Did you miss where I also said this:

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.

Here is wikipedia's representation of a single account's APR:



Imagine compiling thousands of those. Imagine plotting that against thousands of different representations each with different accuracy and probability.

Now imagine that someone on the internet is pointing at a *.jpg shoelace and telling you that you don't have to it, because he has the facts already.

RR wrote:Big problem here: the President ( should it be an anti-war candidate ) has ultimate power to change military policy. There is no Commander-in -Chief of abortion in this country. It's a court issue. And using Paul's abortion stance as a make-or-break issue is laughably short-sighted. The President has no unilateral powers to change abortion laws, and the Supreme Court the pro-choice side fears is already in place, 5-4 with Kennedy. If Paul gets to replace Stevens and he gets a pro-lifer past what will be assuredly a Democratic congress ( unlikely ), big deal- going from 5-4 to 6-3 against pro-choice doesn't change the equation.

So throwing out an anti-war and anti-fed candidate over his abortion policy is just a lame cop out for liberals who want a comfortable corporate democrat to vote for instead of real change.

^The above makes sense.

Regardless, I'm interested in Obama (Who claims to NOT accept money from corporate interests). I've said here before that he could suffer the fate of Jimmy Carter x3...but with someone like Joe Biden as Secretary of State, I'm optimistic.

I want to see our civil liberties returned (as much as possible), dialogue in Congress, a legitimately progressive agenda, and a fundamental change in the way we deal with other nations. Obama claims to take no money from special interests...I do not see him being a Democrat who will essentially pass a Republican agenda (see Clinton I: NAFTA, balanced budget, welfare reform).

Paul is a right-winger. Albini put it best when he said,

steve wrote:You don't have to look very far in order to find despicable shit in the man's world view.

Obama can work with a Democratic Congress in order to pass a legitimately liberal agenda...though he has worked with plenty of Republicans in the past, I do not fear that he is another middle-of-the-road Bill Clinton. And he is not neo-Thatcher (Hillary Clinton)...granted, she would probably be better than any right-winger.

Would Paul up the minimum wage? No.
Would Paul pass universal health care? No.
Would Paul outlaw abortion (if he could)? Yes.

Would Hillary Clinton do the opposite of those above three things? Yes.


Would Hillary roll back executive power, and restore privacy? No.

Would Paul? Yes.


So there's that.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:Did you miss where I also said this:

I didn't say there was no margin of error.

Yes, you did, you said they were facts.

That would be smart- as in not.

Oh burnsauce.

Rick Reuben wrote:The projections start with facts, dummy.

But they aren't the facts. They are projected from the facts, in order to discuss a projection we need to see the facts and how exactly the projection was arrived at.

The idea that they can only be made from "the best" is funny. Will you say that when Israel predicts that by 2085 Muslims will have ground an extra appendage used exclusively to trespass?

Why do you troll so much? Is it fun? Do you mind telling me?

Do you like raping girls from the front or the back?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:Would Paul outlaw abortion (if he could)? Yes.

What is wrong with you, Minotaur? The fact that you have to include the words '( if he could )' means that you are babbling bullshit to find reasons to oppose Paul. Why don't you also post that Paul would lynch young black males and sterilize Latinos ( if he could )?

Try and confine your assessment of the candidates to issues that belong to the Executive branch.

It was included with some other typical right-wing Crap.

God, Satanic, Baby Murder.

What the heck, man?

Rick Reuben wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:It was included with some other typical right-wing Crap.

I understood that, but whatever influence Paul might have over the abortion issue is miniscule when compared to the danger of letting another globalist traitor into the White House in the form of Hillary Clinton. I can't believe people here are witnessing two of America's most notorious crime families trade the White House back and forth for potentially 28 years, and instead of being frozen in terror by that, they're focusing their attention on Ron Paul's refusal to support baby murder.

Actually, I can believe it. It's called media mind control.

28 years...or perhaps more. Yeah, I'm just as afraid as you of that. I argue with everyone about it. Hillary Democrats are the "left-wing" equivalent of Bush Republicans from 2000.

Dickheads.

Rick Reuben wrote:Try and confine your assessment of the candidates to issues that belong to the Executive branch.

Like war! Oh fuck, wait a minute...