Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 304 of 2898 FirstFirst ... 299300301302303304305306307308309 ... LastLast
Results 3,031 to 3,040 of 28971

Thread: POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

  1. -3031
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    10,141
    vCash:
    18902
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    An ideologue is an idealist you don't agree with, that's all. Actually, even "idealist" carries with it sort of a negative connotation of naivete. Idealists generally prefer the term "principled", and label the "pragmatic" as "sell outs".

    It's all a nice big pile of bull****.
    Interesting way to look at it. I consider myself an idealist, but I also keep in mind what's pragmatic. I guess my annoyance is with those who refuse to acknowledge the pragmatism of the various situations. Ron Paul is a good example of this. He refused to discuss how pragmatic his ideas were and just harped on his ideologies. It was hard to take a man serious who harped on ending the fed, but refused to acknowledge the difficulties and consequences of doing so...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  2. -3032
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    10,141
    vCash:
    18902
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    Do you believe there are ideologues on both sides of the political aisle in this forum?
    You're trying to argue a point I never made. I never specified what kind of ideologues. I named them in general. I find some of the ideologues in PETA to be just as destructive as the ideologues in Westboro.

    I don't get you man. You're obviously a smart dude. And you seem educated. You always seem to have a grasp on what you're talking about, even if I don't agree with it. But then you'll just pop in out of nowhere and make ridiculous claims like that birther bull**** you posted earlier today. At least with someone like Statler there is consistency on what's going on. You're all over the place...
    Quote Quote  

  3. -3033
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    15,259
    vCash:
    44949
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Interesting way to look at it. I consider myself an idealist, but I also keep in mind what's pragmatic. I guess my annoyance is with those who refuse to acknowledge the pragmatism of the various situations.
    Which comes from starting with principles and looking for facts rather than facts informing principles, imo. There's a reason why logic and facts never persuade religious people like Statler. His view of the world doesn't come from logic or deductive reasoning (despite his amusing bull****). It comes from his heart. Only an emotional appeal can even hope to make a dent because emotion is what got him where he is.

    Ron Paul is a good example of this. He refused to discuss how pragmatic his ideas were and just harped on his ideologies. It was hard to take a man serious who harped on ending the fed, but refused to acknowledge the difficulties and consequences of doing so...
    Don't get me started on Ron Paul.



    I was once a normal kid
    Till the Devil came down and flipped my lid
    He gave me a switchblade and he gave me a muse
    Then he vomited acid all over my shoes
    Quote Quote  

  4. -3034
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,222
    vCash:
    10842
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    I like almost everything Ferrell's done in varying degrees; especially all his impersonations of George Bush. In this movie he's basically playing a loose version of his impersonation of Bush, & I think there's a little Ricky Bobby in there as well. It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it wasn't bad either. Had some really funny parts, & other times it dragged a bit. Overall I'd say it's watchable; pop it in for 15 minutes & see how you like it before you commit to it.

    I also saw one of the newly added documentaries on Netflix called 'Hippie Masala'. Wouldn't really recommend it for anyone on this board though. They chronicled maybe 5 or 6 westerners who moved to India in the 60's & 70's in search of self-realization. Was definitely interesting but not something I think many of you would consider entertaining.
    Liked his older stuff on SNL. Celebrity Jeopardy with Norm McDonald and Darrell Hammond used to crack me the **** up. Liked Old School and absolutely loved Anchorman. Talladega Nights had some amusing moment i suppose but was pretty much done at that point. Everything he did became formulaic. Or perhaps its more accurate to say everything he did was formulaic and it just became more obvious.


    http://www.thedrawplay.com/comic/cam-newton-no-respect/

    Terrorist attack count against the Anything Goes Thread: 5
    Quote Quote  

  5. -3035
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    15,259
    vCash:
    44949
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Anal bum cover.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -3036
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh
    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,222
    vCash:
    10842
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    You're trying to argue a point I never made. I never specified what kind of ideologues. I named them in general. I find some of the ideologues in PETA to be just as destructive as the ideologues in Westboro.

    I don't get you man. You're obviously a smart dude. And you seem educated. You always seem to have a grasp on what you're talking about, even if I don't agree with it. But then you'll just pop in out of nowhere and make ridiculous claims like that birther bull**** you posted earlier today. At least with someone like Statler there is consistency on what's going on. You're all over the place...
    Found your problem.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -3037
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    You're trying to argue a point I never made.
    I'm not yet arguing anything nor have I accused you of making any points. I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of what you meant before I, in typcial Finheaven POFO fashion, go off half-cocked and start arguing points you never made while insulting your family heritage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    But then you'll just pop in out of nowhere and make ridiculous claims like that birther bull**** you posted earlier today.
    Isn't "birther bull****" an example of someone being uncompromising and dogmatic?

    Whether or not there ever should have been questions is legitimate. Regardless, there were questions and he finally put them to rest four years into his Presidency.

    We have a tendency to angrily dismiss concerns we don't think are valid rather than address them. "Birther bull****" is an example of that. Birther questions are generally easy to prove invalid yet the only response was that McCain's service isn't proof he was born in this country and this country was built on immigrants. It's as ridiculous as trying to prove McCain's eligibility by bringing up Obama's birth certificate.

    So, do you believe this forum has ideologues from both sides of the political aisle?
    ďIím somewhat disappointed that more African Americans donít think for themselves and just go with whatever theyíre supposed to say and think."


    - Dr. Benjamin Carson
    Quote Quote  

  8. -3038
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    15,259
    vCash:
    44949
    Loc:
    Room 101
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    Isn't "birther bull****" an example of someone being uncompromising and dogmatic?
    Making fun of people who dispute immutable facts isn't being uncompromising or dogmatic, no. The sky is blue. We landed on the moon. 9/11 was not an inside job. Obama was born in Hawaii.

    If people want to assert a bunch of crazy **** that's their right, but not all dissenting viewpoints are equally valid. After a certain point "maturity" and open mindedness demands not that you consider everyone's opinion respectfully, but that you call a spade a spade.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -3039
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    10,141
    vCash:
    18902
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    I'm not yet arguing anything nor have I accused you of making any points. I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of what you meant before I, in typcial Finheaven POFO fashion, go off half-cocked and start arguing points you never made while insulting your family heritage.


    Isn't "birther bull****" an example of someone being uncompromising and dogmatic?

    Whether or not there ever should have been questions is legitimate. Regardless, there were questions and he finally put them to rest four years into his Presidency.

    We have a tendency to angrily dismiss concerns we don't think are valid rather than address them. "Birther bull****" is an example of that. Birther questions are generally easy to prove invalid yet the only response was that McCain's service isn't proof he was born in this country and this country was built on immigrants. It's as ridiculous as trying to prove McCain's eligibility by bringing up Obama's birth certificate.

    So, do you believe this forum has ideologues from both sides of the political aisle?
    No, there were no questions as his legitimacy. He had to pass a background check performed via both the FBI and CIA before he could declare himself a candidate during the Democratic primaries. It was a race issue and it remains one to this day. He was a black man with a funny name, so of course he had to be foreign, right? This is what I'm talking about. Everyone knows only a natural born citizen can run for President, and of course the CIA would verify that before allowing them into the race. Yet you still questioned it? Seriously?

    And no, I don't think this forum has ideologues on both sides...
    Quote Quote  

  10. -3040
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel
    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    8,502
    vCash:
    36560
    Loc:
    Georgia
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    I think a guy with some principles who doesn't pander, compromise, or play the political game in order to get elected is actually refreshing. I don't like politicians who constantly do one thing & say another. Whether you agree or disagree with him, you know where Ron Paul stands, & that's more than I can say for most politicians. Dude also has a heart, & with politics being the cesspool for sociopaths that it is, I think that's a quality that's undervalued.




    Locke in case you were curious:

    Inflation and the Federal Reserve

    In the words of the New York Times, Paul is "not a fan" of the Federal Reserve.[52] In his own words, Ron Paul advocates that we should "End the Fed". Paul's opposition to the Fed is supported by the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which holds that instead of containing inflation, the Federal Reserve, in theory and in practice, is responsible for causing inflation.
    [53] In addition to eroding the value of individual savings, this creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Thus Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[54] He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"[55] of monetary inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.[56]

    Paul adheres to Austrian School economics and libertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat currency and the monetary inflation.[57] He views monetary inflation as an underhanded form of taxation, because it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to "print money out of thin air" without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money,[58] observing that "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in." In 1982, Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U.S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has voiced concern over the dominance of the current banking system and called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through a gradual reintroduction of hard currency, including both gold and silver.[59] A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity.

    He condemns the role of the Federal Reserve and the national debt in creating monetary inflation.[60][61] The minority report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "restore a definition for the term 'dollar'. We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."[62] On multiple occasions in congressional hearings he has sharply challenged two different chairmen of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

    He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[63] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[64] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold". He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent monetary inflation (and, thus, would inhibit price inflation), but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."[65]

    Paul supports legalization of parallel currencies, such as gold-backed notes issued from private markets and digital gold currencies.[66] He would like gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[67] to compete on a level playing field with Federal Reserve Notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use sound money or to continue using fiat money.[68][69][70] Paul believes this would restrain monetary and price inflation, limit government spending, and eventually eliminate the ability of the Federal Reserve to "tax" Americans through monetary inflation (i.e., by reducing the purchasing power of the currency they are holding), which he sees as "the most insidious of all taxes".[71]

    He suggests that current efforts to sustain dollar hegemony, especially since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East", this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war in Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran.

    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6718
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 03:17 PM
  2. Replies: 1725
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 09:16 AM
  3. can we keep this thread alive in the PoFo?
    By Maynard the Hammer in forum Questions and Suggestions Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2006, 11:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •