883.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

i still like Paul more than any other present candidate, and if he somehow won the nomination and had Kucinich as his running mate, i'd actually vote

12/27/2011 12:27:37 PM

Same guy was saying the same things during the 2008 campaign. If you think that our current military involvement is unsustainable and actually a net negative for the people of the United States, he thinks you're a nut. What's peculiar to me is that this guy, and other semi-hawks, find Gary Johnson more palatable. The thing is, Gary Johnson is saying the same thing - end the wars and bring the troops home.

If you believe what Ron Paul is saying on fiscal policy, you're eventually going to have to come around on foreign policy. We're completely broke. A really, really bad financial crisis is on the horizon. These wars will end - if not deliberately, then out of necessity. We will not succeed in "crushing evil" across the globe for more than another generation.

No hawks want to talk about the economy, though, because it totally undermines their position. We can't operate off of the "deficits don't matter" platform anymore. They do matter, and they are killing us, and if we don't deal with it in a serious way soon, your standard of living is going to go down, and we will not even be able to continue developing our military at the same rate as China or Russia.

[Edited on December 27, 2011 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

12/27/2011 4:05:03 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70890.html

newt is pissed , he gas started ranting somewhat incoherently at paul.

ha

^ deficits do matter but they aren't killing us and its not even the core issue fAcing the country. The deficit is lower on the list beneath unemployment and education and accountAbility

[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 5:06 AM. Reason : ]

12/28/2011 5:02:36 AM

Quote :

"The campaign took place during the period that, according to Kirchick, "Ron Paul" was making derogatory, anti-gay remarks in "his" newsletters. As it happens, I was running as an openly-gay candidate for the Virginia General Assembly. (It was my second run for that office after a previous attempt in a special election in January 1991. The same district currently has an openly-gay Democrat representing it in Richmond.) During that 1993 campaign, Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. (We sent the letter to both groups.) Dr. Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times stylebook would have it) an "avowed homosexual" for public office."

http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/2008/01/question-was-answered-six-years-ago.html

Also, here's one for all you Krugman disciples:



[Edited on December 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

12/28/2011 11:43:51 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=share

12/29/2011 4:29:49 AM

man, FoxNews is bringin on the hate today. They had Dick Morris blasting away at Paul today on Fox&Friends (giggle). he said, in no particular order, that Paul was blaming America for 9/11, that he was the "most liberal politician in washington", that he was a complete nutbag, and that a vote for Paul was really a vote for Obama. make it a little more obvious, guys

12/29/2011 8:47:21 AM

destroyer do you really think that Krugman or any economist would in earnest advocate an unsustainable series of bubbles in succession until the end of time?

you don't think it's a lil possible that, like a sports commentator speculating on a coach's options, Krugman might have been extrapolating Greenspan's modus operandi in that statement?

Obviously you don't read Krugman beyond soundbytes like that, or else you'd know how that statement, taken in earnest, conflicts with literally everything else he writes about. You really think a Keynesian would advocate a policy that focuses on bouncing from bubble to bubble, when the entire fucking point of Keynesian economics is to mitigate the swings of the business cycle?

12/29/2011 8:54:43 AM

I mean seriously point me to any source that backs up this theory of yours that this statement typifies Keynesian economics at all. I'm seriously stumped as to what your reasoning could be for posting that aside from "Hey an image that portrays Krugman negatively, this must be true and not deceptively pruned of context!"

Here, try these

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/and-i-was-on-the-grassy-knoll-too/

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/defending_what.html

I guess you wouldn't be interested though, because acknowledging the context would mean acknowledging that Krugman correctly predicted the Fed's actions in advance based on analysis, a year before Paul's remark after it had been set in motion.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 9:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/29/2011 9:01:36 AM

do you really have to double post every fucking time you say anything? there's a reason there's an "edit post" button"

Quote :

"You really think a Keynesian would advocate a policy that focuses on bouncing from bubble to bubble, when the entire fucking point of Keynesian economics is to mitigate the swings of the business cycle?"

given how screwed up Keynesians are, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. If the entire point of Keynesian economics is to mitigate the swings of the business cycle, then it's pretty fucked up, because their economics specifically lead to the worsening of the business cycle

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 9:04:28 AM

There's a reason for "logout" buttons and it's you

12/29/2011 9:07:06 AM

then click it and do us all a favour

12/29/2011 9:07:32 AM

I want you to click it, then put a gun in your mouth and click the trigger.

12/29/2011 9:08:39 AM

suspend

12/29/2011 9:38:12 AM

click the trigger? come on, man, at least get your shit skr8t

12/29/2011 9:44:33 AM

Paul just gets that dude's panties all bunched up.

12/29/2011 9:48:29 AM

Every time I read something Krugman wrote a decade ago I'm always reminded of how much of a stooge this guy is.

12/29/2011 10:19:53 AM

fuck krugman, he's nothing but a partisan piece of shit

12/29/2011 10:35:01 AM

there has to be some stat somewhere that proves 50% of internet forum posters would vote for ron paul. you get online and that's all you read. yet in real world you rarely hear it

To me the only explanation is that on surface level his ideas sound great but you would never try to picture them in a real world setting

and thats why he rarely if ever breaks single digit % support in any given place. (only on GOP side too)

12/29/2011 10:37:03 AM

Can you get the fuck out of The Soap Box? You are single-handedly lowering the IQ average of the entire section by 100.

12/29/2011 10:38:45 AM

yep. leading in Iowa in some polls is "barely breaking single digits." The reason he was "barely breaking single digits" is because the media ignored him and pretended he wasn't there. Hell, the only time the media bothers to mention him is when they say he doesn't matter

12/29/2011 10:41:18 AM

^^lol, my point is now QED. lol. i'd like to meet an actual ron paul supporter in real life. too bad they are around 5 in 1000 people and it's hard to find them.

Quote :

"rarely if ever"

^

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 10:43:58 AM

he's been CONSISTENTLY polling above the other candidates in Iowa, genius. That's hardly "rarely if ever"

12/29/2011 10:50:04 AM

consistently. for the past 2 weeks (of 12 years running as a candidate), in iowa (0.24% of the united states), with a statistical tie lead (1-2% points of 100), in 1 or 2 polls (of dozens of total polls)


[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 11:03:38 AM

locked up? keep moving the goalposts, dude. you asked why he doesn't poll well right now. I point out that he does. you then say "well, he didn't used to". I point out that the media has slammed him every chance they get and say he's not a "real candidate." What the fuck do you expect to happen with that kind of negative portrayal at every turn? The reason he is picking up now is because they've been forced to let him speak, and when he speaks, he makes sense, and no amount of smearing will damage that. I've answered your question, and all you can continue to do is hate. Why don't you stop and think about why people don't like having bombs dropped on their heads and wonder if maybe not dropping bombs on them for 20+ years might change their opinion of us

12/29/2011 11:07:13 AM

like i said. he's got good ideas on paper.

didn't mean to move the goalposts. i know he doesn't have it locked up. but like you say he's polling near a statistical tie at the top. who knows what will happen.

about your bombs rant:
i mean we are all (as human beings) opposed to dropping bombs and violence. there just comes a point where you just can't put up with shit like organized murdering and it having a direct effect on your communities at home and abroad. and if a bomb is needed to stop it, then i guess as a last resort we use it. i'm glad obama, clinton, bush all agreed on those core issues.

and this:

Quote :

" I've answered your question, and all you can continue to do is hate. "

where did i hate the guy again? make sure not to specifically point out 1 single instance of that.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 11:14:45 AM

Quote :

"there just comes a point where you just can't put up with shit like organized murdering"

then maybe we shouldn't have overthrown Iran's elected leader back in the 70s to put in our own puppet who was then overthrown to put this current regime in power. The reason these idiots over there have the support of their people is because the leaders have the common hatred of the US to use to bolster their regimes. And we keep dropping bombs on them, furthering and increasing that hatred. Your means only further what you wish to stop! if Iran wants to murder its citizens, by god, let them do it; it will make the populace revolt against their leadership that much faster!

Quote :

"and if a bomb is needed to stop it, then i guess as a last resort we use it."

the problem is that we haven't used bombs as a last resort. we've used them as a first and only resort. and that's why the people over there hate us so much

12/29/2011 11:21:16 AM

Quote :

"destroyer do you really think that Krugman or any economist would in earnest advocate an unsustainable series of bubbles in succession until the end of time?"

Of course not, bro! Just because he's constantly pushing bubbles doesn't mean he actually wants them to occur, right!??

Quote :

"So the direct economic impact of the (911)attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects. First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. Paul Krugman, 2001"

Quote :

"However, let's give credit where credit is due: Mr. Greenspan has cut rates since then. And while some of us may have been urging him to move even faster, the Fed's four interest-rate cuts since the slowdown became apparent represent an unusually aggressive response by historical standards. It's still not clear that Mr. Greenspan has caught up with the curve — let's have at least one more rate cut, please — but the interest-rate cuts do, cross your fingers, seem to be having an effect. Paul Krugman, 2001"

Quote :

"During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates? Paul Krugman, 2001"

Quote :

"Consumers, who already have low savings and high debt, probably can’t contribute much. But housing, which is highly sensitive to interest rates, could help lead a recovery…. But there has been a peculiar disconnect between Fed policy and the financial variables that affect housing and trade. Housing demand depends on long-term rather than short-term interest rates — and though the Fed has cut short rates from 6.5 to 3.75 percent since the beginning of the year, the 10-year rate is slightly higher than it was on Jan. 1…. Sooner or later, of course, investors will realize that 2001 isn’t 1998. When they do, mortgage rates and the dollar will come way down, and the conditions for a recovery led by housing and exports will be in place. Paul Krugman, 2001"

Quote :

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Paul Krugman, 2002"

Quote :

"Oh, and on a nonpolitical note: even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all. Paul Krugman, 2004"

Quote :

"As Mr. McCulley predicted, interest rate cuts led to soaring home prices, which led in turn not just to a construction boom but to high consumer spending, because homeowners used mortgage refinancing to go deeper into debt. All of this created jobs to make up for those lost when the stock bubble burst. Now the question is what can replace the housing bubble.Paul Krugman, 2005"

Quote :

"To be honest, a new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later.This is a really good time for a bubble… There was a headline in a satirical newspaper in the US last summer that said: "The nation demands a new bubble to invest in" And that’s pretty much right. Paul Krugman, 2009"

Quote :

"If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat, and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. Paul Krugman, 2011"

GTFO clown

Quote :

"Obviously you don't read Krugman beyond soundbytes like that, or else you'd know how that statement, taken in earnest, conflicts with literally everything else he writes about. You really think a Keynesian would advocate a policy that focuses on bouncing from bubble to bubble, when the entire fucking point of Keynesian economics is to mitigate the swings of the business cycle?"

With Keynesian economics, there is no exit strategy. It literally is bubble economics. Blow up a bubble, get the crash, and then avoid the "liquidity trap" with another bubble.

Keynesian economics will be debunked in the next two decades. Years from now, it will be completely absurd to everyone that Keynesian economics was ever credible, much less pushed by allegedly "top-tier" economists. It shouldn't even be called economics. It's a religion based on never acknowledging that the boom/bust cycle is a predictable consequence of bad monetary policy and never allowing the liquidation of debt.

Quote :

"i mean we are all (as human beings) opposed to dropping bombs and violence."

You have no idea. There are people that would wipe out vast populations if the alternative was living a reasonable, middle-class lifestyle. These war profiteers are parasites and they must be wiped out if we're to progress for much longer.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 11:49:12 AM

Why is Krugman so hung up on housing related economics?

12/29/2011 11:51:47 AM

Probably because he's a puppet.

Michele Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chairman Kent Sorenson endorses Ron Paul

Quote :

"“I believe we’re at a turning point in this campaign,” Sorenson said during his surprise announcement this evening at a Ron Paul rally in Des Moines. “… I thought it was my duty to come to his aid, just like he came to my aid during my Senate race, which was a very nasty race.”"

Quote :

"“The fact of the matter is that I believe we have a clear, top-tier race between Romney and Ron Paul,” said Sorenson, who also noted he believed the “Republican establishment” was unfairly biased against the congressman’s bid for office."

Kelly Clarkson: I love Ron Paul

https://twitter.com/#!/kelly_clarkson/status/152259502161399808

12/29/2011 12:29:26 PM

i enjoyed the claim that Paul's campaign paid the guy to defect.

12/29/2011 12:33:34 PM

Quote :

" And we keep dropping bombs on them"

who's dropping bombs on iran? even if you do claim that, we are detonating extremely specific pieces and not just dropping bombs at random on the populace out of hate as your claim of 'lobbing bombs' seems to say.

Quote :

" if Iran wants to murder its citizens, by god, let them do it"

i just disagree with you fundamentally then. i would rather 'drop a bomb' on 1000 men in charge of a nation then let 10 million men/women/children suffer under their rule. that's just me and roughly 85% of the human populaces way of thinking as well


ron paul agrees with you though. several people in this thread do in fact. the problem is media. their media spins it into an anti american thing. once the real truth hits the streets with facebook, social media, blogs, (the real deal) they'll get the picture

the real picture: nobody in america is anti iranian. it's pure fiction. find me one person that truly hates that nation or its people. you can't. you probably can't even find a ranting screaming redneck who would agree with you. we hate organized murder and the way they treat their women and other groups.... that's the only thing you'll find we all have in common on this subject.

keep trying to paint the picture like obama, the gop, and non-ron paul supporters are a bunch of warmongers. you're just wasting your breath



[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 1:33 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 1:30:44 PM

Guys like you advocate spending trillions to save foreign people from evil dictators and turn right around and advocate against saving local people from hunger and poor living conditions.

You're a real first class fuck up.

12/29/2011 1:50:05 PM

They are warmongers. We've been sanctioning Iran since 1979. Do you think this improves the lives of Iranians?

Many Americans do hate Iran, and they have no idea why. They think Iranians are Arabic, not even understanding that they're an entirely separate people. Of course, they don't admit that they hate them...but when you're saying that we should sanction a country and bomb them when they attempt to generate energy for themselves, that's about as hateful as it gets.

12/29/2011 1:51:08 PM

Quote :

"who's dropping bombs on iran?"

no one, yet. but we are dropping bombs on muslims the world over. and then we wonder why muslims hate us.

Quote :

" even if you do claim that, we are detonating extremely specific pieces and not just dropping bombs at random on the populace out of hate as your claim of 'lobbing bombs' seems to say."

and you know what muslims the world over still see? us dropping bombs on muslims.

Quote :

"i would rather 'drop a bomb' on 1000 men in charge of a nation then let 10 million men/women/children suffer under their rule."

because you are a warmongering moron who thinks that this would actually accomplish anything meaningful other than enraging more muslims the world over and making more people hate us. It's not our fucking job to go around telling people how to live or how to treat their people.

Quote :

"the real picture: nobody in america is anti iranian."

bullshit, partially. there are PLENTY of people in america who hate muslims, and Iran is full of them.

12/29/2011 1:59:47 PM

can't edit my post due to stupid filters at work. so imma double post.

the stupidity of your "we have to free people" line is that that is exactly what we did in Iraq. We went in there and tried to make it better, and we made it worse. so much worse. Iraq is desperately unstable today, and now the damned place has Al Qaeda in it where it wasn't before. How in the hell did that help us out? Because 1 bad man is now gone and had 10 fill his place? think, man, think

12/29/2011 2:02:28 PM

like i said. ron paul has got good ideas on paper. good thing nobody (including obama) ever takes them seriously


in such arguments... 'you'd offer a modicum of something to support your case.' 'I'll take the fact that you aren't doing that as recognition that you really are clueless about what you are posting.'
instead you reel off one liners about all non-ron-paul supporters are warmongers and hate the poor...

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:10 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 2:09:12 PM

look, YOU are the one whose ideas "look good on paper". We actually see the results of your ideas right fucking now!

answer me this: is iraq more or less stable today than it was 9 years ago before we "liberated it." does iraq have more or less Al Qaeda in it today than it had 9 years ago before we "liberated it." These are measurable questions.

and you call me clueless.

12/29/2011 2:11:44 PM

why did you capitalize 'you'?

12/29/2011 2:32:54 PM

so that you could dodge the point and then devolve into name-calling. do it. you know you want to

12/29/2011 2:40:41 PM

answer me this: does iraq have more or less human rights today than it had 9 years ago before we "liberated it."

12/29/2011 3:07:25 PM

ahhh, the ole answer a question with a question to deflect

and it depends...

if you're shiite, more...sunni, less

Exatly the opposite of what it was before

12/29/2011 3:22:59 PM

Quote :

"answer me this: does iraq have more or less human rights today than it had 9 years ago before we "liberated it.""

Obvious strawman is obvious.

The only metric of concern should be quality of life. Were there more or less random public spaces bombings before or after Saddam?

12/29/2011 3:27:40 PM