Gay conservatives/Republicans

[Kulindahr]

I stand by my well crafted argument that makes sense. If you must everytime you are on the losing side of one deflect by picking them apart and magnifying the apparent defects, then so be it. But you would be the one with the problem. If you understood how I was using the term and why then you would not be trying to chastise me for using it. I myself wouldnt debate the use of a word if I didn't understand why a person had used a specific word. Instead, I would ask the person why he or she used it, and then debate the value of using that word. In this way would I avoid judgement without knowledge of the case facts.

If you meant it as modifying "conservative" to mean conservatives back very early when people first distinguished themselves that way, there's a problem, because "primordial" conservatism doesn't give a hoot one way or another about Muslims.

Otherwise I can't see where it's anything other than the same thing you were criticizing -- superfluous use of a word to degrade someone/something.

BTW... as for "losing", there hasn't been anyone "losing" this argument. It's plain that there are educated Republicans who are humane, humanist, and humanitarian, just as there are many who are not.

I wasn't "debating" it, either -- I was pointing out that you had done the very same thing that you accused 01solara of doing. Indeed, he could make the same defense against you that you put forth here.

And the case facts are what's on the screen -- things you failed to communicate don't count, because they're not in evidence. What's in evidence is that in the middle of a discussion about superfluous use of a word that seems to be derogatory, you use a word that doesn't add anything, except that in context it appeards derogatory.

 

[bankside]

Of course the same conservative pundits could disparage Mr. Obama's Muslim heritage simply by calling him "Barack" but they probably are not aware that "Barack" is of the same origin as "Hussein."

 

[Lostlover]

I stand by my well crafted argument that makes sense. If you must everytime you are on the losing side of one deflect by picking them apart and magnifying the apparent defects, then so be it. But you would be the one with the problem. If you understood how I was using the term and why then you would not be trying to chastise me for using it. I myself wouldnt debate the use of a word if I didn't understand why a person had used a specific word. Instead, I would ask the person why he or she used it, and then debate the value of using that word. In this way would I avoid judgement without knowledge of the case facts.

Watch what you say. He'll report you for disagreeing. If you get a message from the mods, that's his way of saying back off.

The economy isn't as complex as some would make it. There are only two things economists do when resurrecting or strengthening the economy (three if you count the suicidal "do nothing" approach).

For this depression we're in, there were three routes to take. THREE for an economy of about $14 trillion. Do nothing (libertarians, no thanks to Greenspan). Do something and cut taxes (Republicans, Bush was doing it. Too little too late). Or spend like the free market would do if credit didn't freeze up when the stock markets crashed late last year (Democrats).

 

[bankside]

His first name is in fact in common usage and not targeted for abuse...

Yes, I think that adds a delicious layer of irony to the schoolboy taunts attacking him for having a middle name.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's like running a hampster wheel holding a discussion with Kulindahr. I just can't compete with the nonsense I'm sorry. But I can hazard an attempt. Specifically I want to rebutt the part about the meaning of certain words, which I thought would be fairly obvious. There is a certain prejudice against me that you hold, because you judged the meaning of a word I used to be negative, superfluous, and not constructive, when in fact it was descriptive and accurately so. Primordial can and does mean original in this case. That inandofitself is not negative to describe something as original. The negative part was prejudice, not the "primordial" character of it. Even so, it is not prejudice everytime something is described as negative. Being anti-prejudice is not prejudicial for example, and neither is describing it as original. Prejudice is sensory and not knowledge. It's not prejudice that I described anti-islam as an attribute of primordial conservatism, since it has been that way for a very long time.

No nonsense -- just information for you.

And -- again -- "primordial" conservatism didn't give a hoot about Islam. I doubt that Edmund Burke, for example, had a thing to say about it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Watch what you say. He'll report you for disagreeing. If you get a message from the mods, that's his way of saying back off.

Another fantasy of yours.

I report posts which appear to break the rules. I don't care if the post agrees with me or disagrees with me.

And if I appear to report a post for merely personal reasons, I'm the one getting a message from the mods (and a warning).

 

[Kulindahr]

The economy isn't as complex as some would make it. There are only two things economists do when resurrecting or strengthening the economy (three if you count the suicidal "do nothing" approach).

For this depression we're in, there were three routes to take. THREE for an economy of about $14 trillion. Do nothing (libertarians, no thanks to Greenspan). Do something and cut taxes (Republicans, Bush was doing it. Too little too late). Or spend like the free market would do if credit didn't freeze up when the stock markets crashed late last year (Democrats).

There are some serious studies out which assert that "stimulus spending" actually prolongs the agony, and may even make things worse. Serious economists have predicted that the mess Obama put out will improve things briefly, and then drop us into a worse situation than we would have been in nothing at all was done.

 

[JB3]

Watch what you say. He'll report you for disagreeing. If you get a message from the mods, that's his way of saying back off.

The economy isn't as complex as some would make it. There are only two things economists do when resurrecting or strengthening the economy (three if you count the suicidal "do nothing" approach).

For this depression we're in, there were three routes to take. THREE for an economy of about $14 trillion. Do nothing (libertarians, no thanks to Greenspan). Do something and cut taxes (Republicans, Bush was doing it. Too little too late). Or spend like the free market would do if credit didn't freeze up when the stock markets crashed late last year (Democrats).

Actually the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' watch-dog organization, stated point-blank that the stimulus might help in the short-term, but would cause irreparable long-term damage. Essentially, what we're looking at is growth that will permanently be stymied because the politicians didn't want to wait it out and let the recession run its natural course.

 

[palemale]

Droid800 and Kulindahr, the government could have done nothing to get us out of this economic depression we are in. After all, look how well that worked under Herbert Hoover.

"I'm proud to be a republican. Why? Because we don't believe that the government needs to control every aspect of our lives, that man is able to govern themselves without a massive governing apparatus telling us what to do."
Droid800, are you serious? Since you are such a smart person soon to have an MA< I can only conclude you are delusional. The government doesn't need to control every aspect of our lives? Only a woman's uterus, who we marry, what our states teach us in school ("No Child Left Behind"), that our children hear prayers in school, what our doctor's tell us ("informed consent" on abortion), etc. No massive governing apparatus? Except that little thing about tapping everyone's phone and monitoring their email. And how about those little contracts allowing Halliburton to rip us off in some of the most grotesque war profiteering in our history.

There's a reason Obama won a majority of the most highly educated voters.

 

[JB3]

Droid800 and Kulindahr, the government could have done nothing to get us out of this economic depression we are in. After all, look how well that worked under Herbert Hoover.

"I'm proud to be a republican. Why? Because we don't believe that the government needs to control every aspect of our lives, that man is able to govern themselves without a massive governing apparatus telling us what to do."
Droid800, are you serious? Since you are such a smart person soon to have an MA< I can only conclude you are delusional. The government doesn't need to control every aspect of our lives? Only a woman's uterus, who we marry, what our states teach us in school ("No Child Left Behind"), that our children hear prayers in school, what our doctor's tell us ("informed consent" on abortion), etc. No massive governing apparatus? Except that little thing about tapping everyone's phone and monitoring their email. And how about those little contracts allowing Halliburton to rip us off in some of the most grotesque war profiteering in our history.

There's a reason Obama won a majority of the most highly educated voters.

Where did I say Bush was a conservative? He isn't and never was. I disagreed with most everything he did, but the alternatives were much worse.

 

[Kulindahr]

Stephen Hawking already showed that black holes eventually transmit information about the matter they consume, albeit in a garbled form.

As I recall Hawking's published works, black holes totally destroy information. They emit radiation (Hawking radiation) in a form that can tell you something about the mass, charge, and spin of the black hole, but that's it -- if the black hole is comprised entirely of antimatter, it won't even tell you that.

In his paper "Black Holes Are White Hot" -- where Hawking radiation was first rigorously described -- he does note that the radiation coming out is subject to probability effects at the event horizon which make it possible for anything at all to come out ("even a duck", I believe he joked), but regardless of what came out, it would reveal nothing about what went into the formation of the hole.

If there were enough right-wing zealots in the universe, we could push them all together and gravitational collapse would turn them into a black hole. But, try as we might, the resulting Hawking radiation along the event horizon wouldn't tell us if they'd been gay conservatives or just lying, draft-dodging Cheney types.

 

[01solara]

There are some serious studies out which assert that "stimulus spending" actually prolongs the agony, and may even make things worse. Serious economists have predicted that the mess Obama put out will improve things briefly, and then drop us into a worse situation than we would have been in nothing at all was done.

All that has to be done to end this crazy depression is to let people keep and spend and save their own money as they see fit. As an administrator the government is extremely inefficient and sucks up large percentages of the money in wages paid to those who administrate the programs. These programs are highly susceptible to fraud. I have personally seen this with unwed nonworking mothers selling their childrens social securitiy numbers to non relatives to claim on their taxes I have seen people that make less than 2o,ooo per year get nine thousand dollar checks using this very system.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just a few years ago he flipped his opinion that information is lost to our Universe. It would run counter to the quantum theory to suggest that all black holes emit uniform radiation no matter what entered them. Through his recent work on desribing the edges of a black hole, positive quantum particles have just enough energy to escape the edge of one, while the negative counterparticle annihilates part of the black hole's mass.

That last is old news; that's how small black holes evaporate -- and why there are no quantum black holes left over from the Big Bang... things theory predicts, which were lots of fun in good science fiction until Hawking showed that they wouldn't last.
BTW, I believe that "virtual particles" are what you mean by "quantum particles". The edge of a black hole is the only place that virtual particles become real, by virtue of one member of a virtual pair being sucked in and the other escaping. Statistically, the numbers of escaping ordinary matter particles will match the number of anti-particles, resulting in a 'film' of annihilation at the event horizon -- and half the resultant energy gets sucked into the black hole as well (not that photons add much in the way of mass).

At any rate, the mathematics Hawking used in his new calculation remains dubious to the scientific community, so I'll stick with the "tried and true".

p.s. -- just how would it "run counter to the quantum theory to suggest that all black holes emit uniform radiation no matter what entered them"?

 

[chance1]

Any out there?

I'd like to meet some but I haven't really found any yet on here.

hmmm

registered Dem but I'm definitely more conservative fiscally - liberal socially

not sure why gays, who index high on income, look at conservatism as so icky

prob because of guys like pat robertson, rush limbaugh, rev phelps, etc.

they see "conservative" and think intolerant

i think Pres. Obama is proving now that liberal economics sucks eggs

and gays who have money will just be giving more of it and dumping into the black hole - never for it to return

gays who index high on the IQ front ................ seem to be blind to this dynamic

not even sure what a "republican" is anymore

 

[01solara]

hmmm

registered Dem but I'm definitely more conservative fiscally - liberal socially

not sure why gays, who index high on income, look at conservatism as so icky

prob because of guys like pat robertson, rush limbaugh, rev phelps, etc.

they see "conservative" and think intolerant

i think Pres. Obama is proving now that liberal economics sucks eggs

and gays who have money will just be giving more of it and dumping into the black hole - never for it to return

gays who index high on the IQ front ................ seem to be blind to this dynamic

not even sure what a "republican" is anymore

The time is right for a new political party. Not that it would be easy but I think there would be broad appeal for a party that stays out of people's hard earned money that they worked for and also stays out of people's personal lives unless they are hurting others. The role of the government is to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. I see very little of this in the modern Republican party and virtually none at all in the Democrat party. It seems every election is about who is less bad. I am tired of it and would work hard to find a better way both with time and money. It seems both sides have had too much of the koolaid. It may be different flavors but at the end of the day it is all koolaid. Koolaid is a sugar laden unhealthy drink that goes down easy enough but isn't healthy in the long term. The time for nastiness has passed it is time for smart common sense debate that centers on what's best for the country instead of what's best for each special interest. rant over

 

[Kulindahr]

It violates unitarity, as well as the conservation of energy. Many physical states can't evolve into exactly the same mixed state every time as the original hawking radiation theory predicted. He only slothfully postulated that because of its elegance and simplicity in uniting quantum theory with general relativity, especially where it concerns gravity. Too bad it isn't that simple, and the no hair theorem is junk. Read about the black hole information paradox and Liouvilles theorem in Hamiltonian mechanics. I follow Kip Thorne, information is not lost to black holes only to be stored in a parallel universe. Hawking shouldn't have wagered on it

Um... Kip Thorne wasn't convinced by Hawking's new proof, so he declined to pay off the bet with (had to look this one up) John Preskill. He was on the same side of the wager as Hawking, but hasn't changed his mind, finding Hawking's new position unconvincing.

Until we can observe sufficient black holes to make an assessment, I don't see the the no-hair theorem is junk. None of the solutions offered for the problem are any more solid than Hawking's original proposal, either -- and Hawking's latest is only a "could be", anyway.



Are we off-topic, or what?

 

[islgb12]

Sorry to interupt the serious talk here, but is there anything about Aaron Schock on JUB? What do you guys think about rumours he's gay? And how do you think a gay Republican would effect things?

Personally, I think it would be a good thing, that way people wouldn't be so shocked to realize, yes there are gay Conservative/Republicans.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry to interupt the serious talk here, but is there anything about Aaron Schock on JUB? What do you guys think about rumours he's gay? And how do you think a gay Republican would effect things?

Personally, I think it would be a good thing, that way people wouldn't be so shocked to realize, yes there are gay Conservative/Republicans.

He's kinda cute...

If he's sensible, self-disciplined, and doesn't go around playing with Congressional pages/interns, he'd make a good example of a gay Republican -- assuming rumors are true.

 

[AmunRa]

I'm a Republican, though the only reason I'm not a Libertarian is that that party is all about political extremism rather than reason. I'm fiscally conservative and believe in funding a strong military. I most definitely disagree with the majority of my party's stance of gay rights. However, this one issue isn't enough for me to sit down and toss all my other beliefs aside.

Being a member of a party doesn't mean they tell you what to think. It means that you get to influence what they stand for.

 

[palemale]

The time is right for a new political party. Not that it would be easy but I think there would be broad appeal for a party that stays out of people's hard earned money that they worked for . . .. The role of the government is to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. rant over

I'm always curious how you "fiscal conservatives" who are so opposed to taxes think the government is going to provide for defense and general welfare without taxing people. This may come as a shock to many of you, but the corporations in this country have grown incredibly rich because the government has spent money on things like roads, rural electrification, water projects. In deed, throughout our history, the government has spent money on things like militias to murder trade unionists, courts to enforce contracts and return escaped slaves to their masters. You get the picture. Oppression of the working class isn't cheap. As someone once said, "behind every great fortune lies a great crime."