Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
People seem to hate him here, but it seems he was fairly spot on.
And what's with the youtube tags lately... they seem really hit an miss... am I missing something?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/20 01:04:22
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
"I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5-10 years. Let's hope and pray that I'm wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased. "
The bold segment is why no one rationally thinking about politics pays attention to him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/20 00:37:54
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
"I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5-10 years. Let's hope and pray that I'm wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased. "
The bold segment is why no one rationally thinking about politics pays attention to him.
So. Ron Paul has predictions that are correct, but he's not sure exactly when they'll happen (even though they do happen in the time he suggests), no one takes him seriously. Bush and Obama had predictions that were totally false, but with a hard and fast timeline (within my term as president), so they're taken seriously? (Of course the 'predictions' I'm talking about are the campaign promises that have fallen through). The fact is, he was right, and fairly timely about his statements. Why does this make him less or unreliable?
If a mechanic tells you "You need to fix that axle or your wheels will fall off. I'm not sure when, but it WILL happen." And you don't and your wheels fall off, does that mean you don't use that mechanic next time simply because he can't give you a specific timeline for an occurrence that's a logical result of a problem he sees? I know the comparison is not direct, but it's pretty close to what I think you're saying.
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
"I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5-10 years. Let's hope and pray that I'm wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased. "
The bold segment is why no one rationally thinking about politics pays attention to him.
Sounds like a complicated way of saying "I dunno, lol. I might be right, I might be wrong. Who knows?"
I predict... Ron Paul will lose to Obama and live in a live of obscurity.
He was right on a LOT of topics though. Is he a wizard?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/20 01:34:20
A whole load of communists were jumping and down yelling "I told you so!” in the wake of the GFC, because they had been making predictions of doom and gloom at some point in the near future because of some semi-logic based around capital markets. No-one took them at all seriously, because they’d been making the same calls of doom and gloom for decades, and besides the claims they got right, they’d also made hundreds of other claims that hadn’t even come slightly true.
Ron Paul is pretty much exactly the same, except that for whatever reason he’s a little more popular than the communists.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
"International dollar crisis will dramatically boost inflation in the US"
Pretty much the opposite happened between 08-09. The dollar strengthened massively as capital "fled to safety". DEFLATION occurred as demand globally for things like gasoline/oil fell.
"[Federal] credit expansion will make the dollar crisis worse"
Again, pretty much the exact opposite happened. The actions undertaken by Geithner and Bernanke weakened the dollar, but in doing so it variously 1. made a bank run impossible, 2. defended American exports, investor confidence and helped markets to generally rally during QE periods, and 3. staved off 'double dip' recession.
"Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money... and return to its use as money".
Gold values have rallied as the dollar has weakened. This is an inevitable result of weakening a currency. HOWEVER... nobody is using gold "as money". Gold is a safe harbor. The lofty values of gold currently as as much a result of uncertainty in Europe and a still-uncertain global economic climate, primarily as a result of Eurozone uncertainty. When was the last time your gas station would only accept nuggets? Or your utility company required a delivery of bullion?
"Policy changes will encourage military adventurism overseas"
Again, pretty much the exact opposite of what is happening. We are de-militarizing, removing personnel from overseas, cutting military budgets, and generally pulling out of the areas we've been most invested in. Libya was a UN joint venture in which Britain and France undertook a great deal of the workload, and the US is hardly sustaining a standing occupational army there.
Ron Paul's doomsaying generally hit a lot of headlines, but his reasoning behind it has been completely off the mark.
Lordhat wrote:
So. Ron Paul has predictions that are correct, but he's not sure exactly when they'll happen (even though they do happen in the time he suggests), no one takes him seriously.
So, if I tell you that you're going to die, but I'm not sure when, you're going to take my prediction seriously?
Saying that something will happen, especially something related to an economic system based on cyclic patterns, but not providing any information regarding when they'll happen is not a remotely credible form of prediction.
Great rhetoric though.
Lordhat wrote:
Bush and Obama had predictions that were totally false, but with a hard and fast timeline (within my term as president), so they're taken seriously? (Of course the 'predictions' I'm talking about are the campaign promises that have fallen through).
So, basically, you're explicitly telling me that your argument above is predicated on equivocation.
You could at least try to hide it.
Lordhat wrote:
The fact is, he was right, and fairly timely about his statements. Why does this make him less or unreliable?
The fact is that his predictions had about as much validity as me predicting your death, without telling you when its going to happen.
Lordhat wrote:
If a mechanic tells you "You need to fix that axle or your wheels will fall off. I'm not sure when, but it WILL happen." And you don't and your wheels fall off, does that mean you don't use that mechanic next time simply because he can't give you a specific timeline for an occurrence that's a logical result of a problem he sees? I know the comparison is not direct, but it's pretty close to what I think you're saying.
Actually, the comparison is pretty close. Paul made a prediction based on something approximating mechanical certainty, a prediction made by many people because it was an approximation of mechanical certainty. For example, if I knew you had a broken axle, I could tell you that your wheels would fall off eventually, but not being a mechanic I couldn't tell you when, or how to fix it. Would you therefore ask me about all automotive issues, and how to repair them?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Lordhat wrote:
So. Ron Paul has predictions that are correct, but he's not sure exactly when they'll happen (even though they do happen in the time he suggests), no one takes him seriously.
So, if I tell you that you're going to die, but I'm not sure when, you're going to take my prediction seriously?
Saying that something will happen, especially something related to an economic system based on cyclic patterns, but not providing any information regarding when they'll happen is not a remotely credible form of prediction.
Great rhetoric though.
Lordhat wrote:
Bush and Obama had predictions that were totally false, but with a hard and fast timeline (within my term as president), so they're taken seriously? (Of course the 'predictions' I'm talking about are the campaign promises that have fallen through).
So, basically, you're explicitly telling me that your argument above is predicated on equivocation.
You could at least try to hide it.
Lordhat wrote:
The fact is, he was right, and fairly timely about his statements. Why does this make him less or unreliable?
The fact is that his predictions had about as much validity as me predicting your death, without telling you when its going to happen.
Lordhat wrote:
If a mechanic tells you "You need to fix that axle or your wheels will fall off. I'm not sure when, but it WILL happen." And you don't and your wheels fall off, does that mean you don't use that mechanic next time simply because he can't give you a specific timeline for an occurrence that's a logical result of a problem he sees? I know the comparison is not direct, but it's pretty close to what I think you're saying.
Actually, the comparison is pretty close. Paul made a prediction based on something approximating mechanical certainty, a prediction made by many people because it was an approximation of mechanical certainty. For example, if I knew you had a broken axle, I could tell you that your wheels would fall off eventually, but not being a mechanic I couldn't tell you when, or how to fix it. Would you therefore ask me about all automotive issues, and how to repair them?
Well, now I know why his not having a timeline was important. Thanks for the edification.
Automatically Appended Next Post: While I may not always agree with you Dogma, you always have a well reasoned point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/20 03:20:36
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
Rom Paul is idiot bait. The guy has a couple decent ideas and he has a whole lot of bat gak crazy ones. He appeals to people who hear a sound bite or two, don't process it on any deeper level than "That shore do sound goodt" and then put up a Ron Paul sign in their yard. Seriously, balance the Federal budget by just turning off a couple departments? The fething gold standard? Cut off all forgein aid. Total deregulation of Wall Street?
The last one alone should end this guy's career. What happened the last time we turned a blind eye to Wall Street and let them do whatever the hell they wanted? Oh right, the last four years. Previous to that? Right, Enron. Yeah, lets repeal all the legislation put in place to prevent that gak from happening.
I'm a conservative through and through and even I think this guy's fething nuts. The fact that he can garner 20% of the vote means that 20% of eligible voters in these primaries shouldn't be allowed to vote.
mattyrm wrote: I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
Grakmar wrote:Ron Paul is absolutely great, has amazing ideas, and, as president, would solve all of the world's problems.
Of course, this only applies as long as he's a fringe candidate with no hope of winning.
The moment he actually has a viable chance of winning, people will find all the crazy stuff he believes really scary and will drop support for him.
He's like Nader. He's got my support and I'll vote for him, but the idea of him actually winning terrifies me.
Yeah, like Nader Ron Paul’s value is in raising views that otherwise just don’t get talked about. We should be grateful that Ron Paul is actually out there talking about the importance of civil rights. Unfortunately, we should be utterly terrified that all his moonbat ideas like gold standards and total financial deregulation have made him a presidential candidate a significant minority actually take seriously.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
His bizarre love of the gold standard is certainly irrational enough for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:total financial deregulation
That thought scares me...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/24 03:38:02
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Yeah, how he's watched what's happened in the last decade and thought, "What these gigantic rogue companies who have no concerns but their own bottom lines and wield enough economic power to make a hell of a dent in the entire nation's economy need is even less regulation and oversight," is beyond me. Really, the guy thinks that letting companies just do whatever the hell they please is a great idea.
mattyrm wrote: I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
Grakmar wrote:
Of course, this only applies as long as he's a fringe candidate with no hope of winning.
The moment he actually has a viable chance of winning, people will find all the crazy stuff he believes really scary and will drop support for him.
well when he was leading in the polls in Iowa every other republican turned around and said that it meant Iowa was meaningless and it corrupted the point of the cacauses(s?)
I do like his stance on the US Military and how he put down Gingrich over it but I am also deeply concerned over how he wants to destroy the Department of Education amongst others and get rid of paper money over how it's deemed "unconstitutional" in his eyes.
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing
DeadlySquirrel wrote:It's simple why he isn't liked here. Dakka doesn't like right-wing politics.
Dakka is very much right wing.
Just not extremist right wing.
Very few people advocate the government ownership of companies here. Then again, let me guess; you believe that anyone who isn't a 100% Ron Paul supporter is a socialist leftie scumbag, amirite?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/25 01:46:08
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
DeadlySquirrel wrote:It's simple why he isn't liked here. Dakka doesn't like right-wing politics.
Dakka is fine with all kinds of right wing politics. Don't mistake Ron Paul for right wing, he belongs in the crazy section.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Melissia wrote:
Very few people advocate the government ownership of companies here. Then again, let me guess; you believe that anyone who isn't a 100% Ron Paul supporter is a socialist leftie scumbag, amirite?
You might be surprised at this, Biccat, but I would be considered right wing by most reasonable definitions of right wing, because I support a regulated capitalism over any form of government ownership of the means of production.
Sure I'm not a conservative, but conservative doesn't equate to right wing. Some of the most conservative countries in history were communist countries.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/01/25 14:28:35
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
That thread was mired in discussions on what exactly made something "right" or "left", and therefor because of its imprecise wording wasn't a valuable study.
e.g. if you define "conservative" as "right", then may communist countries were right-wing. Which means that technically someone can be a right wing left winger if you consider communists to be left-wing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/25 15:14:27
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I think a big issue with RP is actual accomplishments.
It is easy to vote against spending bills while inserting earmarks for recreational fishing piers because you know the bill will pass. It is harder to actually come up with and then execute policies that will reduce federal spending.
It is easy to say 'Iran hates us because of decades of reasons'. It is harder sot say "Now that they hate us, this is my plan for going forward'.
He has done nothing to show any real leadership ability. Even IF you buy off on all his ideas, what has he DONE to show he has the capability to turn those ideas into executable policies and to build the coalitions (domestic and international) needed to execute them?
Facta Non Verba.
(by the way, I DON'T buy off on all his ideas by any means, I just have trouble understanding his followers who cannot communicate how he translates those ideas into actions.)
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote:He has done nothing to show any real leadership ability. Even IF you buy off on all his ideas, what has he DONE to show he has the capability to turn those ideas into executable policies and to build the coalitions (domestic and international) needed to execute them?
That's the ultimate issue with playing Devil's Advocate all the time. He's passed almost no legislation on his own, and his record shows that he's generally bad at creating concensus and leading others.
All of which makes him a horrible candidate for US President, unless you actually believe that by collectively sticking our heads in a hole the US can go back to the 'good old days' of 1850.
Elysian Drop Troops 1500pts
Renegades & Heretics 2056pts
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
