Dear Dave- Laugh it up, funny guy. Bet you won't think it's so funny come the rEVOLution, when you and your Jew paymasters at Halliburton are lined up against a wall.

Viva la rEVOLution!!!

Dammit, you know I'm out of Halliburton now. I converted all of my stock to a diverse portfolio of different mercenary companies.

Dave

David's observations have always been skewed and tinged with a bit of mockery pertaining to Ron Paul's campaign. Constant reference to "fringe" elements. The reference to fringe has no substance or intellectual value.
The founders were considered fringe at one point. Don't we remember history.

The March was a success for the Ron Paul supporters who organized and participated in it. That was the main purpose of the march, personal empowerment. I was at the march and it appeared to have well over 5,000 people, it was bigger than the Philadelphia Rally which was estimated at 4,000-5,000.

We stood literally on the navel of the belly of the beast and professed the truth.

Oh goody, another Ron Paul article by Dave Nalle. God help us all.

And as the assistant comments editor, Dave, may I say thank you in advance on behalf of Chris and myself for once again making our lives sooo much easier! :-)

David's observations have always been skewed and tinged with a bit of mockery pertaining to Ron Paul's campaign. Constant reference to "fringe" elements.

You want to see REAL mockery, take a look at the link to Wonkette. That's the way serious, mainstream politicos see you - like sideshow freaks.

The reference to fringe has no substance or intellectual value.

Sure it does, it's a reminder that the Cult of Paul is tainted and ultimately a sidetrack from the real liberty movement.

The founders were considered fringe at one point. Don't we remember history.

The founders advocated liberty, not nativism, isolationism, protectionism, paranoia and bigotry.

The March was a success for the Ron Paul supporters who organized and participated in it. That was the main purpose of the march, personal empowerment. I was at the march and it appeared to have well over 5,000 people, it was bigger than the Philadelphia Rally which was estimated at 4,000-5,000.

All of which I think comes through quite clearly in my brief summary.

We stood literally on the navel of the belly of the beast and professed the truth.

And the beast ignored you, and it's your own fault.

Dave

To Al Barger:

If you are genuine in your beliefs, and not paid to smear the revolution with crap like that, I feel sorry for you, but also bid you to kiss the hairy left buttock of my ass (that's the Jewish half!)

To anyone remotely associated with the Wankette:

Amazing how easy it is to make a living in D.C. when you are a whore paid to spew out vile propaganda -- I am ever amused by your mastrubatory frenzies of anti-Paul juvenilia -- 'smatter, can't get work sucking off neo-libs/cons -- come on now, we know what floats your boats, and it ain't water.

To Davy:

Who cares about the beast? You really think we is the field niggers come to beg massa to put more fatback in our gruel? Sorry, Cracker Dave, use dumb slaves done run off your plantation all together!

Dave said to Steve:

"You want to see REAL mockery, take a look at the link to Wonkette. That's the way serious, mainstream politicos see you - like sideshow freaks."

On the surface, it's tempting to argue with this by saying that Wonkette et al are NOT serious politicos at all, but on a deeper level, what Nalle does not seem to realize is that there ARE NO SERIOUS MAINSTREAM POLITICOS ANYMORE.

They can be either mainstream or serious, but not both.

John McCain himself is not a serious politico. Yes, he is a sitting Senator, yes he is mainstream, but he is not serious.

"Bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"???

Not serious

Stay in Iraq for a hundred years?

Not serious

"The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should....I've never been involved in the financial stuff, the financial workings of the country"

At a time like this? Not serious.

Dave Nalle himself is not serious.

On the subject of fiat money, Nalle says: "There's no reason why a so-called fiat currency can't be stable and inflation resistent."

That's an odd thing for a serious person to say, when no such currency ever has done it. The most inflation-resistant fiat currency in existence today is the Swiss Franc, and it has lost over 80% of its value.

That is not stable or inflation resistant. In any case he is wrong, because there is and always has been a reason that fiat currency issuance always gets out of control - human nature. If a person doesn't realize this - they aren't being serious.

On the Constitutional power to borrow contained in Article 1 Sect. 8,

Dave Nalle: "Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It's just borrowing it from the people and the national economy"

When asked, if what he was describing was really constitutional borrowing, how was the money paid back, he said:

"It's given back in the form of goods and services purchased with the greenback dollars."

That gobbledygook answer above was not penned by a serious economic thinker.

Nalle pretends to be an intellectual, but what gives him away is the personal attacks - slurs and slanders of every type, really - that are consistently devoid of any factual support.

Steve said: "The reference to fringe has no substance or intellectual value."

Dave responded: Sure it does, it's a reminder that the Cult of Paul is tainted and ultimately a sidetrack from the real liberty movement.

Ha. Cult of Paul. The state has no cult, only Paul. And, how is it "tainted" again? Nalle doesn't say, as usual. And, pray tell, what does Nalle think is the "real liberty movement"? Presumably the same groups (cults?) that have sat on their hands for the last 30 years?

Reason - Sucks.
Cato (State-O) - advocates the U.S. taxpayer giving Mexico money to protect THEIR OWN SOUTHERN BORDER.

Republicans - JOKE
Conservatives - JOKE

Government is bigger and more indebted than it HAS EVER BEEN.

After Reagan for 8 years
After Newt
After Gramm
After GW Bush for 8 more
After McCain being there THE ENTIRE TIME.

Where was Dave Nalle all that time? Ron Paul was in Congress voting against big government. He is widely acknowledged to be the most consistent and principled conservative politician of them all.

Dave Nalle was busy sabotaging liberty at every turn, just as he's doing now. Who the hell is he to put people down who are honestly fighting for liberty after all his "mainstream" politicos have failed so abysmally?

Steve: "The founders were considered fringe at one point. Don't we remember history."

Dave responded: "The founders advocated liberty, not nativism, isolationism, protectionism, paranoia and bigotry."

Of course, Nalle never, ever provides actual examples of nativism, paranoia etc in Ron Paul's policy recommendations - because there are none.

He just likes to sling mud. Nothing is beneath Dave Nalle. Nothing.

tom: "Nothing is beneath Dave Nalle. Nothing."

dave defies gravity! he floats on... wait. hrm. ok, let's start again.

tom: "Nothing is beneath Dave Nalle. Nothing."

that's not strictly true.

Hmmm... the comment instructions read "Personal attacks are not allowed." Yet I see the author himself using terms like "crazy", "loony", "isolationism", "paranoia", and "bigotry".

Nice try getting some hits on your rantings by merely paraphrasing OTHERS' ACTUAL REPORTS OF AN EVENT YOU WERE TOO SMUG TO ATTEND.

I, too, would like to see Mr. Nalle support his contention that Dr. Paul's policies encourage nativism, isolationism, etc...

As for the use of the word "fringe" to describe Dr. Paul's movement, I'm not convinced that wanting the government to stop interfering in other nations, stop interfering in private lives and be financially responsible is really considered "holding an extreme view".

"...AN EVENT YOU WERE TOO SMUG SMART TO ATTEND." There. fixed it for ya.

Along with more than 300 million other smart americans.

It's amazing how this tiny group of zealots can make so much noise with their "...tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

I can't understand anyone who would put himself out in opposition to a true patriotic, extremely intelligent man such as is Ron Paul, And his followers, equally intelligent which is obvious to any but the most dense, of which would include Dave Nalle. How ever he can type so he no doubt is a paid slanderer by the very people that have destroyed this once great country. His idiotic rantings against patriotic Americans are not his true feelings, I am sure. Hes paid to put out this garbage, no doubt. Ron Paul is every bit as
great as John Paul---Jones, Of "I have not yet begun to fight" Fame.

@ #9:

Shall I, for the 87,239,401,337th time, explain to a commenter the difference between personal attacks on other commenters and impersonal attacks on public figures and groups?

Nah.

not to get all grammar patrol up in here, but, this sentence is just about the greatest thing i've ever read: "I can't understand anyone who would put himself out in opposition to a true patriotic, extremely intelligent man such as is Ron Paul, And his followers, equally intelligent which is obvious to any but the most dense, of which would include Dave Nalle."

it's just a thing of wonder. the syntax, the choice of words, the punctuation... all so fucked, it's like the author used a sledge to hammer out the letters and got tired midway through.

i still think dave is an ass most of the time, but if he's getting responses of this amusing quality, i say, "bravo, sir."

"Ron Paul is every bit as
great as John Paul---Jones, Of "I have not yet begun to fight" Fame."

OMG.

Putting a wimpy, cowardly isolationist on a par with America's greatest naval hero is nothing short of blasphemous.

Dreadful,

You may, if you can first explain the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist". (Hint: The latter is summarized by Thomas Jefferson's famous dictum, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none").

Oh, and provide what evidence you can that Ron Paul is the former rather than the latter.

Fools And Their Rights Are Soon Parted.

The Boiling Of The Frog Continues.

From The Ashes Is Where Liberty Will Again Spawn.

Cities Of Glass Will Be Made From Afar And Only The Lucky And Those Of Awareness Will Be Left To Skirmish For The Path OF Humanity.

Your Neighbor Be Your Only Salvation.

Evil Happens Because The Good Do Nothing.

Dread Re comment 9 and 13:

Your response to comment 9 is disingenuous at best sir. The amount of times That Davey boy has attacked me personally on this forum is in point of fact numerous, yet he has never been curtailed by the comments editors. He uses these derogatory terms to belittle, and not use reason or debate to make his points. So I take issue with your comments in 13.

Don't bet me wrong Dread, I like his attacks, as it only shows how weak his arguments are, however I do not like the hypocrisy, nor the untrue argument that you used in comment 13 sir.
Dave in my opinion, (not a personal attack) is a paid shill for his corporate/CIA masters, and acts as an advocate of human liberty, when he does everything in his power to denigrate liberty on a daily basis.

Just my two sense worth Dread.

Pablo

Still awaiting an answer. Perhaps explain why Dr. Paul is a "wimpy, cowardly isolationist." He served in the Air Force when called in the 60s. He has consistently stood and voted for his beliefs (often as one of the few voices of dissent). As one of the few people in office who correctly surmised the quagmire that Iraq would become and who bravely pressed for an up or down vote of War (which the rest of Congress wimped out on) I would say he has showed uncommon backbone and the ability to backup his assertions with facts.

I'm not interested in any of the comments that are derisive or derogatory. If you can't discuss the issues in a moderately civil manner you will never make any headway with the opposition, regardless of the side on which you stand.

Charles @ #16:

You may, if you can first explain the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist".

What does that have to do with anything I said?

Pablo @ #18:

As I think I've explained to you before, Chris and I do try to edit comments with as light a hand as possible. Of paramount importance in these threads is to let the debate flow: we don't want to be like a couple of referees who leap in with whistle blowing at the slightest infringement and ruin the game.

Now Dave, with true disingenuousness, would I'm sure deny any accusation that his comments to you are personal attacks, but merely responses to what he sees as outlandish opinions. There is a difference between 'X is a paranoid moron' and 'X has swallowed the moronic paranoia of Y'.

Though they are not set in stone, Dave is well aware of where the limits are - as are you, Pablo. Both of you have frequently ventured close to those limits but are noticeably and extremely careful not to step over them.

I'm not going to answer every one of the increasingly tedious attacks which were laid out by various Paul supporters while I was sleeping and working and generally doing more to advance freedom in a few hours than they have done in months.

The amusing part is that these attacks are considerably less virulent than most I've had directed at me over prior articles, and as has always been the case they completely miss the point.

For a general response, I direct them to an essay I wrote on my own website called "Why I Write About Ron Paul". I realize that you think Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I'm a rational person and not a fanatic, and it has become clear to me that he and his movement are a destructive sidetrack on the road to liberty.

Dave

I note again in this comment thread as with most others involving the Paulbots the ridiculous assumptions of conspiracy and dishonesty among opponents. Specifically, note how many Paul supporters automatically assume that anyone criticizing or mocking him is being paid by someone to do it. Obviously, no honest, rational person would disagree with Ron Paul and the JBS.

Note the first comment on this column, from me. This ridiculous hateful and paranoid assumption of Nalle being on some payroll was the point of my mockery - that and pointing out again the anti-Semitism of Paul and his John Birch Society. I explain this obvious point for the window lickers what are supporting Paul and seem seem unwilling to understand criticism.

You are not objective, therefore, you have no business calling someone impartial or not impartial. You remind me of the guy from the movie "the patriot" with Mel Gibson who throws the first torch on the church with all the people locked inside even though they were once his neighbors. Hope you got a good deal when you sold your soul, assuming you had one to sell.

I was not able to attend the March on Saturday. I sure do appreciate those who did - the travel, the expense, the discomfort, etc. I think it takes everyone doing his part to make anything work successfully. Some go to the battle front, and some stay by the stuff at home. This is the American way, and we still have the freedom to do it - so far.

If everyone with a real love for our country will have the guts to stand up, speak up, and not be intimidated by the mockers who do nothing but point a finger, we will restore our liberties and build a better Union. And there will always be the 'frivolous fringe' few who take a free ride on someone else's platform - in every organization. We deal with it.

Anyone can sit at home and do nothing - just close your eyes and push a button in November. This is the kind of behavior that has given the few pinheads in Congress and in the Courts the free-wheeling hand that they play. "It's business as usual, boys".

Thanks to all of you who attended the March, who are giving monetary support, and who are praying for the good of America. We need all of you, and you are appreciated.

Re #22. Al, the really bizarre thing is that this article isn't even negative. I'm giving free publicity to the movement, linking to the observations of Paul supporters in their own words, and doing it purely in the interest of keeping people informed - it's news with a bit of harmless levity. Yet these paranoid, jackbooted, nincompoops assume that it's some sort of attack. It really does get tedious.

Dave

Well, omma gonna git me wonna these here blogs, an then maibee I kin be wonna those "pundits"....wail, maibee in mah own mond, anyways!! Hey, Dave, lay it out for us...just how are YOU serving the public, other than from YOUR keyboard?? Is Ron Paul's message of self-responsibility and good stewardship from a grass roots level really a threat to you? This is YOUR blog, buddy. Tell me, tell us all, what's YOUR solution? It's getting tedious for me, personally, reading armchair politics from faceless "experts" using the lingo of slime to discount people in society who are not only concerned about our future, but ACTIVE in creating solutions. The people in America who have rallied behind Ron Paul recognize his backbone and resolve, and they show their support by getting their asses off the couch and showing up wherever Ron Paul needs them to be. Have you taken off your slippers lately, put on your OWN jackboots (WHATEVER label they have on them), and shown up on a 90 degree day to rally for change?????????? Yes? No? Probably not.. I KNOW you have a pair, what brings them out of the closet???
I don't CARE what label you wear, Dave, but if you think status quo is acceptable in politics today, YOU are a threat to my future liberty and freedom. Do you think that blind faith in power has ever resulted in positive outcome for the populace of ANY society?? Which one?? So, I ask YOU, Dave, to spill your guts. What's your deal, what floats your boat, what do you want to see in government?? Forget me and all the other "crazies"...show your cards, and let's put your blog to some good use. Let's get some grassroots politicking going here. Thanks.

Dave Nalle is also saving children from drowning in unsupervised backyard swimming pools, rescuing kittens from trees, coaching Britney Spears on how best to get her "career" back on track, fighting terror, and generally doing more to advance the cause of freedom than anyone ever in the existence of the concept.

So please, show some respect!

It is precisly this aloof the permeates the media that fuels the RP as well as many other fires. Our country is in a seriously poor state. I have admired the RP revolution from a distance in that at least someone has passion out there. The boring and un elightend Neo Con and Socialist drivel from the mainstream camps are like watching paint dry. As for your aloof disposition, not very impressive.

IMO one of the big pronlems with the Paultards is that they are as utterly hunorless as their leader. One good laugh from P.J. O,Rourke does more for liberty than all their posturing.

&nd speaking of humor, that first Wonkette link is hilarious especially the map od the march route.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Instead of acting like a "paranoid, jackbooted, nincompoop" (I understand the paranoid reference and the nincompoop is really a matter of opinion but how the heck do Paulites deserve the jackbooted label? Are we oppressive in any way?) I simply asked for some salient examples of how Dr. Paul's policies encourage nativism, isolationism, etc...

And received no response. Is it that Mr. Nalle & Company simply aren't interested in a fact-based debate? Perhaps they are tired of arguing with the admittedly fervent Paulites who often undermine their own position by succumbing to the caustic frustration of being the "belittled one"? Or possibly Mr. Nalle & Company just like to point fingers whilst trying to smother the tortured groaning of the desk at which they are [working], overloaded as it is with the often thoughtful and occasionally insightful comments of people looking for "some other answer" to this country's myriad problems?

Since I've had no response I'll just have to guess.

and Rome burns....

"leaders" of the fight for freedom derisively mock and dismiss with utter diffidence those of us(I am former YAF State Director in 80's and 90's and now bluecollar so cant afford to fly)Americans who still care about retaining the few remaining freedoms and sacrifice their time and money to march on YOUR capital and take a stand.....the losses of freedoms are a lot thanks to the actions of SOME of the leaders/Party the "Right" put and CONTINUES to put on a pedestal....and the rank hypocracy of those behind the desk and shill for strong and POWERFUL Party and EMPIRE and Law and Orter and blaming the communists for the Reichstag fire is reprehensible and repugnant.

Yeah you.

Chris Bieber in Lake Elsinore, CA
ps I like your consistant tolerance in defending the State and its apparatus.

someone might have made a little tribute to the wonkettes

warning, might have hateful language*

Youtube : Wonkette Ron Paul March

Brother Nalle- I hadn't really thought about it before, but your use of the word "jackbooted" is entirely appropriate to these Paulbots. It seems like a curious word to describe (supposed) advocates of limited government. But there's been a strongly intolerant and even Stalinist tone to many of these Ron Paul supporters during this whole campaign season, including right here on this thread. Comment editors here at BC now routinely blow you raspberries when you write about Paul, cause they know the minions are going to be donning their brown shirts to storm the place.

Gee, this guy dave something actually earns a living from 'writing?'
Amazin'!

quote:Brother Nalle- I hadn't really thought about it before, but your use of the word "jackbooted" is entirely appropriate to these Paulbots. It seems like a curious word to describe (supposed) advocates of limited government. But there's been a strongly intolerant and even Stalinist tone to many of these Ron Paul supporters during this whole campaign season, including right here on this thread. Comment editors here at BC now routinely blow you raspberries when you write about Paul, cause they know the minions are going to be donning their brown shirts to storm the place.:end quote

Something about a glimmer of truth,hope and the first candidate to tell the truth since the 1800's that can get ya pretty darn excited....
Stalanist huh, so enthusiastic supporters of freedomadn the roots of Americanism are in that vein to you? Wow, thats warped. Drink the Neo Con Kool Aid

Quote:-I'm not going to answer every one of the increasingly tedious attacks which were laid out by various Paul supporters while I was sleeping and working and generally doing more to advance freedom in a few hours than they have done in months.

The amusing part is that these attacks are considerably less virulent than most I've had directed at me over prior articles, and as has always been the case they completely miss the point.

For a general response, I direct them to an essay I wrote on my own website called "Why I Write About Ron Paul". I realize that you think Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I'm a rational person and not a fanatic, and it has become clear to me that he and his movement are a destructive sidetrack on the road to liberty. :End Quote

LOL, Tom Desalba handed you your ass! Just exactlywhat have you done to further freedom? Written an article? Time to go night night Neo Con boy, your days of drvel are through..

I see you're still up to your old tricks, Clavos.

"Putting a wimpy, cowardly isolationist on a par with America's greatest naval hero is nothing short of blasphemous."

Excuse me Clavos, but didn't the guy serve in the armed forces as a flight surgeon?

How can you call him a wimp or a coward?

Oh, that's right, Clavos, I forgot.

You're a slanderer and a proven liar.

(For anyone interested in the details of Clavos's lies, they are available in the "Backlash Against Ron Paul supporters" thread. Like Dave, he has no shame and no game.)

Have a nice day!

I hadn't really thought about it before, but your use of the word "jackbooted" is entirely appropriate to these Paulbots. It seems like a curious word to describe (supposed) advocates of limited government. But there's been a strongly intolerant and even Stalinist tone to many of these Ron Paul supporters during this whole campaign season, including right here on this thread. Comment editors here at BC now routinely blow you raspberries when you write about Paul, cause they know the minions are going to be donning their brown shirts to storm the place.

I chose that word carefully, Al.

More and more I see exactly where this movement is going. Too many tyrants started out telling the people that they were going to save them and protect their liberties from the conspiracies (jews, capitalists, witches, communists) who were plotting against them. They brainwashed their loyal fanatics, pursued their agenda and then at the end it turns out that THEY were the ones who took away the peoples freedom, not the mythical conspirators.

This is where I see this 'movement' going, and the behavior of its advocates here on this and other threads does nothing but bear out my fears. They point the finger and call me a 'neocon' or a 'CIA shill' because for them that's like calling me a jew or a bourgeois pig, and they figure that if they can make the label stick then they can silence me as they gain power, or just dismiss anything I say because I'm part of the shadowy world of enemies conspiring against them.

Scary stuff.

Dave

Dave Nalle himself is not serious.

The one thing Tom gets right. I am frequently not serious, because I see the ridiculousness of things and choose to laugh rather than cry.

Nalle pretends to be an intellectual,

Hardly. I work very hard at being pragmatic.

Ha. Cult of Paul. The state has no cult, only Paul. And, how is it "tainted" again?

We've been over this before. The adherence of Paul and so many of his followers to destructive and irrational beliefs disqualifies them from leading any real long-term movement for liberty. You cannot promote liberty while also promoting irrationality and deception.

Nalle doesn't say, as usual. And, pray tell, what does Nalle think is the "real liberty movement"? Presumably the same groups (cults?) that have sat on their hands for the last 30 years?

I think some of Paul's followers are working with other liberty-minded individuals to move things in a positive direction. I'm in touch with many of them and there are hopeful signs all over.

Reason - Sucks.
Cato (State-O) - advocates the U.S. taxpayer giving Mexico money to protect THEIR OWN SOUTHERN BORDER.

This really says it all about Tom - and about many of the Paulistas. These two bastions of liberty are enemies in his view because he is NOT a libertarian any more than a conservative, theocratic Bircher like Ron Paul is.

Being anti-government doesn't make you pro-liberty.

Where was Dave Nalle all that time? Ron Paul was in Congress voting against big government. He is widely acknowledged to be the most consistent and principled conservative politician of them all.

I was mistakenly supporting Ron Paul during that period.

Dave Nalle was busy sabotaging liberty at every turn, just as he's doing now. Who the hell is he to put people down who are honestly fighting for liberty after all his "mainstream" politicos have failed so abysmally?

They're not my mainstream politicos - you just lump them with me because of your faulty assumptions. It's not sabotaging liberty to want it to be built on a foundation of reason and individual rights.

Dave responded: "The founders advocated liberty, not nativism, isolationism, protectionism, paranoia and bigotry."

Of course, Nalle never, ever provides actual examples of nativism, paranoia etc in Ron Paul's policy recommendations - because there are none.

Paul has a 100% rating from FAIR which is a nativist organization. Paul thinks the civil war was a mistake. Paul thinks christianity should be taught in the schools. Paul doesn't believe in equal employment rights for homosexuals, much less gay marriage. He promotes bogus conspiracy theories like the North American Union.

Read his record. You advocate this guy yet you clearly know nothing about him. Are you aware that he submitted 65 separate pork barrel earmarks in the budget for his own district totalling over $4 billion?

Dave

How could this tiny movement that you ridicule and denigrate be powerful enough to be "... the ones who took away the peoples freedom, not the mythical conspirators."

Yes Dave, let's go get that little boy that dared to open his mouth and tell us that the emperor is naked. Yes, Dave, attack the little boy, because he's the real threat.

Yes, everything was fine here in America, no real problems at all, and then these damn Paultards came out of nowhere, for no reason, to take away the freedom of the otherwise perfectly free American people.

And Dave Nalle, freedom fighter that he is, swings into action to oppose them.

Right.

Statism is a mental illness Dave, and you've got it bad. You are delusional.

It doesn't matter who's paying you or not paying you; you are serving the state, not the individual. But don't worry, I won't expect you to admit it, because you're in deep denial.

So - do go on, Dave, and spin us some more of your yarns while your "serious mainstream politicos" destroy what's left of our country.

How about the one where the Federal Reserve is a privatized - and therefore libertarian - institution?

Gee, I'd love to hear that one again.

Youtube : Wonkette Ron Paul March

Wow, clever. Calling them 'homos' over and over again and expressing soem obscure racist ideas about people with red hair. Newsflash. We already knew they're gay. Now we also know that you're a bigot.

Dave

"Excuse me Clavos, but didn't the guy serve in the armed forces as a flight surgeon?"

Ron Paul was a two year draftee serving in San Antonio.

Wikipedia says "He served active duty as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965, attending to the ear, nose, and throat problems of pilots in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey, but was never sent to Vietnam. Based out of Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Paul achieved the rank of captain."

And Kerry was a swiftboat skipper - for 3 1/2 months...BFD for both. Yawn.

"wimpy and cowardly" for being an isolationist, and certainly not worthy of being compared to Jones.

"Have a nice day!"

Thanks, I always do when I succeed in pissing off you Paultards.

Now stop annoying the grownups; run outside and go play with the other little boys.

"destructive and irrational beliefs"

Again, as he squirms, he still cannot deliver the goods.

What "destructive and irrational beliefs" are those, Dave?

He never says.

Now he'll probably start blathering about "truthers" and Alex Jones again.

But - don't expect any actual facts or quotes, because Dave will never deliver them.

He just doesn't argue that way.

Just slingin mud.

800,000 people died in the Civil War.

Not one other nation needed such a bloody civil war to leave slavery behind. Maybe we didn't either. Maybe ending slavery (to the extent that we actually did so) wasn't worth those 800,000 lives.

Maybe it WAS a mistake.

In any case, I am quite sure that Dave Nalle is unqualified to rule on the matter - or any "serious" matter at all. In every area of argument his pattern is the same - name-calling and deception mixed with a few facts.

Despite his apparent command of those facts, he still manages to draw the wrong conclusions from them - over and over again.

This is no accident. It's his statism that blinds and sickens him.

It's sad, really it is.

Clavos, don't flight surgeons serve where they are told to serve? What was he supposed to do - beg them to send him into battle? Beg for another tour of duty?

Please.

Nobody said his service WAS a BFD, so that was never the issue - it's just another straw man for you to knock down.

It was you who slandered him; and his service was brought up to defend him - period.

Your response, as usual, is non-responsive.

You called him a wimp and cowardly, and you still have provided NO BASIS AT ALL for this slander.

Not surprising for a proven liar and phony like you.

I'm not pissed off at you Clavos; I'm just waiting for you to lie again, because I know you will. Pathological liars can't stop lying any more than snakes can stop slithering.

Don't worry, I'll catch you at it just like I did last time.

Liar.

"It was you who slandered him..."

He's a public figure; as such, expressing an opinion about him, however much it may piss you off, is not slander.

"...and his service was brought up to defend him..."

A crappy defense, then. It proves nothing.

Having opinions with which you disagree does not make me a liar, tom.

Wanting to stick the USA's collective head in the sand, and pretend that there is no evil in the world against which we must take a stand does make Ron Paul a cowardly wimp (Or an idiot, which is worse), however.

And you? A fool, for failing to recognize that.

One more thing:

"You called him a wimp and cowardly, and you still have provided NO BASIS AT ALL for this slander."

And I don't need to. I provided enough basis for me: his isolationism.

I don't care whether or not you agree with that; I'm expressing my opinion, not trying to proselytize you.

What "destructive and irrational beliefs" are those, Dave?

Tom, I've gone over this again and again and again. You can choose to ignore what I've written and pretend I didn't already answer this question multiple times, but that just makes you look mentally challenged.

As I've said before, the promotion of conspiracy theories as if they were true, works to desensitize the public to real threats and promotes a false perception of reality which is the ideal basis for the rise of demagogues and tyrants.

As for Paul's specific issues, we've gone over those before too. The promotion of the completely unworkable gold standard, the promotion of the ridiculous NAU myth, his constant pandering to racists, homophobes and theocrats. All of these things are a matter of record. Do you have special glasses that make it impossible for you to actually read up on Paul's record?

Now he'll probably start blathering about "truthers" and Alex Jones again.

Never want to miss an opportunity for that. I now have a site for it - still in development, but I'm sure you'll enjoy it: IdiotWars.com

But - don't expect any actual facts or quotes, because Dave will never deliver them.

Again, a matter of public record. Go to ontheissues.com and read the section on Ron Paul.

Not one other nation needed such a bloody civil war to leave slavery behind.

Really? So you'd be unfamiliar with the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution which had at their heart the liberation of economic and class slaves?

Maybe we didn't either. Maybe ending slavery (to the extent that we actually did so) wasn't worth those 800,000 lives.

And maybe you're a reprehensible racist. I suppose you support slavery today as well? It's on the rise worldwide, especially in the Islamic world. I guess that's okay with you, right?

This is no accident. It's his statism that blinds and sickens him.

LOL. You serve the cause of statism by presenting people with false enemies and distracting them from real threats.

Dave

Dave - I'm having trouble getting to the second link you listed...ontheissues.com. Is there a mistake in there somewhere that I'm not picking up on?

I got it..I think, I did a google search and came up with ontheissues.org. Is that what you meant?

That ontheissues website is pretty nice. All the major issues on one page. I like it!

#46 Clavos

We would appreciate that your comments at least be based on fact and not stupidity even if it is your best uninformed opinion.

Isolationism vs. Free trade: Using the BILLIONS we have spent in the war on terror to protect us could have cost us a multitude less to secure our borders from attack. As it is, our borders are still wide open and we are not any better protected than we were before 9/11. This war is isolating us from the rest of the world.

The world did not want us to go to Iraq and they loudly said this but we refused to listen to reason. Hence, the world thinks we are idiots for bankrupting our own country to save a sand pit which is not saved and is still a pit. (I was there for over two years and saw it first hand) We have taken on the ruthless reputation that the USSR once had and the world despises us for it. That's creating isolationism at it's best.

Free Trade is self explanatory, look it up if you are still con-fused.

Use some of your war on terror devalued money to buy a clue!

Dale,

You might want to get your own facts straight.

In #46, I mentioned neither the war in Iraq, nor free trade; the latter of which I strongly support; I'm very much in favor of global free trade.

My comment about isolationism had to do with such Paul stupidities as his proposal to withdraw our troops from around the world, especially the idiotic proposal to pull out of South Korea, and allow the two Koreas to reunite.

I'm sure the South Koreans would love that.

Wow... A lack of decency on both sides here.

I have to say, labelling the Paul supporters with negative names over and over without providing specific ideas is not exactly a way to prove you are correct or convince anyone you're being reasonable. Facts, not allegations and rudeness, is the prime way to win an argument.

The Paul supporters on here have ranged from polite to rude, from typical to abnormally out-there. Why label everyone a neo-con? As well, why continue the argument when obviously the person is not going to change their opinion and the moderators are not going to check the opposite on their name-calling? It's a waste.

I disagree with many of the opinions of Paul on here, but I also disagree with bashing each other for no reason other than to cause conflict or to fight someone's opinion that will not be changed.

I didn't think the article was that bad, aside from a few typical comments that are found in nearly every article about Paul from the media. However, the comments made in the thread to the Paul supporters were enough to disappoint me and turn me away from valuing any opinion held by this blogger that isn't supported by an observable fact.

Sorry, Dave, but you went over my tolerance level for impoliteness. Good luck in your further writings, but I won't be reading.

Davey impolite? Please say it aint so!

Clavos:
How exactly is it stupid to withdraw our troops from around the world? From a practical standpoint we are the only country that has bases outside of its land. Why is this?
Why are troops still in Japan or Germany? Don't give me the "we kicked their butts and have to ensure they don't cause trouble again" line. It's crap.
As for South Korea isn't it high time that it stands on its own, considering the financial state of North Korea, which has an estimated GDP of 22.5b, compared to its southern neighbor's 1200b. We have approximately 30000 troops in SK but many (perhaps even most) of them aren't for combat. They are there to facilitate the in-processing of additional American troops in the event of an outbreak of hostilities. Considering NK's extensive chemical weapons ownership I think its safe to say that if the ball every did drop we'd lose a lot of non-combatants for nothing.

Having troops stationed around the world is clearly a sign of a colonial or imperialistic nation. Are we that? It's beginning to seem so; the majority of Iraqis now wish for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops yet our [mis]government is blatantly ignoring them and the Iraqi leaders.

We actually have troops in over 70% of the world's countries ( http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0606.pdf ).

Mr Rairigh- See, this is the trouble with mindless principles. You lack any nuance for different situations. It would probably be a good idea to withdraw a big portion of our forces from places like Japan and Germany where they serve no real military purpose. But it would be bad to just withdraw all of our troops from everywhere on supposed principle.

Iraq is looking better by the day, but it would be foolhardy to just cut and run. Withdrawing from Korea probably wouldn't be prudent, either. The wisdom and necessity of our military presence really needs to be judged carefully on a case by case basis.

And merely throwing around what are now meaningless bullshit terms like "colonial" and "imperialistic" doesn't prove anything.

"And merely throwing around what are now meaningless bullshit terms like "colonial" and "imperialistic" doesn't prove anything."

Thats almost funny, if it weren't so pathetic. As to the source, of the quote; predictable.

From a practical standpoint we are the only country that has bases outside of its land.

Wrong. A number of countries maintain a military presence outside their own borders, including the United Kingdom, France and India.

And merely throwing around what are now meaningless bullshit terms like "colonial" and "imperialistic" doesn't prove anything.

Sure it does. It proves he parrots things he's been told without thinking about them. There's a lot of that on this thread.

We actually have troops in over 70% of the world's countries

Embassy guards don't count as a troop deployment.

Dave

Jean, BrieCS, et al

Here are some Ron Paul supporters discussing whether Ron Paul is "the one". How is that for some evidence of one of the many varieties of fringe wackos that support Ron Paul?

Warning the above link will take you to what used to be a sticky topic at the white supremacist website Stormfront.

Speaking of "fringe wackos" let's not overlook John Hagee and his "fringe wackos" and the fact that John Hagee is one of John McCain's faithful followers.

You can't choose your followers, Conrad. But you don't have to pander to them if you don't agree with them.

Dave

"You can't choose your followers, Conrad. But you don't have to pander to them if you don't agree with them."

The problem is that Hagee agrees with McCain, especially on Middle East policy. Both Hagee and McCain want to start a war with Iran.

Well has dave ever worked for FOX. If not I think they might be interested , he seems to have the propaganda thing down.
My mother once said when she was referring to someone without respect and full of ignorance a worm. seems to be fitting for this article.
Thanks worm , I mean dave.

Dave Nalle you call them conspiratorial crazies. You really arn't look at the facts presented to you? About the major loss of civil liberty, and the falling doller. 911 not getting any proper investigation oversight by outside sources. The failed CIA intell that was there, but buried. These people have the right to hear truth. We are living any a 1 party dictatorship now. The democratic government. I don't know about you Nalle.. But I want my individual rights.

CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY RON PAUL BABY!

The utter illiteracy and confusion in those last two comments are illustrative of the intelligence level of a number of paultards.

I'll bet my bottom "doller" on that.

A Ron Paul funny last night on The Colbert Report's The WØRD.

The WØRD: Placebo

* Well, sometimes a funny thing happens. Patients who have taken the sugar pill get better. [Until They Contract Diabetes]

* You see, what happens is, their brain fools their body into believing that useless pill was medicine. [Same Part of Brain That Generates Votes For Ron Paul]

Something funnier is the supporters at the Ron Paul Forum. They can't decide whether Colbert was insulting them or not. One has even decided that, since everything Colbert says means the opposite, Colbert was actually supporting them with that joke. Thus, actually providing evidence that it was not a joke at all.

Ron Paul Forums-Colbert Discussion

Ron Paul is a fool.

He believes the US can save hundreds of billions of dollars each year by withdrawing the US military from foreign lands.

He also believes the American government should stop printing paper money as if the economy is a game of Monopoly.

He also foolishly beleves the American public can sufficiently comprehend economic and foreign policy matters to cast their vote in an intelligent manner.

What a fool!

He also foolishly beleves[sic] the American public can sufficiently comprehend economic and foreign policy matters to cast their vote in an intelligent manner.

Would that he were right. Although I don't think much of him, in this regard I would label him as a hopeless idealist rather than a fool. But then, perhaps that's the same thing.

Dan

"Although I don't think much of him, in this regard I would label him as a hopeless idealist rather than a fool."

It is not Ron Paul who is a fool or hopeless, it is the American public.

If that's the case, Conrad - and I don't think it is - we would be truly and deeply screwed, because ultimately any real change has to come from the people.

DAve

RE #68

Conrad,

Ron Paul also believes:

...that a two-celled zygote is a human being and should be protected. (He tries to used the Federal government to pass such laws--one's that HE likes--despite his claim that it had no power to pass any other laws of protection such as civil rights laws.)

...that being a member of the U.N. endangers our national sovereignty (Which is ludicrous.)

...that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 denied property owners their right to discriminate based on race. (He invents utter bullshit--such as claiming the CAUSE of racism is laws such as this.)

...that we are a Christian nation and that separation of church and state was never intended. (He conveniently ignores evidence contrary to his opinions whenever it suits him.)

Why do people see a few good ideas Ron Paul has and willingly toss their critical faculties out the window to trip all over themselves supporting him?

Well, I guess someone has to buy all those magnetic pain reducing bracelets, melalucca lotions, and noni juice drinks.

Cindy is officially being awarded HERO of the day in Zeddland! She gets the keys to the city, a marching band and cool points.

(Cindy - as a constantly justified paranoiac and in defense of the extra-scientific: absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence)

It is not Ron Paul who is a fool or hopeless, it is the American public.

Just consider the state of the nation. The economy is in shambles and the American public does little more than whimper about gasoline prices.

The American public fails to see that they elect political buffoons who respond to the needs of the country by doing what lobbyists want done. Lobbyists tell the politicians how to vote and even write legislation for them.

It is the American public electing these buffoons who are the hopeless fools.

"Why do people see a few good ideas Ron Paul has and willingly toss their critical faculties out the window to trip all over themselves supporting him?"

Because Ron Paul's "few good ideas" are the most important ones.

The American public gets tripped up on trivia and thsn wonders why the country is going to hell.

Yes Troll that very same Cindy.

Conrad,

I agree with the bulk of your comments. But that has always been the case.

As far as Ron Paul's few good ideas being the most important ones--you are ignoring the danger of some of his extraordinarily bad ideas. I notice you did not address those.

And that is the other problem with what we do. We tend to see something that makes some sense and we get on the team. Once a member, we defend the team and the leader, practically blindly, almost purposely ignoring dangers we know are there.

This is not a demonstration of good thinking. You should stop doing it. Talking about the country going to hell--you might accidentally find yourself on the expressway to hell with choices born of that sort of thinking.

Ron Paul is a narrow-minded old religious bigot who is against civil liberties where they pertain to blacks and gays. He is so very high-minded and "freedom" oriented that he thinks he is entitled to make judgments about what women may do with their own bodies because HE believes life starts at conception.

So, what would we do with the unwanted progeny born of his sanctity of life act? Well, we wouldn't let gay people adopt them, that's for sure. (Ron Paul voted against gay adoption in DC.)

I notice Ron Paul hasn't adopted any unwanted children. Like most other big mouth, anti-abortion zealots, he wants a "say", but won't take any responsibility for the social repercussions of his "say".

Ron Paul's nastiness lingers just out of sight, like the wizard of Oz behind the curtain, his supporters delude themselves and run in "auto-defend" mode.

Brava, Cindy!

Cindy D:

The issues on which you disagree with Ron Paul are social issues which should be decided by voters, not by the courts.

And if you and the American public are not concerned about the country going to hell, you haven't been following the economic disaster our politicians have brought upon the country. It's not likely our economic problems will be resolved unless they are addressed by people like Ron Paul.

"It's not likely our economic problems will be resolved unless they are addressed by people like Ron Paul."

Really?

How so?

"..which should be decided by voters, not by the courts."

What voters? The ones who weren't allowed to vote or the ones who could decide who could and who couldn't vote?

"And if you and the American public are not concerned about the country going to hell, you haven't been following the economic disaster our politicians have brought upon the country."

First of all, I think the American public would resent your lumping them together with the likes of me. Second, I am desperately concerned, which is why I am spending most of my time trying to figure out my own family's escape route. Third, I am likely a whole wide margin left of your position and likely you would be shocked by the solutions I would find acceptable. But, nowhere in my own accepted solutions would you find bullshit bigotry, or trampling on anyone's rights or Christian rule as if Christian's haven't done enough damage to the world in the name of their very peaceful representative whom I admire.

"It's not likely our economic problems will be resolved unless they are addressed by people like Ron Paul."

What Clav said. And double it.

One last thing Conrad,

Here is what amounts to a theoretical position for you, but what was a reality for MORE than half of the US population at one time.

Keep this mental picture in mind. You, Conrad are not allowed to vote. In this fictional country, only those whose interests are opposed to yours are permitted to vote. They can vote to keep you an unpaid slave if they like. They can make you a paid slave who must work 60 or more hours a week. They can tell you what you are permitted to do and they can deny you any of the privileges they themselves enjoy. They can decide that what you believe in or what they think you "might" do in rebellion is a threat. Therefore, they can break their own laws and even kill you with immunity, just because you are different, maybe just because your name is Conrad. Do you want to live in this country Conrad?

It's not likely our economic problems will be resolved unless they are addressed by people like Ron Paul.

How so?

For starters:

1. Stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign policy blunders.

2. Stop creating fear in the minds of the simple-minded.

3. Put the military industrial complex out of business.

4. Stop printing paper money as if the economy is a game of Monopoly.

5. Run the lobbyists out of town.

#s 1 & 2 make some sense, although to realize #2, the pols would have to stop talking altogether to the american peeps - or find a new audience.

#3: Nice thought - until some asshole (Ahmadinejad? Kim Jong mentally Il? Putin? Chavez? The Farc? MS-13? Me?) decides he wants to run this place without getting elected.

#4 Last car I bought cost 30K. That's a lot of gold to carry to the dealership.

#5. How? At the point of a gun? (not that I'm against that, mind you - the point of a gun is a GREAT convincer, but there is some sort of thing about their rights or something, isn't there?)

Clavos:

All is not lost...

We can put the military industrial complex out of business and not endanger our safety.

We have enough killing power to blow up the world 1,000 times over. A squadron of B2's by itself is enough to keep any foreign power from running this place without getting elected.

Stop printing paper money as if the economy is a game of Monopoly.

The last car I bought would have cost much less than 30K if paper money had not been flooding the market and reducing its value. In 1972 you could buy a new car for $2000.

Run the lobbyists out of town.

The president has the power to veto bills which are written by lobbyists.

Conrad, you are dreaming.

"We have enough killing power to blow up the world 1,000 times over. A squadron of B2's by itself is enough to keep any foreign power from running this place without getting elected.

Who owns and operates those aircraft, Conrad? The nuns from St. Sophia's?

"The last car I bought would have cost much less than 30K if paper money had not been flooding the market and reducing its value. In 1972 you could buy a new car for $2000."

Which, for me, in 1972, was a month's pay; now, it's a week's; so, I'm working less for more. That kind of "inflation" I can live with.

Besides, you're wrong. A $30K car of today has an enormous amount of technology that didn't even exist in 1972, so they are NOT the same car. Today, I routinely run my cars 150-175K miles. In 1972, you'd be lucky to get 75K out of a car, and it wouldn't have satellite radio, GPS, heated seats and mirrors, EFI, Anti-lock brakes, air bags, - I could go on and on all night.

"The president has the power to veto bills which are written by lobbyists."

A bill written by a lobbyist is not necessarily a bad thing. Would you have the president veto a bill allocating funds for research to fight cancer written by the American Cancer Society, which is a lobby?

Aside from all these issues, I can't abide your guy for several others:

Prayers/religion in schools. I'd just as soon keep religion out of the country, let alone the schools, but I would never prevent anyone from attending church, just as I'd expect them not force religion on me, or my kids.

His anti abortion stance. I do NOT think the imaginary "rights" of a fetus trump those of a woman who has been raped or the victim of incest; I don't think they even trump her right to abort just because she doesn't want it, period.

There are others of his ideas I don't like as well, especially his anti gay stances.

But it's all moot anyway.

He lost.

Sometimes, the American electorate isn't so dumb, after all.

This Dave guy can not hear you...he has his head up his butt!

This guy writes.. because????

So inflation is good?

"A $30K car of today has an enormous amount of technology that didn't even exist in 1972, so they are NOT the same car."

You believe that the car you buy today has $28,000 more technology than the one bought in 1972 for $2,000?

I'm sure your car dealer loves to see you come into the showroom.

''Which, for me, in 1972, was a month's pay; now, it's a week's; so, I'm working less for more. That kind of "inflation" I can live with."

Let's see... In 1972 you were making $2,000 a month and now your pay is $30,000 a month?

Ron Paul has warned the country of the dangers of inflation.

Consider what inflation did in the Weimar Republic... In 1923, a German feeding a stove with Papiermarks burned longer than the amount of firewood it could buy.

Also look at countries such as Argentina where inflation was fueled by rapid expansion of the money supply. The monetary expansion served the needs of the government as a method of taxation that was difficult to avoid and politically easy to enact. Sound familiar?

The belief that inflation is beneficial is naive at best.

"He [Ron Paul] lost."

Wrong.

America lost.

"A bill written by a lobbyist is not necessarily a bad thing. Would you have the president veto a bill allocating funds for research to fight cancer written by the American Cancer Society, which is a lobby?"

This supposition does not distinguish the non-profit American Cancer Society from moneygrubbing lobbyists such as the Pharmaceutical Industry.

There is no evidence that Ron Paul could not see the obvious difference.

"Let's see... In 1972 you were making $2,000 a month and now your pay is $30,000 a month?"

No wonder you don't understand inflation and all this economic stuff, you can't even do simple math.

Clav,

It is painfully obvious that you are hiding your ill got riches behind a facade of arithmetical pedantry. You must repent and atone for your sins by sending free-will donations to my Church's off-shore bank account in Nigeria. $15,000 per month would be appropriate. The account number is UR1Sucker2008.

Bishop Dan

I'll try one more time.

The 2K car in 1972 was a VW (and actually, it was closer to 2.5K). Cadillacs (much more comparable to the 30K Acura or Lexus of today) cost considerably more.

The comparable cars of today start at 10K or less (Toyota Yaris, Chevy Aveo, Honda Fit), offer mileage in the 30s, and yes, are MUCH better engineered and built than back then, and last up to twice as long as that '72 Vee Dub.

"Run the lobbyists out of town.

The president has the power to veto bills which are written by lobbyists."

"A bill written by a lobbyist is not necessarily a bad thing. Would you have the president veto a bill allocating funds for research to fight cancer written by the American Cancer Society, which is a lobby?"

"This supposition does not distinguish the non-profit American Cancer Society from moneygrubbing lobbyists such as the Pharmaceutical Industry."

Actually, it does; that was my point. It was you who wanted to run "the lobbyists out of town," (no distinction).

"...moneygrubbing lobbyists such as the Pharmaceutical Industry."

Which is presently keeping my critically ill wife alive, but you're right, let's close down the pharmas and go back to treating cancer patients with herbs we can gather ourselves for free.

You're talking through your hat; but then, you're a Paultard; comes with the territory.

Bishop Dan,

Will you guarantee me eternal salvation in writing, with a money back proviso in the name of my heirs, with them as the sole judges as to whether or not I achieved salvation?

Do you accept fiat, or just ford and toyota money?

Clav,

Absolution Absolutely. Just send the money and we will work out the details upon receipt of the first (well, maybe second or third) deposit. I will even arrange to have the documents witnessed by St. Al the Gored.

Trust me.

Bishop Dan

Dan's Church, like most such scams charitable trusts, will accept Fiat, Ford or Toyota money but prefers Lexus, Mercedes or Cadillac.

What, no Bentley or Maybach money?

How declassé.

You must remember, Clav, that Dan does not yet have his own show on TBN. He can't appear to be too ostentatious.

Doc,

Good of you to notice. As we speak, the Reverend Mr. Wrong and I are working on it, and an announcement will soon appear in all the popular magazines.

These things cost money, so please be generous when the hat (see comment #93) is passed.

Gotta go. I'm late for a prayer breakfast.

Bishop Dan

"July 21, 2008 @ 13:52PM -- Dan Miller

...I'm late for a prayer breakfast."

Hmmm...Bishop Dan's would appear to be a preach by night scheme church.

By the way, Dave, you might want to know that Fedhead Richard Fisher has just confirmed my entire shpiel about fiat money.

Which means he has rejected your childlike assessment that fiat money is not inherently inflationary.

It is inherently inflationary and it always has been. You are wrong.

Even the Fed itself acknowledges the systemic risk now, Dave, so where have you been? Where are you now? What are your proposals to deal with this 99 trillion dollar shortfall again?

Earth to Dave?

Reality to Dave?

Come in Dave?

***

Might I also point out that I was right about GM and Ford being in deep deep trouble - and you and your merry band [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] were wrong there too?

Right after our little exchange, GM stock fell to the lowest NOMINAL, (not inflation-adjusted) levels since the 70's. The company, just like Fannie and Freddie, just like the whole federal government, is insolvent.

But you have said that there is nothing wrong that a little export growth can't solve - hahahahaha, and oh yeah, eliminating farm subsidies too, hahahahaha! That'll fix everything right? Hahahahaha!

No, seriously Dave, while you go around busily spying and sniping and "writing" about nothing of substance, the system itself is failing, and only Ron Paul, among politicians, has tried to explain the reason for it to the American people.

That fact alone exposes your dismissal of him and his supporters as an act against the American people's interests. You will never escape that legacy Dave. Never.

The fact is that your sophistry is calculated to allow you to avoid/deny the nature of the real problems we face, and that is unfortunate. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Pathetic.

Oh, and Clavos, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

Here is the "Export Fact Sheet" that you provided.

Here are your repeated arguments that the data IN THAT FACT SHEET were inflation-adjusted.

Note posts 178 200 and 212.

Anyone who looks at economic data knows that when data are adjusted, AT ALL, that fact is clearly indicated, and on this One Page "Fact Sheet" there was NO SUCH INDICATION AT ALL.

It is an insult to the reader's intelligence to say, as Clavos did, that, "oh yeah, they adjust EVERYTHING THEY PUT OUT."

No. So, squirm all you want [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] because I won't be letting go [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] anytime soon.

I'm wondering if that would be one of those prayer breakfasts that goes like this:

"ForwhatweareabouttoreceivemaytheLordmakeustrulythankfulAmen."

[Helps self to three large muffins, 12-inch dinner plate piled high with bacon, scrambled eggs, hash browns, pancakes and maple syrup, goes back for seconds, spends next three hours discussing stocks, IRAs, church building expansion plans and comparing cardiologists before leaving for a round of golf with church accountant.]

"No. So, squirm all you want - liar - because I won't be letting go of your lizard tail anytime soon."

Oooh, thanks, sweetie! Please DON'T let go; it feels soooo good! Grasp it just a little higher? Ooohhh!

Tom, Clav, there's one very easy way to settle this.

Why doesn't one of you call or e-mail the Commerce Department and ask them if the data in that fact sheet are inflation-adjusted?

And Tom, it would make life a lot easier for readers if you would format the URLs in your comments as clickable links. I believe I've directed you before to a site with a brief tutorial on how to do this.

Doc,

I am grossly insulted by your crude and otherwise insensitive remarks. We always have Fillet Mignon, caviar, and the very best champagne. The prayer follows the meal, and (for those still up to reciting it) goes like this "Rub a dub dub, rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub, Yeah God!"

Yours in the hope of eternal salivation,

Bishop Dan

And your filet is, of course, Kobe?

"...eternal salivation..."

Now there's something for which I shall pray and vote.

BTW, Bishop Dan, I tried to send a handsome donation to the account number you gave me, but it keeps asking for the password. Could you send that to me, please?

"Why doesn't one of you call or e-mail the Commerce Department and ask them if the data in that fact sheet are inflation-adjusted?"

There you go, Desabla. Your big opportunity! Go for it; prove me once and for all a "liar," instead of just alleging it.

Thanks, Doc, but I really don't care what this guy thinks; I've already expended way too much energy responding to his drivel.

Clav,

No, we don't allow no foreign stuff, and besides I've heard that Kobe beef resembles corn meal mush in taste and texture.

How silly of me to have forgot the password. It is, URfndsRm1ne.

Bishop Dan

Clavos:

Let me try again.

''Which, for me, [$2000] in 1972, was a month's pay; now, it's a week's; so, I'm working less for more. That kind of "inflation" I can live with.... Last car I bought cost 30K."

Let's see... You also said that "in 1972 you were making $2,000 a month and now your pay is $30,000 a month?

That was a question to you.

It had a "?" following it. Is that too difficult to comprehend?

If you could have bought a car for $2,000 in 1972 and it costs $30,000 now, and $2,000 was a month's pay in 1972, it follows that if you are paying $30,000 for a car now, and that is the "kind of "inflation" you can live with, then your monthly pay now must be $30,000.

Good for you.

No Conrad (but nice try),

My original statement was

Which, for me, in 1972, was a month's pay; now, it's a week's; so, I'm working less for more. That kind of "inflation" I can live with.

That's my exact original statement in #87. Notice that there's no ellipsis there. It was made in reply to your statement that:

In 1972 you could buy a new car for $2000.

Now, do the math.

No. So, squirm all you want - liar - because I won't be letting go of your lizard tail anytime soon.

...sounds icke

Would I be right in thinking that the kind of car you could pick up new today for $8000 (perhaps a Kia or something cheap and cheerful like that) would be comparable to the $2000 car of 1972 in respect of the various whistles and bells that would come with it?

Actually, not even close. The cheapest production car on the American market is the Chevy Aveo, which rings up at $10,895 for the basic model - a bit more than your month's salary, Clav, but armed with a battery of features that hadn't even been heard of in '72, such as:
- front and side airbags
- tire pressure monitor
- adjustable steering column
- air conditioning
- cruise control
- seatbelts!

Clavos:

"let's close down the pharmas and go back to treating cancer patients with herbs we can gather ourselves for free."

Let's not become hysterical.

The bonanza given to the pharmaceutical industry by the 2003 Medicare law was the result of the industry writing the legislation. Instead of following the VA approach which minimizes the cost of prescription drugs to consumers and taxpayers by introducing price competition, the Congress passed a bill favoring the drug companies in the middle of the night after failing to get passage during the day.

How could this be done?

The pharmaceutical industry employs 1,500 registered lobbyists -- more lobbyists in Washington, D.C., than any other industry -- more than half of whom are former members of Congress or other officials More than 3,000 people over the last several years have lobbied for the industry, including 75 former lawmakers. Those lawmakers include former Senators Bob Dole and Lloyd Bentsen, former Representatives. Bob Livingston and Tom Foley and current PRMA President Billy Tauzin, who was a key architect of the 2003 Medicare law. Billy Tauzin hit big pay dirt at the expense of the taxpayers. His salary is at least $2 million a year.

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on advertising and promotion as it does on research and development.

It is well known that Medicare costs are not sustainable, yet Tauzin and the other lobbyists managed to get their pork passed.

The bill created by industry lobbyists would have been vetoed by Ron Paul.

We don't have to give away the store to provide pharmaceuticals to those who need them.

Exactly, Doc.

Some of those features are mandated (airbags, seatbelts, eg.) but all add to the base price, so it's simply not true that the entire price differential is the result of inflation.

Sorry to have ignored you, Dan, but I've been at Netroots Nation and the Defending the American Dream Summit where people are looking for real solutions to America's problems, not worrying about imaginary conspiracies and turning the clock back to the 18th century. I do enjoy the way you start insulting people when they appear to be ignoring you, though. So mature.

By the way, Dave, you might want to know that Fedhead Richard Fisher has just confirmed my entire shpiel about fiat money.

No. In the link you provide he's talking about fiscal responsibility and cutting entitlements, and about cutting back on the production of excess dollars to stabilize its value - all things I agree with and have proposed again and again myself. Not one word in there about silliness like the gold standard.

Which means he has rejected your childlike assessment that fiat money is not inherently inflationary.

Do you actually know what 'inherently' means? What he says is that current policy has caused inflation. That doesn't mean that ALL fiat currency policies would cause inflation.

It is inherently inflationary and it always has been. You are wrong.

No, it has been our monetary policy to allow for mild gradual inflation since we instituted the federal reserve. On the whole that has been a good strategy so long as the inflation was kept mild and gradual.

Even the Fed itself acknowledges the systemic risk now, Dave, so where have you been? Where are you now? What are your proposals to deal with this 99 trillion dollar shortfall again?

I'd start by printing less money, ending the Iraq War and privatizing social security. Then I'd start cutting the federal budget like mad, and put a $2 a gallon tax on gasoline.

Might I also point out that I was right about GM and Ford being in deep deep trouble - and you and your merry band [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] were wrong there too?

I've always said these companies were terribly mismanaged. I think they're beginning to see the light. BTW, although both Ford and GM stocks are down from pre-recession highs, they have been going up strongly during the month of July.

Right after our little exchange, GM stock fell to the lowest NOMINAL, (not inflation-adjusted) levels since the 70's. The company, just like Fannie and Freddie, just like the whole federal government, is insolvent.

That low was 3 weeks ago. It's up 40% since then.

But you have said that there is nothing wrong that a little export growth can't solve -

Really? Where did I say that? Provide a link.

No, seriously Dave, while you go around busily spying and sniping and "writing" about nothing of substance, the system itself is failing, and only Ron Paul, among politicians, has tried to explain the reason for it to the American people.

Twaddle. Paul has no magic solutions. You're a willing dupe.

That fact alone exposes your dismissal of him and his supporters as an act against the American people's interests. You will never escape that legacy Dave. Never.

I think I can live with the legacy of opposing irrationality, bigotry, theocracy and hate.

Dave

"Some of those features are mandated (airbags, seatbelts, eg.) but all add to the base price, so it's simply not true that the entire price differential is the result of inflation."

The good news is that Clavos' pay check is now greater than it was in 1972 and he is happy with inflation.

Dave:

"I think I can live with the legacy of opposing irrationality, bigotry, theocracy and hate."

You left out clear thinking.

I wrote:

""let's close down the pharmas and go back to treating cancer patients with herbs we can gather ourselves for free."

In response to your statement about:

"...moneygrubbing lobbyists such as the Pharmaceutical Industry."

Which certainly sounds like an indictment of the entire pharma industry as "money grubbing."

No hysteria in my reply; just a logical response to your sweeping generaliztion.

"Instead of following the VA approach which minimizes the cost of prescription drugs to consumers and taxpayers by introducing price competition..."

Good point, the VA even makes me split double dose tablets in half for the correct dose, because they pay by the tablet, regardless of dose.

#116: Given up trying to make two plus two equal five, have we, Lobachevsky?

Actually, the good news is that you can buy a far better car for the same price (adjusted for inflation) today than you could in 1972.

Aha! Methinks I have detected a fellow Tom Lehrer fan?

"Actually, the good news is that you can buy a far better car for the same price (adjusted for inflation) today than you could in 1972."

Let's see.

I bought a new Mercedes in 1972 for $8,500. My 2005 Mercedes cost me over $55,000.

And the quality of the 1972 Mercedes was superior. All metal, lots of chrome, no plastic.

And the 1972 model had A/C and seat belts.

It remains good news that Clavos' pay check is now greater than it was in 1972 and he is happy with inflation.

I would prefer to pay $8.500 for a Mercedes and purchase a new 4-bedroom home for under $50,000.

"Plagiarize! Let no-one else's work evade your eyes!"

I would prefer to pay $8.500 for a Mercedes and purchase a new 4-bedroom home for under $50,000.

With your 2008 salary, no doubt...

"With your 2008 salary, no doubt..."

au contraire.

With my 1972 salary.

You say your '72 Merc was a better car (apparently because it was shinier), but I wonder how it would stack up in a quality control test against your new one.

Dave,

Re Para 1 of your comment # 115 -- ??

Dan

"And the quality of the 1972 Mercedes was superior"

Always thought the Benz was a crappy car, thanks for proving it.

They've even gone against all the rest of the industry and now produce a lesser car than they did in '72.

"All metal, lots of chrome, no plastic."

CHROME adds to the quality??

Many plastics (carbon fiber epoxy, e.g.) are FAR superior to metal; they're lighter AND stronger. That's why Airbus commercial aircraft are superior to Boeing's - they're more fuel efficient and can carry greater payloads.

And yes, I'm happy with an inflation that inflates my income at more than three times the rate of the economy, along with the concomitant increase in my purchasing power, you bet I am.

Clavos:

When I buy an Airbus commercial aircraft I'll probably agree with you, but I haven't been in the market recently.

My 1972 Mercedes was rear-ended at a red light by a Chevrolet station wagon. My rear chrome bumper didn't even have a scratch whereas the Chevy front end was a total wreck and had to be towed.

I can't imagine that being the case if my plastic 2005 model was rear-ended.

Clavos:

"And yes, I'm happy with... inflation."

That's comforting news.

We should let Bernanke in on that.

Ben will sleep better at night and he can drop the discount rate some more.

Clavos:

"Always thought the Benz was a crappy car."

That's known as 'Benz envy'.

Dan, I meant Tom, of course.

Conrad, I can selectively edit your writing too:

"The pharmaceutical industry ...was ...writing to ...consumers and taxpayers... in the middle of the ... day."

Good lord. What on earth did you mean by that?

Dave

Dave:

"The pharmaceutical industry ...was ...writing to ...consumers and taxpayers... in the middle of the ... day....

Your statement is another example of what I said earlier... "You left out clear thinking."

As I read that you wrote: "Your statement is...clear thinking."

Thanks

Dave

Dave:

"I think I can live with the legacy of opposing irrationality, bigotry, theocracy and hate."

You left out clear thinking.

Clarified for your benefit:

"I think I can live with the legacy of opposing irrationality, bigotry, theocracy and hate and... clear thinking."

I hope your opposing clear thinking clears up some day.

"That's known as 'Benz envy'."

Is that what it is?

And I would be envious because...?

Isn't opposing irrationality about the same thing as clear thinking?

Conrad? No answer? You know about your hero? What do you have to say?

Back on point...

"He [Ron Paul] lost."

Wrong.

America lost.

""He [Ron Paul] lost."

Wrong.

America lost."

Aawww. Poor America.

Guess we'll just have to struggle along without Sa