Comedy Writers, Sharpen Your Pencils - Ron Paul To Announce Presidential Bid

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Emet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta...es_on_abortion



That's your opinion--nothing more--and it's a view not shared by all Libertarians.

Argument from controversy fallacy.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Wut? Coherency is certainly an issue here. The entire time I've been alive, money has been able to buy things. What are these "real terms" you speak of?

Ah, so you are attempting to spllit the concept of money from that of currency...

Money and currency in practical terms are the same thing: tokens of exchange of value. "Real terms" refers to the physical goods and services that the token holder wants or desires. Put another way: a house, food, clothes, babysitting services, etc are "real terms", ie things that are needed or wanted. Money/currency is simply a means to facilitate the exchange of the value of those goods and services.

The importance of stable, certain valuation of money/currency is so that all parties can know with certainty just what units of true value (again, food, houses, etc) can be obtained by holding a certain amount of money/currency. This allows individuals to value their labor accurately in terms of requiring sufficient money/currency from their employers to get the things they need and want. In turn, knowing how much specifically the worker will want for his labor, the employer can accurately price HIS product/service to generate the needed funds.

Quote:

Why? And how is this a criticism if the government wants to do something, it does it for the benefit of the people "supposedly" so why should they act like a corporation?

Because it is fraud if the government does not adhere to accepted accounting principles, esp when it requires non-government actors to do so themselves.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Ah, so you are attempting to spllit the concept of money from that of currency...

Money and currency in practical terms are the same thing: tokens of exchange of value. "Real terms" refers to the physical goods and services that the token holder wants or desires. Put another way: a house, food, clothes, babysitting services, etc are "real terms", ie things that are needed or wanted. Money/currency is simply a means to facilitate the exchange of the value of those goods and services.

The importance of stable, certain valuation of money/currency is so that all parties can know with certainty just what units of true value (again, food, houses, etc) can be obtained by holding a certain amount of money/currency. This allows individuals to value their labor accurately in terms of requiring sufficient money/currency from their employers to get the things they need and want. In turn, knowing how much specifically the worker will want for his labor, the employer can accurately price HIS product/service to generate the needed funds.



Because it is fraud if the government does not adhere to accepted accounting principles, esp when it requires non-government actors to do so themselves.

Why would anyone who wants a stable currency vote for Ron Paul?

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Cleon

And yet, it still pays my mortgage and buys groceries.

ONLY so long as the rate of exchange between money/currency and real value is stable. In a hyperinflationary scenario, for example, prices rise far faster than wages, meaning that a person can LOSE value by going to work that day. Ultimately, the collapsed currency has more utility to a person as toilet paper or heating fuel, or simply is discarded at the end of the day as trash.

This has literally happened in living memory (Weimar Germany, and Zimbabwe, for example.

Zimbabwe, FYI, is considering returning to the gold standard for it's "new" currency.

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7...-gold-standard

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Ah, so you are attempting to spllit the concept of money from that of currency...

Money and currency in practical terms are the same thing: tokens of exchange of value. "Real terms" refers to the physical goods and services that the token holder wants or desires. Put another way: a house, food, clothes, babysitting services, etc are "real terms", ie things that are needed or wanted. Money/currency is simply a means to facilitate the exchange of the value of those goods and services.

The importance of stable, certain valuation of money/currency is so that all parties can know with certainty just what units of true value (again, food, houses, etc) can be obtained by holding a certain amount of money/currency. This allows individuals to value their labor accurately in terms of requiring sufficient money/currency from their employers to get the things they need and want. In turn, knowing how much specifically the worker will want for his labor, the employer can accurately price HIS product/service to generate the needed funds.

So? Basically you are fearmongering about the current system in a bizarre attempt to return us to the gold standard? Modern currencies aren't backed by nothing, that's quite an immature interpretation. You're basically fearmongering about Zimbabwe etc for no reason. It's kind of like a paranoia. You can relax, our currencies are tied to real life values, that's why all modern countires moved into such a system, it's ok. You don't have to be afraid of cell phones either.

Quote:

Because it is fraud if the government does not adhere to accepted accounting principles, esp when it requires non-government actors to do so themselves.

Fraud is fraud, looting is looting, what the government does is none of this. Just more rhetoric from the losing side. Can you give a coherent example of how the government is engaged in fraud without relying on bizarre rhetoric?

[Emet]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Argument from controversy fallacy.

That's a fallacy?

Silly me. I thought I was showing you the majority opinion of Libertarians, nothing more.

How did that morph into a fallacy?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Muldur

No they haven't...for example,I have a "beater" (ie, really basic, refurbished) computer. I paid about $250 for it, IIRC (dont have the receipt any more). If/when I have to buy another one (if I can even afford to), I will have to pay just about that for it's replacement, if not a little bit more.

You can buy a laptop today for $400. Five years ago, a less powerful laptop would have been closer to $2000. Explain.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Even libertarians accept the right to use force in self-defense to preserve the right to live . So the fetus , having a right to live by nature of it's personhood, has the right to have that right defended by society, which says no person may deprive another of his rights by force as a general rule.

That is, if Libertarians are being intellectually consistent.

So what if a mother cannot live unless she has an abortion? Who defends her right to life in Libertopia?

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

So what if a mother cannot live unless she has an abortion? Who defends her right to life in Libertopia?

In Libertopia, such dilemmas don´t exist. Only government intervention would endanger women´s lives like that.

[Muldur]

[quote=Joey McGee;7220502]So? Basically you are fearmongering about the current system in a bizarre attempt to return us to the gold standard? Modern currencies aren't backed by nothing, that's quite an immature interpretation. [/qyote]

It is the exact truth. What fixed value can a Federal reserve note be redeemed for?

Quote:

You can relax, our currencies are tied to real life values,

No, it's backed by the "full faith and credit" of the gov't...that is NOT a real life value (ie, a tangible good with utility)

Quote:

You don't have to be afraid of cell phones either.

Your condescension is noted.

Quote:

Fraud is fraud, looting is looting, what the government does is none of this. Just more rhetoric from the losing side. Can you give a coherent example of how the government is engaged in fraud without relying on bizarre rhetoric?

Here' one:

http://blog.truthingovernment.org/en...ting_outrages/

another (this time the Fed)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....to-hide-losses

Some more (now apparently set to end, at least Obama is being more honest than some of his predecessors)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us.../20budget.html

But before we give Obama too much credit, remember this little debacle:

http://www.businessinsider.com/white...n-count-2010-1

States aren't immune:

http://www.allbusiness.com/governmen...3911848-1.html

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Emet

That's a fallacy?

Silly me. I thought I was showing you the majority opinion of Libertarians, nothing more.

How did that morph into a fallacy?

Your argument was that pro-life was not consistent with Libertarianism when I pointed out that Libertarian principles DID make it consistent you cited an article where some Libertarians denied it (implying that because there was a lack of unity supporting it, the statement was somehow false). That's argument from controversy, or inversely an appeal to the majority.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

You can buy a laptop today for $400. Five years ago, a less powerful laptop would have been closer to $2000. Explain.

That's a hedoic adjustment argument. Bottom line: if I want a new computer (factory new or professionally rebuilt), at a minimum I am going to have to pay ~$300, at retail.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

So what if a mother cannot live unless she has an abortion? Who defends her right to life in Libertopia?

That is the proverbial "hobson's choice" scenario, now isn't it? I don't know anyone who would deny in that situation that the better claim to life is the mother's. Typically these cases involve ectopic pregnancies or womb death, where the baby is going to die regardless.

That is a far different situation than the overwhelming majority of abortions, where the issues are non-life threatening in nature.

http://www.christianliferesources.co...articleid=1203

Quote:

What is a medically-necessary abortion?

This type of abortion involves the intentional termination of the life of an unborn child once it is determined continuing the pregnancy would end the life of both mother and child. Abortions for this reason are becoming more rare with the advancements of medicine, but they do occur.

What is an elective abortion?

An elective abortion means the termination of the life of an unborn child for any reason other than to save the mother’s life. This includes situations in which the mother’s health might be endangered but not necessarily her life.

Why do women abort?

On average, women offer four reasons for choosing abortion: 75 percent say that having a baby interferes with work, school or other responsibilities; 75 percent say they cannot afford a child; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. [SOURCE: AGI]

A small percentage of abortions occur because of medical necessity, meaning they are performed to save the life of the mother

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by Muldur

That is the proverbial "hobson's choice" scenario, now isn't it? I don't know anyone who would deny in that situation that the better claim to life is the mother's. Typically these cases involve ectopic pregnancies or womb death, where the baby is going to die regardless.

Muldur, meet the Roman Catholic Church, which, when it isn't excommunicating doctors for performing life-saving abortions on nine-year-old rape victims, likes to withdraw its support from any hospital that isn't willing to let pregnant women die.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Muldur

It is the exact truth. What fixed value can a Federal reserve note be redeemed for?

Why is being able to redeem for a fixed value so important to you? Floating currencies reflect reality better, that's why they are used, are you for abandoning reality?

Quote:

No, it's backed by the "full faith and credit" of the gov't...that is NOT a real life value (ie, a tangible good with utility)

Uh, yeah it's backed on reality of how government works and the matrix of self-interest. Works for all modern nations, people feel it's valuable. Just because it's not a physical concept that you can touch means nothing. That's my point, it's become a more valuable system, but the uber conservatives haven't grown with the times. Perhaps this is also because fiat currencies rely on a government's willingness to enforce taxation, oh it's starting to make sense!

Quote:

Your condescension is noted.

You can mock yourself with feigned offence but it's an analogy saying that this is truly irrational conservatism.

Quote:

Here' one:

http://blog.truthingovernment.org/en...ting_outrages/

another (this time the Fed)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....to-hide-losses

Some more (now apparently set to end, at least Obama is being more honest than some of his predecessors)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us.../20budget.html

But before we give Obama too much credit, remember this little debacle:

http://www.businessinsider.com/white...n-count-2010-1

States aren't immune:

http://www.allbusiness.com/governmen...3911848-1.html

Yeah there are some legitimate controversies over the accounting practices. But to take it to the point where you use this to call the government fraudulent, criminal or illegitimate, now that doesn't fly. And just because a bunch of critics accuse the government of inflating numbers, doesn't mean that stacks up against the facts. There are other considerations that could be skewing the numbers such as confusion over how to report recovery jobs.

[Emet]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Your argument was that pro-life was not consistent with Libertarianism when I pointed out that Libertarian principles DID make it consistent you cited an article where some Libertarians denied it (implying that because there was a lack of unity supporting it, the statement was somehow false). That's argument from controversy, or inversely an appeal to the majority.

That's quite a convoluted way of saying things.

If Libertarianism upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action, with the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom, how does that square with your own personal view that the states should regulate what a woman can do with her body, and that a fetus is a life and has rights?

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Quadrupled. Or put another way, a 300% increase (75%/year average)

How is that possible? If it doubles every two years, then the average increase per two years is 100%, and since there are two two-year periods in four years, by your math it should be a 200% increase in 4 years, since that is what gives you an average of 100% per two years.

Yes, you're right for a change -- which means your math isn't even consistent. Doubling every two years leads to a 300% increase in 4 years. And no, it's not a 75%/year average. Let's see what a 75%/year increase would do in four years:

Year 1: 100
Year 2: 100 * 175% = 175
Year 3: 175 * 175% = 306.25
Year 4: 306.25 * 175% = 535.9375

... or an increase of over 435%, not 300%.

If you're going to talk about inflation, learn the friggin' math already. It's not that hard, but you're not going to learn it from websites aimed at kids.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Muldur

It is the exact truth. What fixed value can a Federal reserve note be redeemed for?

A $1 bill can be redeemed for....well.....$1.

Did you really not know that?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Muldur

That's a hedoic adjustment argument. Bottom line: if I want a new computer (factory new or professionally rebuilt), at a minimum I am going to have to pay ~$300, at retail.

So you have no explanation.

Noted.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Chaos

In Libertopia, such dilemmas don´t exist. Only government intervention would endanger women´s lives like that.

What's funny, is that the hard core Libertards agree.

Shanek, when he posted here, actually held the position that there would be no conflicts in Libertopia, because everyone would know their Constitutional rights (THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND^(tm)), and because of that, there would be no court cases to settle disagreements over matters of law. They wouldn't be necessary.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by respect

If the Treasury just printed money to pay for government expenses (its debts first and then expenses above receipts) the value of the dollar would not be predictable at all, it would be at the whim of politicians.

Did you really think you could sneak in that bracketed term and nobody would notice? I posted about funding government deficits and you changed that to funding government deficits and repaying all government debt. Your statement might be correct but all you are doing is rebutting an argument I didn't make. (I'm sure you know what that strategy is called). The fact remains that if the same amount of money is being created under either system then there is no basis for saying that the dollar would be more unstable under one system than the other.

Much of what you posted about the activities of the fed are off topic. A central bank is not necessary for fractional reserve banking to exist. All that is needed is some form of debt monetization for the money the government borrows to be created. (Aside: Unlike many posters here, I have concluded that the fed is not the bad boy in this scheme - not as far as protecting the dollar from spendthrift politicians is concerned). The fact remains that under the current system, government debt keeps rising and so does the interest bill that taxpayers are forced to foot.

As for repaying existing government debt, under a fractional reserve system this is impossible unless the government either runs surplus budgets (and uses the surplus to buy back debt) or holds a fire sale of government assets. Under a full reserve system, it would be a valid option to do nothing about government debt (since it is no longer rising) but the government could also create extra money to gradually pay off its debt. How fast we could pay off the debt would depend on how much inflation we could put up with (Tippit would probably describe it as using the "inflation tax" to pay off debt).

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by timhau

How is that possible? If it doubles every two years, then the average increase per two years is 100%, and since there are two two-year periods in four years, by your math it should be a 200% increase in 4 years, since that is what gives you an average of 100% per two years.

Yes, you're right for a change -- which means your math isn't even consistent. Doubling every two years leads to a 300% increase in 4 years. And no, it's not a 75%/year average. Let's see what a 75%/year increase would do in four years:

Year 1: 100
Year 2: 100 * 175% = 175
Year 3: 175 * 175% = 306.25
Year 4: 306.25 * 175% = 535.9375

... or an increase of over 435%, not 300%.

If you're going to talk about inflation, learn the friggin' math already. It's not that hard, but you're not going to learn it from websites aimed at kids.

He knows the math all right - he has simply decided that it is a cheap trick to make things look better than they are.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Chaos

He knows the math all right - he has simply decided that it is a cheap trick to make things look better than they are.

I don't think he does. Mulder seems to think that all mathematics is just another conspiracy.

[TubbaBlubba]

I believe that Muldur has, once again, falsified arithmetic.

[timhau]

Actually... there is a brain fart in my example as well. Not in the math, but in setting the scenario -- that's what you get when you try to write quickly while the morning coffee is still brewing. You start at year zero, not year one. With a 75% yearly increase, you hit 435% already after three years. In 4 years, the increase is over 800%, so MuldurMath isn't as badly wrong as you might think based on the example -- it's actually much worse.

[PGH]

Here's what I don't understand and maybe someone could explain it to me. Advocating dumping fiat money for gold because it's more stable..well says who? I see that the price of gold is fluctuating like crazy these days. Clearly it doesn't have a stable value as currency either. It would be subject to the same fluctuations in value that some posters are railing against the dollar for.

There is nothing inherently valuable about gold. It's shiny so advanced monkeys like us think it's pretty. But there is nothing about it that gives it "real" value any more than a dollar bill that we know is accepted as payment. So I simply don't see where switiching our currency would make any real difference. I think people still believe that gold has real value like it did in our history. If you can say a dollar is meaningless I see the same argument being made against gold.

We need some form of currency to trade goods and services. I prefer a dollar with a stable government doing it's best to keep an eye on how much it is worth to a return to the old system of trading shiny rocks for things.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by timhau

In 4 years, the increase is over 800%, so MuldurMath isn't as badly wrong as you might think based on the example -- it's actually much worse.

I know, I was around in the original "1000%" thread.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Without Rights

Only because of a spike in the late 30's to 60's. Since LBJ was president we have steadily declined in wages.

Yeah, I noticed that in the graphs, but then Muldur did choose 1913...

In any case, there's still wage inflation, just not in real terms.

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by PGH

Here's what I don't understand and maybe someone could explain it to me. Advocating dumping fiat money for gold because it's more stable..well says who?

One of the most frustrating things about Dr. Paul is that he clearly isn't trying to win anything, he is simply trying to raise money from the fringe conservatives. I was a big fan in 2008; I don't have the heart to go through this again.

However, before I fly the white flag and move on, I'd just like to make two quick points:

Point One: Ron Paul isn't suggesting we "dump fiat money for Gold". He is advocating that we allow competing currencies, and allow the people to decide which currency they prefer to use. Like your FIAT Federal Reserve credits? Great- use them. Prefer to accept only Gold and silver? Go ahead. Want to invent an entirely new form of currency? Why not?

I have a question for you: why do you advocate a monopoly on currency? I see many advantage to competing currency, and fail to see how it hurts anything. If the "goldbugs" are in fact a tiny, irrelevant minority, what harm can they really do that they haven't already?

Or is it possible, nay probable, that most of you are wholly ignorant of the subject, and simply repeating the same sound bites I've been debunking for 4 years now?

The brings me to point number two: when I first joined JREF I think I may have had some unrealistic expectations. I expected that self-described skeptics and critical thinkers would be the people most willing to engage in intellectually honest debate.

I was dead wrong.

If you wish to oppose Dr. Paul, there is a plethora of valid reasons to do so. Disagree with his stance on abortion, or military spending, or his voting record. If there is another candidate who represents your positions better than Paul, you should absolutely vote for the other candidate instead. All I am asking is that you base this decision on voting records and reality, and not comedy sound bites and other blatant misrepresentations for the sake of comedy.

Here's the tragedy: people like me have been disenfranchised by you, the "moderate majority". You "reasonable" people laugh at the Pauls, Perots, Kucinichs and Gravels- you label us "fringe wackos" and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.

And then, you elect Obama, based on pretty soundbites, all the while IGNORING HIS VOTING RECORD.

And then- and here is where I want to tear my hair out- half of you complain that he is a moderate conservative, and the other half of you pretend that this moderate but right-of-center President is somehow an FDR of the 21st century. Baloney! PURE BALONEY!

I'll stop ranting, but before I go, just look at the recent healthcare reform for a crystal clear example of this:

The conservatives hate Obamacare, that much was obvious before it ever came to a vote. But what about you liberals? Are you really happy with your mandatory insurance? Is this "Obamacare" fiasco truly better than the single-payer solutions offered by those wacky "fringe" candidates? Is this foreign policy truly "progressive"? Is President Obama truly representing the sort of "Progressive Mandate" that put him in office?

No, President Obama is doing exactly what anyone who was paying attention expected him to do- appealing to the center, running a rather moderate agenda, and focusing far more on inevitable reelection than any sort of genuine progressive mandate.

So go ahead- laugh at Paul and the other wackos; re-elect Obama. Tell yourself that during his second term, that's when he'll suddenly pull away the "moderate mask" and reveal himself as FDR 2.0. Pretend that his lifelong career was just "playing possum".

I live in a country where Ron Paul is laughed at, and Donald Trump is a "serious contender". The writing is on the wall, folks.

And to those of you who "get it"- don't apologize to me; apologize to your kids- they're the ones who will have to inherit this mess someday.

[PGH]

Ok I'm going to ignore your rant on how posters here aren't as intelligent you'd like them to be and healthcare and respond to the currency segment you were replying to.

You see NO possible problems with anyone in this country creating any form of currency they'd like? Not just fiat vs. gold but a currency free for all?

Here's a likely scenario that's apparently beyond your comprehension:

"Oh thank goodness an auto repair shop! I broke down a few miles back and I need help. I've been walking for hours. Could you tow my vehicle and repair it?"

"No problem stranger. First I have to ask how many Fred Bucks you have, so I know you can pay for it."

"Fred Bucks? What are Fred Bucks?"

"Well Fred Bucks are the only form of currency accepted here in Fredland. You probably have those silly little U.S. dollars, or shiny rocks. Sorry we only take Fred Bucks. And one Fred Buck is the equivalent of $1,000 worthless U.S. dollars. That's the exchange rate decided upon here in Fredland. You better have a whole lot of those worthless U.S. dollars if you want your car to be fixed."

But of course in free market land you just have to take yourself to the nearest, honest business. Which should be everywhere, even though there is no legal reason for a business to operate honestly.

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by PGH

I see that the price of gold is fluctuating like crazy these days.

More ignorance.

Why not actually google the price of gold?


In the same time it took you to pontificate your ignorance on this forum, you might have found this:



And the fact that gold just broke $1500, and didn't immediately drop off, should scare your pants off.

But no- go back to ignorance.

And I'll go back to counting the profits I've earned from my precious metals.

See, here's the cool thing, and the thing that keeps me from completely losing my mind- I know I'm right- the balance of my Roth IRA is proof positive. So laugh, and laugh, and laugh some more.

I'm going to the beach.

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by PGH

"Fred Bucks? What are Fred Bucks?"

What you describe here is fraud. It has nothing to do with a competing currency.

Google: FOREX. Currencies are valued against each other all the time.

Assuming "Fred Bucks" were a real currency, they would have a price pegged against USD, Gold, and everything else. If I buy something in the EU I pay them in Euros and convert from one currency to another. If the EU wanted to peg the Euro at $1,000 USD = 1 EUR, it would be far too expensive to do business there, which is exactly why that doesn't happen.

If I want to cheat a desperate motorist, the currency at hand is not the issue. In your example, Fred could just as easily say: "I want $50,000 USD to fix your car". It is equally insane, and fraudulent.

[PGH]

You have fun at the beach. Have you left yet? You keep saying you're going but then you keep finding the time to call me ignorant.

I'll stay ignorant and continue supporting candidates who receive more than 8% of votes in a presidential election.

p.s. Maybe you could write a letter to the brilliant Dr. Paul explaining to him what "theory" means in relation to science and that evolution is in fact real. Real great doctor that guy.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

I live in a country where Ron Paul is laughed at, and Donald Trump is a "serious contender".

Is that on Planet X, where everyone has a combover that looks like a dead animal?

[zaphod2016]

Originally Posted by PGH

You have fun at the beach. Have you left yet? You keep saying you're going but then you keep finding the time to call me ignorant.

Had a lovely time, thanks. Don't want to stay out too long; I burn easily.

Also- allow me to appologise if I've hurt your feelings. I get annoyed at ignorance because, well, I think highly of you. As a fellow skeptic, I expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard of critical thinking.

We can do better. That's what I mean to say.

Originally Posted by PGH

I'll stay ignorant and continue supporting candidates who receive more than 8% of votes in a presidential election.

Number one: you flatter Paul with 8%; I don't think he got over 3% down here in the Florida primary.

Number two: this is literally the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Originally Posted by PGH

p.s. Maybe you could write a letter to the brilliant Dr. Paul explaining to him what "theory" means in relation to science and that evolution is in fact real. Real great doctor that guy.

Re-read my above post; I have been thoroughly disenchanted by Dr. "appeal to the lowest-common denominator of fringe paranoid conservatism for the sake of raising money" Paul for awhile now.

That said- logical fallacy and appeals to emotion do not qualify as rational debate. And for all his many, many faults, I'm hard pressed to name a candidate closer to my own worldview. Not an exact match- not by a looooongshot- but our imperfect system demands a certain degree of compromise.

Also- back to your "Fred Bucks" example- I'd challenge you to give me a valid reason why competing currencies are bad that isn't based on a misunderstanding.

[PGH]

Originally Posted by zaphod2016

Had a lovely time, thanks. Don't want to stay out too long; I burn easily.

Also- allow me to appologise if I've hurt your feelings. I get annoyed at ignorance because, well, I think highly of you. As a fellow skeptic, I expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard of critical thinking.

We can do better. That's what I mean to say.

Ok let's try this again. I'm sure we can do better.

Quote:

Number one: you flatter Paul with 8%; I don't think he got over 3% down here in the Florida primary.

I thought those were his numbers in the two presidential elections he ran in. 5% the first time and 8% the second. I could easily be wrong.

Quote:

Number two: this is literally the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Sorry man I'm new around here and never studied logic much. I can't keep track of all the appeal to X fallacies and I'm learning that I use them often. Since I'm not supposed to appeal to popular opinion or emotion or authority I may just not be very good at making logical arguments. Also I guess no one is Scottish?

Quote:

Re-read my above post; I have been thoroughly disenchanted by Dr. "appeal to the lowest-common denominator of fringe paranoid conservatism for the sake of raising money" Paul for awhile now.

That said- logical fallacy and appeals to emotion do not qualify as rational debate. And for all his many, many faults, I'm hard pressed to name a candidate closer to my own worldview. Not an exact match- not by a looooongshot- but our imperfect system demands a certain degree of compromise.

Also- back to your "Fred Bucks" example- I'd challenge you to give me a valid reason why competing currencies are bad that isn't based on a misunderstanding.

I gotcha. I like a few things about Ron Paul too. It's probably why I argue against him so much. He sounded real appealing until I found out more. Then I was very much against him.

On top of not knowing logical argument procedure I don't know much about economic theory either. So if you do I'm sure there's no case I can present that you don't have some counter for, and even if it's some extremist position I don't have the knowledge to recognize that.

All I know is that I don't want to live in a country with multiple competing currencies. I don't want to have to deal with exchange rates every time I need to cross state lines. I may be wrong but I certainly don't see how it's any improvement over the system we have of a singular, federally backed currency.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by respect

You really should stop getting all of your information from YouTube.

I don't fallacious arguer. Why don't you address what I said instead of making generalizations about were the info came from? I guess it's easier to live in denial when you stay clear of intellectual arguments in favor of fallacy.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by Emet

The SCOTUS already has. Ever hear of Roe v. Wade?

Sure have. I don't see how this helps your case that Paul is out of step with the Libertarians.

Libertarians want the President to stay out of it, Paul says he'll stay out of it. SCOTUS decided in Roe vs Wade, the President didn't.

[TubbaBlubba]

Last time I checked Paul wanted to neuter SCOTUS on issues of abortion - which would make Roe v. Wade toothless.

[Without Rights]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

A $1 bill can be redeemed for....well.....$1.

Did you really not know that?

You really don't know that the dollar does not have a fixed value? Oh, I bet you're twisting what he said to add to your collection of fallacious arguments.