Cnbc "Ron-Paul-a-Holics"

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
i say spamming infringes on my rights and the rights of others. "Wanna fuck a goat? Go ahead, idc. Don't fuck MY goat." THAT'S our philosophy.
I see. It's ok for you to talk about goat fucking in a Ron Paul thread, but it's not ok for me to talk about people who have opposing views to Ron Paul.

Makes perfect sense.

You can't bitch about finding a shit-ton of RP vids in a RP thread. But if you come in and start spamming with a ton of stuff OTHER than RP in THIS thread then it IS spam. If you want to spread you opinion, START YOUR OWN THREAD!
So now I'm only allowed to have a contrary opinion in a thread I create myself? Interesting. I guess we are making up the rules as we go along.

Good to know that anything other that agreeing with Ron Paul = spam
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
How unintelligent political debates get when people begin to get angry. A waste, really. Dan Kone, although I may be a RP supporter, I enjoyed debating with you and seeing your points from the other side. Ignorance breeds stupidity, I didn't view it as spam, more of educational opposition to the debate.

To your comment in the other thread about me putting RP in the same light as I was Noam Chomsky, I did. I said that they both should be taken in the same context as political idealists not professional economists. To say that someone is a million times smarter than the other because the person in favor agrees with your views is, however, a biased non factual remark.
 

budlover13

King Tut
I see. It's ok for you to talk about goat fucking in a Ron Paul thread, but it's not ok for me to talk about people who have opposing views to Ron Paul.

Makes perfect sense.



So now I'm only allowed to have a contrary opinion in a thread I create myself? Interesting. I guess we are making up the rules as we go along.

Good to know that anything other that agreeing with Ron Paul = spam
It is my opinion that you are trolling Dan. i have had many reasonable conversations with you but you need to look in the mirror and see that what you are doing is by definition trolling.

Disruptive, unnecessary, and passive-aggressive.

It is now my opinion, unless you change your tactics, that you are nothing but a simple-minded sheep troll that likes to get a rise out of anyone. IMHO. And you won't do it to me. i don't simply get mad sir.

So if that's how you choose to be Dan, i will quote the hell out of your childish, immature, two-faced, idiotic tactics around the web. You will probably enjoy the attention, but at least people will have context for the vitriolic crap you spew, IMHO. You will become a poster child for the RP campaign, mark my words. Childish, unable to hold a civil conversation b/c of a pre-disposition to trolling tactics and passive aggressive behavior.

i won't give any second look to mod actions. Won't be done here. Except within TOU.

If you'd like to talk CIVILLY and MATURELY, cool. I'M open minded.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
How unintelligent political debates get when people begin to get angry. A waste, really. Dan Kone, although I may be a RP supporter, I enjoyed debating with you and seeing your points from the other side. Ignorance breeds stupidity, I didn't view it as spam, more of educational opposition to the debate.
Thanks. Unfortunately is seems to be human nature to try to silence those they disagree with. It's unbelievable that 9 people reported me for spamming when the posts in question were on topic. I guess most people just don't want to hear anything other than agreement with their preconceived positions.

Personally, I always welcome descent. I thought Ron Pauls supporters were all about that considering Ron Pauls views are a minority opinion. Some people such as yourself confirmed that, unfortunately many showed they are operating from a position of willful ignorance, afraid of any viewpoint not their own. Oh well, it is what it is. Personally I enjoy the critical thinking involved with being challenged, guess that's not for everyone though.

To your comment in the other thread about me putting RP in the same light as I was Noam Chomsky, I did. I said that they both should be taken in the same context as political idealists not professional economists. To say that someone is a million times smarter than the other because the person in favor agrees with your views is, however, a biased non factual remark.
Really? Come on now. Chomsky's intellectual superiority is obvious. He's one of the top minds of the last few hundred years. It should be pretty obvious to those even who disagree with him.

"his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that period and the eighth most cited source overrall--just behind famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel.

Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten cited sources during the period were: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero."

Come on, that's impressive. There are no small minds in that group. I'm not saying Ron Paul is dumb, I'm just saying Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are not on the same level.

Do you really believe there is not a significant difference in intelligence between the two?

And just FYI - I'd be shocked if Ron Paul didn't read Noam Chomsky extensively. While they draw completely different conclusions they both talk about the exact same problems.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
It is my opinion that you are trolling Dan. i have had many reasonable conversations with you but you need to look in the mirror and see that what you are doing is by definition trolling.

Disruptive, unnecessary, and passive-aggressive.
Sorry for interrupting your circle-jerk.

Disruptive and passive-aggressive, sure, but is it really unnecessary to have dissenting opinions?

Go ahead. Enjoy being a mindless follower who believes only what they are told. Call everyone a spammer who has another opinion. Have fun being a cult follower.

It is now my opinion, unless you change your tactics, that you are nothing but a simple-minded sheep troll
lol? Simple minded sheep eh? Take a look at this thread. It's basically me VS everyone. And you say I'm the follower? lol GTFO

You're the one who is agreeing with the majority here and believing the words of a politician over evidence. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror before calling anyone else a mindless sheep. That accusation is a really tough sell considering I'm the only person actively arguing my point of view.

i don't simply get mad sir.
So if that's how you choose to be Dan, i will quote the hell out of your childish, immature, two-faced, idiotic tactics around the web. You will probably enjoy the attention, but at least people will have context for the vitriolic crap you spew, IMHO.
lol. Good thing you don't get mad.


If you'd like to talk CIVILLY and MATURELY, cool. I'M open minded.
Right. Civil and mature. Like you in this post right?
 

budlover13

King Tut
Sorry for interrupting your circle-jerk.

Disruptive and passive-aggressive, sure, but is it really unnecessary to have dissenting opinions?

Go ahead. Enjoy being a mindless follower who believes only what they are told. Call everyone a spammer who has another opinion. Have fun being a cult follower.



lol? Simple minded sheep eh? Take a look at this thread. It's basically me VS everyone. And you say I'm the follower? lol GTFO

You're the one who is agreeing with the majority here and believing the words of a politician over evidence. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror before calling anyone else a mindless sheep. That accusation is a really tough sell considering I'm the only person actively arguing my point of view.





lol. Good thing you don't get mad.




Right. Civil and mature. Like you in this post right?
Peace bro. Hopefully you wake up or pass away before the primary.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Hopefully you wake up or pass away before the primary.
lol. Wishing me death for disagreeing with Ron Paul too much.

I'll take that as proof of how some of you act like cult followers. Thanks again for proving me right.

Damn, I think I have a gift for getting under people's skin.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
This only happened when loans started defaulting and AAA rated CDC's became worthless. You can't have a crisis that revolves around people defaulting on loans if people aren't defaulting on loans.
The reason the loans started defaulting en mass is because the banks didn't care if the people they were handing the loans out to couldn't pay. If it wasn't for deregulation these loans could not have been sold off, instead the banks would be holding the paper. In that situation they must consider whether or not the customer can afford it.
What do you think the free market is? You seem to be using it as a blanket term that includes everything you think works good. But that is not what it is at all.
Free market simply = no regulations, rules, etc. You are free to buy or sell whatever you want without restriction. Basically, the free market lets everything happen. Now how would getting rid of all the rules prevent this sort of thing from happening?
That's your misconception, not mine.
The free market would never "set" interest rates. The free market allows businesses to fail. So you wouldn't have the mess started OR the bailouts afterwards.
Why would you lend to people who have a bad payment history or are a bad risk? The free market doesn't. A manipulated market does.
I'm specifically addressing the low down payment as well as the low credit history loans which the new "regulations" paved the way for.


I'm not following that line of thinking. Explain.
It was just a real estate related is all. The real estate market hasn't bottomed out price wise in my area. From 97 to the high of ~2005-6 prices went up by 50 percent. 40 year old houses, lol.
I think prices will drop more. Like the saying once you hit bottom you have no where to go but up. Housing hasn't hit bottom yet.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Thanks. Unfortunately is seems to be human nature to try to silence those they disagree with. It's unbelievable that 9 people reported me for spamming when the posts in question were on topic. I guess most people just don't want to hear anything other than agreement with their preconceived positions.

Personally, I always welcome descent. I thought Ron Pauls supporters were all about that considering Ron Pauls views are a minority opinion. Some people such as yourself confirmed that, unfortunately many showed they are operating from a position of willful ignorance, afraid of any viewpoint not their own. Oh well, it is what it is. Personally I enjoy the critical thinking involved with being challenged, guess that's not for everyone though.



Really? Come on now. Chomsky's intellectual superiority is obvious. He's one of the top minds of the last few hundred years. It should be pretty obvious to those even who disagree with him.

"his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that period and the eighth most cited source overrall--just behind famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel.

Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten cited sources during the period were: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero."

Come on, that's impressive. There are no small minds in that group. I'm not saying Ron Paul is dumb, I'm just saying Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky are not on the same level.

Do you really believe there is not a significant difference in intelligence between the two?

And just FYI - I'd be shocked if Ron Paul didn't read Noam Chomsky extensively. While they draw completely different conclusions they both talk about the exact same problems.
I do agree noam chomsky is an intelligent person, but after barrack Obama getting a nobel peace prize for doing nothing, can you really trust awards? lol. is impressive though. Personally if one person in the world I would listen to would be stephen hawking. Guy is the Einstein of the 21st century, too bad he doesn't help in the realm of politics...
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I do agree noam chomsky is an intelligent person, but after barrack Obama getting a nobel peace prize for doing nothing, can you really trust awards? lol.
That's not an award, that's just how often he's used as a source of information. In that department being in between Plato and Cicero ain't bad company. and yes, giving Obama a nobel peace prize for getting elected is an absolute embarrassment. Considering he hasn't ended any wars and has started a new one, he should probably give that back.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Peace bro. Hopefully you wake up or pass away before the primary.
anyone who does not follow ron paul needs to wake up (or open their eyes) and be converted.

and he was the "moderator" of that other thread.

:LOL:

i don't think dan has any particular gift at getting under people's skin, i think he is just an intelligent voice against ron paul and those who worship the old geezer can't handle it.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I'm pointing to the deregulation of bundled mortgages through the commodities futures modernization act (also responsible for creating the enron loophole).
Commodities Futures Modernization act? Mortgages are commodities now?
You ever heard of Gramm Leach Bliley? AKA Financial Services Modernization act?

We don't disagree about that. I completely agree the fed did that. What I'm saying is that made the problem worse. But this whole thing would not be possible if the banks were financially responsible for who they handed out loans to. But since they were being bundled up and sold on Wall St as AAA investments regardless of how likely they were to default, the banks could give loans to anyone risk free. Without that, this whole thing is not possible.

The point that this would not have been possible if the market had not been deregulated is a point I've made several times on every page in this thread and no one has yet even addressed it. That says something right there.

I'm told I'm wrong over and over again, yet everyone telling me I'm wrong as completely ignored the core of my argument without exception. If I'm wrong, this should easily be debunked right?



It is worth it if what you're getting the loan to buy was projected to double in value over the life of the loan. The average price of a house was projected to do better than that.
I would much rather buy a house at 4% than 9%, Fed rates didn't dip under 6% until 2001, in 2003 and 2004 the fed funds rate was under 2% and didn't get above 5% until halfway through 2006. Look at the housing bubble, the peak was between 2003 and 2006, same exact peak as the ultra low interest rates, in fact housing wasn't even bubble sized until 2002 due to the higher interest rates. Deregulation happened in 1999, we had a recession in later half 2001 and early 2002, then the fed brought rates down and housing boomed.

Also note that there were other factors that fueled this boom too, Speculative fever, Promotion in the Media, Belief that Real Estate is always a good investment,Home Ownership Mania, and deregulation, but the main contributor was low interest rates.

This only happened when loans started defaulting and AAA rated CDC's became worthless. You can't have a crisis that revolves around people defaulting on loans if people aren't defaulting on loans.
You can't have defaulted loans if the loans were never made in the first place.

The reason the loans started defaulting en mass is because the banks didn't care if the people they were handing the loans out to couldn't pay. If it wasn't for deregulation these loans could not have been sold off, instead the banks would be holding the paper. In that situation they must consider whether or not the customer can afford it.
absolutely, with the mortgages bundled the risk was taken off the banks back and pooled into a fannie or freddie loan and therefore the defaults would be paid by the general public. Since some of the banks were rather smart, they also insured things through an instrument known as CDS (Credit Default Swap) and Big Banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan actually got paid double if the home was defaulted on, once from the public coffers through fannie and once through the insurance company (AIG). They were trying to find people who would default on the loans, but they had to have someone first, if only there was a way to entice a Janitor who makes $20k a year into signing a loan for a $250K house......



What do you think the free market is? You seem to be using it as a blanket term that includes everything you think works good. But that is not what it is at all.

Free market simply = no regulations, rules, etc. You are free to buy or sell whatever you want without restriction. Basically, the free market lets everything happen. Now how would getting rid of all the rules prevent this sort of thing from happening?
Now i know why you are so confused, you don't have any idea what a free market is.

"A free market is a market in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts."


If you think about it, the FED could have actually helped the problem. They didn't, but the potential was there. If the FED was eliminated and there were no regulated interest rates, wouldn't that have made the problem much worse potentially?
Interest rates would be set by the market, and would be fairly valued. Instead of a 1 year CD returning .25% and inflation being 10%, you would have a 1 year Cd return 10% and inflation would be at 3%.
 

sync0s

Well-Known Member
Inflation is caused by the federal reserve.

What causes inflation?

In most developed countries, money is created by a central banking system. In the US, our central banking system is that of the Federal Reserve, a private bank. Money can be created by the Federal Reserve depositing newly created money into its member banks in exchange for US bonds. This increases the amount of money in existence. Additionally, every bank in the US has the ability to lend out 7 to 11 times as many dollars as it has in deposits. This also increases the amount of money in existence. With an increased money supply, prices rise. A continually increasing money supply, aka monetary debasement, causes inflation.
Ron Paul's stance is to do away with paper money, just like the founding fathers wanted
 

budlover13

King Tut
anyone who does not follow ron paul needs to wake up (or open their eyes) and be converted.

and he was the "moderator" of that other thread.

:LOL:

i don't think dan has any particular gift at getting under people's skin, i think he is just an intelligent voice against ron paul and those who worship the old geezer can't handle it.
Not everyone UB. Just some like i have seen here.
 
Top