It depends on how intelligent the humans are that the program is convincing, though. You ask how can "we" determine if it's true intelligence or simulated, but it seems to be an impossible criteria to determine what is "true intelligence". In other words, how many people would you have to convince, in all categories of human intelligence, before you could justify that it is "true intelligence"? Just tricking one person doesn't mean that it is actually intelligence that you have there. It is all relative to the individual humans that it is convincing.
It seems like the question "Is such and such intelligent" is unfalsifiable, or at least not specific enough, as we would need to explicitly define criteria as to what is meant by "intelligence", and then test for that. It is like asking "Is the love between two individuals really love?" Well, you have to define what threshold you are using to define "real love". Now, we can possibly prove that something ISN'T intelligent to our standards by defining some fixed criteria REPRESENTING our definition of intelligence and testing it to see if it passes enough times to be statistically probable, but we can't prove that something IS, in fact, really humanly intelligent with equations or something. We can only prove that it passes a significant number of human tests that our best minds have developed, that convinces the vast number of people that interact with it.
Wow, I guess the anti-Microsoft-everything elitism is still very prevalent here at Slashdot, modding this guy down like that. Remember that VB.NET is an an OO language now, and if program speed isn't such an issue, but time is one, it might not be a bad choice sometimes to use it.
I agree with you, as I also take issue with the action of cheating. I don't think the OP was saying that he doesn't have a problem with cheaters, though. He was talking about professors these days that don't do a good job teaching, or that set unreasonable standards. Sometimes the professor is horrible at teaching, AND they require your attendance, AND they won't let you work in groups, AND there are no alternative professors teaching the subject, AND I could go on. Sometimes you have no choice but to teach yourself on your own, and sometimes that means finding the answers to the textbook and using them as examples to work backwards and learn it for yourself. For my major in Engineering, there are just no tutors around for the tougher subjects, because the material is difficult, we have a relatively small department, and the ones who could teach you are usually the students who have graduated above you or don't have the time to show you.
However, with all that said, I do think that cheaters in college CAN get away with it ultimately in their lives, though, because one is often not naive enough to choose a job in the specific area that they were cheating in. If they do, yeah they are going to be found out, no question. But especially with an undergraduate degree where there is so much breadth, you can choose one area of your major that you were good at and make that your job, and not even have to touch that one course that you had a hell of a time with and had to cheat to get by. Not everything is cumulative. So, yes, for any one specific subject, there may not been shortcuts if you choose it as your career, but majors are not all cumulative like that, and what is important in the real world may not even match what your coursework was in school.
There needs to be a variably accessible difficulty level of education across all of society, from preschool on up to post-doctoral studies. While not everyone can get up to a PhD level, there are a lot of people who can do better than high school. There is a lot more to the world to learn above high school, and many people can benefit from it. Maybe it just will take them a little longer. Maybe they aren't Ms. 3.95 GPA Prim-and-almost-Perfect. I don't think the OP was saying that college is a right. I'm also not saying it is a right, but you can't just divide people up into what you define as college level intellect, and high school level intellect. There is a wide range in there, and society should provide for everyone in between if we want to be the most successful. If you think that most kids you went to college with were dimwits, then, good, you hopefully kept on moving on up the academic ladder.
I'm one of those "full time students who just woke up at the crack of noon and strolled over to the library" except I am the one doing the work for my international student group members who "are from all over the world and apparently it's quite acceptable in their cultures to do absolutely EVERYTHING together, including xerox their answers before handing them in."
Don't confuse late sleepers or full time students who live on campus with the ones who don't do their work!
No kidding. Operations Research is basically an area of applied mathematics, but unfortunately, not many people even know what it is, hence the confusion. It is no wonder that an individual with Psychology and Operations Research degrees is doing so well.
Well, you could say that the US had a whole new "wild wild West" experience which had to start from scratch on a lot of societal things, while Europe retained its relatively organized institution throughout. Americans became outdoorsmen and had to build their society anew by working from the ground up.
The difference is that Huckabee would actually be the one to try and implement policies based on his religious beliefs. Ron Paul has specifically stated that it is not in his philosophy to impose his religious beliefs on anyone else. I don't like it either that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution as the origination of human beings, but that is just his religious compartmentalization of his brain playing tricks on him from his upbringing. His political ideals make complete sense. It is an association fallacy to say that Ron Paul's political solutions are flawed because he has a certain religious belief. It clearly has no bearing on his political judgment, and he has publicly stated that he doesn't wear his religion on his shoulder like other candidates have.
Being skeptical isn't ignorant, and I am actually a supporter of skepticism, but I also support doing one's research on the issues that one knows little about. What I was stating was not a claim that you are ignorant, but that these are logical fallacies to say that Ron Paul's ideas won't work because a majority says so or because your personal or anecdotal evidence says that is the case.
Regarding the fact that we elect by a majority, well, we actually don't, but for the sake of argument I am going to say that we do, it has no bearing on the effectiveness of Ron Paul's policies. People are often ignorant about what would be best for them, and as far as the economic policies of Ron Paul, they come across to people as counter-intuitive. That IS a problem for his campaign, to convince people, but to claim that his policies won't work on the basis that enough people aren't voting for him is a fallacy.
It does matter. It makes complete sense. The Middle Ages have nothing to do with it.
Just to be upfront, I am not an economist, and I am just putting out what I have thought so far.
I think that the increase or decrease in the money in circulation COULD be controlled by some kind of evaluation function, one that determines the amount of wealth created in, or acquired by, America, and this DOESN'T have to be calculated based on the quantity of a particular physical element. However, important physical elements of value would obviously be involved, but it doesn't necessarily need to be based on just one or two particular ones.
The thing is, this seems to be something that could be very difficult to do accurately, and somewhat subjective to calculate, but it could be done, and it is something that I assume they are already doing. However, the difference in my mind would be that it would be the job of a purely governmental agency printing the money, and NOT the Federal Reserve, which is not federal, or supposedly a reserve.
As Greenspan says, there are many mathematical models that are already used, and this one wouldn't even be a predictive model, which would be harder, but instead would only be a descriptive model, which would be much easier.
There definitively doesn't have to be an interest rate on the funds that they make available to the banks AT ALL, however. All that is needed is that they produce the amount of money and distribute it how they feel best, that would best represent the new wealth in America, and do this to control inflation, and quit the out-of-control debt-based spending that we have now.
How much room, if any, should there still be for the type of speculative, credit-based, or lending-based economy, for creating new industries? Does there need to be a way to raise the availability of capital up front, so that new possibilities for wealth creation are not stifled (e.g. to start a company), or is it most effectively possible to do this without interest-bearing bonds? Banks can still deal in this kind of risk themselves, without there being a higher entity and interest rate, correct?
I don't think that there has to be a gold standard, because it has been said that gold is relatively scarce, and so it is easy to monopolize. A silver standard might work better, but it still isn't representative of all the worth in America. The worth of our money is a more complex evaluation than that, but we still don't need the Federal Reserve as it currently is set up, in there complicating matters, by meddling with their subjective interest rates.
That's a non sequitur, because as I have said above and Ron Paul has also said, it doesn't have to be a gold standard, but just representative money. Check out the following link for alternative ideas on what that could be. I'm not going to even try to say I am an economist or an expert, but economists and experts have done and continue to discuss these things, and I think it makes sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_money#New_proposals_for_backing_of_representative_money
It can be effective without being expansive, I mean, our military does all kinds of training all the time when we aren't in a war. I also agree that Afghanistan is important. It would cost us a lot less (both economically, politically, and in terms of others around the world's negative view of us now) for them to train here and not all around the world. I am an Army brat, and have lived in Germany. There are tons of duplicated facilities there of ours that are a waste of resources. There is no need for us to be there now. It costs tons of money for us to be there instead of just consolidating our forces around our resources we already hve here in the US, and we could still be just as effective at defending ourselves when called upon.
Keep the same size armed forces here in America and protect us here. Quit fighting a war in Iraq and have bases in other countries. That is a lot of money saved.
Sorry, the previous message got messed up. Here it is again:
I am not saying we go back to the gold standard, and many of those on that list aren't either. They just believe in having some form of representative money. There are other forms of representative money that have existed and that have been proposed besides one that is based on gold.
I am not cherry picking. I am not selecting some names from some obscure group of economists, either. There are Nobel prize winners in that list there. You are marginalizing an entire school of economics simply because you don't know anything about it.
This whole line of reasoning went off the tracks with the "Einstein was on the fringe, so people on the fringe must be geniuses" crap, so claiming I'm using semantics is a pretty dodgy accusation all in all.
Then fuck what I said about Einstein, because that wasn't the point I was making, anyway. Come up with your own example of someone who was "on the fringe" but was also right, then. That is all I was trying to do.
I was just countering the above marginalizations of Ron Paul, where heaps of bad logic were being used.
It was said that he is on the fringe, that he has a cult-like following, that he is crazy or a lunatic, if no directly above in this thread, but in other ones in this topic, as well. Durdur was saying that many people don't think Ron Paul's ideas would work, for instance (which is an appeal to ignorance or an appeal to majority, depending on how you look at it). None of this has anything to do with whether or not Ron Paul has valid ideas.
All of it that I hear on here is a bunch of arguments from ignorance, appeals to a majority, Ad hominem, appeals to motive, association fallacies, your very own no true Scotsman fallacy about "real economists", etc.
Argue how the theories he bases his position on are false, and quit all this other logical fallacy nonsense.
I am not saying we go back to the gold standard, and many of those on that list aren't either. They just believe in having some form of representative money. There are other forms of representative money that have existed and that have been proposed besides one that is based on gold.
I am not cherry picking. I am not selecting some names from some obscure group of economists, either. There are Nobel prize winners in that list there. You are marginalizing an entire school of economics simply because you don't know anything about it.
This whole line of reasoning went off the tracks with the "Einstein was on the fringe, so people on the fringe must be geniuses" crap, so claiming I'm using semantics is a pretty dodgy accusation all in all.
Then fuck what I said about Einstein, because that wasn't the point I was making, anyway. Come up with your own example of someone who was "on the fringe" but was also right, then. That is all I was trying to do.
I was just countering the above marginalizations of Ron Paul, where heaps of bad logic were being used.
It was said that he is on the fringe, that he has a cult-like following, that he is crazy or a lunatic, if no directly above in this thread, but in other ones in this topic, as well. Durdur was saying that many people don't think Ron Paul's ideas would work, for instance (which is an appeal to ignorance or an appeal to majority, depending on how you look at it). None of this has anything to do with whether or not Ron Paul has valid ideas.
All of it that I hear on here is a bunch of arguments from ignorance, appeals to a majority, Ad hominem, appeals to motive, association fallacies, your very own no true Scotsman fallacy about "real economists", etc.
Argue how the theories he bases his position on are false, and quit all this other logical fallacy nonsense.
You seem to like arguing semantics, but that isn't getting us any closer to the truth of things. It isn't that libertarians are coming up with these ideas themselves, sir. There are good economic scholars (or real economists, if you prefer) that hold views that libertarians have agreed make sense. Here is a list of some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_economists
Yeah, they did laugh at Bozo the Clown, but Ron Paul is not Bozo the Clown, however you might want him to be.
And when exactly was Einstein on the fringe? GR and SR, while certainly revolutionary, were firmly based in Classical Physics, and within Lorenz's geometry. It didn't exactly take a long time for Einstein to become a physic's superstar, the biggest problem for him was that GR was pretty goddamned complicated and it took some time for other physicists to work it out.
What I was getting at was that he was not a conformist in how he lived his life or how he did his work, and his work was different than what was held by the current scientific establishment, and that didn't make it wrong at all.
Ron Paul's ideas are also not conformist, and his presentation isn't conformist. Einstein didn't have a slick presentation, because he knew that that had nothing to do with the validity of his work. The same goes for Dr. Paul.
Ron Paul's economic ideas are crapola and his idea of how the US should function is laughably out-of-date (and has been since the Confederacy put up its hands and said "we surrender"). Yes, he wants to pull out of Iraq, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
How about actually discussing the issues and reading up on his sources instead of mocking it and making fun of it, why don't you? His economic ideas are NOT "crapola". Libertarian economic scholars are more legitimate than you think. You make it seem like Ron Paul is just pulling shit out of the air like the other candidates do. Instead, he actually has consistent policy views based on sound political theories that just happen to not be known about or at first look logical to the common person.
But anyway, people just don't get why it is important to have consistent policy views, I guess. They go around in life having contradicting opinions on tons of things, never correcting their inconsistencies, and just supporting the candidate who also happens to have their set of contradicting beliefs, instead of testing their own beliefs by questioning them. They have no underlying theory to base their decisions on, so it is all just based on spur of the moment views, a gut feeling, arguments from personal experience, or other anecdotal evidence. And, they take offense when you call them out on this, like they couldn't be wrong about something, like they are the principled ones. People don't question what they have been taught to believe, and they don't question authority. They are frightened to read a contrary opinion to theirs because it might offend them, their parents, or their god.
It is the Dunning-Kruger effect, the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.
I completely agree with you on that, and I have used the horse-race analogy myself before. The point I was making is that while Ron Paul has raised the 20 million dollars by now, Kucinich hasn't. Ron Paul isn't out of it, but Kucinich really IS out of it now, even if he says he is still running. Dr. Paul still has a chance, but it just isn't working out for him right now. But Kucinich is done, based on it being at this point in the process and his current status, unfortunately. I don't think any amount of campaigning on the Democrats side can do anything for Kucinich at this point.
Ron Paul knows that it can't be done over night. If you watch some of his more in-depth interviews, instead of just his 30 second sound bites on TV, you will hear him talk about transition periods for these things.
You have to realize that fringe != wrong. Einstein was on the fringe. Most people with revolutionary ideas that have made our world better were on the fringe.
Nothing is more frightening than a new idea to people. Doubly so if it's not their own! People will tend to reflexively oppose whatever is unfamiliar or non-mainstream.
Nothing is more frightening than a new idea to people. Doubly so if it's not their own! People will tend to reflexively oppose whatever is unfamiliar or non-mainstream.
What you are talking about may be true, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not his policy ideas are good ones.
He supports public education at the state level, and NOT at the bureaucratic federal level that does not work.
We can have an excellent military with our tax money WITHOUT the income tax if we weren't policing the world and protecting other countries. Those other countries have become dependent on us, which gets us into even more shit when something international goes down.
He isn't for eliminating all taxes. I don't know where you guys get this straw man stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on how intelligent the humans are that the program is convincing, though. You ask how can "we" determine if it's true intelligence or simulated, but it seems to be an impossible criteria to determine what is "true intelligence". In other words, how many people would you have to convince, in all categories of human intelligence, before you could justify that it is "true intelligence"? Just tricking one person doesn't mean that it is actually intelligence that you have there. It is all relative to the individual humans that it is convincing.
It seems like the question "Is such and such intelligent" is unfalsifiable, or at least not specific enough, as we would need to explicitly define criteria as to what is meant by "intelligence", and then test for that. It is like asking "Is the love between two individuals really love?" Well, you have to define what threshold you are using to define "real love". Now, we can possibly prove that something ISN'T intelligent to our standards by defining some fixed criteria REPRESENTING our definition of intelligence and testing it to see if it passes enough times to be statistically probable, but we can't prove that something IS, in fact, really humanly intelligent with equations or something. We can only prove that it passes a significant number of human tests that our best minds have developed, that convinces the vast number of people that interact with it.
Wow, I guess the anti-Microsoft-everything elitism is still very prevalent here at Slashdot, modding this guy down like that. Remember that VB.NET is an an OO language now, and if program speed isn't such an issue, but time is one, it might not be a bad choice sometimes to use it.
That's assembly person to you, you insensitive clod! I guess you haven't flashed your BIOS with the latest gender-inclusive language update.
Well, based on that, I guess they are going to have to create an AI version of Chris Hansen there as well.
I agree with you, as I also take issue with the action of cheating. I don't think the OP was saying that he doesn't have a problem with cheaters, though. He was talking about professors these days that don't do a good job teaching, or that set unreasonable standards. Sometimes the professor is horrible at teaching, AND they require your attendance, AND they won't let you work in groups, AND there are no alternative professors teaching the subject, AND I could go on. Sometimes you have no choice but to teach yourself on your own, and sometimes that means finding the answers to the textbook and using them as examples to work backwards and learn it for yourself. For my major in Engineering, there are just no tutors around for the tougher subjects, because the material is difficult, we have a relatively small department, and the ones who could teach you are usually the students who have graduated above you or don't have the time to show you.
However, with all that said, I do think that cheaters in college CAN get away with it ultimately in their lives, though, because one is often not naive enough to choose a job in the specific area that they were cheating in. If they do, yeah they are going to be found out, no question. But especially with an undergraduate degree where there is so much breadth, you can choose one area of your major that you were good at and make that your job, and not even have to touch that one course that you had a hell of a time with and had to cheat to get by. Not everything is cumulative. So, yes, for any one specific subject, there may not been shortcuts if you choose it as your career, but majors are not all cumulative like that, and what is important in the real world may not even match what your coursework was in school.
There needs to be a variably accessible difficulty level of education across all of society, from preschool on up to post-doctoral studies. While not everyone can get up to a PhD level, there are a lot of people who can do better than high school. There is a lot more to the world to learn above high school, and many people can benefit from it. Maybe it just will take them a little longer. Maybe they aren't Ms. 3.95 GPA Prim-and-almost-Perfect. I don't think the OP was saying that college is a right. I'm also not saying it is a right, but you can't just divide people up into what you define as college level intellect, and high school level intellect. There is a wide range in there, and society should provide for everyone in between if we want to be the most successful. If you think that most kids you went to college with were dimwits, then, good, you hopefully kept on moving on up the academic ladder.
I'm one of those "full time students who just woke up at the crack of noon and strolled over to the library" except I am the one doing the work for my international student group members who "are from all over the world and apparently it's quite acceptable in their cultures to do absolutely EVERYTHING together, including xerox their answers before handing them in."
Don't confuse late sleepers or full time students who live on campus with the ones who don't do their work!
No kidding. Operations Research is basically an area of applied mathematics, but unfortunately, not many people even know what it is, hence the confusion. It is no wonder that an individual with Psychology and Operations Research degrees is doing so well.
Well, you could say that the US had a whole new "wild wild West" experience which had to start from scratch on a lot of societal things, while Europe retained its relatively organized institution throughout. Americans became outdoorsmen and had to build their society anew by working from the ground up.
The difference is that Huckabee would actually be the one to try and implement policies based on his religious beliefs. Ron Paul has specifically stated that it is not in his philosophy to impose his religious beliefs on anyone else. I don't like it either that Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution as the origination of human beings, but that is just his religious compartmentalization of his brain playing tricks on him from his upbringing. His political ideals make complete sense. It is an association fallacy to say that Ron Paul's political solutions are flawed because he has a certain religious belief. It clearly has no bearing on his political judgment, and he has publicly stated that he doesn't wear his religion on his shoulder like other candidates have.
Creating an IT workers union, then, could be the solution?
Being skeptical isn't ignorant, and I am actually a supporter of skepticism, but I also support doing one's research on the issues that one knows little about. What I was stating was not a claim that you are ignorant, but that these are logical fallacies to say that Ron Paul's ideas won't work because a majority says so or because your personal or anecdotal evidence says that is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Regarding the fact that we elect by a majority, well, we actually don't, but for the sake of argument I am going to say that we do, it has no bearing on the effectiveness of Ron Paul's policies. People are often ignorant about what would be best for them, and as far as the economic policies of Ron Paul, they come across to people as counter-intuitive. That IS a problem for his campaign, to convince people, but to claim that his policies won't work on the basis that enough people aren't voting for him is a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
It does matter. It makes complete sense. The Middle Ages have nothing to do with it.
Just to be upfront, I am not an economist, and I am just putting out what I have thought so far.
I think that the increase or decrease in the money in circulation COULD be controlled by some kind of evaluation function, one that determines the amount of wealth created in, or acquired by, America, and this DOESN'T have to be calculated based on the quantity of a particular physical element. However, important physical elements of value would obviously be involved, but it doesn't necessarily need to be based on just one or two particular ones.
The thing is, this seems to be something that could be very difficult to do accurately, and somewhat subjective to calculate, but it could be done, and it is something that I assume they are already doing. However, the difference in my mind would be that it would be the job of a purely governmental agency printing the money, and NOT the Federal Reserve, which is not federal, or supposedly a reserve.
As Greenspan says, there are many mathematical models that are already used, and this one wouldn't even be a predictive model, which would be harder, but instead would only be a descriptive model, which would be much easier.
There definitively doesn't have to be an interest rate on the funds that they make available to the banks AT ALL, however. All that is needed is that they produce the amount of money and distribute it how they feel best, that would best represent the new wealth in America, and do this to control inflation, and quit the out-of-control debt-based spending that we have now.
How much room, if any, should there still be for the type of speculative, credit-based, or lending-based economy, for creating new industries? Does there need to be a way to raise the availability of capital up front, so that new possibilities for wealth creation are not stifled (e.g. to start a company), or is it most effectively possible to do this without interest-bearing bonds? Banks can still deal in this kind of risk themselves, without there being a higher entity and interest rate, correct?
I don't think that there has to be a gold standard, because it has been said that gold is relatively scarce, and so it is easy to monopolize. A silver standard might work better, but it still isn't representative of all the worth in America. The worth of our money is a more complex evaluation than that, but we still don't need the Federal Reserve as it currently is set up, in there complicating matters, by meddling with their subjective interest rates.
That's a non sequitur, because as I have said above and Ron Paul has also said, it doesn't have to be a gold standard, but just representative money. Check out the following link for alternative ideas on what that could be. I'm not going to even try to say I am an economist or an expert, but economists and experts have done and continue to discuss these things, and I think it makes sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_money#New_proposals_for_backing_of_representative_money
It can be effective without being expansive, I mean, our military does all kinds of training all the time when we aren't in a war. I also agree that Afghanistan is important. It would cost us a lot less (both economically, politically, and in terms of others around the world's negative view of us now) for them to train here and not all around the world. I am an Army brat, and have lived in Germany. There are tons of duplicated facilities there of ours that are a waste of resources. There is no need for us to be there now. It costs tons of money for us to be there instead of just consolidating our forces around our resources we already hve here in the US, and we could still be just as effective at defending ourselves when called upon.
Keep the same size armed forces here in America and protect us here. Quit fighting a war in Iraq and have bases in other countries. That is a lot of money saved.
I am not cherry picking. I am not selecting some names from some obscure group of economists, either. There are Nobel prize winners in that list there. You are marginalizing an entire school of economics simply because you don't know anything about it.
You seem to like arguing semantics, but that isn't getting us any closer to the truth of things. It isn't that libertarians are coming up with these ideas themselves, sir. There are good economic scholars (or real economists, if you prefer) that hold views that libertarians have agreed make sense. Here is a list of some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Libertarian_economists
I guess what you expect of a superpower and what I expect of one aren't same.
What I was getting at was that he was not a conformist in how he lived his life or how he did his work, and his work was different than what was held by the current scientific establishment, and that didn't make it wrong at all.
Ron Paul's ideas are also not conformist, and his presentation isn't conformist. Einstein didn't have a slick presentation, because he knew that that had nothing to do with the validity of his work. The same goes for Dr. Paul.
How about actually discussing the issues and reading up on his sources instead of mocking it and making fun of it, why don't you? His economic ideas are NOT "crapola". Libertarian economic scholars are more legitimate than you think. You make it seem like Ron Paul is just pulling shit out of the air like the other candidates do. Instead, he actually has consistent policy views based on sound political theories that just happen to not be known about or at first look logical to the common person.
But anyway, people just don't get why it is important to have consistent policy views, I guess. They go around in life having contradicting opinions on tons of things, never correcting their inconsistencies, and just supporting the candidate who also happens to have their set of contradicting beliefs, instead of testing their own beliefs by questioning them. They have no underlying theory to base their decisions on, so it is all just based on spur of the moment views, a gut feeling, arguments from personal experience, or other anecdotal evidence. And, they take offense when you call them out on this, like they couldn't be wrong about something, like they are the principled ones. People don't question what they have been taught to believe, and they don't question authority. They are frightened to read a contrary opinion to theirs because it might offend them, their parents, or their god.
It is the Dunning-Kruger effect, the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.
I completely agree with you on that, and I have used the horse-race analogy myself before. The point I was making is that while Ron Paul has raised the 20 million dollars by now, Kucinich hasn't. Ron Paul isn't out of it, but Kucinich really IS out of it now, even if he says he is still running. Dr. Paul still has a chance, but it just isn't working out for him right now. But Kucinich is done, based on it being at this point in the process and his current status, unfortunately. I don't think any amount of campaigning on the Democrats side can do anything for Kucinich at this point.
Ron Paul knows that it can't be done over night. If you watch some of his more in-depth interviews, instead of just his 30 second sound bites on TV, you will hear him talk about transition periods for these things.
You have to realize that fringe != wrong. Einstein was on the fringe. Most people with revolutionary ideas that have made our world better were on the fringe.
Nothing is more frightening than a new idea to people. Doubly so if it's not their own! People will tend to reflexively oppose whatever is unfamiliar or non-mainstream.
Nothing is more frightening than a new idea to people. Doubly so if it's not their own! People will tend to reflexively oppose whatever is unfamiliar or non-mainstream.
What you are talking about may be true, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not his policy ideas are good ones.
He supports public education at the state level, and NOT at the bureaucratic federal level that does not work.
We can have an excellent military with our tax money WITHOUT the income tax if we weren't policing the world and protecting other countries. Those other countries have become dependent on us, which gets us into even more shit when something international goes down.
He isn't for eliminating all taxes. I don't know where you guys get this straw man stuff.