PDA

View Full Version : Paul vs Paul



Chris
04-30-2012, 08:55 PM
Paul Krugman came up in another thread. Here he is with Ron Paul...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&list=PL0A51A2FEB7EC8FF3&v=jEmKIRqz9AI#!

MMC
04-30-2012, 10:34 PM
So Krugman saw massive failure of system with 8% jobless rate. He sure does a lot of back talking. Plus he admits openly that he wants to print money. Whats your take Chris?

Chris
05-01-2012, 06:00 AM
I naturally lean toward Paul's view. :-P

The best line in the video was Paul's comeback to Paul's accusation he wants to take us back 150 years, you, he says, want to take us back 1000 years, 2000 years.

Paul is an Austrian. The other Paul a neoKeynesian.

MMC
05-01-2012, 06:17 AM
I naturally lean toward Paul's view. :-P

The best line in the video was Paul's comeback to Paul's accusation he wants to take us back 150 years, you, he says, want to take us back 1000 years, 2000 years.

Paul is an Austrian. The other Paul a neoKeynesian.

Yeah and they listed for Krugman that he is for an Activist Government, first thing. What questions do you feel should have been asked that could really point out what the truth was?

Vilifier of Zombies
05-01-2012, 03:26 PM
I naturally lean toward Paul's view. :-P

The best line in the video was Paul's comeback to Paul's accusation he wants to take us back 150 years, you, he says, want to take us back 1000 years, 2000 years.

Paul is an Austrian. The other Paul a neoKeynesian.



Yet Ron Paul quotes Friedman although Friedman wasn't for a gold standard - citing the gold standard as neither feasible nor desirable - either Ron Paul the family practitioner turned politician is right or Krugman and Friedman the Nobel Prize in the area of economics laureates are right.

I'd posted earlier that Krugman is right half the time - which in this YouTube kinda drives that point home - Ron Paul on the other hand is fuck'n crazy.

dadakarma
05-01-2012, 03:30 PM
Yet Ron Paul quotes Friedman although Friedman wasn't for a gold standard - citing the gold standard as neither feasible nor desirable - either Ron Paul the family practitioner turned politician is right or Krugman and Friedman the Nobel Prize in the area of economics laureates are right.

I'd posted earlier that Krugman is right half the time - which in this YouTube kinda drives that point home - Ron Paul on the other hand is fuck'n crazy.

Amen to that.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-01-2012, 03:37 PM
Amen to that.

I think if the GOP suddenly replaced Paul with Gary Johnson they'd be better off.

Johnson wouldn't fuck around with silly beer summits - bongs, vaporizers, and the finest weed.

dadakarma
05-01-2012, 03:38 PM
I think if the GOP suddenly replaced Paul with Gary Johnson they'd be better off.

Johnson wouldn't fuck around with silly beer summits - bongs, vaporizers, and the finest weed.

That's why the GOP won't replace Paul with Johnson.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-01-2012, 03:40 PM
That's why the GOP won't replace Paul with Johnson.

That's why I've replaced the GOP and Ron Paul.

dadakarma
05-01-2012, 03:41 PM
That's why I've replaced the GOP and Ron Paul.

:thumbsup:

Peter1469
05-01-2012, 05:57 PM
Good video. Ron Paul came out on top. Even Krugman was smart enough to get the reference to ancient Rome and its economic collapse. Something America is about to revisit.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-01-2012, 06:23 PM
Ron Paul inadvertently contradicted himself - Krugman held his own just fine, I'm not gonna put 'em on a pedestal or anything, Ron Paul did it to himself.

I'd like to see someone who's more proficient with regards to economics than Ron Paul debate economics with Paul Krugman - this YouTube just wasn't fair for Ron Paul, maybe Bloomberg can get Carrot Top to discuss economics with Ron Paul the next time around.

Peter1469
05-01-2012, 07:13 PM
Ron Paul inadvertently contradicted himself


Lay it out.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-01-2012, 07:38 PM
Lay it out.

Our WWII debt overhang was liquidated via financial repression combined with inflation and growth; keywords being financial repression - the Federal government was still a part of the solution yet R. Paul sought to leave out that little gem.

That and calling for a gold standard while espousing Friedman's other points of view about the Fed disregarding Friedman's opinions about the gold standard in the process - selective Friedman points of view are disingenuous - I can now see why he went into politics instead of practicing medicine.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-01-2012, 07:49 PM
"Since I'm a Leprechaun farmer who's a gambler!" ~ Ron Paul, BLR Soundbite



http://youtu.be/igQlbesF0zA


FREE BANANAS!

Chris
05-01-2012, 08:14 PM
Yet Ron Paul quotes Friedman although Friedman wasn't for a gold standard - citing the gold standard as neither feasible nor desirable - either Ron Paul the family practitioner turned politician is right or Krugman and Friedman the Nobel Prize in the area of economics laureates are right.

I'd posted earlier that Krugman is right half the time - which in this YouTube kinda drives that point home - Ron Paul on the other hand is fuck'n crazy.

Friedman was a monetarist. When I say Paul is an Austrian I simply mean most of his economic thinking comes from that school. That you think him crazy tells us more about where you stand than he does.

Peter1469
05-01-2012, 08:17 PM
Our WWII debt overhang was liquidated via financial repression combined with inflation and growth; keywords being financial repression - the Federal government was still a part of the solution yet R. Paul sought to leave out that little gem.

That and calling for a gold standard while espousing Friedman's other points of view about the Fed disregarding Friedman's opinions about the gold standard in the process - selective Friedman points of view are disingenuous - I can now see why he went into politics instead of practicing medicine.

After WWII the federal government stopped spending on a massive military. Our industry supplied Europe and Japan- as well as America. That is what reduced the war time debt; not federal micromanagement.

Chris
05-01-2012, 08:20 PM
Our WWII debt overhang was liquidated via financial repression combined with inflation and growth; keywords being financial repression - the Federal government was still a part of the solution yet R. Paul sought to leave out that little gem.

That and calling for a gold standard while espousing Friedman's other points of view about the Fed disregarding Friedman's opinions about the gold standard in the process - selective Friedman points of view are disingenuous - I can now see why he went into politics instead of practicing medicine.

Actually FDR and his followers wanted to keep the economy on a war footing--financial repression, but Congress went the other direction, and the recession following WWII was short lived, replaced by prosperity.

"selective Friedman points of view are disingenuous"

Purists are disingenuous. I refer often to Adam Smith, but Marx got his labor theory of value from Smith and, irrc, Ricardo. You say Krugman's right half the time, I'd imagine you don't follow him where he's wrong the other half.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:15 PM
After WWII the federal government stopped spending on a massive military. Our industry supplied Europe and Japan- as well as America. That is what reduced the war time debt; not federal micromanagement.

I'd think your kidding yourself if you're thinking the Federal government (or even other countries for that matter, e.g. Japan- Finland - France - Germany - New Zealand - Sweden - the United Kingdom) didn't partake in some good ole fashioned financial repression after WWII.

I'm not saying the Federal government was micromanaging the whole shebang I am saying I'm not discounting the Federal government's involvement with liquidating our debt after WWII.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:29 PM
Actually FDR and his followers wanted to keep the economy on a war footing--financial repression, but Congress went the other direction, and the recession following WWII was short lived, replaced by prosperity.

"selective Friedman points of view are disingenuous"

Purists are disingenuous. I refer often to Adam Smith, but Marx got his labor theory of value from Smith and, irrc, Ricardo. You say Krugman's right half the time, I'd imagine you don't follow him where he's wrong the other half.

The '45 recession was brought on by reduced government spending - again, it's not just one thing but a combination of things that brought us out of it - most importantly low unemployment rates - eventually the US got caught with it's pants down though because four years later (so much for your Congress theory) there was another recession (albeit short lived) and again in '53 - and again in '58, and again in 1960...

Politicians are disingenuous - I don't follow Krugman unless someone else brings him up (he's brought up a lot by other well regarded economists because he's right half the time and wrong half the time) - and begging for a Gold Standard in one breath while using Friedman's anti-Fed quotes is retarded.

Chris
05-02-2012, 12:30 PM
Compared to what FDR and his fellow travelers tried to micromanage in the lead up to and duration of WWII, the "financial repression" after was minor, and we recovered and prospered because of it.

Mister D
05-02-2012, 12:31 PM
What does one mean by "financial repression"?

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:34 PM
Friedman was a monetarist. When I say Paul is an Austrian I simply mean most of his economic thinking comes from that school. That you think him crazy tells us more about where you stand than he does.



Did you play the BLR YouTube?

I've already posted where I stand regarding economics - What does more, actually posting where you stand regarding economics or posting Ron Paul is fuck'n quack?

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:34 PM
What does one mean by "financial repression"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:36 PM
Compared to what FDR and his fellow travelers tried to micromanage in the lead up to and duration of WWII, the "financial repression" after was minor, and we recovered and prospered because of it.

I'm not nor were R. Paul, Krugman, nor Pete for that matter referring to the lead up to and during but instead after WWII, which wasn't minor.

Mister D
05-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Thanks. I'm not up to speed on economics.

Chris
05-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Did you play the BLR YouTube?

I've already posted where I stand regarding economics - What does more, actually posting where you stand regarding economics or posting Ron Paul is fuck'n quack?

Yes, it was funny, but tiresome.

What does more is the arguments posted to defend where a person stands.

Arguing about personalities isn't very interesting.

Chris
05-02-2012, 12:39 PM
I'm not nor were R. Paul, Krugman, nor Pete for that matter referring to the lead up to and during but instead after WWII, which wasn't minor.

Again, FDR and his cronies wanted to continue the economy on a war time basis, Congress rejected that, freed up business, engage in a whole lot less "financial repression" and we revoered from a repression in no time and prospered..

Chris
05-02-2012, 12:40 PM
Thanks. I'm not up to speed on economics.

It's just another "economics" term for government intervention.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:43 PM
Yes, it was funny, but tiresome.

What does more is the arguments posted to defend where a person stands.

Arguing about personalities isn't very interesting.

Free bananas was the funniest part, that it took the whole YouTube to get there is my contention - the Santorum BLR YouTube is by far hands down the funniest.

I've posted on past threads where I stand - if I wanna post Ron Paul is fuck'n crazy or Rush Limbaugh is a fat fucker then that should be my prerogative and have no bearing whatsoever with where I stand given the subject of economics.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:47 PM
Again, FDR and his cronies wanted to continue the economy on a war time basis, Congress rejected that, freed up business, engage in a whole lot less "financial repression" and we revoered from a repression in no time and prospered..

FDR died in 1945 Chris...after - not before or during - but after WWII...

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 12:47 PM
It's just another "economics" term for government intervention.

Ever consider taking an economics class Chris?

Peter1469
05-02-2012, 04:32 PM
I'd think your kidding yourself if you're thinking the Federal government (or even other countries for that matter, e.g. Japan- Finland - France - Germany - New Zealand - Sweden - the United Kingdom) didn't partake in some good ole fashioned financial repression after WWII.

I'm not saying the Federal government was micromanaging the whole shebang I am saying I'm not discounting the Federal government's involvement with liquidating our debt after WWII.

I don't disagree. And the economy rapidly recovered. The government spending necessarily had to dramatically reduce. War was over.

Peter1469
05-02-2012, 04:34 PM
FDR died in 1945 Chris...after - not before or during - but after WWII...

FDR died before Truman ended WWII by dropping to A-bombs on Japan.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 05:22 PM
FDR died before Truman ended WWII by dropping to A-bombs on Japan.

Indeed.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 05:28 PM
I don't disagree. And the economy rapidly recovered. The government spending necessarily had to dramatically reduce. War was over.

I'm specifically referring to financial repression's role with liquidating debt - I concur that Federal government reduced it's spending because WWII to was over, that's not saying there wasn't anything to recoup in the aftermath of it all.

Chris
05-02-2012, 05:43 PM
I'm specifically referring to financial repression's role with liquidating debt - I concur that Federal government reduced it's spending because WWII to was over, that's not saying there wasn't anything to recoup in the aftermath of it all.

Not saying there wasn't any, just that prosperity emerged from reduced financial repression. I'm using that term very generally, perhaps you have something more specific in mind you could share, some government policy

Chris
05-02-2012, 05:44 PM
FDR died in 1945 Chris...after - not before or during - but after WWII...

Yes, meant to say his followers.

Chris
05-02-2012, 05:45 PM
Ever consider taking an economics class Chris?

Too old to go back to school. Maybe after I retire. But that will be a while as I just bought a new truck.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 06:04 PM
Too old to go back to school. Maybe after I retire. But that will be a while as I just bought a new truck.

Nothing wrong with an online class.

What kind of truck did you get?

Chris
05-02-2012, 06:08 PM
A Ford F150 Ecoboost with towing package.

I've considered classes at Mises or FEE and have actually listened in on many of their podcast seminars. EconTalk with Russ Roberts at Georgetown is good too.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 06:19 PM
Yes, meant to say his followers.

Truman? His followers followed the conditions of the Bretton Woods system, as did forty four other countries.

Chris
05-02-2012, 06:21 PM
Truman? His followers followed the conditions of the Bretton Woods system, as did forty four other countries.

When the war ended, his followers want to continue the economic centrally planned on a war-time footing. Congress rejected that.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 06:33 PM
A Ford F150 Ecoboost with towing package.

I've considered classes at Mises or FEE and have actually listened in on many of their podcast seminars. EconTalk with Russ Roberts at Georgetown is good too.

That would be a great start - I have a good friend who's a Harvard educated economics professor at West Point (Military Academy) who teaches online classes on the side at Post University, if you ask me, if you could find something like that, that would be the best of both worlds or rather more bang for your buck.

I just got rid of my 2009 F-150 for a Tundra - to change it up I suppose, I'd had a Dodge before that which I hated and a GMC that was alright, I waited too long now that GMC stopped having four way steering as an option (if I'm driving my truck I'm more than likely towing the boat) - I really liked that option. I even considered buying a used GMC to get that option til I test drove the Tundra.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 06:38 PM
When the war ended, his followers want to continue the economic centrally planned on a war-time footing. Congress rejected that.

Congress didn't reject the Truman Doctrine or the Marshall Plan.

Chris
05-02-2012, 07:12 PM
They rejected Truman's plan to follow FDR and keep a wartime economy in place domestically. Taft-Hartley alone is demonstration of that. For more see What Ended the Great Depression? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-ended-the-great-depression/) or Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n3/cpr32n3-1.html) as it relates to today's economic crisis.

Chris
05-02-2012, 07:13 PM
That would be a great start - I have a good friend who's a Harvard educated economics professor at West Point (Military Academy) who teaches online classes on the side at Post University, if you ask me, if you could find something like that, that would be the best of both worlds or rather more bang for your buck.

I just got rid of my 2009 F-150 for a Tundra - to change it up I suppose, I'd had a Dodge before that which I hated and a GMC that was alright, I waited too long now that GMC stopped having four way steering as an option (if I'm driving my truck I'm more than likely towing the boat) - I really liked that option. I even considered buying a used GMC to get that option til I test drove the Tundra.

Mankiw is at Harvard, a conservative, right, but a neoKeynesian, too much of a saltwater economist, I prefer sweetwater.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 07:59 PM
Mankiw is at Harvard, a conservative, right, but a neoKeynesian, too much of a saltwater economist, I prefer sweetwater.

Yes, Mankiw is at Harvard. I read an essay written by Mankiw awhile back that was pretty neat - he made a case for both sides of an argument (I think it was on stabilization) that I thought was very clever.

I'm fairly certain my friend (who is not a neoKeynesian) is a mix between several schools of thought, not adhering to any directly though. At West Point he teaches Intro to ECON and a Microeconomics course.

Chris
05-02-2012, 08:08 PM
A mix is best. Paul v Paul is a contrast of extremes. Out of the disagreement--and I hope I don't sound to Marxian/Hegelian, emerges interesting ideas.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-02-2012, 08:16 PM
They rejected Truman's plan to follow FDR and keep a wartime economy in place domestically. Taft-Hartley alone is demonstration of that. For more see What Ended the Great Depression? (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-ended-the-great-depression/) or Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n3/cpr32n3-1.html) as it relates to today's economic crisis.



Yet the US hastened the difference eagerly accommodating liquidity by proxy of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. In today's dollars we're talking about a hundred and fifty eight billion dollars on the low end and on the upper end somewhere around four hundred and twenty five billion dollars worth.

Chris
05-02-2012, 08:35 PM
Yet the US hastened the difference eagerly accommodating liquidity by proxy of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. In today's dollars we're talking about a hundred and fifty eight billion dollars on the low end and on the upper end somewhere around four hundred and twenty five billion dollars worth.

Foreign aid, far as I'm concerned, something else we can little afford any more.

Peter1469
05-02-2012, 08:41 PM
Foreign aid, far as I'm concerned, something else we can little afford any more.

And after WWII we had a good reason to help rebuild Europe- so their economies would repair themselves and they would buy our stuff.

Chris
05-02-2012, 08:59 PM
Then perhaps we should help China so they can buy from us! ;-) j/k

Peter1469
05-02-2012, 09:08 PM
Then perhaps we should help China so they can buy from us! ;-) j/k

I don't know what we could do to effect that- it would be a wise idea if possible.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-03-2012, 07:46 AM
Foreign aid, far as I'm concerned, something else we can little afford any more.

I'd say we can't afford not to with the outlook of the global economy over the next ten to fifteen years.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-03-2012, 08:08 AM
And after WWII we had a good reason to help rebuild Europe- so their economies would repair themselves and they would buy our stuff.

I'm sure we had other reasons to build up then stabilize the economies of Europe, with an emphasis on West Germany.

Aside from Europe - The United States initially had more control of Japan's economy - between US intervention and the Japanese government intervention - the fluidity of Japan's Ministry of Trade and Industry (old school B2G/G2B), and the Cold War - Japan's economy flourished.

I'd say preventing Soviet influence was closer to the front burner than whether or not European countries would buy our stuff.

Peter1469
05-03-2012, 08:32 AM
Considering the damage that the Soviets suffered during the war, and considering that it was exerting control over East Europe, how much influence could it have in the West? Sure, some. But I think in the minds of US leaders, getting Western Europe economically dependent upon the US was its best way to prevent Soviet influence in the West.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-03-2012, 09:12 AM
Considering the damage that the Soviets suffered during the war, and considering that it was exerting control over East Europe, how much influence could it have in the West? Sure, some. But I think in the minds of US leaders, getting Western Europe economically dependent upon the US was its best way to prevent Soviet influence in the West.

There was damage everywhere after WWII, as well as a lot of suffering - enough that it canceled itself out when used as a comparative for exerting control over other nation states.

From what I've read, the school of thought was to democratize Western Europe to quell Soviet influence - as well as to prevent an emergence of militarism amongst the populace.

We didn't prop 'em up just to sell 'em shit Pete and we're not talking about the Pimp-Ho/Dealer-Crackhead factor either...if we were - that dependence would've lasted a lot longer than the mid 50's, unless we were apt enough to build robust sufficient economies but inept at keeping them addicted >>cough<< - dependent...countries like Japan and West Germany were at the forefront of hindering Soviet influence in that day and age.

Chris
05-03-2012, 06:46 PM
I'd say it was probably a bit of both, building up Europe's and Japan's economies so they'd buy from us and starting the Cold War. It's a good thing then Republicans in Congress rejected Truman's wanting to continue New Deal policies and fostered the economic growth at home to help pay for the cost of foreign aid.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-04-2012, 09:25 AM
I'd say it was probably a bit of both, building up Europe's and Japan's economies so they'd buy from us and starting the Cold War. It's a good thing then Republicans in Congress rejected Truman's wanting to continue New Deal policies and fostered the economic growth at home to help pay for the cost of foreign aid.


Truman showed there was more than one way to skin a cat is all - Congress saying "NO" was only a small bump in the road that you're giving too much credit, hundreds of billions of dollars spent liquidating debt later - toss in the G.I. Bill for good measure, and Korea - then ask yourself "how relevant was Congress during Truman's presidency?"

Truman's autobiography makes for some great reading, the best parts of the book are towards the end, after Truman had already left office.

Chris
05-04-2012, 09:31 AM
Right, I'm referring only to policies that got us quickly out of the recession that followed WWII, policies that repressed financial repression. Taft-Hartley, GI Bill which credit goes to Congress,

Vilifier of Zombies
05-04-2012, 09:43 AM
Right, I'm referring only to policies that got us quickly out of the recession that followed WWII, policies that repressed financial repression. Taft-Hartley, GI Bill which credit goes to Congress,

I'm not saying the G.I. Bill was Truman's idea, I'm saying the Federal government was still spending - the Taft-Hartley Act was an addition to the Wagner Act, there are pros and cons to it but it's not all that regarding the Federal government liquidating debt via financial repression.

Chris
05-04-2012, 09:53 AM
Government always spends. I'm saying following WWII despite FDR's New Deal followers, Congress spent less and we recovered from post-war recession quickly. This compared to all the New Deal spending that had prolonged the Depression.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-04-2012, 01:07 PM
Government always spends. I'm saying following WWII despite FDR's New Deal followers, Congress spent less and we recovered from post-war recession quickly. This compared to all the New Deal spending that had prolonged the Depression.

lol, we'd just come out of WWII, from wartime to peace, of course we were gonna spend less, it doesn't mean the Federal government didn't use financial repression as tool to liquidate our debt - I think this is not only Ron Paul's disconnect, but yours as well. I'd concede that it's a number of factors that brought us out of the Great Depression, I'd also concede that it was a number of factors that led us straight into the Great Depression - given the topic has turned to liquidity of debt after WWII - that financial repression did play a role and that Paul the politician overlooked it whilst promoting the "Gold Standard" then quoting Friedman's angst about the Fed even though Friedman wasn't for a "Gold Standard" we're starting to get off track - Taft-Hartley didn't have one iota to do with the Federal government imposing financial repression to liquidate the debt, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan however did - New Deal spending or the lack thereof really doesn't matter all that much when the Federal government was still spending nearly a half a trillion dollars by today's standards with the intent to liquidate debt as well as similar models were used successfully used elsewhere.

Both Krugman and R. Paul have their own agendas, the trick is to filter all the nonsense that espouses their agendas out then button down an unbiased insight between the both of them (granted, thinking R. Paul is fuck'n crazy and Krugman only half right half wrong - that might be a daunting task, but not impossible).

Chris
05-04-2012, 01:11 PM
it doesn't mean the Federal government didn't use financial repression as tool to liquidate our debt

That's not where discussion started, vill. It started with me making the point Congress reversed New Deal policies and the country prospered. That's been shown. You've set other goalposts for discussion. I'll concede those. But you're returning to unimpressive ad hom.

Think we've reached an end, where we're going in different directions.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-04-2012, 01:31 PM
That's not where discussion started, vill. It started with me making the point Congress reversed New Deal policies and the country prospered. That's been shown. You've set other goalposts for discussion. I'll concede those. But you're returning to unimpressive ad hom.

Think we've reached an end, where we're going in different directions.

The discussion started with Pete asking me to "lay it out."

Extended New Deal policies or the lack thereof don't matter much regarding liquidating our debt via financial repression given the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. You can post about Congress reversing New Deal policies all day everyday and it still wouldn't negate that financial repression was indeed a factor - that Ron Paul discounted.

Saying that Ron Paul is fuck'n crazy or that Krugman is only half right half wrong isn't an ad hom fallacy when they're both the topic, nor is saying either meant to impress anyone or no one, it's just a point of view.

Chris
05-04-2012, 01:46 PM
Started way before that.

No one has argued "fin rep" wasn't a factor. I could as easily push your point to an extreme, that "fin rep" was the only factor and make it look absurd just as you're trying to do with my argument--but neither of us is arguing those extreme views.


Agree, it's just a point of view. That has nothing to do with topic.

Vilifier of Zombies
05-04-2012, 02:12 PM
Started way before that.

No one has argued "fin rep" wasn't a factor. I could as easily push your point to an extreme, that "fin rep" was the only factor and make it look absurd just as you're trying to do with my argument--but neither of us is arguing those extreme views.


Agree, it's just a point of view. That has nothing to do with topic.

Ron Paul certainly left out that little gambit in the YouTube as well as I'd already posted that it was a combination of factors.

The thread title is Paul vs Paul, I'd think posting one's point of view of them flows well with the topic in my opinion.