I said starvation and murder will skyrocket not that there would be mass starvation...

you don't understand economics... Rand Paul's economics (gold standard/balanced budget = Great Depression 2.0)

also, it seems to be in every topic that you are completely wrong and ******ed. is this just a big joke. you have 70,000 posts are you just wrong about every thing in every single topic?

have you ever heard of a feedback loop?

how did the great depression start? how did it end?

maybe attempt to learn economics from somewhere other than youtube?

do you admit that Austrian economics is not taken seriously at the policy, academic and business level? do you admit that it is considered a complete joke?

Milton Friedman: Presidential Report Card


Feel free to refute any of what he said and predicted(The link has the full transcript)

Its almost like I mentioned that in the first sentence of my post.

Right, and I want you to think about that really hard. Because you clearly haven't thought it through. Why is Paul's vote a de facto vote for a balanced budget this year while Obamas wasn't? The answer is pretty simple here (they aren't different). Let's accept you said something stupid and move on.

The whole point of the sentence was to say both votes could be construed that way, so not real sure what you are disagreeing with.

Dude, you're just rambling right now. You made an assertion and Ikes has rightly pointed out where these assertions are incorrect. Now you're just going off on Austrian Economics and Ikes isn't even a big proponent of the Austrian school. You need to chill out.

Maybe he will have by the time he makes his next account.


*cough*

Whose alias was he?

No it's an explanation for why the first part of your sentence is bull****.

Given his spewing of the insult "******," I would have guessed ikes. But he got banned for it, so clearly !ikes.

A major part of the argument for not raising the debt ceiling in late 2013 was that it wouldn't lead to default because the US could prioritize spending, balance the budget instantly, and continue to service the debt.

Don't take my word for it, here is Rand Paul himself from October 2013.

Rand Paul then voted not to raise the debt ceiling.

Now, obviously voting to raise the debt ceiling is an imperfect proxy for policy views. Paul for would have rather voted for a compromise agreement acceptable to him than to raise the debt ceiling rather than vote against the final proposal that passed the Senate. As I mentioned, Obama voted exactly the same way on the debt ceiling. I acknowledged that in the same post that you chopped off at one sentence by noting his proposals are to balance the budget within five years and institute a balanced budget amendment.

But the post was in response to a question about whether Paul had ever claimed he would instantly balance the budget instantly, so I thought it was worth mentioning that Paul did take a vote to do just that.

Im not going to get bogged down on this since the point of my post was not to argue that Rand Paul was advocating instantaneously balancing the budget as a policy platform, and its unfortunate that you are getting hung up on that point, but my portrayal of his debt ceiling vote was accurate.

Paul's vote was a protest against fiscal policies just like Obama's was. This isn't complicated. Paul does not support balancing the budget in one year and never has.

Not interested in arguing semantics today. Happy to leave my post as my last word and readers can take it how they see fit.

If you're not interested in arguing in semantics, perhaps you shouldn't start and continue an argument based entirely on semantics.

Bump for fat kid

Fyp

Thanks Seattle.

Well said known intellectual Alex Jones whose show Rand Paul voluntarily chose to go on.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...and-paul-whore

I think you could have a serious intellectual debate as to if the Civil Rights Act was completely constitutional. However, I think it goes without saying that even if you believe it's unconstitutional targeting this act is not a politically smart thing to do.

Oh, this is a serious debate I'm anxious to hear.

It's centered around the question, does the federal government have the constitutional authority to tell individuals who they must do business with? You could also have a serious debate over what the status of Asian Americans should currently be. It really depends on your interpretation of the 14th. Taking the 14th in historical context it was never meant to include Asians or Native Americans.

Great whitey asking the tough questions.

The end result is that we occasionally have to send federal troops to the deep South to intimidate the majority there into treating other people with compassion.

Yes, yes it does.


It's really that simple. If you want a slice of some of that sweet-ass life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then you have to serve the negroes at your lunch counter. It's a package deal.

You could be a full-on anarchist and say 'no thanks' to both, but if not, it's a little bit of that ol' beggars can't be choosers along with a few other apt cliches.