Santorum: Liberals "are the anti-science ones"------ Conservatives can we have a heart-to-heart?

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by sillyputty


as humans why are regulations on making coal and natural gas more clean a bad thing?

Because it is essentially a tax. Which then goes to subsidize an industry that may never produce any sustainable power...ever. 

Isn't that why the government steps in...and subsidizes industries in the first place? 

Yes and it is wrong. Not because they always get it wrong (they usually invest in the wrong thing) but because its by force. Let me invest my own money.

The problem is not wanting to have cleaner fuels the problem is making people invest in something that may never pay off without their consent or knowledge. If there is a viable alternative to coal it will materialize the same way coal did.

Do you REALLY think there is significant interest in alternatives OR resources being fairly allocated to these endeavors? 
Do you REALLY think that coal magnates and oil barons are allowing alternatives to gain traction?

No they are not. This is always the case though in any industry when its time is up. There is backlash. The problem is they have a Government to appeal to that lets them operate a little longer (at taxpayer expense)

Government forcing them the opposite direction is not "fair" either however. I say get rid of subsidies both ways.

If you want to pay higher energy prices until this "alternative energy" pops up you go right ahead but do not make me pay for it.

But you already have been paying for things that have worked out in the long run that were passed along to consumers.

A report came out saying that new cars are on average 14% more efficient than they were 4 years ago because of such mandates.

http://green.autoblog.com...ent-than-four-years-ago/


green.autoblog.com?

I am not even going to get into an ad hominem attack on that information posted. All I will say is I believe $150 dollar a barrel oil and $4 a gallon gas was the reason or would have had the same effect with out subsidizing anyone.

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Why is looking for alternative energy a bad thing?

See question above. Who is going to pay for it? And by what means? Force?
Were you against going to the Moon?
No. I would have given money to pay for moon exploration. I wish I had a choice though.

Originally Posted by sillyputty


Why should we think nature will "take care of itself?"

Because it always has? 
Are you SERIOUS?
Well I guess we should just PACK UP in Nigeria, right? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17126335

The Exxon Valdez would have been fine. I guess we overreacted. 

The deep-horizon gulf incident in 2010 was a cake-walk.

I'm sure there is something inherently unnecessary in preventing us from breathing LA or Hong Kong smog...and I'm sure Erin Brockovich was just an uppity little busy-body.


Nope. Not my view point at all. Humans are part of nature and them trying to fix these things is part of nature as well. People will try to develop alternative energies, save to planet, and clean up oil spills with out government force. I just prefer to choose.

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Why shouldn't we think that humans are the only species that matters?

See question above. People who share my view do not think that humans are the only species that matter. We think that when we get out of hand nature will handle us. The "invisible hand" so to speak.

So go for broke, huh? 
Incredible. 

So you don't even care about trying to make the fun last longer than it will on the road we're on?
"Nature will handle us"...What arrogance. Its as if you don't CARE about preserving what took MILLIONS of years to create...and using it all in a period of a few hundred years.

I personally may try to make the fun last longer. But I may not. I want to be able to choose.

Originally Posted by sillyputty

I want the troops home too...but dont think for a second that Paul will change ANYTHING. Gold Standard?

Ron Paul personally favors a gold standard (We will return to one whether he becomes president or not because Gold is money we have talked about this before) but he does not plan to impose one.

A gold standard would RUIN the world. Its too far gone. Plus, its horribly inefficient. Reform is needed, but gold isn't the way to go. 

No it wont and no its not and no its not.

The problem with the previous attempts at a gold standard were

1) The price of gold was pegged and not allowed to float
2) The powers that be did not respect the peg and printed to much money.

He wants competing currencies with the Federal Reserve Note (Dollar) so the market can decide what the currency is. The market would pick gold every time and I would go so far so to say the only reason we are not on a "Gold Standard" as you say (quotes because I do not know what that means to you maybe you do not understand its ramifications) right now is because we are on a oil standard. Gold is a better standard than oil (because oil has a very important use besides backing currency) that is why we will be returning to one in the future.

I don't think you really believe we're returning to a gold standard.

No only do I believe it. I will be proven right at some later date. It is inevitable. Do you hear me? If we do not go back to one global trade and credit will be seize up. (what you think will happen if we go back to a gold standard)

Originally Posted by sillyputty


The only justification for us continuing foreign oil dependence would be to justify our expansion across the globe if you felt that our domestic reserves were adequate enough to meet that need.




...and that seems far less likely considering the types of conspiracies you'd be implicating.

You have to realize that oil reserves are literally this countries currency reserves. All dollar (Federal Reserve Note) denominated assets value would vanish into thin air if the relationship oil has to the economy changed in any significant way.

Is this a contradiction?

I do not see how?

Currency reserves and Dollars are two totally different things in this context.

That is until they get back on to a Gold Standard. If you believe in Peak Oil or not you have to realize that monied interest are vested in keeping this going until they can return to a Gold Standard.

Are you seriously suggesting that we're at constant war to propagate foreign quest for oil to delay our return to the gold standard?I'm trying to understand the point you're setting up here. 

Yes. They thought Oil was a better reserve. They thought they could pick what "money" was. They thought that a gold standard was "to far gone". They messed up. If the dollar was pegged to the price of oil it wouldnt have lasted this long. IMO.

EDIT*** I cannot stand Santorum 

 He is a joke.

Sounds like you'd vote for one of his colleagues on the primary debate stages with him though.


I like Ron. But he is not radical enough for me to vote for him.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by ninjahood

republicans are being torn in 1/2 because they have been hijacked by right wing conservative evangelicals are HELL BENT to on outlawing a women's right to choice whether to have children.

But da dems are in trouble too, cuz sooner or later, they're gonna be hijacked by left wing environmentalist nuts who are HELL BENT on de-industrialzation.

both fringes are da party are radical and illogical.

da presidential race should be more about policy issues and less about social morality.

I'd argue that "environmentalist nuts" taking over the Democratic party is much less likely than what has already happened to the Republican party. Environmentalists have always been around and will be around. If it weren't for environmentalists raising awareness to the stuff that allows capitalism to happen, our planet would be a vastly more disgusting and toxic place. Most Democrats are capitalist as opposed to what Republicans would like you to think.

you got a point.

if those idiot conservatives would get off their high horse and think logical, their best chance to win is mitt...da fact that santorum is even being entertained is hilarious...

 

[ksteezy]

These dudes are masters at quoting....how do they even do multiple multiple multiple quotes

 

[Nike Jordan]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by ninjahood

republicans are being torn in 1/2 because they have been hijacked by right wing conservative evangelicals are HELL BENT to on outlawing a women's right to choice whether to have children.

But da dems are in trouble too, cuz sooner or later, they're gonna be hijacked by left wing environmentalist nuts who are HELL BENT on de-industrialzation.

both fringes are da party are radical and illogical.

da presidential race should be more about policy issues and less about social morality.

I'd argue that "environmentalist nuts" taking over the Democratic party is much less likely than what has already happened to the Republican party. Environmentalists have always been around and will be around. If it weren't for environmentalists raising awareness to the stuff that allows capitalism to happen, our planet would be a vastly more disgusting and toxic place. Most Democrats are capitalist as opposed to what Republicans would like you to think.

you got a point.

if those idiot conservatives would get off their high horse and think logical, their best chance to win is mitt...da fact that santorum is even being entertained is hilarious...

Mitt Romney isn't a real conservative. He will say whatever thinks you'll believe.

 

[rashi]

Do you REALLY think there is significant interest in alternatives OR resources being fairly allocated to these endeavors? 
Do you REALLY think that coal magnates and oil barons are allowing alternatives to gain traction?


The market isn't demanding it. Notice how much more expensive hybrids are compared to similar cars in their respective classes. Government is actually decreasing the demand for alternative sources of energy with subsidizing the industry. Sadly, a vast majority of people in this country are economic ******s and don't understand the concept that the more you subsidize, the more expensive things get.

And guess what? Oil companies and "Alternative" energy companies are both HEAVILY subsidized.

 

[thefoteenth]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by TheFoteenth

I don't get it.

The internet is the most useful tool for people to find any kind of information they need or want, yet people still question how a Presidential candidate that shouldn't win, is winning?

"Presidents aren't elected, they are selected".

And if you haven't realized that the only logical person to have in our white house is Ron Paul, then you'll never get it.

Bruh... Ron Paul has more flaws than Barack does...and Barack is the President.




I want the troops home too...but dont think for a second that Paul will change ANYTHING. Gold Standard?




For every 1 good thing Paul says, hes completely out of the loop on like 3 things.




The president probably doesn't even control troop deployment anymore, from what i've seen. Those dudes are just patsy's now. 

Flaws? In what? His domestic policies? Foreign policies?

Look... it's hard to debate with someone when I don't know who they have voted for, who they were against and who they support in the current election. Answer me those and I'll shed some light.

 

[jhova718]

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by theone2401


Because it is essentially a tax. Which then goes to subsidize an industry that may never produce any sustainable power...ever. 

Isn't that why the government steps in...and subsidizes industries in the first place? 

Yes and it is wrong. Not because they always get it wrong (they usually invest in the wrong thing) but because its by force. Let me invest my own money.

The problem is not wanting to have cleaner fuels the problem is making people invest in something that may never pay off without their consent or knowledge. If there is a viable alternative to coal it will materialize the same way coal did.

Do you REALLY think that coal magnates and oil barons are allowing alternatives to gain traction?

No they are not. This is always the case though in any industry when its time is up. There is backlash. The problem is they have a Government to appeal to that lets them operate a little longer (at taxpayer expense)

Government forcing them the opposite direction is not "fair" either however. I say get rid of subsidies both ways.

If you want to pay higher energy prices until this "alternative energy" pops up you go right ahead but do not make me pay for it.

But you already have been paying for things that have worked out in the long run that were passed along to consumers.

A report came out saying that new cars are on average 14% more efficient than they were 4 years ago because of such mandates.

http://green.autoblog.com...ent-than-four-years-ago/


green.autoblog.com?

I am not even going to get into an ad hominem attack on that information posted. All I will say is I believe $150 dollar a barrel oil and $4 a gallon gas was the reason or would have had the same effect with out subsidizing anyone.

See question above. Who is going to pay for it? And by what means? Force?
Were you against going to the Moon?
No. I would have given money to pay for moon exploration. I wish I had a choice though.

Because it always has? 
Are you SERIOUS?
Well I guess we should just PACK UP in Nigeria, right? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17126335

The Exxon Valdez would have been fine. I guess we overreacted. 

The deep-horizon gulf incident in 2010 was a cake-walk.

I'm sure there is something inherently unnecessary in preventing us from breathing LA or Hong Kong smog...and I'm sure Erin Brockovich was just an uppity little busy-body.


Nope. Not my view point at all. Humans are part of nature and them trying to fix these things is part of nature as well. People will try to develop alternative energies, save to planet, and clean up oil spills with out government force. I just prefer to choose.

See question above. People who share my view do not think that humans are the only species that matter. We think that when we get out of hand nature will handle us. The "invisible hand" so to speak.

So go for broke, huh? 
Incredible. 

So you don't even care about trying to make the fun last longer than it will on the road we're on?
"Nature will handle us"...What arrogance. Its as if you don't CARE about preserving what took MILLIONS of years to create...and using it all in a period of a few hundred years.

I personally may try to make the fun last longer. But I may not. I want to be able to choose.

Ron Paul personally favors a gold standard (We will return to one whether he becomes president or not because Gold is money we have talked about this before) but he does not plan to impose one.

A gold standard would RUIN the world. Its too far gone. Plus, its horribly inefficient. Reform is needed, but gold isn't the way to go. 

No it wont and no its not and no its not.

The problem with the previous attempts at a gold standard were

1) The price of gold was pegged and not allowed to float
2) The powers that be did not respect the peg and printed to much money.

He wants competing currencies with the Federal Reserve Note (Dollar) so the market can decide what the currency is. The market would pick gold every time and I would go so far so to say the only reason we are not on a "Gold Standard" as you say (quotes because I do not know what that means to you maybe you do not understand its ramifications) right now is because we are on a oil standard. Gold is a better standard than oil (because oil has a very important use besides backing currency) that is why we will be returning to one in the future.

I don't think you really believe we're returning to a gold standard.

No only do I believe it. I will be proven right at some later date. It is inevitable. Do you hear me? If we do not go back to one global trade and credit will be seize up. (what you think will happen if we go back to a gold standard)

You have to realize that oil reserves are literally this countries currency reserves. All dollar (Federal Reserve Note) denominated assets value would vanish into thin air if the relationship oil has to the economy changed in any significant way.

Is this a contradiction?

I do not see how?

Currency reserves and Dollars are two totally different things in this context.

That is until they get back on to a Gold Standard. If you believe in Peak Oil or not you have to realize that monied interest are vested in keeping this going until they can return to a Gold Standard.

Are you seriously suggesting that we're at constant war to propagate foreign quest for oil to delay our return to the gold standard?I'm trying to understand the point you're setting up here. 

Yes. They thought Oil was a better reserve. They thought they could pick what "money" was. They thought that a gold standard was "to far gone". They messed up. If the dollar was pegged to the price of oil it wouldnt have lasted this long. IMO.

EDIT*** I cannot stand Santorum 

 He is a joke.

Sounds like you'd vote for one of his colleagues on the primary debate stages with him though.


I like Ron. But he is not radical enough for me to vote for him.


Me, Me, Me.
The American Dream realized. So much for caring about our fellow man.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by ksteezy

These dudes are masters at quoting....how do they even do multiple multiple multiple quotes

That's what I'm saying...   

 

[deuce king]

It still amazes me that Ron Paul still has any supporters at all, this guy hasn't won anything in the past few months and he damn sure won't win anytime soon. It's time for you dudes to jump ship and let Ron Paul sink on his own accord. Don't go down with the ship, leave that to the captain.

 

the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats keep their crazies in line


Not only do they keep the crazies in line, but Democrats keep them out of the front of the line as well which is the exact opposite of what the Republicans do.  

  

 

[dajoka004]

Santorum stands no chance of beating Obama if he wins the GOP. 
The GOP should really be ashamed of themselves right now. Obama is such an easy target to unseat and they can't even put out a reasonable candidate. 

I will abstain from voting again. 

 

[thefoteenth]

I swear, these political "debates" on this forum are a waste of time. It's like talking to the wall of china.

Unplug yourselves, let your "ego's" truth go and go out find the real the truth.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Deuce King


It still amazes me that Ron Paul still has any supporters at all, this guy hasn't won anything in the past few months and he damn sure won't win anytime soon. It's time for you dudes to jump ship and let Ron Paul sink on his own accord. Don't go down with the ship, leave that to the captain.

Because the Ron Paul people know how the ACTUAL delegate process works.





Plus the overwhelmingly election fraud in every single primary thus far.