[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf,
Note: Calculus isn’t math.
It’s an absurdity.
JeffR
P.S. I still have nightmares about that crap. Sorry, for the rant.
[/quote]
Differential calculus is simply about finding the slope of a function (not just a line). Easy. Integral calc is: given the slope, find the original function. Easy, but not as easy as the first.
Beginner Ca;c, the calc of elementary functions, is absurdly easy — easier than trig, stats, just about anything.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is interesting: You originally didn’t put me in the ‘rationale’ group, yet your response assumes that I am rational enough to understand it. Guess I’m on the border somwhere, huh? ;D
If the American people weren’t gung-ho for a nanny-state, they sure didn’t try very hard to avoid one.
I’m a lot (a LOT) older than you and I think the American people would sell their birthright for a set of ‘free’ dentures.
Did you know that 35% of the fed budget is spent on old people? That we spend about $27,000 for each old person in America? You got sold into serfdom becuase some old lady wants you to pay for her little motorized scooter. You’re fucked, dude, and you don’t even know it.
[/quote]
It was a mocking blow at your trolling. 
But yeah, I know the baby boomer’s are gonna screw me out of most of my money. I’ve known forever (my dad won’t shut the fuck up about it). That’s why Obama interests me so much. He’s getting young people interested in politics (something I’ve been trying to do for years, with very little success).
To sum it up in the words of Moe Sizlack -
“Call this an unfair generalization if you must, but old people are no good at everything.”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
JeffR wrote:
beowolf,
Note: Calculus isn’t math.
It’s an absurdity.
JeffR
P.S. I still have nightmares about that crap. Sorry, for the rant.
Differential calculus is simply about finding the slope of a function (not just a line). Easy. Integral calc is: given the slope, find the original function. Easy, but not as easy as the first.
Beginner Ca;c, the calc of elementary functions, is absurdly easy — easier than trig, stats, just about anything.
[/quote]
Calc is easy. Too easy. I only get points off for being lazy and not checking my work (after making a stupid mistake, like adding when I should have multiplied -_-;). I’m ridiculously bored in that class. My teacher spent a week doing the separation of variables… ug. I learned it the first time, I didn’t need to hear it another fifty times thank you! AT least I won’t have to do it again in college…
What math do you teach HH?
(Holy shit, we just high jacked a RP thread! Oh, the irony!)
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.[/quote]
Libertarianism is a curious blend of anarchy and run away capitalism. I never cared much for it. The “eliminate government” cure all answer to everything is weak.
But the Ron Paul thing is interesting. He has challenged the administration in a way that Kerry failed to do in 2004 and many of the democrats are failing to do today. He has said many things I have desperately wanted to hear coming from the mouth of a politician. I agree with him on civil liberties and the constitution and the Iraq War. But other than that? I can’t say I like much of his libertarianism stuff which can be summed up as: “If the government is doing it, it’s oppressive and evil and I oppose it.”
OK, so government is bad, but corporations get a pass from this guy. He seems to care nothing about enforcing laws on corporate crime. Why is he against the Iraq war? Listen to his rhetoric. He doesn’t talk about the mass suffering of the Iraqi people. He talks about our 9 trillion dollar debt, the violation of the constitution, the hypocrisies of the Bush administration, and the violation of their stated campaign slogans of not policing the world. To him, the problem with the Iraq war is that it’s a government operation. What would Ron Paul say if Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and Bechtel were fighting the war?
He blabbers about the Welfare State, despite the fact that no person can be on any federal welfare program for more than a total of 5 years of their life. He would rather elderly couples live homeless than receive government handouts. In reality, only a very small percentage of people in the US use welfare. It pays very poorly, it’s hard to come by, and it’s not the luxury lifestyle of plasma TVs and BMW cars that the media makes it out to be.
And some of the stuff he says is just goofy – like Lincoln should never have gone to war to end slavery. Bull. He went to war because the south seceded before he was even elected and wanted to save the country.
I have answered your question. I have a few for you: How old are you, and do you describe yourself as a libertarian? Have you supported libertarian candidates in the past? What candidates have you voted for in previous elections, generally speaking?
[quote]Gael wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Libertarianism is a curious blend of anarchy and run away capitalism. I never cared much for it. The “eliminate government” cure all answer to everything is weak.
[/quote]
Ron Paul suggests eliminating federal government interference in our lives. This will cut costs and allow state and local governments the chance to better represent the needs and desires of their constituencies. I think this is a great idea, and I’d like America to try it. Apparently, America doesn’t want to try it. I don’t understand why, so I started this thread.
I think a more accurate summary of his ideas would sound like “The federal governments job is protect the physical safety of the citizenry by maintaining a military, and to increase their wealth by encouraging free trade.”
You stated a bunch of reasons that Ron Paul doesn’t approve of the Iraq war… and then summed them up by saying “it’s a government operation.” Which had nothing to do with any of the other reasons you stated. Please. On the Lockheed Martin/Halliburton/Bechtel scenario… you would have to ask Ron Paul.
Ron Paul thinks that private charity should replace government welfare, because it is not the responsibility of the federal government to pay people for not working.
I am 19 years old. For obvious reasons, I haven’t supported any other candidates, and I describe myself as a fiscal conservative in favor of a strict construction of the constitution.
For everyone who is inclined to call Ron Paul a nutjob, I implore you- can you please explain how the American people will be injured if they are allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor instead of having their incomes forcibly removed by that federal extortion racket called the IRS? Can you please explain why exactly it would be nutty to stop printing money out of thin air and spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don’t have? And can you please explain why the federal government shouldn’t have to obey the law just like everyone else? Thanks
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
He’s a nut job who thinks eliminating the federal government will make all of our problems vanish.[/quote]
No, he just thinks individuals are better equipped to solve their own problems than the federal government is. People with double digit IQs seem to struggle with this one.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
He claims there is only one way to interpret the Constitution: His.
He claims to understand history while claiming the Founding Fathers were non-interventionalists.
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.” - George Washington’s Farewell Address
[/quote]
God I really wish people would stop dragging that out. I’m voting for Paul still simply because a vote for McCain is a vote for a liberal. If all the girls you know have VD, would you fuck the prettiest one? I’d rather jerk myself off.
But stop using Washington’s farewell address unless you feel the deception is worthwhile. Washington’s farewell address was written primarily by Alexander Hamilton. He said this as a backhanded slap to Thomas Jefferson, who was pushing for American support to the French revolution. There was plenty of support for it though it would be borderline suicidal for us to re-engage the Brits so quickly.
Now, before you then claim that Hamilton was non-interventionalist, keep in mind that after Citizen Genet called out Washington and after the XYZ affair happened under John Adams, our love with the French came to so abrupt an end that Hamilton and half the country was pushing for war with the French and support to the Brits.
The bottom line is that our founders were not non-interventionalists. It’s okay to admit it.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
He claims there is only one way to interpret the Constitution: His.
He claims to understand history while claiming the Founding Fathers were non-interventionalists.
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.” - George Washington’s Farewell Address
God I really wish people would stop dragging that out. I’m voting for Paul still simply because a vote for McCain is a vote for a liberal. If all the girls you know have VD, would you fuck the prettiest one? I’d rather jerk myself off.
But stop using Washington’s farewell address unless you feel the deception is worthwhile. Washington’s farewell address was written primarily by Alexander Hamilton. He said this as a backhanded slap to Thomas Jefferson, who was pushing for American support to the French revolution. There was plenty of support for it though it would be borderline suicidal for us to re-engage the Brits so quickly.
Now, before you then claim that Hamilton was non-interventionalist, keep in mind that after Citizen Genet called out Washington and after the XYZ affair happened under John Adams, our love with the French came to so abrupt an end that Hamilton and half the country was pushing for war with the French and support to the Brits.
The bottom line is that our founders were not non-interventionalists. It’s okay to admit it.
mike[/quote]
That is pretty interesting, I had no idea.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
JeffR wrote:
beowolf,
Note: Calculus isn’t math.
It’s an absurdity.
JeffR
P.S. I still have nightmares about that crap. Sorry, for the rant.
Differential calculus is simply about finding the slope of a function (not just a line). Easy. Integral calc is: given the slope, find the original function. Easy, but not as easy as the first.
Beginner Ca;c, the calc of elementary functions, is absurdly easy — easier than trig, stats, just about anything.
Calc is easy. Too easy. I only get points off for being lazy and not checking my work (after making a stupid mistake, like adding when I should have multiplied -_-;). I’m ridiculously bored in that class. My teacher spent a week doing the separation of variables… ug. I learned it the first time, I didn’t need to hear it another fifty times thank you! AT least I won’t have to do it again in college…
What math do you teach HH?
(Holy shit, we just high jacked a RP thread! Oh, the irony!)
[/quote]
I teach Advanced Precalc. The university where my wife works offers Calc I,II on the campus and I teach that as well. Even better, they let me design the whole thing, so I intro the 3 proof techniques in Precalc (along with all the other stuff) and then we use those to do the Calc proofs; fits together really well.
In between all of that, I come on here and piss people off. Its a ‘Math Thing’.
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
He claims there is only one way to interpret the Constitution: His.
He claims to understand history while claiming the Founding Fathers were non-interventionalists.
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.” - George Washington’s Farewell Address
Our current foreign policy is NOT SUSTAINABLE. But you know that. Why should the world be our protectorate?
He makes absurd claims about what Lincoln should have done.
The Gold Standard.
Alienating his party.
Eh.
Fortress America.
He’s not an isolationist. Trade with all, alliance with none. Refusing to intervene in other country’s internal affairs in a military capacity would make us just like every other country in the world.
His pedantic psycho-babble.
He takes money from gullible children. He’s going to retire on their parents’ money.
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about here. If you’re talking about the congressional pension program, he is not enrolled.
Hope I’ve helped.
JeffR
[/quote]
weasel,
I answered your question. I extended that courtesy to a new poster. However, that’s where my beneficence ends.
If you want unanswerable rebuttals to your response, please log in, search JeffR and read my MANY rebukes of the moRons.
JeffR
HH and beowolf,
I’m sorry I chimed in!!! That talk gives me nightmares.
I took a year of calculus in college, and I still get shivers thinking about it.
The fact that it was a morning class didn’t help anything.
JeffR
[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
That is pretty interesting, I had no idea.[/quote]
If Ron Paul supporters were honest, the above statement would be inserted into nearly every post.
I am currently reading “The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic” by Frank Bourgin.
I think there are a lot of facts about the Founders the Ron Paul brigade would find interesting (in a bad way), but have no idea about.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
I am currently reading “The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic” by Frank Bourgin.
I think there are a lot of facts about the Founders the Ron Paul brigade would find interesting (in a bad way), but have no idea about.[/quote]
I’d be interested to hear a few factoids the book highlights, if you come across any.
Is there a coloring book version available for Ron Paul supporters?
The “get government off the backs of the people” shtick is shallow and rhetorical and somewhat vague, but it manages to convince a number of people. It derives its appeal because you can take any atrocity, bungle, or other bad thing and no matter what it is, you can say “See? Government caused that.” It’s not a “great idea” and it’s not a new one either. It has been used over the decades to shoot down a number of reforms and initiatives, often in a disingenuous way.
For a strict constructionist, you may wish to reexamine this. You made several other claims about the role of the federal government in your post that have no constitutional basis. Do you really think the federal governments only two roles are building a military and “encouraging” free trade?
Most welfare recipients are employed. Did you know that? The “welfare state” line is weak and old and tired. There was an interesting survey produced a while back. It asked people what percentage of Americans recieved AFDC benefits – the frontrunning welfare program at the time. Answers ranged as high as 60%, averaging around 25%. The second question was what would a more reasonable percentage be. The average answer given was around 13%. The irony – AFDC benefits never went any higher than 5%. People oppose welfare because they are disgustingly uninformed. When I hear people run their mouths about welfare, I ask them to name a few welfare programs. They can’t. They would rather regurgitate right wing talk radio talking points than do any real research and learn something. You’re 19. What are you going to do?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jack_Dempsey wrote:
I am currently reading “The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic” by Frank Bourgin.
I think there are a lot of facts about the Founders the Ron Paul brigade would find interesting (in a bad way), but have no idea about.
I’d be interested to hear a few factoids the book highlights, if you come across any.
Is there a coloring book version available for Ron Paul supporters?
[/quote]
Will do. Give me a day or two.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
That’s why Obama interests me so much. He’s getting young people interested in politics (something I’ve been trying to do for years, with very little success).
[/quote]
Bill Clinton got young people involved in politics too…I’m just sayin’.
Those young people are now grown up voters vying for the nanny/police state. The very same reason why you are going to be screwed out of your money and have to take care of old people like HH (though I am pretty sure Mrs. HH already has that covered).
But I guess having a man that sounds like a motivational speaker/professional wrestler is better than having one that bumbles like an idiot. You young people had a chance to fix the system but instead you are choosing an eloquent, pretty package with nothing in it – which just goes to show people don’t like to think and only want what appears good.
Situation normal, all fucked up.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
He’s a nut job who thinks eliminating the federal government will make all of our problems vanish.
No, he just thinks individuals are better equipped to solve their own problems than the federal government is. People with double digit IQs seem to struggle with this one.[/quote]
Really though, it’s not our fault considering the amount of money the government spends to spew its propaganda. People have grown accustomed to being cared for and now the idea of them not having it scares them.
What they need to understand is that government can only delude one into thinking he or she is better off in their care. The government cannot do anything that individuals can do on their own. The truth is right there in peoples faces yet it is so hard to see the miracles of freedom.
You gotta admit that it is funny that all of the objections are ideological in nature. If you started a thread about each one of the remaining candidates, the objections would be based on voting records, previous actions, poor judgement in office more so.
Either way Weasel, the bottom line is that people are going to make you feel young and undereducated and therefore your understanding of the way politics works is naive and that is why you support someone that matches ideals you think are important. Basically you have to let them feel smug about how “right” they are as they continually elect the status quo and the same people in different clothing. Do what you feel is right and if the current trend continues, you probably won’t want to be here in America much longer anyways.