Gingrich 'Knows': Paul 'bad choice for America'

Akphidelt,

When dealing with Islamist Swine, and/or their braindead Liberal supporters don't expect a rational response.

You are dealing with ideologues whose Agenda borders on INSANITY ...... and, that is giving these turds the benefit of the doubt.

 

Right on.

Liberals are idots.....they simply cannot understand IRREFUTABLE FACTS that annihilate their CRAP.

 

This represents a predictable failure to try to meet the standard I proposed for the killing of children. You brusquely wave the matter aside: "Eh, everyone knows that's the exigency of war." Well, yeah, that's the point, isn't it? That's why war is illegal; that's why I think you sound ridiculous when you advocate blindly bellyflopping into the carnage hollering "Death to the Swine!! BLARRRGGHH!!1!"

Osama doesn't mind killing innocents to destroy people he considers swine (exigency of war, you know) and, seemingly, neither does loong, so explain to me why I should consider this conflict a Dudley Do-right vs. Snidley Whiplash situation and not a Freddie vs. Jason situation?

 

Yup thats why republicans cant stand ron paul

 

Yes, debt in our own currency that we alone can create. How can we be in debt with something that no one else in the world can create? Where did China get $1 trillion to "lend" us? Did they grow it on some special trees?

You guys have to understand how economics works before you go around spreading these ridiculous lies. The national debt wasn't a problem when it was $1 trillion 40 years ago and it's not a problem at $15 trillion now.

And what is so devastating about interest payments? You do realize that $454 billion doesn't disappear?

 

Compare the standard of living at the beginning of the 19th century with the standard of living at the end of it.

Because of the market. The market didn't disappear after WWII, although it was hindered by increased economic statism compared to some earlier periods.

Unbelievable how common this non sequitur is. You don't seem to realize that the economy tends to improve over time due to production and commerce. We should expect later times to be more prosperous than earlier ones. Very, very rarely does the economy actually shrink in a sustained, significant way; like a plant, it almost always grows, even under less than ideal conditions.

So it's a non sequitur to compare 2011 to 1890 and say "Well, we wouldn't want to go back there!" Well, of course not, because you have 121 years of economic growth thanks to the marketplace. But would you rather live in 1890 or in 1650, a time of immense state economic regulation of the kind you prefer but before the Industrial Revolution and the rise in living standards it created? Would you rather live in relatively pro-market period of 11th century Europe or in the relatively anti-market period of ancient Babylon?

Thus, the real question is: under what conditions in the economy's naturally tendency towards growth and increased prosperity most strongly encouraged? The answer is laissez-faire.

 

Yes the 400% increase through the 1800s compared to the 1000% increase through the 1900s. I much rather live in the 1800s, lol.

This is just you making up stuff

Why should you "expect" that. What proof do you have that we would be more prosperous than we are now? All you have is your philosophical viewpoints backed by absolutely no data.

I would rather live right now and I'm sure people in 1890 would say the same. Isn't that all that matters? They wouldn't say "oh no my 1890 dollars can't buy a loaf of bread any more!!". They would say "wholly crap I can get healthcare, computers, big houses, cars, etc, etc". Our standard of living isn't even comparable to the 1800s. Your point of view is strictly philosophical which is why not very many people pay attention to it.

What "natural tendency towards growth". Why do you feel that American's some how possess some power that others don't, that we would just progress regardless of structure or laws? Are we magical people?

 

As a point of correction, the national debt didn't reach $1 trillion until 1981....that's 30 years ago, not 40.

Also, our debt picture is different now in that we have an increasing % held by foreign interests.

 

My bad, incorrect math in my head. The start of Reagan was $1 trillion.

Who cares. What do we owe them? More dollars that we alone can create? You do realize we pay off almost a third of the national debt that matures every year?

The debt literally is the most misunderstood aspects of the American economy. It is nothing what you think it is.

 

Ah yes..... there isn't anything like some Liberal genius who'd make blanket statements that "war is illegal" .... even, for instance, the War against the Maniac Hitler, etc.

The Islamist Swine, and/or their braindead Liberal supporters would ignore the OUTRAGEOUS WARS of ATROCITY, including the TORTURE & MURDER of the captives personally led by their Idol, the "messenger of Allah" the MASS MURDERER, THIEF, RAPIST & PEDOPHILIC RAPIST whackjob MuhamMAD......and, who has made his actions as a model for the CONQUEST of the WORLD, by FORCE, if necessary EMBEDDED in his concocted Qu'ran.

Apparently, the utter stupidity of the Islamist Swine, and/or their braindead liberal supporters has no limits.

 

Ahem, you would also expect economic growth to accelerate over time because it's building on prior growth. That's what we would expect to happen regardless. You're not being very scientific to use phenomena we would expect anyway as proof that something you supported "worked." That's like peeing at the root of a cherry tree and declaring your urine fertilizer when the tree blooms in the spring.

And the more you use this "Why would I want to live in the 1800s?" slogan the less thoughtful you sound. You can't legitimately judge the growth in prosperity of the time period based on what happened a century later but based on what came before. The Industrial Revolution happened at the very time the economy was liberalized after prior centuries of statist domination. Why should we believe that was a coincidence? If statist economic controls work how come you don't want to live in 17th century France?

On top of all this, GDP is a very poor statistic in determining prosperity. It takes into account government spending, including on wasteful and even destructive things such as the military-industrial complex or more prisons for potheads. Standard of living could be declining even as the GDP was increasing due to the government spending printed money on digging ditches and filling them back up.

Making what up, that there has been some economic liberty in the postwar period? Do you think there hasn't? I missed the part where we went to pure communism.

Why should we expect economic growth over time? Because over time people produce more, innovate more, and create increasing stores of capital, of course. Why does science tend to improve over time?

Speaking of which, your appeal to empiricism is weak because it is impossible to perform controlled experiments on whole economies. Without the scientific method, you are left non-scientific statistical data mining, which is highly suspect because there a no controls and isolated variables. Therefore, you need to use deductive reasoning, i.e. philosophy, the queen of the sciences. It's not a dirty word. The scientific method itself is so trusted precisely because its axiomatically logical, not because previous experiments demonstrated it, which would be absurd. The natural sciences, thus, are founded in philosophy and, in fact, can in some sense be considered a branch of philosophy.

There you go again Apparently, you are stuck in neutral on this irrelevant comparison between the past and present day. What you need to do, if you really want to be logical, is to compare the standard of living in 1890 with the standard of living in 1790, 1690, and 1590. See what happened after we a had a century of relatively free market economics.

What the heck are you talking about? Who said anything about Americans? The economy all over, from caveman times till the present, tends towards growth, due to increasing innovation, increasing division of labor, and an increasing store of capital. If your response to this extremely fundamental economic fact leaves you staring blankly, slack-jawed and drooling, you really shouldn't act so self-confident in your economic opinions while remaining so ill-informed:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

-Rothbard

 

Well, it is under the Kellogg-Briand Pact. I didn't make the law. Sorry...

You support outrageous wars of atrocity. Hundreds of thousands have died in the outrageous wars of atrocity you've supported in the past decade alone. And to what end, other than to gut the American economy like Bin Laden wanted and encourage the creation of even more fanatics that want to "suitcase" people?

You support those too. Waterboarding, assassinations with no due process, indefinite detention, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands through sanctions...

You support that too, under a smiley-faced euphemism called "American hegemony." Call me when you've gazed long and hard into a mirror.

 

Correction: that is the rightist goal. Libertarians, Republicans, both support the idea that society ought to be owned by unaccountable, unelected private elites. "Progressives" would rather society be controlled by marginally accountable, periodically elected elites.

 

You conflate legitimate, labor-based property ownership with domination of others. This is disingenuous, as well as unoriginal.

 

Yes, "political" idiot. As in he doesn't lie when asked a question. That makes him a "political" idiot. And us who support him cause he doesn't lie to us are also idiots cause we don't like being lied to either. Wow, thanks for showing us the light...as in light I mean darkness cause you love ignorance.

 

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

The private business owners would never control the society. Society controls private businesses. We decide what to spend money on, what products we want to improve our lives, and who we want to provide service for us. The private business owners can NOT force us to spend our money on anything, and they certainly don't have FORCE to persuade us to buy something we don't need or want.

The elected elites however, can force you to give up more of your money for stuff you don't want, services you don't use, and products you don't need. They can use force to force you to give up more of your money that you earned for these things. And if you think a periodic election allows you to chose your who rules you or what policies you will have to endure, have a look at what you got when you changed out Bush for Obama. One in the same.

 

I would think 16 trillion in debt and wonderful laws like the Patriot Act and NDAA would clue you in.

 

Loong you must not think very highly of the military then.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/

How can a conservative such as yourself be so anti-military?!?!?!?

The men and women in uniform want Ron Paul for president 100 times more than Newt Gingrich. Now why would they support someone who you say is an "isolationist"? Do they not care about America?

 

The Racism accusations comes from whites. The Homophobe slander comes from heterosexuals. The isolationist BS comes from war mongering draft dodgers. And the anti-semitist statements comes from Christians. It is really sad how much the establishment really fears Ron Paul.

 

I am a twice wounded vet. 101st.

So don't give me your CRAP, and YOUR VERSION about the Political Idiot Ron Paul and what's good for the Military.

We don't kiss the butts of Islamist Swine, which is what the Liberal buttholes do.

 

You're missing the point. Newt knows that everything Ron Paul says is 100% correct. He is just threatened by him so he resorts to his usual sociopathic techniques to demonize Paul.

 

Paper cuts are not wounds.

 

Thanks for your service, but you did not address my post.

The military overwhelmingly supports Paul, who also served and is the only one other than Perry who did not dodge military service.

What do you say to that? Does active duty military personnel hate America?