...does Ron Paul really know something?

[afm199]

Jesus. Nuclear fusion is THE scientific boondoggle of the last century, having kept thousands employed with no results at all. And someone is supposed to have a stand on the political ramifications of a non existent proces that does not work but MIGHT if we spend yet more hundreds of billions to mine the moon. Fuck give me a break.

 

[RideToLive600RR]

don't quit your day job buddy...ok

 

[santa]

The gold supply isn't necessarily "static." If a huge new gold deposit is found somewhere, like maybe under melting permafrost in Siberia, then the supply of gold would go way up. Conversely, if every gold miner on Earth decided to go on strike simultaneously, an artificial shortage would be created.

By "static" I meant that the properties of gold do not change over time (as mentioned in the OP article), not the supply.

 

[yella600rr]

Jesus. Nuclear fusion is THE scientific boondoggle of the last century, having kept thousands employed with no results at all. And someone is supposed to have a stand on the political ramifications of a non existent proces that does not work but MIGHT if we spend yet more hundreds of billions to mine the moon. Fuck give me a break.

For me that is presidential material right there!!!!!!!!!

I can't even stand to listen to campaign speeches on either side because of the mindless empty drivel that becomes of wasted energy these politicians consume. Some times not consuming energy is cheaper than developing the so called alternatives.

 

[Ratters]

Everytime I hear him speak I ask myself, "Why is he running as a Republican?". Everything he says sounds like Libertarian speak. Is he a Republican just to give himself a better shot at success?

I voted for him in 1984 when he ran for president as a Libertarian. But he never had or will have a realistic shot at success on a national level. But he brings a lot of good thoughts to the table that aren't being said anywhere else and I appreciate the job he does in congress as Dr. No.

 

[F4iChic]

who the hell wouldn't vote for a man that looks like this????

oh, wait, never mind, you said Ron Paul

Carry on

(I got a glass of wine in me 'and so I 'ave five mins left of posting )

Carry on

 

[zefflyn]

Under a gold standard, we'd have a money supply that was under the control of Mother Nature and gold miners, as opposed to a money supply under the control of the Federal Reserve. It's not clear -- at least to me -- what the advantage of the former would be.

The difference is that gold actually has an intrinsic value, as opposed to paper with a number printed on it that we have to pretend as if it has value, and is basically created out of thin air.

 

[spddrcr]

hey f4ichic:
REPOST!!!!!
someone had to say it
nuclear fusion on the moon is in no way a viable option at this point in time, hell i dont know the first thing about it but am smart enough to tell you it's a pipe dream.
Im just sick of hearing about change from the canidates, when even they dont know what they will change

 

[F4iChic]

hey f4ichic:
REPOST!!!!!
someone had to say it

I didn't post a pic last time

 

[sohijiro]

Jesus. Nuclear fusion is THE scientific boondoggle of the last century, having kept thousands employed with no results at all. And someone is supposed to have a stand on the political ramifications of a non existent proces that does not work but MIGHT if we spend yet more hundreds of billions to mine the moon. Fuck give me a break.

i wouldnt be so quick to write off nuclear fusion? have you been following up on what they are doing at lawrence livermore labs? its pretty impressive, check out the nit laser its a different approach to nuke fusion. the magnetic field fusion reactors arent that successful though (french)

just because there are no results and its super expensive and its taking up so much time doesnt mean it wont yield results.

the manhattan project ( i think) took almost all out nations resources, we had to melt down all the silver in the treasury to make wire. and took almost all the nations power to make those nuclear bombs.

 

[Aluisious]

I find myself quite a bit in agreement with many of Paul's core issues/beliefs. I would just like to ask, since the only references on this board have been "creepy" and "Mormon," what, exactly is so distasteful about Mitt Romney?

Be assured, there is no love lost between me and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, seeing as how that's the one I was baptized into but became non-practicing early in my adulthood due to...ideological differences, I suppose. So, yeah, people think the religion is weird, blah, blah, blah. But does anyone making the flippant, little comments about him know anything about what he's done in his life/career?

I admit, I'm fairly ignorant of political affairs, so I've made it a point to try and understand each candidate - Repub. and Dem. And so far, I'm not seeing anything any worse than pretty much any candidate has stacked against them. I just wonder what political issues and such, above and beyond the basic Republican vs. Democrat, causes people to make such comments?

I know he's a Mormon, and that's enough.

I am an atheist. It's bad enough that most of the candidates publicly compete to see who is the best at worshipping a dead guy. I don't need to deal with someone who takes it one step further to include mystic underoos, missing gold tablets, baptising dead people, teenaged "elders," etc.

Refer to my sig for an amusing radio personality's take on it.

 

[vaara]

I would not automatically dismiss an atheist or agnostic for that reason.

Unlike most Americans (as we discussed here ad nauseam a month or two ago).

Massachusetts is a "commonwealth" BTW.

 

[PutPut]

He wouldn't denounce torture as a means of interrogation a few debates ago. That's enough for me.

 

[mlm]

He wouldn't denounce torture as a means of interrogation a few debates ago. That's enough for me.

Thats such a lame position I can't even begin to describe.

It all comes down to ask for forgiveness and not permission. No way in hell should we be giving permission to torture people. That's not to say we might not forgive if the circumstances demanded it.

 

[PutPut]

Thats such a lame position I can't even begin to describe.

It all comes down to ask for forgiveness and not permission. No way in hell should we be giving permission to torture people. That's not to say we might not forgive if the circumstances demanded it.

So then you're strongly in the for torture camp?

 

[mlm]

So then you're strongly in the for torture camp?

I'm against torture. I think it undermines our principals and there is no evidence to show it is effective.

I'm simply addressing the argument I've heard to justify it which is that "someone who knows more about it than me might find it necessary". Well, if somone genuinely thinks it is the only option then they can feel free to try it, and they shouldn't be surprised when they go to jail for it. If they were truely doing it for their country then that should be a small sacrifice.

If someone tortures a suspect for information and actually gets information that saves a city from atomic destruction then I think our system already accomodates this (rightly or wrongly) through jury nullification, or a presidential pardon.

Thats the point. A president with no balls will keep torture on the table, while a president with balls would pardon someone who used it if it were truely called for. I don't see much chance of the latter, but thats how I would "keep our options open".

 

[PutPut]

I see, though I wouldn't want me on the jury when I used that as my legal argurment.

 

[gogounited]

I think it's a shame the media won't give Ron Paul more coverage, but it's certainly not suprising.

 

[Aluisious]

Me, I'm not a religious person, but I actually admire those who are willing to take things on faith. It must be a very comforting thing. Sorry to babble but the above are the types of things I would hope people are willing to look at in regards to all the candidates, rather than dismiss or endorse someone based on fairly shallow or tunnel-visioned issues.

I consider your implication that my refusal to endorse a candidate based on their whacky religious views is fairly shallow or tunnel-visioned is fairly shallow or tunnel-visioned

 

[Aluisious]

lol You're right, I forgot!

I guess the greater point I was short of making is, what if everyone had that one adjective that nullified a candidate in his/her mind? Instead of saying, "He's a Mormon, that's enough for me," what if one person said, "He's black, that's enough for me," or "She's female, that's enough for me," or (someday), "He/She is gay, that's enough for me."

Not only is that just as limiting, but I'm sure most would say much more unacceptable compared to "just" a Mormon...

Being Mormon is a choice. Race and gender are not chosen, and according to some folks the jury is out on sexuality. Since no gay (well, I guess for Republicans we have to give an allowance and say "admittedly gay") candidates are running for the Presidency, that is a non-issue.

It's perfectly fine for me to discriminate against a political candidate based on their voluntary behavior.