Trans Ladyboy Forum

Trans Ladyboy Forum (http://forum.transladyboy.com//index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://forum.transladyboy.com//forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   GOP'ish candidates (http://forum.transladyboy.com//showthread.php?t=11295)

smc 06-21-2011 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 188854)
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 06-21-2011 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GRH (Post 188855)
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 06-21-2011 01:06 PM

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;188859]
Quote:

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 06-22-2011 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 188858)
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?
Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 188854)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 188858)
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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 188854)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 188858)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 188858)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 188858)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 188858)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 188858)
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 06-22-2011 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 188921)
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 06-24-2011 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 188921)
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 06-26-2011 10:25 AM

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

smc 07-05-2011 07:33 AM

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 07-05-2011 08:21 AM

Joanna?
 
Vote for Joanna jet for president, then we can enjoy being screwed. :coupling::inlove:

ila 07-05-2011 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 189933)
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 07-06-2011 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 189946)
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 07-06-2011 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 190146)
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 08-19-2011 01:03 PM

Randolph on Perry:
Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 194156)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 194158)
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 08-19-2011 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 194204)
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 08-19-2011 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 194204)
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 08-21-2011 04:07 PM

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
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

smc 08-21-2011 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 194416)
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
:eek: 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. :yes:

ila 08-21-2011 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 194416)
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
:eek: 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 08-21-2011 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 194421)
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 08-21-2011 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 194423)
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 08-21-2011 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 194427)
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 08-22-2011 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 194421)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 194436)
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 08-22-2011 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 194427)
The adjective, evangelical, is always missing in the reports.

No, the real missing adjective is deranged.

TracyCoxx 09-04-2011 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 195629)
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 :lol:
this BS has been in affect since 2001 and is still going
So if cutting taxes creates jobs where the :censored: 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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 195629)
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 :coupling: 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 09-04-2011 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 195660)
... 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 09-06-2011 03:34 PM

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 09-08-2011 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slavetoebony (Post 195891)
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 09-08-2011 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 196042)
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 09-08-2011 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randolph (Post 196044)
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 09-14-2011 04:10 PM

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 10-24-2011 11:43 PM

The flat tax plans
 
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 :lol:
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 :eek:
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
:rolleyes: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx 10-25-2011 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 199359)
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 :eek:
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 10-26-2011 07:16 AM

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. :coupling:

Trogdor 10-26-2011 07:30 AM

Quote:

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 10-26-2011 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199449)
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. :coupling:

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 10-26-2011 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199449)
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. :coupling:

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 10-26-2011 07:50 AM

I am referring to his economic stuff, smc.:rolleyes:

smc 10-26-2011 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199455)
I am referring to his economic stuff, smc.:rolleyes:

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 10-26-2011 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199451)
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 10-26-2011 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 199468)
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 10-26-2011 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199451)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199451)
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 10-26-2011 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199454)
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 10-26-2011 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199482)
Hold on... just imagining that for a sec... ahhh ok.

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

Enoch Root 10-26-2011 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199469)
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 10-26-2011 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199485)
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 10-26-2011 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 199514)
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.

St. Araqiel 10-26-2011 06:42 PM

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 10-26-2011 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199478)
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.


Quote:

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 10-26-2011 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199536)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199536)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199536)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199536)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199536)
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 10-26-2011 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199540)
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.

smc 10-27-2011 10:11 AM

This is unrealistic, because in my experience cats are generally more intelligent than Republican primary voters.


Enoch Root 10-27-2011 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199542)
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.

I wish you luck on your anomaly hunting.

Breaking News: the earth is expanding! (also it's flat and all the scientists are keeping it quiet)

ila 10-27-2011 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199540)
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.

It's been many years since I took physics and chemistry, but I do remember reading that everything freezes at absolute zero -273*C.

btw cannot is one word not two.

Trogdor 10-27-2011 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch Root (Post 199585)

Breaking News: the earth is expanding! (also it's flat and all the scientists are keeping it quiet)

Where's a good middle finger smiley when one needs to use one?:rolleyes:


People like you make me sad, Enoch.:p

TracyCoxx 10-27-2011 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 199604)
It's been many years since I took physics and chemistry, but I do remember reading that everything freezes at absolute zero -273*C.

Remember quantum mechanics? Due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can never bring particles (like electrons) to absolute rest, like you might think would happen at absolute zero. The minimum energy would be (1/2)hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the oscillation frequency associated with the De Broglie wavelength of the electron. This would be the zero-point energy, and does prevent liquid helium from freezing... at least below a pressure of 25 atms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 199604)
btw cannot is one word not two.

seriously?

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html

TracyCoxx 10-27-2011 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor (Post 199606)
Where's a good middle finger smiley when one needs to use one?:rolleyes:

It's like this: ,,|, ;)

ila 10-28-2011 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199619)
Remember quantum mechanics? Due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle, you can never bring particles (like electrons) to absolute rest, like you might think would happen at absolute zero. The minimum energy would be (1/2)hf, where h is planck's constant and f is the oscillation frequency associated with the De Broglie wavelength of the electron. This would be the zero-point energy, and does prevent liquid helium from freezing... at least below a pressure of 25 atms.

All the references that I checked said helium would freeze at 1 - 1.5*K, but they also agree with your statement that helium has to be compressed before it will freeze. Of course compressing gases is one way to bring down the temperature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199619)

Yes, seriously and your reference backs up my statement as does the Oxford English Dictiionary.

TracyCoxx 10-28-2011 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 199646)
All the references that I checked said helium would freeze at 1 - 1.5*K, but they also agree with your statement that helium has to be compressed before it will freeze. Of course compressing gases is one way to bring down the temperature.

Without raising the pressure helium would stay liquid at absolute zero. You can not bring it down any further than absolute zero, but raising the pressure will still do the trick.

franalexes 10-28-2011 08:58 PM

Not exactly:
The devil is in the details. Increasing pressure increases temperature.
If the gas temperature is increased, then you have a heat source that can be cooled. Releasing the pressure after cooling will cause more cooling since without pressure the helium would boil and evaporation is a cooling process.
Result: froozen!

Just put water in a closed container and create a vacuum. The water will boil without adding heat, but boiling / evaporation is a cooling process and the boiling water will change to ice.
It's like telling the boys they can't play with me; they get boiling mad and their attitude turns to ice. ( I don't have to give a referance do I ? ):frown:

TracyCoxx 10-28-2011 09:20 PM

I'm very pleased with the way this thread is going. Physics is so much more interesting than politics :turnon:

ila 10-29-2011 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 199660)
I'm very pleased with the way this thread is going. Physics is so much more interesting than politics :turnon:

I won't further derail this thread by posting anything more on physics, however feel free to start a thread about physics.

franalexes 10-29-2011 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 199741)
I won't further derail this thread by posting anything more on physics, however feel free to start a thread about physics.

The thread isn't derailed. It seems to be on a different track.
Wouldn't a good moderator be able to move the physics posts to a new thread? Would be a shame to loose the continuity.

Please Ila, pretty please. :innocent::hug: or are you going to sleep on the couch anyway?

paladin68 12-09-2011 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 188462)
The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

paladin68 12-09-2011 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 188676)
I am continually amazed at how far into debt the US is going (they aren't the only country either). I am also amazed that the solution seems to be to keep printing more money. Eventually the US dollar will be worth nothing. Unfortunately the money traders of the world have yet to wake up to this fact. I keep reading in newspapers the currency fluctuations are due to money traders fleeing for the safe haven of the US dollar. Gives one food for thought.

That's why i'm holding onto my gold & silver. but the dollar won't be worth nothing, there is no other currency that can replace it. Of course that won't prevent quite the mess if we keep on down this spend into oblivion and then print money causing further dilution of our currency.

We haven't quite gotten to the level that Germany was in when you needed a wheelbarrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread, and if you waited until the next day, you needed TWO wheelbarrows of marks!

smc 12-09-2011 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin68 (Post 202825)
I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive. :frown:

paladin68 12-09-2011 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 202867)
And yet the U.S. Marines commandant has acknowledged that he made a mistake in opposing the repeal of DODT. But congratulations on keeping the backward, prejudiced, unsupportable position alive. :frown:

Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.

The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...

ila 12-09-2011 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin68 (Post 202825)
I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction. And, Tracy was alluding to the potential danger TO gays serving openly, not they they were putting others' lives in danger.

There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?

smc 12-09-2011 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin68 (Post 202893)
Now you are putting words in MY mouth. I didn't register an opinion one way or the other. And i have had to contend with initial fallout as a result of the repeal already. There is a sub-culture in primarily the Army and MC that is going to try and make this difficult. At best it will cause "distractions"; I don't want to think of the wost that could result.

The MC commandant was carefully toeing a party line. He remembers quite well what happened to the CJCS of a just a couple years ago - who was also a Marine. Step out of your lane at immediate peril to your career is the watchword in higher circles. Look at the USAF MG who was cashiered a couple weeks ago. For saying what most people on THIS forum would agree with...

I put NO WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. Perhaps a remedial course in reading is in order. :rolleyes:

And as for the notion that you "didn't register an opinion one way or another," well, I'll leave it to all the sentient beings who might read your post to come to the obvious conclusion.

paladin68 12-09-2011 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 202895)
There are other countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military and they don't find it a distraction nor are these people in danger. There are countries that allow transgenders to serve and they haven't had a problem. So why is the US military so different? Could it be fear of the unknown or perhaps that the US military is so backwards?

We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.

As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.

And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.

smc 12-10-2011 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paladin68 (Post 202903)
We certainly aren't backwards, but there are factors, mainly personnel factors that are and will cause problems. It'll take some time to weed out the trouble-makers, could take as long as 10 years or more to be completely free on the underlying problems.

As for the all great and powerful oz, er, um, smc, he doesn't have the first hand knowledge that i have on this and isn't going to get it from me.

And he MISTAKENLY thinks i am against the recent policy change (which also required an underlying regulatory change that people don't even know about). But that's something i expect from him.

You wrote:
"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."
Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.

As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there.

As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.

paladin68 12-10-2011 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 202926)
You wrote:As for the insulting remark in bold, I will refer that elsewhere.

No sense of humor either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 202926)
You wrote:
"I can tell you the current makeup of the US Military makes it a SERIOUS distraction."
Deny it all you want, but it's right there on the page.

As for what I've highlighted in bold: you know nothing of what I might have first-hand knowledge of. Perhaps I have a gay child in the miltary. Perhaps a sibling who was bounced out of the Corps for being gay. You know nothing of me. I don't write that I have any more knowledge than you, nor do I write that you have any knowledge than me. I state my opinion and go from there

Stating it will cause a distraction is NOT taking a position one way or the other.

You are referring to PAST events. I am referring to the present and future. There IS a difference.

TracyCoxx 12-29-2011 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 188462)
The part in bold text is a rather foolish statement to make. Gays in the military are not a distraction nor do gays put anyone's life in danger because they are gay. You should really check your facts on this, Tracy. Start by consulting countries that allow openly gay people in their military and you will find that there are no problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 204386)
Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 204385)
Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 200758)
I guess for most it's safer and in there best intrest to remain unseen
which is sad as this is 2011 not 1955
But sadly there are those who believe that beating up a cross dresser or a Tgirl is there God given right and also it's there God given right to beatup anyone who likes or heaven forbid actualy date one of us :eek:

Are there people like that in the military?

Of course, there are, just as there are in any other segment of society.

Ila, the quoted section from transjen illustrates the reality in America. It may be different in other countries, but for now, this attitude exists here, as smc confirms. I don't know why, when we're talking directly about DADT, everyone pretends like this problem between gays and certain rednecks don't exist, but while not directly discussing DADT it seems everyone knows this to be true.

Yes, smc is right. These people who believe it's their god given right to beat up gays & transgendered people exist in the military, just like in any segment of society (unless there are a greater percentage of rednecks in the military than in the general population?). It is a distraction. I'm certainly not saying it should be a distraction, but it is. If I want a job to get done, I'm not going to put a bully and his target together to work on the job right? Unlike in the general population, distractions in the military can potentially cost lives.

transjen 01-03-2012 12:09 AM

In a few hours Iowa will start the primaries kicking off the offical run for the white house
I find it funny when you hear all the talking heads debate and bicker over the reason why most of the GOP voters still are shopping for who to support
Just about everyone except Huntsman have had there 15 min of being king of the hill
Sadly the real reason behind this goes unsaid
Yes there is a reason why this is happening
While the talking heads are scared to say the reason i'm not
The reason the poll numbers are up then down and the top keeps changing is all so simple they are all interchangeable and all there ideas are pretty much the same, everyone is on there own lower taxes for the rich do away with all regulations do away with corprate taxs do away with all goverment spending except miltary and start war with Iran
So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term three
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

TracyCoxx 01-03-2012 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 204768)
So really it doesn't matter who runs in 12 they are all promising the same thing for those who miss W just vote GOP and it'll be like W term three

Which allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!

franalexes 01-03-2012 07:56 PM

when
 
When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!

transjen 01-03-2012 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 204854)
When Clinton defeated the first Bush, he took credit for an improving economy even before he took office.
When, for god's sake when is this current president going to take responsability for what happens in his term? He's got 1 year left!


when is W going to admit he screwed up the country? he still cliams he made no mistakes
durng W's final year we were losing a average of 75 k jobs a month
Obama has stopped that trend and the private sector has been adding jobs each month and this is while the GOP governors have been on a job cutting spree cutting state jobs just to keep the unemployment numbers high
And how can he do anything when the GOP always says no to everything
The GOP goals to to wreck the econemy just to take over
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

transjen 01-04-2012 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 204849)
Which allows you to continue to blame Bush. Brilliant!


Well W deserves all the credit, he made this mess and Obama has been fixing it which isn't easy when he's blocked at every turn by the GOP
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

franalexes 01-04-2012 09:23 AM

Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.
Governors regardless of D's or R's with the help of their legislatures have had to cut funding because the poor economy results in lower income for the States and they wish not to become as indebted as Obama has pushed this nation.

Borrow all the money you can, increase your debt, and then tell me how rich you are. REALLY!
and if you aren't rich after doing that it's not my fault because I convinced you to do it.


franalexes 01-05-2012 09:10 AM

hope gone, change points down
 
Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

smc 01-05-2012 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 204989)
Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion.

If the politicians of both major parties were serious about ensuring jobs, they would have created them ... period. There are tremendous needs in this country to do things that only government does. The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.

ila 01-05-2012 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 204992)
I am no defender of Obama, as I have made clear in post after post. But this notion that Obama is personally and directly responsible for the loss of jobs is ridiculous and hardly even merits serious discussion...

Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

franalexes 01-05-2012 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 204992)
I The private sector doesn't fix roads and bridges, build schools, or take on any of the other infrastructure projects that modern societies undertake.

"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.

smc 01-05-2012 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 204995)
Then do you also agree that it's also ridiculous to blame George W. Bush for job losses that occured during his terms?

Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.

smc 01-05-2012 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 204998)
"schools",,,, be carefull with that one. Most colleges are private even thou they receive government grants. At lower levels, private schools of faith based origin are being financed totally free of government support.

Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.

I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

ila 01-05-2012 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 205000)
Job losses can be attributed in part to the policies of presidents. Presidents of both parties have enabled the offshoring of jobs. Clinton presided over NAFTA, a huge job-killer in the United States. Bush's policies (easing or ignoring regulation of the financial markets, allowing for the casino environment from which the world has suffered) that helped lead to the financial system collapse in September 2008 contributed to job losses, to be sure. Obama's failure to pass a stimulus plan with a real job-creation component and that was much, much larger than what he did get also contributed. But in no case are the associated job losses the direct blame of any president. They are the result of a system propped up through collusion by both major parties, a system that puts profits before people, and rewards profit making even when it comes at the direct expense of people.

That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.

smc 01-05-2012 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ila (Post 205009)
That's the answer that I was looking for. I would think, though, that the financial collapse was the result of policies put into effect long before either Bush Jr took office. I would also suggest that no administration did anything to correct those policies.

The deregulation of the financial markets began, in earnest, with the repeal of provisions of the Glass?Steagall Act via the Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act in 1999. Clinton was president. Bush Jr. accelerated the process. This is why I continue to make the point that both major parties -- which serve the interests of the monied class -- are the political architects of the current situation. Obama brought into his administration the very people who started all this crap under Clinton, including Lawrence Summers.

franalexes 01-05-2012 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 205002)
Of course, anyone reading this would have reasonably assumed I meant public schools, K-12. But you are technically correct.

I could have listed lots more examples of how government creates jobs by building for society. But perhaps you'd like to defend the notion put so eloquently by Grover Norquist: "I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? :frown: Probably not.:respect:

smc 01-05-2012 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 205042)
First, I am not anyone. I am Franalexes. By what assumption do you believe I should assume? You say I am technically correct. Then are you technically in-correct? Should I assume that's what you meant?
Why do you think conservatives want to kill government? We want the same things you do. We just disagree on the manner that government does things.
I have no idea who this "Grover" is, nor do I care, and furthermore I do not find his notion eloquently stated. Am I obligated to defend it just because you asked me to? :frown: Probably not.:respect:

I'll let you play your rhetorical games while I engage in serious discourse.

You are correct that I should have stated more precisely that I meant public schools. But pretty much anyone with a brain who was also inclined to have a serious discussion would have known what I meant, and that I did not mean that private schools are built by the government (although nearly every private school in this country, even those of what you call "faith based origin," get some government funding in one form or another). There ... satisfied now?

And while you may claim not to know who Grover Norquist is, I dare say that you certainly know of his work. He is the founder and leader of Americans for Tax Reform, and the author of the ridiculous "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" that has been signed by 95 percent of all Republicans in Congress and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates. You know the pledge; it's the one that makes Republicans do ridiculous stuff like working against extending the payroll tax cut extension because it can be interpreted (only in the most asinine way) as a tax increase by simply turning logic on its head.

That pledge, by the way, of which you are aware (I know this, franalexes, because you could not possibly be aware of many of the things of which you write without being aware of the pledge, since they are mentioned in the same sentences on websites, in news reports, and elsewere, without respect to party or end of the political spectrum, and to be unaware of it would require a type of filtering of which the human brain is not capable), reads as follows:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

transjen 01-06-2012 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 204989)
Today's news, 1-5-2012 "There are 1,800,000 fewer jobs today than when Obama took office."

Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
lets look at just the last six months of W and each month the econemy lost between 600k to 800k jobs each month and when the rein of W finaly came to an end his record had way more jobs lost then jobs added
For 2011 100k on average was added not great but we are headed in the right direction even with the GOP doing everything they can to :coupling: the econemy and hinder job growth
Jersey's piece of crap governor since day one has been on a job elimition program
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

franalexes 01-06-2012 07:10 PM

nope
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 205096)
Isn't that the number of lost jobs he inherieted from W
Jerseygirl Jen

In a word, NO.

transjen 01-07-2012 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 205103)
In a word, NO.


YES!!!!!!! W lost those and more jobs under his failed policies
W destoryed the US encomny
And Obama has been rebuliding it with no help from the GOP

GRH 01-07-2012 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franalexes (Post 204894)
Obama has stopped that trend .....
Too bad you are wrong. We were promised the rate would not go over 8% un-employed. It went to over 10%.

And we were promised that free trade, deregulation, union-busting, and cutting the top marginal tax rates for the 1% would cure all our economic woes under W (and earlier administrations). We see where that got us. So it's far from the first time that political promises were, at best miscalculations, and at worst, outright lies.

parr 01-07-2012 04:34 AM

Parr
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx (Post 185377)
Chichester, I saw your posting in Justice and wasn't sure how it fit in there, but it is a subject on its own that I'm concerned about. It's time to see if a GOP candidate that doesn't in some remote way relate back to Reagan, can win. And if ANY GOP candidate can't win against Obama the GOP really should pack it up and never show their face again, and the curse often attributed to Alexander Tytler has become a reality.

I think many of the current GOP candidates will have the same problem McCain had: Conservative voters were not impressed that McCain was conservative enough, so bizarrely they elected the most far left president the country has ever had.

The obligatory GOP haters who respond to this thread will of course be obvious, but to the few conservatives out there, what do you think of this round of GOP candidates?

TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.

GRH 01-08-2012 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parr (Post 205127)
TRACY, ANY ONE OF THE GOP'S EXEPT RON PAUL, WOULD SURELY BE THE
LESSER OF THE EVILS, DON'T YOU THINK.

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not...But among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is the ONLY sane candidate who actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution. Further, he believes in sound fiscal policy...A policy that would starve the Fed's ability to blindly print dollars and devalue our currency. This in turn would starve our ability to deficit finance multiple trillion dollar wars, globe trotting adventurism, and our ever-ballooning federal government. Other candidates like to talk about small government-- but their voting records often betray their talk. Paul is the one GOP candidate that has at least been consistent over the past couple of decades, and in my mind, he is the ONLY GOP candidate who actually stands for what Republicans of history have stood for.

parr 01-08-2012 08:12 AM

parr
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GRH (Post 205235)
I don't know if this is sarcasm or not...But among the GOP candidates, Ron Paul is the ONLY sane candidate who actually believes in individual liberty and the Constitution. Further, he believes in sound fiscal policy...A policy that would starve the Fed's ability to blindly print dollars and devalue our currency. This in turn would starve our ability to deficit finance multiple trillion dollar wars, globe trotting adventurism, and our ever-ballooning federal government. Other candidates like to talk about small government-- but their voting records often betray their talk. Paul is the one GOP candidate that has at least been consistent over the past couple of decades, and in my mind, he is the ONLY GOP candidate who actually stands for what Republicans of history have stood for.

No sarcasm.

parr 01-08-2012 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smc (Post 199581)
This is unrealistic, because in my experience cats are generally more intelligent than Republican primary voters.


Really, I am a republican primary voter.:rolleyes:

transjen 01-09-2012 02:47 PM

The true meaning of actavist judge
 
OK i'm sick to death of the various GOP bozos going on and on about actavist judges
Well let me fill you in on the true meaning of the term Actavist Judge an actavist judge is any judges ruling you don't like :p
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

smc 01-09-2012 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transjen (Post 205335)
OK i'm sick to death of the various GOP bozos going on and on about actavist judges
Well let me fill you in on the true meaning of the term Actavist Judge an actavist judge is any judges ruling you don't like :p
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

And then there's that Judge Judy idiot! ;)

TSKarinaGiselle 01-09-2012 04:05 PM

I don't know which party he's at but, he'd get my vote for sure!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=DFXXAuDK1Ao

Young_facial 01-09-2012 06:49 PM

Hahaha that's way better than cat bowl


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy