Wow, I was totally cheering you on the whole time, expecting at the end you would explain how you told your bosses to go fuck themselves and went on your vacation anyway, but instead I was shocked to see you pussed out and just bent over and took it. For your own sake learn some fucking self respect, man.
So basically, you should have just googled this shit. All of this information is out there and readily available to anyone who takes a half second to look.
It's too bad Paul is a terrible person and it would be a disaster if he got into office.
LOL. Wow, OK. Someone is a "terrible person" because he's been thinking about these problems for a long time (longer than you've been alive, actually) and ended up with different views than you. You're already an asset to the discussion.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception,
No he doesn't
build a fence along the US-Mexico border
Stupid, and no he doesn't
prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy
Citation needed
permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)
Citation needed
pull out of the UN, disband NATO,
Good. We should.
end birthright citizenship,
Aren't there bigger fish to fry right now?
deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,,
1) Federal funding doesn't need to be spent on ANY of that, or most any of the other things it's spent on.
2) Get rid of social security? GOOD.
3) Getting rid of the "Department of Education" doesn't mean "destroying public education", moron.
and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard.
O NOES!!
He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
So the U.S. government is a hypocrite. We ban people from doing business in largely peaceful countries like Cuba and Iran, yet some politicians' buddies invest in corporations which do business in Sudan. What else is new?
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,
Who cares?
he's against gay marriage,
No he's not. Also, you're a moron
is against the popular vote,
What?
opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
For good reason
wants the estate tax repealed
GOOD
is STILL making racist remarks,
Citation needed
believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,
Who cares?
and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories,
Who cares? Half of them are probably the truth, given what Wikileaks has shown us about corruption in the world.
not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.
Again. Who gives a flying fuck? How about rebutting his actual arguments instead of making a pitiful ad hominem attack based on his supposed scary "quack" beliefs and your overexaggerations/misinterpretations of such?
There's nothing principled about making a decision and sticking to it regardless of what the facts suggest one do. As President he would be continuously getting more and more information and some of it would turn out to be wrong. Sticking to old stances when new facts come in isn't a wise move for a leader.
What a moronic strawman argument. It's you who's asserting that Paul would "stick to old stances when new facts come in." Prove it. What statement has Ron Paul ever made that convinced YOU that he would have this attitude? Just because he's an old guy who's been thinking about these problems for longer than you've been alive doesn't mean he's "set in his ways."
Also, there's nothing principled about selling out your country because your ego doesn't allow you to change your mind ever.
Also, there's nothing stupider than people who have nothing better to do with their lives than make wild accusations and muddy the waters with bullshit, demonstrably false assertions at a time when our nation (and world) desperately needs LESS of that, not more.
I have two points about your post. The first is that Ron Paul got 21.4% in the Iowa Caucus. The Iowa Caucus is not a straight up vote, it is necessary to spend several hours at the meeting. The candidates who do well at the Iowa Caucus are the ones whos supporters are willing to wait out everyone else.
Yes. Also, the "security" situation surrounding this caucus required the votes be taken out of state (to Illinois, home of organized crime) and be counted in secret. So yeah, I'm totally betting the Iowa caucus represent's the people's choice. The Google Trends consistently showing a completely different picture must just be a fluke.
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical and most Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them.
Funny, because I've been following the stances he's taken, and I'd say he's completely normal and most radical Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them.
Guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, huh?
Half of/. supports net neutrality as a way to protect the spirit and nature of the Internet, and half oppose it as yet another regulation that will lead to handouts to entrenched interests at the expense of everyone else.
And then there's others who continually confuse the two distinct phrases "net neutrality" and "anti-net neutrality legislation", thereby confusing everyone else and muddying the waters further.
Wishing does not make it so. Actions do. And actions have always shown Paul, like most of current Texas Repbulicans, to be a spend and borrow irresponsible idiot. He, and the others, pass budgets without the tax backing to pay for it.
False. Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Paul is worse. He has milked the taxpayer for what his family wants,and then says that other families do not deserve the opportunity for the same.
He hasn't said anything of the sort. He hasn't "milked" anyone. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is what's "milking" people. He will stop that.
The point remains. Paul can cut taxes by cut spending. This is a tautology. Rather than cutting spending, he maximizes spending by provided stuff that no one really wants enough to pay for themselves.
Clearly you have no idea how our government actually works. You think if Ron Paul as a lone outcast Republican were to just stop taking those earmarks, then Federal spending would automatically rein itself in? Or that those tax payer dollars taken from his district at gunpoint would just magically find their ways back into those same pockets? LOL
The problem isn't the individual actors in the system, it's the system itself. Ron Paul wants to end that.
Well, isn't someone getting a mite bit defensive and angry? Maybe it's because the GP made a perfectly good point? Your comment pretty much just confirms what he's saying.
Nice shift of goalposts by setting the bar to 24 month to get some sort of petty game win after you've been caught out - but yes predicting whether the next year is going to be wet or dry has been based on a working model for a very long time.
Right. In weather forecasting, it's no problem for us to understand broad trends based on the patterns we see. No math is required for this. And if we do involve math, we can predict with a certain level of confidence what the weather will be. Of course, we are often wrong, because our formulas are (by their very nature) incomplete.
Similarly, in an economy, it is not difficult for us to understand the broad trends based on the patterns we see. It's also not a problem for us to understand some of the finer and shorter terms trends.
What it's NOT possible to do, is to describe an economy in the form of math equations, and then use this to predict what the economy is going to do with any certainty. The problem is, math is such a concrete and formal thing, it easily leads its adherents into a false sense of security, especially when the initial "prediction" of their formulas seem to be accurate. It's not until some curve ball is thrown six months, a year, ten years, or a HUNDRED years later (hint: what were our politicians preparing to do with our monetary policy in 1912?) that we suddenly realize that our math formulas are bunk.
In weather prediction it's not a big deal if you get the weather wrong. In economic prediction, markets and currencies crash, and millions of families are adversely affected. This is one of the the fatal flaws of Keynesian economics.
You can fuck off with your arbitrary 24 months that you've thrown in just to bully those of us that have read about it but are not actual experts
Wow, you sure seem to be getting a TOUCH too over-sensitive about this subject considering by your own admission you don't know much about it, aren't you?
You mean like the Southern Oscillation Index that came from climate modelling over a century ago? Of course the fine details are hard especially since some cold water currents that look like they have some impact were only discovered last year, but workable models have been around for over a century and have been refined ever since.
Yeah, and in economics every time those propellerhead Keynesians learn some of the "fine details", it's because the market crashed (hurting millions) for reasons their fancy mathematical models didn't predict.
Why is it despite the great advancements we've made in weather forecasting, we still those reports with a grain of salt, yet give our complete confidence to these geeks who think they've got the art of running an economy boiled down to a set of math equations?
What's your thought on taking your children to a pediatrician under this system?
Oh dear. I guess I would have to form an opinion and judge for myself whether this person is competent or not, rather than just assuming he is a genius and knows everything because he graduated medical school!
PS do you know what they call the lowest-scoring graduate of medical school? "Doctor."
And that is the problem. Free marketers want to believe that the free market can cure all ills. It doesn't. It has the fatal flaw of assuming that everyone is ethical. What it doesn't take into account is that there are some people who are not going to be satisfied until they control everything.
Yeah, like politicians. You know, the guys we put in charge of FORCING (at gunpoint) these companies to do things a certain arbitrary way. I can TOTALLY see how you would think this system to be more trustworthy and less likely to lead to corruption and social ills than just trusting people to make decisions for themselves.
I don't trust him worth two cents based just on the rhetorical tricks in the introduction and first 5 pages of his book.... But as I said I don't trust him to be being honest.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has a voting record that backs up his claimed viewpoints 100%. If you can't trust someone's honesty when they have a 30 year record of doing exactly what they say, well.....then you just can't trust anyone.
Their goal isn't as much making the Rich Richer, but cut down the expenses for the upper middle class,
Let me just stop you right there--no, you're wrong. Any time you acribe some goal to Republican or Democrats as a whole besides lining their own fucking wallets and watching each other's backs, then you are wrong. Because that's the ONLY goal the vast majority of them share in common. Everything else is just a wedge issue used to split and divide the populace so we spend forever on this election treadmill, jumping desperately from one party to another every four years, hoping somehow something will change.
Other than John Huntsman, the GOP candidates have serious issue with basic science. As in, they all claim to believe at least part of this list:
And that matters why exactly? None of a candidate's personal beliefs on these stupid wedge issues matters unless he has a bad habit of trying to force his beliefs on everyone else. There is only one candidate who we know for a fact won't, and that's Ron Paul.
So yeah, I'd say Huntsman at least doesn't try to play "who is the most sincere anti-intellectual for their Deity" by denying science. As a geek, that's something I like in a candidate.
He does have some good ideas. Unfortunately, anyone can tell from watching this guy in the debates that he is somewhat insecure and defensive. Not exactly Presidential, or even Vice Presidential material.
I want to embrace the idea of less intrusive government. I just don't think it should come at the cost of science.
Yeah, everyone and their mom is all for governmental reduction, unless it affects the specific area they're interested in. The defense contractors feel exactly the same way you do about their military budget. There's billions of other people riding on entitlements and other government programs that won't be happy when that stuff disappears....but it NEEDS to happen.
Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important when there`s like constant bankster-enabling, warmongering, and selling out to corporate interests going on amongst the other candidates?
A better question would be, why is the gay marriage thing LESS important because our politicians have caused not only that problem, but a hundred others as well? Does that diminize the importance of gay marriage to people who are affected adversely every single day by this? Of course not.
I know this may come as quite a shock to you, but it's actually possible for our nation to consider MANY separate issues at once.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would ban federal courts from hearing issues on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You know, the very court system the Constitution itself sets up to hear these kinds of questions.
Because it's not a federal issue. Marriage should NOT be a federal issue, or thought of/handled in any way by the federal government. This is a power reserved to the People, not the Federal government OR states.
You have done none of these and don't intend to, then you schmucks are just bloody guessing
Haha. I love how you assume that you can just give someone a battery of arbitrary tests, and this somehow "proves" the person is good and trustworthy. Kindy like how a company hires an employee who later is found out to be a thief, and they are SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you, because their little psychological tests and questionnaires didn't turn this up!
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the United States
Yes.
You should.
(Sorry, had to be "more original"....)
Was it the Supreme Court who told you that? If they were actually stupid enough to put that in writing, then she would be owner of that company today.
What an inane comment. If you don't want to (or can't) contribute to the discussion, you could at least not be a douche.
Wow, I was totally cheering you on the whole time, expecting at the end you would explain how you told your bosses to go fuck themselves and went on your vacation anyway, but instead I was shocked to see you pussed out and just bent over and took it. For your own sake learn some fucking self respect, man.
Hello?????? Ron Paul???
He's the only acceptable one in the GOP bunch.
He has some good ideas, but is personally too insecure and defensive (or at least comes across that way) to be elected President of this country.
So basically, you should have just googled this shit. All of this information is out there and readily available to anyone who takes a half second to look.
It's too bad Paul is a terrible person and it would be a disaster if he got into office.
LOL. Wow, OK. Someone is a "terrible person" because he's been thinking about these problems for a long time (longer than you've been alive, actually) and ended up with different views than you. You're already an asset to the discussion.
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception,
No he doesn't
build a fence along the US-Mexico border
Stupid, and no he doesn't
prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy
Citation needed
permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)
Citation needed
pull out of the UN, disband NATO,
Good. We should.
end birthright citizenship,
Aren't there bigger fish to fry right now?
deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,,
1) Federal funding doesn't need to be spent on ANY of that, or most any of the other things it's spent on.
2) Get rid of social security? GOOD.
3) Getting rid of the "Department of Education" doesn't mean "destroying public education", moron.
and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard.
O NOES!!
He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
So the U.S. government is a hypocrite. We ban people from doing business in largely peaceful countries like Cuba and Iran, yet some politicians' buddies invest in corporations which do business in Sudan. What else is new?
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,
Who cares?
he's against gay marriage,
No he's not. Also, you're a moron
is against the popular vote,
What?
opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
For good reason
wants the estate tax repealed
GOOD
is STILL making racist remarks,
Citation needed
believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,
Who cares?
and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories,
Who cares? Half of them are probably the truth, given what Wikileaks has shown us about corruption in the world.
not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.
Again. Who gives a flying fuck? How about rebutting his actual arguments instead of making a pitiful ad hominem attack based on his supposed scary "quack" beliefs and your overexaggerations/misinterpretations of such?
There's nothing principled about making a decision and sticking to it regardless of what the facts suggest one do. As President he would be continuously getting more and more information and some of it would turn out to be wrong. Sticking to old stances when new facts come in isn't a wise move for a leader.
What a moronic strawman argument. It's you who's asserting that Paul would "stick to old stances when new facts come in." Prove it. What statement has Ron Paul ever made that convinced YOU that he would have this attitude? Just because he's an old guy who's been thinking about these problems for longer than you've been alive doesn't mean he's "set in his ways."
Also, there's nothing principled about selling out your country because your ego doesn't allow you to change your mind ever.
Also, there's nothing stupider than people who have nothing better to do with their lives than make wild accusations and muddy the waters with bullshit, demonstrably false assertions at a time when our nation (and world) desperately needs LESS of that, not more.
I have two points about your post. The first is that Ron Paul got 21.4% in the Iowa Caucus. The Iowa Caucus is not a straight up vote, it is necessary to spend several hours at the meeting. The candidates who do well at the Iowa Caucus are the ones whos supporters are willing to wait out everyone else.
Yes. Also, the "security" situation surrounding this caucus required the votes be taken out of state (to Illinois, home of organized crime) and be counted in secret. So yeah, I'm totally betting the Iowa caucus represent's the people's choice. The Google Trends consistently showing a completely different picture must just be a fluke.
If you've been following the stances he's taken he's definitely extremely radical and most Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them.
Funny, because I've been following the stances he's taken, and I'd say he's completely normal and most radical Americans won't vote for him because he doesn't represent them.
Guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, huh?
Half of /. supports net neutrality as a way to protect the spirit and nature of the Internet, and half oppose it as yet another regulation that will lead to handouts to entrenched interests at the expense of everyone else.
And then there's others who continually confuse the two distinct phrases "net neutrality" and "anti-net neutrality legislation", thereby confusing everyone else and muddying the waters further.
Wishing does not make it so. Actions do. And actions have always shown Paul, like most of current Texas Repbulicans, to be a spend and borrow irresponsible idiot. He, and the others, pass budgets without the tax backing to pay for it.
False. Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Paul is worse. He has milked the taxpayer for what his family wants,and then says that other families do not deserve the opportunity for the same.
He hasn't said anything of the sort. He hasn't "milked" anyone. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is what's "milking" people. He will stop that.
The point remains. Paul can cut taxes by cut spending. This is a tautology. Rather than cutting spending, he maximizes spending by provided stuff that no one really wants enough to pay for themselves.
Clearly you have no idea how our government actually works. You think if Ron Paul as a lone outcast Republican were to just stop taking those earmarks, then Federal spending would automatically rein itself in? Or that those tax payer dollars taken from his district at gunpoint would just magically find their ways back into those same pockets? LOL
The problem isn't the individual actors in the system, it's the system itself. Ron Paul wants to end that.
Well, isn't someone getting a mite bit defensive and angry? Maybe it's because the GP made a perfectly good point? Your comment pretty much just confirms what he's saying.
Nice shift of goalposts by setting the bar to 24 month to get some sort of petty game win after you've been caught out - but yes predicting whether the next year is going to be wet or dry has been based on a working model for a very long time.
Right. In weather forecasting, it's no problem for us to understand broad trends based on the patterns we see. No math is required for this. And if we do involve math, we can predict with a certain level of confidence what the weather will be. Of course, we are often wrong, because our formulas are (by their very nature) incomplete.
Similarly, in an economy, it is not difficult for us to understand the broad trends based on the patterns we see. It's also not a problem for us to understand some of the finer and shorter terms trends.
What it's NOT possible to do, is to describe an economy in the form of math equations, and then use this to predict what the economy is going to do with any certainty. The problem is, math is such a concrete and formal thing, it easily leads its adherents into a false sense of security, especially when the initial "prediction" of their formulas seem to be accurate. It's not until some curve ball is thrown six months, a year, ten years, or a HUNDRED years later (hint: what were our politicians preparing to do with our monetary policy in 1912?) that we suddenly realize that our math formulas are bunk.
In weather prediction it's not a big deal if you get the weather wrong. In economic prediction, markets and currencies crash, and millions of families are adversely affected. This is one of the the fatal flaws of Keynesian economics.
You can fuck off with your arbitrary 24 months that you've thrown in just to bully those of us that have read about it but are not actual experts
Wow, you sure seem to be getting a TOUCH too over-sensitive about this subject considering by your own admission you don't know much about it, aren't you?
You mean like the Southern Oscillation Index that came from climate modelling over a century ago?
Of course the fine details are hard especially since some cold water currents that look like they have some impact were only discovered last year, but workable models have been around for over a century and have been refined ever since.
Yeah, and in economics every time those propellerhead Keynesians learn some of the "fine details", it's because the market crashed (hurting millions) for reasons their fancy mathematical models didn't predict.
Why is it despite the great advancements we've made in weather forecasting, we still those reports with a grain of salt, yet give our complete confidence to these geeks who think they've got the art of running an economy boiled down to a set of math equations?
What's your thought on taking your children to a pediatrician under this system?
Oh dear. I guess I would have to form an opinion and judge for myself whether this person is competent or not, rather than just assuming he is a genius and knows everything because he graduated medical school!
PS do you know what they call the lowest-scoring graduate of medical school? "Doctor."
And that is the problem. Free marketers want to believe that the free market can cure all ills. It doesn't. It has the fatal flaw of assuming that everyone is ethical. What it doesn't take into account is that there are some people who are not going to be satisfied until they control everything.
Yeah, like politicians. You know, the guys we put in charge of FORCING (at gunpoint) these companies to do things a certain arbitrary way. I can TOTALLY see how you would think this system to be more trustworthy and less likely to lead to corruption and social ills than just trusting people to make decisions for themselves.
His preferred position on economics is to ignore that silly mathematics stuff and go with a mix of psychology and gut instinct.
Which is exactly the right thing to do, because the market is based on extremely complex human behavior, not math formulas.
Not everything can be described accurately with mathematics.
I don't trust him worth two cents based just on the rhetorical tricks in the introduction and first 5 pages of his book. ... But as I said I don't trust him to be being honest.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has a voting record that backs up his claimed viewpoints 100%. If you can't trust someone's honesty when they have a 30 year record of doing exactly what they say, well.....then you just can't trust anyone.
Their goal isn't as much making the Rich Richer, but cut down the expenses for the upper middle class,
Let me just stop you right there--no, you're wrong. Any time you acribe some goal to Republican or Democrats as a whole besides lining their own fucking wallets and watching each other's backs, then you are wrong. Because that's the ONLY goal the vast majority of them share in common. Everything else is just a wedge issue used to split and divide the populace so we spend forever on this election treadmill, jumping desperately from one party to another every four years, hoping somehow something will change.
Other than John Huntsman, the GOP candidates have serious issue with basic science.
As in, they all claim to believe at least part of this list:
And that matters why exactly? None of a candidate's personal beliefs on these stupid wedge issues matters unless he has a bad habit of trying to force his beliefs on everyone else. There is only one candidate who we know for a fact won't, and that's Ron Paul.
So yeah, I'd say Huntsman at least doesn't try to play "who is the most sincere anti-intellectual for their Deity" by denying science. As a geek, that's something I like in a candidate.
He does have some good ideas. Unfortunately, anyone can tell from watching this guy in the debates that he is somewhat insecure and defensive. Not exactly Presidential, or even Vice Presidential material.
I want to embrace the idea of less intrusive government. I just don't think it should come at the cost of science.
Yeah, everyone and their mom is all for governmental reduction, unless it affects the specific area they're interested in. The defense contractors feel exactly the same way you do about their military budget. There's billions of other people riding on entitlements and other government programs that won't be happy when that stuff disappears....but it NEEDS to happen.
Christ, again with the gay marriage shit. Is it REALLY that fucking important when there`s like constant bankster-enabling, warmongering, and selling out to corporate interests going on amongst the other candidates?
A better question would be, why is the gay marriage thing LESS important because our politicians have caused not only that problem, but a hundred others as well? Does that diminize the importance of gay marriage to people who are affected adversely every single day by this? Of course not.
I know this may come as quite a shock to you, but it's actually possible for our nation to consider MANY separate issues at once.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would ban federal courts from hearing issues on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You know, the very court system the Constitution itself sets up to hear these kinds of questions.
Because it's not a federal issue. Marriage should NOT be a federal issue, or thought of/handled in any way by the federal government. This is a power reserved to the People, not the Federal government OR states.
You should probably try educating yourself a bit before displaying your ignorance so loudly for every moderator on slashdot to mod you into oblivion.
Your statement is completely false.
You have done none of these and don't intend to, then you schmucks are just bloody guessing
Haha. I love how you assume that you can just give someone a battery of arbitrary tests, and this somehow "proves" the person is good and trustworthy. Kindy like how a company hires an employee who later is found out to be a thief, and they are SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you, because their little psychological tests and questionnaires didn't turn this up!