GOP'ish candidates

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule. Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that. Again you contribute nothing to this thread, and instead post extraneous off topic (yes off topic since you're glossing over the point of what was said in order to whine about a secondary issue) message with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response and disrupting on-topic discussion. Kindly find another thread to troll.

This is the greatest sophism you have yet posted, Tracy Coxx. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you essentially reserve for yourself the right to make up any quote, attribute it to anyone, and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty. You must be very proud of yourself for that.

I won't even waste the forum's time with the discussion of the "proving a negative" strategy that is intellectually bankrupt -- but that you employ nonetheless.

Notably, by calling me a troll, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you accuse Enoch Root of doing? The answer is clearly yes.

As for not contributing to this thread, that's not really for you to decide. You only have the right to start your political threads, not determine who gets to post in them. You've been told this before by the site owner. Why don't you post that PM, Tracy?

I seek to contribute by confronting positions you take and challenging you to back them up. That is a basic part of political discourse, but you don't like that part, so you pretend that it isn't. Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so. I have contributed thoughtful and analytic posts throughout the political threads on this site, as you well know and as anyone who cares to search can find out. I don't start troll threads like you do, because being troll is an act of political cowardice. Again, just because you say you're not a troll, and call me one, doesn't make it true. What makes it true is a reasoned look at the posts, at the entirety of posts, and at the entirety of participation in the political threads here. I have every confidence that -- REGARDLESS of the political positions you adopt or I adopt -- that who is really the troll is clear to anyone who takes an honest look.

Some people aren't bothered by trolling. I know this for a fact in the case of someone on this very site. That doesn't mean that member doesn't recognize you as a troll.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

What are people's thoughts on Rick Perry entering the GOP fray? I'd be a little concerned to elect anyone who has talked about seceding from the Union-- haven't we been down that path before?

[QUOTE=Perry]Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that.[/QUOTE ]


He never said Texas should suceeed. He said the above to a reporter in response to the angry mob at one of the Tea-parties who were shouting 'suceeed!'. Add a liberal media bias and now it's a common myth that Perry wants to succeed. On the same day, Perry was also protesting the federal government trying to interfere in state affairs. The 10th amendment protects against this.

[smc]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;188859]

Originally Posted by Perry

Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that.[/QUOTE ]


He never said Texas should suceeed. He said the above to a reporter in response to the angry mob at one of the Tea-parties who were shouting 'suceeed!'. Add a liberal media bias and now it's a common myth that Perry wants to succeed. On the same day, Perry was also protesting the federal government trying to interfere in state affairs. The 10th amendment protects against this.

Perry did what politicians do all the time, on the right and left: he pandered. It's disingenuous to state that he is actually for secession, since he knows that it's not really possible or actually desirable on the part of his constituents. But it's equally disingenuous to pretend that his remarks were less pandering than they actually were. Even when a politician panders, he or she should be held accountable for what he says, not given a pass. This goes for Obama no less than Perry.

By the way, it's "secede," not "succeed." Although, in a strange twist, it would appear that many candidates for the presidency are banking (pun intended) on things not succeeding with this country in advance of the 2012 election.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

This is the greatest sophism you have yet posted, Tracy Coxx. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you essentially reserve for yourself the right to make up any quote, attribute it to anyone, and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty. You must be very proud of yourself for that.

So you're saying that I said I reserve for myself the right to make up any quote and attribute it to anyone since there's no forum rule against it. Hmmm, did I really say that?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule.

Nope. Quite a lot of things are said on this forum without references, believe it or not. I'll put in the extra work when I'm working on my thesis, but it's not a forum rule here so I'll omit my bibliography. I never said I had the right to make up quotes.

Originally Posted by smc

and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty.

That doesn't sound like anything I said either. Let's review.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that.

Dang, that actually sounds like the opposite of what I said. Interesting.

Originally Posted by smc

I won't even waste the forum's time with the discussion of the "proving a negative" strategy that is intellectually bankrupt -- but that you employ nonetheless.

Actually you imply a negative with your skepticism. I'll give you a hint here to help you out though: You could cite who the real source of the quote is. Then I'd look pretty silly. Otherwise your accusation is coming out of left field.

Originally Posted by smc

Notably, by calling me a troll, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you accuse Enoch Root of doing? The answer is clearly yes.

Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by smc

As for not contributing to this thread, that's not really for you to decide. You only have the right to start your political threads, not determine who gets to post in them.

You twist my words again. I have never "determined" who should post here. I said "Kindly find another thread to troll". First off, that only refers to your trolling posts. In reality it would be rule 4 that would restrict your off topic posts: "Stick to the issues". Please stay. I'm sure I would have so much to learn by your example about rule 4.

Originally Posted by smc

I seek to contribute by confronting positions you take and challenging you to back them up. That is a basic part of political discourse

Not all attitudes are conducive to political discourse though. I recognize them for what they are and TRY to avoid them. I admit I haven't been too good at that lately. When I do respond I explain my side but I recognize that my position will not be agreed with. I'm not going to beat it into you. I say my piece and move on. It is a given that you wouldn't accept my reasoning. Not my problem.

Originally Posted by smc

I have every confidence that -- REGARDLESS of the political positions you adopt or I adopt -- that who is really the troll is clear to anyone who takes an honest look.

I will have to admit that 39% of your posts here have actually been more or less on the thread's topic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So you're saying that I said I reserve for myself the right to make up any quote and attribute it to anyone since there's no forum rule against it. Hmmm, did I really say that?
Nope. Quite a lot of things are said on this forum without references, believe it or not. I'll put in the extra work when I'm working on my thesis, but it's not a forum rule here so I'll omit my bibliography. I never said I had the right to make up quotes.

That doesn't sound like anything I said either. Let's review.
Dang, that actually sounds like the opposite of what I said. Interesting.

Actually you imply a negative with your skepticism. I'll give you a hint here to help you out though: You could cite who the real source of the quote is. Then I'd look pretty silly. Otherwise your accusation is coming out of left field.

Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.

You twist my words again. I have never "determined" who should post here. I said "Kindly find another thread to troll". First off, that only refers to your trolling posts. In reality it would be rule 4 that would restrict your off topic posts: "Stick to the issues". Please stay. I'm sure I would have so much to learn by your example about rule 4.

Not all attitudes are conducive to political discourse though. I recognize them for what they are and TRY to avoid them. I admit I haven't been too good at that lately. When I do respond I explain my side but I recognize that my position will not be agreed with. I'm not going to beat it into you. I say my piece and move on. It is a given that you wouldn't accept my reasoning. Not my problem.

I will have to admit that 39% of your posts here have actually been more or less on the thread's topic.

If your sophism wasn't so unfortunate it would be laughable.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.

This fellow forum members provides an interesting thought exercise: How is one to defend oneself against baseless accusations?

...
...

I think I have it: boo-fuckin'-hoo.

[yearofthesmurfs]

I think Romney is their best chance...but I wouldn't vote for GOPr anyway.

[smc]

Michele Bachmann is coming on strong in Iowa, thanks in large part to the tremendous appeal she has to those who cherish America's wonderful history of fighting for liberty:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/254416/jim...?from=fb_share

[randolph]

Vote for Joanna jet for president, then we can enjoy being screwed.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

Michele Bachmann is coming on strong in Iowa, thanks in large part to the tremendous appeal she has to those who cherish America's wonderful history of fighting for liberty:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/254416/jim...?from=fb_share

I was wondering when someone was going to finally get around to posting Michele's gaffes (damn, I'm polite). I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read her statements. I'm not from the US and even I knew she was wrong with what she said.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

I was wondering when someone was going to finally get around to posting Michele's gaffes (damn, I'm polite). I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read her statements. I'm not from the US and even I knew she was wrong with what she said.

Michell and Sarah seem to be in competition in saying stupid things about American history. Most Americans are so clueless, it doesn't matter whether Washington or Lincoln crossed the Delaware. They do know that Ronald Reagan was our greatest President -- or -- was it John Wayne?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Michell and Sarah seem to be in competition in saying stupid things about American history. Most Americans are so clueless, it doesn't matter whether Washington or Lincoln crossed the Delaware. They do know that Ronald Reagan was our greatest President -- or -- was it John Wayne?

They both acted in Westerns. They're so similar as makes no difference.

[TracyCoxx]

Randolph on Perry:

Originally Posted by randolph

For sure, in college he was a "C" student specializing in "Fs" and "Ds". His claim to fame in college? He was a yell leader!
He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming. The debates between Bachmen and Perry should be quite entertaining.

Not just Bachmann but with any of the GOP candidates. They're all fundamentalist bible thumpers. With all the candidates we have there is still little choice. Our only hope is if these yahoos can keep their religion separate from their job as president. Some can. Perry clearly can not. He just filled a large convention center in Houston to pray for America's financial recovery. So much for separation of church and state. So much for rational thinking. God doesn't balance budgets. Hire a damn economist. Perry would be right at home in the dark ages.

Originally Posted by franalexes

Been reading other forums of R's that have an unfavorable take on Perry.
He is everything that those supporting conservative traits would oppose.

With close to a dozen in the pack, I don't see a leader yet.
Of all , I see Gingritch as capable but still very un-electable.

Romney seems to be ahead, but Im not convinced he would abolish national health care after he implemented it in his own state. I like Gingrich except for his bible thumping ways, but I think he's able to separate that from his job.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Randolph on Perry:


Not just Bachmann but with any of the GOP candidates. They're all fundamentalist bible thumpers. With all the candidates we have there is still little choice. Our only hope is if these yahoos can keep their religion separate from their job as president. Some can. Perry clearly can not. He just filled a large convention center in Houston to pray for America's financial recovery. So much for separation of church and state. So much for rational thinking. God doesn't balance budgets. Hire a damn economist. Perry would be right at home in the dark ages.

I like the term yahoos for this bunch.
Their position statement is "Don't confuse me with the facts"

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Randolph on Perry:


Not just Bachmann but with any of the GOP candidates. They're all fundamentalist bible thumpers. With all the candidates we have there is still little choice. Our only hope is if these yahoos can keep their religion separate from their job as president. Some can. Perry clearly can not. He just filled a large convention center in Houston to pray for America's financial recovery. So much for separation of church and state. So much for rational thinking. God doesn't balance budgets. Hire a damn economist. Perry would be right at home in the dark ages.

The statement that I put in bold is quite funny and unfortunately for the US it's all too true.

[transjen]

Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
Jerseygirl Jen

You give them too much credit, dear Jen. The dates you have provided are post-Renaissance and post-Enlightenment. You need to find a century in the Dark Ages.

[ila]

Originally Posted by transjen

Well a president Perry or president Bachman will mean that instead of writing 2013 we will all be writing 1913 or in Perry case 1813
Jerseygirl Jen

Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.

One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.

One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.

If this is what you are being told in Canadian media coverage of the election, your reporters are adopting an unfortunate shorthand. Bachmann appears to be garnering the support of "evangelical Christians" who comprise a large segment of the population who specifically participate as voters in Republican primaries and for whom a small set of social issues trump most other considerations (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion, and so on). Beyond that, only time will tell.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

If this is what you are being told in Canadian media coverage of the election, your reporters are adopting an unfortunate shorthand. Bachmann appears to be garnering the support of "evangelical Christians" who comprise a large segment of the population who specifically participate as voters in Republican primaries and for whom a small set of social issues trump most other considerations (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion, and so on). Beyond that, only time will tell.

The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.

It's not only evangelical that's is being left out. Many of them are dominionists that want a totalitarian Christian government that imposes their religious views on all of us, similar to the Taliban.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

Even up here we are getting saturation coverage of the upcoming US presidentional election. It all gets so very tiresome with all the speculation and accompanying angst.

One thing that I don't like about the media coverage of Bachman is the blanket statement that Bachman is getting the Christian vote. While I will admit that there are professed Christians that will vote for her I would think that most of them belong to the wingnut fringe. Christians (as any other religious group) do not vote for a single candidate. I'm really getting tired of Christians being lumped together as one big amorphous mass that do not think individually.

Bachman isn't the only Jesus freak in the bunch. There are many. Perry is a strong contender for top Jesus freak. Romney and Huntsman are the mormons, and Pawlenty is actually proud of his evangelical heritage. Look up the others, by far, most of them do not believe in evolution, which is the cornerstone of a giant branch of science: biology.

Too bad Gary Johnson isn't a stronger presidential candidate. It would be nice to get a conservative atheist in the White House.

Originally Posted by randolph

It's not only evangelical that's is being left out. Many of them are dominionists that want a totalitarian Christian government that imposes their religious views on all of us, similar to the Taliban.

That sounds like Huckabee. He wanted the constitution to be aligned more with the bible. I am SOOOOOOOOO glad he dropped out.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.

No, the real missing adjective is deranged.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

While the GOP wannabe Presidents are doing a Mexican hat dance about zero job for Aug and after they finished high fiven each other they started running there mouth and if you listen you will find one pattron to there load of crap
They all claim they will create jobs
How will they do this feet you ask?
For the most part they are not telling but what they do tell is the same old GOP BS about cutting taxes
this BS has been in affect since 2001 and is still going
So if cutting taxes creates jobs where the are the jobs
in fact in 2010 the GOP ran for the house claiming they will make jobs there number one duty so to the GOP controled house i ask where are the jobs?
The GOP BS about cutting taxes has never worked and never will

The reason they aren't telling us they want to cut taxes is because the GOP and Obama have kept the tax cuts in place. Obama agreed to this because even he knew that raising them would make a bad job market even worse. Still the GOP has had to fight to keep taxes low and have basically won that fight. The other reason is that there are several things that need to be done to get the economy moving again. Bring the debt down so we can restore our AAA credit rating. Repeal obamacare. Lower gas prices. Restore high tech jobs that Obama eliminated. Enact policies that bring jobs back to the US.

One of the main things that need to be done is to reverse several of Obama's energy policies. Obama has openly stated that his goal was to drive coal companies into bankruptcy and that energy costs under his presidency would necessarily skyrocket. Banning oil drilling sure hasn't helped. If the cost of energy goes up, the cost of everything goes up.

Originally Posted by transjen

And before Tracy chimes in here's a fact for her to chew on when there belove W was in the white house we were in a neg 2000 jobs a month in the hole
The GOP answer is keep the Bush failed policies active and trople down on a loosing hand of failed policies which got us in to this mess to start with
and remember they cry the poor

Did you know the unemployment rate under Bush is almost half of the unemployment rate under Obama?

Here's a question for you... What policy of Obama's created the most jobs?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... Did you know the unemployment rate under Bush is almost half of the unemployment rate under Obama? ...

In "Chapters from My Autobiography," published in the North American Review in 1906, Mark Twain wrote: "Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics'."

Tracy Coxx knows full well that the current Great Recession began under Bush's watch, and that the statistic to which he alludes simply reflects what Obama inherited from Bush. The unemployment rate rose in the aftermath of the financial meltdown that began in 2007 and proceeded through 2008, while Bush was still in office. By the time Obama was sworn in, the Recession was in full force. To take out of context a statistic about the unemployment rate to make this political point is classic Tracy Coxx, and makes what Tracy wrote -- in the words of Mark Twain -- a lie.

[Slavetoebony]

I really hate discussing politics on 'adult' forums. But I want Ron Paul to win the election, because he is the only candidate respecting personal liberties.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Slavetoebony

I really hate discussing politics on 'adult' forums. But I want Ron Paul to win the election, because he is the only candidate respecting personal liberties.

With BO's spending sprees I've been thinking Ron Paul is on to something. And yes, he has several good points on personal liberties. After watching him last night I was reminded of how extreme he is. He doesn't come off as a leader either.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

With BO's spending sprees I've been thinking Ron Paul is on to something. And yes, he has several good points on personal liberties. After watching him last night I was reminded of how extreme he is. He doesn't come off as a leader either.

Ron Paul is a classic Ayn Rand type that longs to return to the McKinley era of small federal government. The time when the Rockefellers, the Morgans and other corporate moguls ruled America.
Ron and the teabaggers seem to be devoid of any understanding of history and what it was like before Teddy Roosevelt developed some regulation of corporate greed and repression of industrial workers.
Teddy was a Republican, by the way, concerned for the people and the preservation of the best things America stood for.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ron Paul is a classic Ayn Rand type that longs to return to the McKinley era of small federal government. The time when the Rockefellers, the Morgans and other corporate moguls ruled America.
Ron and the teabaggers seem to be devoid of any understanding of history and what it was like before Teddy Roosevelt developed some regulation of corporate greed and repression of industrial workers.
Teddy was a Republican, by the way, concerned for the people and the preservation of the best things America stood for.

Just like having too little regulation is a bad thing, having too much is also bad. The latter being very difficult to reverse.

[smc]

Thanks to Andy Borowitz ...

September 14, 2011

A Letter from Rick Perry
Introducing PerryCare?

Dear American,

For the last few weeks I?ve been under constant attack. My opponents would have you believe that if I?m elected, you?ll be stripped of your Social Security benefits and will be scrounging for food in dumpsters with all the desperation of a feral cat.

Of course, that?s true. But what they don?t tell you is what I?d replace Social Security with: an amazing new program I like to call PerryCare?.

Under PerryCare?, you?ll receive all the food, clothing and shelter you need, and it won?t cost a dime in taxes. How if that possible? Simple: you?ll be praying for all those things.

As a PerryCare? recipient, each week you?ll receive in your email box a PerryCare? PrayerMail?, giving you an easy-to-recite prayer for the bread, milk, cat food or whatever else you need to survive. It?s like a Groupon from God.

PerryCare? is more than a replacement for that infernal Ponzi scheme that has bamboozled Americans with regular monthly checks for 75 years. It is part of my larger plan to return prayer to its rightful place in American life. I get down on my knees every night and I promise you, if I am elected your President, I will bring this entire country to its knees.

I expect that some of my opponents will laugh at my plan, especially that lawn gnome Ron Paul and Michele ?Crazy Eyes? Bachmann. Fine, let them laugh! Laughter is the best medicine. And if I am elected, there will be no other medicine.

That brings me to my PerryCare? medical plan, which will replace Medicare once I consign that Ponzi scheme to the electric chair of history. I don?t have enough time to go into the whole plan right now, but here it is in two words: single prayer.

Your next President,

Gov. Rick Perry

[transjen]

I find it funny that seven of the eight GOP bozos running for president all have a flat tax plan only Paul has not came up with one as he's agianst all taxes period
But back to the seven gop bozos and there flat tax plans ,they say it's best for America everyone will pay less taxes it'll pay off the deficet and create jobs
ah flat tax will deliver us to the promise land
The true funny thing in this is these same bozos always say Obama care is socialism and him and the Dems want the USA to be like a comminest country
so here are those same bozos all screaming for a flat tax well here's a news flash
Answer me this name me a country who has the flat tax system come on say it, say it go ahead say it the answer is RUSSIA
Funny how the GOP feels that anything that helps the poor is socialism and anything that helps the ultra rich is good for the country
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Answer me this name me a country who has the flat tax system come on say it, say it go ahead say it the answer is RUSSIA
Funny how the GOP feels that anything that helps the poor is socialism and anything that helps the ultra rich is good for the country

Yeah, which was implemented AFTER the fall of communism

[Trogdor]

If I were to choose, I would say Ron Paul. Apart from his views on abortions and same sex marriage, he's got good ideas. Pity the media gives him limited coverage, as opposed to these drama queens and kings that the others are.

[Trogdor]

One of the main things that need to be done is to reverse several of Obama's energy policies. Obama has openly stated that his goal was to drive coal companies into bankruptcy and that energy costs under his presidency would necessarily skyrocket. Banning oil drilling sure hasn't helped. If the cost of energy goes up, the cost of everything goes up.

Problem is, big coal and oil suppress alternative energy sources, plus I am a firm believer in abiotic oil, and the oil companies would wind up selling oil dirt cheap if proven true. I also believe that while abiotic oil is true, we need to use something else, since oil is too valuable to be used for energy....plus I've been to places like L.A., I don't need to see the air get more foul and my eyes burning even more so. I am also a firm believer in zero point energy, and both J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison went all out to destroy Nikola Tesla's reputation and well being, since if he would have gotten it going, it would have meant, safe, clean and free energy for everyone...and both Morgan and Edison did not want that (Edison was a businessman, and an asshole first, and a scientist second)...and Tesla died a penniless and broken man because of them.

Think about it, you really think the oil companies will say, "A new way or energy is found? Great! We will step down as a domineering force and not make billions in profits (and I also believe in abiotic oil since one does NOT make record billions in profit on a dwindling resource) and make way for progress!" Not gonna happen, folks, until someone's got the balls or the tits to tell big oil and coal what they can go do with themselves.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

If I were to choose, I would say Ron Paul. Apart from his views on abortions and same sex marriage, he's got good ideas. Pity the media gives him limited coverage, as opposed to these drama queens and kings that the others are.

Ron Paul on "Hardball," MSNBC, May 3, 2011, attempting to justify is racist rejection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Chris Matthews: Let me ask you this: the '64 civil rights bill. Do you think a [em]ployer, a guy runs his shop down in Texas has a right to say, "If you're black, you don't come in my store". That was the libertarian right before '64. Was it the balanced society?

Ron Paul: I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can't walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and states' rights, therefore I'm a racist. I mean that's just outlandish. Wait, Chris. Wait, Chris. People who say that if the law was there and you could do that, who's going to do it? What idiot would do that?

Chris Matthews: Everybody in the South. I saw these signs driving through the South in college. Of course they did it. You remember them doing it.

Ron Paul: Yeah, I but also know that the Jim Crow laws were illegal and we got rid of them under that same law, and that's all good. Government ?

Chris Matthews: But you would've voted against that law.

Ron Paul: Pardon me?

Chris Matthews: You would've voted against that law. You wouldn't have voted for the '64 civil rights bill.

Ron Paul: Yes, but not in ? I wouldn?t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.

Chris Matthews: But you would have voted for the ? you know you ? oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the '64 civil rights bill.

Ron Paul: Because ? because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.

Chris Matthews: Let me ask you this: I once went to Laundromat when I was at a Peace Corps training in Baker, Louisiana. A Laundromat had this sign on in glaze: "Whites only on the Laundromat", just to use the Laundromat machines. This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?

Ron Paul: That's ? that's ancient history. That's ancient history. That's over and done with.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

If I were to choose, I would say Ron Paul. Apart from his views on abortions and same sex marriage, he's got good ideas. Pity the media gives him limited coverage, as opposed to these drama queens and kings that the others are.

Ron Paul on the separation of church and state:

"The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."

[Trogdor]

I am referring to his economic stuff, smc.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I am referring to his economic stuff, smc.

Roll your eyes all you want, but you wrote that you would "choose" Ron Paul, presumably to be president since that is the topic of this thread. Your choice, then, includes accepting his social views. I'll leave his economic views -- which are more regressive than even the flat-tax idiots among the other Republican candidates -- for comments from others ... except to say that libertarian economic views are, at their base, an endorsement of "dog eat dog."

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Problem is, big coal and oil suppress alternative energy sources, plus I am a firm believer in abiotic oil, and the oil companies would wind up selling oil dirt cheap if proven true. I also believe that while abiotic oil is true, we need to use something else, since oil is too valuable to be used for energy....plus I've been to places like L.A., I don't need to see the air get more foul and my eyes burning even more so. I am also a firm believer in zero point energy, and both J.P. Morgan and Thomas Edison went all out to destroy Nikola Tesla's reputation and well being, since if he would have gotten it going, it would have meant, safe, clean and free energy for everyone...and both Morgan and Edison did not want that (Edison was a businessman, and an asshole first, and a scientist second)...and Tesla died a penniless and broken man because of them.

Think about it, you really think the oil companies will say, "A new way or energy is found? Great! We will step down as a domineering force and not make billions in profits (and I also believe in abiotic oil since one does NOT make record billions in profit on a dwindling resource) and make way for progress!" Not gonna happen, folks, until someone's got the balls or the tits to tell big oil and coal what they can go do with themselves.

So all those academics, they are just keeping quiet about this? They are all bought and paid for by corporations? It's all a giant conspiracy dating several decades at least?

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So all those academics, they are just keeping quiet about this? They are all bought and paid for by corporations? It's all a giant conspiracy dating several decades at least?

Hey, I'm an academic! Where do I sign up for these payments?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I am also a firm believer in zero point energy

Zero point energy is a fact. It's been observed. It's not some idea that's being debated.

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Think about it, you really think the oil companies will say, "A new way or energy is found? Great! We will step down as a domineering force and not make billions in profits (and I also believe in abiotic oil since one does NOT make record billions in profit on a dwindling resource) and make way for progress!" Not gonna happen, folks, until someone's got the balls or the tits to tell big oil and coal what they can go do with themselves.

If a better energy source is found that's more profitable, oil companies have a choice, just as companies like Kodak did when they switched from manufacturing film to digital cameras and digital media. Either go down or join the competition.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Ron Paul on the separation of church and state:

"The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

Hold on... just imagining that for a sec... ahhh ok.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Hold on... just imagining that for a sec... ahhh ok.

You do realize that he is advocating AGAINST such a transformation, right?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Hey, I'm an academic! Where do I sign up for these payments?

Keep it quiet smc. I'll send you the forms for official membership later. For now you can attend the meetings. The are held every Thursday; I'll email you the address. Don't forget your tinfoil hat, your fake piece of moon rock and that piece of dynamite used to blow up the Twin Towers. Special guest this week: JFK and his "assassin." They're good buddies.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

You do realize that he is advocating AGAINST such a transformation, right?

Yes, of course. I think I've been pretty clear in this thread that i have no love for the religious right. A secular America would be heaven for me

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Keep it quiet smc. I'll send you the forms for official membership later. For now you can attend the meetings. The are held every Thursday; I'll email you the address. Don't forget your tinfoil hat, your fake piece of moon rock and that piece of dynamite used to blow up the Twin Towers. Special guest this week: JFK and his "assassin." They're good buddies.

Trogdor deserves a serious response, so here it is.

Regarding the theory that oil is abiotic in origin: This theory hypothesizes that oil is formed not from any organic substance, but from magma. The problemm with the theory is that no one has yet to find any unrefined oil that DOES NOT contain microscopic evidence of the organisms from which it was formed. In fact, researchers are able to trace the oil to specific times when the oil was formed.

Now, "scholars" who argue for the abiotic theory (I could not find a single one at my university, which is one of the three leading technological universities in the world) claim that the biotic origin of oil has never been proven, and that the fact that Russia has been exploring and finding "abiotic" oil for decades proves their perspective. This simply ignores the fact stated in the paragraph above.

Ultimately, those who argue for the abiotic theory (contrary to Trogdor's explanation) are proxies for the oil companies, who want to dispel the notion that oil is a finite resource. Were they to embrace that notion, they would be hard-pressed to make a logical case for their massive, funded-with-billions-of-dollars opposition to alternative energy development.

Whoever wins the nomination, I, for one, pray it causes the "Republican" Party to self-destruct. After that, the "Democrats" are next. Bye-bye, Republicrats. The Constitution Party is the true face of American conservatism. Of course, I'm no fan of their Christian-nationalist "cultural mandate" views, among others, but at least they really are fiscally conservative, unlike the tax-and-spend neocons with their "trickle-down" bullshit.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Zero point energy is a fact. It's been observed. It's not some idea that's being debated.

If a better energy source is found that's more profitable, oil companies have a choice, just as companies like Kodak did when they switched from manufacturing film to digital cameras and digital media. Either go down or join the competition.

Since when do corporations and big businesses compete honestly?
If the zero point energy comes to pass, there will be no competition. If free energy comes to pass, no one will be competing, since it would be pointless. Telsa's life was ruined by J.P. Morgan and Edison, because he wanted to make free, clean energy for all...not something to sell, and I say if energy can be harnessed and made for dirt cheap or costing nothing, that would be like breaking the chains, as it were, since we're pretty much enslaved by big oil.

And energy companies, especially oil companies, are not exactly the most honorable or honest of people. It's interesting when I read articles of scientists who are in the fields of alternative energy found dead under mysterious circumstance, and they are often said to be suicides, I can not believe that many alternative energy scientists are THAT depressed.

Keep it quiet smc. I'll send you the forms for official membership later. For now you can attend the meetings. The are held every Thursday; I'll email you the address. Don't forget your tinfoil hat, your fake piece of moon rock and that piece of dynamite used to blow up the Twin Towers. Special guest this week: JFK and his "assassin." They're good buddies.

Good thing I never speak of hyper-dimensional physics, or any other non main stream topics with you, since all I'd read here would be petty sarcasm and what not.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

If the zero point energy comes to pass, there will be no competition.

Zero point energy does just fine without us and already exists in nature. It is the reason that liquid helium can not freeze, no matter how cold it gets.

Originally Posted by Trogdor

If free energy comes to pass, no one will be competing, since it would be pointless.

Unless you can concentrate and fire off free energy beams from your palms you'll need some device to create it and make use of it. It will be made by evil corporations. Oh sure, it may start in Bobby's garage, but Bobby will get a patent on it and begin his evil empire... making money off his ingenuity. gasp But I wouldn't hold your breath. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids it. You may argue against it, but to do so, you'd have to start by saying there are more ordered states than disordered states of a system. Entropy always increases.

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Telsa's life was ruined by J.P. Morgan and Edison, because he wanted to make free, clean energy for all...not something to sell, and I say if energy can be harnessed and made for dirt cheap or costing nothing, that would be like breaking the chains, as it were, since we're pretty much enslaved by big oil.

Tesla may have been picked on, but that doesn't change the fact about entropy. And btw, you're not enslaved by big oil. Go ride your bike. Convert your vehicle into bio-diesel. Use solar energy. Use your powerful intellect, which allows you to argue against modern physicists and claim that free energy is possible and build your own perpetual motion machine. You're only enslaved by big oil if you accept the status quo and follow the herd.

Originally Posted by Trogdor

And energy companies, especially oil companies, are not exactly the most honorable or honest of people. It's interesting when I read articles of scientists who are in the fields of alternative energy found dead under mysterious circumstance, and they are often said to be suicides, I can not believe that many alternative energy scientists are THAT depressed.

You must admit that a hypothetical conspiracy theorist wearing a tin foil hat might say such things.

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Good thing I never speak of hyper-dimensional physics, or any other non main stream topics with you, since all I'd read here would be petty sarcasm and what not.

Please do. I've dabbled in 5 dimensional physics so I'd be interested in the discussion.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Zero point energy does just fine without us and already exists in nature. It is the reason that liquid helium can not freeze, no matter how cold it gets.

Unless you can concentrate and fire off free energy beams from your palms you'll need some device to create it and make use of it. It will be made by evil corporations. Oh sure, it may start in Bobby's garage, but Bobby will get a patent on it and begin his evil empire... making money off his ingenuity. gasp But I wouldn't hold your breath. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids it. You may argue against it, but to do so, you'd have to start by saying there are more ordered states than disordered states of a system. Entropy always increases.

Tesla may have been picked on, but that doesn't change the fact about entropy. And btw, you're not enslaved by big oil. Go ride your bike. Convert your vehicle into bio-diesel. Use solar energy. Use your powerful intellect, which allows you to argue against modern physicists and claim that free energy is possible and build your own perpetual motion machine. You're only enslaved by big oil if you accept the status quo and follow the herd.

You must admit that a hypothetical conspiracy theorist wearing a tin foil hat might say such things.

Please do. I've dabbled in 5 dimensional physics so I'd be interested in the discussion.

I'll be glad to discuss that, we can make a thread about that.

And PLEASE lay off the god damned tinfoil hat thing, it's like someone says something so non mainstream that the typical American Idol/Dancing with the Stars slobs can't even think of, makes it's so 'conspiracy theorist'. I mean why are so many of these fellows found dead? And big companies doing despicable things is not a new concept. I mean if rich individuals can get away with heinous crimes....just look at any of those folks who get off with murder or narcotics because he or she had the $$$ to pass around. Could see big oil doing that, too.

And back to the other bit, before some people start screaming tinfoil hat (again), the when the first American satellite was launched, several key, mainstream physics were not just broken, but thrown out the window during the course of those events. I'll post that stuff up later, once I can gather up all my notes and papers on it.