Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[plzd0nate]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Heres a good question for you. Would you support having an official language in America if it was Spanish?

LOL this is like the most irrelevant question ever and its not a good question. and i would say exactly what tom said.

[bert stein]

Originally Posted by Max Raker

Well...I don't really agree with you on Suzzer.



Lolz...my understanding of a TON of subjects is at this level. Not really something I'm ashamed of.

Yeah, problem with TomCollins is that his level of understanding of economics is at the "some dumb guy told him XYZ" level. And he's not ashamed of it either.

[Max Raker]

Originally Posted by bert stein

Yeah, problem with TomCollins is that his level of understanding of economics is at the "some dumb guy told him XYZ" level. And he's not ashamed of it either.

Lol....

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by Max Raker

Well...I don't really agree with you on Suzzer.



Lolz...my understanding of a TON of subjects is at this level. Not really something I'm ashamed of.

I've seen you make plenty of posts that demonstrate that you wouldn't fall into this category. Like if someone made an economic post explaining some concept but screwed up some detail, I would expect you would have a reasonably good chance of finding it (if you were motivated to find it, of course).

You strike me as a lot more intellectually curious and capable of critical thinking to have that little of a level of understanding on a lot of basic subjects, though. I'd be shocked if that was the case. For advanced subjects and non-mainstream subjects, I'd figure you would defer more to people with more knowledge, but you at least would be able to understand your limitations in the subject. And you'd be able to understand if there was some level of debate about various subjects among mainstream subject matter experts and be able to figure out who would be best to trust (other than sort by number of experts on each area).

If I'm wrong about how you think about things like this, I'd be surprised.

An easy analogy would be arguments about sports. Say a team goes for it on 4th down at the end of a game. You have a couple different levels of sports fans:

Casual Sports Fan: What is the conventional wisdom/what do the commentators say? Parrot that.
** This is where I put suzzer's thought processes on politics/economics.

Slightly More Discerning Fan: Bellichick is one of the best coaches in the game, so chances are if someone is saying he made a huge mistake, he probably didn't, so at worst he made a minor mistake.
** Can't think of any examples off the top of my head on here that fits this profile. Suzzer sometimes reaches this level.

Non-expert, but with solid fundamental understanding: You might understand how the concept of making the 4th down decision would work, but have no idea what the values of the variables might be (what are the odds of making it, what are the odds of the other team winning if you make it/don't make it), but if you did, you'd be able to figure it out, and would rely on experts to help you figure out these values.
** This is where I would put you on many subjects where you rely on experts.

Expert opinion: Knows enough to estimate unknown variables, how to make the decision, although may disagree with other experts on what those values for the variables may be.
** Where I would put expert professional economists.


Does this make sense?

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by plzd0nate

LOL this is like the most irrelevant question ever and its not a good question. and i would say exactly what tom said.

No, because it goes to the heart of your assertion that:

well what im saying is that having an official language doesnt mean you have to have those consequences because you literally go about your day the exact same way. the only difference is on wikipedia it says official language: english. no forcing people to learn english in order to come here. everything stays the same. only thing that changes is that everyone knows there is an official language

Its only something you dont see as a problem because you speak English. If the language was Spanish or German you sure as hell wouldnt back it.

If you are right then just have the official language be Navajo cos why not, itll make no difference.

[Klinker]

TC, when you start believing that you know everything is about the same time you cease to learn.

It appears that a lot of your strongly-held beliefs are the product of resentment and animosity, which often comes through in your posts.

[MrWookie]

Originally Posted by krmont22

I guess I still don't understand the official language thing. So currently, don't we only use english in courts, laws, congress, etc? What does changing it to "official" mean? If it means you are forced to learn English, I do think that is wrong.

My understanding of RP's pro life stance is that he is pro life but understands he can't really stop back alley abortions or morning after pills so I don't think he supports federally making abortion illegal. I could definitely be wrong on this.

We don't use English only in courts. If necessary, the court is willing to appoint an interpreter if, say, a witness doesn't speak English.

[plzd0nate]

Originally Posted by [Phill]

No, because it goes to the heart of your assertion that:



Its only something you dont see as a problem because you speak English. If the language was Spanish or German you sure as hell wouldnt back it.

If you are right then just have the official language be Navajo cos why not, itll make no difference.

no its irrelevant because english has been the most spoken language by far since the creation of our country and still is to this day. if that were different your question would be relevant. seems logical to me that english would be the official language. so let me ask you this should any country in the world have an official language?

[prana]

Originally Posted by Zygote

you failed to read what i wrote. to be legal, dont you already have to know english? isnt that a requirement of process ALREADY?

You can just have a translator come with for your green card hearing afaik

[Klinker]

Originally Posted by TomCollins

I've seen you make plenty of posts that demonstrate that you wouldn't fall into this category. Like if someone made an economic post explaining some concept but screwed up some detail, I would expect you would have a reasonably good chance of finding it (if you were motivated to find it, of course).

You strike me as a lot more intellectually curious and capable of critical thinking to have that little of a level of understanding on a lot of basic subjects, though. I'd be shocked if that was the case. For advanced subjects and non-mainstream subjects, I'd figure you would defer more to people with more knowledge, but you at least would be able to understand your limitations in the subject. And you'd be able to understand if there was some level of debate about various subjects among mainstream subject matter experts and be able to figure out who would be best to trust (other than sort by number of experts on each area).

If I'm wrong about how you think about things like this, I'd be surprised.

An easy analogy would be arguments about sports. Say a team goes for it on 4th down at the end of a game. You have a couple different levels of sports fans:

Casual Sports Fan: What is the conventional wisdom/what do the commentators say? Parrot that.
** This is where I put suzzer's thought processes on politics/economics.

Slightly More Discerning Fan: Bellichick is one of the best coaches in the game, so chances are if someone is saying he made a huge mistake, he probably didn't, so at worst he made a minor mistake.
** Can't think of any examples off the top of my head on here that fits this profile. Suzzer sometimes reaches this level.

Non-expert, but with solid fundamental understanding: You might understand how the concept of making the 4th down decision would work, but have no idea what the values of the variables might be (what are the odds of making it, what are the odds of the other team winning if you make it/don't make it), but if you did, you'd be able to figure it out, and would rely on experts to help you figure out these values.
** This is where I would put you on many subjects where you rely on experts.

Expert opinion: Knows enough to estimate unknown variables, how to make the decision, although may disagree with other experts on what those values for the variables may be.
** Where I would put expert professional economists.


Does this make sense?

Ok, Mr. Smart guy. To begin, there is only one 'L' in Belichick.

And BB was a freaking retard with his 4th and short plays against the Colts and against the Giants. The Giants 4th and short cost the Pats a 19-0 record.

I know the stats for 4th and short that you are talking about and they are a black-box crock of ****.

Anyone who thinks those 4th and short stats are actionable knows little about football and probably less about economics and history.

I really can't believe you went there. Actually, after your many self-aggrandizing statements about your supposed intellectual "superiority" (which your recent posts prove to be laughable), it's not hard to believe at all.

[tannenj]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

You mean like how banks were unreliable during the depression? And in all the panics up until then? And how we haven't had a run on the banks since?

sir, banks are nothing more than businesses that safeguard your money in return for the permission to attempt to use it to produce more money. they're fundamentally no different than any other type of business. consider the case of an ice cream shop (a business that serves you ice cream in return for money) that does a ****ty job of serving ice cream. do you think that when it fails, it should be bailed out with citizens' tax dollars? if not, why not?

if the government got out of the banking business, banks would be dramatically more incentivized to maintain strong reputations. that is simply a fact that's deducible via cause and effect, it's really pretty simple. obviously, there would still be some banks that would be unreliable, but it should be up to consumers to research things before doing them, not the government to fix every mistake every person makes by taxing unconnected individuals.

you have a boner for rewarding mediocrity; what you constantly fail to take into account is that when you have a system that rewards mediocrity, you're incentivizing people to be mediocre. that's a sickening philosophy.

Originally Posted by Momo

I think you get the point.

indeed. i was going to post something like this. ironically, punter, who claims to despise racism, comes off more racist than anyone else involved in the discussion.

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by plzd0nate

no its irrelevant because english has been the most spoken language by far since the creation of our country and still is to this day. if that were different your question would be relevant. seems logical to me that english would be the official language. so let me ask you this should any country in the world have an official language?

No. Why would a country need an official language?

[Fear Itself]

[kimoser22]

Originally Posted by prana

You can just have a translator come with for your green card hearing afaik

True. (Lawful Permanent Residents do not need to know English, but in order to be Naturalized one does (few exceptions))

[[Phill]]

Originally Posted by prana

You can just have a translator come with for your green card hearing afaik

Im looking forward to the "charities will fill the gap" card to be played on this soon.