Everyone, I know some people are lost in their own twisted world, but let's not stoop down to their level...
Providenceplant, if you've got nothing else, I just want you to really think about your future and understand that you shouldn't view politics as a game. Who you vote for will effect the quality of your life once you're a real taxpayer and you've got real bills. You can't just get behind whoever screams out that they agree w/ your social views. I can tell you're really proud, and mildly intelligent, so you should truly consider what you're doing going around preaching this man's irresponsible message. Just something to think about man. Take care.
Well old man apparently you need to put on your reading glasses because the group that rated him as a corrupt politician is actually a conservative group. Judicial Watch, a conservative non-partisan government accountability organization, released their “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians†for 2011 list today, and while Newt Gingrich did not crack the top ten, he did make their "Dishonorable Mentions" group.
The status/characteristics of the person presenting an argument does not affect the validity of the argument.
» Rand Paul Detained By TSA Over Pat-Down Standoff Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Dude americans for liberty is a conservative group too. But they're liberal as fuck in thier spin on things. I don't think people mean, "liberal media" as in the media supports democrats. I think they mean it in the sense you mean it when you talk about a Supreme Court Justice being a liberal interpreter. They add shit onto the story and embellish w/ inflections and inflammatory terms and what have you to advance a cause, whether it be a democrat or a republican. They have an interest in something besides selling papers and advertising. That's what liberal media, I think actually means. Ok I'm gonna go do a fat ass dab so I'm probably done here for the day. I just want you guys to think about some of the things I've said here and try and open your minds a little. There's nothing scarier to me than a poor person who's been convinced thier interests are best served by the rich. Or a person who wants to be free, but doesn't realize they are imprisoning themselves and setting a precedent for others to be imprisoned by the same injustices. States rights as Paul sees them will not work without violating the liberty of millions of people everywhere. Eliminating the federal reserve will make our money more valuable per unit, as in you can buy more with a dollar, but there wont be enough dollars for us to compete in a world economy at the level we're used to. The fact is that we're not worth what we thought we were, and the only real way to fix that is to stimulate production, or exploit other nations through wars and shitty one sided trade deals.
So it's "probably" not real science? That sure is some argument you make. Also the only people who argue for the Fed are either a) directly benefiting from its existence or b) ignorant (you belong here).
But let's not forget, you're the one posting contradictions. I simply corrected you and it turned into a 3 page argument.
TSA Speak Dictionary: “We just don’t call these things that.” You call it .. The TSA calls it .. ________________ _________________ 1. Crotch grabbing = “Friendly hand shake” 2. Strip search = “Removing uncomfortable clothing” 3. Soft kill weapon = “Body scanner” 4. Sexual molestation = “Pat down” 5. Colostomy bag = “Hazardous waste material” 6. Baby formula = “Bomb making liquid” 7. Kid’s crayons = “Dangerous projectiles” 8. Frosted cupcake = “TSA snack treats” 9. Pacemaker = “Detonation timing device” 10. Aluminum walker = “Nuclear fuel rods” 11. Rand Paul, Jesse Ventura = “Domestic Terrorists” 12. U.S. Constitution booklet = “Subversive reader”
Yeah which is why it's fucked up that everyone who says anything against Ron Paul is a "troll". You guys are just fallacious. Like a philosophy class where everyone dosed hallucinogens at different times and then tried to have one big conversation.
In that instance I was talking about how fringe academics with political intentions shouldn't be trusted. I worked for somewhat of a think tank for about 6 or 7 years where it was by job to create tools for teaching ethical oversight to scientists who publish work. Unscientifically, I make the claim that if lots and lots of people are arguing the same point from a single source, that either the source is bullshit, or you have a true anomoly because it's statistically unlikely that a single source, in a peer reviewed field is going to have the best data. Also, thank you for calling me ignorant. All I get from you guys are emotivist claims. "Federal reserve BAD", "International intervention BAD" "Gold standard GOOD". I mean you can't be fucking serious. Has no one in your whole life ever made you back up your claims with reason? Ever? What the fuck am I witnessing here?
I know, but to be honest it was aimed at you too. And everyone ekse in general, but I was just letting you guys know your guys argument was getting ugly lol.
Nice cop out. I'm glad you could address my points and what have you. I watch you all the time dude calling out ad hom and blah blah blah. You just can't take it when you have to face it yourself about your own skewed political beliefs.