Ron Paul endorses Free State Project.
Wheylous:I found this funny:
Twenty bucks says the guy who screams "YEEEEAH" after Jon Huntsman's 2.1% is a Ron Paul supporter.
Ron Paul on Meet the Press today
This cracked me up (paraphrase):
Q: So there wouldn't be a substantial difference between Obama and Romney?
Ron Paul: Well, you first have to decide which Romney you're listening to, he's changed stances so many times.
SO here in New Mexico I guess you can take your 8000 tax dollars and use it for a charter school. A kind of school choice program I guess. Lately on the news, they have been talking about how Albuquerque Public Schools are being threatened by how many people are going to charter schools. One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry at the idiocy.
We'll see what their version of Sharia law means:
@Wheylous: Believe it or not, I've actually read up on the subject and, no, I don't think he's telling the truth. There is another song that uses the exact same line "like a G6". There was speculation it was a reference to one of the Gulfstream jets but they don't make any airplane called a "G6" nor does any other manufacturer to my knowledge.
The timing was beyond fortuitous. In any case, we're talking about the Pontiac G6 and that was (I believe) the purpose.
This trailer is actually a bit cooler than the film itself, but it's still worth watching. You can find it on Netflix streaming
Speaking of Netflix:
Consumer power in capitalism
Gero:Ron Paul on Meet the Press today
Man that jerkoff tried hard to make Paul look bad.
Everything I've seen of him suggests that he's some kind of New Deal window-breaker. He clearly thinks that the government 'runs the economy', and that a lack of spending is the cause of the economic woes. Thus he always opposes any suggestion of cutting spending/not raising taxes.
I used to think that he had a slight conservative bias last year (he seemed to give liberals a tougher time than conservatives). Yet it appears that he simply doesn't like Ron Paul.
Ron paul going crazy on TV.
bitbutter's critique of Molyneux's faux original idea...
"...this part of the book seems to be a repackaging of Hoppe's 'argumentation ethics'...." ...which of course that narcissistic, Randian-esque IP-loving, faux anti-IP, jerkwad would deny until the cows come home.
So Elizabeth Warren, (of "the rest of us paid for" fame) is now claiming that she created 'much of the intellectual foundation' for Occupy Wall Street.
The Daily Beast:
Elizabeth Warren is running for office in the most high-profile race in the country not involving Barack Obama. It’s a position that calls for some tact. So what does she think about the Occupy Wall Street protests that are roiling the country?
“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she says.
Apparently Warren also created a little stink a short while back when debate moderators asked her to comment on [her Senate race opponent] Scott Brown’s decision to pose in Cosmopolitan magazine years ago to pay for college. What was her response? “I kept my clothes on” during college.
So Brown fired back, and his response is just awesome. I'll let some feminist over at Time magazine tell you what he said...But it's even better than her clever headline.
Newt Gingrich thinks Congress should abolish courts that issue rulings it does not like. Rick Perry suggests it should simply vote to override their decisions....
I don't want to hijack the thread, but in reference to the link you posted in the August Low Content Thread, Walter Block's assumption that Molyneux doesn't "hate the state" is kind of silly. I don't entirely agree with Molyneux's interpretation of Paul's candidacy, but come on. The Reason editor wanted Paul to be more statist and Molyneux criticizes Paul for being too statist.
Apparently it was Ron Paul himself who organized the "Black This Out" moneybomb as a response to not getting equal time in the debate the night before.
Why am I not surprised?...
"Claiming he did not speak for 40 minutes during the debate, Paul turned his gripe into a grab for funds by blasting supporters with a request to donate from October 19th to Monday at noon. [...] Rep. Paul brought in $2.75 million for his third presidential campaign during the moneybomb, named for the "blackout" he complained of following the debate."
You know, they make this out to be "a bitter old man tries to get his comeuppance"...anything to make him look bad...but to do that, they have to make it look like all Paul has to do is get a little perturbed and just all of a sudden raise $3 million on an hour's notice (the debate ended at 11pm ET, the moneybomb officially started at 12am). There's just a bit of satisfaction in that.
Some local news that is amusing, "Norfolk Community Services Board executive director Maureen Womack is resigning from her position for a job in Kansas.
Womack discovered the phantom employee, Jill McGlone, who was paid for 12 years without showing up to work."
12 years without showing up to work? What a champ! I looked this up and I guess it's not uncommon that once a phantom employee is set up it can go unnoticed for a long time.
Reminds me of the guy who taught high school for 17 years without even being able to read.
Oh, man, should I blame the government schools for this tragedy or comedy?
Well, did you read the article? He was "educated" in them and subsequently allowed to teach in them (which would kind of make sense if you think about it)...so I'm not sure who else is more to blame.
Yeah, I guess that's the irony of it all. You'd think they'd pick up on it or at least have the thought pass one of the teacher assistants mind's for a second.
Eric080:I don't want to hijack the thread, but in reference to the link you posted in the August Low Content Thread, Walter Block's assumption that Molyneux doesn't "hate the state" is kind of silly. I don't entirely agree with Molyneux's interpretation of Paul's candidacy, but come on. The Reason editor wanted Paul to be more statist and Molyneux criticizes Paul for being too statist.
Not sure what any of that has to do with all the nonsense Molyneux spent an entire 35 minutes droning on about...nor the case I presented about him being a narcissistic annoyance with Ron Paul envy.
I feel like a few of his answers were weak (I only watched the shortened version, here is the full one):
Colbert gets it right:
Dangit, being from Bulgaria this brought me to tears, knowing that such people actually do exist, and I can imagine the author's experiece as my own, because I've seen these old ladies selling flowers:
It is exactly the same in Poland.
Wheylous:Colbert gets it right:
Did you get this from the Paul campaign website?
Wheylous:I feel like a few of his answers were weak:
The only real problems I saw was when he was trying to talk about financial controls and constraints on expatriation and simply didn't know enough specifics, and that smug asshole to his left kept pretending as if Paul was saying a physical wall would stop money from crossing the border. I think it worked out fine when Paul finally broke down and just said "yeah and a wall never stopped illegal immigrants either."
I love the way it didn't take long for the aging Dracula face to start looking like he needed his nap. By the second half of the show he looked like had already spent 3 hours in church and still had 2 more to go.
Overall I think Paul did quite well with some of the crap that was thrown in there...like "what area of foreign policy are you weakest in?" I'm not sure anyone could have come up with a better answer on the spot like that.
And I really love the way Paul came back with a specific name when that amateur on the far left thought he had him on a good one by asking who his Fed chairman would be. Moron was "oh here's a guy who wants to get rid of the Fed, I'll totally trap him with this cuz no matter what it would be like he's endorsing it and he'll have to dance around and try to avoid answering. It'll be awesome. I'm such a good journalist." And Paul takes a second, thinks, and without missing a beat "mmm. Jim Grant, probably." And there's about a 2 second pause where that guy has no clue how to repond. I love it when idiotic plans like that don't work out. I would pay money to see the footage of his reaction. And as the icing on the cake Paul goes on to describe competing currencies and mention how it was Hayek's position and that loser automatically starts nodding his head as if he has the first clue of what Paul's talking about.
Watch this at your own risk.
This guy needs to be debated by someone from the Austrian school. Robert Murphy or?
NBC has made his character a heel... but it's still funny as hell:
This guy needs to be debated by someone from the Austrian school. Robert Murphy or?
good to see Jan interviewing again. It's pretty tough to promote yourself using footage from 20 years ago. He should have moved on from the spending increase vs. share of gdp thing. That was a really lame way to get him to walk out.
I do love the guy's line though:
"Your logic is interesting...it's kind of the logic of uh...pre-Keynesian economics."
Tom Woods via LRC Blog:
OK, you probably don't think you're all that interested in Herman Cain's views on abortion. But watch this one-minute video anyway. This is like a Saturday Night Live parody. I've heard of politicians trying to take both sides of an issue, but not in the same minute on the same show in front of the same audience.
Now, U.S. Drone Base in Ethiopia!
Peter Schiff on Michael Moore's version of "capitalism"