Premier Rock Forum

Rick Reuben wrote:Than we have big_dave, the trollish idiot. Whatever Ricky Bobby says, Dave has to say the opposite.

Hilarious considering a lot of the opinions you've posted seem to whipped up on the spot just to disagree with me.

I make a few posts, or agree with someone, and suddenly, for the first time in his life Rick Reuben finds himself with an opinion about Structuralism, Hayek, British Currency, the accuracy of line graphs or how exactly banks make a profit on credit. Where did he get this opinion? We don't know. All we know is that suddenly he has it, and it is going to appear on the internet peppered with trios of ! and ?, insults and big bold type.

This is especially obvious when you what you are talking about has nothing to do with the thread, you start arguing with me about a trivial comment I've made in one of my posts.

Check out this thread for a thousand examples. You get your ideas from people like me, i.e. you put all your energy into contradicting people you imagine you have a grudge against you.

Disagree first, evidence later. Which explains your utterly bizzare opinions on a lot of shit you discovered this year, and relatively sane and understandable opinions on shit you discovred in 2004.

Stand by wikipedia and rense.com, Bob. Who knows what historical event or idea I might mention next. You'll have to be quick on the draw, pardner, to google it and form a controversial opinion in all of ten minutes, to disagree with Big Troll.

Draw!

Funny, I don't see any facts in this post.

How many times do I have to tell you that predicting future isn't a fact? That insulting a forum member isn't a fact? That post was full of school yard insults and another set of charts that go up to 2035 from this decade and no earlier. Fucking right there was no facts in it.

I don't have a grudge against you, but seeing you turn from Alex Jones to Rush Limbaugh in this thread was hilarious. Or should I say, liberals are so stupid! They enjoy laughing at fools who believe any old bollocks! They don't believe the moon landing was faked, can you believe it? Fucking liberals!

Rick Reuben wrote:I speak my mind.

We noticed.

Rick Reuben wrote:Thomas Jefferson would laugh at you.

Worse than that, I laugh at you..

I was OK living with the fact that Thomas Jefferson wouldn't approve of me, but now YOU don't?

What will I do? Oh, unhappy day.

Dude, you are cracking me up with this "grudge" stuff. Still convinced Steve is just waiting for the opportunity to ban you as well?
Not only are you unstable, it seems, but your ego is so out of control that you're convinced that people actually think about you more than they think of, say, whether or not they've flossed that day.

You seem to be in full insane/frustrated mode, which only happens when you are getting your ass handed to you and people are making you look like a hypocrite.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: reel in the insults and settle down and I think you'll be surprised at how great this forum becomes again, across the board - all of them, not just this thread. I suppose you think you're doing everyone a service by exposing how stupid they are, but actually you're just making a great place a lot less great.
Congratulations on your achievement.

-A

(double post)

I had never thought about it before, but it turns out I would be quite upset if Thomas Jefferson did not like me.

I find this thread depressing. I like Paul's war talk, and I support government reduction, but I deeply distrust anyone who can talk about liberty, and then oppose a woman's right to autonomy. He is off my plate. I don't really see anyone appealing in this race in any party yet. I suspect the next president is a one termer no matter what. I hope they are reasonable and sane.

(p)Rick-

Social Security has nothing to do with National Health. I've said my piece on SS - I think it's less important than getting National Health in place immediately.
That's what I spend many hours a week working on, even though you say I'm only "supposedly" for it.
Which prompts me to ask again: what did *you* do last month to further your causes? What *time* did you donate? How hard did you work? Posting on the PRF probably doesn't count. Are you stepping up or just talking about it and donating 50 bucks?

Medicare is related to NHS, but it will be overhauled when/if we get an NHS. I'm happy to weigh in on that if you'd like, but mainly I feel like it's just one component in what should be an overhaul of the system. Medicare would not need to exist anymore if we had NHS. Frankly, I think it's unfixable, and it's one of many reasons I feel like the current system needs to be canned entirely.

Dave and others have stated that the US would benefit from an NHS, so I feel I don't need to correct anyone there. The social security debate is between you two, beyond what I've already said.

As for straying from the topic, I'm not sure how discussing secondary and tertiary issues that effect why people do and don't like Paul are off limits. You certainly do that, so others will as well. You didn't even start the thread, so any weak, implied authority regarding that isn't even yours.

Last of all, Johnny 13's points about Paul are right in line with mine, and what I've already said. Anyone who talks about "liberty and freedom" had better walk the walk as well, which makes me feel like he's no better than the rest of them. Yes, you can say that about any politician, but as you demand, this is about Paul, and like Johnny, I think the guy has some consistency issues.

-A

(p)Rick Reuben wrote:"Maiolo says..."
"Maiolo..."
"Alex Maiolo encourages"
"Maiolo thinks..."

(p)Rick Reuben, in the very same post wrote:Everything you do say in this thread is about me.

That's not an indication of a grudge at all.

The defense rests.


-A

I'd post one of those little eye rolling emoticons right here, but honestly I think they are a bit gae.

Rick Reuben wrote:Idiot troll. Those charts are based on real world budgets and real world actuarial science, otherwise known as facts, you moron. Brain dead fake socialist banker-loving asshole.

Look, as much as I'm loathe to introduce new nit-pick material for you or to possibly introduce you to new words for you to define yourself against, I'm going to explain something to you.

No matter how accurate or "scientific" a prediction is, it is only an estimate until we have the information. The growth and expansion of statistical quantities over a period of time has to be modeled and projected so that this estimation can be made.

I'll break it down for you.

The raw data is the facts. Barrels of oil, cash flow, population that has already happened and been measured, and if it is to be a scientific fact it has to be something that someone else can go measure too, but let's avoid that for now.

On a chart like you have shown there, even the raw data is questionable because unlike "serious science" you haven't shown how the numbers were crunched to plot the graph and how the predicted numbers were obtained. Even if you can convert this to dollars you have the problem of how to present the dollar sum. Per head, percentage of GNP, average over a fixed period, peak value, etc. Each value is different, each loses something that another representation will have.

Modelling long term behaviour of insanely complicated real world economics and demographics is highly subjective and real world scientists and real world smart alecs are ripping each other's throats out over how contentious and precarious an area it is. It is to mathematics and engineering what nuclear physics is to science : the most debatable, the easiest to screw up, the most politically biased area.

Any system used to represent the data is will have a high degree of error because you are reducing more than one statistic to a single value. Something is bound to be ironed out during the process.

Any system used to model the behaviour of that data must be at least somewhat flawed or subjective.

Any system used to project that model over time is going to based on the biases of the man doing the projection. If this is true of say, the change in power consumption at a rock gig, it is even more true of demographics/economics.

Any representation of a complex serious of numbers that is only showing one projection or model is not likely to be a good source because we can assume that there are other parts in the equations that we aren't seeing.

Projecting that model for a period of time approximately five times longer than the period of time that you have raw data for, is untrustworthy by default. Anything that claims that is not just poor application of the facts, but outright lunacy. Maybe the guy with the chart is a government/executive type guy who has data going back 50 years that he's refused to show on the graph. Which maybe be so, but until we see that we can doubt the accuracy of the chart.

What did I say a hundred pages ago? I said these are journalistic aids, and not facts.

I'll tell you one thing, if a prediction was the same as a fact I'd be in Wall Street tomorrow with my cock in one hand and roll of shares in the other.

68 pages on Ron Paul = why I haven't posted much of late.

Nothing to see here . . . move along.