• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Vice-Presidential Debate |OT| The Big F$@*ing Deal vs. The Randian from Dairyland

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Veezy

que?
Duffyside said:
"He's not smart because he doesn't agree with me on everything, because I'm the smartest of the smart, yay me." Very smart.
Click to expand...

I can be incredibly well spoken and eloquent on the facts and data supporting the idea that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make me intelligent if I believe it.
 
D

Duffyside

Banned
Veezy said:
I can be incredibly well spoken and eloquent on the facts and data supporting the idea that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make me intelligent if I believe it.
Click to expand...

Obama's a Christian. He believes a man rose from the dead. He must be a total fucking idiot then, yes?
 
I

ido

Member
Duffyside said:
Obama's a Christian. He believes a man rose from the dead. He must be a total fucking idiot then, yes?
Click to expand...

On a particular topic, yes, Obama could very well be "a total fucking idiot" ... Kind of like how Paul Ryan can be a "total fucking idiot" when it comes to the economy.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Cmon, guys, I worked hard on this OT*. Can we try to avoid getting it locked in the next five hours?


* Mostly Fiction.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
devilhawk said:
Denying the infallibility of Keynes is akin to believing in Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. Always learning things on GAF.
Click to expand...

Has anyone said that Keyne's is infallable? As far as I can tell people are just saying that Ryan's plan, as he's presented it, is objectivly wrong. If we are able to make predictions at all about the repercussions of decisions, his plan won't do what it claims to do.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
devilhawk said:
Denying the infallibility of Keynes is akin to believing in Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. Always learning things on GAF.
Click to expand...

Totally bro. Fuck the GAF hivemind, yo! I'll fucking kick all y'alls pussy asses if ya step to me.

time_paulryan_20111205_04021.jpg
 
I

ido

Member
pigeon said:
Cmon, guys, I worked hard on this OT*. Can we try to avoid getting it locked in the next five hours?


* Mostly Fiction.
Click to expand...

lol. To be on topic, I honestly hope tonight's debate is different than the previous one, and I cannot imagine it not being different. Biden has a completely different personality than Obama, and I predict him raising his voice, being emotional, and "winning" this thing. I do not think Paul Ryan has a very good presence, and his speaking voice is not something I would want to hear for very long.

But fuckles, anything can happen with these debates.

Imagine a 2v2 debate between Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden. Wowzers.
 
N

nib95

Banned
pigeon said:
Your statement is "when it comes to economics, historical data and figures are completely unreliable and there is no statement with more probative value than an opinion."

This is literally an abdication of rationality. Unless you come from Austria, even in economics there's such a thing as hypothesis, observation, and analysis, and just saying "well, this situation is different in some way so the evidence doesn't count" isn't reasonable thought. There is plenty of reliable history to say that some approaches work better and some approaches don't work at all.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean throw out all data altogether, quite the contrary. All I said is that past data is not the be all end all, i.e everything we need to base future economic ideologies on, and that there is much more disagreement or differing of opinions on facts and figures than than there is in science, where generally scientists would all come together to agree on and prove something as scientifically fact, at least till a new theory could be proven to correct it. I would never argue it wasn't important though, hell its what I develop my own economic viewpoints on among other things.
 
F

Forever

Banned
You can be a Christian without being a Theocrat, and as long as he's not the latter Obama could practice Wicca for all I care.
 
I

ido

Member
nib95 said:
where generally scientists would all come together to agree on and prove something as scientifically fact, at least till a new theory could be proven to correct it.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Scientists seek to disprove an idea or theory.
 
N

nib95

Banned
ido said:
Not really.

Scientists seek to disprove an idea or theory.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but only after it has been conceded as the defacto theory. Generally one that doesn't hold up is shot down pretty fast in the international community.

For example, the speed of light. Yes recently some new scientists challenged that theory believing neutrinos were faster, but this new theory was quite quickly shot down and proven false by the scientific community at large, because it could quite easily be tested, measured and quantified in exact science and math, not just ideology or prediction.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
Zabka said:
The idea was that cutting taxes will raise revenue because it would lead to increased investments by the "job creator" class. If you have to start cutting services to make up for the lost revenue then you're admitting that cutting taxes doesn't spur investment.

We've been cutting taxes for years and the only thing it's done is cause more debt.
Click to expand...

Sure, but "cutting taxes" is as broad as "cutting spending". It depends where it is, right? There are a bunch of businesses with large offices in London due to it's infrastructure, location, talent pool etc yet whom are headquartered in Luxembourg, Monaco or Dublin, due to their lower corporation tax levels. Whilst London may get the greater share of employment, it's the exchequers of those countries that benefit from having lower Corp tax, not the UK. Which is to say, it's as impossible to say that cutting taxes can't increase revenue as it is to say that it unequivocally does. That's precisely why the debate needs to occur. All I'm saying is the fact that you can disagree with him doesn't mean he's an idiot.
 
C

CyclopsRock

Member
ido said:
I think the plan in question of being wrong was Paul Ryan's, which has been shown to be mathematically suspicious, and would only increase poverty and the gap between the lower to middle class and the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Without being put into action, all it can ever be is someone's hypothesis about what would occur. And that's all fandabbydosie and they may well be right. That doesn't mean the guy's an idiot, it just means his hypothesis is different. Let's not pretend like there are 'good' economists who always get it right and 'bad' ones who don't. The fact we're still having this discussion (as in, you and I) is evidence of that.
 
I

ido

Member
nib95 said:
Agreed, but only after it has been conceded as the defacto theory. Generally one that doesn't hold up is shot down pretty fast in the international community.

For example, the speed of light. Yes recently some new scientists challenged that theory believing neutrinos were faster, but this new theory was quite quickly shot down and proven false by the scientific community at large, because it could quite easily be tested, measured and quantified in exact science and math, not just ideology or prediction.
Click to expand...

I won't veer off-topic very much here, but I will say that I feel like this example emphasizes my point that scientists are constantly at work to disprove certain theories(and by consistently -not- being able to disprove them, validates them even more, i.e: evolution).

We're steering away from the point anyway. I -do- understand what you're getting at, though, and I don't entirely disagree. I do think, however, that certain economical ideas(Ryan's plan) can be dismissed based on all of the current evidence we have.
 
Z

Zabka

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Sure, but "cutting taxes" is as broad as "cutting spending". It depends where it is, right? There are a bunch of businesses with large offices in London due to it's infrastructure, location, talent pool etc yet whom are headquartered in Luxembourg, Monaco or Dublin, due to their lower corporation tax levels. Whilst London may get the greater share of employment, it's the exchequers of those countries that benefit from having lower Corp tax, not the UK. Which is to say, it's as impossible to say that cutting taxes can't increase revenue as it is to say that it unequivocally does. That's precisely why the debate needs to occur. All I'm saying is the fact that you can disagree with him doesn't mean he's an idiot.
Click to expand...

We can safely say that, in the case of the US, cutting personal income and capital gains taxes has lead to sharp declines in revenue and increases in the deficit since the introduction of supply-side economics. If you have an example where the opposite is true I'd love to hear it.
 
I

ido

Member
CyclopsRock said:
Without being put into action, all it can ever be is someone's hypothesis about what would occur. And that's all fandabbydosie and they may well be right. That doesn't mean the guy's an idiot, it just means his hypothesis is different. Let's not pretend like there are 'good' economists who always get it right and 'bad' ones who don't. The fact we're still having this discussion (as in, you and I) is evidence of that.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we agree that there should be a debate on the best way to run this economy. However, Paul Ryan's plan is easy to dismiss as a good plan if your end goal is strengthening our lower and middle class, imo. Mathematically his proposal doesn't add up, and until he and Romney stop being so nebulous and ever-changing about what their "plan" involves, I would think it is best to dismiss it in it's current vague state.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
CyclopsRock said:
Without being put into action, all it can ever be is someone's hypothesis about what would occur. And that's all fandabbydosie and they may well be right. That doesn't mean the guy's an idiot, it just means his hypothesis is different. Let's not pretend like there are 'good' economists who always get it right and 'bad' ones who don't. The fact we're still having this discussion (as in, you and I) is evidence of that.
Click to expand...

Ryan's not an idiot but he hasn't said or done anything to suggest he's particularly intelligent. He has no intellectual accomplishment to speak of and the things he says are not particularly insightful. He seems slightly above average.
 
UltimaKilo

UltimaKilo

Gold Member
Dude Abides said:
Ryan's not an idiot but he hasn't said or done anything to suggest he's particularly intelligent. He has no intellectual accomplishment to speak of and the things he says are not particularly insightful. He seems slightly above average.
Click to expand...

I've worked in government for a while now, and Ryan has always been well respected on the Hill for his remarkable intelligence. In fact, he's considered one of the more savvy people there. I've always liked him personally, not only because he's one of the few people who are the real deal, but his humility is really refreshing. Actually, I was really quite shocked when Romney picked him. He 's always been one of those Paul types, talking up numbers and stats that most others in congress don't understand, and therefore he sometimes has trouble getting others to fully comprehend what he is saying. Having sat through Committee meetings he serves on, I've found myself lost when he begins to get into the numbers.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
UltimaKilo said:
I've worked in government for a while now, and Ryan has always been well respected on the Hill for his remarkable intelligence. In fact, he's considered one of the more savvy people there. I've always liked him personally, not only because he's one of the few people who are the real deal, but his humility is really refreshing. Actually, I was really quite shocked when Romney picked him. He 's always been one of those Paul types, talking up numbers and stats that most others in congress don't understand, and therefore he sometimes has trouble getting others to fully comprehend what he is saying. Having sat through Committee meetings he serves on, I've found myself lost when he begins to get into the numbers.
Click to expand...

That seems to be what Paul Ryan counts on. He throws numbers out, acts like he's smart and trustworthy, and hopes people just nod their heads and agree. If anyone actually presses him on the nonsense he spews, you get the Brit Hume interview where he becomes frustrated and flustered that people don't blindly take his words as fact.

I don't think a TV debate will highlight that weakness, however. These 'debates' are just alternating talking points. You can't really press anyone on any specific point.
 
I

ido

Member
UltimaKilo said:
I've worked in government for a while now, and Ryan has always been well respected on the Hill for his remarkable intelligence. In fact, he's considered one of the more savvy people there. I've always liked him personally, not only because he's one of the few people who are the real deal, but his humility is really refreshing. Actually, I was really quite shocked when Romney picked him. He 's always been one of those Paul types, talking up numbers and stats that most others in congress don't understand, and therefore he sometimes has trouble getting others to fully comprehend what he is saying. Having sat through Committee meetings he serves on, I've found myself lost when he begins to get into the numbers.
Click to expand...

That is all we keep hearing, yet when it comes to the numbers for his and Romney's plan, we get nothing.
 
Keylime

Keylime

ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
I'm insanely more interested in seeing Biden talk at length again than watching Ryan try and weasel around answering any questions asking for specifics.

I miss that fucker.
 
R

ronito

Member
Honestly, I don't see the optimism.

If Biden manages to keep from losing in a way that is akin to "bursting into flames" he'll have exceeded my expectations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
  • Poll
Presidential Debate #1 |Hofstra University| PRESS X TO SEAN
248 249 250 251 252
13K
1M
rokkerkory replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
Presidential Debate #2 |Washington University| Grab me right in the Ken Bone
226 227 228 229 230
11K
1M
Calion replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
US Vice-Presidential Debates 2016 |OT| Your Big Awkward Family Reunion
78 79 80 81 82
4K
381K
LiquidSolid replied
  • Locked
The Democratic National Committee Chair Debate |OT| - Dem One: A Politics Story
2
79
8K
kirblar replied
  • Locked
Presidential Debate #3 |University of Nevada| America's Final Fantasy
169 170 171 172 173
9K
845K
SporeCrawler replied
Top Bottom