McCain hasn't a clue, stumped by Paul's Question

[HereticHulk]

John McCain seemed to have no idea what the President's Working Group in Financial Markets is—in response to a Ron Paul question—even though the "plunge protection team" has been in the news aplenty since last August's credit crisis.

Straight talk to nowhere!:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo

[Billdave2]

John McCain seemed to have no idea what the President's Working Group in Financial Markets is—in response to a Ron Paul question—even though the "plunge protection team" has been in the news aplenty since last August's credit crisis.

Straight talk to nowhere!:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdLO3jKkPo

I can't get youtube at work so I can't comment on the videos. But is it worse to not know about this topic or to not understand how the Federal Reserve works, or why going back to the gold standard is idiotic?

[HereticHulk]

I can't get youtube at work so I can't comment on the videos. But is it worse to not know about this topic or to not understand how the Federal Reserve works, or why going back to the gold standard is idiotic?

But the Federal Reserve is not working!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_1KxgH9l3n4

[WildCat]

But the Federal Reserve is not working!

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_1KxgH9l3n4
I stopped watching after the first claim by the mo-Ron who made the video was proven wrong by 5 seconds of research. The chart used to "disprove" McCain's statement of corporate income tax rates included VAT as an income tax. Not only that, it chose the highest possible VAT from which to derive the number.

HereticHulk, are lies and disinformation all that Ron Paul supporters have to promote their candidate?

[HereticHulk]

I stopped watching after the first claim by the mo-Ron who made the video was proven wrong by 5 seconds of research. The chart used to "disprove" McCain's statement of corporate income tax rates included VAT as an income tax. Not only that, it chose the highest possible VAT from which to derive the number.

HereticHulk, are lies and disinformation all that Ron Paul supporters have to promote their candidate?

The point is, is that the straight talk express is not straight.

McCain claims to be "well versed in economics" and he is clearly not.

The economy and the war are two of the biggest concerns for Americans. As Dr. Paul points out, they are one in the same thing. McCain has just proved he hasn't a clue and is very out of step with the concerns of Americans.

[HereticHulk]

I stopped watching after the first claim by the mo-Ron who made the video was proven wrong by 5 seconds of research. The chart used to "disprove" McCain's statement of corporate income tax rates included VAT as an income tax. Not only that, it chose the highest possible VAT from which to derive the number.

HereticHulk, are lies and disinformation all that Ron Paul supporters have to promote their candidate?

dp! jref, time to cash in your Million dollar challenge and get some more servers!

[dudalb]

I stopped watching after the first claim by the mo-Ron who made the video was proven wrong by 5 seconds of research. The chart used to "disprove" McCain's statement of corporate income tax rates included VAT as an income tax. Not only that, it chose the highest possible VAT from which to derive the number.

HereticHulk, are lies and disinformation all that Ron Paul supporters have to promote their candidate?

Nope,they have a lot of sheer crazy statements to offer.

[WildCat]

The point is, is that the straight talk express is not straight.
No, the point is Ron Paul supporters lie like no other to further their candidates cause.

I caught your source fudging the corporate tax numbers in order to claim McCain is uninformed. In another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104312) you lied about a Republican recount in New Hampshire that wasn't even happening.

Frankly, on this forum you've posted lies on just about every topic you've posted on. Why should I or anyone else believe anything you say about anything? Either you have no ability to filter your sources for BS, or you know it's BS and post it anyway in hopes of fooling us. And then you'll wonder why you can't get anyone to jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

[HereticHulk]

No, the point is Ron Paul supporters lie like no other to further their candidates cause.

I caught your source fudging the corporate tax numbers in order to claim McCain is uninformed. In another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104312) you lied about a Republican recount in New Hampshire that wasn't even happening.

Frankly, on this forum you've posted lies on just about every topic you've posted on. Why should I or anyone else believe anything you say about anything? Either you have no ability to filter your sources for BS, or you know it's BS and post it anyway in hopes of fooling us. And then you'll wonder why you can't get anyone to jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

Quit trying to derail the thread!

First, is not my source.

Second the GOP NH recount is going forward.

So sit and spin buddy!

[CptColumbo]

Quit trying to derail the thread!IMO it was not a derail, as it goes to the sources of the OP.

First, is not my source.So, you accepted it without question? That's a good little sheep.

Second the GOP NH recount is going forward.

So sit and spin buddy!Do you have a credible source for the recount?

[dudalb]

IMO it was not a derail, as it goes to the sources of the OP.

So, you accepted it without question? That's a good little sheep.

Do you have a credible source for the recount?

I have noted that while the Hardcore Paulistas love to call people who do not support Ron Paul "Sheep" and "Sheeple", no one displays such blind,sheep like behavior then the Paul supporters do.
No matter what Paul says and does,he is 100% right. If Paul said the world was flat the Hardcore Paulistas would support him.

[HereticHulk]

IMO it was not a derail, as it goes to the sources of the OP.

So, you accepted it without question? That's a good little sheep.

Do you have a credible source for the recount?

The OP was that Paul stumped a delusional McCain at the debate last night with a question about economics which McCain had just said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLR1nts2Q4) that he is "very well versed in..". moments before.

So yes, a derail JREF style it was!

The OP was not claiming a peer reviewed statistic on corporate income taxes. The video was intended to be a parody of the straight talk express.

BTW, what is a credible source to you?

How does this fancy?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8UD1FGG1.html

[Richard Masters]

I've seen the same sheep-like behavior displayed by WooCat and his followers. No matter what Ron Paul says, he is 100% wrong. Grow up.

[T.A.M.]

Too bad such a "smart' guy is in bed with Alex Jones and the truthers.

Well he made his bed, and now he will lie in it.

Maybe 2012...

TAM:)

[Richard Masters]

Too bad such a "smart' guy is in bed with Alex Jones and the truthers.

Why does it matter if Ron Paul talks to Alex Jones?

[T.A.M.]

Because Alex Jones is an insane, frothing at the mouth lunatic that promotes 9/11 as an inside job, claims myself and other physicians are poisoning children with our evil vaccines...I could go on, but for me at least, Ron Paul's association with him would make RP the last person on the planet, next to AJ, that i would vote for.

But my voice does not count, oh well...

TAM:)

[Richard Masters]

Because Alex Jones is an insane, frothing at the mouth lunatic that promotes 9/11 as an inside job, claims myself and other physicians are poisoning children with our evil vaccines...I could go on, but for me at least, Ron Paul's association with him would make RP the last person on the planet, next to AJ, that i would vote for.

But my voice does not count, oh well...

TAM:)

Guilt-by-association fallacy, but hey, whatever.

[T.A.M.]

Have you listened to what he has said on Alex Jones shows?

it is more than "Guilt by Association".

TAM:)

[Richard Masters]

I don't listen to Alex Jones, so, not really. I've heard very short samples of those interviews and haven't come across anything too odd. Jones likes to go off on tangents, but Ron Paul sticks to his own opinions, not Jones'.

Is there a particular interview / topic you had in mind?

[CptColumbo]

BTW, what is a credible source to you?

How does this fancy?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8UD1FGG1.html
One that doesn't name another publication as a source, as your previous article about the recount did. The AP article names it multiple sources and actually seems to conflict with the previous article, as the recount isn't done yet.

[Dr Adequate]

Guilt-by-association fallacy, but hey, whatever. Look, if Alex Jones was just his grocer, or his barber, or even his brother, guilt by association would be a fallacy.

Alex Jones is a political pundit with totally whacko la-la views, and Ron Paul cosies up to him. It's not an accident, it's a political calculation. The association has been chosen by Ron Paul, and chosen on political grounds.

Suppose Ron Paul joined the Ku Klux Klan, and people said he was racist? "Guilt by association" is not always a fallacy. Sometimes, as in this hypothetical example, it is fairly conclusive.

---

I hope you don't think me vain if I quote myself --- in fact, I'm just lazy.

Let us concede, for the sake of argument, that Alex Jones is a man, and per se not unworthy of Ron Paul's attention.

While I applaud your egalitarian sympathies, I would point out that at the last count your great and free republic had a population of around three hundred million, of whom around two hundred million are entitled to vote.

Were Congressman Paul to spend a mere fifteen minutes discussing his ideas with each of the electorate, working twenty-four hours a day, every day, then his task would be complete sometime in the seventy-eighth century Anno Domini.

It follows that the good Congressman is obliged to be rather selective in his choice of interlocutors, and so one has to wonder at his judgement in lavishing so much of his time on a freakin' grade-A loon from Cuckooville.

---

Similarly, your fellow Paulista, HereticHulk, used the same phrase "guilt by association" here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3330030#post3330030) to describe people associating Ron Paul with what Ron Paul had published under the name of Ron Paul in the Ron Paul Political Report.

Again, the same thing applies: either Paul is a loon, or he has incredibly poor judgement.

---

Oh, and one more thing. I have been waiting for you to use the phrase "guilt by association".

I'm just saying if I hated gay people, I'd have to go with with someone who opposes gay marriage, like Edwards and Obama, or almost any Republican.

You smeared my man Obama by associating him with the person who you imagine that you'd be if you hated gay people.

With all the will in the world, I cannot describe that as classy.

[Richard Masters]

Look, if Alex Jones was just his grocer, or his barber, or even his brother, guilt by association would be a fallacy.

It still is, unless Alex Jones' repulsive properties (from TAM's POV) are somehow transferred to Ron Paul by the mere action of conversing together.

Alex Jones is a political pundit with totally whacko la-la views, and Ron Paul cosies up to him. It's not an accident, it's a political calculation. The association has been chosen by Ron Paul, and chosen on political grounds.

Ron Paul goes on just about every show or political event he is invited to.

Suppose Ron Paul joined the Ku Klux Klan, and people said he was racist? "Guilt by association" is not always a fallacy. Sometimes, as in this hypothetical example, it is fairly conclusive.

Bad analogy. Terrible analogy. The motive of joining the Ku Klux Klan is almost exclusively racism.

The motive of going on one of many shows that Ron Paul frequents, like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Hardball, Studio B, Mad Money, can range from promoting his campaign, to getting airtime, to influencing the debates, to being asked to share his expertise on monetary policy or foreign affairs.

Similarly, your fellow Paulista, HereticHulk, used the same phrase "guilt by association" here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3330030#post3330030) to describe people associating Ron Paul with what Ron Paul had published under the name of Ron Paul in the Ron Paul Political Report.

That's just as fallacious as your current argument. And furthermore I'm not sure what HereticHulk's relevance is.

Oh, and one more thing. I have been waiting for you to use the phrase "guilt by association".

You smeared my man Obama by associating him with the person who you imagine that you'd be if you hated gay people.

Good job taking my quotation out of context.

Oh, I'm certainly exaggerating, as apparently everyone does around here in the political forums when criticizing a candidate. I'm just saying if I hated gay people, I'd have to go with with someone who opposes gay marriage, like Edwards and Obama, or almost any Republican.

I guess you can't recognize satire. Even when it is pointed out.

With all the will in the world, I cannot describe that as classy.

Likewise regarding your failed attempts.

[HereticHulk]

http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/general/n041488.jpg

This represents this thread and McCain's candidacy.

[mortimer]

I've seen the same sheep-like behavior displayed by WooCat and his followers. No matter what Ron Paul says, he is 100% wrong. Grow up.

I would suggest that you stop the insulting changing of other's usernames, lest you get reported to the mods.

[dudalb]

http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/general/n041488.jpg

This represents this thread and Ron Paul's candidacy.

Fixed it for you.


McCain has a good chance of being the GOP nominee,Paul has a good chance of being elected to nothing except his House of Represenatives seat.
I am not a big McCain fan, but for a Paulbot to claim that MCain's campaign is a train wreck is the funniest thing ever.

[dudalb]

Anyone else notice that the reaction of the Hardcore Paul supporters to any criticism of their candidate is like that of a fervent religious believer when you dare deny that are the Only True Religon?

[Dr Adequate]

It still is, unless Alex Jones' repulsive properties (from TAM's POV) are somehow transferred to Ron Paul by the mere action of conversing together. Which, in this case, it is. See below.

Ron Paul goes on just about every show or political event he is invited to. WKKK?

Bad analogy. Terrible analogy. The motive of joining the Ku Klux Klan is almost exclusively racism.

The motive of going on one of many shows that Ron Paul frequents, like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Hardball, Studio B, Mad Money, can range from promoting his campaign, to getting airtime, to influencing the debates, to being asked to share his expertise on monetary policy or foreign affairs. And what is his motive for spending time with Alex Jones?

That's just as fallacious as your current argument. And furthermore I'm not sure what HereticHulk's relevance is. For the hard of thinking, I am pointing out that a politician's, y'know, political associations might be a basis on which to judge his politics.

Good job taking my quotation out of context.

Oh, I'm certainly exaggerating, as apparently everyone does around here in the political forums when criticizing a candidate. I'm just saying if I hated gay people, I'd have to go with with someone who opposes gay marriage, like Edwards and Obama, or almost any Republican.

I guess you can't recognize satire. Even when it is pointed out. Having said that you had been exaggerating, you went on to say what you were "just saying". Which was: "if I hated gay people, I'd have to go with with someone who opposes gay marriage, like Edwards and Obama".

Likewise regarding your failed attempts. If I want to be patronised, I shall seek out a creationist with an F in Biology, they do that sort of thing so well.

[ZenFountain]

Whatever happened to the old Eisenhower adage that a free market economy would run itself and it wasn't the duty of the President to manage it? Aren't the so called free marketers behind Paul contradicting themselves by demanding that other candidates be well versed in economics? This isn't the first time Paul has taken an activist hot topic and launched it on unsuspecting prey in an attempt to look clever.

[Richard Masters]

Aren't the so called free marketers behind Paul contradicting themselves by demanding that other candidates be well versed in economics?

They are subject to my vote, but I'm not forcing any candidate to learn economics via force or coercion.

I honestly don't see a contradiction.

If the perceived contradiction is that we are asking candidates to learn something they shouldn't use in their presidency, because they should keep their hands off the economy, then I still disagree. "Free-marketeers" or Laissez-Faire economists contend that the market should be as free as possible from statist regulation. This means it would be acceptable by the state or president to carefully deregulate overregulated industries.

A more interesting "contradiction" is my own. Even as a libertarian, I contend that there is a place for social safety nets (regulations) as long as they are minimally intrusive.

This isn't the first time Paul has taken an activist hot topic and launched it on unsuspecting prey in an attempt to look clever.

Correct, he's done that countless times regarding the Iraq war.

[ZenFountain]

Correct, he's done that countless times regarding the Iraq war.

The point was it doesn't make Paul any smarter to ask questions he knows the other candidates are not prepared to answer. What if someone asked Paul a question about our foreign policy with Bhutan in an attempt to make him look silly and provide laughs on Youtube, would it make them look clever? Of course the economy is an important topic but there's simply no way McCain could have been prepared to answer a question about the so called "Plunge Protection Team". Paul has learned there are certain buttons he can press to generate a stir on the web, it's becoming a tired tactic.

[Richard Masters]

The point was it doesn't make Paul any smarter to ask questions he knows the other candidates are not prepared to answer. What if someone asked Paul a question about our foreign policy with Bhutan in an attempt to make him look silly and provide laughs on Youtube, would it make them look clever? Of course the economy is an important topic but there's simply no way McCain could have been prepared to answer a question about the so called "Plunge Protection Team". Paul has learned there are certain buttons he can press to generate a stir on the web, it's becoming a tired tactic.

I see your point; the "Plunge Protection Team" is an obscure entity. However, John McCain could have asked for clarification if he didn't know what it was.

What I find more vexing is the rude, non-sequitur laughter (forced cackles) from McCain and Giuliani, whenever Ron Paul answers or is asked a question.

Or how about the irrelevant (non-substantive) questions Ron Paul is frequently asked?

It's a little dirty to ridicule McCain with such a question, but it reflects the kind of question Ron Paul begs to be asked by the moderators. Then again, here you have the warmonger attempting to ridicule Paul. Where was your outrage then?

kD1YlIZcGAo