US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by GDB

Curious as to why.



Normal politicians make campaign promises and don't keep them. Romney just says stuff, says the opposite, and then the original again, and doesn't mean it. About everything. No one knows where he truly stands. That's not a good politician, that's a good spy.



Democrats aren't a hive mind like the republiborg. And how crashing the country off a cliff is a good thing is beyond me. You realize that "curtailing government interference in our lives" actually caused the country to be downgraded, right? With that whole "give us our tax breaks or the country bankrupts" thing?



You have to pay for coverage now. Why is this different? And yes, things have gotten better.



A logical person might think that, but who knows if he thinks it's the answer or not? As stated, no one knows what he really thinks.



Romney supporters dancing around in KKK outfits, and Romney supporters having fundraisers titled "Put the White back in the Whitehouse" says otherwise.



Uhm, you can choose your healthcare provider. I don't see why you think you can't. And no, the democrats don't want to disable medicare, that's the GOP that you seem so eager to applaud.



Then wouldn't the GOP be worse offenders? Considering they're the ones who want to implement laws as to who can marry, what women can do with their bodies, they're the ones who put the individual mandate in Obamacare, etc.



No one is trying to take your guns, unless you're a previous violent offender.



Good thing I've already started looking into changing my money into Canadian dollars, Japanese yen, or British pounds.

Are you kidding?! Biden the same guy who said "They're gonna put you all in chains!"! The guys a first class douche bag, smart ass, who'd be better at selling used cars!
And I don't remember actually endorsing or saying I supported the Republican party either. What I was saying is I'm all for less gov't., neither party has anybody worth getting that excited for.
As for "Gov't in the home, bedroom, etc" who's fault is that?
As for the gun thing, there's a thread for that too, but I've noticed a lot of otherwise "not your typical gun owner types" buying AR-15 style rifles and Glock type pistols, so even if the gov't decided to try and take them there'd be a real brouhaha!
And lastly why in God's name would you want to exchange your currency for two Tgat are worthless? The Pound is no more thanks to the Euro. The Yen has been heard from in years as Japan is STILL in economic turmoil. Canada, God bless them, they have somehow stayed out of the whole mess...maybe they know something we should?
Bottom line: Vote your conscience! Not what's popular on Facebook, YouTube, or the Internet!

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by james0246

I'm on the fence for this type of issue. There are some things the government is given authority over simply because it is has been deemed for the betterment of society. Beyond infrastructure and basic protections and services (food, etc), the government should be able to prevent its citizens from harming each other unnecessarily. This is why we have drug regulations and laws, this is why we have certain environmental and animal laws, this is why we have generally accepted restrictions on a variety of products and producers, etc.

It depends.
How much liberty are we willing to sacrifice at the altar of security.
Life isn't safe, nor should we expect it to be.
I don't adhere to the philosophy that government is some how the saviour of society.
We've seen the failure of drug regulations run amok: i.e. Richard Nixon's drug war that to this day continues to fill the coffers of the Drug Lords and is a major cause of the homicides in the US.

The environmental CAFE laws passed in the 1970s have actually caused an increase in pollution due to the strangling of the combustion engine. The laws forced automobile producers to create vehicles that had lower complete-combustion ratios than the vehicles made prior to the CAFE standards.
Continued push for lower fuel consumption (MPG) has led to smaller, lighter, and thus more dangerous cars due to the simple fact they are not as strong as vehicles made decades before.
Some safety innovations for autos have been very beneficial (airbags, disc brakes, etc.), but the environmental standards of CAFE are not.
They also cause an economic burden on citizens due to the requirement for emissions testing. A testing system that doesn't even work due to all of the waivers, and unscrupulous testing stations (I know of one where for $5.00 extra they'll pass anything, even a car burning oil).
While pushes for alternative fuels is a must to stop actual pollution, the solutions put forward by politicians on both sides of the isle have done nearly nothing to solve the issue effectively.
I keep beating my hydrogen-fuel drum because I know that with nuclear power to "crack" the water, we can have an effection power production system.
The Italians have already proven this.

With regard to animal laws. Some work very well, but others are just plain revenue generators (like requiring your cat have a collar and be walked outside).

My point James is that while some regulation is good, the level of regulation we are at now far exceeds what a free country ought to have. In fact, when you consider the BATF, the DHS, the TSA, and the militarized state and local police forces, it becomes clear we're in a soft-tyranny whose velvet glove is coming off.

There are so many things the government does that is partially an "infringement" on our personal rights, but we, as a society, both want and need quite a few of these infringements.
[/SIZE]

No infringement is required or necessary.
If your personal/inalienable rights are infringed then you are no longer a free person you are a serf, under the will and whim of politicians and corporate moguls that you neither elect nor have any control over.
That's what the continuity of government council is in the US, the actual government.
Then there's the electoral college, corporate campaign donars, lobbyists, etc.
By the time the influence of the people actually effects the process their power is so watered down as to be essentially an advisory/popularity vote with little effect on the actual outcome.
In reality, all this election stuff is for show.

Originally Posted by GDB

Then wouldn't the GOP be worse offenders? Considering they're the ones who want to implement laws as to who can marry, what women can do with their bodies, they're the ones who put the individual mandate in Obamacare, etc.

No, they're only one half of this totalitarian equation.
The "Progressives" want to control what you can own (car, gun, house, light bulbs, clothing), what you can say (political correctness), who you must tolerate (homosexuals [can't hate them], criminals [against killing in self defense], pedophiles [again can't kill them], the list goes on), and what you think (AGW as gospel, Darwinism as reality, benevolent totalitarism, etc.).

So no, the Dems are not any better at all. In fact, they're worse in some ways, though not all.

No one is trying to take your guns, unless you're a previous violent offender.

So you've never heard of Fast & Furious eh?
Somehow I doubt that.
Then there's the UN ban on small arms that is coming up for consideration.
Yeah, I'd say it's obvious that Obama's administration has been working diligently on back-door gun control issues.
But the hoplophobes need not worry, Mitt Romney is just as bad.

Good thing I've already started looking into changing my money into Canadian dollars, Japanese yen, or British pounds.

Get out of paper currency if you're actually serious about getting through the dollar melt down.
And DON't buy a bunch of gold or silver.
You need to stock up on food, toiletries, extra clothing, fuel, medical supplies, protection (yes guns and ammunition and learning how to use them), and some gold and silver in small denominations (junk silver, silver rounds [1 ounce], and 10th, quarter, half, and 1 ounce gold pieces, but not too many because using them for trade will be difficult).

Also, get together with your neighbors and make a plan of action in the event of collapse and/or civil unrest.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

As for "Gov't in the home, bedroom, etc" who's fault is that?

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Are you trying to imply that because some people are women or gay, that the GOP has a duty to put in laws? I want to think that isn't what you're saying, but I'm not sure how else to read it.

And lastly why in God's name would you want to exchange your currency for two Tgat are worthless? The Pound is no more thanks to the Euro. The Yen has been heard from in years as Japan is STILL in economic turmoil. Canada, God bless them, they have somehow stayed out of the whole mess...maybe they know something we should?

You're showing your ignorance. The British pound is not only still used, but it's more stable than the Euro. And while Japan's economy isn't in good shape, the yen has been incredibly stable for at least the past 5 years (how long I've been watching it).

Bottom line: Vote your conscience! Not what's popular on Facebook, YouTube, or the Internet!

I... would hope that goes without saying.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

So no, the Dems are not any better at all. In fact, they're worse in some ways, though not all.

I call bullshit on this. Influencing (not controlling) what you buy isn't an infringement of your rights. You want to buy a gas guzzler? Go right ahead. No one's stopping you. There might be tax breaks for a "green" vehicle, but that doesn't mean you have to buy it. Same goes for lightbulbs. Nothing's stopping you from getting one kind or another. And houses, nothing stopping you there. And clothing... the only thing they're really stopping you from doing is wearing indecent clothing. I believe it was said on the previous page, your rights stop when they infringe on another's.

And as stated, no one is stopping you from getting a gun unless you have a prior violent offense. Stop believing the GOP lie machine that you pretend to hate.

And I'm sorry if you hate homosexuals and are angry that you aren't allowed to beat them to death. Again, your rights end when they infringe on another's rights, and their right to not be killed is greater than yours to be a bigot. As far as criminals go, it's been established many times in court that self-defense is justifiable cause for killing a criminal. Not sure where you got the idea that it isn't, but I'm guessing from the same garbage that you linked to below.

As for "thinking", how can you count it against democrats to teach evolution, which has been proven (perhaps incomplete, but still proven), but give the GOP a free pass to teach creationism, which is pure fairy tale?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

So you've never heard of Fast & Furious eh?

The fact the SOCIALST PROGRESSIVES, currently in charge of our government, hate the Second Amendment to our Constitution is no secret.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were linking to a real article, not a tin foil hat tabloid. I see how you get your "news" now, though.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Get out of paper currency if you're actually serious about getting through the dollar melt down.
And DON't buy a bunch of gold or silver.
You need to stock up on food, toiletries, extra clothing, fuel, medical supplies, protection (yes guns and ammunition and learning how to use them), and some gold and silver in small denominations (junk silver, silver rounds [1 ounce], and 10th, quarter, half, and 1 ounce gold pieces, but not too many because using them for trade will be difficult).

Also, get together with your neighbors and make a plan of action in the event of collapse and/or civil unrest.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever go crazy. For now, I'll stick with realistic options.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by GDB

And clothing... the only thing they're really stopping you from doing is wearing indecent clothing. I believe it was said on the previous page, your rights stop when they infringe on another's.

But what if I want to see scantily-girls everywhere walking the streets? It's pretty lame that the government denies me that right. :[

[james0246]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

No infringement is required or necessary.

Actually, yes it is. It's called Prison. We live in a society where we not only expect, but we demand, that individuals considered harmful to the foundation of our society or harmful to individuals in our society (or even harmful to them self), must be confined and many of their personal liberties stripped or at least controlled (sometimes all of their personal liberties are taken away...it's called execution).

There are many infringements we do accept and even want, and denying them is a little silly. (Please do not confuse "infringement" with influencing your opinion; ex: you can buy whichever automobile you desire, the government does not currently control that option, many of your other options are also not actual controls so much as influences and desires (being guilt tripped into using "political correctness" is not the same as censorship or laws controlling speech, if so Jewish Mothers across the planet would be city-states unto themselves ).

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

But what if I want to see scantily-girls everywhere walking the streets? It's pretty lame that the government denies me that right. :[

Only if scantily-clad men are also allowed (I'm sure many would appreciate a law making it illegal for Chris Hemsworth to ever wear a shirt again )).

[Dr. Casey]

I do agree that political correctness is way too pervasive in our society, and that it's become way too commonplace to try and control others because they say something you don't like. The "Stalker is a harsh word" Valentine's Day card from Target is a prime example of that, a simple joke was made that some people found offensive so they banded together to bitch and moan until Target felt obligated to take the card off the shelves. It's just peer pressure on a large scale.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The "Progressives" want to control what you can own (car, gun, house, light bulbs, clothing), what you can say (political correctness), who you must tolerate (homosexuals [can't hate them], criminals [against killing in self defense], pedophiles [again can't kill them], the list goes on), and what you think (AGW as gospel, Darwinism as reality, benevolent totalitarism, etc.).

Yes, light bulbs. Trying to improve the manufacture of a certain type of bulb; that's exactly the same as trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies, or couples with theirs, or trying to disenfranchise thousands of voters. Well, perhaps it is to you. But I (and others) don't see the world that way.

Really though, that light bulb thing isn't actually a government attempt to tell you what to buy.

who you must tolerate (homosexuals [can't hate them],

Yeah, god forbid we, as a society, vocally disparage bigotry. Clearly that itself is the mark of intolerance.

Darwinism as reality

Evolution? That's not a progressive ideology, that's...well, reality.

Edit: Ninja'd by GDB's better response

[james0246]

Yeah, god forbid we, as a society, vocally disparage bigotry. Clearly that itself is the mark of intolerance.

It is. You do not encourage growth by simply forbidding certain practices, especially something that is directly related to free speech. It should always be anyone's right to be a bigot. The only time the government should step in is if the bigotry actually affects others (financially, physically and sometimes emotionally).

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by james0246

It is. You do not encourage growth by simply forbidding certain practices, especially something that is directly related to free speech. It should always be anyone's right to be a bigot. The only time the government should step in is if the bigotry actually affects others (financially, physically and sometimes emotionally).

I didn't say "legally forbid it," though. No need for the thinkpol or anything like that. I said disparage. Shun. Speak out against as a society, change hearts and minds on the matter (there might be a clearer word to use here, but it's eluding me).

But if that's intolerance, then you would really have zero growth; everyone would be too afraid of being labeled "intolerant" to speak out against something they found harmful, whether those were attitudes, policies, or what have you.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by GDB

I call bullshit on this. Influencing (not controlling) what you buy isn't an infringement of your rights. You want to buy a gas guzzler? Go right ahead. No one's stopping you. There might be tax breaks for a "green" vehicle, but that doesn't mean you have to buy it. Same goes for lightbulbs. Nothing's stopping you from getting one kind or another. And houses, nothing stopping you there. And clothing... the only thing they're really stopping you from doing is wearing indecent clothing. I believe it was said on the previous page, your rights stop when they infringe on another's.

Taxation can be used as a means to control, and you know it full well.
What you don't like is that people aren't buying into the green bullshit anymore.
They see it for what it is, control.

Agenda 21 is about what kind of house you can buy and where you can live.
It is being implemented in many states.
I know, because I've helped put a stop to it in Weld County Colorado since the state reps started pushing for it in 1990s.
Thankfully we've got it at bay.

So your cry of Bullshit is not only hollow, but blatantly false.

And as stated, no one is stopping you from getting a gun unless you have a prior violent offense. Stop believing the GOP lie machine that you pretend to hate.

Oh now you have to resort to the "you think this, that or the other" because I chewed your position up and spit it out at you.
Considering Obama was staking the claim that "90% of guns used by Mexican drug dealers come from the US."

Stop deluding yourself about Obama and the Dems.
They're control freaks.

And I'm sorry if you hate homosexuals and are angry that you aren't allowed to beat them to death. Again, your rights end when they infringe on another's rights, and their right to not be killed is greater than yours to be a bigot. As far as criminals go, it's been established many times in court that self-defense is justifiable cause for killing a criminal. Not sure where you got the idea that it isn't, but I'm guessing from the same garbage that you linked to below.

Again with the strawman.
"I'm sorry you think..." shows that you don't have a leg to stand on in your argument and that you can't make a coherent point so you must lie, slander, and attack.
Nice try, but I'm used to people like you.
What I said was that people have a right to express hatred if they damn well please. If they want to hurt someone else physically that is a crime and should be dealt with as such, however, when laws are passed to make a punishment for a crime worse than it is for others via a "hate-crime" then the law has gone too far and needs to be repealed.
It doesn't matter whether the person beating the shit out of another person screams "faggot, Cracker, Nigger, or Spick" the fact that the perpetrator assaulted the other person is all that matters.
Therefore, hate crime legislation IS an infringement.

As for "thinking", how can you count it against democrats to teach evolution, which has been proven (perhaps incomplete, but still proven), but give the GOP a free pass to teach creationism, which is pure fairy tale?

Darwinism is NOT the only theory of evolution.
Stephen Jay Gould understood this and made it clear that Darwinism has become a religion in and of itself.
It is thus religion and is a violation of the separation of church and state.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were linking to a real article, not a tin foil hat tabloid. I see how you get your "news" now, though.

Aw, is that all you can come up with?
I know, the truth hurts doesn't it.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever go crazy. For now, I'll stick with realistic options.

And go broke, hungry, and probably not survive in the process.
I suppose with people like you it's for the best though, natural selection and all that.

Originally Posted by james0246

Actually, yes it is. It's called Prison. We live in a society where we not only expect, but we demand, that individuals considered harmful to the foundation of our society or harmful to individuals in our society (or even harmful to them self), must be confined and many of their personal liberties stripped or at least controlled (sometimes all of their personal liberties are taken away...it's called execution).

That's a red herring James.
We're talking about the abuse of power.
Going to prison for simply smoking a joint isn't acceptable in a society that claims to be free.

There are many infringements we do accept and even want, and denying them is a little silly. (Please do not confuse "infringement" with influencing your opinion; ex: you can buy whichever automobile you desire, the government does not currently control that option, many of your other options are also not actual controls so much as influences and desires (being guilt tripped into using "political correctness" is not the same as censorship or laws controlling speech, if so Jewish Mothers across the planet would be city-states unto themselves ).

Really?
Show me where I can buy a new car with a 318 cu. inch big block engine, a 360, or a 440.
The government mandated that Dodge stop producing those engines, so yes, there are cars we can no longer buy because of infringements via regulations, taxes, and other abuses of power.

Originally Posted by Xagzan

Yes, light bulbs. Trying to improve the manufacture of a certain type of bulb; that's exactly the same as trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies, or couples with theirs, or trying to disenfranchise thousands of voters. Well, perhaps it is to you. But I (and others) don't see the world that way.

Which is why this society is becoming more and more polarized.
It's why people no longer respect this government.
It's also why so many people are no longer obeying these laws and breaking them.

Really though, that light bulb thing isn't actually a government attempt to tell you what to buy.

Oh, but it is, and a black market has already begun.

Yeah, god forbid we, as a society, vocally disparage bigotry. Clearly that itself is the mark of intolerance.

Gee, a little bit of a fanatic are we?
You don't have the right to tell anyone what they can say.
If they choose to be an asshole that is their right and while you can speak against it all you want, you cannot call for laws to stop them since you don't have the right to do so.

Evolution? That's not a progressive ideology, that's...well, reality.

Evolution, yes.
Darwinism, no.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Taxation can be used as a means to control, and you know it full well.

This isn't taxation in the sense that, if you buy a gas guzzler, you are taxed more. It was if you buy green, you're taxed less. There's a difference. Taxing more is a penalty, taxing less is an incentive. That's not the same as controlling, and you know it full well.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

What you don't like is that people aren't buying into the green bullshit anymore.
They see it for what it is, control.

I really couldn't care less. People aren't buying into it because the cars are expensive. Last I checked, the economy isn't that amazing, which means people don't have almost 30k to drop on a car for better mileage. It has nothing to do with "control." And the better mileage is why the majority of people bought it, not the "green" factor.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Agenda 21 is about what kind of house you can buy and where you can live.
It is being implemented in many states.

I'm curious how this controls what kind of house you can buy. All I can see is that the Tea Party says that's the case, and considering how crazy they usually are, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they say things such as that. In fact, all I keep seeing are examples of the Tea Party stopping things that would help people, such as high speed public transportation. It just reads like a huge conspiracy theory from them.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Oh now you have to resort to the "you think this, that or the other" because I chewed your position up and spit it out at you.

You did no such thing, but keep patting yourself on the back if it makes you feel better. A lot of what you're saying is basically the same thing Fox says.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Considering Obama was staking the claim that "90% of guns used by Mexican drug dealers come from the US."

Stop deluding yourself about Obama and the Dems.
They're control freaks.

Whether the 90% claim is true or not, what does that matter? How does that affect an individual purchasing a gun? You make a lot of claims, but then just jump to the worst possible conclusion and make the assertion that it's true.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Again with the strawman.
"I'm sorry you think..." shows that you don't have a leg to stand on in your argument and that you can't make a coherent point so you must lie, slander, and attack.
Nice try, but I'm used to people like you.

I like how you state I use a strawman, but then you go and try and attack my wording and try to denounce my statement based on such. Who's trying to slander now, hm?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

What I said was that people have a right to express hatred if they damn well please.

No, they don't. They can express hatred within reason, but they cannot defame, injure, or incite violence. This is how the law currently stands.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Darwinism is NOT the only theory of evolution.
Stephen Jay Gould understood this and made it clear that Darwinism has become a religion in and of itself.
It is thus religion and is a violation of the separation of church and state.

First point: It's not a religion. Just because people believe it doesn't make it a religion, especially when there's evidence that it's true. Do you think math is a religion too?
Second point: How is it a violation of the separation of church and state?
Third point: Even if you somehow manage to link the second point coherently, how do you denounce this but not the extreme Christian pervasiveness in the GOP?

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Aw, is that all you can come up with?
I know, the truth hurts doesn't it.

Seems it hurt you, after all.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

And go broke, hungry, and probably not survive in the process.
I suppose with people like you it's for the best though, natural selection and all that.

Okay, keep thinking that if it keeps you warm at night.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If they choose to be an asshole that is their right and while you can speak against it all you want, you cannot call for laws to stop them since you don't have the right to do so.

Then what are you complaining about? You're up in arms because of this supposed infringement of rights of being able to be a bigot, yet you clearly state yourself that there's no law that says you cannot be a bigot.

[synaesthetic]

"Darwinism" is a made-up term that young-earth creationists use to disparage and vilify their opponents. Titles like "darwinist" and "evolutionist" do not actually exist--they are fake labels. There are no "darwinists" nor are there "evolutionists."

The actual term would be "evolutionary biologist" which is a person who works in a field of science called... evolutionary biology.

The term "social Darwinism" is something very, very different and has nothing to do with science whatsoever. It is a sociological construct, not a field of science.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life (this is under abiogenesis) nor does it have anything to do with the origin of the cosmos (this is under astrophysics and cosmology). The only thing evolution has anything to do with is the change in allele frequency over time. The only thing evolution describes is how successive generations of life develop to fit their environments more favorably.

Creationists are really, really good at spouting complete and utter nonsense, and they've gotten much of the populace in this country to believe their nonsense. It isn't even that difficult a concept to grasp--if favorable mutations happen, those lifeforms exhibiting said favorable mutations will survive better than those who lack them, and thus they will have a greater opportunity to reproduce, passing on those changes to their offspring, which will in turn have a greater opportunity to reproduce.

If you are better adapted for your environment, you have a higher chance of NOT DYING and thus a higher chance of making more babies and passing those traits to your offspring.

This is fact. It is non-negotiable. We have witnessed it happen--hell, for tens of thousands of years, we've made it happen in animals we've domesticated through selective breeding!

Edit: Stephen J. Gould is a gigantic moron and everyone who has looked at his claims with an objective mindset knows this. Believing anything that man says is silly.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Continued push for lower fuel consumption (MPG) has led to smaller, lighter, and thus more dangerous cars due to the simple fact they are not as strong as vehicles made decades before.
Some safety innovations for autos have been very beneficial (airbags, disc brakes, etc.), but the environmental standards of CAFE are not.
They also cause an economic burden on citizens due to the requirement for emissions testing. A testing system that doesn't even work due to all of the waivers, and unscrupulous testing stations (I know of one where for $5.00 extra they'll pass anything, even a car burning oil).

That's nonsense. Modern, smaller, leaner cars are a lot safer then the old clunkers, which on modern standards would be considered death on wheels. They break faster, they turn better, and when they do get into a collision they crumple so that very little of the shock is transferred to the passenger. They might look completely totaled, but if the car is totaled that means the passenger is much more likely to escape unscathed, as it will be the car absorbing all the energy in the impact.

A big heavy car are often, in fact, more dangerous because their handling is so hard that it's difficult to break them out of a swerve.

I can assure you, modern cars are designed with safety in mind. If you want someone to blame for the decline of the American automobile, blame Toyota for building leaner, better, more reliable and safer cars, not the US government.

As for the emmissions, it's those standards you have to thank for many cities not being blanketed in fog.

As an Engineering student, I never heard anyone decrying those standards, most of the professionals I've met thought such things were a move in the right direction.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Which is why this society is becoming more and more polarized.
It's why people no longer respect this government.
It's also why so many people are no longer obeying these laws and breaking them.

I'm well aware of the polarization, though I'm not sure what you're getting at. And I don't think people breaking the law or disliking their government is really a new phenomenon.

Oh, but it is, and a black market has already begun.

I'm sure it has. No different from the misinformed hoarders the article describes, though. As I said, the manufacturing process for a certain type will change - you won't have the government ordering you what bulbs to buy, or throwing you in prison for buying different ones.

Gee, a little bit of a fanatic are we?
You don't have the right to tell anyone what they can say.
If they choose to be an asshole that is their right and while you can speak against it all you want, you cannot call for laws to stop them since you don't have the right to do so.

I believe someone was saying something about a strawman before...can't recall

Never claimed I did, never called for such things (at least as it pertains to non-violence-inciting speech). Though I'm unsure how shunning bigotry and thinking a society should always be aiming for its reduction--encouraging people to, indeed, "speak against it"--is fanatical.

Evolution, yes.
Darwinism, no.

You can't be claiming social darwinism is a trend of the current left rather than the right, and even libertarians like yourself? Hell, you've said some plenty socially darwinistic things on this very page, so while I definitely object to such a social system, I don't see what your objection is here, or why you'd be upset if it was a mainstream ideology of the left. Although, there are certainly no progressive reps or senators I'm aware of (all 3 of them) who espouse such beliefs.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by GDB

This isn't taxation in the sense that, if you buy a gas guzzler, you are taxed more. It was if you buy green, you're taxed less. There's a difference. Taxing more is a penalty, taxing less is an incentive. That's not the same as controlling, and you know it full well.

I really couldn't care less. People aren't buying into it because the cars are expensive. Last I checked, the economy isn't that amazing, which means people don't have almost 30k to drop on a car for better mileage. It has nothing to do with "control." And the better mileage is why the majority of people bought it, not the "green" factor.

Again a red herring.
This has nothing to do with what kind of automobile people want.
This has to do with politicians like Obama telling you (through emissions testing, fuel cost increases via taxation, etc.) what kinds of cars you can own.
Just because a politician doesn't make a decree or use military/police force doesn't mean it isn't a form of control.
If you have to have an emissions sticker or not be able to use your property (drive your car), then that is a form of direct control.
There's no denying that.

I'm curious how this controls what kind of house you can buy. All I can see is that the Tea Party says that's the case, and considering how crazy they usually are, I have a hard time taking them seriously when they say things such as that. In fact, all I keep seeing are examples of the Tea Party stopping things that would help people, such as high speed public transportation. It just reads like a huge conspiracy theory from them.

The Tea Party?
What do they have to do with Agenda 21?
The opposition to Agenda 21 is being driven by farmers, ranchers, and rural communities who produce our food.
They don't want to live under this green tyranny, and there is a growing number who agree that UN Agenda 21 is more harmful than good.

You did no such thing, but keep patting yourself on the back if it makes you feel better. A lot of what you're saying is basically the same thing Fox says.

I highly doubt FauxNews would dare say anything close to what I do.
They're not interested in the truth.

Whether the 90% claim is true or not, what does that matter? How does that affect an individual purchasing a gun? You make a lot of claims, but then just jump to the worst possible conclusion and make the assertion that it's true.

It matters a great deal when you're the President of the US trying to sway public opinion towards an agenda.

No, they don't. They can express hatred within reason, but they cannot defame, injure, or incite violence. This is how the law currently stands.

Why didn't you address the issue of "hate-crime" laws?
That's what my point was about, yet you dodged it, why?

First point: It's not a religion. Just because people believe it doesn't make it a religion, especially when there's evidence that it's true. Do you think math is a religion too?
Second point: How is it a violation of the separation of church and state?
Third point: Even if you somehow manage to link the second point coherently, how do you denounce this but not the extreme Christian pervasiveness in the GOP?

It's not a religion huh?
Better let the 7th circuit court of appeals know that, because they have ruled that atheism is a religion in KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY.
In so far as our discussion is concerned, atheism is a religion subject to the separation of church and state clause of the 1st amendment.

As to the "evidence" for Darwinian evolutionary theory being as scientific as mathematics, show me the mathematical formula for mutation of an ape/hominid into a man.
When you can do that, then I'll amend my opinion on the subject.
But as it stands now, I see nothing but conjecture on the part of those fundamentialist-atheists (as opposed to the far more reasonable kind) who are making grandiose claims of the origins of man.
They are no better, nor different, in their claim than the Christians who think the Earth is only 6000 years old.
I've seen their "evidence" (Ken Hovind comes to mind...and not in a good way. ) and they're as nutty as the Darwinians.

Then what are you complaining about? You're up in arms because of this supposed infringement of rights of being able to be a bigot, yet you clearly state yourself that there's no law that says you cannot be a bigot.

Clearly you're not mature enough to continue this conversation.
Oh, well, I tried.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

"Darwinism" is a made-up term that young-earth creationists...SNIP!"

Sorry Syn, but you are dead wrong on that.
Thomas Huxley used both of the terms "Darwinism" and "Evolutionist" in his writings and books, so no, it's not a construct of the Sundie Fundies, it is a term that has been used by both sides of this argument for over a century.

Edit: Stephen J. Gould is a gigantic moron and everyone who has looked at his claims with an objective mindset knows this. Believing anything that man says is silly.

Just because that socialist-pig Dr. John Maynard Smith ostracized Gould from the priesthood of Darwinian Fundamentalism doesn't mean Gould was wrong.
If Gould had written his article the other way, praising the foundation of the new religion of Darwinian Orthodoxy, he'd be a saint among them.

That's why Gould was ousted from the good graces of the Holy Church of Darwin.
He was accused of making up data and fabricating information to push his point.
Carl Sagan was accused of the same thing when he started to stray from the path.
Gould's main crime was that he dared challenge the orthodoxy of the book they made into their Bible (in contradiction to Huxley's warnings) the Origin of Species.

I've no problem with evolution per se, nor Darwin's theories, my problem is with those that have twisted Darwin's work (and the works of others) into something being used to fabricate what can only be called a new-age secular religion.

Normal atheists aren't like this, they don't get involved in the code of conduct being pushed forward by the Darwinian-Fundies like Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris.

Martin Rees is spot on about this and I agree with him that all fundamentalists (I would add of the Darwinian variety as well) need to be stopped from forming public policy.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

That's nonsense. Modern, smaller, leaner cars are a lot safer then the old clunkers, which on modern standards would be considered death on wheels. They break faster, they turn better, and when they do get into a collision they crumple so that very little of the shock is transferred to the passenger. They might look completely totaled, but if the car is totaled that means the passenger is much more likely to escape unscathed, as it will be the car absorbing all the energy in the impact.

Really, now you've roused my curiousity and I have to ask.
Why did my 87 Jeep Cherokee total a 2010 Prius with only a minor dent to the front quarter on the passenger side?
The driver of the prius went to the hospital with an injured knee, and I drove home after the cops let me go (no internal damage to the engine, suspension, or drivedrain).
The police said we hit head-on at about 30 mph through the intersection.

Without getting too far off topic here; would it be more accurate to say that some newer automobiles are safer than some older vehicles?

Meaning a vehicle that is engineered for rugged terrain and use like a Jeep, Hummer, or Range Rover is safer than say a Prius, Leaf, or Smartcar?

A big heavy car are often, in fact, more dangerous because their handling is so hard that it's difficult to break them out of a swerve.

I can assure you, modern cars are designed with safety in mind. If you want someone to blame for the decline of the American automobile, blame Toyota for building leaner, better, more reliable and safer cars, not the US government.

I didn't mention the decline of the American auto, I'm talking about "green" policies, specifically the CAFE standards being responsible for engines being built with incomplete combustion (go back a few posts).
As an engineering student you should be able to appreciate this article:
http://fuelsandlubes.com/conference/archives/2189

That is the problem with CAFE in the US.
Those standards put a strangle hold on the R&D of higher-ratio compression engines that would have had a more complete combustion and thus a cleaner emission.
It's not the creation of better performing automobiles I have a problem with, it's politicians trying to dictate development through policies designed to fit a "green" agenda and/or insulate the oil companies' profits by stifling new innovations.

One could actually argue that both "sides" of the argument benefit the oil industry.
By forcing the creation of automobiles that have higher mpg, you extend the life of the oil supplies and have an excuse to charge more for the same product.
By stifling new innovations, you ensure that no competing fuel source is ever developed.
Looks like win-win for Big Oil.

As for the emmissions, it's those standards you have to thank for many cities not being blanketed in fog.

As an Engineering student, I never heard anyone decrying those standards, most of the professionals I've met thought such things were a move in the right direction.

Fog?
Do you mean smog?
I'll assume you do.
Smog is caused primarily by coal burning power plants.Auto emissions contribute very little to it, and certainly not enough to justify the emissions testing that is nothing more than just a revenue generator.
If the idea is to curb smog or other air pollutants, then nuclear power is the best solution currently.
With hydrogen power plants as the next step beyond that.

Originally Posted by Xagzan

I'm sure it has. No different from the misinformed hoarders the article describes, though. As I said, the manufacturing process for a certain type will change - you won't have the government ordering you what bulbs to buy, or throwing you in prison for buying different ones.

Since we're on the subject, I should note that it wasn't Obama that banned the incandescent light bulb.
It was Bush.
Also, I didn't say you'd go to jail or couldn't possess them, I said the government is making it so you cannot buy them in the future.
It is not within the power of the federal government to make these kinds of laws, they are doing so under assumed authority and that is my point.
There is no need to ban these bulbs for public safety or security.

I believe someone was saying something about a strawman before...can't recall

Never claimed I did, never called for such things (at least as it pertains to non-violence-inciting speech). Though I'm unsure how shunning bigotry and thinking a society should always be aiming for its reduction--encouraging people to, indeed, "speak against it"--is fanatical.

Are you saying that you didn't mean that hate-crime laws should be applied to speech and carry a legal punishment?
If that's what you meant then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

You can't be claiming social darwinism is a trend of the current left rather than the right, and even libertarians like yourself? Hell, you've said some plenty socially darwinistic things on this very page, so while I definitely object to such a social system, I don't see what your objection is here, or why you'd be upset if it was a mainstream ideology of the left. Although, there are certainly no progressive reps or senators I'm aware of (all 3 of them) who espouse such beliefs.

I'm not, I'm saying they're both guilty as sin and again this is my point.
And I agree that in recent years the Randian-Objectivists are taking over the Libertarian party, and it's scary as hell for me.
I'm a classical liberal, I have no use for Aynn Rand's sick philosophy.
Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin.
Both are pushing us further into a police state.
Obama has continued and expanded the Patriot Act started by Bush.
If elected, Romney will do the same thing.
Obama signed the NDAA that the Tea Party Republicans of the house wanted, and further expanded the power of the presidency and the military for domestic issues.
The TSA that Bush created now has even more power under Obama, and if elected, Romney will no doubt continue the trend.
You see what I'm getting at?

[Kokukirin]

Not going to respond to GundamFan directly, because the posts seem to get nowhere fast. Too much false information is thrown in. Posts are broken into too many small pieces that the overall message is quickly lost.

Just my little input on government regulation in general.

Let's take vehicle emission standard as an example. Suppose we know that the emission from vehicles is polluting the air that it is affecting the health of public, but there is no regulation to limit the emission. How can the public respond?

Theoretically people with lung cancer can possibly sue the auto industry for damaging their health. In practice though, the link between vehicle emissions and lung disease is not strong because air pollution comes from many sources, and such a case will easily cost millions just to go through the justice system. From the other side, auto makers can possibly make lower emission cars and sell it as a feature, but those will become the likes of Toyota Prius - attractive only to small percentage of consumers, not a sensible buy in economic terms. So we are stuck in a situation where the auto industry has little incentive to seriously reduce emission, and the public need to spend more on medical care because of that.

This is one of many scenarios where a government regulation of some kind is needed. It can artificially create an incentive to change the behaviour of certain party which otherwise has little reason to do so. It is often cheaper than the alternatives, such as lawsuit and increased health care spending in the example above. The argument applies to things like safety standards and lightbulbs (which increases energy consumption and, indirectly, pollution).

[GDB]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

The Tea Party?
What do they have to do with Agenda 21?
The opposition to Agenda 21 is being driven by farmers, ranchers, and rural communities who produce our food.
They don't want to live under this green tyranny, and there is a growing number who agree that UN Agenda 21 is more harmful than good.

Just going to leave this here, since it popped up in a timely manner.

[ganbaru]

Farm bill failure gives Democrats ammunition in Midwest House races
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89C0GM20121013

Tea Party versus Agenda 21: Saving the U.S. or just irking it?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89E04J20121015

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Why did my 87 Jeep Cherokee total a 2010 Prius with only a minor dent to the front quarter on the passenger side?

as my knowledge of vehicles is limited, I imagine the jeep was made of steel compared to what some modern cars are made from?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by GDB

Just going to leave this here, since it popped up in a timely manner.

Oh that's not good.
We don't need their help.
The group they has been helping us convince the county selectmen to stop the implementation of Agenda 21 is this lady's organization.

DEMOCRATS AGAINST U. N. AGENDA 21

Rosa is the furthest thing from a "right-winger" as they get.

@Mr DJ.
Posted before I saw your post.

Yes, the Jeep Cherokee is an XJ and is made of sheetmetal.
However, I forgot that the Jeep has offroad armor-plate shields underneath.
This one is on the front protecting the steering linkage: