Peter Schiff board at Daily Show Forums

[No1ButPaul08]

http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board?board.id=14077

[RSLudlum]

Time to blow this forum up?? :D

[almantimes2]

Wow there's some STUPID people posting in this thread.

http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=economy&thread.id=1952&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

[Kludge]

Wow there's some STUPID people posting in this thread.

http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=economy&thread.id=1952&view=by_date_ascending&page=1 (http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=economy&thread.id=1952&view=by_date_ascending&page=1)

lmao....

ThatMoodyChic:
"I know it seems strange, but a basket of currencies can actually help the dollar as well as other currencies and their related economies by stablizing the value of currencies across the world. It's a change and hard to fathom, but we've been headed toward a single world currency for a long time.
Really wanna freak out?

Have you seen movies like Bladerunner and The Fifth Element, where a card or a thumb print or a scan of the retina links you to a global database containing all of your financial, medical, legal and anything anyone wants to know about you records? It still seems futuristic, but they've been building those databases for years. Credit and debit cards, rfd tags, biometrics, they all already exist. It's scary to the people who feel violated, but a single world currency and a retinal scan can make vacations so much easier!"


JennyPLA:
"Interesting point. I'm really freaked out about not keeping our independence, and the thought of a type of New World Order. Conspiracy theories aside, it is just an alarming thought of international banks having any more control over us. Convenient... perhaps! I don't know...I just keep researching and giving it more thought."


ThatMoodyChic:
"Can you imagine how you'd feel if you were a Southern Baptist, Independent Farmer/Rancher, KKK member"

[No1ButPaul08]

Wow there's some STUPID people posting in this thread.

http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=economy&thread.id=1952&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

The most ignorant posts are coming from the moderators, with their names highlighted in orange. One, really can't speak for himself, but likes to make points by posting articles from NY Times writing Nobel Prize winning Princeton University supereconomist Paul Krugman. The other, is a staunch defender of the Fed and fractional reserve banking.

First, the admiration of the great Krugman.


as for your summary, it is a view I have heard often expressed, though I am not sure how big a percentage of economists agree with it. It's never mentioned by finance people I admire like Paul Krugman, David Leonhardt, Floyd Norris of nytimes.com


I'd like to see Paul Krugman, who also has a great blog at nytimes.com - check him out, you might enjoy him because altho he's a nobel winning economist he talks about what we need to do for our best interests all the time.

Apparently Ron Paul did NOT predict the credit crisis. News to me.

[quote=jforgizmo]Ron Paul did NOT predict the credit crisis - Nouriel Roubini is pretty much the only person who saw that the intertwined mortgage crisis of bad loans, securitization, regulation shopping and dodging, risk mis-assessment, and securitization would cause exactly what happened. I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think that Ron Paul gets this.


And in a final showing of stupidity, the moderator lumps Krugman in with Hayek, and against Ron Paul.


Hayek was brilliant. He called himself a liberal and said that he found being called a libertarian singularly distasteful. He has also passed on. I recommended Krugman, also a Noble prizewinning economist as someone who is alive and can comment on politics, who understands economics (unlike Ron Paul).


Re: Why do I think Nobel Prizing winning economist Krugman is a better economist than Ron Paul? Since Ron Paul isn't an economist by any stretch of the imagination, it's hard to compare them. I recommended reading Krugman's blog as a way to get a live (as opposed to brilliant but dead Hayek) economist's thoughts on current problems so you are not listening only to a politician.

[0zzy]

PUKED, IN, My mouuuthhhh

*about idiots who think they know crap but really don't*

[american.swan]

Originally Posted by jforgizmo
Ron Paul did NOT predict the credit crisis - Nouriel Roubini is pretty much the only person who saw that the intertwined mortgage crisis of bad loans, securitization, regulation shopping and dodging, risk mis-assessment, and securitization would cause exactly what happened. I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think that Ron Paul gets this.

Just do a search on Google, you'll see quite a few people predicted it.

[torchbearer]

Originally Posted by jforgizmo
Ron Paul did NOT predict the credit crisis - Nouriel Roubini is pretty much the only person who saw that the intertwined mortgage crisis of bad loans, securitization, regulation shopping and dodging, risk mis-assessment, and securitization would cause exactly what happened. I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think that Ron Paul gets this.

Just do a search on Google, you'll see quite a few people predicted it.

like this? http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+predicts+housing+bubble+2003&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[He Who Pawns]

I signed up and posted in the Schiff thread.

[eduardo89]

I'm scared they're going to paint Schiff (or his supporters) as a domestic terrorist intent on bringing down the federal government and the impending zionist new world order...

[dannno]

I'm scared they're going to paint Schiff (or his supporters) as a domestic terrorist intent on bringing down the federal government and the impending zionist new world order...

You obviously haven't watched The Daily Show very much. Jon Stewart is a relatively anti-statist, anti-Zionist Jew.

[Dreamofunity]

PUKED, IN, My mouuuthhhh


This.

That moderator was sickening.

[eduardo89]

You obviously haven't watched The Daily Show very much. Jon Stewart is a relatively anti-statist, anti-Zionist Jew.

He's not anti-statist...

he does joke about his judaism, but at heart he's as much as a zionist as all other secular jews

[Annihilia]

I damn near had an aneurysm from reading that thread. EEEDIOTS!

[dannno]

He's not anti-statist...

In many instances he in fact is VERY anti-statist.




he does joke about his judaism, but at heart he's as much as a zionist as all other secular jews

Sorry, but you haven't watched the right clips yet.

There was one episode where he showed a bunch of Zionists talking about the missiles coming from Palestine and whatnot into Israel, and this ultramega Zionist gets on and gives the analogy, "What would you do if you were in your apartment and some crazy person in the hallway starts knocking on your door and yelling that he wants to kill you. Would you want law enforcement to send one officer, a proportional response, or would you want law enforcement to send all the resources at their disposal to handle the situation?"


Now get this, Jon Stewart responds:

"That depends.. am I forcing this crazy person to live in my hallway?? Do I make him go through checkpoints every time he has to take a sh*t?!?!"


So you see, you can't be so presumptuous.

[dannno]

he does joke about his judaism, but at heart he's as much as a zionist as all other secular jews

On top of what I said above, there was another episode where he showed clips of Obama, Clinton and McCain talking about Israel and the entire bit was to make the point that none of them are allowed to critisize Israel if they want to get elected.

This is a clip you can find on youtube, the above clip I watched several times on Hulu but I don't know that it ever made it to youtube.

So ya, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on this one.

[gls]

In many instances he in fact is VERY anti-statist.


:confused:

What instances?

[eduardo89]

On top of what I said above, there was another episode where he showed clips of Obama, Clinton and McCain talking about Israel and the entire bit was to make the point that none of them are allowed to critisize Israel if they want to get elected.

This is a clip you can find on youtube, the above clip I watched several times on Hulu but I don't know that it ever made it to youtube.

So ya, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on this one.

I meant more, yes he does joke about israel and the israeli lobby, but if it ever came time to defending israel against any real threat, like every jew, religious or not, he'd go to israel's defence in a heartbeat...and if any politician was critical of israel, he'd just use it to his benefit and do have some segment about how the guy's a nazi

[eduardo89]

:confused:

What instances?

Exactly, he supports universal healthcare, he supports gun-control, he supports more regulation of every industry...i fail to see how he's anti-statist

just because he makes fun of the certain people in the government and their idiotic mistakes/gaffes doesn't mean he's anti-government

[MRoCkEd]

I meant more, yes he does joke about israel and the israeli lobby, but if it ever came time to defending israel against any real threat, like every jew, religious or not, he'd go to israel's defence in a heartbeat...and if any politician was critical of israel, he'd just use it to his benefit and do have some segment about how the guy's a nazi
Did you read Dannno's posts? He criticized Israel's treatment of Gaza. "Every Jew" would defend Israel in a heartbeat? I don't think so.

We're not saying that he's a devout libertarian. He's a well-intentioned, though misguided, liberal who calls it how he sees it.

[dannno]

I meant more, yes he does joke about israel and the israeli lobby, but if it ever came time to defending israel against any real threat, like every jew, religious or not, he'd go to israel's defence in a heartbeat...and if any politician was critical of israel, he'd just use it to his benefit and do have some segment about how the guy's a nazi

Oh, ok, so you're just as racist as the Zionists.

Conversation over.

[dannno]

:confused:

What instances?

Cannabis decriminalization, for one. He is VERY pro civil liberties and anti-war. Those are anti-statist positions.

Ya, I know he's not a libertarian, he believes the government should step in and not allow corporations and banks to run amock, but hopefully Schiff will clearly explain to him WHY those corporations have been allowed to run amock via the Fed and maybe he will begin to see through some more of the BS. The real issue is that government involvement in our economy leads to an economy controlled by corporations, because they have the power and financial advantage to buy politicians. A government with limited power cannot be taken over by the corporations, because the government doesn't have the power to control the markets. I'll admit Jon is a bit stuck in the false left/right paradigm, especially when it comes to regulation and healthcare, but I do recognize that he has partially weaseled his way out of it.

[eduardo89]

Oh, ok, so you're just as racist as the Zionists.

Conversation over.

How am i racist? because said the vast majority of jews will defend israel simply out of principle? how is that racist?

[gls]

Cannabis decriminalization, for one. He is VERY pro civil liberties and anti-war. Those are anti-statist positions.

Ya, I know he's not a libertarian, he believes the government should step in and not allow corporations and banks to run amock, but hopefully Schiff will clearly explain to him WHY those corporations have been allowed to run amock via the Fed and maybe he will begin to see through some more of the BS.

Does he attack Obama for his pro-war and anti-civil liberties stances? They are the exact same policies pursued by the Bush administration.

I put Stewart in the same league as Hannity: a tool of the establishment there to perpetuate the false left-right paradigm.

[acptulsa]

Does he attack Obama for his pro-war and anti-civil liberties stances? They are the exact same policies pursued by the Bush administration.

I put Stewart in the same league as Hannity: a tool of the establishment there to perpetuate the false left-right paradigm.

I'd give every penny I have and all four eye teeth to hear Schiff say that to Stewart and hear his reaction to it.

[dannno]

How am i racist? because said the vast majority of jews will defend israel simply out of principle? how is that racist?


like every jew, religious or not, he'd go to israel's defence in a heartbeat


:rolleyes:

[dannno]

Does he attack Obama for his pro-war and anti-civil liberties stances? They are the exact same policies pursued by the Bush administration.

I put Stewart in the same league as Hannity: a tool of the establishment there to perpetuate the false left-right paradigm.

Yes, in fact, he has done SEVERAL comparisons on multiple shows of Bush and Obama speeches to show just how similar they really are.

Here was the first one:

YouTube - A&G: Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart: Bush = Obama 03-04-09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYDOAAHfFo)


And I saw another that he did within the last week or two that was incredible.

[dannno]

I'd give every penny I have and all four eye teeth to hear Schiff say that to Stewart and hear his reaction to it.

If he did he would be wrong, so I hope he doesn't.

[dannno]

Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Jon Stewart: [President Obama] opened with some familiar rhetoric.

President Obama: Keeping American people safe, it's the first thing I think about when I wake up.

Former President Bush: I wake up every day thinking about how I can best protect America.

Obama: You can't count on a surrender ceremony.

Bush: There will be no surrender ceremony.

Obama: To disrupt, dismantle, defeat al Qaeda.

Bush: To disrupt and destroy terrorists.



Stewart: I love it when he does all the Bush covers.



You guys really need to stop being so presumptuous. :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

If he did he would be wrong, so I hope he doesn't.

I wish he would, wrong or not. I'd love to hear the subject discussed on mainstream media under any circumstances. His 'Bush covers' comment you described is a good start, I must confess. But the point wants to be driven home mercilessly.

[dannno]

I wish he would, wrong or not. I'd love to hear the subject discussed on mainstream media under any circumstances. His 'Bush covers' comment you described is a good start, I must confess. But the point wants to be driven home mercilessly.

Ya, but that's not the only time he has done it. He's really no big fan of Obama and realizes he is cow-towing to the elitists. It would be great if he'd base his show off of it more, but he has a lot of Obama supporters in the audience and it's a comedy news show, not The Obama Deception..

I'm not saying Stewart is perfect by any means, and in fact he's far from it due to the simple fact that he hasn't realized the relationship increased government power and corporatism.. but that is a very small, yet important realization to make.. and maybe one day it will happen for him.

I'd rather stay away from attacking him for not attacking Obama, since it lends a bit of discredibility since he does attack him on occasion, and focus on these very basic concepts of government control and how it inherently leads to increased special interest activity.

[acptulsa]

I'm not saying Stewart is perfect by any means...

I'm glad to hear it. Anyone who claims that Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails to socialize the nation is 'arguably treasonous' is out of line.

Traitors circumvent the Constitution to the detriment of the American People. Criticizing the president does not a traitor make.

[Metal Militia]

Why do we have a 4 page topic of us arguing with them -- where they can't hear us?

I registered as ArminAlan and made a post. If you have something to say, I suggest you do the same.

[senatorpjt]

He's not anti-statist...

he does joke about his judaism, but at heart he's as much as a zionist as all other secular jews

What about Peter Schiff?

[G-Wohl]

What about Peter Schiff?

Peter Schiff? It would be impossible for that man to not be an atheist. I would be extremely saddened (and confused!) if he were anything but.

[He Who Pawns]

I'm pretty sure Schiff is an atheist.

Would he be the first atheist in the Senate?

[AuH20]

You obviously haven't watched The Daily Show very much. Jon Stewart is a relatively anti-statist, anti-Zionist Jew.

the same person who idolized Eugene V. Debs as a kid?:D

[skyorbit]

I'm pretty sure Schiff is an atheist.

Would he be the first atheist in the Senate?

Who cares whether he's an athiest or not. What does that have to do with believing in Limited Government.

Many evil big government humanists were athiests. Rousseau and his ilk brought us the Prussian style government school system we have today.

TRacy

[almantimes2]

I'm pretty sure Schiff is an atheist.

Would he be the first atheist in the Senate?

He would be the first Openly Atheist.

I imagine considering all of the people who have been in the senate there has at least been one. They just said otherwise for political reasons in all likely hood.
Doesn't really matter though.

[Kraig]

I'm pretty sure Schiff is an atheist.

Would he be the first atheist in the Senate?

...and the guy continues to impress me. :D

The comments on that forum about Schiff being delusional and the free market causing all the problems just makes me feel all violent inside. :mad:

[dannno]

I nearly got banned from the forum for "flinging insults" when I never called anybody any names.

They define telling a board member that their position is wrong is "name flinging". Kinda weird. And apparently the person who is giving me flack is a Senior Producer for the show!!

[eduardo89]

Who cares whether he's an athiest or not. What does that have to do with believing in Limited Government.

Many evil big government humanists were athiests. Rousseau and his ilk brought us the Prussian style government school system we have today.

TRacy

Rousseau wasn't an atheist, he was a Catholic, later a Calvinist and died deist. Throughout his life he believed in God, but his views on what God is changed...

[torchbearer]

Rousseau wasn't an atheist, he was a Catholic, later a Calvinist and died deist. Throughout his life he believed in God, but his views on what God is changed...

seems like he was maturing as a person.

[skyorbit]

Rousseau wasn't an atheist, he was a Catholic, later a Calvinist and died deist. Throughout his life he believed in God, but his views on what God is changed...

OK, you win on Rousseau.

Dewey who believed that the reason America had a 99% literacy rate instead of 100% was because americans spent too much time worshiping, so we needed government schools to stamp out the religion so they'd have more room for learning.

There are many evil aithiests throughout history.

You still didn't answer my primery question.

Who cares if he's an aithiest or christian, or scientoligist, or believes that pink monkies from Andromeda created the Planet. None of that has anything to do with the policies he believes in as far as what government should and shouldn't be.

Tracy

[mczerone]

Cannabis decriminalization, for one. He is VERY pro civil liberties and anti-war. Those are anti-statist positions.

Ya, I know he's not a libertarian, he believes the government should step in and not allow corporations and banks to run amock, but hopefully Schiff will clearly explain to him WHY those corporations have been allowed to run amock via the Fed and maybe he will begin to see through some more of the BS. The real issue is that government involvement in our economy leads to an economy controlled by corporations, because they have the power and financial advantage to buy politicians. A government with limited power cannot be taken over by the corporations, because the government doesn't have the power to control the markets. I'll admit Jon is a bit stuck in the false left/right paradigm, especially when it comes to regulation and healthcare, but I do recognize that he has partially weaseled his way out of it.

This is how I would describe Stewart, too.

He seems to see most, if not all, of the problems, but is still stuck thinking that some government will be able to fix everything, and a World-government makes sense to people when they see it develop as some sort of regulator/rights protector.

I also think that he is a very bright man, if not formally educated, as he has made many great insights after reading some book by a guest, and anyone with a half brain and an open mind can see that Mises's economics, and his students' later work, totally demolishes the myth that governments can be a force for good for any length of time. Education must always be a primary goal, because there are plenty of people that would agree with us if they understood, and would be able to effectively persuade others.

I hope Schiff got to make an impression on Stewart, some small talk off camera, and made some in roads in showing him that some of his assumptions about govt. and econ. are wrong.


I'm not going to register over there, but for those who have, please let that mod know that:

Ron Paul may not have a formal economic education, but he generally agrees with the many professional economists at the Mises Institute - and they definitely have the rigor to prove that Krugman, who follows Keynes and not Hayek (a classical liberal), is wrong every single Monday and Friday. Printing and stealing money and limiting how others may run their businesses would all be acts that are considered crimes when done by private persons, but when a large group of private persons do it in the name of government, Krugman cheers them on and tells them to fabricate, take, and regulate more!

100 years of central banking - and we have more problems than ever. But it's the "free market's" fault that the centrally planned economy isn't working, the central bank obviously just needs to do more!

[mczerone]

I nearly got banned from the forum for "flinging insults" when I never called anybody any names.

They define telling a board member that their position is wrong is "name flinging". Kinda weird. And apparently the person who is giving me flack is a Senior Producer for the show!!

Well, as always when talking to someone whose opinion is different from yours, you must be gentle.

We're going onto their turf, they get to make the rules. If telling someone that they are wrong is a no-no, then just quote what you want to disprove, then use actual historical facts to make a counter argument - don't address their point, just make your own well enough so that the average observer sees who knows their stuff.

[G-Wohl]

Who cares if he's an aithiest or christian, or scientoligist, or believes that pink monkies from Andromeda created the Planet. None of that has anything to do with the policies he believes in as far as what government should and shouldn't be.

Tracy

There are people who believe in limited government for practical reasons, and then those who believe in limited government for moral reasons.

It is simply foolish to be for laissez-faire capitalism while also still slaving your mind to the mystical, the non-objective, the irrational, and the absurd.

The reason that those who are principled argue for unregulated, free market capitalism, is because of an underlying moral code that presents the inarguable, rational evidence that it is the only way to run a nation based on the mind, instead of faith. Religion, like statism/collectivism/socialism, is anti-mind, and therefore anti-liberty and anti-life.

Capitalism, like the rejection of the religious status-quo and the acceptance of atheism, allows the mind to be the only basis of decision-making, and thus is the most moral political system, just how living without faith is the most moral way of living - it allows one's logic and rationality to be the basis of forming ideas and engaging in actions.

As Ayn Rand said, free markets and free minds are corollaries.

[mczerone]

There are people who believe in limited government for practical reasons, and then those who believe in limited government for moral reasons.

It is simply foolish to be for laissez-faire capitalism while also still slaving your mind to the mystical, the non-objective, the irrational, and the absurd.

The reason that those who are principled argue for unregulated, free market capitalism, is because of an underlying moral code that presents the inarguable, rational evidence that it is the only way to run a nation based on the mind, instead of faith. Religion, like statism/collectivism/socialism, is anti-mind, and therefore anti-liberty and anti-life.

Capitalism, like the rejection of the religious status-quo and the acceptance of atheism, allows the mind to be the only basis of decision-making, and thus is the most moral political system, just how living without faith is the most moral way of living - it allows one's logic and rationality to be the basis of forming ideas and engaging in actions.

As Ayn Rand said, free markets and free minds are corollaries.

I believe you leave out the option of becoming a deist: one who has made the personal choice to accept an individual relationship with whatever they perceive as 'god'.

While your broad thinking does generally show why a capitalist wouldn't be a blind follower of mass-religion, there is a world of difference between being a sheep at a mega-church, and developing a personal philosophy including a god. Personally I have made the decision that I have faith that there are no gods, and I allow different individuals to make their own decisions with their own evidence.

As for the Ayn Rand quote: correlation is not causation.

[skyorbit]

Personally I have made the decision that I have faith that there are no gods. . .

Thank you. An Atheist who has the intellectual integrity to admit that his belief there is no god(s) is based in part on faith.

I don't understand why so many atheists and skeptics have this incessant need to dismiss people who believe in some sort of deity as irrational.

A true skeptic is skeptical of ALL sides of an argument. Not just the non-humanist sides.

Reason and Logic are deductive ways of thinking derived from a set of presupposed initial conditions. But there are a few initial conditions that cannot be proven or disproven. For those initial conditions, you have to make a choice -- based on other factors -- about what you believe. Or you can be agnostic and openly admit that you don't know, or even believe that it's not possible to know.

For me, there's lots of evidence so support the existence of God. Darwinian evolutions is full of holes. To my knowledge nobody has yet refuted the arguments in "Darwin's: Block Box." Physicists who study the universe for a living have disagreements. Fred Hoyle said "[His] atheism was severely shaken when he discovered that even if the entire universe was a giant petre dish the odds of a single 6 celled organism randomly forming was like, 1 in 10 to the 1 thousandth power. Astronomers all the time are talking about "why does the universe appear to be fine tuned for life." Chomsky the Linguist -- while claiming to believe in evolution, openly admits that current theories of how Language was initial developed are flawed.

Then there's all the historical/bibliographical evidence that archeology and papyrology documents have discovered.

I really don't feel like going into a full dissertation of the subject here as this thread is supposed to be about Schiff's run for Senate, not his religious beliefs. No, I can't "prove" there's a god, But for me, as a person with a Physics degree, it would take more faith for me to believe that there wasn't one, then to believe there is one.

Tracy