-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop



We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
MONTHLY RECURRING GIFT
    Bill Me Now For: $

ONE-TIME GIFT
Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
Moses Clark
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062


Get your ad here








Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] 
Author ------ Message
 Author: rearnheart
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:36 am 
When you can use ‘science’ to justify that embryos feel pain and are, in fact, ‘sentient’, and you can use selective ‘science’ to justify that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will be a planetary blessing, and when you can use ‘science’ to justify some cockamamey conclusion that utilizing tar sands in another country will lower gas prices and make bird songs more pleasant (I’m making up the birdsong part), but somehow, ‘science’ can’t be believed when it can analytically prove that 450 ppm in atmospheric CO2 is irreversibly going to alter (in a really bad way) life on earth and that scientific panels like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the International Panel on Climate Change are, in point of fact, not really God hating socialist propagandists …….Just why is it that one kind of ‘science’, the ridiculous one, is believable but not the other?

For some reason, articles on faith based science and brain differences between conservatives and liberals have drawn the attention of my cursor finger lately. And when I read them I am reminded about the good old days of William Buckley and Everett Dirksen, days when Republican conservatives could argue free markets and work for civil rights at the same time. They could come together with Democrats and form the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA. They could agree that water boils at 212 degrees and that books burn at 451. There was need and there was science and the two could join and flying cars and Tang would jetson the world into a better tomorrow through chemistry.

Now, conservatives can’t pick their nose and whistle Dixie much less contemplate scientific realities that are the most challenging since the invention of fire. And I’m being a little disingenuous here. What I mean is that conservatives aren’t stupid or, in reality, uninformed. No, they are much more corrupt, much more evil than that. They are acting out the root word contained in ignorant. They are making a conscious choice to ignore the facts of the evolving world around them, to make a choice to not believe the tested facts that science provides and to chose, instead, a complex set of bizarre rationales. The intention of these clown based rationales is to inject a series of myths (read: religions in general), voodoos (read: ‘voodoo’ economics, anything containing the word ‘Bush’), paranoias (read: women’s privates) and fears (read: black people) into the marketplace of competing ideas used to form sound judgments for both societies and governments worldwide. They are, in fact, asking Mr. Ed, the talking horse, for advice, and when they are told that the world needs more oats, FOX breaks a story on the global oat shortage. Surprise, surprise.

I am mixing TV metaphors. We don’t have Mr. Ed. We have Gilligan’s Island, the boring, unfunny, totally unbelievable, vast wealth discrepancy, bikinis vs. pigtails and jeans short version that is today’s Republican Party. Throw in Ron Paul hoarding the coconuts and you get the picture. It is comfortable and easy to discredit science when you have Jesus (Rick Santorum). It’s easy to rationalize pumping heated tar sand mixes over thousands of miles when you support a lie that this action benefits national security (Mitt Romney…or Barack Obama….or both). But what we have is Republicans on Gilligan’s Island and everybody else…someplace else, and this distinct separation is causing a communications gap that threatens a lot more than the body politic. It threatens everything I love.

I don’t know what it’s going to take to bridge a communications gap based on delusion and fear. From the point of view of a shrink I would think that the choice of language is important, to be compelling but not condescending, convincing without being threatening, etc. From experience, can there really be a serious discussion about the deficit or defense spending when worldviews are so desperately different? Can there really be a comprehensive discussion on climate change when words like ‘hoax’ compete with ‘undeniable’? Is there a discussion to be had on entitlements, health care, taxes, or race relations when the ‘facts on the ground’ of all these issues is trivialized, competed over, falsely defined or just plain lied about? Really? Is this where we are? Are ‘facts’ the new paper mache rocks conveniently shaped by your choice of research group and think tank? Can science be shaped to fit a lie?

Divides are nothing new to mankind. We thrive by crossing them. It helps our genes, normally. This time, it might be the only way to keep them alive. I am befuddled to come up with a strategy that facilitates whatever form of communication we need right now. I’ve tried English. It doesn’t work. Maybe it’s going to have to be a higher language, one that takes more time to master, one that speaks without speaking, knows without knowing, hears without listening. I’ll check the course catalog at the community college but I don’t think it will help. It’s going to be up to me. But it would be better if it were up to us.

R.Earnheart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:30 pm 
R.
" And when I read them I am reminded about the good old days of William Buckley and Everett Dirksen, days when Republican conservatives could argue free markets and work for civil rights at the same time."

those good old days: mutual assured destruction, a large feared enemy with a capital and large gov't buildings just like us, americans filling their homes with color t.v. washing machines and driveways with shiny new cars with no seat belts and hard metal dash-boards.
all the really big political decisions were being made in smoke filled rooms by the then pols and power brokers.
the loose talk was restrained or contained in that (cigarette) smoke filled environment.

so you're --older now-- and flipped out that all that loose and jocular talk has spilled out into the semi-public space of cacophonous media riot ?

lets show everyone who cares to look my gall bladder scars ! you've got scars to show as well !

you watch: the repubs , whatever their rhetoric hate losing so much they've nominated (almost) the 2012 version of nelson rockefeller.

bring on the battle of the centrists !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 1:13 pm 
f


Last edited by Jimmy-D on Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:24 pm 
And the right wing troll strikes again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: lastnoel
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 5:01 am 
It surprises me that our moderator has taken such a cheap shot . . but these are trying times as we are all being forced to choose and change. Kinda goes to show ya that Peder might have been right removing himself from this forum. At any rate it is a good place to sell your house, get a dog and if your politics are correct . . be accepted into the inner circle meme. By the way, how's that Obama thing working for you after his latest round of EOs?

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." Dresden James


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: rearnheart
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 11:51 am 
OK, OK....I'll stop physical therapy (which is going well, thank you) long enough to put a cork in this nonsense. And I'll try and be as brief and as necessarily offensive as possible.

Ron and Rand Paul are idiots. They are supported by well intentioned idiots who haven't come to grips with the political fact that they have lost. Boo hoo. Take a Zoloft. Just because you don't like reality doesn't mean you don't have to live in it. And American politics is full of very unpleasant realities which have been successfully changed in microscopic bursts over long periods of lawful, or mostly painful, struggle. Paul supporters are exuberant with the thrill of radical, 'patriotic' change. For good or for worse, the dung heap is full of radical change.

And speaking of dung heaps....

I have a lot of bullshit and horseshit in my garden. Together, with help from my compost, I have grown countless pounds of vegetables. It is, in short, shit that's well worth it. Which is a lot more than I can say for the Urantia Book and the Book of Mormon, both composed under active hallucinations from dubious sources intent on simply making stuff up. Maybe some of it is good stuff, maybe some of it is racist nonsense embedded in its 19th century creators, but either way both are representative of mankind's desperate search, not for truth, but for solace (and powerful manipulation) in righteous sounding nonsense.

And Herbert, please continue to contribute. Thoughtful and original would be nice. We know you can do it.

All the best,
rearnheart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 12:28 pm 
v


Last edited by Jimmy-D on Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 2:00 pm 
That's right, Richard, you spiritually banksrupt control freak propagandist swine. You really need to stop all that name calling! :-)

Jill

PS There is some good Llama sh%t just down the road from you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:32 pm 
g


Last edited by Jimmy-D on Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Author: ynotwrite2
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:46 am 
perhaps i rose to the level of original.
i ain't cream so i'm not likely to rise much further.

i saw a book in a small independent bookstore in salida, co about the left and right talking to each other. the assumption was that both were for the most part good people so there was likely a way to engage the goodness of each side to start a conversation.
i'm trying to find the title and author to pass along.

we could experiment here.

the question i'd ask first : is it possible for people who start from totally different assumptions able to adopt a shared strategy to deal with any common element of their intersecting lives.

could each be willing to set aside differences to work for common goals ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: edcolmar
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:40 am 
R.Earnheart - you started out this conversation so well. Admitting you don't know, honestly asking for discussion, and being truthful about your failure to communicate effectively. This is real. This takes courage. What happened?

Let me start off with the RP connection. I do not agree with everything RP says or wants to do I'm certainly not a SUPPORTER. However - some things that he is saying I would doubt anyone on this forum would disagree with. You don't like liberty and freedom? You don't want a sound currency? You like paying income tax? You like fighting multiple pointless wars, including the longest and most costly war in the history of the us - the war on drugs? Unlikely.

Here's the thing. The entire world's industrialized "civilization" is on the brink of collapse. This is the "reality" you speak of. And, honestly it does not matter which political candidates you support, because they are powerless to stop the global financial elite that truly run things.

My suggestion is to decentralize and localize as much as possible. The conversation you want to have, the truth you want to uncover - is not found through voting and supporting a violence based society. This is done by detaching from violence, and engaging with your peers in a peaceful manner.

Hope this helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:40 pm 
h


Last edited by Jimmy-D on Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:22 pm 
I think it’s tough to do what Herbie suggests (and what Richard is wondering how to do) in this medium in particular. People sometimes have a tendency to be more confrontational/hostile and less compromising when using electronic media rather than talking in person. Partly it’s the protection of anonymity, but it’s probably also the fact that you are not constantly receiving nonverbal communication from the person(s) you’re interacting with to let you know if you are stepping over the line from civil discourse to something less constructive. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try of course, and I will always be willing to do that with someone else who is truly willing.

I also think that being in an election year makes it harder to set aside differences. Ed’s right that we all can agree conceptually about the broader ideas of liberty and freedom, but if we sit down to talk about what those concepts mean from the stand point of the platform of Ron Paul, we might find that we no longer agree (although I do agree with RPs anti-war platform). I don’t know much about your political opinions, Ed, so please accept my apologies if it seems like I’m putting words in your mouth.

For example, I disagree strongly with RPs States Rights stance. I do not believe that individual States should have the freedom/power to pass laws restricting what many of us think of as basic rights belonging to everyone. That should be the pervue of our Federal Government, whose job it is to protect those rights. All I have to do is look at the archaic laws that have recently been passed or proposed at the State level regarding woman’s rights to things like equal pay to see what the consequences of that platform would be. I can agree with Ron Paul supporters that we need a sound economy (I would add equitable and compassionate economy) and the Fed Reserve, IMF, World Bank, Supreme Court Citizen’s United, etc. are not doing a good job of that at the moment. But I do not agree that we need to go back to the Gold Standard, and in fact I think that would be a more than a little insane. And I think all of us owe our fair share of taxes, including the big corporations, even if I don’t really like to pay them.

Its hard for me to see much of RPs platform as conducive to what Ed and I might agree on as common goals in terms of those broader concepts he mentions.

I agree that decentralization and localization are vital with respect to things like food safety. And the Federal Government will continue to be vital with respect to the protections I refer to above, and other things that may be best done on a coordinated federal level.

So Richard, do I have hope that the divide(s) can be bridged. I could say that there is always hope. The questions or challenges that divide us exist on many levels and confront many of us daily. Coming to each encounter with a desire to hear and speak from a position of compassion and understanding… looking to assist in bringing about that which most benefits the community (whichever community is involved be it family, local, regional, state, federal, international) rather than looking to protect and increase what we see as ours… Those are things that we can each decide to engage in as individuals. That surely won’t bridge every divide, but it may make a few a little easier to cross.


Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: edcolmar
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:46 pm 
Hi Jill.

Tell me... How good of a job is the Federal government doing at protecting your rights? You think they are looking out for your best interest?

As far as taxes go... I won't go into my whole speech on taxes... I was simply speaking previously on Income tax...

"One of the first acts Ronald Reagan performed when he entered the White House was to hire Peter Grace to form a blue ribbon panel known as the Grace Committee, to study the money flow of federal tax dollars in hopes of cutting waste. The panel's report stated, '100 percent of what is collected [through federal income tax] is absorbed solely by the federal debt [to the federal reserve bank] ... All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services that taxpayers expect from government.'"
Source: Battle Hymn, Scura & Phillips

This is simply insane, but the contention I have is the use of force.

If YOU want to pay a bunch of money to the banks, please feel free. I would not dream of using force against you to prevent you from doing that.

* I do pay my income taxes by the way * - I'm just against it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: El Burro
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:39 pm 
After reading Richard’s 4/12/12 rant, I was reminded of an observation made by science writer Matt Ridley in a speech he gave last November. (Google: matt ridley angus millar lecture). We are all prone to what he calls “confirmation bias”: “We look for and welcome the evidence that fits our pet theory; we ignore or question the evidence that contradicts it. We all do this all the time. It’s not, as we often assume, something that only our opponents indulge in.” Furthermore, “-- - knowledge is no defense against it. The more you know, the more you fall for confirmation bias.”

Which is not to say that you are necessarily wrong, just that if you are, you won’t know it! With that caveat, below are some of my more recent observations that support my bias as a global warming skeptic. If you are a true believer in the nascent religion of Global Warming, please address the below points with scientific rebuttals, not threaten to burn down the authors’ houses, or subject them to Nuremburg Trials, as global warming’s true believers have in fact done to skeptics.

You should note in (1) the reference to “hundreds” and “thousands” of scientists not in agreement with catastrophic forecasts. That’s quite a few who aren’t drinking the kool aid. In (2), note the author’s implied challenge in the phrase “impeccably sourced”. In (3), “radically insufficient evidence” really throws down the gauntlet. Finally, (4) is from Rutan’s 98 page study that is full of facts and color graphs, a real tour de force. I’d download it but I don’t know if I can afford the time or the ink! Comments in italics are mine.

It shouldn’t be too much trouble to source the below via Google, not that I expect the True Believers to bother. Facts don’t matter to True Believers.

Peter Burrows

(1) “Astronauts condemn NASA’s global warming endorsement” 4/11/12 The Washington Examiner

“In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists ---claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency. ---In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change. ‘With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled’, they wrote.” Emphasis in the original.

To the best of my knowledge, the mainstream media did not cover this story. One can only imagine the coverage had the group criticized NASA for being too timid in publicizing the dangers of global warming.


(2) The Skeptic’s Case by Dr. M.W. Evans, 2/3/12 Excerpts from the author’s conclusions:

We’ve checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:---
1. The climate models are fundamentally flawed.---
2. The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

The data presented here is impeccably sourced, very relevant, publicly available, and from our best instruments. Yet it never appears in the mainstream media---. That alone tells you the “debate” is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.


(3) What the “Skeptics” of Climate Catastrophe are Skeptical of: Nordhous Reconsidered by Eric Dennis, 3/16/12

Dennis hold a Ph.D. in physics from UC Santa Barbara, and is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Industrial Progress. From the article, Dennis states:

“The object of our skepticism, catastrophic global warming, means warming caused by greenhouse gasses that would so dramatically heat up the earth that ----populations the world over would experience impoverishment, mass suffering, and death. Why are we skeptical of this claim? Because there is radically insufficient evidence for it.” (Emphasis in original).


(4) An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’: Questioning the CAGW* theory
(* Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) by Burt Rutan Version 4.3, Jan 2011.
Google “burt rutan climate change”

The last of the author’s six conclusions, found on page 92 of the 98 page study:

“Manmade global warming is over. It existed only in the minds of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed media and opportunistic eco/political activists.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:52 pm 
Hi Ed,
To your first question, I would say that they have done a better job of protecting my rights as a woman than some of the current State governments would do if left in power. Does that mean that I think everything they do is in my best interest? No. There is no question that there is a lot wrong with our Federal Government but there are some basics that they still get right and I am still of the mind that we need to try to fix what's wrong.

As far as income taxes, I don't think we could rely on an income tax which was not an enforcable law. Its unfortunate but true that there are many who would not pay income tax if they didn't have to by law. Is the Federal Govt spending money in ways that I disagree with. Absolutely. The money spent on war since 2001 comes to mind. I am reasonably sure we agree on that. Bail out of the banking industry in the last few years also comes to mind and I can see that you agree on that. But I don't think giving everyone the right to decide whether they are going to pay income tax is a workable solution. And what money pays for the debt interest seems a moot point (since that interest would still exist and likely be much higher if many of us could choose not to pay our taxes) although the shear amount of debt interest is worthy of note for sure. I never thought you didn't pay your taxes by the way, and did not mean to imply that.

I guess you could say that I don't look at it as paying my money to the banks, but rather paying my money to the community as a whole with the knowledge that there are problems to be addressed and the hope that we will be able to successfully address them. If someone up there said lets stop spending all this money on war and reduce individual income taxes I would be quite happy to pay less. If they said lets stop spending all this money on war and end world hunger I would be just as happy to keep paying the same amount and have my money out there making the international community a less hungry one.

The real issue seems to be changing the way our political process is funded so that the corporate power base and other sources of undue influence aren't holding the reigns. Politicians won't be able to make the kind of changes we want them to until we accomplish that.

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: edcolmar
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:15 pm 
Interesting.

I'll let the rights discussion go, because if you really believe that having an armed state telling you what you can and can't do is in some way protecting your rights, then you must not value freedom very highly. I can't think of a more fundamental right than this.

On to the mandatory taxation topic:

So you're saying that you support the use of force against your friends, family and community. You want violence to be used to enforce the theft of value from people you care about for a debt that they did not incur nor believe in. Moreover, you want to see this policy get more severe, by allowing a debt based, fiat currency system to expand.

Do I have it about right?

Don't get me started on "ending world hunger" unless you really want to talk about the grim, cold reality of peak oil and peak population.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:16 pm 
Ed,

You seem to be making some wild assumptions about what I support, which doesn't seem conducive to having a genuine conversation.

As far as I know income taxation gets enforced via IRS audits and penalties. I have not yet seen armed enforcement, although the fact that I haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you experienced that or know someone who has? The army doesn't show up at my doorstep on April 14th, I take my forms and my check to the post office. The rest of my family and friends generally do the same except for those who don't make enough to file.

Clearly I don't look at income tax as theft so it would appear we have a fundamental philosophical difference of opinion. A difficult divide to build a bridge over :-)

I am not directly responsible for the debt this country and its various administrations have incured but from my perspective that doesn't mean that we as a country are not responsible for it. I drive on the interstates and benefit from a variety of other federally funded programs, and I concede that those things have a cost and I owe a part of that cost if I have the means to pay (income). I am not happy about some of the ways that money is spent, particularly the money spent in Afganistan and Iraq and other theatres of conflict, and I try to make my voice heard about that with my vote, my actions, and in the way I conduct my life. As yet I have not decided that it would be useful not to pay my taxes.

The future could be a very different place and since I don't know what that will look like (none of us really do, although we often have opinions about it) so its hard to speculate. "Collapse" can mean many different things, and I honestly don't think we can predict how it will go down. Can I envision rebeling against an evil and corrupt system that is inflicting violence on my community? I can, but I also know that there would be many steps between where we are now and that possibility and I choose to believe that we would not allow ourselves to come to that. I hope I'm right.

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: edcolmar
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:59 pm 
Jill, I appreciate your friendly cooperative tone. =)

Yes, you can be thrown in jail for not filing taxes. It is called tax evasion. I think this qualifies as violence using most people's definitions. The people with guns come and take you away.

"Under the federal law of the United States of America, tax evasion or tax fraud, is the purposeful illegal attempt of a taxpayer to evade payment of a tax imposed by the federal government. Conviction of tax evasion may result in fines and imprisonment."
Source: Wikipedia

We need to make a distinction here. We're not talking about "paying" taxes to fund previous infrastructure improvements. We're talking about money that is going directly to paying interest on debt. That is, money getting extracted from a productive part of society and being funneled into a non-productive, private, top-top tier of the population. By force.

Do you understand how fractional reserve banking works? Most people don't. If you'd like to know, I recommend Chapters 6,7,and 8 (at least).

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcour ... what-money


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:06 pm 
Richard,

I realize that I ignored your question of what passes as “scientific fact” these days, so I started to write about Climate Science and then saw El Burro’s post. Those who have been reading the Forum for a while probably know that I think Humans have contributed significantly to climate change, and I also think that the science demonstrates that. This debate between us “true believers” and the “deniers” has been done, and done again, here. El Burro says “facts don’t matter to true believers”. What can you say to someone who would assume that about you before you’ve said a word.

I suppose if we really want to have an honest debate about this we might decide to make a thread for each of El Burros points (one point a week would make it less cumbersome) and debate each point on its merits. But I confess to being skeptical about whether an honest debate is possible with “deniers”. So, you see I have my own stereotypes to combat.

In place of climate change I will share something else with you. My son told me about a proposed New Hampshire State Law, that has passed in one of the State Houses so far, which would mandate that doctors who perform abortions have to tell their patients that abortions cause breast cancer.

The rationale behind this law is based on some actual scientific data that shows a younger age at first full-term pregnancy is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer. A woman who carries a pregnancy to term at age 20 has a 20% lower risk of having breast cancer by age 70 than a woman who has no pregnancies. If the first full term pregnancy takes place at age 25 the reduction in risk goes down to 10%, but it’s still there. But the drafters of the law seem to have ignored the fact that the same date shows breast cancer risk for a woman who carries her first pregnancy to term at age 35 is actually 5% higher than that of a woman who has had no pregnancies, so her risk of breast cancer increases. And if we are going to tell a woman she shouldn't have an abortion at age 20 because her risk of breast cancer increases does it also follow that we will tell women they should be having their first baby at 20 instead of finishing college or working because if they don't it will cause breast cancer?

The authors also referenced a hypothesis (someone’s educated guess) that because abortion disrupts the breast tissue maturation process that occurs in pregnancy it could increase risk of breast cancer. But they ignore the studies that then disprove the hypothesis by showing there is no association between induced abortion and breast cancer. They ignore scientifically derived data in favor of a debunked hypothesis.

Their convenient conclusion is based on part of the science while leaving out those bits that tell a different story.

The link below is for an “evidence based medicine” site which requires a subscription unfortunately, but the info can probably be found elsewhere. If you really would like to read the article on epidemiology and risk factors for breast cancer just let me know and I can email it to you.

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/epidem ... ast-cancer?
source=search_result&search=breast+cancer+riskl&selectedTitle=1%7E150#H30

My outrage at this law occurs on multiple levels, not the least of which is the attempt to use fear to deprive woman of their right to reproductive choice. And the deceptively selective presentation of real scientific information in order to distort or change the truth seems to happen all too often.
Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 6:31 pm 
Ed,
I guess I do not look at going to prison for tax evasion as violence against the evader. And my guess is that for most they choose to pay rather than to go to jail. I think we are still dealing with the fundamental philosophical difference regarding income taxation.

The federal programs I benefit from are not just in the past. The same is true for many. An example would be anyone who benefits from the sliding scale at Hidalgo Medical Services. And I would argue that any infrastructure must be maintained, so that cost is ongoing as well. So there are current costs associated with running things which are being paid for in addition to paying for the debt.

I am not sure how the interest on our debt is actually paid but it seems unlikely to me that our tax dollars all go directly into an acount that is earmarked specifically for payment of our debt interest. While the amount of interest on our debt is surely a huge number, I would also guess that it, and the amount that is collected in income tax annually, are both different figures than they were during the year when your quote was written. I'm not suggesting that its a good thing we have such a large deficit or that our taxes aren't used to pay for it, I'm saying that its existance doesn't strike me as a valid argument for not paying income tax.

No I don't know how fractional reserve banking works and I appreciate the link. I can't promise I will read about it, though I agree its difficult to make an effective case if there are gaps in ones info. Everything is usually a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface. If the link is to a fairly biased site I will also be wondering whether its the right place to spend my time if I want to learn. Does that make sense to you? I want the straight scoop not what one side or the other wants to feed me. The trouble is that sometimes there really isn't a straight scoop.

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:13 am 
Jill, If I may respectfully inject some thoughts into your conversation with Ed, I would like to address the woman's rights issue. I know, I know, I don't have a uterus but I believe I have some ideas that might contribute to the peaceful resolution of the differences of perspective on the issue.

You wrote: "To your first question, I would say that they (feds) have done a better job of protecting my rights as a woman than some of the current State governments would do if left in power. Does that mean that I think everything they do is in my best interest? No. There is no question that there is a lot wrong with our Federal Government but there are some basics that they still get right and I am still of the mind that we need to try to fix what's wrong."

First of all, I want to make clear my conviction for your right to make your own choices regarding your own body. I believe that your free will choices come first and I have absolutely no right whatsoever telling you what you should or should not do. However, any given society has the obligation and duty to maintain civil order and protect the rights of the individual in accordance with the method and process of the day. Our U.S. Constitution and bill of rights as originally written and intended does a pretty good job.

That being said, I still believe that states rights should be supreme over a central federal government. You said the federal central govt has done more to protect your rights "than some of the current State governments would do if left in power." Note you specified SOME of the state governments, meaning that some HAVE done more to protect those rights of free will choice. Also, by referring to "the current state governments would do if left in power", you are also stating that these state governments can be changed..

I am certain that a top down one size fits all set of rules and regulations that seem intent on controlling (and taxing) the people is actually the eventual result of such a heavy handed sort of government. Such a government is much much more susceptible to take over by a hand full of self serving sociopaths who see the masses as expendable and subordinates to dominate. this is certainly what I see happening.

To wish for a central federal government making a law forcing everyone in every state to accept abortion on demand for example is forcing your will on everyone else. This is no different from your feeling dismissed and disrespected now by a central federal government enforcing laws preventing your free will choice of how to manage your body.

States rights should be restored, returning the ability for individuals to make their free will choice as to how and where they live their lives. In this way, civilization will evolve communities of like minded individuals who live in harmony, respecting the rights of their neighbors who either agree with or simply tolerate their decisions. If you, I, or anyone else live in a neighborhood or community where the majority of individuals have adopted a different perspective and consequently shun, look askance at, maybe ridicule either publicly or privately, then rather than force your lifestyle and your choices on that community, a more mature response would be to move to another community where we would feel accepted and in the company of more like minded neighbors. This choice could be a community, village, town, city, county, state, or country - whichever could be lived with. As a community, whatever the size, we then decide whether or not we want to trade with or promote cultural exchanges with other municipalities with different mores. We could place tariffs on imports of goods and services from these other municipalities in accordance to their compliance with whatever standards we would accept. Those with differences could discuss, debate, educate, and learn by experience to grow wisdom in doing the right thing and living together as the human family.
Top down legislation, force, and certainly war are not ways to evolve a higher culture dominated by truth, beauty, goodness, and love as was mentioned in an earlier discussion regarding slavery. Morality cannot be legislated or bestowed on individual hearts and minds by force.


This gives all the more reason to support the freedom revolution and growing movement to restore the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul's candidacy and campaign is not about him, but about this very movement, and revolution. The Ron Paul campaign represents an idea that cannot be stopped. Personalities long to be free to make their own choices and reach for their own destiny. A top down forced one size fits all simply cannot and will not work..

Peace,


Top
  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:53 am 
Jimmy,

My statement that the Feds have done better than Some states governments at protecting my rights does not mean that "SOME have done more to protect those rights...", as you state. It merely means that some states do not seem to have done less and that there are some states that I don't have a clue about because they haven't been in the news.

The fact that some states do as well doesn't lead me to want to trust that they would always do so. As you say, governments change. That holds for the Federal Government as well, so as a people we have to vigilantly make it known that we see those rights as imperative and will not allow politicians who trample on those rights to stay in office. But the will of the people of the whole nation is being represented at the federal level and that is the level at which I believe our individual rights should be protected.

I do not agree that Federal Law that upholds the right of any woman to choose abortion amounts to forcing my will on everyone else. It is allowing each woman to conduct her own life as she sees fit with regard to reproduction. Those who are pro-life can choose for themselves to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption or keep it as they see fit. They maintain their right to choose what is best for them. By upholding my or any woman's right to choose abortion that does not directly force any other woman to do anything against their will (although some may feel that it injurs their sensibilities because they do not believe I should be able to have an abortion). For it to be the same, the law would have to be one that forces all women who would give up a child to adoption to have an abortion instead. If the right to choose were struck down then any woman who would otherwise have chosen to have an abortion is being directly forced to do undergo something against her will. All woman should be able to choose what is best for them as individuals.

You say "States rights should be restored". There are plenty of decisions that do get made at the State level. But where it concerns the key freedoms that all people should have equally (freedom to marry whom they wish for example, and freedom to determine whether or not to have a child), those decisions should not be made at the state level thereby potentially allowing the people of one state to maintain rights that the people in a neighboring state have taken away from them.

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: gorwest
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:04 pm 
Jill, you sound like a danged liberaltarian! You need to shape up and stand in the box someone else tries to put you in. Be a patriot, siddown and shaddup.

(Sorry, the Bombay and quinine made me do it...)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:20 pm 
:-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:20 pm 
Interesting that those screaming loudest for freedom will, when getting the power first restrict women's freedom then grant corporations total freedom to screw us all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: alan wagman
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:40 am 
Richard started this thread with a lament about the good old days, when Everett Dirksen and William F. Buckley could stand up for the rights of the propertied class and the rights of African-Americans at the same time. Richard then went on to denigrate religions (and presumably those who practice them), voodoos (economic and otherwise), and, I would guess, all superstitious belief (defined as what you believe but I do not).

Ynotwrite2 pointed out that those good old days had some serious flaws and contradictions.

Unlike today, I presume.

Religion and science are each nothing more and nothing less than analogies which imperfectly present descriptions or explanations of that which is perceived by our imperfectly-perceiving and often fooled brains. For example, my brain tells me that the desk upon which my computer monitor sits is a solid object. In reality, it is mostly empty space. Doubt – not certainty – should be the operative principle of our spiritual and ideological lives.

Jimmy D. states that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as originally written are adequate and should form the guiding principles of governance. Let’s live in that world for a moment: Only white males who own land can vote; the votes of white, land-owning males in areas where human beings are property count more than those of white, land-owning males in areas where human beings are not property; the federal government cannot interfere with importation of human beings as chattel; although the federal government cannot interfere with life, liberty or property without due process of law, states can; although the federal government provides a right to a lawyer when confronting the government, states do not have to offer such a right; although the federal government cannot impose “cruel and unusual punishment,” states can; although the federal government cannot search your home and your person without a warrant and probable cause, states can. (Note: the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the middle of the Twentieth Century, when the U.S. Supreme Court began extending the limitations on government power enunciated in the Bill of Rights, one by one, to the states, by a new reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, only eighty years after it was passed. Take note all you “original intenters” out there – applying the Bill of Rights to the states was not the “original intent” of the founders; it was not even the original intent of those who wrote and passed the Fourteenth Amendment.)

El Burro, Jill, Richard, others: No one is going to settle the issue of climate science by citation of this expert or that expert stating this opinion or that opinion here. Nothing is proven by this debate beyond the validation of the principle (confirmation bias) – mentioned in this thread – that people give credence only to “facts” which support what they already believe.

More to the point, even those of us (“us” meaning more than just the participants in this. . . er . . . conversation) who believe that human activity causes global warming and that global warming will be catastrophic are very slow to make really significant life-style changes. How is it that I do not recall Al Gore advocating $10/gallon gasoline?

Back to the good old days of the Constitution. What scumbags Washington, Jefferson, Madison and their fellow slave-owners were, presuming to own other human beings! By extension, how dared the non-slave-owning delegates to the Constitutional Convention compromise with the scumbags! Four score and a few years later, what possible redeeming explanation could there be for those vile slave drivers who would plunge into war rather than give up their slaves?

Sometime in the last few months, I heard an interview with a professor of American History who pointed out that at the time of the Civil War, the value of the slaves owned by Southerners exceeded the combined value of all of the other property in the United States. It would have been as difficult for Southerners to give up their slaves as it is now for us to give up our cars, our electricity, our computers, in the cause of saving the planet. It is as easy to rationalize our way out of believing that we are evil as it is to rationalize our way to thinking that others are irredeemably evil.

When it comes to it, I will fight as hard as anyone else when my own “sacred” interests are threatened, but when it comes to it, progress in a civil society comes through compromise with what we consider to be evil. As wrong-headed as El Burro thinks I am, and as wrong-headed as I think El Burro is, we know and respect each other, and we recognize that there are even some things on which we agree. The problem is not that there are no areas of agreement, but that we are each (speaking of us as prototypical Tea Partier and Lefty, rather than as individuals) unwilling to compromise in the areas on which we do not agree.

Compromises are ugly and distasteful. Without them, we are stuck where we are. If only I could remember that the next time I self-righteously run off at the mouth.

AW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: common as air
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 2:27 pm 
It's a catch-22 (if only it were just a cartoon):

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNcognitivedissonancecartoon.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Billy Bob Aswad
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2012 9:43 pm 
With all the opinions, there are at least 451 Degrees of Separation in this thread.
This separation comes from people's identification with beliefs, and it is counterproductive.
Ask yourself--do you perceive ANY disagreement with ANY part of your belief system as a form of attack on your own identity? Do you feel it your gut--"hey that's not right!"
Well get over it. Give up your childish need to be "right". Ironically, this is often problematic for people of high intelligence.
There will always be as many opinions as there are people. If we focus solely on our differences, it blinds us to the fact that most everyone wants the same things--a safe place for their family, a decent standard of living, and yes, freedom to express their human uniqueness. When it comes right down to it, the average lefty and tea partier have more to agree upon than they do to disagree. How about focusing on those areas, and agree to disagree on the other areas?
Do you want to be "right", or do you want to be effective in creating a better community?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mimbresgranny
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 2:29 pm 
Quote:
Is there a discussion to be had on entitlements, health care, taxes, or race relations when the ‘facts on the ground’ of all these issues is trivialized, competed over, falsely defined or just plain lied about? ... I am befuddled to come up with a strategy that facilitates whatever form of communication we need right now.


I wish we could have a rational discussion of each point as Jill suggested. I completely disagree with Ed's characterization of taxes, among other things, but that conversation gets sidelined with all the bouncing topics. I would like to discuss the issue of global warming but when someone only wants to present his "science" without rebuttal because how can an "ordinary brain" like mine counter these great scientists, the discussion gets closed. Except that I CAN understand the basic concepts and I can present other reasons for wanting clean air, like increasing asthma rates. Richard brought a topic and while I might choose less inflammatory phrasing, what happened to that discussion about the discussion?

I suppose that makes his point. We have lost the ability to look at each issue separate from the ideological prism of sides. I liked listening to Buckley Jr. even though I often completely disagreed with his conclusions (an despite his demeaning attitude) because he brought insight to his point of view. Dirksen was a scrapper but understood the Balance of Power needed to get ALL Americans into the conversation and part of the solutions. Our current politics seems to be all or nothing oriented and little interested in the opposite view. Once a 'side' is chosen there is no more listening. And why would I listen to misrepresentation and pure falsehoods.

There is a study that showed that when a question was presented to a (very) large group, even without all the information, the consensus was able to determine the correct answer. These were "factual" questions, not philosophical ones, but I believe the point still holds. The "Truth" is not found in ideology but in the search for the answers. But like Mr. E, I have become disillusioned that we can have the discussion at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: edcolmar
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:22 am 
I’ll cut you some slack for being born and raised into the most effective propaganda machine the world has ever known.

You are also statistically likely to be a beneficiary of various government programs (almost 50% - link ). I can understand that it is difficult to look at a “provider” with skepticism, even if the”provider” is also stealing from you at the same time.

Those two things plus the human tendency towards normalcy bias makes it very very difficult to get someone to analyse things in an objective way.

But I’ll try.

In order to talk about violence, we need to agree on a definition. Here are two. Both are acceptable to me, and support my view.

Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.
Source: wikipedia

vi·o·lence
noun
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
Source: dictionary.com


The state does indeed use violence and the threat of violence to achieve its goals. In this case, specifically we are talking about taxation, and again, specifically income tax.

So, what happens if you exercise your human right to freedom, and ignore tax day? Maybe nothing happens for a little while, but then you start getting contacted by a group that holds the legal monopoly on the use of force and violence. You are told that if you do not comply, you will have force and violence used against you.

What happens if you continue to exercise your (non-violent) freedom and not comply with the demands. Then, the men with guns dressed in blue costumes come to find you. Again you are told that if you do not comply there will be violence used against you. If you continue to not follow orders, violence is used.

Always the threat of violence is present. This is the fear that gives the laws their power. The fear of violence used against you.

Instigation of violent force. Directed at you. For no violent or hostile action that you took.

If you’d like to delve into this (and other related topics) more, I would suggest listening to Stefan:

Stefbot on youtube





However... I think I am just wasting my time trying to educate you on this subject.

The following two quotes from you, Jill, explain a lot about your stance. And quite honestly they speak for themselves without me having to do any kind of analysis:

“But I do not agree that we need to go back to the Gold Standard, and in fact I think that would be a more than a little insane. “

“No I don't know how fractional reserve banking works.”

/shrug


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:09 pm 
The gold standard was pathetic is my observation having lived during that time. (This is one of the most troublesome of Ron Paul's campaign platforms, he doesn't want any paper money so I suppose we carry gold coins around in our pocket. It is even more troublesome since he is a large holder gold mining stock.) Next it was Silver Certificates, not much better, than came Federal Reserve Notes until they realized that they didn't want to back them either. All the money standards have been based on the "fractional reserve banking" concept. Fort Knox, that fiction repository of gold never had enough to cover the money either, and few remember that all gold was automatically owned by the Federal Gov and was illegal to have a little stashed away in the sock drawer and had an fixed value, set by the Gov, of $12.00 an ounce.

Jill, fractional reserve banking is simple and easy to understand, how much of our money, deposits, does a bank have to have on hand if we need or want it in a cash withdrawal? The answer is Not Much and is continually lowered. Two years ago my friend wanted to buy a $3,000 car with cash, her bank couldn't come up with that much in cash, perhaps just a bad day?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: edcolmar
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:07 pm 
Hi Crow.

While I understand you're trying to explain fractional reserve banking in a simple way. You've missed the most important part, and this makes your entire statement false.

All money is loaned into existence. Everything. Every cent. It is all due, plus interest. Every dollar you think you own is actually loaned to you. It is debt.

So how do we pay this debt back? We grow enough to borrow more.

But how do we pay that new debt back? Ultimately, we can't. This banking system is based on the idea of infinite growth. And not just any kind of growth, Infinite EXPONENTIAL growth. And, as we are finding out, the earth with it's finite "resources" cannot support growth forever.

"insane", "pathetic" ... I say what we have now fits those descriptions much much more closely.

By definition, a rational money system should not lose value as a feature of it existing. - just sayin'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:32 pm 
Mr Crow, Your over simplification of the issues are telling; It tells me why you took down the Ron Paul For President 2012 string. You did it to censer the vital issues that are most pressing in all our lives that are being addressed by the Ron Paul campaign. That makes it easier for you and your colleagues to push your canned talking points about women’s rights or gay marriage or whatever to distract and divert the attention of the readers of this forum from those vital issues that effects us all such as the continuing wars for empire and the associated military industrial complex that is sucking the life out of not only America, but all the countries sucked in to the IMF or world bank as well - along with those countries that are resisting. Either join our usury banking system or get invaded by NATO and their terrorist strong arm, Al Qaeda.

Another real issue is the need to return to a value based Constitutional system of interest free money spent into circulation by the federal, state, or local governments, and an end to the private central Federal Reserve top down banking system and its associated usury fiat phony money that is sucking the life out of our economy and creating insurmountable debt saddled on current and future generations, preventing investment in infrastructure or research and development of technology and a higher standard of living.

You rather would have us watch the establishment/progressive left hand while the establishment/right right hand is stabbing us in the back. Your over simplification of the abortion issue is way out in left field. No one is seeking to control a woman’s body in objecting to aborting a living baby which is in fact a human being, no matter what Rearnheart’s scientist say. There are many other ways of birth control, and killing a baby in my opinion should be the very last option rather than the first. Society has a right to regulate such things as the taking of a human life whether an unborn baby or the murder victim of someone who might just as easily rationalize the deed as the woman seeking an abortion. If someone murders a pregnant woman, he/she is charged with two murders. Did you know that?

You and other forum moderators would divert our attention to this abortion argument that effects only a very very tiny segment of the 300,000,000 plus citizens of this country while the war mongers and money junkies push their puppet candidates on us and continue to plunder the people and destroy the life support system of the planet. Good work Gila “UnSustainable” Community Forum.

You continue to focus on the fallacy that a Ron Paul presidency would open the flood gates to corporate exploitation of the planet while at the same time you ignore what the establishment Democrat and Republican parties have allowed and continue to allow AND SUBSIDIZE NOW – the clear cutting of native forests, draining of wetlands, mountain top removal, genetically modified foods flooding the market, obstacles in place by the FDA to organic and raw foods, mandating radiating fruits and nuts, pharmaceutical drugs and fracking chemicals in drinking water that your EPA overlooks….. need I go on? All this is happening, even escalating, under the watch of your beloved “Progressive” President Barrack Hussein Obama (Barry Sotoro or whatever the guys name is) just as it has under previous establishment presidents, both Republican and Democrat. A Ron Paul president would cut off all subsidies, grants, and govt handouts to the special interests perpetrating these atrocities on the people.

Its time for a change. Its time to give the Libertarian and free market approach a chance. Phase it in gradually and give it a chance.

Jill, I still believe that communities have the right to set standards of behavior regarding taking a human life, born or unborn, until such a time as the citizens can honor life and each other and live according to the golden rule without being policed and controlled by laws, rules, and regulations. The abortion issue is a distraction and a diversion as I said before; A distraction from the issues that affects ALL of us as citizens and not just a tiny minority of women. Diversion is a long used tactic to avoid confronting the real hard issues such as war and the economy.

Alan, you do a good job of demonizing the founding fathers and the documents they created in their hopes of eventuating a society of free and sovereign men and women. For all the faults of the founders at the time of the creation of our nation, at least the seeds for equality, freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility for ALL mature adults of sound mind are there and in those documents. The founders weren’t perfect, and the documents weren’t perfect, but they represented a forward progression in the evolution of a society of free and equal men and women removed from the domination of a dominating ruling elite. Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Freedom and liberty are not a license to do any and everything one desires. Laws are necessary to maintain order in a civil society and will be a part of social order in direct proportion to the degree the citizens have evolved a level of morality, virtue, and self control in the final attainment of the golden rule in the brotherhood of man based upon the Fatherhood of God who is love.

How can anyone support the current president when he has lied or flip flopped on practically every campaign promise? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B ... re=related

I certainly cannot support the billionaire predatory capitalist Romney who shares the same basic Wall Street and banking agenda as Obama and the Bushes and Clintons before him..


Contrary what you are hearing now on the mainstream establishment corporate media, Ron Paul is NOT out of the race. His supporters are continuing their strategy of accumulating delegates and the campaign for Liberty continues. Whether Ron Paul wins the nomination or the presidency or not, he has already won by setting the brush fires of freedom in the hearts of men. A brush fire that cannot be stopped and will continue to spread through the states and eventually take this country back from the international banking and corporate elite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89-Xl9jhmi4

Peace


Top
  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:52 pm 
Jimmy, I took down the Ron Paul thread because you spammed it with multiple copy/past articles on the same day and written by somebody else from some other web site. You've been around long enough to know better. Most spammers get banned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:14 pm 
Ed, there is more, they also buy other banks worthless junk and play the stock market with other peoples money? Does that make your additional explanation false?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: edcolmar
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:36 pm 
aww, Crow...

/sadface

Now you are talking about the private Federal Reserve bank (or perhaps the ECB), not the concept or practice of Fractional Reserve Banking. So, no that does not invalidate my admittedly brief explanation.

Though it has been great fun, I think I will stop posting on this forum now. I think the original sentiment mentioned in this thread is spot on, and the communication lines are down. There is too much fear and too much of a sense of individual self importance to step back for a second to look at what is going on.

If you'd like to continue to chat (which I'd be thrilled to do), email me. edcolmar@gmail.com

Cheers! Have fun amongst yourselves.

=)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:32 pm 
Aww, sad faced Ed, your arrogance was most fascinating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jill Steidl
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:58 pm 
Ed,

Am I reading correctly that you say a currency based on the gold standard would have a stable value?
If so, I am unclear as to what that assumption is based on.

I'm going to forgo the discussion of the potential influence of propaganda and the difficulty in being objective since you and I (and everyone else) have similar potential for exposure and similar tendencies in that regard. None of us is immune.

Jill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:00 am 
Ok John, Consider me sufficiently slapped down and back in my place. I certainly don't want to come across as intentionally and blatantly out of line and labeled uppity, forceful, or disrespectful.

Any quote I posted, I tried my best to remember to post a link to the source and give credit to the author/source. I didn't consciously or with premeditation intentionally flaunt or blatantly disregard the rules. I am sorry you interpreted any flaws in my postings as blatant disregard for your forum to the point that you would just suddenly and without warning take down the entire string of links to excellent speeches and articles covering such an important issue as the Campaign for Liberty and Personal Responsibility.

I certainly didn't intend any disrespect on any level by posting links and some copy and paste from those links. In most if not all postings I was speaking of my own opinion and assessment of the issue(s) and any posting of a paragraph or two was intended to reference, substantiate, or validate what I was contributing to the discussion. Ive seen postings of links and quotes from other web sites on this forum regularly, so didn't think I was doing anything wrong. I never used the sort of toilet verbiage and insults (referring to two congressmen and statesmen as idiots for example) that get a pass on this forum.

I am seeing a need for an optional local forum where responsible free speech and the free exchange of ideas can happen without gatekeepers. Nothing like some good old fashioned free market competition to improve upon any given good or service.

Again, I apologize to you and anyone else on the forum for any perception of arrogance, ego, or appearance of coming across as uppidy and controlling. I am not that way.

Thanks for not taking down the Urantia Quotes and links..

Peace and Love


Top
  
 
 Author: crow
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:42 pm 
BTW, I notice that RP has basically withdrawn from the race although he pledges to keep trying to influence the Republican Platform by attending the conventions. As reported on CNN: According to the most recent CNN estimate, Romney has secured 945 delegates, compared 286 for Santorum, 145 for Gingrich and 99 for Paul.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Jimmy-D
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 12:41 pm 
The establishment power structure continues to force their hand picked puppet on the people.

Ron Paul has not withdrawn from the race. He just does not have the financial backing of Goldman Sachs and Wall Street as do Romney and Obama to afford to continue his aggressive campaigning. However, his supporters continue their own grass roots campaigning and accumulation of delegates.

I wouldn't trust CNN or any of the establishment mouthpieces to give us an accurate delegate count. Heck they aren't even telling the public about the tens of thousands of people turning out for Dr. Pauls public appearances. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, nor the other dominant nonnews sources have hardly even admitted Ron Paul was even in the race, giving him only a fraction of the time given to the other candidates in the debates.

There are many surprises that lie ahead in this nominating process and the presidential campaign. There are many if not most of the Santorum and Gingrich delegates who will cast their vote for Dr. Paul when it comes down to the wire. I am even hearing of some of the unbound Romney delegates casting their vote for Paul as well. If you really and honestly want to keep up with the facts about the Ron Paul campaign, then I would recommend visiting http://www.thedailypaul.com on a regular basis. There are some provocateurs posting there, but can be quickly recognized and ostracized by the Ron Paul loyalists. Again, this campaign is not about Ron Paul and it doesn't end with the 2012 election (selection).. In the future we will see small govt and liberty candidates showing up from dog catcher right on up through city, county, state, as well as federal positions.

the American people are waking up to the mass manipulation of the ruling elite. No wonder the elite are going after the internet, free talk radio, the Occupy movement, and passing draconian police state spying and midnight round up laws that are being signed in to law by Obama, just as both the Bushes and Clinton before him.

Again, this campaign is not so much about Ron Paul as it is a revolution of the people to throw off the domination and control of a financial ruling elite that are mucking things up for not only America, but Europe and the Middle East as well.

A side issue, but not really a side issue is this information I found on the FDA's own web site laying out some numbers of people seriously harmed and killed by adverse prescription drug reactions. You know, the top down one size fits all Federal Drug Administration that is supposed to be protecting the people from such untested drugs..

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApp ... 114848.htm

Why Learn about Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)?
Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2000
Lazarou J et al. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205
Gurwitz JH et al. Am J Med 2000;109(2):87–94



Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly

100,000 DEATHS yearly

ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths

Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown

Nursing home patients ADR rate— 350,000 yearly

agreed, these numbers are 10 - 12 years old, but I see no indication anything has changed for the better. I know my own father didn't last long in a nursing home, and I watched him deteriorate rapidly and turn into a drooling zombie after being administered his "meds".. my sister had the power of attorney, so nothing I could do about it but watch him die and she rake in the bulk of the family inheritance.

Peace


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Gila River Festival Ad


Silver City & Southwestern New Mexico Monthly Community Calendar

Click To Create A New Calendar Event
<<

Community Events
Week of November 15, 2018

>>

15
Deathtrap by SC Community Theatre
The Revelers-Concert
16
Dances of Universal Peace
Gila Native Plant Society meeting
17
Permaculture Silver City - Monthly Meeting
Indie Folk Series with Alexa Rose
18
19
20
21
Improve your memory - Play Gin Rummy










News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group