Official "What are you thinking about right now?" (Political Version)

Also, came out of econ with the understanding that having a deficit wasn't all that bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by President

Are you saying that econ profs at ncsu say that you can run a defecit? Sorry was kind of unclear

---

Yes and that under the right conditions having a constant deficit is ideal & indefinitely sustainable

5 hours till I'm on my way to Germany

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by President

Also, came out of econ with the understanding that having a deficit wasn't all that bad.

---

I don't think it is, but not the amount it is at right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

"He probably won't be able to actually enact his ridiculous ideas" isn't a defense against him having those ridiculous ideas.

---

I don't see how they are any more ridiculous than what the establishment is doing. His crazy ideas involve less, not more gov't so I can accept that. I wont vote for him, but this article painting a picture of crazy, when the leaders of our country are more crazy, is dumb.

Quote:

---

When cutting spending comes up, the first place you go shouldn't be essentials of life such as health and education. It is perfectly reasonable to wish to cut spending while also being in favor of a public healthcare system and public education.

---

I agree, Military should be the first. However, even with that cut, I don't believe this country can afford it. Maybe get the debt down to reasonable levels and then work on public "essentials".

Quote:

---

According to Ron Paul, everything is needless regulation. I will not feel safer if suddenly giant machines that travel at great speeds in the sky are self-regulated by the people that make and fly them with no oversight whatsoever. I will, in fact, feel much less safe.

---

Seems like all regulation is, is a reason for the gov't to get more money from us, and as we seen with the financial collapse, the good regulations aren't even enforced anyway (I know you love seeing those bankers walking free still like I do wink, wink). Pretty obvious that the people that violated So yeah, I am in favor of getting rid of the regulations that hamper small business opportunities.

Quote:

---

Again, it's possible to be for gun rights (I am) while thinking Ron Paul's stance on gun rights is loony.

---

If it doesn't change the laws, it doesn't bother me.

Quote:

---

Getting rid of the income tax would only work if you also completely gut the government, which may seem like a fantastic idea to you, but be realistic. Inb4 you say "We can't spend what we don't have." (So, hey, let's have even less!)

---

I am, I don't believe the changes would ever be made. I personally would like to see it done and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way.

Quote:

---

You just restated the exact thing that the article said in order to claim that the article might be stretching the truth... wut?

---

Yeah the article is wrong, and I pointed out the truth. What's the problem? There are holes in this article that I believe are stretching the truth. I don't think much said in this article that is factual is worse than the establishment anyway.

Quote:

---

I don't understand why worker's rights are solely a state issue. But, yeah, if you're like Ron Paul, there isn't a single thing in the world that isn't a state issue. And that's what I take issue with. According to Ron Paul, the federal government is evil and tyrannical and, thus, should basically be abolished....and states should be totally free to implement whatever evil, tyrannical laws they wish because...hey...STATES RIGHTS!

---

Don't be mad because that's how the Constitution was written bro. Power belongs to the States, not the Federal Gov't.

Quote:

---

How are interstate highways not a federal issue?

---

They are, but they don't have to be. If it was the State, the State could still fix them.

Quote:

---

So, as long as you're old and you have an "opinion," we should just ignore however despicable that opinion is, huh?

---

No, you got me confused, that is the writers opinion on the article as far as the racist/homophobe stuff goes, I don't believe it is factual.

I do believe when your 76 years old, it is easier to be confused and scared about gays than it is when you're our age. Does that make you racist or a bigot? No.

OK but the 14th amendment took much power from the states to the fed gov...

And any argument about how that was the constitution was written is false because your interpretation of it maybe wrong. Unless it's clear.

And states would be as shitty as the fed in fixing stuff. Look at CA. If it was soley state power, they should not get fed aid and just raise taxes by itself. Which itself is another problem...

Highways are not a state issue because they cross states, obviously. If it was soley state then there will be likely be multiple tolls and different rules. Which would be shitty imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I don't see how they are any more ridiculous than what the establishment is doing. His crazy ideas involve less, not more gov't so I can accept that.

---

For one, I don't judge ideas based on whether or not they are "less government" or "more government." I judge them based on what they are. Secondly, his ideas involve less FEDERAL government, while giving STATE governments powers that even the federal government doesn't currently have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I wont vote for him, but this article painting a picture of crazy, when the leaders of our country are more crazy, is dumb.

---

I don't know if I buy that the leaders of our country are more crazy, but even if that were true, that doesn't mean other crazy ideas aren't crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

If it doesn't change the laws, it doesn't bother me.

---

He's for doing away with background checks on prospective gun owners, which are currently required by law, so...he does want to change the law regarding guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Yeah the article is wrong, and I pointed out the truth. What's the problem? There are holes in this article that I believe are stretching the truth. I don't think much said in this article that is factual is worse than the establishment anyway.

---

What? The article says Statement A. You then say Statement A and claim "See? The article is wrong." Again... wut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Don't be mad because that's how the Constitution was written bro. Power belongs to the States, not the Federal Gov't.

---

That's not how the Constitution was written, bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

They are, but they don't have to be. If it was the State, the State could still fix them.

---

They're interstate highways. Thus, according to the Constitution, they are a federal issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

No, you got me confused, that is the writers opinion on the article as far as the racist/homophobe stuff goes, I don't believe it is factual.

I do believe when your 76 years old, it is easier to be confused and scared about gays than it is when you're our age. Does that make you racist or a bigot? No.

---

Yes, it does.

Regarding homophobia & racism, from the article:

Quote:

---

His reason for being against the ban is that he believes marriage laws should be left up to individual states or to the church. When some states began to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, he fought to make sure other states wouldn't have to recognize those marriages as legal. He's also for don't-ask-don't-tell and has voted to de-fund any organization which "presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style".

---

None of that is opinion. As I've said before, he is perfectly okay with state governments infringing on people's rights and codifying discrimination. He is also perfectly okay with the military discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality. That he's against defunding organizations that are accepting of homosexuality isn't much of a surprise given that he's for defunding pretty much everything, but it's another notch on the belt showing that he is for policies that are explicitly anti-homosexual. Sure, there's room for interpretation on his own personal beliefs about gays, but his stances on various policies sure don't paint a picture of a man that is accepting of homosexuals.

As for the racism, here's the most recent article regarding the newsletters, from 4 days ago. It definitely has not been proven that he wasn't responsible for the letters. He's flip-flopped about them a few times, so it's not exactly easy to trust what he says about them. And then this quote that the article mentioned:

Quote:

---

“We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says. “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”

---

Sounds an awful lot like "I'm not racist, but..."

Gary Johnson Braves the ACLU
The Libertarian presidential candidate charms a gathering of civil libertarians.

Quote:

---

Johnson also made a point throughout the evening of highlighting the differences between himself and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who sought and received Johnson’s endorsement in 2008.

“I don’t think that Ron Paul is going to win the Republican nomination. For the most part, we are talking about the same message, but we do have differences. And when he drops out, or finds an end to the Republican primary, I don’t see this agenda moving forward,” Johnson said.

“And I think it’s important to point out differences between myself and Ron Paul. I don’t support building a fence across the border, I do support gay marriage equality, I do believe in a strong national defense. I do believe in our alliance with Israel, for example. And I think military alliances are key to reducing military spending by 43 percent and still provide for a strong national defense. And I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”

The crowd went nuts over that last one.

---

As I've said before, Gary Johnson has all the good qualities of Ron Paul without much of the crazy.

Ragecage, do you have these already? If so, how many?

'Commander-In-Chief' Paul - Talking Ron Paul Action Figure
'Super Hero' Paul - Talking Ron Paul Action Figure

Fox News on top: Cable net celebrates 10 years at #1 in ratings

On Ron Paul and racism, this leak from a white power website details some pro-Paul campaigning efforts of racist organizations and discussions of direct ties, including meetings, with Paul.

Susan G. Komen was pressured into reversing its Planned Parenthood funding withdrawal

http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticl...id=19327354148

Yaaaaaaay. One of the bright spots in our continued march back to the dark ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Susan G. Komen was pressured into reversing its Planned Parenthood funding withdrawal

http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticl...id=19327354148

Yaaaaaaay. One of the bright spots in our continued march back to the dark ages.

---

Then they started this brilliant "PR rehab" campaign...

Sometime you wonder why everybody has the right to vote...

Reactions as Herman Cain meets Bill Nye

LOL "Any scientist supporting global warming has been BOUGHT!"

Ah the massive expenditures of....Big Science? If only big oil and right-wing organizations could amass a fraction of the money that Big Science wields!

God this country has a lot of stupid running around in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

LOL "Any scientist supporting global warming has been BOUGHT!"

Ah the massive expenditures of....Big Science? If only big oil and right-wing organizations could amass a fraction of the money that Big Science wields!

God this country has a lot of stupid running around in it.

---

Those poor oil companies are just out there trying to make a living, while Big Science buys lobbyists and funds psuedoscientific experiments to make Little Oil's product less palatable to the American people!

The Koch Brothers are out there just trying to get the truth out, guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

LOL "Any scientist supporting global warming has been BOUGHT!"

Ah the massive expenditures of....Big Science? If only big oil and right-wing organizations could amass a fraction of the money that Big Science wields!

God this country has a lot of stupid running around in it.

---

a good recent read on "global warming"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

nothin to see here though, move along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

a good recent read on "global warming"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

nothin to see here though, move along.

---

Sixteen concerned scientists. SIXTEEN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Sixteen concerned scientists. SIXTEEN.

---

agreed, surely all frauds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

agreed, surely all frauds

---

Thousands upon thousands of scientists agree that global warming is real and that humanity has at least an undetermined influence upon it. That is what we call a consensus.

You could probably scrape up 16 scientists who will claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

I really hope you don't think that WSJ op-ed proves something.

So if we were to stop the things that causes Global Warming, how exactly would the economy, which is already in bad shape, keep rolling along?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

So if we were to stop the things that causes Global Warming, how exactly would the economy, which is already in bad shape, keep rolling along?

---

Nobody in their right mind is claiming that we should just stop all carbon emissions tomorrow. That would be stupid. What we DO need to do is work on building investment and infrastructure to make alternate energy sources more cost-effective and to stop living in this fantasy world that we can just keep burning **** into perpetuity.

There are certainly plenty of ways to approach the situation; however, all of those become exponentially harder when the modern American conservative bloc -- which is thoroughly detached from reality -- refuses to believe that global warming exists and will cling to any speck of skepticism as if it is gospel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

a good recent read on "global warming"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

nothin to see here though, move along.

---

And the even better recent rebuttal to the same piece.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...sj_share_tweet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Nobody in their right mind is claiming that we should just stop all carbon emissions tomorrow. That would be stupid. What we DO need to do is work on building investment and infrastructure to make alternate energy sources more cost-effective and to stop living in this fantasy world that we can just keep burning **** into perpetuity.

There are certainly plenty of ways to approach the situation; however, all of those become exponentially harder when the modern American conservative bloc -- which is thoroughly detached from reality -- refuses to believe that global warming exists and will cling to any speck of skepticism as if it is gospel.

---

i don't know of anybody in their right mind who is claiming that we shouldn't encourage the development of alternate energy sources and making those we currently have more efficient and cost-effective. This makes sense whether or not one believes the global warming hype for a lot of reasons.

LOL @ "global warming hype"

You kids with yer newfangled trains and steam engines. My horse n buggy don't break down hardly ever, and if it does, I can fix it with mah own two hands!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

Koch brothers host meeting, lots of rich white guys pledge $100 million to beat Obama in 2012.

thank goodness heroes like this can fight their way to success and spare enough money to combat the climate change hype promoted by Big Science and its endlessly deep pockets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

i don't know of anybody in their right mind who is claiming that we shouldn't encourage the development of alternate energy sources and making those we currently have more efficient and cost-effective. This makes sense whether or not one believes the global warming hype for a lot of reasons.

---

Referring to it as "global warming hype" makes you look like one of those people who screams that "evolution is just a theory." Is it still hype when there are mountains and mountains of evidence?

_
Attachment 36613

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Referring to it as "global warming hype" makes you look like one of those people who screams that "evolution is just a theory." Is it still hype when there are mountains and mountains of evidence?

---

way to miss the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

_
Attachment 36613

---

Ron Paul as Mrs. Howell is frightening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

way to miss the point.

---

No, I got the point. I just found your reference to "hype" strangely humorous.

I do believe in global warming, I'm just not sure that it can only be attributed to mankind, or how much can be.

If only there were some kind of knowledgeable, specifically educated people that had dedicated years of study, and come to a consensus about it definitely being attributed to mankind's actions - and even a direct relation from the industrial age to today.

Where will we find such a group of people though? I keep asking my mom and dad, but non have come to our door or anything!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

If only there were some kind of knowledgeable, specifically educated people that had dedicated years of study, and come to a consensus about it definitely being attributed to mankind's actions - and even a direct relation from the industrial age to today.

Where will we find such a group of people though? I keep asking my mom and dad, but non have come to our door or anything!

---

if only there was. because everything i've seen from todays scientists agree mankind is contributing but can't put a definitive percentage on just how much, which is what free had said. After all i thought i had heard similar events may have happened once or twice throughout the history of earth prior to any human involvement. I'm pretty sure that the scientific community uses many readings taken 20-30-40-100 years ago. Many of these readings used very suspect equipment/tools/methods. I'm pretty sure most scientists would agree that there is a large percentage of error with readings taken in many places throughout the world as early as 20-30 years ago and of course it gets much the further back one goes. I'm pretty sure that most of the scientific community would admit that we still have a great deal to learn about our climate and that there have been many mistakes in analyzing it in recent years.

With all these things, it still amazes me that people have the audacity to question the accuracy of these numbers, and what exactly if anything mankind can do.

On a serious note...kobie stated something that many of those that strongly believe in global warming will as well:

Quote:

---

Nobody in their right mind is claiming that we should just stop all carbon emissions tomorrow.

---

Time and time again I see people make this claim yet everytime someone talks about expanding any drilling or other type of fossil fuel extraction they scream up in arms. No matter how much the govt. invests in green technology which is nowheres near ready to supply our energy needs, it's never enough. This would be logical if one knew exactly how much mankind was contributing, had a solid alternative with projectable goals and dates to when it could supply a good percentage of our energy needs. We have none of these. In the meantime we have to use all methods available to us in the safest manner we know how to supply our energy needs which has a great deal to do with our economic success. While ardent supporters of global warming agree to this, their actions say otherwise. Those blindly against it are equally as rediculous. The discourse on this topic is the biggest problem on both sides....but it's been made into a political issue, red team vs. blue team, that has been polarized along with everything else. When are people going to wake up and act like adults?

Acting like an adult means taking responsibility for what our actions do, like the pollution our lifestyle causes.

In the years of our debate here, your stance has shifted from "global warming is all a lie" to "show me there's a global consensus" to finally "the people that made that global consensus are using data that is too new or could be inaccurate".

There's a point of diminishing returns here where a stance can no longer be interpreted as simple ignorance or lack of education, and it's turned to willful ignorance. And I'm not talking just you - the country as a whole. The science has been around since the 60's, tested and found to be true time and time again. You see pictures of glaciers that melt and the earth changing over the last 30-40 years. Even absent all the science and consensus, one can think about the industrial revolution, and all the smokestack excrement that has gone into the atmosphere the past 200 years...and draw a very basic conclusion given a study of our atmosphere.

But instead we question, and say it's not definite - or if it is definite, that it's not us - or if it is us, then how much, really. We try to shield ourselves and stay in our head in the sand mentality, and hope we can get to a question that it will take science long enough to definitively answer so that we don't have to make any hard choices or lifestyle changes.

Activists oppose new drilling and new pipelines because of the environmental impact, and because of the basic approach - you don't fix a heroin addiction by growing heroin in your garage. You find an alternate (methadone?) that is at least safer, or get help and get off of it. Otherwise we're just postponing the inevitable cold turkey episode, which could be one of the darkest periods in human existence.

Quote:

---

Acting like an adult means taking responsibility for what our actions do, like the pollution our lifestyle causes.

---

True. It also means working with others to find a solution and realizing we still have a dependency that has to be met. It means realizing that science doesn't work overnight and neither does manufacturing or revamping our entire electric grid, transportation system, or manufacturing process, etc.

Quote:

---

In the years of our debate here, your stance has shifted from "global warming is all a lie" to "show me there's a global consensus" to finally "the people that made that global consensus are using data that is too new or could be inaccurate".

---

Incorrect. I admit to once being far more of a skeptic than i am today. I always believed global warming to be happening, but the manmade portion to me was something I didn't buy into until i'd say 3-5 years ago. Part of my shift was your doing and pointing out what the overwhelming scientific community has to say. I've always questioned the data as being inaccurate and getting more inaccurate the further back one goes and still does today. Much of the scientific community would agree that many of the numbers from the not so distant past are suspect due to archaic technology and methods used to obtain them. This is an area you should do some reading on. There's enough in the recent past to where they comfortably state that it's manmade and they place a larger margin of error on early data yet still feel it's "good enough" but there is plenty of information out there and reason to be suspect. We can't predict the weather in the 10-day forecast but you want to place full faith in their ability to gauge climate data from millions of years ago, let alone thousands or hundreds??

Quote:

---

There's a point of diminishing returns here where a stance can no longer be interpreted as simple ignorance or lack of education, and it's turned to willful ignorance. And I'm not talking just you - the country as a whole. The science has been around since the 60's, tested and found to be true time and time again. You see pictures of glaciers that melt and the earth changing over the last 30-40 years. Even absent all the science and consensus, one can think about the industrial revolution, and all the smokestack excrement that has gone into the atmosphere the past 200 years...and draw a very basic conclusion given a study of our atmosphere.

---

But again, how much can you attribute solely to human activity? Bringing up the industrial revolution hurts your stance since its been shown time and time again that the earth has had many of these cycles long before human activity. It's not a surprise global warming is happening. The current data shows it started long before the industrial revolution. It is clear though that it has risen quite a bit over the past 100 years however. We speculate that human involvement is the reason for this and can show an increase in carbon emissions as a reason HOWEVER...there's no doubt in the past 100 years our methods of collecting this data has substantially improved. How much of that spike is merely obtaining better data? Thats a very fair question that only those with willful ignorance would ignore at face value.

Quote:

---

Activists oppose new drilling and new pipelines because of the environmental impact, and because of the basic approach - you don't fix a heroin addiction by growing heroin in your garage. You find an alternate (methadone?) that is at least safer, or get help and get off of it. Otherwise we're just postponing the inevitable cold turkey episode, which could be one of the darkest periods in human existence.

---

Oil is used for transportation, manufacturing, road construction, building and roof construction. On one hand activists admit they realize that we still have a dependancy on it and need to use all approaches while on the other hand adamently oppose all efforts to obtain fossil fuels. You know what happens if you take food away from someone because the are obese (to use a similar ridiculous analogy)? They die of starvation unless you give them a viable alternative. There is no other alternatives at the moment. In our lifetimes, and likely our kids lifetime we will still have a need for oil. We can't invent technology overnight and can't produce it at a fiscally acceptable level overnight. We can't retrofit America overnight if we had the technology. No matter how much money we throw at it, it can't happen overnight. Activists want to scream and plead for the impossible while driving around in their SUVs and recycling their plastic water bottles (made from oil) and think they are doing something positive. They aren't. Their discord makes it worst. When someone speaks nonsense they are not taken seriously.

And just so it's clear, when I say activists i'm not speaking of them all. I'm speaking largely of those who make this a political issue more than one about humanity. There are tons of them out there. It's the politics involved in this now that is making it impossible to move forward. And i'll admit, there are many idiots on the right that choose to stick their heads in the sand on this issue. Why? Politics. Nothing more. Red team / blue team. Politicians have polarized this discussion.