The far left isn’t pulling any punches.
Note: I can’t post links apparently so don’t berate me for not activating the link.
4 million views in eight days.
Justin Raimondo has probably said far worse about Objectivists.
Nielsio, thanks, great video!
Thought it might be funny:
Why we don’t need economic illiterates trivializing the dangers of socialized medicine…
Holy crap! They are actually showing this in schools? That’s not just politically slanted indoctrination, that’s fricking insane!
The Worst Cars on The Road - Be Wary Of Domestic Rides
Funny how all the domestic companies that are on the list were all recently bailed out by the government…
Blast from the past. Nixon about ending the gold standard. The speculators did it. Fair competition. To increase jobs, 10% tarrif. Unfair exchange rates.
EDIT: According to Wikipedia, this speech was immensely popular.
Moral Markets: Paul Zak discusses Oxytocin, Trade, and Human Nature
Ron Paul Doesn’t “Accept” Evolution?!?
Ron Paul is a very Christian person, so yes, chances are that he doesnt accept evolution. Why does she act all shocked about that?
Cracked.com gets it:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-question-youre-not-asking-should-you-go-to-college/
Very informative, about the incredible lie and rip off of college.
Non substantive rant. Maybe she should have watched the completely unedited version, as opposed the highly edited one? I remember addressing this years ago.
Straight first points to her video:
-
Ahhh, maybe because he’s not a scientist?
-
Education is the key to the future? Yeaaaaah, so get rid of the state monopoly on it. That requires political philosophy… what Ron excels at - hence his entire point and your lack of one.
-
"Isn’t a world leaders “relationship with science important?”
No. There should be no official relationship to begin with. World rulers btw. 
- Correct on them understanding about how the world works… except why should you care what someone believes outside of political philosophy if it is not going to affect their end goal within political philosophy? Aye? What does it change if he is color blind and yet never makes any pronouncement on what the colours of anything should be?!
Anyway stopped there since she hasn’t watched the proper video. Transcript here (brackets is what she never saw).
“‘Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn’t bother me. It’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don’t…if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine, and we can have our…if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.']
When you point him out as not “accepting evolution”, it is a non sequitur to then label him a fundamentalist.
Just because you don’t support pro-choice, does not then mean you are pro-life.
‘As you can see, half of RP’s words were censored. His real message was, ‘We’re fighting for freedom and can’t afford to be split over a debate about fossils.’
And this… if someone would like to provide some responses to those articles I’d be appreciative. [Non-religious scientists against theory of evolution]
His method of understanding reality is very important. Paul shows in that video that he doesn’t understand the scientific method, which turns a lot of people off to him and his message (..regarding economics, morality, etc).
You know how Austrian economics is painted as unscientific? Something like this has an effect on that.
It is very important. The “scientific method” however, has nothing to do with economics or political philosophy.
The appeal to the “scientific method” outside of the natural sciences is a rhetorical one (far easier to co-opt a phrase with positive connotations than support the rise of a new one). It is one that Stefan uses alot and that I completely disagree with not only on epistemological grounds, but also accuracy in language.
Praxeology is the proper methodology of the social sciences, not the “scientific method”.
Economics is a science, so is political philosophy. They however, operate with a different method. It is thus absurd to categorise the two different methods (that of the physical sciences and that of the social sciences) to achieving the truth under the same title.
The Mantle of Science by Murray Rothbard
"In our proper condemnation of scientism in the study of man, we should not make the mistake of dismissing science as well. For if we do so, we credit scientism too highly and accept at face value its claim to be the one and only scientific method. If scientism is, as we believe it to be, an improper method, then it cannot be truly scientific. Science, after all, means scientia, correct knowledge; it is older and wiser than the positivist-pragmatist attempt to monopolize the term.
Scientism is the profoundly unscientific attempt to transfer uncritically the methodology of the physical sciences to the study of human action. Both fields of inquiry must, it is true, be studied by the use of reason—the mind’s identification of reality. But then it becomes crucially important, in reason, not to neglect the critical attribute of human action: that, alone in nature, human beings possess a rational consciousness…"
The differences in both are clearly spelt out here:
**Praxeology as the Method of the Social Sciences **by Murray N. Rothbard
Praxeology: The methodology of the Austrian School by Murray Rothbard
What is the Proper Way to Study Man? by Murray Rothbard
In Defense of “Extreme Apriorism” by Murray Rothbard
What Empiricism Can’t Tell Us, and Rationalism Can by Mark Crovelli
I agree that it would have the effect you mention, that is because of peoples ignorance though… not sure how that can be blamed on Ron Paul. He didn’t think it should be asked / was relevant - and neither do I… as for the reasons outlined above.