Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

*** December 2011 low content thread ***

rated by 0 users
This post has 293 Replies | 15 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 286
Points 4,665
skylien replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 5:37 AM

I have to correct my post, that I made earlier in here in which I claimed there is now an AISOS = Austrian International School of Sex!. But it seems this was merely a hoax from a austrian activist group who tried to raise attention for a welfare state (ponzi scheeme) problem called social security. Since funding is a problem the only solution left they say is MORE SEX. In other words they want more ponzi without realizing it...

WTF...

 

Edit: The group seems to be from Austria not Sweden.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, qui custodes custodient? Was that right for 'Who watches the watcher who watches the watchmen?' ? Probably not. Still...your move, my lord." Mr Vimes in THUD!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 494
Points 6,980

You know, the more time the other speakers get in debates the worse they appear.  Perhaps the media and debate hosts are unintentionally helping Ron Paul by letting other candidates say really stupid things.

Biggest fear Republicans seem to have right now is that Ron Paul would break off as a third party candidate, which to them would mean practically a sure re-election of Barack Obama.  For that reason they will try to keep Paul around until the convention, then they'll get together to give the nomination to a less worthy candidate - or a team of less worthy candidates.  Could also see them start to offer Paul some cabinet position empowered to tackle domestic and economic issues.  They are scared to death of his foreign policy.  So, in a sense, you could potentially see a triumvirate formed.  I think there are too many corporatists in the party to make that happen.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 9:30 AM

If the repub nominee had Ron Paul in his cabinet for something domestic, he'd get a ton of extra votes, maybe the bulk of his supporters, right? This is getting interesting.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 1:10 PM

I'm about 99% sure Ron Paul would not accept a cabinet position with any of these clowns. Just look at this line-up. The Establishment has obviously decided there will be four more years of Barack Obama.

What the hell is Newt Gingrich doing on stage? And the MSM is acting like he has more "electability" than Ron Paul?? Are you kidding me? Gingrich had his glory days as Speaker and his political opponents (and his own foibles) have ensured that he will never rise higher than that.

Look at Herman Cain. 100% insider, laden with politically radioactive baggage (settled sexual harassment suits)... biggest joke ever. Why did they ask him to get in the line-up? Well, it's simple, Cain's job was to throw water on the anti-Fed sentiment in the campaigns and debates and give credence to the idea that what we need is a "Republican Fed" (Greenspan) instead of this horrible "Democrat Fed" (Bernanke).

We've seen each of the clowns rise and fall in the polls. Perry is Bush 2.0 and predictably fizzled. Romney is painting himself as "the inevitable" but I think Republicans are tired of seeing him, particularly because the memories of all the 2008 campaigning exposing Romney's whoring opportunism are still relatively fresh on their minds. Bachmann has this Sarah Palin aura but more creepy, as difficult as that is to imagine. John Huntsman seems to be the Libertarian alternative to Ron Paul's libertarian.

Rick Santorum seems to be the Establishment's dark horse. He's polling very low but he is 100% pure-bred Establishment. I will be surprised if Santorum doesn't begin to suddenly be a "rising star of the Republican Party." Santorum v. Obama would have the civility of Romney v. Obama without the has-been-ness. The sheep might begin to spook and wonder if something is amiss if it's Romney yet again.

So, to sum up, I'll sort the candidates into my own tiers:

Perry, Romney: Self-initiated candidacies; these two are acceptable to the Establishment but are not present at the behest of the Establishment

Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain: Establishment stooges whose purpose is to foil Ron Paul's candidacy either by sucking up the oxygen or buddying up to him on a particular issue and transferring their "crazy" onto him by attribution

Huntsman: I don't really know anything about him; doesn't seem to be that important either way

Ron Paul: The candidate which, under no circumstances, is to succeed... whatever resources have to be mobilized to accomplish this will be mobilized

Rick Santorum: The only candidate who doesn't fall into all the above categories. My bets are on Santorum for the next "meteoric rise".

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 516
Points 7,190
bbnet replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 1:23 PM

Hurricane predictors admit they can’t predict hurricanes

two top forecasters quit after gathering 20 years of useless data

We are the soldiers for righteousness
And we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 2:26 PM

@bbnet: That's because mainstream science doesn't really understand what causes weather. The Earth is a gigantic dynamo... a magneto-hydrodynamic drive. Our weather is created by the largely invisible electrical forces above our heads and below our feet.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 4:12 PM

Clayton, I'm not sure Republicans themselves are dumb enough to choose Santorum. Unless he really starts pressing the "family values" button, he won't increase much. Even then, people care most about "jobs", whatever that means.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 4:13 PM

bbnet - they quit long-term forecasting (from December), not all forecasting.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Wheylous:
...dumb enough to choose Santorum. Unless he really starts pressing the "family values" button...

Is that supposed to be a joke?  That's the only button he ever presses.  (Well, that and the default "America is great, rah rah, they hate us cuz we're great" refrain)

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 4:27 PM

Unless he really starts pressing the "family values" button

My bad, needed some extra emphasis. But yes, he does only press that button :P

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

I actually think the more he goes that route, the more he'll alienate people.  Yes, conservatives by and large are religious and family oriented, but that only goes so far.  The more you press that, the farther down the spectrum you go, and you get farther and farther from the mean.  The more Santorum reveals just how ridiculous his beliefs are, the less people will care for him...and as he's already at <2%, I really don't see much hope for him unless more people start dropping out really soon.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 4:44 PM

On a positive note (Iowa):

Gingrich 22%

Paul 21%

Romney 16%

From http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

Paul's supporters are considerably more committed to him than Gingrich's are.  77% of current Paul voters say they're definitely going to vote for him, compared to only 54% for Gingrich.  Romney has much more solid support than Gingrich as well, 67% of his voters saying they're with him for the long haul. Among only voters who say their mind's totally made up, 29% support Paul to 21% for Gingrich, 18% for Romney, and 11% for Bachmann.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 5:14 PM

A guy on /r/l;ibertarian asked why he should not vote for Obama. He got slapped with this (by a guy named ProudLikeCowz):

 

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/06/obama-chooses-jpmorgan-exec-william-daley-chief-staff/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-27-lobbyist_N.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/10/former-keystone-pipeline-lobbyist-hired-by-obama-campaign.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047212-503544.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/31/134848207/report-general-electric-paid-no-federal-taxes-last-year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22957.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/468316

http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/05/cameras-banned-in-white-house-daily.html

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/fz4ed/wikileaks_cables_leaked_information_regarding/

www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/flw6z/obamas_37_trillion_budget_calls_for_military/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-27-Patriot-Act_N.htm

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/imjiy/obamas_doj_we_can_force_you_to_give_us_the/

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jqntl/obama_administration_once_again_siding_with_the/

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/k1oix/top_cia_official_obama_changed_virtually_none_of/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218970652119898.html?KEYWORDS=rights+are+curtailed

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/29/opinion/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ln4gz/president_obama_is_going_to_begin_a_series_of/

www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/l2yy6/us_can_put_american_citizens_on_terrorist_kill/

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/14/source-white-house-will-not-turn-over-all-solyndra-documents/?hpt=hp_t2

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/60-minutes-to-look-at-lawmakers-and-stocks/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/us-usa-housing-fanniemae-idUSTRE7A77F420111109?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true

www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/kwo4b/government_orders_youtube_to_censor_protest_videos/

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/lv3iw/google_refuses_to_remove_policebrutality_videos/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/lt8zl/obama_assassinates_16_yearold_coloradoborn_united/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62999.html

http://www.aclu.org/mapping-fbi-uncovering-abusive-surveillance-and-racial-profiling

www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ksu6d/iraq_to_buy_us_warplanes_worth_3_billion/

www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d1ll4/obama_return_your_nobel_peace_prize_the_new_york/

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/fxgb9/atf_agent_admits_to_reporter_that_he_was_ordered/

www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f84s8/barack_obama_out_of_the_closet_wall_streets/

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ecgup/us_government_censors_70_websites_for_whole_world/

http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/10/12/why_are_bailed_out_banks_breaking

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-assassination-program-092910?src=rss

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/djeai/the_obama_administration_is_pushing_for_new/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/us-military-banned-from-v_n_671967.html

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 6:25 PM

Hehe, cute:

Why stop at light bulbs?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 516
Points 7,190
bbnet replied on Tue, Dec 13 2011 9:54 PM

Word for the day: Bedoon

We are the soldiers for righteousness
And we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 2:34 AM

This knocked my socks off!

"... and I'm going to stop there." Holy crap.

I don't believe "the Jews" control the world, or even the US or even the state of Israel, for that matter, but I find the nature of the Shah's remarks enlightening in itself. He was in a position to have a good grasp of the nature of international power politics, as well as national politics and he doesn't hesitate a second to engage in "conspiracy theory." Salzberger owns the New York Times? Here's a shocking claim for you: he runs it to enrich and empower himself, his family and his community first above all else!

*gasp!* You anti-semite!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 3:05 AM

I don't think coming to a rational conclusion about the Jewish lobby in America is conspiracy-mongering.  Unfortunately anybody who hints at the idea that they think there are lobbyists who lobby in favor of the Israeli state who may have a little too much power is tarred with the anti-Semitic brush.  People will do that because they support Israel no matter what due to their religious system that they think tells them they absolutely have to.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,008
Points 19,520
Eric080 replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 3:09 AM

I almost agree with your Santorum analysis.  I think he will get something of a boost after the conservatives become disenchanted with Gingrich.  But the religiousity to the degree that Santorum displays it will give him high "unelectable" status.  He could get into the teens, but I don't think much higher than that.

"And it may be said with strict accuracy, that the taste a man may show for absolute government bears an exact ratio to the contempt he may profess for his countrymen." - de Tocqueville
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 11:53 AM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijt3pZD_DggMeSpQ0B7hLfkTY3dQ?docId=3022b8c868a849f9bbff727106496729

Clearly, elevators are not regulated enough!

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 12:10 PM

A little good news to brighten your day... I saw this on the cover of the WSJ this morning and just had to share it.

The Bitcoin people need to read this and think hard about how they plan to push their new-fangled fiat coins when even the most powerful government in the world - probably the most powerful in world history - cannot even foist a new fiat coin on the public if the public doesn't want it.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Here we go again....

Chris Wallace: A Ron Paul win in Iowa would ‘discredit’ state’s caucuses

 

Same nonsense we heard about the straw vote all those months ago... Read this excellent piece by Justin T. P. Quinn.  (I mean it...it's excellent.  Read it.)

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

John James:

Here we go again....

Chris Wallace: A Ron Paul win in Iowa would ‘discredit’ state’s caucuses

 

Same nonsense we heard about the straw vote all those months ago... Read this excellent piece by Justin T. P. Quinn.  (I mean it...it's excellent.  Read it.)

I say this only in response to the title of the article: Good! Now all we need is for RP to get elected president to discredit the presidency and, thereby, the American state.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 8:27 PM

I can see the headlines when Dr. Paul wins the presidency:

Ron Paul wins presidency, discredits US democracy

In a way, it would be true cheeky

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Dec 14 2011 8:31 PM

The Exchange Stabilization Fund - the most important financial agency you've never heard of:

This guy really has his shit together. I have long believed there is a "power behind the Fed"... and I suspect there are powers behind the ESF (BIS? "old" money?). What is amazing is how he's weaved together this view of what is really the world's premier global organized crime racket and the legal/financial games they play to provide cover for their operations. These people are the ruling elite. If you want to understand who rules the world today, look no further.

Keep a skeptical eye even on the End the Fed movement. TPTB will infiltrate any movement, no matter how grassroots, as soon as it begins to garner national attention or even before that if they perceive it has the potential to blossom into a threat.

I found this image particularly informative:

 

The New World Order, Illuminati, etc. etc. are fronts for what's really going on. I have long suspected that the purpose of the NWO/CFR etc. is to give nosy-nanny idealists some busy work to do to that will satisfy their idealism while giving them an "enlightened" and "titillated" feeling that they are really "pushing the envelope" - maybe even getting their hands a tiny bit dirty - in order to make the world a better place. By making them feel "involved", the idealists are pacified and will not ask uncomfortable questions or, if they do, those questions can be answered with a variety of excuses... "national security" "it's on a need-to-know basis" "all will be made clear to you in time" "oops, we overdid a bit but 'the Plan' is proceeding on schedule" "well, it is ugly but you understand that we're not going to change the world by pussy-footing around", and so on. Meanwhile, the truly criminal operations whose sole purpose is raw power and control of resources and wealth can proceed unhindered.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 9:35 AM

 

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135
John James replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 12:42 PM

Daniel Muffinburg:
I say this only in response to the title of the article: Good! Now all we need is for RP to get elected president to discredit the presidency and, thereby, the American state.

To be fair, the Iowa caucus doesn't exactly have a whole lot of credit to begin with.  Have a look at some myths.  And some history.  And remember the lineups in the last few elections...

2008

2000

George W. Bush 40.99%
Steve Forbes 30.50%
Alan Keyes 14.24%
Gary Bauer 8.53%
John McCain 4.67%
Orrin Hatch 1.02%

1996

Bob Dole 26.3%
Pat Buchanan 23.3%
Lamar Alexander 17.6%
Steve Forbes 10.2%
Phil Gramm 9.3%
Alan Keyes 7.4%
Richard Lugar 3.7%
Morry Taylor 1.4%
No preference 0.4%
Robert Dornan 0.1%
Other 0.04%

 

1988

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 3:45 PM

Non sequitur of the year

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 4:36 PM

Nice comment I found on Reddit today:

The thread was titled "Does anyone else find it ironic that the average redditor has tacitly supported the regulation of things like table salt, bike riding, trans fats, carbon dioxide, and every minute of the work day, now believes that they should stop with the internet?"

and someone replied

"Yeah...Reddit clamored for government involvement to "ensure an open and free internet" through Net neutrality regulations and are now dumbstruck with the thought that the government, once granted this regulatory beachhead, now wants complete control.....Proof positive of the old adage "Be careful what you wish for...." - TerminalHypocrisy

QFT. What was that about imaginary slippery slopes again? ;)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Slippery slopes are a modern myth.  Everyone knows they only appear in children's storybooks and movies with dragons.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 4:57 PM

You can just see the circles she's making in her thought process:

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 5:04 PM

If you don't want to support Ron Paul for any other reason, do it because Hitler doesn't:

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 5:20 PM

This is an old one, but Ron Paul kills it on the Colbert Report (he's so lovable!):

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/88505/june-13-2007/ron-paul

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 5:45 PM

I thought this very clever (Joke on RP's older age):

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 7:10 PM

@Clayton: The Shah is a beast!

 

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FidkfaAbwHk&feature=related:640:480]

 

Listen to him call out the Western nations on the unsustainability of their prosperity @ 3:20ish

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 8:33 PM

Tariff Blowback

;)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,305
Gero replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 11:24 PM

Christopher Hitchens Dead

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,953
Points 118,135

Crap that sucks.  I didn't even know he was sick.  The world was a much more interesting place with this guy in it.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Fri, Dec 16 2011 3:16 AM

how do you embed videos?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 4 of 8 (294 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > ... Last » | RSS