# Seriously RON PAUL WACK JOB



## FUZO (Dec 26, 2011)

Have you heard this nut.God everyone in this forum in 1 years time if Ron Paul became president would be saying what a mistale they made just like the mistake some of you made with Barry. This Ron Paul is a complete waste of a canidate.All of you can bash but just remember he would remove every singel army base in the world and would tear apart our military our country would be weaker then greece. So make the smart vote/. And even if Ron wins Iowa doesnt mean anything its the rest of the caucuses that will determine the nominee. And right now Newt leads with the Tea Partiers


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

When did he say that he wants to remove all the bases? I've seen him talk about ending foreign aid, which I agree with. I've seen him talk about closing some bases, but he's never mentioned closing all of them. I also agree that some bases need to be closed. A lot of them in Europe to begin with.


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 26, 2011)

FUZO said:


> Have you heard this nut.God everyone in this forum in 1 years time if Ron Paul became president would be saying what a mistale they made just like the mistake some of you made with Barry. This Ron Paul is a complete waste of a canidate.All of you can bash but just remember he would remove every singel army base in the world and would tear apart our military our country would be weaker then greece. So make the smart vote/. And even if Ron wins Iowa doesnt mean anything its the rest of the caucuses that will determine the nominee. And right now Newt leads with the Tea Partiers



Kinda like the same ole buyers remorse we've had after every presidential election, EVER, in the last twenty years. Yet, noone wants to criticize W?

Go figure.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

IronAddict said:


> Yet, noone wants to criticize W?



Do you mean George W. Bush?


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

I wont vote for him, but I seriously have no idea who I am going to vote for. I don't want 4 more years of obama, but no one other then Perry do I half way like, but Perry is just about done.


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Do you mean George W. Bush?



Yes, Doms. All these right wingers critcize Obama, now they're on to Paul and he isn't even the Prez.

They even still have the gall to say Carter was the worst Prez. of all time.

But noone ever calls that turd a turd.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

IronAddict said:


> Yes, Doms. All these right wingers critcize Obama, now they're on to Paul and he isn't even the Prez.
> 
> They even still have the gall to say Carter was the worst Prez. of all time.
> 
> But noone ever calls that turd a turd.


I've heard plenty of people talk shit about GWB, both online and offline. That includes Republicans. The only people that think that Republicans don't criticize Bush are Democrats.

Carter was shit president. He made a lot of shit decisions. However, Bush and Obama and a whole other level of bullshit.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

I also don't know where my vote is going, but as of today it would go to ron paul....pretty sure Congress will not let him shut down all of our bases.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> I also don't know where my vote is going, but as of today it would go to ron paul....pretty sure Congress will not let him shut down all of our bases.


I agree 100%. If you want real change, and not the bullshit Obama "change", it's gotta be Ron Paul. He's the only one not towing the same ol', same ol'.


----------



## oufinny (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I agree 100%. If you want real change, and not the bullshit Obama "change", it's gotta be Ron Paul. He's the only one not towing the same ol', same ol'.



Yes this is true but change for the sake of change amounts to what?  An isolationist policy and a shutdown of many federal programs with no explanation of where the funding will go/come from??? Sorry, he hasn't sold me on shit yet. Produce a detailed plan with numbers, detailed explanations, short and long term goals; until then you are just blowing smoke up peoples asses.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I agree 100%. If you want real change, and not the bullshit Obama "change", it's gotta be Ron Paul. He's the only one not towing the same ol', same ol'.


Exactly, unlike Obama he has laid out a plan on what needs to be done.
Funny how people voted for Obama and his changes but I really can't recall him specifying what were the changes.
People must of fell in love with his story telling, its a shame because I really wanted this country to move ahead and prosper.


----------



## LAM (Dec 26, 2011)

FUZO said:


> Have you heard this nut.God everyone in this forum in 1 years time if Ron Paul became president would be saying what a mistale they made just like the mistake some of you made with Barry. This Ron Paul is a complete waste of a canidate.All of you can bash but just remember he would remove every singel army base in the world and would tear apart our military our country would be weaker then greece. So make the smart vote/. And even if Ron wins Iowa doesnt mean anything its the rest of the caucuses that will determine the nominee. And right now Newt leads with the Tea Partiers



RP would have been better suited for the early 1900's.  most of the things he proposes to do the POTUS lacks the power to accomplish.  libertarian beliefs in many was totally dismiss hundreds of years of knowledge that we have learned in regards to human behavior and sociology such as self-regulation of the markets.  self-regulation of the financial district in NY is what caused the global banking collapse.  and there is not a single economists anywhere in the world that proposes that using gold as currency is a viable solution. the entire US economy is based on using paper currency.  RP's tactics are to appeal to those that live in the past as if somehow it would be possible to apply things that we "should" have done then, now.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Yes this is true but change for the sake of change amounts to what?  An isolationist policy and a shutdown of many federal programs with no explanation of where the funding will go/come from??? Sorry, he hasn't sold me on shit yet. Produce a detailed plan with numbers, detailed explanations, short and long term goals; until then you are just blowing smoke up peoples asses.



Check out his web site, he gives us a better explanation of his plan, something others don't do.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Yes this is true but change for the sake of change amounts to what?  An isolationist policy and a shutdown of many federal programs with no explanation of where the funding will go/come from??? Sorry, he hasn't sold me on shit yet. Produce a detailed plan with numbers, detailed explanations, short and long term goals; until then you are just blowing smoke up peoples asses.



It's not isolationist. It's not funding other countries, especially those hate The United States of America. Almost all of it is a waste (Africa and the Middle East). 

What's [the money] going to come from? That's a savings of 58 _*billion*_ each year. And that's just foreign aid. That doesn't count military expenditures. That's a great start.

But yeah, electing someone that's going to keep throwing away money on stupid stuff is the way to go.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Exactly, unlike Obama he has laid out a plan on what needs to be done.
> Funny how people voted for Obama and his changes but I really can't recall him specifying what were the changes.
> People must of fell in love with his story telling, its a shame because I really wanted this country to move ahead and prosper.


"He speaks well."


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 26, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Yes this is true but change for the sake of change amounts to what?  An isolationist policy and a shutdown of many federal programs with no explanation of where the funding will go/come from??? Sorry, he hasn't sold me on shit yet. Produce a detailed plan with numbers, detailed explanations, short and long term goals; until then you are just blowing smoke up peoples asses.



And the other candidates have produced what explanations??
Right.

Oh besides 9-9-9.....
That was good for you oufinny?


----------



## LAM (Dec 26, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Oh besides 9-9-9.....
> That was good for you oufinny?



what you didn't like Cains destroy the middle class tax and increase the poverty rate proposal?...


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

Who would you vote for Lam?


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

Im Voting for Bill Clinton lol, hell at this point I would take 8 more years with Bill any day.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> Im Voting for Bill Clinton lol, hell at this point I would take 8 more years with Bill any day.



Our first true black president.


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Our first true black president.



Very true, and the man that made the 1990s fucking awesome in every way!


----------



## secdrl (Dec 26, 2011)

Gingrich. Romney is a snake.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

They were good times... one of the few I ever lived in.


----------



## LAM (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Who would you vote for Lam?



with our wonderful 2 party system in the US the dems are still the lesser of 2 evils.  the radical right won't allow gov to solve any problems which makes any realistic recovery from this recession painfully slow and fuels further content among the masses for government which is a main goal of theirs.  tactics like making such a big issue about Keystone XL is nothing but an attempt to pull voters away from the left and out of the metro areas, but these things work on the simple minded.

for the right Huntsman is the only sane one out of the bunch which is why he doesn't stand a chance against the other radicals as the right moves further in that direction.  It would be interested to know what he learned from being ambassador to china that prompted him to jump into the ring.

ultimately nothing will change until more American's wake up and realize that has been done to the middle class the past 30 years.  overall the US pop is not that intelligent as compared to other country's in the OECD and very uniformed (thanks to mass media outlets) which makes it extremely easy to manipulate the herd..


----------



## withoutrulers (Dec 26, 2011)

secdrl said:


> Gingrich. Romney is a snake.


Do you not think gingrich is a snake too? Romney is just bad at hiding his phoniness. Gingrich is a calculating sociopath. He might be the fastest route to totalitarianism. Maybe he'll have Henry kissinger as his VP.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

I see newt as part of the old Bush regime, what fucking good has newt done?


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I've heard plenty of people talk shit about GWB, both online and offline. That includes Republicans. The only people that think that Republicans don't criticize Bush are Democrats.
> 
> Carter was shit president. He made a lot of shit decisions. However, Bush and Obama and a whole other level of bullshit.



I agree, I don't hear many people defending bush these days, not even republicans.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Our first true black president.



I heard a republican make the claim that clinton was our best republican president in a while.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I heard a republican make the claim that clinton was our best republican president in a while.



A little known fact, NAFTA was Bush seniors idea. Clinton just pushed it and it went through.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> A little known fact, NAFTA was Bush seniors idea. Clinton just pushed it and it went through.


Which...doesn't make it Clinton's fault?


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Which...doesn't make it Clinton's fault?



Oh, he is to blame without a doubt.
I'm not a fan of NAFTA.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Oh, he is to blame without a doubt.
> I'm not a fan of NAFTA.


Just making sure.

I'm not a fan of NAFTA either.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> Which...doesn't make it Clinton's fault?



NAFTA isn't as big of problem as people would like to think.   Most of our jobs are going to India.   Yes, we lost some manufacturing jobs to Mexico, but we are losing engineering, lawyer, and medical jobs to India much faster.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> NAFTA isn't as big of problem as people would like to think.   Most of our jobs are going to India.   Yes, we lost some manufacturing jobs to Mexico, but we are losing engineering, lawyer, and medical jobs to India much faster.


It _is_ still a problem.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 26, 2011)

secdrl said:


> Gingrich. Romney is a snake.




I think Gingrich has some hidden flaws, too! He's a very intelligent dude and always does tremendously during debates. He's been around for a while (could be a good or bad thing) He just seems smart and would deal more harshly with our enemies. I know the economy sucks, but a lot of ppl are overlooking the national security issue. Barack is weak and fragile when it comes to our enemies. We need someone who is gonna be proactive when it comes to our security, not reactive.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 26, 2011)

It's hilarious reading about all the "so-and-so says he's going to do this, that or the other."  If you can take a step back and think about it there is a reason for our three part government.  Checks and balances.  

Any candidate can make outrageous claims to doing some outrageous thing and they really can't.  Not without the blessing of Congress and the Supreme Court.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 26, 2011)

secdrl said:


> I think Gingrich has some hidden flaws, too! He's a very intelligent dude and always does tremendously during debates. He's been around for a while (could be a good or bad thing) He just seems smart and would deal more harshly with our enemies. I know the economy sucks, but a lot of ppl are overlooking the national security issue. Barack is weak and fragile when it comes to our enemies. We need someone who is gonna be proactive when it comes to our security, not reactive.



OBL, Gaddhafi, and Jong Il all dead on Obama's watch.    It's the republicans that went after the wrong fucking country.

I really fucking hate it when I have to defend the current SOB in the white house, but people constantly blame him for the wrong shit.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> OBL, Gaddhafi, and Jong Il all dead on Obama's watch.    It's the republicans that went after the wrong fucking country.
> 
> I really fucking hate it when I have to defend the current SOB in the white house, but people constantly blame him for the wrong shit.



1. The search the for OBL started on Bush's watch, but yeah, give the credit to Obama. Even though none of the tactics set down under Bush's watch had changed.

2. Good job getting involved in another conflict. Not to mention that Obama, like Bush, was giving Gaddafi money.

3. You're crediting KJI's death to Obama. Really?

Blame Obama for the wrong shit? How about waiting to pull out of Iraq until it was time for elections? How about getting involved in yet another Arab conflict? How about embedding corporations even further into DC and the White house? How about backing more legislation to takes rights from citizens so that corporations can make another buck? How about being soft on immigration? How about taking the side of illegals over the state of Arizona? How about giving more TARP money? How about warentless wiretaps and GPS tracking?

I can go on all fucking day...


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> 1. The search the for OBL started on Bush's watch, but yeah, give the credit to Obama. Even though none of the tactics set down under Bush's watch had changed.
> 
> 2. Good job getting involved in another conflict. Not to mention that Obama, like Bush, was giving Gaddafi money.
> 
> ...



Bush wasn't looking for OBL or he would have gotten him.   Bush wanted nothing more than to go into Iraq.   That was his baby.   Our involvement in Libya was minimal.   We supported the fraction of demonstrators that wanted him out.   Nobody in Iraq did a fucking thing to help themselves.

I can't argue with any of your anti Obama points and agree that you could list more.


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> I've heard plenty of people talk shit about GWB, both online and offline. That includes Republicans. The only people that think that Republicans don't criticize Bush are Democrats.
> 
> Carter was shit president. He made a lot of shit decisions. However, Bush and Obama and a whole other level of bullshit.



Sorry dude, just finished a round. Of golf that is.

I haven't heard much of anything about that guy, good or bad. Even on the news. Not nearly scraping the lid of what that guy deserves. Sure, all Presidents can't make everyone happy, but he didn't leave the country in this bad of shape, and he didn't lie to take this country to war and pillage his own backyard. 

I don't think I'm the only person who thinks he deserves the Mussolini treatment.


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

So would some one please explain to me what is so great about ron paul? I know these past two elections he has been a name I have heard, and everything I hear, I do not like about him. A explination would be great!


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> So would some one please explain to me what is so great about ron paul? I know these past two elections he has been a name I have heard, and everything I hear, I do not like about him. A explination would be great!



I'm not sure anyone truly loves him.   I think we would be better off if we headed in his direction.   He is a strict constitutionalist which would be nice.   He seems to want laws to fit inside the parameters if the constitution, instead of finding loopholes around it.

I personally like the fact that he wants to bring all our troops home.   Close bases abroad, and quit policing the world.   We could put those troops in the boarder and stop this immigration problem.

He is also a big advocate of free trade, I should say free trade by all parties.   Currently the American market is open to free trade, nobody else is.

Oh yeah, stop the dumb as war on drugs.


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> So would some one please explain to me what is so great about ron paul? I know these past two elections he has been a name I have heard, and everything I hear, I do not like about him. A explination would be great!



I'm in the same boat as you, he's just your average everyday career politician.  







YouTube Video


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

secdrl said:


> I think Gingrich has some hidden flaws, too! He's a very intelligent dude and always does tremendously during debates. He's been around for a while (could be a good or bad thing) He just seems smart and would deal more harshly with our enemies. I know the economy sucks, but a lot of ppl are overlooking the national security issue. Barack is weak and fragile when it comes to our enemies. We need someone who is gonna be proactive when it comes to our security, not reactive.



Bush was proactive, and all we got out of his preemptive war is 4,000 dead americans, and a new nation that al queda can train terrorists in.  And, now Iran can do whatever they want without Iraq there to keep them in check.  

Part of the reason we're broke and countries hate us is because of all the money we spend putting bases around the world and waging war in the wrong countries.


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> I'm not sure anyone truly loves him.   I think we would be better off if we headed in his direction.   He is a strict constitutionalist which would be nice.   He seems to want laws to fit inside the parameters if the constitution, instead of finding loopholes around it.
> 
> I personally like the fact that he wants to bring all our troops home.   Close bases abroad, and quit policing the world.   We could put those troops in the boarder and stop this immigration problem.
> 
> ...



What I want, our troops home, the war on drugs with mexico upp'd and illegal immigration up'd as a border state, that is big time stuff. Honestly every damn candidate does not interest me at all.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


> 1. The search the for OBL started on Bush's watch, but yeah, give the credit to Obama. Even though none of the tactics set down under Bush's watch had changed.
> 
> 2. Good job getting involved in another conflict. Not to mention that Obama, like Bush, was giving Gaddafi money.
> 
> ...


 
This ^^^


----------



## vancouver (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> So would some one please explain to me what is so great about ron paul? I know these past two elections he has been a name I have heard, and everything I hear, I do not like about him. A explination would be great!


 
He's a constitutionalist.

He believes in property rights, which would include intellectual property. Under a Paul administration, more time would be spent protecting the US's intellectual property than fighting stupid wars.

He's a free market capitalist, but because he's a constitutionalist and believes in property rights, large corporations would not have the lobbying power they do today. Free market capitalists also believe its government’s job to mediate, not to get physically involved in business or manipulate the economy. The Federal Reserve would be gone.

He believes in civil liberties which is the essence of your constitution. The government has too much power and this power is being used against the people, this is in complete contrast to your constitution. In a republic, the government represents the people. In the case of the U.S., the government controls the people.

Most importantly, He's intelligent. Every single candidate seeks the Presidency because they seek power. He's the only one that wants to take power away from the government...

As someone has already stated, it would be hard for him to do anything radical as a republic shares power between the President and The House. The cool thing is he can Veto a bill if he feels it goes against the constitution or international law. Had Congress managed to table a bill in favor of waging war against Iraq while he was in office, he would have shot it down over and over. He's the only candidate capable of vetoing a bill he feels goes against the constitution, because he does not give a shit how it impacts him politically. He's the only selfless candidate.

He'd likely only make a 1 term president, but he would likely plant the seed which would return the U.S. to its roots, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness! He could change the game for a long time.

Governments Job is to protect the Liberty of its citizens and enforce laws which do not infringe upon a citizens liberty. It's a pretty simple thing that has been fucked up for the past 100 years.


----------



## SFW (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> So would some one please explain to me what is so great about ron paul? I know these past two elections he has been a name I have heard, and everything I hear, I do not like about him. A explination would be great!


 

For one, he's a visionary. His predictions from years ago are all coming true. he knew things about our current economic collapse back in 2001 and laid out a plan to avoid it. No on listened. He also knew Sadam had a weak army and there were no wmd's or justification for war. Oh and he also knew where to look for Osama 5 years ago. (pakistan)


----------



## dgp (Dec 26, 2011)

FUZO said:


> Have you heard this nut.God everyone in this forum in 1 years time if Ron Paul became president would be saying what a mistale they made just like the mistake some of you made with Barry. This Ron Paul is a complete waste of a canidate.All of you can bash but just remember he would remove every singel army base in the world and would tear apart our military our country would be weaker then greece. So make the smart vote/. And even if Ron wins Iowa doesnt mean anything its the rest of the caucuses that will determine the nominee. And right now Newt leads with the Tea Partiers


 

I don???t think he plans on dismantling every base. He is simply against the US continuing to be an imperial power.  Don???t forget we fought  a revelation against such a thing.


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

I'll admit I voted bush in 04 and McCain in 08. I'm all for a guy that truly stands for that, but we all know how things play out with candidates. What ruffled my feathers was I am a Christian and his stand on israel made me turn my nose up too him, Rick perry is my governor and I have no issues with him, I like his stands on things like abortion, immigration, but I agree with you guys that he would never cut it as a president. He hates Obama and I love that about him, he is a avid gun enthusiast, but can his plan get it done. I don't think so. Above all I don't want another 4 years of the past 11 years we have endured. I just wish Ron Paul wasn't so anti religion, that is my biggest conviction as a person. Obama has tried his best to take that away us. Obama I called it out of the gate, he is just a publicity stunt to finally be the first African American president in office. It's cool and all but he has single handely spent more then bush did in 8 years and for what? Nothing is different, the only thing I will give him credit for, is ending the war in Iraq, because I lost 3 good friends there, and gas to some what stabilize.


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 26, 2011)

Ron Paul is the only one with REAL cuts to our over run spending! (which we need BAD)

He is the only candidate not bought and paid for by big corporations..  He gets ALL of his donations from small donations from normal people like you and I. (he won't accept special donations)

He wants to get paid 39,000 a year as president! The average working americans pay.

He DOES want to shut down all bases outside of the USA.  We are spending far to much money on them and there is NO point having them.  We can target and attack any place in the world within 45min....WHY DO WE NEED 900 bases around the world???

He is the only candidate that tells the TRUTH whether you like it or not.  He won't flip flop just to win your vote.   He has been preaching the SAME thing for 30+yrs!

You think his foreign policy is bad?  Well, most foreign policy experts agree with Ron Paul.  Our own CIA agrees that 9/11 was caused by blowback from our current foreign policy.  We are also 16trillion dollars in debt and cannot continue this.     Ask yourself this....WHY does the Armed Forces personnel donate Ron Paul more money than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED!!! Including Obama!!! 

Ron Paul wants the strongest defense that USA armed forces has ever seen.

I could go on and on.  All of his policies make so much sense its crazy that no one would run at the chance to elect this man. 

But of course the media and establishment elite are doing anything and everything to make this man seem to be unelectable.  


Im sick of voting for the lesser of two evils.  No way in hell will i vote for Obama, Gingrich or Romney.  They are the SAME PERSON WITH DIFFERENT NAMES!!   Fuckkkkk that!  Bring me the honest man with some fucking principles!!!!(ron paul!)


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 26, 2011)

dgp said:


> I don???t think he plans on dismantling every base. He is simply against the US continuing to be an imperial power.  Don???t forget we fought  a revelation against such a thing.




He does want to get rid of the 900 bases outside of USA. 

We can attack any place in the world in less than an hour...so what is the point in having 900 bases outside of the USA?  

We spend FAR to much on our military and wars.... this is why we are 16trillion in the hole!


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

Woodrow1 said:


> Ron Paul is the only one with REAL cuts to our over run spending! (which we need BAD)
> 
> He is the only candidate not bought and paid for by big corporations..  He gets ALL of his donations from small donations from normal people like you and I. (he won't accept special donations)
> 
> ...



That's pretty cool, but my concern is how he is going to treat us Christians, I'm just scared to vote someone in that might turn into the anti Christ. I'm all for America and I want us out of this bullshit debt we are in, I want us to be back to the Clinton America we once were. I think most people thought Obama was going to be that guy and well he is a joke. Ron Paul needs to make his stand on religion, is he for allow Christians to worship in peace or be like Obama and try and take all of our rights away?


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

Woodrow1 said:


> He does want to get rid of the 900 bases outside of USA.
> 
> We can attack any place in the world in less than an hour...so what is the point in having 900 bases outside of the USA?
> 
> We spend FAR to much on our military and wars.... this is why we are 16trillion in the hole!



That is so true. We just need to take care of us, and bring our troops home. End it in Afghanistan, and be done, just stick by israel, we are really there I really there only supporting country.


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 26, 2011)

IronAddict said:


> I'm in the same boat as you, he's just your average everyday career politician.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




he didn't storm out of that interview.   Don't let the media fill your head full of shit...

There are more videos of the FULL interview....

And hell he was asked the SAME question by the SAME news channel the day before.   Im sure he is sick of it.   Why aren't we asking them questions about REAL PROBLEMS?  

Thats why we have these fucked up sorry ass presidents now... BECAUSE THE MEDIA CHOOSES THEM FOR YOU!


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

vancouver said:


> he's a constitutionalist.
> 
> he believes in property rights, which would include intellectual property. Under a paul administration, more time would be spent protecting the us's intellectual property than fighting stupid wars.
> 
> ...


ron paul!


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> That's pretty cool, but my concern is how he is going to treat us Christians, I'm just scared to vote someone in that might turn into the anti Christ. I'm all for America and I want us out of this bullshit debt we are in, I want us to be back to the Clinton America we once were. I think most people thought Obama was going to be that guy and well he is a joke. Ron Paul needs to make his stand on religion, is he for allow Christians to worship in peace or be like Obama and try and take all of our rights away?




he is a christian himself. He is a babtist. He is a man of faith. He chooses not to talk about it much so he won't misguide people into liking him just because of his faith. 

He is NOT the anti-christ!  lmao!  This man actually wants to SAVE the country and bring peace and freedom.

The other candidates want WAR and don't bother listening to the constitution....which will bring less freedoms and liberty.



And IMO....religion should NEVER EVER be a part of politics... not everyone believes in the same thing.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> I'll admit I voted bush in 04 and McCain in 08. I'm all for a guy that truly stands for that, but we all know how things play out with candidates. What ruffled my feathers was I am a Christian and his stand on israel made me turn my nose up too him, Rick perry is my governor and I have no issues with him, I like his stands on things like abortion, immigration, but I agree with you guys that he would never cut it as a president. He hates Obama and I love that about him, he is a avid gun enthusiast, but can his plan get it done. I don't think so. Above all I don't want another 4 years of the past 11 years we have endured. I just wish Ron Paul wasn't so anti religion, that is my biggest conviction as a person. Obama has tried his best to take that away us. Obama I called it out of the gate, he is just a publicity stunt to finally be the first African American president in office. It's cool and all but he has single handely spent more then bush did in 8 years and for what? Nothing is different, the only thing I will give him credit for, is ending the war in Iraq, because I lost 3 good friends there, and gas to some what stabilize.


 
Your founding fathers agreed in the seperation of Religion and State. WTF do you care if he is religious or not, it has absolutely no impact on his ability to govern. He is a Christian and a Baptist, but no one would know this because he doesn't mix religion with politics (very, very smart), well actually not so smart if you want to get elected in the US of A; very sad.

If every one in the U.S. read this link to his political positions, he would win the next election by a landslide. I bet the entire population could agree with 90% of his political positions, not so for any of the other candidates.

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 26, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Your founding fathers agreed in the seperation of Religion and State. WTF do you care if he is religious or not, it has absolutely no impact on his ability to govern. He is a Christian and a Baptist, but no one would know this because he doesn't mix religion with politics (very, very smart), well actually not so smart if you want to get elected in the US of A; very sad.
> 
> If every one in the U.S. read this link to his political positions, he would win the next election by a landslide. I bet the entire population could agree with 90% of his political positions, not so for any of the other candidates.
> 
> Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





most people just follow the media...which is extremely biased against Ron Paul..  They are fucking SCARED of Ron Paul!


i love how they are saying Ron Paul winning Iowa doesnt matter! HAHA  I hope he gets a huge bump after that Iowa win and OWNS NH also!


----------



## dgp (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> That's pretty cool, but my concern is how he is going to treat us Christians, I'm just scared to vote someone in that might turn into the anti Christ. I'm all for America and I want us out of this bullshit debt we are in, I want us to be back to the Clinton America we once were. I think most people thought Obama was going to be that guy and well he is a joke. Ron Paul needs to make *his stand on religion*, is he for allow Christians to worship in peace or be like Obama and try and take all of our rights away?


 
What does religion have to do with anything?

Religion should plays no place in political  .

Religion is what is slowing this country down.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 26, 2011)

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul*


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Your founding fathers agreed in the seperation of Religion and State. WTF do you care if he is religious or not, it has absolutely no impact on his ability to govern. He is a Christian and a Baptist, but no one would know this because he doesn't mix religion with politics (very, very smart), well actually not so smart if you want to get elected in the US of A; very sad.
> 
> If every one in the U.S. read this link to his political positions, he would win the next election by a landslide. I bet the entire population could agree with 90% of his political positions, not so for any of the other candidates.
> 
> Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's all I meant not mixing the two, I am all for separation, it's just the fact with Obama I am slowly losing my religious right to worship as I please. This makes me take a whole new look at Ron paul. He could now possibly have my backing.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> That's pretty cool, but my concern is how he is going to treat us Christians, I'm just scared to vote someone in that might turn into the anti Christ. I'm all for America and I want us out of this bullshit debt we are in, I want us to be back to the Clinton America we once were. I think most people thought Obama was going to be that guy and well he is a joke. Ron Paul needs to make his stand on religion, is he for allow Christians to worship in peace or be like Obama and try and take all of our rights away?


I don't know how he feels about religion but I am sure it won't be an issue.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> That's all I meant not mixing the two, I am all for separation, it's just the fact with Obama I am slowly losing my religious right to worship as I please. This makes me take a whole new look at Ron paul. He could now possibly have my backing.



Can you clarify exactly how he has affected your right to worship?


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

I am all for true change and he seems to be dead on, I just worry about my religious stand point, and not in politics. That's why I voted bush and McCain, they both were Christians and I didn't worry about the rights we haw already lost, such as in god we trust.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

;it's just the fact with Obama I am slowly losing my religious g.[/QUOTE]
How has he done this?
Details please, I've never read nor heard of anything of the such.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> I am all for true change and he seems to be dead on, I just worry about my religious stand point, and not in politics. That's why I voted bush and McCain, they both were Christians and I didn't worry about the rights we haw already lost, such as in god we trust.



I'm pretty sure that "in god we trust" isn't a right.


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> Can you clarify exactly how he has affected your right to worship?



For starters holiday trees rather then the age old Christmas tree


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> For starters holiday trees rather then the age old Christmas tree



and this affects your ability to worship?  ridiculous!


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 26, 2011)

we are losing our freedom and liberty slowly imo.   But i havent seen any lose of rights to religion....


----------



## vancouver (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> I am all for true change and he seems to be dead on, I just worry about my religious stand point, and not in politics. That's why I voted bush and McCain, they both were Christians and I didn't worry about the rights we haw already lost, such as in god we trust.


 
Bush became a born again Christian when he decided to run for politics. You do realize he's a Skull and Bones member right? They have some very Satanistic rituals which all members still adhere to today...

You bought it hook line a sinker man. This time around, vote for the person who has the most inteligent stance on issues and who can also fully articulate themselves in the English Language; believe it or not, Obama's got everyone except Ron Paul beat in these categories...


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

Woodrow1 said:


> we are losing our freedom and liberty slowly imo.   But i havent seen any lose of rights to religion....



I think he meant his religion is losing their ability to control our country that was supposed to be secular and not favor one particular religion.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Bush became a born again Christian when he decided to run for politics. You do realize he's a Skull and Bones member right? They have some very Satanistic rituals which all members still adhere to today...
> 
> You bought it hook line a sinker man. This time around, vote for the person who has the most inteligent stance on issues and who can also fully articulate themselves in the English Language; believe it or not, Obama's got everyone except Ron Paul beat in these categories...




Well said.  Although, I think huntsman is another one that is intelligent.  Perry and Bachman are retards that epitomize christianity stupidity.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> For starters holiday trees rather then the age old Christmas tree



I'm lost, is that really significant? Obama isn't a Muslim if that's what troubles you.


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Bush became a born again Christian when he decided to run for politics. You do realize he's a Skull and Bones member right? They have some very Satanistic rituals which all members still adhere to today...
> 
> You bought it hook line a sinker man. This time around, vote for the person who has the most inteligent stance on issues and who can also fully articulate themselves in the English Language; believe it or not, Obama's got everyone except Ron Paul beat in these categories...



Obama is an idiot, above all religion aside I want this country to get out of debt and stop raising the national debt, I don't want to worry about what is to come of this country in the next 30 years, because at this point I k ow where we are heading.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> I'm lost, is that really significant? Obama isn't a Muslim if that's what troubles you.



Of course he is!  He wasn't born in the US either.  Oh, and he eats babies.


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> Obama is an idiot, above all religion aside I want this country to get out of debt and stop raising the national debt, I don't want to worry about what is to come of this country in the next 30 years, because at this point I k ow where we are heading.



You have nothing to worry about.  Soon, Jesus will float down on a cloud and rapture you up to heaven.  Then he will sodomize you as a priest would.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 26, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> Well said. Although, I think huntsman is another one that is intelligent. Perry and Bachman are retards that epitomize christianity stupidity.


 
I totally fucking agree with this, Huntsman would be awesome. I heard him say on Colbert that he doesn't have a hope in hell because of money...too bad, this is also a big challenge with the U.S. political system. In other countries (such as mine), political parties get public funding based on the number of votes they got in the last election. So for example, the Greens in Canada recieved 7% of the popular vote, although they won zero seats in 2008. In 2010 (election called because the government fell on a bill), they elected their first ever MP to the house. This could not be possible if they did not get $1 per vote in 2008! I did not vote Green, but the Green party leader brings an important agenda to parlaiment. All total, 5 political parties are represented in Parlaiment, I like the system...


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> You have nothing to worry about.  Soon, Jesus will float down on a cloud and rapture you up to heaven.  Then he will sodomize you as a priest would.



Wait Jesus grew up? I worship baby Jesus and mountain dew


----------



## vancouver (Dec 26, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> Obama is an idiot, above all religion aside I want this country to get out of debt and stop raising the national debt, I don't want to worry about what is to come of this country in the next 30 years, because at this point I k ow where we are heading.


 
Wow! this coming from someone who voted along religious lines the last 2 times around. 99% of the population could not hold a candle to Obama's intelligence, but that does not mean the whole nation should share his (and his Party's) vision of government...

You watch way too much Fox news. You probably even think Fox has a real news program....


----------



## dgp (Dec 26, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Bush became a born again Christian when he decided to run for politics. You do realize he's a *Skull and Bones member* right? They have some very Satanistic rituals which all members still adhere to today...
> 
> You bought it hook line a sinker man. This time around, vote for the person who has the most inteligent stance on issues and who can also fully articulate themselves in the English Language; believe it or not, Obama's got everyone except Ron Paul beat in these categories...


 
Skull and Bones in 1947, with George HW Bush just left of clock


----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

Honestly I only watch the news for the weather. I am on a few forums and I have seen some of obamas greatness.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 26, 2011)




----------



## Boomer182 (Dec 26, 2011)

DOMS said:


>



Fo shizzle my nizzle


----------



## lnvanry (Dec 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> RP would have been better suited for the early 1900's.  most of the things he proposes to do the POTUS lacks the power to accomplish.  libertarian beliefs in many was totally dismiss hundreds of years of knowledge that we have learned in regards to human behavior and sociology such as self-regulation of the markets.  self-regulation of the financial district in NY is what caused the global banking collapse.  and there is not a single economists anywhere in the world that proposes that using gold as currency is a viable solution. the entire US economy is based on using paper currency.  RP's tactics are to appeal to those that live in the past as if somehow it would be possible to apply things that we "should" have done then, now.



Funny you mention that...I would say he's substantially ahead of his time.  If our fiat monetary system collapses (which it will at our current trajectory) there are going to be a lot of leaders looking back to his ideals regarding monetary theory.  I agree the man has poor idea (no candidate is perfect) but I feel the libertarian ideals and philosophies will find the spot light of mainstream practice (or test drive) when the others fail.  BTW, you can still have regulation in a libertarian government.  Its not the same thing as anarchy...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 26, 2011)

exphysiologist88 said:


> I think he meant his religion is losing their ability to control our country that was supposed to be secular and not favor one particular religion.


 
LOL...


----------



## LAM (Dec 26, 2011)

lnvanry said:


> Funny you mention that...I would say he's substantially ahead of his time.  If our fiat monetary system collapses (which it will at our current trajectory) there are going to be a lot of leaders looking back to his ideals regarding monetary theory.  I agree the man has poor idea (no candidate is perfect) but I feel the libertarian ideals and philosophies will find the spot light of mainstream practice (or test drive) when the others fail.  BTW, you can still have regulation in a libertarian government.  Its not the same thing as anarchy...



RP's beliefs in monetary theory are not new or revolutionary but filled with plenty or truth.  but that does not elude the fact that the central bank and the "faith" that other countries have had in the US and USD along with the dollar hedge-money is what allowed the US to become the economic power that it has since WWII and the Brentwoods Agreement.  and much of that decision was based solely on that at the time the US government was seen as extremely stable and that was only because of the location of the country tucked between the Pacific and Atlantic ocean's which spared the US the destruction that was seen across the EU during WWII and the presence of a healthy and growing "middle class".

libertarian beliefs in regards to government regulation of the markets fail to address the fact that there is and never has been any free markets.  the markets are the creation of government, outside of the US you do not hear the term "free market" because it is a fallacy.  the markets have always been controlled by government in the US and every country in the world.  governments provide the stability of currency and the legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make the "markets" possible.

the "middle class" is the creation of government regulation of the markets by providing worker protections and the administration of progressive taxation policies.  you can trace the rise and fall of the middle class in the US to different era's but the causes have been the same since the rise of conservatism in late 1800's to 1932 and from 1980 until now.  the implementation of conservative economic policy's have wiped out the middle class every single time and the return to liberal democratic policies strengthens it.  this is all US economic history and indisputable fact but alas many American's have short memories.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 26, 2011)

LAM said:


> libertarian beliefs in regards to government regulation of the markets fail to address the fact that there is and never has been any free markets. the markets are the creation of government, outside of the US you do not hear the term "free market" because it is a fallacy. the markets have always been controlled by government in the US and every country in the world. governments provide the stability of currency and the legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make the "markets" possible.
> 
> the "middle class" is the creation of government regulation of the markets by providing worker protections and the administration of progressive taxation policies. you can trace the rise and fall of the middle class in the US to different era's but the causes have been the same since the rise of conservatism in late 1800's to 1932 and from 1980 until now. the implementation of conservative economic policy's have wiped out the middle class every single time and the return to liberal democratic policies strengthens it. this is all US economic history and indisputable fact but alas many American's have short memories.


 
So, the markets are 100% created and controlled through govt regulation? That's a pretty friggin bold statement. Yes, there has never been such a thing as a truley free market. Unabated capatilism would be dog-eat-dog/buyer beware. But, how do you explain why Europe, where the govt maintained even tighter control of the markets and provided greater regulation and worker benefits, is even worse off and about to collapse under a mountain of unsustainable debt? I'm not a bug fan of the Bluffington Post. But, this article gets its info from the OECD and paints a pretty chilling future for EU, which will spread to the rest of the devopled world and deal a much worse blow to the middle class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...-may-global-economy-face-worst_n_1116055.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...-may-global-economy-face-worst_n_1116055.html


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> But, how do you explain why Europe, where the govt maintained even tighter control of the markets and provided greater regulation and worker benefits, is even worse off and about to collapse under a mountain of unsustainable debt? I'm not a bug fan of the Bluffington Post. But, this article gets its info from the OECD and paints a pretty chilling future for EU, which will spread to the rest of the devopled world and deal a much worse blow to the middle class.



it's a global recession and supply chains in the EU are far more interlinked than the US and it's heavy trading partners.  ties between the US and EU mainly deal with the export of financial services, the leading US export.  most of the world is feeling one of the ill effects of globalization, when things go bad on the other side of the world in some way, in some area/s of your economy will be effected.  this is what happens when trade is liberalized and capital flows across country boundary's it makes the economy of a country more open to external shocks.  but this whole problem stems from a global banking collapse of high liquidity and under capitalization which hits the economy harder, longer and deeper as banks struggle to clear their balance sheets of toxic assets.

before the banking collapse different country's also had ore-existing finance problems; Japan still recovering from their banking collapse in the 90's which was caused by deregulation, Greece had adopted the EU before having it's financial sector prepared, Ireland had sub-prime lending issues, etc. and not many had enough of a fiscal cushion to absorb the shock created, etc.  only country's like the US, China, Japan, etc. have the ability to print their own currency with member country's in the EU at the mercy of the ECB, IMF and World Bank.

the world is learning a hard lesson right now that didn't need to be learned and it's going to be long and painful.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> it's a global recession and supply chains in the EU are far more interlinked than the US and it's heavy trading partners. ties between the US and EU mainly deal with the export of financial services, the leading US export. most of the world is feeling one of the ill effects of globalization, when things go bad on the other side of the world in some way, in some area/s of your economy will be effected. this is what happens when trade is liberalized and capital flows across country boundary's it makes the economy of a country more open to external shocks. but this whole problem stems from a global banking collapse of high liquidity and under capitalization which hits the economy harder, longer and deeper as banks struggle to clear their balance sheets of toxic assets.


 
Did you get that Gears??? Europe is suffering because of Wall Street, not because governments financed social programs they could never properly manage and because now Europe's boomers are cashing in on social programs which have been mismanaged for decades.

You see in the the World of LAM (it's like the land of Oz), countries economy's grow as long as there are unions and everyone gets a pension as long as Wall Street does not securitize mortgages. One only needs to follow the yellow brick road...

So if I get this right... If global banks properly capitalized themselves and Wall Street did not securitize everything they could get their hands on; Europe would have access to the capital it needs to fund its social entitlements they could never afford to begin with and however unsustainable they become...

I agree, globalization has been a big problem too. I mean from the 1600's to the 1800's we should have never allowed England and France to buy up beaver pelts, injecting trillions of dollars (inflation adjusted) into the North American Economy, spuring the development of other natural resources and eventually the industrial revolution which would create our middle class. We should have instead concentrated on starting unions and finding domestic markets to buy our beaver pelts. Fucking greedy Wall Street beaver salesman...


----------



## DOMS (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You see in the the World of LAM (it's like the land of Oz), countries economy's grow as long as there are unions and everyone gets a pension as long as Wall Street does not securitize mortgages. One only needs to follow the yellow brick road...



And *everything* is the US' fault.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 27, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> That's pretty cool, but my concern is how he is going to treat us Christians, I'm just scared to vote someone in that might turn into the anti Christ. I'm all for America and I want us out of this bullshit debt we are in, I want us to be back to the Clinton America we once were. I think most people thought Obama was going to be that guy and well he is a joke. Ron Paul needs to make his stand on religion, is he for allow Christians to worship in peace or be like Obama and try and take all of our rights away?



Ron Paul is a Christian you fucking idiot.
God you know nothing. All of your opinions are worthless.


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Did you get that Gears??? Europe is suffering because of Wall Street, not because governments financed social programs they could never properly manage and because now Europe's boomers are cashing in on social programs which have been mismanaged for decades.
> 
> You see in the the World of LAM (it's like the land of Oz), countries economy's grow as long as there are unions and everyone gets a pension as long as Wall Street does not securitize mortgages. One only needs to follow the yellow brick road...
> 
> ...



your a fucking idiot and your opinions are worthless as you have proven you have next to no knowledge in this area.  you refute that TRA97 was not the primary cause of the housing bubble yet the reduction of capital gains on the sale of residences less than $500K was the ONLY tax rate that was changed with the tax payer relief act of '97, it was the first time ever that one single tax rate was changed..now shut the fuck up because you don't know shit...


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 27, 2011)

Woodrow1 said:


> he didn't storm out of that interview.   Don't let the media fill your head full of shit...
> 
> There are more videos of the FULL interview....
> 
> ...



Nope! The media is complacent, I'll give you that, they're just a tool. Too many examples to list. I'll give you one. Cheney called the New York post to get his agenda rolling on the Iraq war, they accepted his word and printed what he told them, which as we found out later were all lies, they did no fact checking.

They were used, it's not the other way around.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 27, 2011)

IronAddict said:


> Nope! The media is complacent, I'll give you that, they're just a tool. Too many examples to list. I'll give you one. Cheney called the New York post to get his agenda rolling on the Iraq war, they accepted his word and printed what he told them, which as we found out later were all lies, they did no fact checking.
> 
> They were used, it's not the other way around.


The will print _anything _that will sell more papers.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> your a fucking idiot and your opinions are worthless as you have proven you have next to no knowledge in this area. you refute that TRA97 was not the primary cause of the housing bubble yet the reduction of capital gains on the sale of residences less than $500K was the ONLY tax rate that was changed with the tax payer relief act of '97, it was the first time ever that one single tax rate was changed..now shut the fuck up because you don't know shit...


 
 LOL. You make me laugh man. Yes I read your theory in the a publication your posted. The economist who wrote it stated it was a theory and that many other economists have oposing views, (unlike you, I've gotten to shake the hands of many economist). Of course it makes complete sense that a person with zero economics training or experience would latch on to a theory and represent it as fact; it's no different than all the religious fanatics.

Yes, I'm definitely an idiot, an idiot for reading your bullshit. But WTF, it's entertaining shit, even guys like me read sci fi once and a while to recharge the batteries.


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 27, 2011)

DOMS said:


> The will print _anything _that will sell more papers.



Yup, Freakin hacks!


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 27, 2011)

IronAddict said:


> Nope! The media is complacent, I'll give you that, they're just a tool. Too many examples to list. I'll give you one. Cheney called the New York post to get his agenda rolling on the Iraq war, they accepted his word and printed what he told them, which as we found out later were all lies, they did no fact checking.
> 
> They were used, it's not the other way around.


Fox Murdock owns the NYPost


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 27, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Fox Murdock owns the NYPost



Exactly, Min0. And we know his leanings are corrupt.

That's why he went to them and only them, damn fishwrap.


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> LOL. You make me laugh man. Yes I read your theory in the a publication your posted. The economist who wrote it stated it was a theory and that many other economists have oposing views, (unlike you, I've gotten to shake the hands of many economist). Of course it makes complete sense that a person with zero economics training or experience would latch on to a theory and represent it as fact; it's no different than all the religious fanatics.
> 
> Yes, I'm definitely an idiot, an idiot for reading your bullshit. But WTF, it's entertaining shit, even guys like me read sci fi once and a while to recharge the batteries.



what you need an expert to tell you something.  you have the critical thinking skills of a 3 year old.  the only tax rate changing in TRA97 was the capital gains rate on residential homes so that couldn't possibly have been what sent the case/shiller index to historical highs...

so yes you are fucking retarded and it's quite obvious.  you guys that work in the industry never want to take any blame for anything.  it's always the individuals fault and NEVER legislation.  your all a bunch of leeches with zero morality.


----------



## OnceWasFat (Dec 27, 2011)

The only thing that makes me want to vote less than this thread is the national media.  So many poeople think one guy at the top or one party is going to make the world (or at least the US) change.  Things aren't going to change until the poeple realize that it's the people that need to change.  Poliltics in the US is just a refleciton of the culture.  With so many plugged into entertainment news, Jerry Springer, and such, and the rest seemingly with so much faith in "their" party things are simply destined to get much worse before they get better.

Don't vote.  It just encourages the bastards.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> LOL. You make me laugh man. Yes I read your theory in the a publication your posted. The economist who wrote it stated it was a theory and that many other economists have oposing views, (unlike you, I've gotten to shake the hands of many economist). Of course it makes complete sense that a person with zero economics training or experience would latch on to a theory and represent it as fact; it's no different than all the religious fanatics.
> 
> Yes, I'm definitely an idiot, an idiot for reading your bullshit. But WTF, it's entertaining shit, even guys like me read sci fi once and a while to recharge the batteries.



Aren't you Canadian?


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> Aren't you Canadian?



he claims to be from Vancover but he's probably one of those cock-suckers from Quebec...


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> he claims to be from Vancover but he's probably one of those cock-suckers from Quebec...



I'm actually curious because Canada has done a pretty good job of turning itself around.   And they did so with a pretty balanced approach of reigning in spending and entitlement programs, but they also substantially increased taxes on the wealthy.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> he claims to be from Vancover but he's probably one of those cock-suckers from Quebec...



Quebec is in fact full of cock suckers. Quebec is to Canada as New Jersey is to the USA.   Actually, that might be too harsh on Jersey.


----------



## DOMS (Dec 27, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> I'm actually curious because Canada has done a pretty good job of turning itself around.   And they did so with a pretty balanced approach of reigning in spending and entitlement programs, but they also substantially increased taxes on the wealthy.


They also have the best privacy laws in the world.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 27, 2011)

DOMS said:


> They also have the best privacy laws in the world.



I find that hard to believe with their government run health care, but whatever.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

DOMS said:


> They also have the best privacy laws in the world.


 
Very true, but we are going the way of the U.S., very slowly. Our PM wants to have sex with GWB and a gangbang with the Republican Party...

Our parlaiment is made up of a lot of Lawyers, not that these are highly respectible people, but I'd rather our scumbag politician have an actual understanding of the law.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> he claims to be from Vancover but he's probably one of those cock-suckers from Quebec...


 
LOL, I was born in Montreal. I just got sick of Montreal Cock so I moved Vancouver.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> I'm actually curious because Canada has done a pretty good job of turning itself around. And they did so with a pretty balanced approach of reigning in spending and entitlement programs, but they also substantially increased taxes on the wealthy.


 
Here you go; I don't expect LAM to understand much of this...

The lesson from Canada on cutting deficits - The Globe and Mail

BTW, in the last 15 years, Taxes for the wealthy have come down substantially, not up...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> what you need an expert to tell you something. you have the critical thinking skills of a 3 year old. the only tax rate changing in TRA97 was the capital gains rate on residential homes so that couldn't possibly have been what sent the case/shiller index to historical highs...
> 
> so yes you are fucking retarded and it's quite obvious. you guys that work in the industry never want to take any blame for anything. it's always the individuals fault and NEVER legislation. your all a bunch of leeches with zero morality.


 
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. You are a good hobby economist who misrepresents theory as fact. You're important too


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Here you go; I don't expect LAM to understand much of this...
> 
> The lesson from Canada on cutting deficits - The Globe and Mail
> 
> BTW, in the last 15 years, Taxes for the wealthy have come down substantially, not up...



This is probably the most important thing right here:  

???The entire political class decided to stop treating this as a matter of political contention and started treating it as a matter of national interest,???


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 27, 2011)

Before anyone starts ripping on Canada it's a nice place.   I go there several times a year, hunting, fishing and what not.   Toronto is a beautiful city.   Hookers are also legal, but I've never got one.   It's on my bucket list though.


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. You are a good hobby economist who misrepresents theory as fact. You're important too



didn't hurt my feelings at all, just verified your overall lack of knowledge in your own field and your bias towards a "free market" system that doesn't exist in reality. and you might want to learn the difference between things that are subjective and objective.  facts are objective which means they are independent of individual thought.  and the facts state that is was TRA97 that caused the case/shiller index to reach historical highs because it was the ONLY tax rate changed with that piece of legislation.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> This is probably the most important thing right here:
> 
> ???The entire political class decided to stop treating this as a matter of political contention and started treating it as a matter of national interest,???


 
Very solid point. Our politicians worked together to get this done for the benefit of the people, not political advancement. In fact it was political suicide, the PM did not expect to serve more than 4 years, he went on to serve 12.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> and you might want to learn the difference between things that are subjective and objective. facts are objective which means they are independent of individual thought. and the facts state that is was TRA97 that caused the case/shiller index to reach historical highs because it was the ONLY tax rate changed with that piece of legislation.


 


Show us the facts, show us where a concensus of economists point to your theory exclusively. You will not be able to do this, therefore it is not fact.

The only 3rd party publication you've ever posted supporting your argument, stated very clearly, the economist was hypothesising!!! That means he did not know it for fact, but he and only he had a pretty good hunch. Just like at one time, it was a pretty good idea to make blacks slaves and a country even went to war over the issue...

Why do you argue with me, do you have any idea how stupid it is make you look to have a Canadian teach you about U.S. economics?? 

I've got a new theory. Perhaps it was raining on the same day they removed the capital gains taxes in 1997. Maybe it wasn't a tax issue at all, but a weather issue. Yes, it's the weathers fault that the U.S. housing market collapsed. Well, it's as good as your theory, I think I'll push it untill everone on this board says I'm wrong...wait the board did that to you, didn't they it???


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> facts are objective which means they are independent of individual thought.


 
A *fact* (derived from the Latin _Factum_, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Well, not exactly your definition, but I'm sure it's what you meant. Well it's what I meant by saying "prove it"...


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Did you get that Gears??? Europe is suffering because of Wall Street, not because governments financed social programs they could never properly manage and because now Europe's boomers are cashing in on social programs which have been mismanaged for decades.
> 
> You see in the the World of LAM (it's like the land of Oz), countries economy's grow as long as there are unions and everyone gets a pension as long as Wall Street does not securitize mortgages. One only needs to follow the yellow brick road...
> 
> ...


 
Agreed. Everything went downhill with the industrial revolution.  If we only had more labor unions and the govt provided craddle to grave benefits for everyone, then the economy in the US would be booming like it is in EU countries. If the wealthiest individuals (CEOs only, excluding left-wing celebrities, athletes, and media personalities) would work for no more than $50k/year. there would also be enough wealth to go around to the working and middle classes. It's simple economics 101. Every nation, at any given time, has a finite amount of wealth. Without the govt and unions to divide up the pie, it will be unevenly distributed, which creates poverty and ultimately destroys the living standard of the middle class.


----------



## gamma (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Wow! this coming from someone who voted along religious lines the last 2 times around. 99% of the population could not hold a candle to Obama's intelligence, but that does not mean the whole nation should share his (and his Party's) vision of government...
> 
> You watch way too much fox news. You probably even think Fox has a real news program....



no but they but they do great with  fox nfl sunday pregame.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 27, 2011)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vancouver*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Of course it is.  WTF you talking about?  It's called Hannity.  If you have his show, you don't need any other news source.  He's sometimes a bit too left-winged though IMO.

On a side note, I notice you preach small govt and free-market, as opposed th LAM's Marxism, but you seem to be fellating Barry at other times.


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 27, 2011)

Fact is....Shit isn't working the way it is now.  Shit needs to change.  And Ron Paul has been predicting every crisis that has happened.  

When the government sticks its hands into ANYTHING the prices rise and the quality drops. 

The constitution was set into place for a reason. And this big mess we are in now...IS THE REASON!


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> A *fact* (derived from the Latin _Factum_, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
> 
> Well, not exactly your definition, but I'm sure it's what you meant. Well it's what I meant by saying "prove it"...



..you had to look it up on the Internet


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> On a side note, I notice you preach small govt and free-market, as opposed th LAM's Marxism, but you seem to be fellating Barry at other times.



I no way shape or form I have I ever promoted Marxism...unlike yourself I use comparative economics to determine what has and hasn't worked across the OECD.

and this coming from the guy that's couldn't find work in the US and had to get a job in communist China...

maybe when your children are grown they will be able to find work in North Korea....


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 27, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Of course it is.  WTF you talking about?  It's called Hannity.  If you have his show, you don't need any other news source.  He's sometimes a bit too left-winged though IMO.
> 
> On a side note, I notice you preach small govt and free-market, as opposed th LAM's Marxism, but you seem to be fellating Barry at other times.



Sometimes I can't determine if you're being sarcastic or not.  I find it hard to believe that you find hannity to be anything other than a complete idiot.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> On a side note, I notice you preach small govt and free-market, as opposed th LAM's Marxism, but you seem to be fellating Barry at other times.


 
Nope, just correcting dumbass right winged Dip Shits who call him an idiot mainly because it's the popular thing to do. If you're going to call someone an idiot, have a reason for it...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> ..you had to look it up on the Internet


 
You are seriously giggling over this; and you want us to take you serious ...good comeback


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Very solid point. Our politicians worked together to get this done for the benefit of the people, not political advancement. In fact it was political suicide, the PM did not expect to serve more than 4 years, he went on to serve 12.



The way things are now that isn't going to happen in the US, unfortunately.  The career politicians are only worried about reelection.


----------



## LAM (Dec 27, 2011)

vancouver said:


> You are seriously giggling over this; and you want us to take you serious ...good comeback



who is us...nobody cares what "you" have to say

and you totally missed my point about facts being objective.  facts exist whether or not a person chooses to acknowledge them as such...way back in when people thought the world was flat, regardless if whether or not they believed it or not the fact remains that the world was round, it is objective and not subjective.

such was my point about TRA97 being the lead off to the housing bubble, it is what it is regardless if you want to except it or not.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 28, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Nope, just correcting dumbass right winged Dip Shits who call him an idiot mainly because it's the popular thing to do. If you're going to call someone an idiot, have a reason for it...


 
When Bush was pres, left-wingers called him an idiot, so naturally, right-wingers are going to call Obama an idiot. It's just an easy word to belt out for simpletons who don't take a lot of timee to think before opening their mouths. I've never called Obama an idiot; just an academic who's in way over his head and a typical empty suit politician who says whatever he believes will go over well with the sheople during the campaign season. The left bought into it hook, line, and sinker, just as the right bought into Bush's BS that we all needed him to keep us safe from the boogeymen in 2004. Both were in it for themselves and equally incompetent IMO.

I will give credit where it's due tho.  Barry hasn't effed things up anymore than they already were.  At least not on the scale that the last admin did.  He hasn't been getting blowjobs in the Oral Office or started any unnecessary wars.  Funny thing is, I have several work mates who are from Cali (bluest state in the galaxy) who are saying that they'll probably vote for Barry again for that exact reason, because they don't know what to expect from a Romney or Gingrich admin.


----------



## Zaphod (Dec 28, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> When Bush was pres, left-wingers called him an idiot, so naturally, right-wingers are going to call Obama an idiot.  It's just an easy word to belt out for simpletons who don't take a lot of timee to think before opening their mouths.  I've never called Obama an idiot; just an academic who's in way over his head and a typical empty suit politician who says whatever he believes will go over well with the sheople during the campaign season.  The left bought into it hook, line, and sinker, just as the right bought into Bush's BS that we all needed him to keep us safe from the boogeymen in 2004.  Both were in it for themselves and equally incompetent IMO.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 28, 2011)

Zaphod said:


>


 
 Shit!  Not the clap again!!!


----------



## LAM (Dec 28, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> I will give credit where it's due tho.  Barry hasn't effed things up anymore than they already were.



most don't realize the similarities between the causes of the great depression and the great recession.  the 20's were filled with a series of tax cuts that of course benefited top earners the most increasing income inequality, there was a housing crisis and there were bank failures due to a lack of regulation all of which spread to the EU (via gold) since the US was a major creditor after WWI this decreased global consumption in the US and abroad.  austerity measures where enacted by the fed gov when unemployment was still high, etc.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 28, 2011)

Yes, I would have to agree that a lack of common sense regulation was  the major contributor to the bank failures of the great depression and the current great recession (which I believe is truley a 2nd depression rather than another recession).  I think the Glass Stegal Act was a major mistake.  It would've been best to keep the banks and brokerage and insurance companies separate.  I just don't agree that government creates the free market and spurs innovation, but rather makes regulation to keep those who do drive the fee market fair and honest.  There's no doubt that deregulation, while it may have given a short run boost to the economy, has caused more problems than it has fixed.  On the other hand, free trade, while it has caused a lot of american jobs to be outsourced, it has also helped to create a new middle class in a lot of developing countries, such as China.  So, with 400 million people who are now hungry for foreign products, that may ultimately lower the trade deficit with the dedveloping world in the long run, as Chinese consumers are buying more foreign products than ever before.  It may just turn out to be a problem that was painful at first, but will ultimately work itself out and actually help to spur growth in th US in the long run.  Only time will tell.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 28, 2011)

At the end of the day, Barry has got to go! No other options. We're finished as a country is he is placed back in office. Democratic voter registration fraud is currently popping up all over the map, look for the same thing in the presidential election.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 28, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Yes, I would have to agree that a lack of common sense regulation was  the major contributor to the bank failures of the great depression and the current great recession (which I believe is truley a 2nd depression rather than another recession).  I think the Glass Stegal Act was a major mistake.  It would've been best to keep the banks and brokerage and insurance companies separate.  I just don't agree that government creates the free market and spurs innovation, but rather makes regulation to keep those who do drive the fee market fair and honest.  There's no doubt that deregulaue it may have given a short run boost to the economy, has caused more problems than it has fixed.  On the other hand, free trade, while it has caused a lot of american jobs to be outsourced, it has also helped to create a new middle class in a lot of developing countries, such as China.  So, with 400 million people who are now hungry for foreign products, that may ultimately lower the trade deficit with the dedveloping world in the long run, as Chinese consumers are buying more foreign products than ever before.  It may just turn out to be a problem thaft was painful at first, but will ultimately work itself out and actually help to spur growth in th US in the long run.  Only time will tell.


Are you competing with lam and his long posts?
Lol!


----------



## vancouver (Dec 28, 2011)

secdrl said:


> At the end of the day, Barry has got to go! No other options. We're finished as a country is he is placed back in office. Democratic voter registration fraud is currently popping up all over the map, look for the same thing in the presidential election.


 
I'd sooner see 50% of the house replaced first!!! I'm not an Obama fan, but he's a lot more competent than 50% (or more) of elected officials in the house. Actually, you could probably put homeless person with a grade 3 education in the oval office and the governement would function no different...

People need to stop kicking the Oval Office can down the road and look at their own elected officials...


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 28, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> When Bush was pres, left-wingers called him an idiot, so naturally, right-wingers are going to call Obama an idiot. It's just an easy word to belt out for simpletons who don't take a lot of timee to think before opening their mouths. I've never called Obama an idiot; just an academic who's in way over his head and a typical empty suit politician who says whatever he believes will go over well with the sheople during the campaign season. The left bought into it hook, line, and sinker, just as the right bought into Bush's BS that we all needed him to keep us safe from the boogeymen in 2004. Both were in it for themselves and equally incompetent IMO.
> 
> I will give credit where it's due tho.  Barry hasn't effed things up anymore than they already were.  At least not on the scale that the last admin did.  He hasn't been getting blowjobs in the Oral Office or started any unnecessary wars.  Funny thing is, I have several work mates who are from Cali (bluest state in the galaxy) who are saying that they'll probably vote for Barry aga:in for that exact reason, because they don't know what to expect from a Romney or Gingrich admin.


Now I see where you're coming from, I thought you were one of those political cheerleaders always defending your party no matter what.


----------



## secdrl (Dec 28, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I'd sooner see 50% of the house replaced first!!! I'm not an Obama fan, but he's a lot more competent than 50% (or more) of elected officials in the house. Actually, you could probably put homeless person with a grade 3 education in the oval office and the governement would function no different...
> 
> People need to stop kicking the Oval Office can down the road and look at their own elected officials...



When will you be filing your paperwork for the presidency, frenchie?


----------



## vancouver (Dec 28, 2011)

secdrl said:


> When will you be filing your paperwork for the presidency, frenchie?


 
What would I do my first day in office  ... All LAM's will get immediately deported to the Communist country of their choice...

Second order of business, the NFL would adopt Canadian football rules and Curling would become the official national sport.

Let's see, who would I appoint to the cabinet.

Secretary of State - Mike Myers (Yeah baby!!)

Secretary of the Treasury - Michael J Fox (he's actually an American now)

Secretary of Defence - Paul Coffee (Great defenceman)

Attorney General - Leslie Nielsen (He played a pretty cool cop)

Secretary of the Interior - Eric McCormack(he played a funny gay guy, they're good and interior decorating!!)

Secretary of Homeland Security - Kiefer Sutherland (He's pretty good in 24, a dual citizen and his grandfather started universal healthcare in Canada, we won't hold that against him)

Secretary of Transportation would have to go to William Shatner, I mean C'mon, the captain of the Starship Enterprise!!!

We'd have you guys bandaged up in a few years...


----------



## MDR (Dec 28, 2011)

vancouver said:


> What would I do my first day in office  ... All LAM's will get immediately deported to the Communist country of their choice...
> 
> Second order of business, the NFL would adopt Canadian football rules and Curling would become the official national sport.
> 
> ...


 
I'm starting to wonder if you are really from Canada.  You misspelled Paul Coffey.  Sounds like grounds for deportation to me.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 28, 2011)

don't tell anyone...that is grounds for deportation, plus I grew up in Edmonton


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 28, 2011)

MDR said:


> I'm starting to wonder if you are really from Canada.  You misspelled Paul Coffey.  Sounds like grounds for deportation to me.



Fuck Paul Coffey!

That scoring against his own team fuckwad.


----------



## ALBOB (Dec 28, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> Fuck Paul Coffey!
> 
> That scoring against his own team fuckwad.



You don't hold the top three spots for defensmen's goals, assists and total points without getting a cheap one or two. 


Defensemen Records Single Season/Playoffs


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 28, 2011)

MDR said:


> I'm starting to wonder if you are really from Canada. You misspelled Paul Coffey. Sounds like grounds for deportation to me.


 
I didn't recognize the name at first.  Then it hit me.  He's a Canadian.


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 28, 2011)

Here is how i see it....




We can keep on.....with the SAME thing we have been doing. Same president with a different name....

Romney = Gingrich = Perry = Bachmann = Obama.

They *ALL* have the same plans. 
They *ALL* have the same principles.
They *ALL* have the same corruptibility.
They *ALL* will bend for money.
They *ALL *lie to your face(flip flop).


Those SAME plans have proven to NOT WORK! WHY KEEP DOING IT??????????





Ron Paul is honest.  He tells you what he thinks and doesn't give a shit if you like it or not.  He isn't going to lie to your face to make you like him.

He won't bend for money and is incapable of corruption.

He has DIFFERENT plans to fix our current problems that the current plans have only further worsened.

*I want to go with the new plans from an honest guy that isn't going to bend his principles for the big banks money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(romney is already in the banks pockets btw)
*


----------



## vancouver (Dec 28, 2011)

woodrow1 said:


> *i want to go with the new plans from an honest guy that isn't going to bend his principles for the big banks money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(romney is already in the banks pockets btw)*


 
*ron paul !!!*


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 28, 2011)

vancouver said:


> *ron paul !!!*




damn straight


*RON PAUL 2012!!!*

you have to make that large, bold and with caps to show the real importance of it.....


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 28, 2011)

*sean hannity/anne coulter 2012!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## exphys88 (Dec 28, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> *sean hannity/anne coulter 2012!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## LAM (Dec 28, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> I just don't agree that government creates the free market and spurs innovation, but rather makes regulation to keep those who do drive the fee market fair and honest.



whether you want to acknowledge it or not governments do create and regulate the markets, they determine what products can be imported and exported and at what volume and to what countries via trade agreements and embargo's, import quotas and tariffs, professional licensing, etc. are also other methods of controlling the markets, and who can come work from what country's in what fields in for how long, etc.  a private citizen can not just start selling goods and services to whatever country they please, that is far from a "free market".

along with the fact that while the US leaves most R&D, etc. up to the markets the rest of the world is not. take biomedical research as an example in the US that field is almost funding solely by the supply of research funding which is why there are so many research scientists in the US out of work while China has over 1million actively working right now and at the current rate they will be the world leader in scientific knowledge by 2020.  the same applies to telecom, green energy, etc.  every other country in the OECD is developing new tech with gov in conjunction with the "markets" and the US is being left in the dust because we are doing things the "old way".

despite what many might think I am not a "big government" guy but the fact is that the other country's are have caught up to the US and are surpassing us in many fields as they are all utilizing both the resources of government and the markets, unless we do the same there is no way we will be able to compete in the future.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> whether you want to acknowledge it or not governments do create and regulate the markets, they determine what products can be imported and exported and at what volume and to what countries via trade agreements and embargo's, import quotas and tariffs, professional licensing, etc. are also other methods of controlling the markets, and who can come work from what country's in what fields in for how long, etc. a private citizen can not just start selling goods and services to whatever country they please, that is far from a "free market".


 
It may be a matter of semantics here, but I still think you're talking about regulation as opposed to innovation on the part of the govt.  I guess you could say that through regulation, the govt is in effect creating markets.



> along with the fact that while the US leaves most R&D, etc. up to the markets the rest of the world is not. take biomedical research as an example in the US that field is almost funding solely by the supply of research funding which is why there are so many research scientists in the US out of work while China has over 1million actively working right now and at the current rate they will be the world leader in scientific knowledge by 2020. the same applies to telecom, green energy, etc. every other country in the OECD is developing new tech with gov in conjunction with the "markets" and the US is being left in the dust because we are doing things the "old way".


 
China and India are leaving the west in the dust when it comes to math, science, and engineering.  As far as mathematics ad science are concerned, I think there are a lot of factors that go well beyond simply big govt vs small govt.  From having been immersed in asian culture over the last 12 years, I've noticed that in asian culture, the schools and parents place a lot more value on education than in the west, with heavy emphasis on the hard sciences. On the other hand, critical thinking and individualism is basically alien to people over here.  That's probably why so many immigrants from asian counties become researchers and technicians as opposed to entreprenuers.  Yet, along with other wasteful spending, perhaps if the US didnt have over 700 military bases in foreign countries, more public funding could be directed towards R&D.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 29, 2011)

gearsmcgilf said:


> *sean hannity/anne coulter 2012!!!!!!!!!*



howard stern/ al shafpton!!


----------



## LAM (Dec 29, 2011)

vancouver said:


> LOL. You make me laugh man. Yes I read your theory in the a publication your posted. The economist who wrote it stated it was a theory and that many other economists have oposing views, (unlike you, I've gotten to shake the hands of many economist). Of course it makes complete sense that a person with zero economics training or experience would latch on to a theory and represent it as fact; it's no different than all the religious fanatics.
> 
> Yes, I'm definitely an idiot, an idiot for reading your bullshit. But WTF, it's entertaining shit, even guys like me read sci fi once and a while to recharge the batteries.



as I stated before STFU you don't know shit about science...I have been analyzing data for over 25 years, engineering or economics it's all the same it's only text and numbers with different labels applied to them.

"The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA97) significantly changed the tax treatment of housing capital gains in the United States. Before 1997, homeowners were subject to capital gains taxation when they sold their houses unless they purchased replacement homes of equal or greater value. Since 1997, homeowners can exclude $500,000 of capital gains when they sell their houses. Such drastic changes provide a good opportunity to study the lock-in effect of capital gains taxation on home sales. Using zip-code level housing price indices and sales on single-family houses data from 1982 to 2006 in 16 affluent towns within the Boston metropolitan area, this paper finds that TRA97 reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes on houses with low and moderate capital gains. Specifically, the semiannual home sale rate of houses with capital gains between $0 and $500,000 increased by 0.33-0.54 percentage points after TRA97, representing a 13-22 percent increase from the pre-TRA97 average sale rate."

The Effect of Capital Gains Taxation on Home Sales:
Evidence from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Hui Shan
Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200853/200853pap.pdf


----------



## LAM (Dec 29, 2011)

"Specifically, we argue that changes in the Internal Revenue Code contained in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 can be viewed as the removal of a tax-induced trading constraint on young and middle-aged homeowners. In effect, the act replaced a one-time, post-55 capital gains exclusion with a periodic gain exclusion option that could be exercised every two years. We develop a simple demand-based econometric model of housing turnover, test the model on an earlier major change in income tax legislation that impacted
homeowners, (the Tax Reform Act of 1986), and then use the model to determine whether the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 led to an increase in the percentage of the U.S. housing stock that was sold after the Act was passed. Empirical results indicate that our control variables explain a significant portion of the percentage of the existing housing stock that changes hands in a given month, and that this turnover began to increase significantly almost immediately after the 1997 income tax legislation became effective."

* As I have stated before, lower taxes are not "always" better


----------



## vancouver (Dec 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> as I stated before STFU you don't know shit about science...I have been analyzing data for over 25 years, engineering or economics it's all the same it's only text and numbers with different labels applied to them.
> 
> "The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA97) significantly changed the tax treatment of housing capital gains in the United States. Before 1997, homeowners were subject to capital gains taxation when they sold their houses unless they purchased replacement homes of equal or greater value. Since 1997, homeowners can exclude $500,000 of capital gains when they sell their houses. Such drastic changes provide a good opportunity to study the lock-in effect of capital gains taxation on home sales. Using zip-code level housing price indices and sales on single-family houses data from 1982 to 2006 in 16 affluent towns within the Boston metropolitan area, this paper finds that TRA97 reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes on houses with low and moderate capital gains. Specifically, the semiannual home sale rate of houses with capital gains between $0 and $500,000 increased by 0.33-0.54 percentage points after TRA97, representing a 13-22 percent increase from the pre-TRA97 average sale rate."
> 
> ...


 
You are a fucking idiot...

Conclusion​TRA97 introduced the largest change in decades to the tax treatment of housing capital gains in the United States. While researchers have started to use it as a policy instrument to identify the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes in housing markets, existing empirical studies have rarely looked beyond the age-55 rule due to data limitations. In this paper, I collect data from various sources, including local assessment records, ZIP-code level housing price indexes, and sales data on single-family houses, to construct a unique panel of houses where housing capital gains can be imputed more accurately than possible in most survey datasets. Instead of relying on the age-55 rule, I identify the tax lock-in effect by exploiting the cross-sectional variation in accumulated capital gains and the exogenous change in exclusion levels​brought forward by TRA97. This paper is the first study, to my knowledge, to examine the effect of TRA97 on houses with capital gains over $500,000. It is also the first to estimate the tax elasticity of home sales using post-TRA97 data.

I find robust evidence suggesting that TRA97 reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes for houses with capital gains between $0 and $500,000. After 1997, the semiannual sale rate of these houses increased by 0.33-0.54 percentage points, representing a 13-22 percent increase from the average semiannual sale rate during the pre-TRA97 period. However, TRA97 appeared to have generated an unintended lock-in effect on houses with capital gains above $500,000. The semiannual sale rate of these houses declined by 0.79 percentage points after 1997, equivalent to a 24 percent decrease from the average semiannual sale rate during the pre-TRA97 period. This empirical finding suggests that although TRA97 raised home sale rates by allowing for a large capital gains exclusion, it also reduced home sale rates of houses with massive capital gains through the elimination of the roll-over rule. Overall, homeowners who had accumulated more than $500,000 capital gains became less willing to sell their houses after TRA97. Furthermore, the unlocking effect of TRA97 on houses with relatively low capital gains dissipated shortly after 1997, but the unintended lock-in effect of TRA97 on houses with massive capital gains appears to be long-lasting. I also estimated the tax elasticity of home sales during the post-TRA97 period, using legislative changes in top capital gains tax rates. The estimation results suggest that a $10,000 increase in tax liability reduces semiannual sale rates by 0.16-0.25 percentage points, a 7-13 percent decline from the average level. These estimates are useful for simulations of hypothetical reforms such as eliminating taxes on housing capital gains or increasing the top capital gains tax rate.

This paper brings new evidence to the literature on the lock-in effect of capital gains taxation in housing markets. *However, it is worth emphasizing that we need to be cautious **in generalizing the findings of this paper*. The homeowners analyzed in this paper are not necessarily representative of the U.S. population. For example, they are better educated and tend to have higher incomes and house values. Therefore, they may have responded to TRA97 differently from homeowners in other places and of different characteristics.

The field calls for more research to fully understand the welfare impact of TRA97. First, this paper does not take into account any general equilibrium effect potentially generated by TRA97. By reducing taxes on housing capital gains, TRA97 reduced the usercost in the housing market, which could have increased housing investment at the expenseof non-housing investment. Second, the dataset analyzed in this paper is a panel of houses instead of a panel of households. Thus, I do not observe where people moved to once they sold their houses. We need high quality longitudinal data on households to quantify howcapital gains taxation in the pre-TRA97 tax regime distorted homeowners??? mobility andhousing consumption decisions and to understand the extent to which TRA97 reversed thelock-in effect of housing capital gains.​


----------



## vancouver (Dec 29, 2011)

I encourage everyone to read the conclusion of this study and read the entire study if you are so inclined. It proves that LAM is a major fraud.

1. This study is an analysis of Home sales for houses above 500k in Boston. 

2. It compares pre TRA97 sales with post TRA97 sales of houses.

3. It indicates that tax Revenue from house capital gains was not much prior to TRA97 as most homeowners took advantage of the roll-over rule which defered tax and the age 55 rule which eliminated tax.

4. Most importantly, it makes zero correlation to the housing bust and zero correlation between total tax collected pre and post TRA97, that was not the purpose of this study.

5. It proves how much of an idiot LAM's is. There first part of this study made enough juicy reference to tax pre and post TRA97, that LAM's was able to make a premature incorrect assumption about the purpose of this study...He's a fucking idiot!!!


----------



## LAM (Dec 29, 2011)

vancouver said:


> I encourage everyone to read the conclusion of this study and read the entire study if you are so inclined. It proves that LAM is a major fraud.



your reading comprehension sucks as you see only what you want to and are constantly putting words in my mouth..I never said it CAUSED the housing bubble I stated it was the initial event that started it, there is a vast difference...

and as before you have the critical thinking skills of a 3 year old.  Boston is 1 of the 12 federal reserve districts so any intelligent person that knows how the FRB is governed would logically assume that the same occurrence in the increase in the sale price post TRA97 would have increased from 13-22% in ALL FRB districts since they are all major metro areas of consumption, etc.

"The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (TRA97) significantly changed the tax treatment of housing capital gains in the United States. Before 1997, homeowners were subject to capital gains taxation when they sold their houses unless they purchased replacement homes of equal or greater value. Since 1997, homeowners can exclude $500,000 of capital gains when they sell their houses. Such drastic changes provide a good opportunity to study the lock-in effect of capital gains taxation on home sales. Using zip-code level housing price indices and sales on single-family houses data from 1982 to 2006 in 16 affluent towns within the Boston metropolitan area, this paper finds that TRA97 reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes on houses with low and moderate capital gains. *Specifically, the semiannual home sale rate of houses with capital gains between $0 and $500,000 increased by 0.33-0.54 percentage points after TRA97, representing a 13-22 percent increase from the pre-TRA97 average sale rate*."

The Effect of Capital Gains Taxation on Home Sales:
Evidence from the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997
Hui Shan
Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f.../200853pap.pdf

and from the conservative Tax Foundation:

Special Report No. 117

Executive Summary
There are several milestones in the life of a young person. Of these, four in particular introduce young Americans to the U.S. tax system: going to college, getting married, purchasing a home, and having a first child. This paper discusses in detail a few current tax policies with the most marked effects on people at these points in their lives: education tax credits, progressive income taxes, the marriage penalty, deductibility of home-based capital gains, and child tax credits.

Students and their families do not get the full benefit of education tax credits because of reduced financial aid, increased tuition, and the alternative minimum tax. Further, progressive income taxes discourage educational advancement by penalizing the returns to education and thereby hampering economic growth. Some young Americans still face a marriage penalty because of the graduated rate schedule built into the individual income tax and discrepancies between the bracket size and standard deduction allowed for single and joint filers.

There is currently legislation in effect that greatly reduces these distortions by 2009, but until this legislation completely phases in,marriage penalties are still an issue. *The deductibility of home-based capital gains provided by the Tax Relief Act of 1997 dramatically increased the return on housing investments, so existing home prices after 1997 are as much as 13.7 percent higher than they would be had TRA’97 not passed.*This fact makes it more difficult for young families to afford their first house. Finally, this paper discussed the impact of child tax credits, which would drop effective tax rates by approximately 2.3 percentage points in 2010 for a median newlywed couple that just had its first child.

The Tax Foundation - How the Federal Tax Code Affects Young Americans

How the Federal Tax Code Affects Young Americans
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/e6ef763e9124138b74976c3266f80bdc.pdf

* so maybe instead of trying to prove me wrong you should be learning more about how your industry functions and HOW taxes effect prices and volatility of short-term commodities you frigging jack-off..


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 29, 2011)

Vancouver and Lam need to get a room


----------



## LAM (Dec 29, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Vancouver and Lam need to get a room



Vancover needs to brush up on the industry that he claims to be an expert in and get off my tip...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> your reading comprehension sucks as you see only what you want to and are constantly putting words in my mouth..I never said it CAUSED the housing bubble I stated it was the initial event that started it, there is a vast difference...


 
Actually you have said numerous times in other threads...It's a good thing we can all reference those posts and if you never said it caused it, why are you...




LAM said:


> and as before you have the critical thinking skills of a 3 year old. Boston is 1 of the 12 federal reserve districts so any intelligent person that knows how the FRB is governed would logically assume that the same occurrence in the increase in the sale price post TRA97 would have increased from 13-22% in ALL FRB districts since they are all major metro areas of consumption, etc.


 

 ...well it's actually the author of this paper who cautioned against making assumptions, so I guess he has the critical thinking skills of a 3 year old. Or...maybe it's just possible that you posted a study which did absolutely nothing to support your position...I'll go with the latter...

Of course, I no longer need to argue with you, you've provided enough evidence for everyone else to come to the same conclusion that I have...


----------



## vancouver (Dec 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> Vancover needs to brush up on the industry that he claims to be an expert in and get off my tip...


 
I brush up regularly because I have to. You see, when someone is accredited in a field, they must keep that accreditation in good standing with annual continuing education credits. This is not the case for hobby economists and conspiracy theorists


----------



## LAM (Dec 29, 2011)

vancouver said:


> Of course, I no longer need to argue with you, you've provided enough evidence for everyone else to come to the same conclusion that I have...



yes that I actually took the time to find out what actually started the housing boom which lead to the banking collapse.  instead of making assumptions that it wasn't legislation when in fact it was...a bubble starts with a sharp rise and then drop in price

people like you have no critical thinking skills that's why you do what you do and I fix things that are very complex in nature.  in order to properly repair something you have to know what caused it to malfunction.  but dick bags like you that work in finance don't care because you live in some alternate reality where there are "free markets" and government along with the invisible hand of capitalists play no role in econ....you are a fucking joke


----------



## vancouver (Dec 29, 2011)

This is the thread that has finally (well maybe definitively) outed you...LOL. God it must suck, to live a lie for so long and finally have someone come along and tear down the walls around you...

Nice diversion BTW, but I think people are smart enough to figure out what's what...


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 29, 2011)

USA's current policies are so fucking ridiculously overdone its creating an implosion.  The empire is falling people. Only way out is to downsize.


----------



## LAM (Dec 30, 2011)

vancouver said:


> This is the thread that has finally (well maybe definitively) outed you...LOL. God it must suck, to live a lie for so long and finally have someone come along and tear down the walls around you...
> 
> Nice diversion BTW, but I think people are smart enough to figure out what's what...



I stated that TRA97 was the initial event that got the ball rolling on the housing bubble and that's what all the empirical data is pointing to, and you said it didn't...so you proved that you didn't know what your were talking about, congratulations......


----------



## vancouver (Dec 30, 2011)

LAM said:


> I stated that TRA97 was the initial event that got the ball rolling on the housing bubble and that's what all the empirical data is pointing to, and you said it didn't...so you proved that you didn't know what your were talking about, congratulations......


----------



## LAM (Dec 30, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> It may be a matter of semantics here, but I still think you're talking about regulation as opposed to innovation on the part of the govt.  I guess you could say that through regulation, the govt is in effect creating markets.
> 
> 
> 
> China and India are leaving the west in the dust when it comes to math, science, and engineering.  As far as mathematics ad science are concerned, I think there are a lot of factors that go well beyond simply big govt vs small govt.  From having been immersed in asian culture over the last 12 years, I've noticed that in asian culture, the schools and parents place a lot more value on education than in the west, with heavy emphasis on the hard sciences. On the other hand, critical thinking and individualism is basically alien to people over here.  That's probably why so many immigrants from asian counties become researchers and technicians as opposed to entreprenuers.  Yet, along with other wasteful spending, perhaps if the US didnt have over 700 military bases in foreign countries, more public funding could be directed towards R&D.



yep, regs and innovation are completely separate...innovation comes in many forms some things just make life different and not necessarily better like FB, internet faxing vs using analog phone lines, etc.  

the education thing is such a debacle.  the babyboomers account for roughly 25% of our highly skilled labor force once they all retire then it will be our turn at the top.  the excess labor that we have now will turn into a shortage in a couple of decades.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 30, 2011)

vancouver said:


> This is the thread that has finally (well maybe definitively) outed you...LOL. God it must suck, to live a lie for so long and finally have someone come along and tear down the walls around you...
> 
> Nice diversion BTW, but I think people are smart enough to figure out what's what...




Seems to me you post more insulting remarks than empirical data.
LAM is quite the opposite.


----------



## vancouver (Dec 30, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Seems to me you post more insulting remarks than empirical data.
> LAM is quite the opposite.


 
seems to me that you are the only one saying this. 

It also seems to me that you did not read LAM's 52 page study which had absolutley nothing to do with his position...I read it word for word.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 30, 2011)

vancouver said:


> seems to me that you are the only one saying this.
> 
> It also seems to me that you did not read LAM's 52 page study which had absolutley nothing to do with his position...I read it word for word.



Yea? Well my cat could kick your beaver's ass!


----------



## FUZO (Dec 30, 2011)

Well fact is this Barry wont be winning the presidency again no matter how man billions he earns he has nothing to run on. Ive been saying this for a long time. He's lost the jewish vote,he will lose florida and the critical states he's lost a great % of the african community thats a fact and Ind find him just plain stupid.This barry has a worse % record then Jimmy Carter did at this time and some of you think he's gonna win or beat either Newt or Romney.You Liberals can have your fun now because you all will be very disappointed soon


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Dec 30, 2011)

fuzo said:


> well fact is this barry wont be winning the presidency again no matter how man billions he earns he has nothing to run on. Ive been saying this for a long time. He's lost the jewish vote,he will lose florida and the critical states he's lost a great % of the african community thats a fact and ind find him just plain stupid.this barry has a worse % record then jimmy carter did at this time and some of you think he's gonna win or beat either newt or romney.you liberals can have your fun now because you all will be very disappointed soon



THEY TOOK OUR JOBSSSSSSSSS.

Owned


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 30, 2011)

FUZO said:


> Well fact is this Barry wont be winning the presidency again no matter how man billions he earns he has nothing to run on. Ive been saying this for a long time. He's lost the jewish vote,he will lose florida and the critical states he's lost a great % of the african community thats a fact and Ind find him just plain stupid.This barry has a worse % record then Jimmy Carter did at this time and some of you think he's gonna win or beat either Newt or Romney.You Liberals can have your fun now because you all will be very disappointed soon



He's not going to be re-elected this I feel with the current batch of losers we have in the GOP running for President don't expect a change of things.


----------



## LAM (Dec 30, 2011)

FUZO said:


> Well fact is this Barry wont be winning the presidency again no matter how man billions he earns he has nothing to run on. Ive been saying this for a long time. He's lost the jewish vote,he will lose florida and the critical states he's lost a great % of the african community thats a fact and Ind find him just plain stupid.This barry has a worse % record then Jimmy Carter did at this time and some of you think he's gonna win or beat either Newt or Romney.You Liberals can have your fun now because you all will be very disappointed soon



the economy of the US now isn't even close to the same as it was when Carter was in office, they dynamics have totally changed.  the 70's was all OPEC and oil both foreign and domestic and changes in pricing after Nixon took the USD completely fiat along with rising inflation, interest rates, etc.  Obama had to deal with the poorest middle class in over 60 years, the greatest wealth transfer from trillions in home wealth lost, a global recession and the continued US trend of jobless recession recovery's that started in the mid 80's and have worsened with each preceding recession recovery.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 30, 2011)

FUZO said:


> Well fact is this Barry wont be winning the presidency again no matter how man billions he earns he has nothing to run on. Ive been saying this for a long time. He's lost the jewish vote,he will lose florida and the critical states he's lost a great % of the african community thats a fact and Ind find him just plain stupid.This barry has a worse % record then Jimmy Carter did at this time and some of you think he's gonna win or beat either Newt or Romney.You Liberals can have your fun now because you all will be very disappointed soon



You really think Romney will be different from Obama?   Seems to like these liberals (as you called them) win either way.


----------



## min0 lee (Dec 30, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> You really think Romney will be different from Obama?   Seems to like these liberals (as you called them) win either way.



We continue losing


----------



## LAM (Dec 30, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> We continue losing



as long as lobbyists and special interest groups pull the strings of gov officials to manipulate the "free markets" in their best interests.  the APR on savings deposits lower than the inflation rate almost forces people to spend since there is no benefit in saving....bad times now and ahead


----------



## troubador (Dec 30, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> You really think Romney will be different from Obama?



Romney is whatever will get him elected.


----------



## Woodrow1 (Dec 30, 2011)

hoyle21 said:


> You really think Romney will be different from Obama?   Seems to like these liberals (as you called them) win either way.





EXACTLY!  THEY HAVE THE ****SAME**** POLICIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Why the hell do we keep voting in the SAME SHIT!!  Its not going to change voting in the same damn policies!!!!!


----------



## vancouver (Dec 31, 2011)

Woodrow1 said:


> EXACTLY! THEY HAVE THE ****SAME**** POLICIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell do we keep voting in the SAME SHIT!! Its not going to change voting in the same damn policies!!!!!


 






YouTube Video


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Dec 31, 2011)

Boomer182 said:


> Very true, and the man that made the 1990s fucking awesome in every way!


 
Not that the ending of the cold war and the tech bubble had anything to do with it.


----------



## hoyle21 (Dec 31, 2011)

Woodrow1 said:


> EXACTLY!  THEY HAVE THE ****SAME**** POLICIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell do we keep voting in the SAME SHIT!!  Its not going to change voting in the same damn policies!!!!!



Because the politicians are bought off before they even run.   The only people who can run are the ones with deep pockets, they get those deep pockets from big business.   If big business doesn't like your ideas, they don't fund your campaign and so we never hear of you.

FYI:
I'm including labor unions as big business as well because that's what they are.


----------



## basskiller (Dec 31, 2011)

they are all as corrupt as the next guy.. everyone one them is in someone's pocket.. 86 the whole lot of them


----------

