The case against Dr. Paul

Foolmewunz said:
Why don't you just do what Dave did and say you use the term to mean whatever you want it to mean (and his explanation is sort of acceptable, since his previous posts had been referring to economics texts as "voodoo", not referring to "voodoo economics". Again, just because it had Reagan in the same sentence does not mean either of you had it right. Your ignorance of economics is showing through if you continue to insist that you understood what you were discussing rather than just patting yourself on the back from being a clever young thing.



Yes. You were wrong. Dash was wrong in thinking that the term originated as a condemnation of Keynesian economics. It didn't. It originated as a condemnation of Reaganomics, Supply Side Economics, or Trickle Down Economics, if you will. If you can't see the difference between those items (and your back-patting agreement with him as to how you're young but not stupid), then maybe before you enter into discussions on politico-economics, you should learn a few of the basics. Saying that a statement was "related" to Reagan and therefore you were right is just plain absurd. That's like saying that Teddy Roosevelt supported the monopolies and trusts because you once heard a teacher mention the two in the same paragraph.


I don't really give a crap about intellectual domination. I've got ties older than you - I'm supposed to know more about certain topics than you.


Lather. Rinse. Repeat.


I don't do the irony meter thing. Imagine one here, please.




You merely agreed with someone who made a wrong statement. If A is wrong and you agree with A, then you're wrong. That's kinda simple, isn't it.



Lather. Rinse. Repeat.




The name for this tactic is "picking apart smug self-congratulatory posts" when they're based on a firm foundation of quicksand.
Click to expand...

I am conviced you are a moron and should not respond to the stpidity that comes from you.

Again i will keep it simple....

Show me where i made any Claims about Economics that would justify you saying "Your ignorance of economics is showing through".

Its simple as going and reading back, yet you are avoiding answering it. Can i tell you why? BECAUSE I NEVER MADE ANY CLAIMS YOU ****NUT!
Stop pretending to debate me. You are a lunatic if you continue to keep this up. I never spoke a word about economic policies and only stated that...

I KNEW VOODOO ECONOMICS HAD TO DO WITH REAGAN!!!

Its as simple as that!

Voodoo economics did have to do with Reagan did it not? Please pick a question to answer in any of my posts and you see you have been making up this whole scenario in your twisted little brain.

Never was debating...
Never made claims to be wrong about...
Never defined the term....


Please remember to attack the argument. In other words, stop insulting people.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread should be closed .since the discussion seems to be about crackpot economic theories now anyways.
THe Paul campaign is over,ended ,done.
 
How about some Ron Paul humour? That should be vaguely on topic:

29zyb9c.jpg
 
I've been busy elsewhere, what have I missed? Hey, what's my thread doing way down here? These posts aren't going to write themselves, people!

Silver up, down, up, down, up... I'm getting dizzy. I guess that's what volatility is all about...

-Dave
 
dudalb said:
Give it up.Oliver. Paul ain't gonna be President.
Click to expand...


And I never expected that to happen anyway. I'm merely trying to understand the irrationality of American Politics and the way Americans choose their Presidents: AKA - "From Chimpanzee to Presidency" ... :p

But kidding aside: The discussion about the Ron Paul case so far is nothing but the irrational blabbering I'm used to from reading on some conspiracy and religious sites.

Funny enough, some days ago, Bill Maher summed up the whole US-political/presidential/rational thingy pretty well - exactly portraying the whole argumentations we here a lot in here - and in the political sub-fora in general:

 
Oliver said:
And I never expected that to happen anyway. I'm merely trying to understand the irrationality of American Politics and the way Americans choose their Presidents:
Click to expand...

Yes, American politics is irrational. All politics is, to a degree. But if you think Ron Paul is the "rational" candidate, you have a hell of a lot of explaining to do. :D
 
To state the painfully obvious: The only reason Oliver supports Ron Paul is Oliver is very Anti American and likes the idea of a total withdrawal of the US from international affairs.
Whether Oliver like the results of a total abscene of the US from the world scene..except for what money we can make from other countries...is another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom