Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on August 11, 2011, 05:47:56 pm
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/usa-campaign-perry-idUSN1E77A1OL20110811
:mad:
-
America is going downhill towards idiocracy.
-
Mrs too!
Hi Michelle Bachmann.
-
ooooohhh....
+1, this is good news. :)
/me gazes in amusement at all the angry people with flamethrowers running towards him
-
I dislike Rick Perry. All hype, no substance. Add in the stupid religion bull**** he does. Ron Paul is naturally my choice.
-
please republican party, dont give me a ****ing preacher who wants to be president. i really really dont want to have to vote for obama. come up with a sane republican at least.
-
please republican party, dont give me a ****ing preacher who wants to be president. i really really dont want to have to vote for obama. come up with a sane republican at least.
Yes--this.
Preferences for 2012:
1) Libertarian
2) Fiscally conservative Republican
3) Obama
∞) Sarah Palin or Rick Perry
-
please republican party, dont give me a ****ing preacher who wants to be president. i really really dont want to have to vote for obama. come up with a sane republican at least.
Isn't a sane republican a bit of an oxymoron at this point in time. Not saying democrats are much better but the republicans seem to have an "off your rocker" job requirement these days.
-
unfortunately that is true. but i never liked obama, and i still dont, and i would hate to have to vote for him because hes the best candidate on the ticket. that kinda thing would give me a very negative view of american politics. seriously? is this the best we can come up with? perhaps i should vote on the candidate statistically most likely to start a nuclear war, thet would certainly change the political landscape, by literally burning it.
-
Maybe he's decided that God was asking him to do the same?
-
nuke; I'm surprised you didn't already vote that way.
-
perhaps i should vote on the candidate statistically most likely to start a nuclear war, thet would certainly change the political landscape, by literally burning it.
Didn't you already do that? Why the change of heart? Starting to like the world?
-
(http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/CNN+YouTube+Host+GOP+Presidential+Debate+5o0Cq8_hOLQl.jpg)
"And our next Question was submitted by a concerned voter from Alaska: 'Which one of you schlubs is most likely to embrace cleansing the earth in MIRV borne nuclear fire?'"
-
perhaps i should vote on the candidate statistically most likely to start a nuclear war, thet would certainly change the political landscape, by literally burning it.
Didn't you already do that? Why the change of heart? Starting to like the world?
this is kinda a tricky thing to do. see the problem is that the only president to ever authorize the deployment of nuclear weapons was truman, a democrat. but modern democrats seem to be a bunch of peace mongers. so you cant use this kind of precedent to derive methodology for selecting candidates based on their itchy nuclear football finger. theres just not enough data on the subject, and nuclear strategy is rarely in debate between politicians these days so its impossible to derive their opinions on the subject. rest assured that the ones who want to feel the power of the sun in their hands, will never mention it to the general public. so id theres a reason i dont vote like that then its because ive yet to come up with a way. also considering that one vote for the nuclear candidate isn't enough to do the job. maybe i can start a political party for nuke fanatics, call it the scorched earth party. yeep, that would be the way to do things. but alas, im lazy.
-
Rick Perry is not a good guy to have for president, given his earlier track record. I suggest Ron Paul, it's just the best choice to do if you want the USA (and the world) to start climbing out of the debt crisis. I never was able to catch him flip-flopping on issues. He's definitely a front running candidate for 2012, he became very well known and popular during the 2008 republican nomination. I'd suggest watching some of the videos during debates or interviews (also normal interviews outside of election cycles) and even his old stuff from 1988. I think that he'll make a much better president than the rest of them, mostly because they don't seem to know how to fix the problems we're all facing in the first place.
-
Ron Paul seems to be quite popular in here. I really am amazed.
-
This man is quite split -- He wants to be president of the country that he wants to secede from.
As far as Ron Paul goes: He's a dangerous candidate because of his extreme "states' rights" stance. If it were up to him, stuff like the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment would be irrelevant. The strange thing is that Ron's rabid supporters portray him as a "champion of the constitution", even when he's so obviously intent on subverting it.
-
"And our next Question was submitted by a concerned voter from Alaska: 'Which one of you schlubs is most likely to embrace cleansing the earth in MIRV borne nuclear fire?'"
if the news companies were brave enough to actually air that question live, i think they'd make quite a few people around the globe very amused :D
-
maybe i can start a political party for nuke fanatics, call it the scorched earth party. yeep, that would be the way to do things. but alas, im lazy.
You'd have my support all the way, mister!
-
This man is quite split -- He wants to be president of the country that he wants to secede from.
As far as Ron Paul goes: He's a dangerous candidate because of his extreme "states' rights" stance. If it were up to him, stuff like the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment would be irrelevant. The strange thing is that Ron's rabid supporters portray him as a "champion of the constitution", even when he's so obviously intent on subverting it.
Err what? Please, explain your position.
-
On Ron Paul, are we talking about the senior guy or the junior guy?
-
The junior is Rand Paul, named after the great, the amazing, the super-magnificent miss Ayn Rand.
Ron Paul is someone who believes in a crazy economic model that was refuted 40 years ago, but still keeps at it as if it's some kind of novelty. It doesn't surprise me in the least to find he's a creationist.
-
Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.
-
Ron Paul is a closet evangelist.
The junior is Rand Paul, named after the great, the amazing, the super-magnificent miss Ayn Rand.
Yes, my state's glorious senator. His campaign promises included killing the DoE, and filling the gap with homeschooling.
-
if you need god to help you, you've already failed.
-
Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.
I can't wrap my head around that one. How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old, something the USA has been built on? I think it's a good idea to research what he actually stands for. I hope to hear more on what you mean with 'nutcase', to get a better idea.
-
Any creotard is a nutcase. Case closed.
-
How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old
It's not 235 years ago.
-
This man is quite split -- He wants to be president of the country that he wants to secede from.
As far as Ron Paul goes: He's a dangerous candidate because of his extreme "states' rights" stance. If it were up to him, stuff like the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment would be irrelevant. The strange thing is that Ron's rabid supporters portray him as a "champion of the constitution", even when he's so obviously intent on subverting it.
Err what? Please, explain your position.
Ron Paul talks a lot about states' rights, but in doing so, specifically promotes dangerous stuff like nullification, just like the other GOPers when they want to oppose something the government did, whether it's unraveling Obama's patch-work medical insurance thing or whatever. Endorsing something like nullification makes those two things -- 10th amendment and the supremacy clause -- useless. The kind of states' rights that Ron Paul advocates would allow the circumvention of basically the entire constitution, which is why a lot of his rhetoric, you will also find among the Creationist GOPers; they know that this is the way to go if they want to push Christianity into science class, among many, many other things.
-
Not entirely. Obama's medical plan has sections that are unconstitutional according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/us/13health.html The Federal government overstepped on that measure. In fact, during the debate last night, he was quoted as saying, "The states do not have the right to do wrong." Nullification between state and federal laws has a long history. Some of it good, some of it bad. Nullification is legal and expedient when the law was unconstitutional in the first place. It's interesting that federal agencies are currently using nullification via the threat to prosecute states that allow the legal sale of cannabis. The 10th Amendment isn't useless--it gives a very clear conditional on the actions of the the Federal and state governments. As for Creationists, remember that you vote with your feet. As a grand-scheme plan, this could mean that states with laws requiring the teaching of creationism (if the Supreme Court holds those laws to be constitutional) could have residents that support that view and thus create an artificial majority in the Senate. However, there's the House which is distributed on population--which counteracts that effect. The same thing applies to the abortion issue and same-sex marriage.
-
Yeah, it does have a long history. The 11th Circuit Court's decision is still subject to further review.
We fought a ****ing Civil War to prove that you cannot nullify the dictates of the federal government. The nullification side lost. You want to go back over that territory again?
-
Yeah, it does have a long history. The 11th Circuit Court's decision is still subject to further review.
We fought a ****ing Civil War to prove that you cannot nullify the dictates of the federal government. The nullification side lost. You want to go back over that territory again?
Right or wrong, the scope of refusing a mandate to require the purchase of health insurance is quite a bit different in scope the secession from the Union. And if the Federal government really does overreach, then yes--nullification matters. It sends quite a clear message even if it's declared unconstitutional. The Federal government is run as a republic but states are typically run more as a democracy. The word of the legislature, constitutional or not, still matters. That doesn't mean that either party are permitted gross overreach.
The decision will be reviewed and I'm interested in the result. There is some talk that it will be ruled unconstitutional for the same reason; until then, the standing decision by the highest court is that the law is unconstitutional.
-
the thing i disliked about obama's healthcare plan was that it is to be implemented after his first term is over (is there a legitimate legal reason for the delay? because if not im gonna have to call him a douche). thus sparing his campaign any responsibility for it going tits up, should it turn out to be a total flop. if he had the balls to implement it before his current term is over, that would have earned him some brownie points in my book, if he saw a problem and he fixed it now instead of sitting on the soultion till it was convenient for him. but that he pushed it into the back burner to cover his own ass really doesn't chime well with me. if someone other than him wins the presidential race, especially a republican, the whole thing is likely to be canned, and given the economical landscape it likely will be.
-
And frankly I think Obama-care should be canned. Regardless, I see issues in requiring health insurance: it's a bad idea since there will soon come a point where state/federal minimums are insufficient--at which point premiums for reasonable coverage will be quite insane. It's literally an invitation first for excessive coverage and later for excessive usage.
-
Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.
I can't wrap my head around that one. How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old, something the USA has been built on? I think it's a good idea to research what he actually stands for. I hope to hear more on what you mean with 'nutcase', to get a better idea.
His "constitutional ideas" are not really the problem, it's everything else.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php
-
This man is quite split -- He wants to be president of the country that he wants to secede from.
As far as Ron Paul goes: He's a dangerous candidate because of his extreme "states' rights" stance. If it were up to him, stuff like the Supremacy Clause and the 10th amendment would be irrelevant. The strange thing is that Ron's rabid supporters portray him as a "champion of the constitution", even when he's so obviously intent on subverting it.
I'd say his idiocy regarding economics is far more dangerous than his states' rights idiocy.
The Republican candidates are so bad that Mitt Romney is the only one who's even remotely electable. They might as well just give Obama his third time right now.
If I could pick any American to become president, I'd pick Barbara Ehrenreich, but a lot of Americans tend to react with total horror to anything remotely connected with socialism, and deep-throating corporate dongs is pretty much a prerequisite to becoming a politician nowadays, so she'd never get elected.
And frankly I think Obama-care should be canned. Regardless, I see issues in requiring health insurance: it's a bad idea since there will soon come a point where state/federal minimums are insufficient--at which point premiums for reasonable coverage will be quite insane. It's literally an invitation first for excessive coverage and later for excessive usage.
Obama-care needs to be replaced with real single-payer healthcare like they have in every other civilized country in the world.
-
And frankly I think Obama-care should be canned. Regardless, I see issues in requiring health insurance: it's a bad idea since there will soon come a point where state/federal minimums are insufficient--at which point premiums for reasonable coverage will be quite insane. It's literally an invitation first for excessive coverage and later for excessive usage.
if hes so uncertain about his plan or its so high risk that hes not willing to risk his reputation on it would seem to indicate that the plan is totally worthless. if you want to do something to fix our health care system, then reduce the corruption in the medical and insurance field, and make it so doctors can do their jobs without getting sued over trivial nonsense. sometimes i think the insurance companies are to blame for the ridiculously high cost of healthcare. they make unrealistic demands on doctors and then the lawyers are always looking for malpractice cases to exploit. so doctors have to get malpractice insurance which makes further demands on the doctors, some of which in conflict with demands from the patient's insurance, and that drives costs way up.
-
The costs of heathcare are what the market can bear. Insurance has limits--typically by year and often by procedure--with different procedures valued differently. The fact of the matter is that universal insurance means that procedure costs will rise because now everyone has coverage and everyone will pay. It won't help in malpractice suits, either. Did you know that professional insurance is claims-based? Converted to plain English, that means that insurance needs to cover a professional (most frequently doctors, lawyers, and accountants) for their entire career up until that point. That means a doctor's first year is also their cheapest; they only need to protect themselves against actions made in that year. In year 2, they need to cover the past 2 years of actions. By year 10, it's 10 years of actions. By retirement at Year 40, it's 40 years of actions needing insurance. That's part of the reason that health procedures cost so much; the premium on their insurance policies is hefty to say the least.
A good portion of the proceeds from a procedure go towards insuring the doctors and nurses involved in the procedure. Added potential revenue equals increased liability coverage and some ability to fight unsubstantiated claims. After all, a successful lawsuit against a professional means they were at fault. In the eyes of a common person, settling a lawsuit (which is often cheaper and far more expedient than defending one's self) implies guilt. Kind of ironic that a settlement includes a hold-harmless as well as gag agreement.
So no, it's not the insurance companies jacking up the premiums. Their premium formulas are pretty clear and the market is pretty competitive. Short of turning health insurance into a pyramid scheme like Medicare or Social Security, they can't charge much less. They need an operating profit on it, of course. It's the competition with other companies that keeps premiums reasonable.
-
Can't the US cut down on the the malpractice suits? There seem to be an awfull lot of 'sueing people for the money' going on over there, or atleast, that is the impression I get.
-
Ron Paul is, in general, a nutcase but at least some of his ideas are on the right track. Kucinich is better.
I can't wrap my head around that one. How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old, something the USA has been built on? I think it's a good idea to research what he actually stands for. I hope to hear more on what you mean with 'nutcase', to get a better idea.
His "constitutional ideas" are not really the problem, it's everything else.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010033.php
Oh that again.. Ron Paul was the candidate who got the loudest applause during the black voter GOP debate in D.C. Even the head of the Austin NAACP defended him and his lifetime career and said the newsletters were not his but ghostwritten.
Ron Paul condemned the war on drugs and knows the race statistics like the back of his hand. He stood up against the racist military-industrial complex and had more visible black support than any GOP candidate I have ever seen.
I seriously can't believe that weak smear campaigns like this from 2008 continue to be believed by other people, yet blind to what people such as Mitt Romney are responsible for. I find it much harder to have to defend globalist neo-conservatives (same-as-the-old-bush) than someone actually wanting to actually change something for the people instead of big foreign business interests.
With Romney there is no clear distinction or contrast between himself and Obama. The obvious inference is that the media is scared of the contrast a true conservative/libertarian would make against Obama and the GOP – Like Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Kucinich, the ONLY true conservatives running for the GOP nomination, the rest are all Bush-esque neo-conservatives or very similar as Obama - all talk, no change. It's a shame really..
When asked the question in the Iowa debate how to fix the economy, all of them had very similar ideas of raising taxes, cutting costs, yet no one brought up the elephant in the room, the Federal Reserve, the Military Industrial Complex, the fraudulent derivative based debt and other elements that actually caused the problem, except Mr. Paul. If you don't fix the spending there you can cut all benefits and all ordinance and you'd still be unable to pay off the debt for hundreds of years.
I wish politics weren't 99% made up of liars, that there were more people actually knowing what they'd do as a president or even show a basic understanding of the true issues the country and the world is in. Nonetheless, most people support Ron Paul, every poll I followed, be it CNBC, FOX, CNN etc. had him leading by an extreme amount. I'd say he's becoming quite the front runner, unsurprisingly. Curious how the media is going to keep hiding his victories by omitting it like in 2008.
How can you be a nutcase when you got normal constitutional ideas that's been 235 years old
It's not 235 years ago.
Without it we'd all be reconquered by the British Empire and be a poor colony. And it sure is a lot younger than the idea of tyranny - over 6000 years old.
-
Cre-o-tard. Mr Paul gets to say very popular things because he's not ever going to get elected. He's the buffoon that says what is on everyone's mind. However the **** would hit the fan if he did.
-
Why would someone's personal beliefs have anything to do with their political strategy? If you were to run for office with the same ideas as Mr. Paul, as a Atheist, I would respect your religious beliefs and not think you less for that, as long as you're a trustworthy individual that actually knows how to fix stuff. (and more importantly, proceed to do so)
Also, the only reason Mr. Paul would be stopped from being elected is if the mainsteam media continues to have enough power to influence people's belief. It's almost like the Germans at Stalingrad. it's pushed because, and I agree with you on that, the SHTF if he did get elected, in a positive way. You'd see a mass exodus of rats out of D.C.
If they were smart, though, they'd let him get elected, because the alternative may be worse for the status quo.
-
Creationism isn't just about religion, you should know better than that. It's in direct confrontation with scientific knowledge. Perhaps you think otherwise, but to have someone believing that the science is bollocks and that creationism is right is not exactly what I think as "sane" in 2011. To me that counts a lot. The hell with atheism, I'm not the one proposing ungodly explanations as "alternatives" to the current scientific theories and then proclaim them as "equal".
About the SHTF, Ron would be the first casualty. Just like John Paul the first.
-
Creationism isn't just about religion, you should know better than that. It's in direct confrontation with scientific knowledge. Perhaps you think otherwise, but to have someone believing that the science is bollocks and that creationism is right is not exactly what I think as "sane" in 2011. To me that counts a lot. The hell with atheism, I'm not the one proposing ungodly explanations as "alternatives" to the current scientific theories and then proclaim them as "equal".
About the SHTF, Ron would be the first casualty. Just like John Paul the first.
Again, how's he (Ron Paul) a creationist? It's no different from most Democrats in that regard; he practices a religion (he's actually a Baptist) but doesn't preach on the subject or force his views on everyone else. Far better than Rick Perry, the OP's subject. And before you start bashing, remember that Bill Clinton and Al Gore are both Baptists.
-
He said it himself, evolution is "just a theory" that he personally "doesn't believe in it". Both Al Gore and Clinton may believe all they want, they were never this anti-scientific (not that I like them either, check Clinton's interview here here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2dT7xVS6-s&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freader%2Fview%2F&feature=player_embedded), where he says insanely bad things about what science is "telling us" starting @ 52 minutes or so and facepalm yourselves; and Al Gore is just an insane bat**** posh anticapitalist hypocritical doom fearmongerer).
But I agree, he's less crazy than Perry. Perry, Palin and Bachmann should be in the asylum.
-
Without it we'd all be reconquered by the British Empire and be a poor colony. And it sure is a lot younger than the idea of tyranny - over 6000 years old.
Yeah! Cause who wants to be poor like......Canada!
-
The American Revolution around 1776 led to much more than just freedom to the USA, as it caused many people to rebel against their leaders. The reason Canada is doing well is partially thanks to that - Many canadian people fought in their own ways for partial independence. For more details on that you'll have to check Canadese history, I'm not very proficient at it.
-
The American Revolution around 1776 led to much more than just freedom to the USA, but it caused many people to rebel against their leaders. The reason Canada is doing well is partially thanks to that - Many canadian people fought in their own ways for partial independence. For more details on that you'll have to check Canadese history, I'm not very proficient at it.
No ****, I never would have guessed :nono:
Canada never had a rebellion against Britain [EDIT: I should say, not a significant successful one, to be completely accurate]. We're still a Dominion in the British Commonwealth, and our head of state is still the Queen. If you knew your history, you'd be well aware that Canada actually joined the wider British Empire in military action on US soil during the War of 1812. You'd be further aware that Canada achieved its current status through negotiation with the Crown and a need for wider autonomy. While the Rebellion in the 13 Colonies may have made Britain a lot more willing to hand over autonomy, there were also a lot of other changes wrought in Britain's governing formula that were responsible (among them, parliamentary changes that occurred as a result of the goings on in Ireland).
I know American History teaches how the United States is a beacon of freedom and democracy in the world that carved its own place and is responsible for changes that occurred globally, and the narrative is further expounded upon in conservative/libertarian circles, but it just isn't the case. History, as taught in many American elementary and high schools, is a very revisionist version. Ask the Hawaiians about it sometime.
-
Luis, he may be a creationist, but if he is also a Libertarian then it doesn't matter because the Libertarian political philosophy is that the government doesn't have the right to tell you what to believe.
-
Yes you're right. It wouldn't affect public schooling in forcing them to accept that evolution is "just a theory" and to enforce the teaching of "alternatives", he would just shut down public schools and be done with it.
Hey you know what, that's even crazier.
-
has he taken that position?
specifically?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-EAYncCRok
How he would love to shut down everything public...
-
ok, well then it's not specificity schools :)
sounds more like he wants to push the authority back down to the state/local level, not shut them down.
-
Hmm. We apparently see two different videos.
-
his position on just about everything is "the federal government sucks let the states handle things themselves" which I tend to agree with, though I'm not specifically a supporter of his.
-
Personally I see no reason why anyone would want to be Mr Pesident now or in the next few years. The whole "defecit" thing can't go on forever, soon either taxes have to go up and/or spending cut.....and not just in America, either.
-
his position on just about everything is "the federal government sucks let the states handle things themselves" which I tend to agree with, though I'm not specifically a supporter of his.
If you are going to ignore all his rantings against everything "public", and any other of his policies, sure.
-
Besides, if you'd actually kept tabs on state government in this country (you know, the guys who ****ed up California, who want to introduce evolution into the textbooks in Kansas, etc.) you'd not be terribly sanguine about letting them have more control.
To say nothing of the genius of stripping the FBI and related agencies and throwing the weight of fighting the sort of crime they deal with on state police, who will always have fewer resources both monetary and otherwise.
-
well, to make a comment back about the topic (if no one is opposed to me doing that) I honestly want Perry to get the nomination, I have a feeling he would get eviscerated in the general election, maybe not by Obama (who has shown himself to be incapable of political maneuvering) but I have a feeling the Comedy Central news team would do a good job. and I desperately want more public confrontation on this topic.
-
Why would someone's personal beliefs have anything to do with their political strategy?
You don't know much about how humans work, do you?
-
The American Revolution around 1776 led to much more than just freedom to the USA, as it caused many people to rebel against their leaders. The reason Canada is doing well is partially thanks to that - Many canadian people fought in their own ways for partial independence. For more details on that you'll have to check Canadese history, I'm not very proficient at it.
The only revolution that could be directly attributed to it was the French Revolution, but even then it was combined with an economic depression and famine. Even so it turned out to be a big bloody mess, so perhaps it is best unmentioned.
-
I'll just cut in here -
Ron Paul is a quack on matters like climate change, stating that there's no scientific consensus that global warming is getting worse, or is man-made, citing the phony "oregon petition" as evidence.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-06-29/cap-and-trade-another-nail-in-the-economys-coffin/
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the EPA. (yes, really.)
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=100405_3683,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml here
Ron Paul is really like most of other politicians; he's not immune to repeating talking points like the denalist petition above, or repeating long-discarded claims like vaccines causing Gulf War Sydrome, and it makes sense, because InfoWars.com and the lunatics on his forums eat it up. I can't tell if he actually believes this non-sense, or if he's an opportunist who knows that he's popular with the fringes of American politics, and hence panders to their paranoia, whether it's about vaccines, or about Creationism. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, read some of the stuff on the Ron Paul forums, like this:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-102118.html?s=33b153223b9c8eeb06433820b42a143b
-
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the
federal government.
don't just focus on the one or two bits that stick in your side.
-
Why shouldn't he focus on the points he wants to? I mean, look at your reply, as if you only care about his stance on the federal government and just focus on it....
-
Without it we'd all be reconquered by the British Empire and be a poor colony. And it sure is a lot younger than the idea of tyranny - over 6000 years old.
In the long run an independent America has actually turned out well for the Brits. The great waves of immigration and industrialization would probably not have occurred had the American states remained British colonies. There would have been no US entry into WW1 to provide the morale boost and the fresh manpower needed to defeat the Central Powers, meaning the French Army would have mutinied in the field sometime in mid-1918 and the Allies would have lost the war, at immense cost to the British Empire.
A similar argument can be constructed regarding the United States' 99 shipyards rendering the Battle of the Atlantic a foregone conclusion in WW2.
More practically: they let us go. Make no mistake, the British Empire had the means to reconquer the revolutionary colonies, but it could not be done while the French fleet threatened their lines of supply. They simply weren't willing to fight wars on top of wars for it, particularly when half their government was disgusted with the incompetence of the other half in handling the issue and wanted to wash their hands of it.
-
Without it we'd all be reconquered by the British Empire and be a poor colony. And it sure is a lot younger than the idea of tyranny - over 6000 years old.
In the long run an independent America has actually turned out well for the Brits. The great waves of immigration and industrialization would probably not have occurred had the American states remained British colonies. There would have been no US entry into WW1 to provide the morale boost and the fresh manpower needed to defeat the Central Powers, meaning the French Army would have mutinied in the field sometime in mid-1918 and the Allies would have lost the war, at immense cost to the British Empire.
A similar argument can be constructed regarding the United States' 99 shipyards rendering the Battle of the Atlantic a foregone conclusion in WW2.
The argument could be made that the morale boost in 1918 would not have been necessary due to increased manpower and wartime production from a colonial America and that the war might well have been over before 1918 even rolled around.
Similarly the shipyards could just as easily have been built in our hypothetical colonial America and rendered the Atlantic just as foregone a conclusion.
-
The argument could be made that the morale boost in 1918 would not have been necessary due to increased manpower and wartime production from a colonial America and that the war might well have been over before 1918 even rolled around.
Ahhahahahaha.
No.
It can't.
You have completely failed to understand the strategic dynamics of World War I. It was, quite literally, a race to see whose army would mutiny in the field first. There was no way to obtain a victory on the field of battle on the Western front. (And the Germans tried mightily to do so before the US could transport sufficient troops to make a difference.) The Allies were going to lose it, until the US entered the war. This not only propped up the French with the promise of reinforcements, it also crippled the Germans because they knew they were tapped out and could not sustain another year or two of fighting.
Entry with the Commonwealth would not have affected the key problem from the Allied perspective, which was the inability of the French state to sustain the war that long inside their own borders. Another few divisions for the BEF isn't going to fix that.
Similarly the shipyards could just as easily have been built in our hypothetical colonial America and rendered the Atlantic just as foregone a conclusion.
Oh really? The Louisana purchase still happened? Both coasts were still American? We would have advanced further than the Ohio River Valley? No. The British crown would never have allowed it, because it would have taken place at the expense of other subjects of the Crown; the key difference in thought between the colonists and the home country, if you can describe one, is that the colonists had a rather rapacious outlook towards the natives whereas the Crown considered everyone subjects following the French and Indian War and had no interest in abusing one group for the betterment of another.
We have empirical evidence on this subject. Look at Canada during the same period or the War of 1812. Look at Canada's history, or that of India, or Australia. All of them were at one point of similar size and importance to the American colonies. India was arguably more important in economic terms. None of them ever developed the local productive capacity to make the necessary contribution to the war efforts of the British Empire, and many of them were still very much dependents. (The British Isles were kept fed in 1943 at the cost of starving thousands in South Africa and India.) As a matter of policy, the American colonies would never have been placed in a position to match or exceed the home country while still under British control.
-
Similarly the shipyards could just as easily have been built in our hypothetical colonial America and rendered the Atlantic just as foregone a conclusion.
That was the one thing Britain really did not need much help with, they already had a navy twice as big as the next two combined together.
Oh really? The Louisana purchase still happened? Both coasts were still American? We would have advanced further than the Ohio River Valley? No. The British crown would never have allowed it, because it would have taken place at the expense of other subjects of the Crown; the key difference in thought between the colonists and the home country, if you can describe one, is that the colonists had a rather rapacious outlook towards the natives whereas the Crown considered everyone subjects following the French and Indian War and had no interest in abusing one group for the betterment of another.
Louisiana might not have been purchased but since Napoleon had it the British might well have conquered it.
-
Arguing what-ifs with any kind of certainty is ridiculous. Chaos theory is laughing at all of you. :p
-
That was the one thing Britain really did not need much help with, they already had a navy twice as big as the next two combined together.
You do not understand the Battle of the Atlantic and the issues it caused being based entirely on the ability to replace merchant shipping hulls rapidly. Indeed, by their own estimates the RN actually should have lost the Battle of the Atlantic by losing more than 500,000 GRT of merchant shipping. And not once, but twice. (They did not factor, and neither did the Germans, that the actual bar on the high jump was at 1.7 million to beat the US and its production capabilities.)
You do not understand the size, age, constraints on, and function of the Royal Navy during WW2. (Not as large as that, too old, unable to deploy major assets at sea for long periods due to insufficient auxiliaries and unwillingness to replenish underway, what function? The Home Fleet wasted the entire war, and the RN as a whole didn't even realize the Atlantic was where the war was going to be fought until late 1943, after four years of war.)
Louisiana might not have been purchased but since Napoleon had it the British might well have conquered it.
You do not understand how the British based their diplomacy of the period on conquering things so they could use them as bargaining chips for the following peace. Louisiana would have been returned in the peace because they would have had no interest in allowing it to develop.
Arguing what-ifs with any kind of certainty is ridiculous. Chaos theory is laughing at all of you. :p
Ah, but I'm not arguing what-ifs. :P I have actual evidence for all my positions. :P
-
If I'm not mistaken the Louisiana Territory became pretty much useless to Bonaparte after Haiti managed to revolt from French Dominion anyway.
-
Ah, but I'm not arguing what-ifs. :P I have actual evidence for all my positions. :P
You're arguing what would happen in WWI if the American Revolution hadn't happened. Ignoring the fact that if the American Revolution hadn't happened there almost certainly wouldn't have been a WWI that was in any way recognisable as the one we had.
There are so many variables that it's completely ridiculous.
-
Ah, but I'm not arguing what-ifs. :P I have actual evidence for all my positions. :P
You're arguing what would happen in WWI if the American Revolution hadn't happened. Ignoring the fact that if the American Revolution hadn't happened there almost certainly wouldn't have been a WWI that was in any way recognisable at the one we had.
There are so many variables that it's completely ridiculous.
Which is a good point, without the American Revolution the hows, ifs and whens of the French Revolution could be completely different. Then your looking at possibly eliminating Napoleon's rise to power and the French running ruck shod over the entirety of the Continent for all those years. Not only would that cause a change in the technological and tactical development of warfare but the entire map of Europe would be dramatically different. Hell, the Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs could still exist and the creation of Germany via Prussian maneuvering and dominance might not even have come to pass.
Might as well throw the entire book out the window.
-
And that's before you consider all the political contributions of everyone who died on both sides during the war.
-
Which is a good point, without the American Revolution the hows, ifs and whens of the French Revolution could be completely different.
Doubtful. France's money issues weren't going to go away because the American Revolution didn't happen; the republican impulse was already well-entrenched in political thought before the American Revolution as a result of scholarship on Rome.
You might delay it a year or two but the assertion it would be completely different doesn't hold up to the economic condition of France.
-
The American Revolution also has provided a morale boost to the rebelling french, by proving that it could be done.
But if the American Revolution did not happen, no country recieved an 'advance warning' that some nations had the guts to rebel, and thus, they could not take countermeasures (if such countermeasures were taken, that is). England also could use it's full fighting force for whatever wars they waged at that time (I forgot, but I do recall that one of the reasons the AR succeeded is because of GB fighting at multiple fronts).
-
I'm amazed how some people can be so critical and worried about Ron Paul yet I don't hear them burn down the other candidates for their much worse plans and simple talking points and no substance. Though I suppose it's hard to discuss a candidate without substance..
When you see or hear Ron Paul speak, you should write down the things that bother you, and research them. You'll see the scandals the EPA's been in, something i've argued a few months ago here, and of course the many holes and scandals of Global Warming/Climate Change. I've tested it earlier and all I can find on Google is the many lies and scandals that can be found.
well, to make a comment back about the topic (if no one is opposed to me doing that) I honestly want Perry to get the nomination, I have a feeling he would get eviscerated in the general election, maybe not by Obama (who has shown himself to be incapable of political maneuvering) but I have a feeling the Comedy Central news team would do a good job. and I desperately want more public confrontation on this topic.
Perry is the choice that the establishment will push, but he'll be even worse than Obama, Bush and Clinton. He also was part of the Al Gore campaign in 2000 for Texas. He's been involved in many lies and flip-flopping and can be considered a master politician as he's quite good at it.
Of course, you'll get what you wish for - If you prefer a globalist that will continue to off shore your jobs and lower your standard of living over someone that wants to restore liberty. Luckily it's already clear from everything I followed about Ames Iowa that Ron Paul is vastly more popular and succesful than the rest of them, probably even combined.
-
Or, for Ron Paul speeches, start looking on Youtube or some of the other sites. There's a lot of archives. Heck, start "in the beginning". I remember seeing one from 1988 that was equally relevant. I remember seeing another about Clinton in Kosovo. That situation was quite similar to now Obama in Libya. Some aspects will be outdated but most of it is pretty damn relevant. Anyways, I agree with the method above: if you disagree or question that speech section, write it down and do some research. It's scary how accurate many statements are. I think a lot of these political monstrosities need to be dismantled and reconstructed. We have more experience with each topic so I think we can improve each department.
-
I've tested it earlier and all I can find on Google is the many lies and scandals that can be found.
You're getting information on a complex scientific topic by seeing who can shout the loudest about it and therefore get higher page rankings on Google? :rolleyes:
By that logic TimeCube (http://www.google.com/search?q=timecube&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) is also a hotly debated topic!
EDIT - Interestingly following one of those links led me to this description of "Not even wrong" on rationalwiki.
Examples in real life often involve "skeptics" arguing with established scientists. In climategate, for example, where a thousand e-mails from leading climate change researchers were hacked and released publicly, most critics seemed to not understand the basic meaning behind some of the emails (climate science and atmospheric chemistry are complex disciplines), instead preferring to quote mine a few emails out of context and misunderstanding the use of the word "trick". Climate science is one of the areas where "not even wrong" arguments unfortunately apply a lot, owing to the complexity of the system under study. The political pressure group CO2 is Green certainly is not even wrong when declaring that "more CO2 is good for the planet because it's plant food". The whole of climatology, and plant biology is many, many orders of magnitude more complicated than such a statement suggests - CO2 is good, but more CO2 may certainly not be.
-
The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier". But facts are facts and there are stains on climate science. Just like in any other science. Doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, doesn't mean evolution is a lie by atheistic biologists. And I'm pretty sure where Ron's paranoia is going to fall on.
Also, watch this one, for depressive thoughts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNm1-GMWdlw&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_883854
-
The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier". But facts are facts and there are stains on climate science. Just like in any other science. Doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, doesn't mean evolution is a lie by atheistic biologists. And I'm pretty sure where Ron's paranoia is going to fall on.
Also, watch this one, for depressive thoughts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNm1-GMWdlw&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_883854
A very good post, though I disagree with your last sentence before the link.
The first video also shows something people don't discuss - a possible relative mini-ice age, probably more likely than -raising- temperatures. And if so, this mini-ice age is also part of the Earth's cycle. Some responses on the videos also come with a few great pointers:
"If there is one known divergence problem how can you be confident that there are not any more in the past? Justifying the present divergence problem as due to human contamination is also BS (Bad science)"
And the final sentence of the second video:
"No matter what we do, it'll be irrelevant". If you can 'hide the decline', you can also fool people by giving fake information about how spending billions on CO2 taxes just saved the world from evil carbon dioxide.
Combined with the conflict of interests and leaving China and India, and many other countries out of CO2 emission rules. It's easy to see it's flat on it's face. And you show it in only two videos, I'm impressed.
It's important to return to the real environmental issues, to adress our time, attention and money to -actually- improve our environment and nature. Yet in the meantime huge oil spills continue out of sight and Fukushima only seems to become worse - and you don't hear any of these scientists mention plans or methods to filter or perhaps even eliminate radiation. It would be funny if it was satire.
Though we'll have to be careful, we've become rather off-topic suddenly.
-
The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Hard to take seriously given the omissions in the quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier".
Given your lack of examination of other source you definitely aren't a sceptic, but do seem to be quite easily led.
-
The problem with the climategate e-mail concerning the "trick" wasn't the "trick" itself. It was the "hide the decline" part. Many apologists came out defending the "trick" because it was only a "mathematical technique", forgetting the obviously more relevant part of "hiding" stuff to the readers. What did they hide? This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Hard to take seriously given the omissions in the quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?
Because I'm not even linking to a "denier" (calling professor Muller a denier would be quite hilarious).
Now I will listen to your video later. But do know that I am perfectly "aware" of what exactly happened wrt the "trick". If you want to discuss it, we can. If you want to just steamroll your superiority over the others, I'm not interested.
EDIT: I've seen the video. Interestingly enough, it doesn't address the criticism of prof. Muller and instead goes on a rampage over the rigorosity of the quote, despite the fact that prof Muller describes correctly what was the procedure.
It has other incorrections. It states that the raw data was given for the paleontological studies. This is false. Many "data" was given, but in no means it was "raw". Only in 2010 was the raw data of Briffa's study released, which gave rise to the problems of Yamal (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html). I've yet to see the complete raw data from Mike's various studies.
It then goes on how BEST is actually discovering that the warming of the last century is real. Well I'll be damned, but that's utterly irrelevant to the question of the e-mails. So the video blogger is either being disingenuous or just trying to score points against the deniers. I have no problems with that as long as we are clear that this is what he is doing.
Notice, I'm not exactly what you'd call a "skeptic" much less a "denier".
Given your lack of examination of other source you definitely aren't a sceptic, but do seem to be quite easily led.
I'd slap you in the face for that.
I wouldn't, but I would be tempted to. Try not to insult me and we'll be fine.
-
Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?
Nice double standard. I did in fact watch your video. Imagine my surprise and amusement upon discovering that another video covering this subject happened to critically examine the content of your video.
Because I'm not even linking to a "denier" (calling professor Muller a denier would be quite hilarious).
Who said you were?
But do know that I am perfectly "aware" of what exactly happened wrt the "trick".
Well done. You can skip the first few minutes of the video.
I think your keyboard may be defective; it seems to have littered your post with unnecessary quotation marks.
-
I can positively taste the anger and hatred coming from 'climatecrocks' towards scientists with different opinions, even if they're in their camp. Also typical usage of 'denier' (to try to affiliate such with holocaust deniers), 'flat earthers' and other derogative terms is a little tactic used to make people feel guilty for having opposing views.
I definitely respect Professor Muller's views, I hope he'll continue to explore how deep the rabbit hole goes. I'd really like to see his conclusions on the entire subject of global warming when he does.
EDIT:
To return on-topic, I ran into this particular thing a few moments ago.
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/14-reasons-why-rick-perry-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president
Curious if that helps to get a better idea of Mr. Perry.
-
Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?
Nice double standard. I did in fact watch your video. Imagine my surprise and amusement upon discovering that another video covering this subject happened to critically examine the content of your video.
And were you satisfied? Do you think that video did a good job at providing an answer to prof. Muller's accusations?
Because saying that he didn't quoted them entirely is just stupid. He was correct in his quotation. The omission would only be relevant if he didn't actually explain what they did. And his explanation could be taken out from the so-called "omission", it's exactly the same thing. The problem with the "hide the decline" trick is that they substituted the results from their study with "real temps", and then smoothed them out.
The fact that this divergence issue was known in climatology circles is irrelevant: the "hide the decline" was submitted to the WMO as visual evidence for all the scientists in the world (who won't read every paper ever written on the subject) for the type of paleontological narrative that the climatologists in question were writing.
Further, there were 3 instances of this "trick". And this type of shenanigan is well known coming from the self-proclaimed "Team" (mike, briffa, etc), who are proliferate at "tricking" their audiences.
-
If nothing else, it demonstrates that Muller's presentation is at least as dishonest as it claims its subjects to be. His holier than thou performance is just icing on the cake.
-
If nothing else, it demonstrates that Muller's presentation is at least as dishonest as it claims its subjects to be. His holier than thou performance is just icing on the cake.
Have you read what I said? He wasn't dishonest. He explains the email's "technique" perfectly well without any intent of deceit. I don't care about his performance. Nor should you. The facts are there and all I see are self-proclaimed "skeptics" ignoring it completely.
What you should do is ask the right questions. What does this malpractice mean? Does it mean that global warming is a scam? Does it mean that there are people who are conspiring to bring the world into a communist global state?
I mean, if that's the kind of reasoning, then we might just give up. If not, the questions are a lot more mundane and trivial, and they, at least to me and given way more evidence than this snippet discussed here, point towards the existence of a clique that thinks they own science. But that they also sincerely believe we have a real problem. And they don't want to "share" their doubts, their caveats, to give deniers "food".
Problem is, that kind of attitude backfired tremendously. Climate science community should get their feet together and realize that the solution is to be completely transparent, not function as gatekeepers of the truth.
-
How it was dishonest (ways I can remember without looking at it again):
- Chopping up quotes to further an agenda
- Claiming that the picture would not stand up to the scrutiny of peer review, when
- it was in fact not published in a journal
- the papers seemed to clearly divide up the data sources
- too good for Nature?
- Claiming the data was withheld when it had been available for several years
All in all, it seems like a publicity stunt to get funding for his research.
-
The data *was* withheld for years. In Briffa's case, ten bloody years. Educate yourself in the issue before judging the other's inability to "check the sources". Just because a video blogger said otherwise only shows his ignorance on the subject matter.
Now you are also saying that the WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999 wasn't peer reviewed? Who cares? Did Muller lied and say that it was peer-reviewed?
I don't understand your point regarding Nature.
All in all, it seems like a publicity stunt to get funding for his research.
And then the deniers are the ones with paranoia.
-
Which is a good point, without the American Revolution the hows, ifs and whens of the French Revolution could be completely different.
Doubtful. France's money issues weren't going to go away because the American Revolution didn't happen; the republican impulse was already well-entrenched in political thought before the American Revolution as a result of scholarship on Rome.
You might delay it a year or two but the assertion it would be completely different doesn't hold up to the economic condition of France.
Most things I've seen cite the funding of the AWI as putting France into the financial crisis it found itself leading up to the Revolution. While their economic issues probably would still have occurred the timing and acuteness would have been different had they not pretty much bank rolled and eventually militarily supported the American effort. The French Revolution would still probably occur sans the AWI, however the when and how it plays out more then likely would change. If its enough of a change to interrupt a certain Corsican Artillery Officer's rise to power I think we could all agree that European History would be dramatically different.
In any case, tonnage rates
-
Instead of linking a 20 minute video you could just have given me the so called "omission". My question to you sir would be, before linking me a 20 minute video, did you even bothered to see the 5 minute video I've just linked?
Nice double standard.
Indeed. I've already warned Luis about this kind of bollocks once during this thread. Do not do it again.
-
So it's not fair to ask him if he saw the video before he posted a replying video?
And there's a difference between a video of 5 minutes and one of 20.
EDIT: notice that he linked a 20minute video because of an omission in a quote.
I linked a 5 minute video explaining the whole shenanigan.
-
So it's not fair to ask him if he saw the video before he posted a replying video?
And there's a difference between a video of 5 minutes and one of 20.
EDIT: notice that he linked a 20minute video because of an omission in a quote.
I linked a 5 minute video explaining the whole shenanigan.
I wonder which one did a better job of explaining its position.
This thread is starting to look like some sort of conspiracy nut circle jerk.
-
So it's not fair to ask him if he saw the video before he posted a replying video?
And there's a difference between a video of 5 minutes and one of 20.
EDIT: notice that he linked a 20minute video because of an omission in a quote.
I linked a 5 minute video explaining the whole shenanigan.
You only need to watch the first 8 minutes (after it is explained, it goes on about how other people reacted to it). Which explains that the explenation of the shenanigan is in fact, a shenanigan (what a difficult word!). 'The decline' is not a decline in temperature, but a decline in what usually is used to measure the temperature, which started to diverge from the actual temperature around 1960. HOwever, since real temperature has been measured since 1900 or so, they added in the real temps so that people who read the article (which was NOT published for a scientific journal but for purposes of the general public) could see the actual temps instead first seeing an imagine, and then read through the whole paper rather confused why that graph seems rather off.
-
I refer to the post where I first commented on the video being 20 minutes long. I don't agree with you about the video being a shenanigan, and your explanation shows that you really didn't understand the fuss, but ok.
edit: quick note about this:
....and then read through the whole paper rather confused why that graph seems rather off.
But that's exactly the point. The fact that the graphs go down is odd, and explanations for it are pretty much ad hoc (the trend fits in the middle of the century where the calibrations occurred), and sure the confidence level that you'd get from your audiences would be completely different.
Perhaps you think that the job of a scientist is to fool the audience into thinking that his particular vision of the truth is the truth, and that caveats are too "messy" to give to an "idiotic" audience. Well I disagree.
-
I refer to the post where I first commented on the video being 20 minutes long.
What's so wrong about a 20 minute vid anyway?
But that's exactly the point. The fact that the graphs go down is odd, and explanations for it are pretty much ad hoc (the trend fits in the middle of the century where the calibrations occurred), and sure the confidence level that you'd get from your audiences would be completely different.
The graph goes down is odd, and it has been explained in that 20 minute vid (And probably in the paper as well, although we are talking about the front image of a paper. Nobody of us has actually read the bloody paper, so we do not know if it was actually explained or not, thus we should not be drawing conclusions wether or not the sceintists were transparant. (ANd since they have been asked for explenations several times (also seen in that 20 minute video) and have been very transperant, and the goverments and instances then saw that they were being honest and that no fraud had been commited. Unless there is a global conspiracy going on, i'd say that there's no fuss.
-
I refer to the post where I first commented on the video being 20 minutes long.
What's so wrong about a 20 minute vid anyway?
It isn't. I refer to it because I commented on it.
The graph goes down is odd, and it has been explained in that 20 minute vid (And probably in the paper as well, although we are talking about the front image of a paper. Nobody of us has actually read the bloody paper, so we do not know if it was actually explained or not, thus we should not be drawing conclusions wether or not the sceintists were transparant. (ANd since they have been asked for explenations several times (also seen in that 20 minute video) and have been very transperant, and the goverments and instances then saw that they were being honest and that no fraud had been commited. Unless there is a global conspiracy going on, i'd say that there's no fuss.
Talk for yourself. I've seen these papers for a long time now. The "fuss" is one of lack of transparency. As I said previously, it's no conspiracy to "take over the world", it's just a clique of professionals with really bad MO (this is merely the tip, there are plenty of cases of malfeasance and bad faith, see for instance this very good summary of just one of the stories, which I followed at the time, Caspar and the Jesus paper (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html), it's quite the read.
-
We should split the global warming stuff and go back to talking about Perry and how much he sucks.
-
We should split the global warming stuff and go back to talking about Perry and how much he sucks.
Yes.
-
We should split the global warming stuff and go back to talking about Perry and how much he sucks.
At least he supports mass effect 3 :lol:
-
Not sure if this was discussed, but my political science professor had an interesting take on why Rick Perry might've decided to join in the race this late. My professor guesses that the Republican party does not want Michele Bachmann to have a chance of winning, so they had Perry enter in and split her votes as they are both social conservatives and give someone else with a bigger chance of success to win like Mitt Romney. My professor acknowledges that it's a guess and that he might be completely off, but I never thought of it that way before. Not sure if this was discussed yet.
-
Doesn't Romney being a mormon make him unelectable?
-
Doesn't Romney being a mormon make him unelectable?
Moronism didn't stop Bush from getting elected...
...oh wait, you said MORMON. My mistake.
-
Not sure if this was discussed, but my political science professor had an interesting take on why Rick Perry might've decided to join in the race this late. My professor guesses that the Republican party does not want Michele Bachmann to have a chance of winning, so they had Perry enter in and split her votes as they are both social conservatives and give someone else with a bigger chance of success to win like Mitt Romney. My professor acknowledges that it's a guess and that he might be completely off, but I never thought of it that way before. Not sure if this was discussed yet.
Seems very reasonable in fact. Bachmann scares the **** out of me.
-
Not sure if this was discussed, but my political science professor had an interesting take on why Rick Perry might've decided to join in the race this late. My professor guesses that the Republican party does not want Michele Bachmann to have a chance of winning, so they had Perry enter in and split her votes as they are both social conservatives and give someone else with a bigger chance of success to win like Mitt Romney. My professor acknowledges that it's a guess and that he might be completely off, but I never thought of it that way before. Not sure if this was discussed yet.
Seems very reasonable in fact. Bachmann scares the **** out of me.
Bachmann isn't the real 'problem' though, it's Ron Paul. Bachmann seems to be pretty much status quo like the rest and isnt a particularly interesting candidate to me.
-
That's because you don't know her.
Know her:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza
-
Doesn't Romney being a mormon make him unelectable?
No more than being a Catholic made Kennedy unelectable.
-
catholics are a long established tradition. mormons think some guy found golden tablets with inscriptions from god on them IN THE USA. I mean, to me that's about as plausible as the rest of christianity, but that must seem out there even for most people who already think there's a god.
-
Bachmann isn't the real 'problem' though, it's Ron Paul. Bachmann seems to be pretty much status quo like the rest and isnt a particularly interesting candidate to me.
This is not the dumbest thing in the history of dumb things, but it is getting there.
-
She's a lying, homophobic, anti-abortion moron.
Sounds like your average Republican candidate to me. :p
-
She's a lying, homophobic, anti-abortion moron.
Sounds like your average Republican candidate to me. :p
For this year, perhaps, but I'm still judging them by republican candidates in general.
-
I keep hearing about this 'Ron Paul'. Wasn't there also a 'Rand Paul', and who are they?
-
I keep hearing about this 'Ron Paul'. Wasn't there also a 'Rand Paul', and who are they?
Both are libertarians, constitutionalists, want a return to sound money, non-interventionism (as opposed to empire building or isolationism) and pretty much more freedom for everyone. Ron Paul has been in politics for 30 years, never flip-flopped to be popular, always voted no against unconstitutional bills even if he was the only one to do so. What he said in 1988 is still relevant today. (I don't particularly dislike Bachmann, she's at the least a lesser evil, just that I'm not convinced she'll bring much change if at all). Ron Paul has gotten extremely popular since around 4th quarter 2007, biggest individual donations from military, by far the most grass roots support but was marginalized by mainstream media by omitting victories, acting like he doesn't exist. This was attempted this year at Ames Iowa as well. He's now considered, reluctantly by some, a front-runner in the GOP and for presidency. Also barely came in second at the Ames Iowa poll with only about 200 votes less than Bachmann (4600 compared to 4800, 3rd place got 2500~) Big chance to get the nomination at this rate.
Rand Paul is a Kentucky senator and has succesfully entered politics relatively early, has his father's ideas as well and seems quite a good choice in the future as well. Got smeared and attacked a bunch of times and lied about to try to marginalize and disrupt his campaign by media. He'll still have to prove his worth more for me though, but he won't run for pres till at least 2016 anyway.
-
Oh, and Rand Paul totally flipped on a ton of his positions and basically acts like the opposite of his dad in practice if not rhetoric. There was one spectacular incident when, actually sticking pretty hardcore to libertarian values, said that he would have voted against the Civil Rights legislation because it represented a growth in federal power that was not constitutionally mandated (which is actually true), and that business owners of course had the right to refuse people service based on ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Of course there was a pretty hard backlash. Afterwards he basically got sucked up by the GOP party leaders and has been towing the line ever since.
Ron Paul wants to ctrl-alt-del the federal government.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14553127
Perry criticised for calling the option to print more money 'treason'.
See, this is my problem with the current Republican talking heads. There's nothing wrong with different opinions, it's healthy, but to start accusing everyone who disagrees as traitors and various other deliberately confrontational insults does absolutely nothing other than make the situation worse and create a growing friction between the various factions.
Seems to me that, across the Western World, there needs to be a lot less finger-pointing and name-calling, and then maybe, just maybe, there might actually be some constructive discussion about where to go from here.
-
Oh, and Rand Paul totally flipped on a ton of his positions and basically acts like the opposite of his dad in practice if not rhetoric. There was one spectacular incident when, actually sticking pretty hardcore to libertarian values, said that he would have voted against the Civil Rights legislation because it represented a growth in federal power that was not constitutionally mandated (which is actually true), and that business owners of course had the right to refuse people service based on ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Of course there was a pretty hard backlash. Afterwards he basically got sucked up by the GOP party leaders and has been towing the line ever since.
Ron Paul wants to ctrl-alt-del the federal government.
Hm... I remember the case about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights legislation, but are you certain he wasn't misinterpreted about it? Nonetheless I am a little on the fence about Rand Paul, hope he'll learn a lot more from his dad in the time to come. Nonetheless he did get attacked for other things he didn't say or do, like kidnapping a woman. But I guess that's part of what Flipside just called, coming up with things of no substance to critisize someone about instead of actual things they did that may be much more damning.
-
Agreed. It's encouraging to see so much good discussion on internet forums, it's sad to think that this is probably better discussion than in almost any of the world's legislatures.
I wish forums and communities, like HLP, Reddit, other forums you may browse, etc, would come together to form an alternative - like I suggested, an Internet party, founded on a lot of the ways the Internet works. Freedom of information, total openness and transparency, merits of an argument based upon the structure of the argument and not all the usual crap that's attached to it (oh my god, nude photos in e-mail?!? banish him!). Add in a strong platform of accountability and I think you'd really have a winner. You'd definitely rock the candidate base by playing to home field - it's a funny thought, I imagine no one would take what I'm going to seriously, but I really think that a LolCat or whatever in a campaign ad would definitely get a lot more people interested in a candidate - especially if it was used properly and not just as a cheap cash-in (hello Verizon "...and even MORE CATS!"). Most of the people who peruse modding communities and whatnot are obviously talented, could make educational videos, organize to get them seen, make flyers, etc. Big advantage of being based off of forum communities and whatnot would be the ability to invite people to discussions. You could actually, *gasp*, have people discuss the issues they care about, instead of just voting for the biggest mouthpiece.
I guess I just look for resources where I see them. :\
-
The problem is that that party would be even more divided then the ones who concentrate around one leader, who subsequently gets shot.
-
As you brought a possible assasination attempt before, on a new popular president like Ron Paul;
I don't think it would help the establishment at all if they were to panic and order the assasination of Ron Paul when he wins the presidency. It would be a catalyst for a violent revolution (as the peaceful revolution has been made impossible). Not that they haven't prepared themselves for years against such. What differs between revolution in disarmed Europe and the USA is that you've got so many gun owners, trained veterans, etc. that could fight toe to toe with most forces. You'd probably see a wide war against foreign troops (mexicans at the least) if D.C. wasn't captured in a relative short amount of time.
..Or people would grieve and sit on their behinds as the system goes in damage control mode scared of phantom revolutionaries that never showed up, establishing a massive police state and a dictator for fear or revenge for performing a coup like that on a newly elected president.
Above scenarios seem fantastical but it's not uncommon that an assasination triggered a war nor the transformation of a country to a police state.
-
I wasn't talking about assinnations as they might happen, I was saying that 'The Internet Party' would be even more divided on its policies then a party whose leader got assassinated. As a factual example, since it already happened. The coalition fell apart before it was even properly formed, and new elections happened. Nothing else really happened.
What differs between revolution in disarmed Europe and the USA is that you've got so many gun owners, trained veterans, etc. that could fight toe to toe with most forces.
Wouldn't count on it.
Neither is Europe as disarmed as you think. Where did you get that notion? You're taking Europe as a grand collective of nations who think and act exactly the same way. There's a reason there are so many nations: They don't.
-
As you brought a possible assasination attempt before, on a new popular president like Ron Paul;
I don't think it would help the establishment at all if they were to panic and order the assasination of Ron Paul when he wins the presidency. It would be a catalyst for a violent revolution (as the peaceful revolution has been made impossible). Not that they haven't prepared themselves for years against such. What differs between revolution in disarmed Europe and the USA is that you've got so many gun owners, trained veterans, etc. that could fight toe to toe with most forces. You'd probably see a wide war against foreign troops (mexicans at the least) if D.C. wasn't captured in a relative short amount of time.
..Or people would grieve and sit on their behinds as the system goes in damage control mode scared of phantom revolutionaries that never showed up, establishing a massive police state and a dictator for fear or revenge for performing a coup like that on a newly elected president.
Above scenarios seem fantastical but it's not uncommon that an assasination triggered a war nor the transformation of a country to a police state.
Seriously, what planet do you live on? I've seen some nutty-conspiracy-theorist-nonsense on HLP (particularly lately), but this just makes me go:
:wakka:
That aside, if anyone seriously thinks Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected, then I have a palm tree farm in Alert, NWT that I'd love to have you make an investment in.
-
:wtf: Mexican invaders? Its time to take the urine coated tin foil hat off, it's seeping into your cranium.
-
The problem is that that party would be even more divided then the ones who concentrate around one leader, who subsequently gets shot.
I don't know, I think things like internet freedom, transparency, etc, would maintain a pretty cohesive unit. I think it would be fine to have a party that was fractured and disagreed, as long as they agree on a few fundamental concepts, rather than just rallying behind a particular person to carry their banner. As for those concepts, , I'd say most everyone on the net thinks the net should be open and government should be more transparent, not less.
A big one, though, would be accountability, so long as people stuck to the principle and didn't try to skirt around it.
-
In today's news, Rick Perry has disclosed that he is, in fact, an idiot (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/rick-perry-says-he-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/article2132432/).
-
Sur...prise?
I comfort myself in the knowledge that in a 100 years these people will either be totally forgotten or only remembered as folks who were just...wrong in every conceivable way.
-
In today's news, Rick Perry has disclosed that he is, in fact, an idiot (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/rick-perry-says-he-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/article2132432/).
Not an idiot, an opportunist. He sees that the majority of americans don't believe in this "Librlll conspiracy theory" and tries to bank on it. By doing so, he will capitalize against the moron I MEAN THE MORMON.
-
In today's news, Rick Perry has disclosed that he is, in fact, an idiot (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/rick-perry-says-he-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/article2132432/).
Not an idiot, an opportunist. He sees that the majority of americans don't believe in this "Librlll conspiracy theory" and tries to bank on it. By doing so, he will capitalize against the moron I MEAN THE MORMON.
:rolleyes:
-
In today's news, Rick Perry has disclosed that he is, in fact, an idiot (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/rick-perry-says-he-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/article2132432/).
Not an idiot, an opportunist. He sees that the majority of americans don't believe in this "Librlll conspiracy theory" and tries to bank on it. By doing so, he will capitalize against the moron I MEAN THE MORMON.
On his own I doubt Rick Perry is such a popular or charismatic guy to grab the nomination. He's being pushed for presidency though. It's a sign that what you call "Librlll conspiracy theory" is becoming very popular to the majority of people is for instance the huge amount of votes for the libertarian candidate, the cheers during the debates and that people like Gingrich and Perry are starting to talk about abolishing the Federal Reserve (Pandering, but is a very interesting thing to see happen).
Seeing what happened in 2008, I wonder how strong the mainstream media will be in 2011-2012 to help push the prepared candidate for presidency and marginalize those that don't play their little game of doublespeak and staying the course of the status quo. I wish I could have trust and faith in these other candidates or have much faith for the mainstream media about subjects like these.
-
Faith is the word you say when your brain stops working. I want accountability!
-
That, I think, is what you could form a movement around.
-
In today's news, Rick Perry has disclosed that he is, in fact, an idiot (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/rick-perry-says-he-doesnt-believe-in-global-warming/article2132432/).
Not an idiot, an opportunist. He sees that the majority of americans don't believe in this "Librlll conspiracy theory" and tries to bank on it. By doing so, he will capitalize against the moron I MEAN THE MORMON.
:rolleyes:
Hey, it's not my country, I get to see the coocoos from the outside!
-
Sur...prise?
I comfort myself in the knowledge that in a 100 years these people will either be totally forgotten or only remembered as folks who were just...wrong in every conceivable way.
We haven't forgotten John Calhoun yet, and he was more or less these people.
-
Oh well.
Still, being remembered for defending slavery as a good thing isn't exactly better than being forgotten.
It's all relative anyway.
-
As much as I don't really like Ron Paul's politics, I really hate fox news. I mean if I were american after seeing this clip I would join the republican party and become all Ron Paul vocal, just for the hell of it:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier
-
The really fun part about this straw poll is it's pretty much the only time that people remember the existence of Iowa. :D