max,

i'm fine with counting the maps as running it twice.

fly - the "i knew this wouldn't work but i just didn't say anything because i wanted to keep it really really secret" speech is boring me more than your usual posts.

OMG I love Wikipedia as much as the next guy, but lol that you're citing to wiki to show that it is BAD AT DISPLAYING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE BETTING ON.

Intrade, for example, has its contracts on the actual results of these primaries, not the Wikipedia display of that. In a possibly related story, there's absolutely no confusion over what the ending value of the various Ron Paul to win... contracts should look like.

Actually I think there is. The market used to just be "paul wins 1 or more states" now it's "paul wins 1 or more states (excluding Maine). We could have bet on the intrade contract....but it also isn't exactly (at this point) what we were trying to bet either.

But what source of information doesn't have at least subtle biases? I don't use wiki because it is perfect....it's just really convenient for many, many things.

Sounds good.

I used wiki to check out Max's new name. I did not detect any libertarian bias...nor did I get finish the entry. That **** is hard.

Yeah....I helped write and edit that, so I made sure to get rid of all the libertarian biases ....But one of my favorite things about wiki is it's treatment of ultra specialized topics. In many ways they are the best articles on the site largely because nobody cares about them....where as the science articles that get thousands of hits a day end up having weird crap thrown in by people with agendas.

So you're saying you want me to add an "In Popular Culture" section to that page and find random **** from The Simpsons, Family Guy, and Star Wars to link to?

I don't think this question is worthy of a separate thread but:

Ron Paul isn't actually a Libertarian, correct?

For example, on the issue of Marijuana, Gary Johnson would want it to be legal in the entire nation. Ron Paul may favor it legal, or may not, but he would let the States decide. So, one State could be, no marijuana, no online poker, state ran healthcare, etc....as long as the state decided, and not the federal government, Ron Paul would be fine.

Is it fair to say he's not Libertarian, and is actually just Anti-Federal? Maybe this is already widely known, but for a long time, I thought RP was pro-myfreedoms, and really he just wants States to individually run themselves which wouldn't necessarily mean anything for my freedoms depending on the State I lived in.

Incorrect. He wants to let the states decide because he thinks it's the best way to achieve individual liberty. He is pro-your-freedoms.

ron paul is actually an ACist so he's about as libertarian as it gets. politically he's trying to achieve what he thinks is possible to achieve in the times he's living.

Yeah, I mean, sodomy laws aren't tyranny when they are at the state level. Only at the federal level. And Ron Paul specifically opposes people challenging these laws in the courts.

And a real bang up job he's done with all the bills he has passed and all the nominations he's won.

Edit: Ron Paul, the most principled man in Washington who is lying about 90% of his platform?

How many times have we been over this? Ron Paul doesn't like state anti-sodomy laws. He doesn't think they should exist, and he would veto them if he were a state governor. You are dishonestly imputing the belief that "sodomy laws aren't tyranny when they are at the state level" to Ron Paul.

lol - How the hell do so many RP fans actually believe that crap?

Going over something that you just make up a million times doesn't make it any more likely to be true.

LOL if you define "Libertarian" as "Ron Paul" and assume that every belief Ron Paul holds is by definition designed to improve liberty, then nobody is more libertarian than Ron Paul!

would people rather have sodomy laws decided at the state level or the federal level? And you don't get to say "well as long as they're RIGHT at the federal level" because you could make that same stipulation for the state level.

Huh? The thing that is "just made up" is the claim that Ron Paul loves state anti-sodomy laws.

Don't try to be reasonable with the trolls. I don't even think they believe the drivel they are spewing as much as they are just trying to be argumentative.

The fact is it is a very legitimate opinion to believe that not allowing the federal government the power to dictate morality but still have it sometimes occur at a state level could likely lead to MORE individual liberty overall. Yes, you will always be able to cherry pick pathetic state laws that are morally repugnant, but it doesn't discredit the overall premise that the central government trying to legislate these things leads to more infringement on individual liberty, not less.

So your defense against people making stuff up is to make up different stuff? Solid tactic I guess...


Regardless of your misreadings, Paul wrote an artical defending the rights of the state to outlaw sodomy. No libertarian can agree with that.

Let's put all the eggs in one big basket

what could possibly go wrong?

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/obam...eat/singleton/

It's an illusion that you can have more than 1 basket. The first things tyrannies do is restrict your power to move. Anything that increases government power at the cost of individual liberty on any level is a step in this direction. (and no....I'm not actually being serious with the last line but it is at the same level of the knee jerk anti-federal argument people here make in earnest)

I didn't make anything up. In the article you are referring to, he called anti-sodomy laws "ridiculous." It is reasonable to conclude from that statement that he doesn't support anti-sodomy laws. And the point of the article was not to defend the rights of states to outlaw sodomy, but to refute the right of the federal government to prevent them from doing so. Seen in that light, it is not un-libertarian.

With the example he chose, you can't do 1 without doing the other. The point of the article obv is to pander to southern christian states rights proponents....regardless of whether he strongly believes in the validity of that position or not.