>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.

Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.


The US dollar has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, the US dollar would be worthless.

Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilized tomorrow, gold would be worthless.

According to history, one of these statements is true, the other is laughably false.

So what do you measure you energy cost in?

>> ^marbles:

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.
The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?
Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?
Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)
In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.
It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.
You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.


Rubbish. Gold has nothing but perceived value. In real terms, it is useless. If the world economy completely destabilised tomorrow, gold would be worthless. It's time we started basing our economy on the the real cost of things, energy. Ultimately, everything has an energy cost. Today energy is cheap, mostly because of fossil fuels. When energy starts becoming much more expensive, that will be the single greatest economic change in history.

Is this what passes for financial experts nowadays? Outside of Rickards, the rest are fucking dis-info tools.

The Ben Bernanke said gold isn't money. He also said in response to Why do people buy gold?: "As protection against of what we call tail risks: really, really bad outcomes". Bad outcomes like... destroying an economy by design?

Meanwhile, If Central Banks Believe in Paper Money Why Are They Loading Up On Gold?

Also former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with Bernanke. 2 years ago: "What is fascinating is the extent to which gold still holds reign over the financial system as the ultimate source of payment". (This is when gold was around $1,000/ounce)

In 1971, gold was $35/ounce. Now it's $1700/ounce. So it only took 40 years for the dollar to lose 97% 98% (edit) of it's value against gold.

It doesn't take an idiot to understand that if you save a $100 bill and forty years later it only has the purchasing power of $3 $2--that something is seriously fucked up with our monetary system.

You don't like gold? No problem. Just get rid of the economic central planning and let there be competing currencies. Gold will ALWAYS win in a a free market.

LOL! This looks awesome!

"I'm packing an ounce of killer 'shrooms, and there be monsters in need of PUMMALIN'!"

>> ^Longswd:

I suspect it was a swallow. He could have gripped it by the husk.


It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 10 pound fawn. Now supposing two swallows carried it together?

As long as people want to believe something, they will believe it no matter what evidence to the contrary presents itself, especially when they have pain and suffering in their life.

As long as that's true, these "faith healers" will continue to prey upon, and make money from these people. I am convinced that these guys are sociopaths without a conscience. No one with an ounce of compassion would ever stoop so low as to prey upon the weak and vulnerable in this way.

Conservatives get grilled because they attempt to legislate people's sex lives and they campaign on family values platforms. So when the same guy that's trying to get anti-gay legislation passed, is trolling for a BJ in an airport bathroom, or trying to impeach the president for cheating on his wife while he's busy having marital 'indiscretions'; gets caught they deserve every ounce of heat they get.

Conservatives get grilled either way. Therefore, no mercy for Weiner. Sweep the leg!

>> The real question is why should anyone--left or right--should get a free pass for hypocrisy? Liberals do all the time. They've got their lapdog media covering their arses. The average liberal was likely 'disappointed' by Swill Clinton abusing his power, forcing women to fellate him or lose their jobs. Guess what? CRIME. Algore committed no crime but came close, scaring the crap out of that plain jane massage therapist when he tried coercing her to 'release his chakras'.

Yes, the gaypublican trolling for action while supporting anti-gay measures is a hypocrite, just like the San Fran liberals who all own guns but demand strict gun control for everyone else.

Conservatives get grilled because they attempt to legislate people's sex lives and they campaign on family values platforms. So when the same guy that's trying to get anti-gay legislation passed, is trolling for a BJ in an airport bathroom, or trying to impeach the president for cheating on his wife while he's busy having marital 'indiscretions'; gets caught they deserve every ounce of heat they get.

As far as Weiner goes i'm more disappointed he lied about it, and was stupid enough to do that crap in the first place.

Miles away at a local Domino's pizza, assistant manager Jack nervously searches his pockets again for the missing quarter ounce of mushrooms he had on him earlier.

anger is something i am quick to as a result of my PTSD unfortunately, particularly on subjects i am passionate about. Therapy is a long ongoin process =)
apologies all around for my curt manner.

now, to the dialogue at hand.

well firstly those statistics, since you've conceded them to be mere presuppositions, are exactly that: presuppositions. There arent any real statistics that i could produce to rebut it, however, if we use alcohol consumption and prohibition as a model, one could expect as much as a 30% increase in heroin use with its legalization, which is to say, not much at all. the idea of everyone and their mom suddenly hopping on the heroin train is a ridiculous fantasy at best.

while you may be right about the lifelong heroin user, i dont have to speculate about long term alcohol abusers maintaining healthy lives. that being said, this defense (if youre using it as one) is a moot point unless you support alcohol prohibition as well.

putting away traffickers in the netherlands would be the same in the states were drugs regulated and controlled. again, alcohol is the model for this. You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal? nope, you'll still get canned for that. follow the model. sticking with heroin, were it to be made legal its not something you'd pick up at your local grocery store. if the government regulates and controls it, firstly you will have fewer overdoses because the potency will be precisely known and consistent (the same as alcohol). Overdoses from heroin (among other things) is largely due to unexpected higher than "normal" street potency's. The same thing occurred during prohibition with alcohol poisoning. Potency would be known in the same way alcohol content (proofs) and tar and nicotine content in cigarettes (labeled right on the packs and cartons).

Now, not anyone can purchase cigarettes or alcohol or a gun for that matter. precisely because of regulation and control. in the same way, not everyone should be able to purchase marijuana, heroin, or whatever your poison is. regulated and controlled.

now i flatly rejected your hypothetical position because it was absurd (much like my brain synapse one was). you and i could draw up all sorts of imaginative what-ifs but theyre not gonna serve any purpose other than drawing up a good laugh.

you know, i also believe personal freedoms end where harm to others begin. but this certainly doesnt support your prohibition stance at all. Looking at it another way, you have the right to drink as little or as much alcohol as you want. but if you get too drunk and drive (and get caught) you'll get arrested. so while you still have that freedom to drink alcohol, that same freedom does not infringe on my freedom to press charges should you become too intoxicated and harm me. i know that sounds a bit convoluted, im not as articulate as i'd like to be right now but you catch my drift ya?

in closing, every piece of your defense doesnt hold an ounce of water when held up to the model of prohibition of the 20's, it's "side effects", and it's eventual outcome.

sorry again for being so curt earlier. therapy for my condition takes a good while =)

A conical glass may be deceptive but it's not fraudulent. If you order a 4 ounce drink it doesn't matter if it's served in an 8 ounce conical glass or a gallon jug. As long as you get 4 ounces you haven't been defrauded.

Whatever she lost that night, it certainly wasn't even an ounce of class.

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization. And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.


Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company. He takes strides with people like Kucinich, whom I also respect for his integrity to what he believes. There is no doubt, though, that the president, even when his powers were considerably less, is still the "leader" of the country. Being that congress has defaulted most of their power to the executive, a good place to go to pass that power away is the executive. One could ask why any of the founding fathers, with their ideals on the congress, ran for president and I think you will find your answer there...duty. Dr. Paul has frequently said he really don't have an interest in the office, but like old hickory after the death of his wife, feels it is is obligation to the people.

Just my 2 cents, perhaps he is a greedy Napoleon under the facade, I don't know...nor do I really care. He cares about what I care about, that is about all I require for a vote.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.
Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.
I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.
In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.

Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.

I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.

In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Those who suspect Obama isn't a naturally born citizen by a mile. There's overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Providing a birth certificate won't easily end all speculation. If birthers won't accept the overwhelming facts that prove he was already out there, another piece of paper won't make one ounce of difference. Bill freakin' O'Reilly even dismisses birthers' claims. If this one simple fact can't be accepted by someone, how could you ever have a meaningful debate with them about anything?!

Look, we can debate economic theory all day, but the fact that Trump and other birthers get traction with this crap is absolute idiocy, and points to the acidic partisanship in this country. I used to joke that I bet that if a person from either the left or right said 1+1=2, the other would swear it didn't. I thought I was being humorously hyperbolic. It's not a joke anymore. That's what exactly is happening here. It's pathetic.

And your platitudes about tax policy don't help either. You're indicting progressive taxation and a basic social safety net. Both have been in place at a basic level since the New Deal, and you're claiming that can't work?! It most certainly can if done right. The US has been the most economically successful nation on earth for the majority of that time. It's basic historical fact you're arguing against to make an ideological point.