Official Rand Paul For President Thread

[brvheart 1,752]

well then I retract my original reversal and now believe the united states was founded strictly for the worship of jesus christ our lord and savior.

YES!! Welcome aboard SHAKE!

[brvheart 1,752]

The Economics Nobel Prize has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize. Krugman won in 2008. It is laughably false to say he is a joke in the economic community. Besides, Krugman has nothing to do with Ryan's pathetic plan. Everyone has been pointing out how wildly unrealistic and extreme it is. The real joke is just how much you will ignore the facts to defend your one true religion, libertarianism.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/...-badgers-1.htmlhttp://www.funnyeconomist.com/krugman.pdf

[SilentSnow 1]

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/...-badgers-1.htmlhttp://www.funnyeconomist.com/krugman.pdf

Ironically enough, Iowa guy makes the same mistake he accuses Krugman of. You can expect the socioeconomic status of 42% of the population to be very different from that of 8% of the population. Unless he adjusts for this, then his conclusions are just as simplistic and misleading. As for the second article, it is hardly a secret that mainstream economists have done a very poor job in the last decade of predicting trends and guiding the economy. Economists disagree on just about everything. Finding one economist who disagrees with Krugman doesn't even remotely prove that he is not a respected economist.

[brvheart 1,752]

Ironically enough, Iowa guy makes the same mistake he accuses Krugman of. You can expect the socioeconomic status of 42% of the population to be very different from that of 8% of the population. Unless he adjusts for this, then his conclusions are just as simplistic and misleading. As for the second article, it is hardly a secret that mainstream economists have done a very poor job in the last decade of predicting trends and guiding the economy. Economists disagree on just about everything. Finding one economist who disagrees with Krugman doesn't even remotely prove that he is not a respected economist.

How many would matter? If we found, say, 5 more, is that enough? How about 100? 1000?

[SilentSnow 1]

How many would matter? If we found, say, 5 more, is that enough? How about 100? 1000?

The number is irrelevant.Come up with solid arguments backed up by facts that Krugman's basic assumptions about the economy are wrong.

[brvheart 1,752]

The number is irrelevant.Come up with solid arguments backed up by facts that Krugman's basic assumptions about the economy are wrong.

That's HBlask's department. I don't know anything about him other than a lot of people think he's an idiot, both of my econ professors this semester included.

[Mills 0]

That's HBlask's department. I don't know anything about him other than a lot of people think he's an idiot, both of my econ professors this semester included.

BRV using the argument from authority?I'm shocked, I really am

[hblask 1]

The number is irrelevant.Come up with solid arguments backed up by facts that Krugman's basic assumptions about the economy are wrong.

The thing that matters is the ability to make meaningful, solid predictions. Krugmann has consistently been wrong for at least a decade. Ten straight years of being wrong every time is what makes him a laughingstock.The economists I respect predicted the S&L crisis, the large increase in gold prices, AND the mortgage crisis, for all the right reasons.Krugmann keeps saying doing more of the same is the answer. There's is no way anyone can take him seriously unless they ignore everything he has said for a decade or more.

[brvheart 1,752]

Oops.

[vbnautilus 48]

Seriously though, while the Nobel Peace Prize is obviously a joke, the other Nobels are not.

[hblask 1]

Seriously though, while the Nobel Peace Prize is obviously a joke, the other Nobels are not.

They gave Krugmann one, so the economics one obviously is. Most third graders know more about economics than him.The only other explanation is that Krugmann once was a genius and suffered severe brain damage and was forced to get a job as a left-wing pundit.

[vbnautilus 48]

They gave Krugmann one, so the economics one obviously is. Most third graders know more about economics than him.The only other explanation is that Krugmann once was a genius and suffered severe brain damage and was forced to get a job as a left-wing pundit.

I mean, I appreciate your hyperbole, but I just don't think you are in a position to evaluate the impact that New trade theory had on the field of economics (and neither am I). You're not an economist from what I understand. But more to the point, I think you're not being fair to SS. You discount Krugman because he has a different point of view from you. Your argument is circular and question-begging: 1. Krugman says things that I believe are wrong2. Therefore Krugman is stupidThen you use the conclusion (Krugman is stupid) to discount him when an opponent brings him up. Granted, argument by appeal to authority is pretty weak to begin with, but you can't just dismiss everything the guy says because you have decided he is stupid without actually addressing it. I don't think SS has stipulated with you that Krugman is an idiot.

[hblask 1]

1. Krugman says things that I believe are wrong2. Therefore Krugman is stupidThen you use the conclusion (Krugman is stupid) to discount him when an opponent brings him up.

No, I don't think he's stupid because he disagrees with me. There are lots of people whom I disagree with that I respect. The problem with Krugmann is he has made a series of very public predictions over the last decade. He's missed by a mile on every one of them. If you are going to pretend to have any economic knowledge at all, you need to have at least one correct prediction per decade, as indicated by factual data.Instead, this has been Krugmann's MO:1. Make a prediction that we need more government or we will see X happen.2. We get more government, X doesn't happen.3. Claim it's because we need even MORE government.4. Go to step 1.It's tiring, it's ridiculous, it's dishonest. He doesn't even pretend to be based in reality anymore, he just makes shit up, really flagrant lies. It's funny the way the left complains about FOX, then let's people like Krugmann, who is at least as bad, just slide by.

[timwakefield 68]

You just makes laws that say you are responsible for the harm you cause to others. You don't need to specify every possible means of pollution, you don't need to specify specific preventative measure, you just say "You're on the hook for damage. Get insurance."

Rather than, "Hey, you're economically responsible for damage," I feel like, "Hey, it's criminal to cause the damage due to negligence in the first place" is a wiser policy. So then you have to carefully define which actions (or lack of) are "negligent." This seems like a fairly obvious and intelligent solution to prevent horrible environmental and human catastrophes, like mine cave-ins. 'Your insurance rates will go up if something bad happens' seems like a less persuasive way to get a mining company to make their mines safe. "Damage" is also extremely vague and open to debate, thus we have to carefully define what is and is not "damage."

[hblask 1]

Rather than, "Hey, you're economically responsible for damage," I feel like, "Hey, it's criminal to cause the damage due to negligence in the first place" is a wiser policy.

This is already the law for all but the most regulated industries, such as oil. See a trend?

So then you have to carefully define which actions (or lack of) are "negligent." This seems like a fairly obvious and intelligent solution to prevent horrible environmental and human catastrophes, like mine cave-ins. 'Your insurance rates will go up if something bad happens' seems like a less persuasive way to get a mining company to make their mines safe. "Damage" is also extremely vague and open to debate, thus we have to carefully define what is and is not "damage."

This is why juries are important: much of what the trials are about is figuring out what is negligent and what isn't. If you try to write into law the exact behavior that is negligent and what isn't, you could very well end up with a company trying to do their best getting in trouble and the one cutting corners going free.Take the oil example again. Say that, through lobbying, the oil companies get a law passed that says if you use a 12" Finley Reverse Pour Method, even though it has a 1 in 100 chance of failure you cannot be held liable for accidents. So company A says, yeah, but we have a better solution that doesn't technically meet that law, but will perform better 999 times out of 1000. Company B says "We know that other one is better, but we're afraid it will open us up to liability, so we'll stick with the inferior product". (This is essentially what happened with BP -- they did the minimum necessary to make regulators look the other way).So the perfect storm comes along, and Company A hits their 1 in 1000 chance -- a string of 15 things goes wrong, and a spill happens. Meanwhile, company B did the cheap thing, and has their accident -- as we expect 10 times for every company A accident. A pays heavily, B goes free.Is that the result you want? Because this is what happens when the feds try to micro-regulate industries. Or do you think that congress should meet every week or two to keep up with the latest technology and pass new laws? And how will you keep the special interests for making sure those laws meet the lowest common denominator instead of a "best practices" standard?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Rather than, "Hey, you're economically responsible for damage," I feel like, "Hey, it's criminal to cause the damage due to negligence in the first place" is a wiser policy.

Why did you go "economically responsible" in one spot, but "criminal" in the other?

[timwakefield 68]

Why did you go "economically responsible" in one spot, but "criminal" in the other?

I may get into answering this later, and responding directly to what Henry said. I was forming a response but it involved doing research and finding solid sources and all. So yeah, that may happen later, but for now I'll just post this video which I think gives some solid insight (and solid embarrassment, of course) to Rand Paul's desire for deregulation.

He says, "Now it's not that I'm against conservation. I'm all for energy conservation. But I wish you would come here to extol me, to cajole*, to encourage, to convince me that it would be a good idea to conserve energy. But you come instead with fines, threats of jail, etc."He obviously doesn't say "etcetera," but rather goes on to describe how horrible this lady apparently is. But I just found it so striking that he first says he's "all for energy conservation," and then seconds later says that he needs some woman to convince him that he shouldn't be against it.* I assume that's what he means. What he said was "conjole," which is not a word. That's a bit less noticeable and off-putting than is his total misuse of the word extol. I don't know if he misspoke or if he doesn't understand what the word extol means. Either way it's a very odd thing for him to say, and his [attempted] use of the word cajole is also odd and seemingly misplaced.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I may get into answering this later, and responding directly to what Henry said. I was forming a response but it involved doing research and finding solid sources and all. So yeah, that may happen later, but for now I'll just post this video which I think gives some solid insight (and solid embarrassment, of course) to Rand Paul's desire for deregulation.

He says, "Now it's not that I'm against conservation. I'm all for energy conservation. But I wish you would come here to extol me, to cajole*, to encourage, to convince me that it would be a good idea to conserve energy. But you come instead with fines, threats of jail, etc."He obviously doesn't say "etcetera," but rather goes on to describe how horrible this lady apparently is. But I just found it so striking that he first says he's "all for energy conservation," and then seconds later says that he needs some woman to convince him that he shouldn't be against it.* I assume that's what he means. What he said was "conjole," which is not a word. That's a bit less noticeable and off-putting than is his total misuse of the word extol. I don't know if he misspoke or if he doesn't understand what the word extol means. Either way it's a very odd thing for him to say, and his [attempted] use of the word cajole is also odd and seemingly misplaced.

I encourage people to watch the video, I don't think anyone will be confused. The point he is making is crystal clear. btw conjole is a word defined as: To urge with gentle and repeated appeals, teasing, or flattery; wheedle. What is obvious in the video is that he is Ok with her trying to convince him to change his usage habits but not ok with being forced to with threats of punishment. Did you really not understand that? He does appear to misuse the word extol, though it comes from latin word which means "to lift up", being a doctor he may have actually been familair with such a usage, but I doubt it. I think he was suggesting that she extol the virtues of why to use this pigtail lightbulb, or a toilet that you have to flush 3 or 4 times to get rid of a piece of toilet paper. I don't understand the purpose of this post. Are you trying to convince people that Rand Paul is stupid? If not what?

[brvheart 1,752]

I may get into answering this later, and responding directly to what Henry said. I was forming a response but it involved doing research and finding solid sources and all. So yeah, that may happen later, but for now I'll just post this video which I think gives some solid insight (and solid embarrassment, of course) to Rand Paul's desire for deregulation.

He says, "Now it's not that I'm against conservation. I'm all for energy conservation. But I wish you would come here to extol me, to cajole*, to encourage, to convince me that it would be a good idea to conserve energy. But you come instead with fines, threats of jail, etc."He obviously doesn't say "etcetera," but rather goes on to describe how horrible this lady apparently is. But I just found it so striking that he first says he's "all for energy conservation," and then seconds later says that he needs some woman to convince him that he shouldn't be against it.* I assume that's what he means. What he said was "conjole," which is not a word. That's a bit less noticeable and off-putting than is his total misuse of the word extol. I don't know if he misspoke or if he doesn't understand what the word extol means. Either way it's a very odd thing for him to say, and his [attempted] use of the word cajole is also odd and seemingly misplaced.

This video was already posted somewhere and discussed at length. Most people liked what he said.

[timwakefield 68]

btw conjole is a word defined as: To urge with gentle and repeated appeals, teasing, or flattery; wheedle.

Not in English it isn't. This is inarguable. The word you have defined is "cajole."

I don't understand the purpose of this post. Are you trying to convince people that Rand Paul is stupid? If not what?

No, the problems of grammar and pronunciation were just a bonus. I posted it because I think it shows him being dishonest. He first pretends that he is all for "conservation," but then says that he needs [the virtues of conservation] to be extolled to him, as if he were unable to come to a conclusion without this woman lobbying (and complimenting?) him. But he's already come to his conclusion, and it's ridiculous to pretend not only that he could be swayed, but that he wants to be.

This video was already posted somewhere and discussed at length. Most people liked what he said.

Do you remember which thread?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I posted it because I think it shows him being dishonest. He first pretends that he is all for "conservation," but then says that he needs [the virtues of conservation] to be extolled to him, as if he were unable to come to a conclusion without this woman lobbying (and complimenting?) him. But he's already come to his conclusion, and it's ridiculous to pretend not only that he could be swayed, but that he wants to be.

You're totally missing the point of his argument.

[hblask 1]

I may get into answering this later, and responding directly to what Henry said. I was forming a response but it involved doing research and finding solid sources and all. So yeah, that may happen later, but for now I'll just post this video which I think gives some solid insight (and solid embarrassment, of course) to Rand Paul's desire for deregulation.

He says, "Now it's not that I'm against conservation. I'm all for energy conservation. But I wish you would come here to extol me, to cajole*, to encourage, to convince me that it would be a good idea to conserve energy. But you come instead with fines, threats of jail, etc."He obviously doesn't say "etcetera," but rather goes on to describe how horrible this lady apparently is. But I just found it so striking that he first says he's "all for energy conservation," and then seconds later says that he needs some woman to convince him that he shouldn't be against it.* I assume that's what he means. What he said was "conjole," which is not a word. That's a bit less noticeable and off-putting than is his total misuse of the word extol. I don't know if he misspoke or if he doesn't understand what the word extol means. Either way it's a very odd thing for him to say, and his [attempted] use of the word cajole is also odd and seemingly misplaced.

OK, you're really stretching here. You're going to use mis-spoken words now? Seriously? While you give a pass to the president that, as far as we know, still thinks there are 57 states?I'm not sure what your objection here is to the overall content, besides a few mispoken words (oh, the horror!). His point was the hypocrisy of people who think that people are perfectly capable of making important choices, like abortion, on their own, while we need government bureaucrats to help us decide which kind of light bulb to use. You don't think that's just slightly hypocritical?He was also objecting to putting people out of work and sending jobs overseas in order to meet the priorities of some bureaucratic green wetdream.Do you think the person whose job is lost really gives a shit about whether you use 30 extra watts of electricity per year?

[timwakefield 68]

You're totally missing the point of his argument.

What was his point? I think I understood everything he said.He made about a hundred points, none of them particularly detailed or evidenced. He says Ms. Hogan and her policies are shipping jobs overseas. He says that Ms. Hogan and her policies are an affront to free-market capitalism. He says that Ms. Hogan and her policies are causing companies to go under. He says he is insulted by the idea of not being able to buy any appliance he wants, or that the appliance he wants may not be allowed to be sold anymore because it uses more energy than the government has deemed necessary. Multiple times he equates freedom to get an abortion with freedom to choose your light bulb. That's a preposterous comparison which makes practically zero sense at all. Abortions are not controversial because the damage they cause to the environment. Inefficient light bulbs or washing machines are. Being pro-choice and pro-energy efficiency does not equate to hypocrisy, and he blatantly suggests. So, his point is that energy conservation is good, but that regulations demanding energy efficiency in appliances are bad. I'm pretty sure I got that, I just disagree with him and I think he sounds like a child when he complains about his toilet.

[hblask 1]

Multiple times he equates freedom to get an abortion with freedom to choose your light bulb. That's a preposterous comparison which makes practically zero sense at all. Abortions are not controversial because the damage they cause to the environment. Inefficient light bulbs or washing machines are. Being pro-choice and pro-energy efficiency does not equate to hypocrisy, and he blatantly suggests.

LOL. you don't seriously believe this? It's OK to let people decide about terminating a potential life, but not to decide to use a little bit extra electricity or water? You don't think that's hypocritical?I mean, I know you don't like Rand Paul, that's obvious, but try to keep your complaints realistic.

[timwakefield 68]

OK, you're really stretching here. You're going to use mis-spoken words now? Seriously? While you give a pass to the president that, as far as we know, still thinks there are 57 states?

Obama sucks, at what point did I give him a pass? I liked him when he was running, but he's pretty obviously a schmuck and has been running a schmucky administration. I haven't praised him in probably years. Is it really unfair of me to point out Paul's egregious misuse of two words almost consecutively? When a guy is up there trying to sound really smart and he says something really stupid, it's notable. Why do you give Rand Paul a pass but you don't give Obama a pass on his misstatement about 57 states?

His point was the hypocrisy of people who think that people are perfectly capable of making important choices, like abortion, on their own, while we need government bureaucrats to help us decide which kind of light bulb to use. You don't think that's just slightly hypocritical?

I addressed that in my previous post, but again I will say that it's a ridiculous comparison that makes hardly any sense. No, I don't see it as hypocritical. Is it hypocritical that we can choose whichever cereal we want at the supermarket but we can't choose to carry M16s and grenades around in public? No, it's a silly comparison that doesn't make any sense.

He was also objecting to putting people out of work and sending jobs overseas in order to meet the priorities of some bureaucratic green wetdream.

He gave zero evidence for that and it seems extremely obvious that the light bulbs are getting made whether they're energy efficient or not, so I see absolutely zero reason why they can't be made in the US, probably by the very same companies that made the old ones.

Do you think the person whose job is lost really gives a shit about whether you use 30 extra watts of electricity per year?

I don't think that energy efficiency regulations are causing major job losses. Companies have been fleeing to Mexico and Southeast Asia for decades, and it's not because of government regulations. It's because they can do it cheaper there, period. They pay their workers far less than they paid their American workers.

LOL. you don't seriously believe this? It's OK to let people decide about terminating a potential life, but not to decide to use a little bit extra electricity or water? You don't think that's hypocritical?

The two things (buying a light bulb and getting an abortion) are completely incomparable types of decisions, and I think it's ridiculous to pretend that they are similar.