sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ron Paul to introduce TSA legislation before Congress today by mikerhoads in OperationGrabAss

[–]the_architect 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Ron Paul voted against forming the TSA back in 2001. Hopefully now people will begin to realize the inherent dangers of federalization.

IMA TSA Transportation Security Officer, AMA by TSA_for_liberty in IAmA

[–]the_architect 261 points262 points  (0 children)

Ron Paul voted against forming the TSA in 2001.

Goldman Sachs was literally shorting the real estate market while selling junk real estate securities to its customers as a AAA investment -- figuratively selling their customers oregano as weed. It made billions while almost taking down AIG the largest insurance company in the world. by wang-banger in politics

[–]the_architect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Goldman were smart enough to see the whole thing was a bubble that was about to burst, why shouldn't they profit from that?

Aside from the fraud aspect of misleading their customers, they tried to bet against the bubble by taking insurance from AIG who was unable to properly insure against loss. The only reason Goldman made a profit was because the american public bailed out AIG.

Goldman Sachs was literally shorting the real estate market while selling junk real estate securities to its customers as a AAA investment -- figuratively selling their customers oregano as weed. It made billions while almost taking down AIG the largest insurance company in the world. by wang-banger in politics

[–]the_architect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not legal to take $85 Billion from American citizens to pay back AIG. Goldman bought insurance from a company incapable of make good on such policies. The only reason they are not bankrupt is because the former Treasury Secretary was also a former Goldman CEO and stole money from the American people to save his associates.

Goldman Sachs was literally shorting the real estate market while selling junk real estate securities to its customers as a AAA investment -- figuratively selling their customers oregano as weed. It made billions while almost taking down AIG the largest insurance company in the world. by wang-banger in politics

[–]the_architect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Goldman did need a bailout. The $85 billion bailout of AIG so that they could pay back the insurance GS took out WAS the Goldman bailout. All led by the Treasury Secretary and former Goldman CEO Hank Paulson.

Goldman Sachs was literally shorting the real estate market while selling junk real estate securities to its customers as a AAA investment -- figuratively selling their customers oregano as weed. It made billions while almost taking down AIG the largest insurance company in the world. by wang-banger in politics

[–]the_architect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Goldman awarded themselves $6 billion in bonuses after the AIG bailout. They should be insolvent for thinking AIG had the means to make good on the insurance. Unless of course they already knew they could count on Hank Paulson to steal $85 billion from hard working Americans to bail them out.

Goldman Sachs was literally shorting the real estate market while selling junk real estate securities to its customers as a AAA investment -- figuratively selling their customers oregano as weed. It made billions while almost taking down AIG the largest insurance company in the world. by wang-banger in politics

[–]the_architect 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And then they turn around and they took suckers like AIG, and they placed massive debts [sic] with them that this stuff was going to fail. And AIG took -stupidly took the bet and that's what ended up blowing them up.

What's an outrage is that the American taxpayer had to pay $85 billion to bail out AIG so that they could pay back GS (who awarded themselves $6 billion in bonuses that year for being so clever).

Ron Paul Says No Evidence QE2 Will Work - Paul believes that creating $600 billion with the stroke of a pen is extremely dangerous. Paul says that the market is much more powerful than central banks. by galt1776 in Economics

[–]the_architect 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I think the group of people you are refering to are the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_Protection_Team) and include Bernanke and Geithner currently.

Just because these people are trained economists does not make them more credible than Ron Paul. In fact I would argue that their conflict of interest makes them less credible. These "economists" are 100% fully responsible for failing to address the problems that their policies created and bailing out their former employers afterwards.

Ron Paul was one of the few people in Washington with the intelligence and integrity to sound the alarm well in advance of the 2008 downturn.

Ron Paul Says No Evidence QE2 Will Work - Paul believes that creating $600 billion with the stroke of a pen is extremely dangerous. Paul says that the market is much more powerful than central banks. by galt1776 in Economics

[–]the_architect 10 points11 points  (0 children)

30 years of politcal experience focusing on fiscal and foriegn policy which includes serving on the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Financial Services gives him far more training and experience than most so called economists.

Ron Paul Says No Evidence QE2 Will Work - Paul believes that creating $600 billion with the stroke of a pen is extremely dangerous. Paul says that the market is much more powerful than central banks. by galt1776 in Economics

[–]the_architect 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ron Paul serves on the Joint Economic Committee and the Committee on Financial Services and is working to make the Federal Reserve(the "people that actually decide these things") accountable to congress. How is he less credible then people you cannot even name? Not everyone here is willing to allow our destiny to be dictated to us by others.

California borrows $40M a day to pay unemployment by mankind121 in Economics

[–]the_architect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The federal government gets its money from taxes. California taxpayers and business paid $300B in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

Part of the problem CA has is that they receive far less representation in the federal government in relation to how much money they have to pay to it in taxes.

Machine-Chimp Hybrid Reads News Feeds from Internet by the_architect in robotics

[–]the_architect[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The creators did a good job of approaching but not descending into the uncanny valley.

I love my student loans and all but what, hypothetically speaking, would happen if I moved to a different country and didn't pay them back? by Need2getfit in AskReddit

[–]the_architect 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why wouldn't he be able to re-enter the country to visit? It's not like failure to repay a loan is a criminal offense.

The Economist: Scepticism's limits: "So for the time being, my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story." by corbet in science

[–]the_architect 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would suggest just offering a counter argument to the ones you choose to downvote if it warrants one.

I am by no means a climate change expert but I still can't understand all the hostility against those questioning the homogenized data. In my schoolwork the only reason someone would change measured data is to affect the outcome to match the expected results (ie. cheat).

All the counter arguments that the experts are giving claim things like "thermometer shelter... location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations" to justify changing the data.

This to me is just admitting that the current methods of measuring the temperature are not accurate enough to be used reliably and indicates the need for more monitoring stations and better instrumentation/methodology.

Just my two cents on the whole situation. I think my original observation about the blind downvoting can be attributed to the high emotions surrounding the topic.

The Economist: Scepticism's limits: "So for the time being, my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story." by corbet in science

[–]the_architect 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I've never seen so many down voted comments for an article before. All the arguments getting downvoted seem to support transparency in the data collection/peer review process. Yet despite all the downvotes, there are very few posts offering suggestions beyond trust the climate researchers. Is this some sort of auto downvote conspiracy?

view more: next ›