Typical Liberal Comp

yeah, pretty much

MFW most news doesn't even mention him during the Republican race...

I watch a lot of news and I see him all the time early on in the primary season. Lets face it though he has already admitted that he is running as a protest candidate, he is just getting delegates so he can have a good speaking spot at the republican convention. Also he has no chance of winning because he fails to get liberal and moderate votes. Thats why you only see him do well in states with very few moderates and a large amount of extremely right wing people, like in Iowa.

He gets the most liberal and moderate votes out of any of the Republican candidates in national polling. The issue is he's considered an outcast of the Republican party because he is a true liberal in both social and economic issues (Liberal in the old tense meaning limited government). The mainstream media did cover him in comparison to any other candidate, even if they had less influence. That really hurt his chances in the long run.

He is kind of a hypocrite, he himself proposed a law banning abortion. Legalizing pot, while being a good thing for many reasons will not ever be enough to gain my vote if its accompanied by a leader who would literally let the private sector do what ever they wanted. Because corporations have so much money and power, if the government disappeared, they would take its place.

He wants the federal government banned from abortions. It's a matter for the states, such as he as stated in debates. If murder isn't in the constitution as a law the federal government should deal with, neither should abortion. He wants drugs legalized because it's the duty of communities, not the federal government, to deal with that. Also, it's a person's choice to do drugs. Corporations only have power through lobbying with the government. If the government didn't have so much power, corporations wouldn't have political power either. A business, in a limited government state, only has legitimacy if it gives products people want in return for money (a product they want). This is supposed to be done through making the best product at the best prices. Therefore, their power is derived through production and investment, there is no political power there. It's once incorporate the federal government in this you take tax dollars and throw into failing business that causes crony capitalism, which is bad.

1. If something is banned on the federal level it is banned everywhere, so banning abortion on the federal level would make it illegal.
2. Your second and third sentences contradicts the first.
3. I have already established ending the war on drugs is a good thing.
4.Corperations have power because they have money and no regulations. Eliminating federal regulations gives them more power.
5. I think you are mixing up business with corporations. "Mom's toy shop" theoretically would stay open because it offers the best products at the lowest prices. In the event Walmart comes to town, walmart has the money to buy out her small business or drive her out of business by beating her prices.
5. The last thing you say talks about Crony Capitalism. Ron Paul is an outspoken supporter of privatization of the prison system. These for profit prisons, in the past few years, have been taken advantage of by our judicial system. Look up cash for kids scandal. Ron Pauls policies lead to crony capitalism.

1) Nope. The constitution only applies to the Federal government. Now, the 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the state governments, but other than that the states can add anything they want.
2) Maybe I just worded the second and third sentences oddly. Going by the constitution, the federal government isn't supposed to be involved in murder cases. Therefore, it shouldn't be involved in abortion either, both are up to the states. There isn't a contradiction.
4) Regulations made by the government strengthen the bigger businesses by eliminating smaller businesses that can't afford to abide by them. A business has no political power if the government doesn't back it. What would they do? Not sell you something? So buy it from another competitor and hurt the other business. A business can't force you to do anything in a state with limited government. All they can do is trade an item you want for the money they want. Getting the federal government out of the market eliminates any business' political power. Businesses can't make laws are legislation.
5. If customers go to another business, it is because they are better (unless government intervention is involved such as subsidies). Worse businesses will fail.
6. Once again, the government causes any business to have political power if it gets too involved. Ron Paul's policies don't lead to crony capitalism. If anybody actually followed through with them, the government wouldn't be allowed to bastardize markets, even the prison market. In Cash for Kids, the state was at fault for accepting bribes. Although the facility should never have offered bribes, judges aren't supposed to accept them. Also, our public prisons are terrible.

Before I address anything you said I need to make sure you know the constitution is the supreme law of the land. States can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate federal law, and federal laws can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
As evidence I present the supremacy clause.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

And the federal government has left punishment of murder to a state level complying with the 5th amendment, the 14th amendment protects someones right to life. But that doesn't have anything to do with abortion because the 14th amendment only applies to things that are born. (check section 1)

Abortion became a federally protected right after the supreme court ruled in roe v wade that it was protected by the 14th amendments due process clause, meaning no state can ban it all together. That is why you only see states making it difficult to get abortions even when their lawmakers want it to be banned.

I'm really getting tired of all of you Ron Paul supporters thinking that by blindly supporting him you suddenly know what you're talking about. You know I get it though I too supported him at one point, until I actually read up on the issues and realized he actually was wrong about most things.

I've read and I understand the constitution. If you state the federal government cannot do abortions, that doesn't limit the states. The federal government should only be able to do things stated in the constitution. Therefore, that isn't putting a ban on the states as well. The supremacy law affects all courts in it's jurisdiction, you are right there. Roe V. Wade should never have been brought to the states and is an issue that should only be in the states. Also, I don't blindly support Ron Paul. He is just candidate with my closest views. I have read the issues too and from what I've read, Ron Paul doesn't create contradictions or limit state rights.

I'm just going to restate the facts because I can't understand what you were trying to say.
Everyone has to adhere to the constitution. That means nothing can go against it. The constitution gives the federal government's laws supremacy over state laws. The supreme court has the power to determine what laws are constitutional and what ones are not.

So what the hell does "Roe V. Wade should never have been brought to the states and is an issue that should only be in the states"

Sorry was having a conversation with a family member while typing this. I was saying that Roe V. Wade should be ignored and that the states decide their individual legislation on abortion. The constitution does not state that the federal government should be involved in abortion, that means the federal government shouldn't be involved in it.

the 14th amendment does, and the constitution gives the supreme court the right to rule on laws. Ignoring Roe v Wade would be completely unconstitutional.

Roe V. Wade itself is unconstitutional. It addresses an issue that isn't something the federal government is supposed to deal with. I honestly don't care about views of abortion, however, it is up to the states to decide, not the Federal Government.

A supreme court ruling can not be unconstitutional. Unless deemed so by a separate supreme court ruling or an amendment. So please show me an amendment that was made after roe v wade that would overturn its ruling.

Obama should be there because he's a constitutional law professor.

Then it should say "Ron Paul throws a party for government officials who follow the constitution"

This goes by how they act too. If you go by how Obama has acted, it's as if he has never read the constitution. This is based off of actions that include the growth of the federal government into areas not included in the constitution, the spending, and going into wars without congressional approval.

EXACTLY my thoughts.

ring-a-ding-ding

Don't go dissin' the restaurant Biz. Especially the servers. If you're good at it, you can easily roll in some mad bank.

The climate changes all the time, but the man-made polution makes it go faster. The climate never warmed up so fast as now with the exceptions when it was caused by huge natural disasters like meteor strikes or massive volcano eruptions.

The most typical number I hear is that the climate has warmed up the fastest it ever has in the past 150 years. But scientists don't have specific data for every 150 year period; while they have a general idea of what the temperature was millions of years ago, they don't know specifics. 150 years is a short enough time where you can't say this is that fastest the climate has warmed in a 150 year period, if you don't know specifically what the temperature was millions of years ago.

They have very accurate measures until 600.000 years ago from the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica.

"The most detailed information exists since 1850, when methodical thermometer-based records began. There are numerous estimates of temperatures since the end of the Pleistocene glaciation, particularly during the current Holocene epoch." From Wikipedia. The end of the Pleistocene glaciation was about 12,000 years ago. So they have ESTIMATES of up to 12,000 years ago. Any data prior to that uses paleoclimatology, like you suggested, which has only rough estimates.

Washington warned us about the 2 party system. Yet, we ignored him. Aaaand here we are now.

yeah, it fukken sucks

*recent

my bad

WHOA there you ignorant fuck. The 17th-19th century slavery was more brutal than any slavery that occurred in Europe. Combine the ruthless inhumanity of slavery with the efficiency of industrial capitalism and you have American slavery. Shit was pretty fucked up.

learn your history ass hole in Sparta the government was so afraid of a retaliation they killed off almost half there slaves even when there was next to no evidence of the slaves planing the rebellion

rebellion*

also when they discuss religion

*they're.

Retard detected.

you made that?

memebuilder

The world actually goes through climate shifts every couple of billions of years, i.e. the Ice Age. We right now in this day and age are currently rising in temperature and will continue to rise in temperature for a couple of millions of years, then it will rapidly drop and then gradually go back to bellow freezing (that is if you don't believe that the second coming of Christ is sometime in this lifetime) however it's not really getting too much hotter than it was before humans started creating pollution. If humans were truly raising the temperature, then how come there is icebergs being frozen over in Greenland instead of melting? How come other planets temperatures are rising? Are we fucking up other planets as well?

And I couldn't find the graph that I was looking for so I tried to draw it, enjoy.

You can't deny the truth because it's "biased." If reality has a liberal bias, then reality has a liberal bias (hint: it does.)

i'm not denying the truth, i'm sticking to basic scientific principals and waiting for a reliable source of evidence before accepting a theory as fact.
there is indisputable evidence to support the theory of global warming, but the theory of man man C02 emissions causing a greenhouse effect and warming the climate are, in my opinion, yet to be reliable proven

At this point, global warming is on the same level as evolution: the only people who are denying it are basing their denials on the Bible.

yesm but whether it's a man made problem is debatable

Nope, scientific consensus still says that it's caused by CO2 levels being altered by humans.

agreed, the Planet's climate is changing that's a fact just not from humans, the planet's climate froze up in the 'little ice age' of the medieval period and then warmed up again with no industrialization of man to make green house gases, i do not however dispute the fact that industrialization is bad for own natural environment by way of pollution.

I think it is just with own technology the coincides with growing industrialization that allows us to see and monitor our world better that creates an illusion of sudden climate change due a rise in industry.

The little ice age was due to human influence. It happened right after the plague, it may sound like a coincidence but it isn't. After the plague many people died, including farmers. That meant that not only where there less demand for crops but less people to look after them, so many crops died. That meant a severe drop in CO2 levels causing a little ice age as you put it. It wasn't the humans fault but it was caused by us nonetheless.

I am glad someone else made this point, I was just about to. Even if it a natural climactic shift then it has been made worse by mans burning of fossil fuels. Anyone who adamantly argues against this clearly stands to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels. I am not saying that we need to stop all capitalism etc. but ignoring the problem is definetly not the right way to go =) rant over

Who on this planet would not benefit form burning of fossil fuels?
Also oxygen is a much better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Also, also, I can't speak to the water purification systems on other buildings similar to ours, but we use a reverse osmosis filter to treat the water leaving the building. The water is literally cleaner leaving the building than it is coming in. I know that that's got nothing to do with fossil fuels, I'm just saying, we clean up pretty good.

Me. My dad makes renewable energy which accounts for over 50% of the countries consumption where I live. My dads isn't 50%, he's partly responsible for 2/3 of wind power which is about 20-30% of the countries energy. Oxygen is vital for survival, CO2 isn't so why make more CO2, why not just leave it as C in the ground and keep the air with a higher ratio of non greenhouse gases.

CO2 actually is vital. Plants kind of need it. I'm not saying that renewable energy is a waste of time, I'm going to install solar panels on the house to heat the water and run a backup generator for the refrigerator and the freezer. I do however know that a conventional power plant produces more power with a smaller physical foot print. Along with the catalizers used to clean the discharge into the air most of the carbon is taken care of. Most of what comes out of a smoke stack is water and loose oxygen.

Like everything it's only good in moderation. What's the benefit of having excess CO2. Plants breathe it out when there is no sunlight, so half the time they're respiring and CO2 is leaving them and half the time they're photosynthesizing and CO2 is being used by them. It goes both ways. Physical foot print of Windmills is very little. It's a decentralized system so jobs go around the country instead of concentrated in one area. All the parts are made in the very same country. The energy is sold abroad. It is low maintenance as well so requires little money invested after it's been raised. A normal power plant is as expensive as the equivalent amount of windmills and has to be supplied 24/7 whereas windmills are supplied naturally. You don't need to buy Coal, Oil or Uranium from War torn countries at high prices, all you need to do is let the wind blow.

Windmills may work great where you live, but there isn't enough wind where I live, too many hills and such. What I've been working on is similar to a large scale power plant except localized. Here power has to travel great distances and so line loss is a big problem. (Line loss is when power is lost in transit from plant to home if you don't know) Anyways. A big part of power cost is line loss here, so I've been looking at a local natural gas generator. The engine spins a generator, the exhaust runs through a heat exchanger and spins a separate generator, the top is a photovoltaic plate witch charges a battery to start the propane motor and finally the vibrations from the engine are soaked up by a piezoelectric generator. That provides a huge amount of power in an insanely small package.

Side note, I'm curious about the physical size of a single wind mill. Fill me in on that?

They're big, been in one it's massive. 100m is average. The tallest is 200m. The hills are were most of ours are placed as high up windspeeds are very strong. However maybe the hills in your area aren't the right shape and the valleys don't create a proper windtunnel. Windmills are big, I think they look good but if you don't they are a tad imposing.
Good luck with that gas generator, sounds very interesting, didn't know you could get those.

The hills where I live are called the knobs. They slow wind down rather than speed it up.

The generator is something I'm designing right now for General Electric. Since the natural gas delivery system is already in place in the aria I think it's going to be a real hit.

Alright, good luck with that project, I'll see you around the comments maybe.

Fuck you, I love Barren Frigid Waseland Land! I mean... Greenland!

The south of Greenland is actually very green in summer. I was there and the historians there told me that it was a myth about attracting people there. The vikings had a thriving community in Iceland. The south of Greenland is much greener than Iceland and so they named it that.

**kafir rolled a random image posted in comment #146 at suicide hotlines **

motherfreakinggodoftomatosauceandothertastyjuicesfucking THANK YOU!!!!!

A big part of the problem is people calling themselves conservative or liberal, left wing or right wing.... when there's a shitload of other beliefs that other people can have, and flatout refusing to consider the beliefs of anybody else, simply because they call themselves a liberal, or a conservative, or a republican or a democrat, when a lot of what they think might actually coincide with what you think as well.

It sucks cuz theirs a two party system. If there wasn't, people could come to a lot more agreements and worry less about re-elections. Unfortunatley, there isn't really a way to change this.

"Parties are necessary to democracy," says my AP Government book. Total bullshit. George Washington reluctantly served two terms, and he was voted in unanimously for both. There were no "parties" when he was in charge.

I think we should limit every president to one term. That way, we won't have dolts like Mitch McConnell trying to make Obama a one-term president a priority over the country and the incumbent party won't default to the dolt that was in charge. I'm sure that many Republicans are embarrassed by Bush and would have liked somebody like Jon Huntsman running the show for a change.

I read that same thing in my AP Government book. The cons outweigh the pros: the president wouldn't listen to the constituents because he doesn't need to please anyone after he's in office.

A reasonable person on the internet? What the heck are you doing here?!