Recent content by Zarn

I honestly cannot take anyone seriously, if they use Krugman as a valid source. I've heard his talking points way too much. He believes we can continue to spend at a increasing deficit with no problems attached. It is beyond looney.

That reminds me of when people were hoping Obama would beat Clinton, because he would be a push over in the general.

A 'bland' skin color? Anyway, there is a comparison. I find it hard that someone can argue against one but for another.

They see Perf trollin' They hatin' Mad lurkin' And tryin to catch him votin' dirty Tryin to catch him votin' dirty, Tryin to catch him votin' dirty Tryin to catch him votin' dirty, Tryin to catch him votin' dirty And yet you want them, too :goodjob:

Ouch. :sad:

He could quite possibly win the primaries. IA, NH, SC, and NV are all within his grasp. With a divided enough field, even MI would be possible. When it comes to the general, Hillary is coming down just a tad. I think her popularity (as well as Biden's) is going to be tied to Obama's terms. If...

As long as Overlord Krugman says otherwise, it does not matter. This is despite the fact that Krugman gets his butt kicked everytime he and Paul square off. I'm sure there are videos out there.

When we got off the gold standard, the Federal Reserve had pumped a lot of 'money' into the system. That has significantly hurt the economy, except for the corporations (including banks) that it benefitted.

Okay, but if the NSA is worse, that would only help our case. Or do you see it differently?

The GOP is the closest major party. Gay marriage is the Federal Dems' carrot and stick issue, like abortion is the Federal GOPers'. In fact, there is not much difference between them, outside the rhetoric. At least some of the GOP base is friendly towards libertarianism.

The banks were not going to collapse, anyway. The Federal Reserve set up this problem with fake currency being it's worst implementation.

It stemmed from the idea that people imply the EC is unjust, due to the fact that the majority could 'lose' an election. Actually it means 'public thing,' which refers to the rule of law, rather than a minority or majority of people. In practice, I don't know if it ever really came close to...

Yes, your definitions would not change the circumstances of the Electoral College.

Yeah, I'm not that kind of Republican. :p

Even if we go by your terms (which flies in the face of US historical definitions), that by no means that the majority voting should elect a president. There is nothing out there that suggests a simple majority is any more moral than the minority.