New Hampshire DebateFollow

Take it from someone who is from Massachusetts, Mitt deserves every criticism being directed at him. I'll be the nomination will go to Huckabee as the republicans are still steeped in the politics of the Christian right to abandon it. Plus, he's likeable. I generally am very anti-republican and I like him (on a purely personal level, not as a politician)--though I would never want him as a leader. But I'll guess people will be more conventional in their voting than go for Guiliani or Romney. McCain's best days are behind him. Ron Paul is way too liberatarian.





Edited, Jan 5th 2008 11:53pm by Annabella

The US doesn't need a libertarian. Jesus, we need a moderate who can manage internationally and has some fiscal sense. Btw, the US hasn't been anything like the libertarian fantasy since before 1916 and the gilded era sucked for most people, except the mega-rich.

Edited, Jan 5th 2008 9:23pm by Annabella

Last I checked one of the founders of libertarianism was an economic adviser for Reagan. Did a fairly good job too.

Hi. You're a fucking idiot who knows nothing about politics or history. Post about something you actually have knowledge of. Like naked gold or whatever it is you idiots do to occupy yourselves.

I missed the debates and can't find a full version available online yet, just snippets here and there.

Obama is leading in the polls now in New Hampshire among Democrats by a slim (and probably not statistically relevant) average margin of 2%. Clinton went from a decent lead in Jan. 1-3rd polls to coming up second in three polls taken yesterday and tying Obama in a fourth. It also excludes the state's many independents who most often went with Obama in Iowa.

I was amused, from what I saw, with how Edwards was implicitly saying that Obama should be the second-choice for Edwards supporters should Edwards not make it. And how pissed off Clinton was looking about it.

Edited, Jan 6th 2008 11:14am by Jophiel

I think Hillary will go for Richardson, honestly. I've no idea with Obama.

Nexa

"It should be mentioned that in 1980 Ronald Reagan appointed Milton Friedman to the select Economic Policy Coordinating Committee, chaired by George Shultz, to develop a program for action once he was elected. Right after Reagan's election Friedman and Shultz reviewed their 'Economic Strategy for the Reagan Administration' with the new President, who approved and acted very much along the lines recommended. Thereafter Friedman was on the 'President's Economic Policy Advisory Board' (PEPAB), which often met in long sessions with the President to steer the economic program. In the following memoirs, Dr. Friedman said, "Reagan loved meeting with the PEPAB, and he was very knowledgeable about monetary policy and was prepared to take the political heat for strong actions."

STFU. Do your research before you flame.

Romney is trying to appeal to New Hampshire voters by saying that he could take on Obama better than McCain can.

Remember when the question was which Republican could stop Clinton?

Technically speaking, no, he wasn't, Von Hayek was. But Friedman was one of the leading contributers to the spread of monetarist economic policies, which are libertarian in nature. He was one of the loudest proponents of limited government interference in the market system. He influenced the country to move toward libertarian policies. He was the basis for it's spread throughout America and the world. But, you know, Friedman has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Carter implemented Friedman's policies? Letting Nixon's price and wage controls stick? Reagan, ejected that crap and allowed Volcker to run with the rock. He broke inflation and allowed for the economy to heal. Carter was intent on using the government to heal the suffering American economy rather then The Fed. This concept is diametrically opposed to that offered by people like Friedman. Good call.

Oh, and it's Reagan, you ******* child.

Heart me some Smash.

Friedman won the Nobel for his monetarist policies and for his dedication to the spread of his ideas throughout academia (which is, again, why I consider him to be one of the principle authors of libertarianism). Which were not implemented by ANYONE during the Carter administration. Not even the Fed. Like I said before, Carter tried to use Fiscal policy to achieve his ends.

"How can the government stimulate the economy by taking money out of one pocket of the public and putting it into another pocket?" Milton ************** Friedman about CARTERS FISCAL ATTEMPTS AT STIMULATION. He was opposed to the ideas and thought them to be ineffectual.

I don't know how else I can illustrate this to you.

You know what, whatever, you can keep telling yourself the same thing over and over while maintaining the hope that it comes true. Have fun with that you arrogant prick.

Say what you will about Friedman. I don't really give a ****. It's clear that God, Bob, or the Spaghetti Monster itself could descend from the sky, dummy slap you upside your ******* head, and you'd still argue with me by saying I'm a poopy head and that I'm stupid "just because." There's no point in arguing with you about the validity of his ideas. My original points were to: A.) show that libertarianism is still around and still played a roll in public policy making during the last couple of decades.

And, after your ********* response and wity come backs, B.) sought to prove that carter was not a ******* monetarist! Both have been accomplished successfully.

Thanks for the entertainment *****.

Say what you will about Friedman. I don't really give a @#%^.

I'd imagine you don't, having just discovered who he was.



It's clear that God, Bob, or the Spaghetti Monster itself could descend from the sky, dummy slap you upside your @#%^ing head, and you'd still argue with me by saying I'm a poopy head and that I'm stupid "just because."

No, I'd argue with you by pointing how painfully clear it is that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Sorry that this isn't a forum where you can bluff by third grade research skills as education, but it's not. You may have taken a wrong turn during your FFXI item search and ended up here by mistake, I couldn't say. What I can say is that neither your feeble attempts at seeming to have an opinion of your own, nor your ill guided attempt to characterize me as a mean bully who won't listen reason are going to wash here.

I'm sure there are thousands of other forums where you could post this fucking tripe and people would think "hey, this guy knows what he's talking about, his opinion is valid". This just isn't one of them. Perhaps consider finding one.



There's no point in arguing with you about the validity of his ideas.

No, there isn't, because you aren't capable for a couple of reasons.

1. You can't argue about something you know absolutely nothing about, and:

2. I'm smarter than you to the same degree that you're smarter than an orange.



My original points were to: A.) show that libertarianism is still around and still played a roll in public policy making during the last couple of decades.


What the fuck are you thinking? Your post is still sitting there. Why not make up a truly outlandish lie if you're going to bother? I'd have some respect for you if you at least posted "My original point is that smoking crack and blowing sailors for quarters causes Autism." Sadly, though, you chose to go the "You just didn't understand the words that I wrote because I'm so rock fucking stupid that I couldn't communicate my one sentence point without a paragraph of meaningless wrong bullshit" route. Why? You're not saving face. You're not impressing anyone. You're falling into exactly the same tired cardboard cutout caricature of a dull insecure idiot who passes off other people's opinions as his own that we all expected you would.

Way to live up to expectations, donkey fellator.


And, after your horsesh*t response and wity come backs, B.) sought to prove that carter was not a @#%^ing monetarist! Both have been accomplished successfully.


You proved that Carter wasn't a monetarist (whatever you may think that means because you clearly still have no idea) by posting a Friedman quote about Carter? What the hell is it that you do where that would qualify as a standard of proof? Wait, you're not a journalist, are you?



Thanks for the entertainment *****.

Sure thing, monkey licker. If you miss it and I'm not around, you can simulate the experience by holding your ******* firmly in your left hand and then with your right hand lifting a running lawnmower up and repeatedly dropping it on your balls.

In fairness, though, it'd probably be less painful.



Edited, Jan 6th 2008 11:46pm by Smasharoo

Edited, Jan 6th 2008 11:47pm by Smasharoo

ZOMG, it's witty.

You started it, you pedantic *****.