Shared publicly  - 
 
Why?
 
On May 9 of 2012, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Amendment 1096 to H.R. 5326, shortly before H.R. 5326 itself passed the House. Amendment 1096, introduced by Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, forbids the President from directing the Department of Justice to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act in court. A vote for House Amendment 1096 is a vote to preserve the Defense of Marriage Act. The problem is that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is...
4
John Poteet's profile photoTodd McKissick's profile photoJay Weixelbaum's profile photoRyan Herbrechtsmeier's profile photo
106 comments
 
He feels this issue should not be an issue handled by the Federal System at all.
 
+Dalton Quigley In that case, he should vote to repeal it since DOMA creates a Federal definition of marriage instead of leaving it up to the states as it was for over two centuries, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/102976.html

"While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state."

"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state."

How is this tough to grasp?
 
For those looking a for a true pro-freedom candidate, consider +Gary Johnson.

There is no coherent pro-freedom case for DOMA. The appeal to "many people associating a wedding day with religion" is immaterial: if many people associate being American with an activist foreign policy (and there are many who undoubtedly do: one need only look at the typical non-Paul GOP primary voter) does that obligate government to pursue an activist foreign policy? I'm fairly sure that Paul, being largely pro-freedom, would reject that argument out of hand, so why make it in this context.

The only remotely pro-freedom argument is that there should be no state involvement at all in marriage (e.g. no ability to file taxes jointly, no SS survivorship benefits, etc.). To that end, the most plausible options for reaching that state are to either expand the definition to the point that so many relationships that people find distasteful are being subsidized that they push for the abolition of the subsidy and to restrict the definition to such a point that most people cannot take advantage of the subsidy thus pushing to abolish it. Maintaining the status quo (e.g. DOMA) has basically zero chance of leading to that desired state.
 
+Levi Ramsey I agree that Gary has a lot of great things about him. However, he's never going to win and voting for him is like throwing your vote away. I'm voting for Obama because Romney would just keep doing favors for his rich friends (not that Obama doesn't have any...)
 
If I have the option to throw my vote away at Ron Paul I definitely will. Romney will be more Bush and Obama will be more Obama so. There really is no choice between Romney and Obama to me they are both the same. They keep every thing the same corrupt for power behind the scenes.
 
OK Dalton, you'll help vote in Obama, so that's fine with me. (Although I agree that both keep the same power elite).
 
I think Gary Johnson would succumb to the war mongering elements. He always says that he would not rule out preemptive military strikes if his Generals deemed a threat.

This may sound cynical, but if we are attacked first we don't have to pussy foot around with politically untenable (and partisan) wars. A "declaration of war" (I know, it's unheard of) lets us use any means necessary.

Paul can only win if it is just him and Obama...so little chance of that.
 
Yeah voting against the PATRIOT act among other things is pretty extreme.
 
Bunch of bad choices to choose from. If Paul is extreme and people wouldn't vote for him then how did extremist Liberal Obama get elected? Sometimes the extremist wins. I don't think Paul will win since he so far doesn't seemed bought and paid for.
 
+Jeffrey Raskin obviously hasn't actually looked into Ron Paul's ideas. Ending the drug war, pardoning non-violent drug offenders, pardoning Bradley manning, ending the wars abroad, stopping corporate welfare to the banks and oil companies, etc.

He's so extreme, I'll stand with him.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie You're being very selective with Ron Paul's policies. I assume you don't care about Paul advocating eliminating the minimum wage, environmental standards, regulations for the banks that crashed our economy, or the inequality and financial disruption that would occur if we reintroduced the gold standard.

I would also like to hear your excuse for Paul wanting to eliminate Social Security and other social safety nets.

We're talking about Social Darwinism here. This means those that are disabled are on their own.

And on top of that, Paul has relationships with neo-Nazis.

You're standing by him because you either have too much pride or are too ignorant to consider the results of these other policies and his bigotry.

Feel free to make things up to get out of taking responsibility for cruelty and hate.
 
I'd add that this record makes the case far more compelling that Ron Paul not only knew of the anti-semitic, homophobic, racist, and misogynist articles in his newsletter, but most likely encouraged them.

He also met with Don Black, founder of the neo-Nazi/white supremacist website, Stormfront.

Ron Paul is probably lying when he says he isn't bigoted.
 
"which have substantially greater tools of daily oppresssion available to them than the far away Federal government. "

You have heard of the 14th amendment, right? The states cannot violate the bill of rights.

"intrusion on the rights of state governments to oppress the heck out of certain citizens."

I'm being selective with his policies? You do not quite grasp the concept of choice do you?

"I assume you don't care about Paul advocating eliminating the minimum wage, environmental standards, regulations for the banks that crashed our economy,"

You do not even understand his economic policies.

The minimum wage is destructive to the lowest skilled workers. Look at what the 2007 minimum wage did to the economy of American Samoa.

http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2011/07/06/minimum-wage-law-backfires-american-samoa

In practice they [minimum wages] often price low-skilled workers out of the labor market.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html

Also, Paul has said over and over that the banks need to be "liquidated." Do you have any idea what that means?

It doesn't mean deregulation, it means let them go bankrupt. Risk is the universal regulator in a free market; risk of going bankrupt. What would be better for the people than to let the oppressive banks go out of business. We can prosecute the bankers for fraud as well........

Ron Paul has more complex positions than your partisan talking points give him credit for.
 
I teach US legal history. I'm sorry, were you going to demonstrate you were familiar with primary & secondary sources, +Étienne de La Boétie?

Please feel free to demonstrate you have an informed opinion. What are the historiographical debates on the 14th amendment specifically?

I'm going to guess you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
"anti-semitic, homophobic, racist, and misogynist articles in his newsletter, but most likely encouraged them."

Jews for Ron Paul, by Walter Block

Ron Paul is NOT a racist, Black Mans Rant

You appear to be a guilty white person overcompensating (in the Freudian sense) for your own past.

I am philipino/cherokee and I in no way have ever thought anything he has done is racist. Mind you Paul is the only candidate that brings up the inherent racism of the court system and the enforcement of drug laws...pathetic liberal bullshit talking points.

The news lettters were written by a guy who works at Forbes....

"He also met with Don Black, founder of the neo-Nazi/white supremacist website, Stormfront. "

He didn't meet with them, they came up, in a line of hundreds of people, and took a picture with him. He doesn't even know who they are...
 
Also, the politically partisan think tank-produced article is not a reliable source. Have you looked at primary sources on this topic, or are you taking Linda Gorman's words at face value, +Étienne de La Boétie ?
 
Wow, you're worried about marriage, but not about the thousands of folks we have overseas in wars that will scar them for life. WTG faux leftists, you make us left libertarians face palm so hard. :3
 
"I teach US legal history. I'm sorry, were you going to demonstrate you were familiar with primary & secondary sources, +Étienne de La Boétie?

Please feel free to demonstrate you have an informed opinion. What are the historiographical debates on the 14th amendment specifically?

I'm going to guess you have no idea what you're talking about."

Oh a pretty ballsy appeal to authority. Logical fallacy number one of someone who themselves do not want to confront the issue at hand. Also, a red Herring asking me to talk about a legal debate that took place in the 1860s.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie Now you're lying. There are records of Don Black's meeting with Paul. Second, a small group of supporter's opinions do not mean Paul is not bigoted.

Your intellectual dishonesty is on display.
 
So you are not even going to address what was actually said, instead you use ad hominem as ammunition.... pathetic. you shouldn't even be a teacher if you cannot handle a simple debate.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie And yet you avoid the question. I'm familiar with the topic. You're pretending you are. Either demonstrate you know something or don't.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie More avoidance. You brought up the 14th amendment. Name a scholar who has studied the subject. I'm looking at a bibliography now. Name one person.
 
No, you are diverting the subject like a little kid. We are talking about Ron Paul's positions, not the "historiographical debate" concerning the 14th.

Frankly, this is a concession that you do not understand Paul's positions enough to fully debate them. Instead you wish to shift the focus of the discussion on to irrelevancies.

What about Ron Paul? Not you....
 
Or lets go another way: What is your take of Elk v Wilkins?
 
Projection much? You brought up the fourteenth amendment. Show you know something. Please tell us why Elk v Wilkins was important.
 
If you dont' know that one, you are free to expound on US v Wong Kim Ark, just as my students are required to do.

I'm calling you on your lack of an informed opinion.
 
Projection? Because I mention you are overcompensating? Why don't you demonstrate you know something about psychoanalysis? Hmm? hmm?

Or does that not have anything to do with Ron Paul. which is the topic at hand?
 
You're avoiding the question. You brought up the 14th amendment. I contend you know nothing about it. Demonstrate you know something and stop stalling.
 
"I'm calling you on your lack of an informed opinion."

After I call you for it, good one. Do your students even take you seriously? If they disagree do you appeal to things that have nothing to do with what we are discussing?
 
What is John Norton Pomeroy's role in the interpretation of the 14th amendment?
 
Again, what does this have to do with the fact that POTUS today has more power to attack people over seas than ever? And that Congress is shirking its responsibility to reign in POTUS? RP has to be one of the few that challenges POTUS today on the foreign policy issue. Complaining about DOMA just proves how misguided you all are on the matter. You worry about Dear Leader's approval of gay marriage over the larger issue of troops in undeclared wars (and the possibility of their use on US soil without any valid declaration of martial law for various acceptable conditions such as natural disasters and the like).

When you get your collective agendas in order then you can call us crack pots (that includes the libertarian left). Until then, you're just the crack pots that whine too much about who opposes gay marriage when there's blood in the streets.
 
Tell us about Santa Clara v Southern Pacific RR.
 
Or you could talk about the secondary literature. What does Morton Horwitz say about it? What about Berle & Means? Martin Sklar?
 
You can quote all the references in the world, but if you don't have a coherent argument then you need to start again. :)
 
+Étienne de La Boétie You're still stalling. I think it's clear you know nothing about the 14th amendment. Because you've made assertions about things you know nothing about, you have little credibility.
 
"Tell us about Santa Clara v Southern Pacific RR."

I could, but this has nothing to do with Ron Paul. You must admit that you are avoiding the subject at hand (Ron Paul's political positions) in order to secure your own emotional rants with something you specialize in....it really is sad.

SCvSPRR = a terrible SC case about taxation of railroad at the county level that ended up allowing railroads rights of people even though it had nothing to do with the case. Get a life, man.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie Why should anyone take anything you say seriously? You analyzed an important part of the Constitution without knowing anything about it.
 
Dude, tell me about Austrian economics. Write me a treatise on it. What does Austrian capital theory have to do with fractional reserve banking? Why does central bank credit crowd out savings induced investment and what effect does this have on the yield curve?

You are not the only professor here....
 
+Étienne de La Boétie You have no credibility. You're like a gardener in an astrophysics convention trying to tell them the sun revolves around the earth.
 
"Santa Clara has nothing to do with Ron Paul? Now I know you don't know what you're talking about."

ahah Ron Paul wasn't alive in 1886...*you tell me what he has to do with it.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie I guarantee I've read more Hayek, Rothbard, and von Mises than you. But since you have no credibility, why should I share what I know? That's supposed to be your expertise.
 
hahahahah, get a life. Why not respond to the questions involving Austrian credit theory? Because you do not know anything about economics? Instead you have diverted a debate about Ron Paul into a debate about your choice of historical legal precedents. Then, you tell people they don't know what they are talking about.

You are a typical emotional child who feels uncomfortable outside of their own specialization. You are desperate for validation despite your complete refusal to accept the red herring argumentation style you have pursued.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie Your literal interpretation is also dishonest. What is the important feature of Santa Clara? Please explain to the class? What precedent in US jurisprudence coming out of that case is very important today to most americans?
 
You are a typical emotional child who feels uncomfortable outside of their own specialization. You are desperate for validation despite your complete refusal to accept the red herring argumentation style you have pursued.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie You're changing the subject because you've already been called on having a misinformed opinion. Now you're trying to mask it. You also appear to know nothing about Santa Clara. Busy wiki-ing?

And you add insults to mask your ignorance.
 
More insults and now he/she blocked me. Gosh, I'm hurt.

It's clear they know nothing and have very little credibility. I think we're done here.
 
I'm not bothering with these folks anymore. No help for folks that can't be bothered to criticize their Dear Leader. :)
 
+Jay Weixelbaum You are a typical emotional child who feels uncomfortable outside of their own specialization. You are desperate for validation despite your complete refusal to accept the red herring argumentation style you have pursued.
 
No block? Good. Now explain how the topic you brought up is a red herring.
 
The topic is Ron Paul. I said one sentence* about the 14th, as a reference to your idiotic statement that State have more of an ability to oppress than the Federal government.

You are a typical emotional child who feels uncomfortable outside of their own specialization. You are desperate for validation despite your complete refusal to accept the red herring argumentation style you have pursued.

You have also began accusing me of the things you are guilty of. That is projection...._ We might also call it transference in this case.
 
+Jeffrey Raskin "he subject matter of this post was that great protector of freedom, Ron Paul,....We have not commented on your rhetorical invocation of North Korea because it is off-topic."

Have you been reading this thread? We are way past talking about Ron Paul...

+Jay Weixelbaum is intent on talking about his job, not Ron Paul.
 
And yet Doma is a trivial problem in the larger scheme of things. It's like Paula Jones' posts about religions. Seriously, get some sense of perspective already.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie You're still avoiding the subject. I could demonstrate you don't know much about a variety subjects. I happened to be working on the 14th amendment currently.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie Your source on the minimum wage was invalid, you never addressed Paul's desire to eliminate environmental and financial regulations, and you made a blanket denial about Don Black that ignored other evidence.
 
"You're still avoiding the subject. I could demonstrate you don't know much about a variety subjects. I happened to be working on the 14th amendment currently."

Exactly! You ave no interest in discussing Ron Paul, you want to talk about yourself.
 
"Your source on the minimum wage was invalid,"

This is not true, (plus invalid as a series of degrees) you simply ad hominem'ed the author and didn't EVER say anything that refuted what was said. I could say the same thing about you.

You are desperate for people to validate you. That is why you would rather talk about your job than Ron Paul's positions.
 
I'm going to leave this to +Jeffrey Raskin. Let the record reflect that the baseless attacks on +Paula Jones on +Étienne de La Boétie's profile have been closed to my comments attempting to explain what is actually occurring here: +Étienne de La Boétie attempts to change the subject to other topics they have no knowledge of, followed by complaints that others are pointing that out.
 
ahah and you said I was being "selective" about his policies.

Don't mention he is the only anti-war candidate or the only candidate that sticks up for the people whho have been wrongfully imprisoned due to the racism built into the legal system. No, no, bring up things that have already been fixed as a way to trash his policies.

I'll give you credit for being more rational than Weinstein or w/e his name was (I blocked him). But, you are still avoiding the biggest policies in favor of the bleeding heart minority first issues. Yup, gay marriage and shit is way more important that the banks and the wars. Priorities, priorities.
 
Well if you don't like Federalism, Jeffrey, demand that we dispose with the State and Federal govt distinction entirely. Stop being such a coward and pretend to support a Constitution when in point of fact you support a central national govt by which all dictates are managed. Federalism was meant to be the check against jerks like yourself that have too much time on their hand in respect to the matters of regions and localities that have a different set a values from your own. I don't like it when a State votes against the individual, but largely this is done by democratic means of referendum. And guess what? If you support democracy, that's the price you pay. So stop whining about it.
 
"He's to the right of Michele Bachmann. End of story."

That's a larf. Just open your mind, you obviously don't know very much about Paul. Why don't you read one of his books. Bachmann wishes she wasn't just a religious tyrant. She tried to coopt the Paul movement and failed miserably because we can see through her. She is not a good comparison to make, seriously.

Here is a collection of his speeches from the house floor...all in his own words.

http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf

Maybe people will come around and see the political spin that is put on him due to his refusal to pander.
 
Um... you realize he's not the only person against the bank bailouts? Also, I find it amusing you want to protect banks from bad decisions. If you really wanted to help people, why not bail out the people in impossible to pay back mortgages? Oh wait, that means your stocks in your retirement fund would tank! I forget you're a faux leftist +Jeffrey Raskin . For shame.
 
"These battles were fought and lost by your side many years ago. Ron Paul and his accolydes want to return the United States to a small-minded, small economic past that we have long since discarded. "

"accolydes" what is that? You mean "acolytes"? AN accolade, is a totally different thing. Or do you have no knowledge of etymology, language, rhetoric, or even logic?

Is it possible for you to even have an objective discussion without presenting childish "your side/my side" blah? Or to not characterize things in your own image?

Democracy is useless because of irrational people like you. you cannot even have an objectve discussion, you feel the need to infuse your opinion as if it is fact.

"His prescription for the banks and for Wall Street is to let them frolic and run free. That's not s solution. It's a meltdown."

This is the dumbest god damn thing I have heard (read) in awhile. Look around, if letting banks go bankrupt is a meltdown, then what is giving them 30 trillion dollars??

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf

http://www.alternet.org/economy/153462/bail-out_bombshell%3A_fed_%22emergency%22_bank_rescue_totaled_%2429_trillion_over_three_years/?page=entire

His "prescription for the banks" is to let them go bankrupt when they make bad decision, then their assets are sold to someone who won't make the same mistakes. Read a little, you idiot.
 
+Jeffrey Raskin runs away. Wow, just wow. Goes to show when he doesn't realize under federalism the States can and will decide what defines marriages doesn't follow his jive talk he bails. :) Ouch.
 
This is why I cannot stand people. The first guy only really wanted to talk about himself, the second, only really wanted to mischaracterize Paul.
 
As I've stated before, I've found Ron Paul fans to be the worst offenders in distorting US history. I probably wouldn't pay attention to them at all otherwise.

If I had chosen to quiz our intellectually disingenuous commenters on the Federalist period, they would have likely reacted just as dishonestly, and it would have become abundantly clear that their opinions on that topic are uninformed as well.
 
Jay, I hope you know degrees don't speak for themselves. I'm sure you do dandy work, but you're in no position to demand others recite information that is not specifically relevant to a particular point made. That is, indeed, a logical fallacy - you presented a "red herring."
 
+Matthew Moran Again, for the umpteenth time, if a RP fan brings up US jurisprudence, they should be prepared to demonstrate knowledge of it. I did not bring up the 14th amendment. Your portrayal of the above exchange is not accurate. You may end your inner monolog now.
 
"You may end your inner monolog now." That's why you should circle +Jay Weixelbaum. It's like having a bazooka in your back seat.
 
Jay Weixelbaum, where did you learn argumentation? The idea that someone must demonstrate knowledge to your satisfaction on a topic before commenting is nothing more than a sleezy attempt to keep others out of the conversation. A red herring is a logical fallacy. You're trying to justify a logical fallacy.
 
+Matthew Moran Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. You realize that labeling something you don't like as a fallacy is also a fallacy, right? It's called the "fallacy fallacy." :D
 
Okay, done here. You're being childish, Jay. Demanding information from someone to prove their "knowledgeable" in response to an argument is by definition a red herring. Nothing more to it. Have a nice day.
 
+Matthew Moran Predictable exchange is predictable. Who brought up the 14th amendment? Your reading comp skills need work.
 
Also: +Matthew Moran You realize calling someone "childish" for saying things you don't like is also a fallacy, correct? Take care casting the first stone, genius.
 
Just so people know, +Jay Wixelbaum does NOT teach legal history. He is a first year TA... a far cry from "teaching" to be sure.
 
+Étienne de La Boétie Who exactly do you think pulls all the heavy freight teaching in the U.S. college system anyway? It's mostly done by graduate students. They run the labs, grade the papers, attend office hours for student questions and generally grunt it out as well as whatever program they're working on. That's teaching.
 
For about 2-3 bucks an hour. But hey, if it's not valued by the 'free' market, who the hell cares, right?
 
""Who exactly do you think pulls all the heavy freight teaching in the U.S. college system anyway?"

What labs? He is a history major. All his "labs" are are reading books and in the first year (which he is) you haven't even started your comprehensive reading list (250-750 books). He is a bitch trying to impress people who don't know any better (which apparently, is you).

Also, if you have ever been in a program, even the grad students who major in classical studies will know almost nothing about philology or history (of their language) when they come out.

Jay needs to major in philosophy and when they baby him through syllogisms and logical fallacies he would see why his "argument" was, in fact, not an argument at all.

"That's teaching."

No, it is not. Lecturing is. Like you said, "They run the labs, grade the papers, attend office hours for student questions and generally grunt it out"

Yea, that first year is a real bitch...

You must be avoiding Jay's red herring tactic in order for you to think he is making a decent argument. He literally, did not make an argument the entire time. All he is trying to do is impress you. It shows his arrogance and lack of philosophy.
 
Jay, please demonstrate some knowledge of economics before you begin commenting on the "free market"
 
First, the term labs can refer to any small-group breakout where students go over material with an instructor. It does not explicitly demand beakers and test tubes or even science courses.

Second, grading papers and meeting with students regarding course material is teaching. Feedback and assessment is why brick and mortar colleges trump free online diplomas. Some history professors have even been know to have their graduate assistants present lecture material. Shocking, isn't it.

Third, this whole tangent is a bullshit diversion from your inability to address Jay's questions to you about the 14th amendment. Since the interpretation of the 14th amendment would be absolutely central to the implementation of Ron Paul's policies it leaves you in a bit of a bind. Hence the ad-hominem attack.

So, please, in detail, explain how Ron Paul's policies would agree or disagree with current interpretations of the 14th amendment Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

It seems Ron Paul is doing quite a bit of that.
 
I've read more Hayek and Rothbard than you. Unless of course you've taught economics. But you've already lost your credibility here. Why are you still talking?

For fun, though, what does Kondratieff say about it? Or Rostow? or Wallerstein? Or Myrdal? Or Chandler?

Read any of them? I'm sure you talk shit about Keynes without reading him, too.

If you weren't a disingenuous loser, this might be fun - but I know you'll just make more excuses instead of answering your own bogus challenge. I think I'll pass. Run along now, child.
 
There we go. Just wanted you to display your insecurity through an immense display of arrogance, all without actually displaying any knowledge of economics whatsoever. You did well.
 
You can see some of the work I've analyzed on my blog by the way. There's a link on my profile. Care to point us to your published work on economics, Moran? No? Then perhaps you should kindly take your own advice and have a nice day.
 
"explain how Ron Paul's policies would agree or disagree with current interpretations of the 14th amendment Section 4."

You are pulling the same red herring as he is. Here is my only reference to 14.

"which have substantially greater tools of daily oppresssion available to them than the far away Federal government."

You have heard of the 14th amendment, right? The states cannot violate the bill of rights."

It is a simple point that Jay's worry of Ron Paul allowing states to oppress more than the Federal government is no longer relevant. I didn't say anything about, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

The greenback controversy that Lincoln created to fund the war? Why don't you explain why this argument has so much to do with Ron Paul?

Do you see how it is a red herring? A stinky fish for everyone to notice that has nothing to do main case?
 
You're free to comment there. I know you won't because you're doing that troll mirroring business. Can't even come up with your own insults. How unoriginal.
 
Jay, I don't see much on Hayek or Rothbard. Care to point me to it?
 
"I didn't find the two lousy economic historians I jerk off to in less than five minutes," said the faceless commenter.
 
You realize there's hundreds of pages of research there, right? And many other people that write [better] economic history, correct?

Being stuck in an ideological backwater must get boring..
 
I'm still waiting to see all your articles on economic history, Moran. Where's your treatise on Hayek and Rothbard?
 
"Care to point us to your published work on economics, Moran?"

I don't have anything published, Jay.

"I've read more Hayek and Rothbard than you. Unless of course you've taught economics."

Lol
 
Well then perhaps you need to drink a glass of STFU :) Night Night.
 
Any unbiased onlooker care to comment on Jay's conduct? I'm honestly curious what you all think of him at this point.

Edit: Seems he blocked me. I didn't think I was particularly abrasive. He, on the other hand, made quite the many ad hominems for someone who pretends to be a scholar. I hope this is a point to all of you not to take authority for granted. Good day.
 
In-person teaching is honestly overrated. Most of my education at university was self-driven. At best, teachers and TAs gave me some basic guidelines for the process. At worse, they often confused the subject matter (sometimes purposefully). So, to the person that thinks bricks and mortar education is superior, I'd like to see some studies first. :)

/Off-topic
 
'Feedback and assessment is why brick and mortar colleges trump free online diplomas." Myself with emphasis added.

Obviously an incomplete college degree is almost worthless. What college students pay for with their tuition is the assessment, certified by a reputable institution, that you have completed sufficient course-work in whatever field to their satisfaction.

When an online institution provides a superior form of assessment accepted with equal or better success then those institutions will prevail.
 
I have to take a vehement stand against the statement that an incomplete college degree is almost worthless.

I left my AAS in the middle of the last class to take a good job. When I returned 2 years later the requirements had changed and they screwed me on one class so I turned towards a BS program instead. I was doing great, being one of those that never had to study to ace every test and always correct the teacher. At the time, I would have advocated college to anyone. Then layoffs came before that graduation but I had all my core classes and didn't feel the need to spend (now) hard-to-come-by money on the few remaining generals.

In applying for jobs, this history has allowed me to take the high road and actively promote my self taught education much more than what I learned from some paid reciter. While this may not have translated into getting hired for the best positions, it has basically driven me toward the fields where my interests truly lie. In the end, I became more motivated to go out on my own because I see much more of the big picture and experience in many related and semi-related fields than any of my former college peers could dream of. And most recently, my business 'networking' circle actually expands more from my statements that I am self taught and have no college degree.

In the engineering world, the worst thing you can be is a "book smart" engineer. As the saying goes, "College teaches you what you can't do." It's the real world assessment that counts, not some test, be it brick and mortar or the best online institution.

What I think is missing here is that many different people learn best from different methods. Institutionalized learning rarely ever matches the method to the student.
 
+Todd McKissick
I believe it was a statement made in the context about people who speak with authority who know very little who compare themselves to specialists. I call it the "Joe the Plumber" syndrome - ironically, this is a similar observation to the one Alexis de Tocqueville made about many US citizen's lack of respect for scholarship in the 1830s.
 
+John Poteet seriously, the in-person feedback and assessment are trivial in terms of the structural flaws in modern education in general. Despite what you think the facts are the education institutions today plainly suck for the most part. The best institutions generally focus less on rote rehearsal and bureaucracy and more on individual learning (even Harvard's business college does this). So, no there's nothing inherent to the current educational paradigm that's superior, sorry.
Add a comment...