Ron Paul: the most anti-environmental candidate ever ????

Let me pick out your substantive arguments from cyberspace equivalent of screaming and yelling.

1."The Supreme Court ruled that not banding cases together cannot be allowed which would result in massive litigation as each person individual have to sue."

That's not what they ruled. You are referring to AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION (April 2011). The Supreme Court ruled that if you sign a contract with an arbitration clause explicitly waiving the right to consolidate a claim with someone else...low and behold, you actually waived your right to consolidate your claim with someone else.

The Supreme Court's ruling, while logical, wasn't really their will but of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), passed by your Beloved Federal Congress. Where does that leave us? Well if you want to be able to join a class action against someone, then don't sign a contract that says "I Waive might right to join a class action lawsuit against you." Alternatively, get the federal congress to repeal FAA, so every state can set their law of contracts, and jurisdictions like the state of California can ignore the plain language of a contract at will.

In conclusion:

Unless you singed a contract expressly saying you won't join a class action lawsuit against a polluter (Why would you?)then.... you can join a class action lawsuit against polluter.

You can sit around and wait for the EPA to stop by while a company pours toxic waste on your lawn and all your neighbor's lawns. You are going to be waiting decades. Or you take some initiative, go to Court, and get an emergency injunction and handle your business.

Full unedited case of AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION :
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf

2. "As if this new land of zero regulation just outright prevents bribery or other forms of corruption."

A.) What's insinuated from this diatribe is that you believe what you call "libertarian," believes that human beings are inherently good and self-less and if "regulations" were removed true human good nature will come out. You confusing their understanding of human nature with Karl Marx and Marxism. The libertarian doctrine holds that humans are rational and self-interested.

Yes The directors of BP are self- interested in pursuing their duty to get maximum value for their shareholders. So too were the bureaucrats of Minerals Management Service who accepted favors, bribes, and future employment opportunities from BP and the oil industry they were supposed be regulating. A revolving door. And what do you know, BP's deep Water horizon well blew out. And the "regulations" concocted by self-interested congressman, contained a liability cap that limited BP's liability to a mere $75 million of the billions of dollars of damage they did.

Read http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/25/eveningnews/main6518694.shtml

B.) Second insinuation is that less of the so called "regulations" will reduce corruption. And yes it will reduce corruption. Why? Because the most rampant corruption today results from the collusion between from the "regulators" and big business. As demonstrated by BP, Big corporations use administrative agencies to secure benefits they couldn't get in the free market. Furthermore they also use "regulations" to prevent market entry by new small business participants, thereby securing their monopoly or oligopoly.

3. "the court system will just magically not be corrupt when"

Having established that they believe human beings are rational, and self-interested what is the best way to mitigate self-interest from becoming corruption?

Anyone can fall to corruption but who is more likely to? A Judge or an unelected faceless bureaucrat?

It's pretty self-evident who is more likely to be corrupted. Court room proceedings are open to the public and a matter of public record. The Court regularly interacts with the general public. The general public knows what a Court does, it knows the courts exist, so does the media.They know to at least look at a court or judge and monitor for corruption.

What about one of the thousands of administrative agencies? Administrative agencies ONLY interact with the corporations they are supposed to regulate. Those are the only entities they see on a daily basis. The general public does not know what they do. They general public does not even know they exist. Neither does the media. The only time the average person learns about an administrative agency, is AFTER we have a major disaster, and then we find out "Oops the Minerals Management Service was supposed to inspect emergency shut off valves and enforce regulations, but the bureaucrats were instead using cocaine on the job, accepting gifts, and financially self-dealing with the oil companies they were supposed to regulate."

"Well if you want to be able to join a class action against someone, then don't sign a contract that says "I Waive might right to join a class action lawsuit against you." Alternatively, get the federal congress to repeal FAA, so every state can set their law of contracts, and jurisdictions like the state of California can ignore the plain language of a contract at will."

Right, because there's never a situation in which you'd be essentially forced to sign a contract to deal with the basic necessities of life, and states would just always side with their citizens if they were able to craft their own policy.

I'm not sure that you're advocating that position, so I won't elaborate too much on it. Suffice to say that it is grossly naive to think that just because something is contractual, it is voluntary.

If you, for instance, signed a contract with your local electricity supplier (for which there is no competition unless you move) and they blew up a gas pipeline which destroyed a bunch of shit (this actually happened in my state), it would not be the "signers' " fault for agreeing to the contract since it's hardly a choice to "agree" to have electricity in your home.

"Yes The directors of BP are self- interested in pursuing their duty to get maximum value for their shareholders. So too were the bureaucrats of Minerals Management Service who accepted favors, bribes, and future employment opportunities from BP and the oil industry they were supposed be regulating. A revolving door. And what do you know, BP's deep Water horizon well blew out. And the "regulations" concocted by self-interested congressman, contained a liability cap that limited BP's liability to a mere $75 million of the billions of dollars of damage they did...

...As demonstrated by BP, Big corporations use administrative agencies to secure benefits they couldn't get in the free market. Furthermore they also use "regulations" to prevent market entry by new small business participants, thereby securing their monopoly or oligopoly."

Which Libertarians stupidly contrive as being the fault of government and not private industry lobbying. In your world, there wouldn't have been any rules demanding anything of them, which, by the way, is what they seem to be lobbying for.

Remind me how a Libertarian administration would have prevented this, since the "revolving door" corruption you speak of was campaigning for DEregulation, not increased regulation in their favor (as the talking point always fails to mention). Issues like this put corporatists and Libertarians are consistently on the same side, why is that? If your policies stop stuff like this, then why do such "corporatist" businesses advocate for it so heavily?

Obviously because the less the spotlight is on them, the easier it is for them to screw with government in the first place. The Libertarian assumption being that there is no legal, non-government way to screw with markets, or that their rise to power is somehow going to end corruption.

It's the same mistake anarchists make when they assert their philosophy will end tyranny, when all it really does is create a power vacuum.

With the BP example, you could be cute and argue that their guarantee with the Feds to only pay for a fraction of the damage wouldn't exist in a Libertarian world, except the problem has always been dealing with lobbying and corruption, which you have no plan to deal with. Moreover, you plan to kick most issues over to the states, who are way more corrupt on issues like this than the Feds are.

"Anyone can fall to corruption but who is more likely to? A Judge or an unelected faceless bureaucrat?"

You say that as if they're two different things. You just spoke a redundancy to my mind.

"The general public knows what a Court does, it knows the courts exist, so does the media.They know to at least look at a court or judge and monitor for corruption"

Then how did the Exxon-Valdez spill take more than 10 years in court and result only in less than a 1% settlement on the damages caused?

And how is this fact aided by a Libertarian administration who would gut all funding to Federal police agencies and destroy most (if not all) Federal laws?

And it's not even true. Plenty of court proceedings are secret and they're often beyond scrutiny. Especially so in your world. Moreso in Ron Paul's world where the 14th amendment doesn't exist and you have no right to due process of law.

"Those are the only entities they see on a daily basis. The general public does not know what they do. They general public does not even know they exist. Neither does the media."

This isn't true either. How secret are the FDA's judgments? How often does the EPA stay out of the media? If anything, they're only invisible when they're doing their job correctly because it doesn't make for convenient corporate news (i.e. NBC's failure to report GE's scandals or NewsCorp not reporting their illegal tactics).

Moreover, all of these boards have congressional and executive oversight whereas the judiciary often spends decades beyond reproach and out of touch.

Citizens United or the 2000 election being excellent examples, which, in the case of the former, there is now no way to deal with outside of constitutional amendments or additional court challenges.

On top of all that, none of this is actually a refutation of my core point that eliminating agencies like the EPA and leaving things to courts is a stupid idea, nor does even address the *basic* things such agencies do that you take for granted every day, such as clean air and water. Or, at the very least, a basic expectation of those things which *did not* exist before regulation and *would not* exist without it.

But that's always the fallacy of the utopian ideology, you can just move the goalpost somewhere else because you're not ever actually required to address the *reality* of what would happen as the result of your policies. Nor the historical precedents which serve as examples, which, in U.S. history, is practically all of it before the 1930's.

Remember how clean things were in the 1880's? How well did court systems protect peoples' property rights then? Oh, that's right, they were too busy granting corporate personhood and abolishing all minor state regulations across the country to notice.

And before you waste your time pointing out the irony of the fact that it was the 14th amendment that allowed that to happen, I refer you back to my earlier point that pretending that's the fault of government and not private lobbying is criminally stupid.

"I'm not sure that you're advocating that position, so I won't elaborate too much on it. Suffice to say that it is grossly naive to think that just because something is contractual, it is voluntary."

To go into the theoretical basis, yes signing a contract is voluntary absent duress E.g. physical force.

Economically speaking, all value is subjective driven by the circumstances. Therefore, when you analyze a contract or a transaction, from both parties perspectives they are both getting something more valuable than they are giving.

As far as the circumstances, if a local government monopoly on supplying power alters what a party subjectively values in a way we don't want, it's really the local government monopoly on power supply that's the problem, not some flaw in the mechanics of contracts.

"Which Libertarians stupidly contrive as being the fault of government and not private industry lobbying. In your world, there wouldn't have been any rules demanding anything of them, which, by the way, is what they seem to be lobbying for."

You not correct. It's not a lack of rules. But who's enforcing them. An administrative agency or you? And as detailed below the best mechanism for doing that is property law not bureaucratic law.

"You say that as if they're two different things. You just spoke a redundancy to my mind."

There is a key difference. On most state level's one is actually elected and publicly visible. From the perspective of the public the other probably doesn't even exist.

"Remind me how a Libertarian administration would have prevented this, since the "revolving door" corruption you speak of was campaigning for DEregulation, not increased regulation in their favor (as the talking point always fails to mention). Issues like this put corporatists and Libertarians are consistently on the same side, why is that? If your policies stop stuff like this, then why do such "corporatist" businesses advocate for it so heavily?"

By minimizing the amount of state power they can corrupt, as that's where the corruption occurs. Who else are "corporatist" business corrupting but the state? It's called "regulatory capture." It been around since soon after the rise of the administrative state. All the regulatory agencies that you think are protecting you get captured by the corporations they regulate. All that's left is a false sense of security on your part.

"It's the same mistake anarchists make when they assert their philosophy will end tyranny, when all it really does is create a power vacuum."

Who should that power go to? We are still operating on the social contract theory in the U.S. If it's dispersed it can go back to the individuals it came from. Each individual becomes more sovereign over their own lives. It doesn't have to be replaced with a new behemoth. (If you want to give up sovereignty and complete control over your life it can.)

"Then how did the Exxon-Valdez spill take more than 10 years in court and result only in less than a 1% settlement on the damages caused?

And how is this fact aided by a Libertarian administration who would gut all funding to Federal police agencies and destroy most (if not all) Federal laws?"

Specifically which Exxon case are you referring to?

I don't know where you are going with this? Maritime law is within the realm of federal congress to legislate. When oil hits land, believe it or not the state's actually have laws.

"This isn't true either. How secret are the FDA's judgments? How often does the EPA stay out of the media? If anything, they're only invisible when they're doing their job correctly because it doesn't make for convenient corporate news (i.e. NBC's failure to report GE's scandals or NewsCorp not reporting their illegal tactics)."

Really? What news agency combs through the thousands of rules published daily in the Federal Register? Seriously let me know. I go their to get my news from now on.

"Moreover, all of these boards have congressional and executive oversight whereas the judiciary often spends decades beyond reproach and out of touch."

And when the agencies are captured by the corporations and the politicians looking after the agencies are bought off by the corporations what type of "oversight" are you referring to?

"Citizens United" decision is the symptom of monetary ill and can be fixed that way. A discussion of which is beyond the scope here.

Let's talk about the fallacy of utopian ideology. It's always one more law, one more "regulation" one bureaucracy to Utopia isn't it? How has that worked since 1930?

As far as the erosion of property rights from 1880's by the court's especially in some railroad cases. You'll find No disagreement from me there.
"Remember how clean things were in the 1880's? How well did court systems protect peoples' property rights then?"

And what you really saying here?:The agenda of massive centralization through the federal government has eroded our property rights and that this was a tragedy. And there we have it.

Like inspectors with teeth ? ( a guy that shows up unannounced at pollution site and hands them a 5 million dollar ticket ....)

Or some "don't drop the soap" style prison sentences...

Even bettah !

Only blind people can not see what is going on.Our freedoms little by little are been taken away... when we wake up it may be too late....

The supply of hope is running out big time.

Let us not find out . K ?

First of all, Al Gore isn't running and your FOX NEWS talking point about his house isn't relevant to this conversation as Ron Paul is. BTW, what does Ron Paul's house run on then since you care so much and he is so caring about the planet? Second, Al Gore has done more for the environment than Ron Paul ever did. Thirdly, point out the comment where I stated I LOVE THE EPA. If you knew anything about my posts here instead of just focusing on my name, you would know I have been very critical of them on many occassions. You like so many are just whittling this down to the points that make you think you won the argument by totally ignoring the entire point of this. NO REGULATION AT ALL KILLS PEOPLE, and at the state level there would still be ALEC to make sure environmental laws are gutted. Don't know what that is, look it up. But of course, rather than focus on the fiasco we would have with him allowing drilling everywhere there is, fracking I suppose as well and nuclear energy even after Fukushima, you pick on my name. How intelligent. Bottomline: based on his OWN WORDS from his OWN SITE, he will never get my vote. Climate change is a clear and present danger that is already greatly affecting people globally through agriculture, water and migration. It is killing people and his answer to it? DO NOTHING. Who do I sue in court in Texas then for the dessimation of my entire crop and the death of my entire herd by severe drought caused by climate change? It is insanity. It is anti-science and it automatically places blame on the victim. And again, as I stated below the EPA is not perfect, but it has also instituted some beneficial acts like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that he would see dismantled. So instead of turning this on me, prove we are wrong. His record however, speaks for itself.

You do realize that when you begin your post with the sentence (congratulations on the BTW): "listened to rush limbaugh" and then proceed to end it with "armageddon is very near", it does tend to make rational people not particularly want to read what is in between, don't you?

"Jesus is on the way is not rhetorical."
NO
It's fiction.

" I was given the inspiration for Ocean Energy that can power mankind"
Given by whom?

"I received the further inspiration of how to make an awesome, non-polluting engine"
From a work of fiction?

" I was receiving of a direct packet of information"
From whom?

"during the solar eclipse I looked out at the Moon"
No you didn't
If you had, you would not be able to see, since directly viewing of the solar corona with the naked eyes will burn out the eye's retina.

"viewed the fulfillment of Revelation 6 v 12. Verse 13 was fulfilled the following day"
Saying that you saw an unhistorical fact-free fantastically fictitious mythologically written by pre-scientific, scientifically illiterate, ignorant, bigoted, and barbaric stone-age savages being "fulfilled" is delusional bordering on the insane.

"Then it was given me to know the exact meaning of Rev. 6 v 14 soon after"
Given by whom?

You mean some sort of zombie apocalypse?

"God provided us a new Adam in Jesus."
There was no Adam in the first place.

"We can by our actions drop the first Adam and legally switch our parent from Adam to Jesus."
So we can switch from a guy who never existed to a guy who has been dead and decomposing for thousands of years.
I'd prefer the fictional character to the zombie exorcist any day.

"It was the Jews, then the Catholics,"
The Catholics tried to kill all the Jews.

"His coming on the clouds was to tell us we wouldn't be able to see him bodily."
You mean Jesus is a ghost?
So he can't actually touch us.

"Ch. 18 of Revelation tells very clearly of how they are going to be destroyed."
The Book of Revelations is one man's recount of a drug-induced hallucination.
In other words: a work of fantasy fiction.
Much like the rest of the bible.

"even celebrating Halloween in their churches"
Halloween was originally a Christian celebration.

"Jehovah has been pouring, "anointing", me with stuff"
how is that possible if you've never seen him?

"elementary mistakes in the majority of churches claiming to be Christ's Bride"
The first and foremost being the ludicrous, bordering on the insane, belief that a jewish exorcist who died and decomposed 2 millennia ago on the other side of the world is somehow still alive.

You have yet to answer any of my questions.
Or reply to any of the points that i've made.

You haven't replied to a single thing i've said.
All of your posts have just been your own paranoid delusional psychotic insane lunatic ravings and ranting.

"what I have is current revelation given me"
You still have not answered what was given to you, when it was given to you, where you were given it, how it was given to you, or who gave it to you.
So your claim is unsubstantiated, and therefore unverifiable.

"I can know just how solid my information is."
As far as i can see, you don't know any information at all, and whatever "information" you might have is demonstrably, probably wrong.

"I've had more shown me since your last rant."
You haven't shown anything.

"My position is too strong"
WRONG
Positions are strengthened by support.
In other words, how strong a position is is measured by how much there is supporting it.
You have yet to provide one single scrap of any kind of evidence that in any way supports anything you have said.
And, as i have repeatedly demonstrated in arguments you readily appear to have no answer to, no such evidence exists.
So your position has no strength at all whatsoever.

"I gave you enough."
You haven't given a thing.

"I don't think the angels will be empowered to listen to arguments."
No such thing as angles exist.

the link you posted has no credible sources of information about anything of any importance

"a smart person would've asked for more information "
I've been asking you questions for days now.
You just haven't answered any of them.
Either because you won't, or because you can't.
You either refuse to provide whatever answers you might have to my questions, or you don't know the answers and don't have them.
You haven't provided any information, nor any evidence to support your unfounded and baseless claims, nor to refute my arguments that no such evidence exists.
Until you either willing or able to answer the many questions i have asked, ay reply you provide will be irrelevant to this discussion.
The only relevant reply when one is asked a question is an answer to that question.
Anything and Everything else you post is, has been, and will be nothing more or less than nonsensical incoherent babbling gibberish from a paranoid delusional schizophrenic psychotic certifiably insane and deranged ranting, raving lunatic.

So you still refuse to answer any of my questions, the way that a rational person would?
Or do you just not have the answers, because you are willfully ignorant?

" hydroelectric lakes that crush through the planet "
WRONG
Lakes don't crush the planet

"oil drilling rigs that let the guts of the planet blow out."
WRONG
Oil is not the "guts" of the planet.

"Time to swing back to the Bible now."
Why would anyone "swing" to a scientifically-illiterate fact-free book of stone-age prehistoric fantasy fiction?

"Space Elevator: 60,000 feet height = 500 feet diameter at base spiral pyramid consisting of 6,000 10 ft. tall blocks x circumference x {block length yet to be determined}. "
1.) 60,000 feet is less than 1/3 of 1/5 (1/15) of the required length
2.) A 500x500 ft Pyramid would be a little more the 1/3 of the required size.
3.) There is no such thing as "spiral pyramid". That is a contradiction in terms.
4.) Pyramids have square bases. Squares are not measured in diameter.
5.) What would the blocks be made of?
6.) how does a tower of blocks meet the definition of an "elevator"?

"A prophecy Jesus gave that actually already came true btw"
No prophecy has ever come true.
There is no such thing as a "true prophecy"

"one in 70 and the second would be worldwide"
This is not a sentence.
This makes no sense.

" The page I gave you is just a piece of the total puzzle."
The page you provided was incoherent nonsensical paranoid delusional schizophrenic raving gibberish.

"All you do is call people names"
It's not considered name calling if every word of it is demonstrably true

"Perhaps your demise will be imaginary."
Is that a threat?

"Today's Economy was designed by COLLEGE PEOPLE."
And it works perfectly beautifully when it works as it was designed to.
But it was destroyed by uneducated ignorant people.

"Two "beasts" in Revelation. One is all the world's governments but the second is "THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST". The United Nations is that image."
I've read the book of Revelations
(I ordinarily prefer Science Fiction, such as HG Wells and Jules Verne to Fantasy, and even then prefer much better fantasy than the Bible, such as the hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, but i was REALLY bored this one night at a hostel in Frankfurt, Germany, and there was nothing else there to read except a bible on the kitchen counter)
I don't recall seeing the word "government" in there anywhere (most of it was written with a sentence structure that is most definitively not standard english language grammar)
And i can also guarantee you with absolute certainty, and without fear of contradiction, that the words "united nations" do not appear in the book of Revelations.
I would recommend that you take an English literature course, as that should teach you (that is presuming that you can, indeed, be taught, which is something that i personally very much doubt myself) how to accurately and correctly interpret numerous multiple various works of fiction.
(if we're very fortunate indeed, it also might have the side effect of exposing you (perhaps for the very first time ever) to the concept of reading something Other than the bible.)

"Who was in charge of your education"
I am.
Just as you are in charge of yours.
which goes quite along way towards explain just exactly how and why it is that your education has completely, totally, and utterly failed in such an oh so very spectacular manner.

"Jesus told his followers when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies they should FLEE INTO THE MOUNTAINS"
That's because Jesus was a pacifist hippy.
Making it all that much more ironic that more people have been killed at more different times throughout history, at more places throughout the world, and in more different savage, brutal and barbaric ways in the name of Christ than of anything else in the known recorded history of the human species on the planet earth.

"The Prophecy came true"
WRONG
Because Jesus's followers did what he told them to do?
That's not a prophecy being fulfilled, thats just people following directions.

I am certain beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that Jesus never once mentioned the United Nations.

"The United Nations claims on its front lawn it will bring World Peace and not God's Kingdom of heaven"
I believe you are making a reference to the Japanese Peace Bell, made out of coins donated by children, on the side of which is inscribed, in Japanese: "世界絶対平和萬歳" ["Long live absolute world peace"].
The bell is housed in a traditional Japanese Cypress Shinot shrine, supported by stone based donated by Israel, and was rung on the Feast Day of Franciscan Saint Francis of Assisi [Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone], to mark the one-year anniversary of Pope Paul VI's visit, on October 4, 1966.

The United Nations is "standing in a holy place"?
So 760 42nd Street and First Avenue in Manhattan, New York City is now a "holy place"?
Since when?

"You can handle a few days of rampaging angels."
Since no such thing as angels exist, there is nothing to rampage, so yeah.

""uneducated ignorant people" who hired COLLEGE PEOPLE. "
No,
Actually, just people who flunked out of colleges, and then lost elections.

"angels...exist in a higher dimension"
There are only four dimensions, three of space, and one of time.
None of the four is any "higher" than any of the others,
and no such thing as angels are possible in any of them.

"The lower dimension is called potting soil"
WRONG
Actually, soil exists in the same four dimensions as we do.
Thanks to a process called decomposition, every dead thing eventually becomes soil.
Most of the dirt that we walk on every day was once living organisms.
Unless you plan on never dying, you will eventually decompose.

"Dirt doesn't know the passage of Time. "
Soil is not sentient.
Dirt does not know anything. (much like yourself)

"Like being deceased, no knowledge of Time passing by"
Death is, by definition the end of life, and therefore the end of consciousness.
so dead people can't have knowledge of anything (much like yourself)

"as per Ecclesiastes 9 verses 5 & 10."
And science

"Bible symbolism"
The Bible is fiction.
Symbolism in fiction is entirely subjective perception

"mountains in Bible Prophecy stands for governments"
where in the bible does it say that?

"Seal up the knowledge by using symbolic language"
what are your delusional schizophrenic ravings symbolic of?

"what the sea really means "
The ocean is made of water, which is made of two hydrogens and one oxygen.
There is no meaning in hydrogen nor oxygen.

"only for real students"
You need to be capable of being educated in order to be considered a student.
So you don't meet that definition.

"The wall coming at you"
A wall made of what?
Coming from where?

" All the water will be pulled out of you"
How?
Where?
When?

"something very important such as this post made this evening I exposed people I had exposed back on 3/16/2011 at 8:16pm"
The link you posted contains no credible information, and so is not a credible source of information.

"I nailed them to either side of Jesus. So they hang their tonight bleeding"
How can you nail people to a dead person?

Totally concur.

Too many absolutes are used within the attacking language daily.
( especially in the MSM which seems to pick out one daily and repeat ad nauseum )

I didn't write the title. Added ??????????

Alright. Then let's stop Corporations/Lobbyists from having Any clout 'whatsoever' with government. Let's All work on that!

I know someone who doesn't like corporations involved in gov. and its NOT the 4th best president in history.

Ha ha had to edit forgot the not. Who is the 4th greatest president in history according to himself of course?

now there is an idea I like.

"Who is the 4th greatest president in history according to himself "
Bush?

"When we face that Fact we then see the need to learn Bible prophecies and learn Jesus really is on the way."
You do realize that using the words "bible" and "fact" in the same sentence just makes you sound foolish, don't you?

"Neither Jesus or his Father will allow men to destroy their property: this planet. That's why the Hadron Collider's circuits melted down when they first turned it on. We should've all been snuffed out by the Hadron Collider. When the Hadron Collider circuitry melted it gave them the proof they needed that God would not allow them to destroy the planet. Prior to that they held it as a theory. The Hadron failed to kill us all, AND VERIFIED THEIR THEORY"
1.) Using the name Jesus in the present tense makes no sense, as Jesus has been dead, buried, and decomposing in a cave somewhere in the israeli desert for thousands of years.
2.) God is not theory. A theory must have evidence. There is no evidence for any god.
3.) The LHC didn't "fail". The LHC was never going to destroy the planet, if for no other reason than because there was no way that it ever could have.

"It also explains why men (scientists) keep pushing the self-destruct buttons they know God will not allow them to blow it all to hell."
Actually, we now have the capability to annihilate all known life as we know it from the surface of the earth several dozens, or hundreds, of times over.
In reality (not an especial strength for you, i recognize) at this point, scientists have very little at all to do with it. The fact is that the fate of the human species, and all others known to exist on earth, rests not in the hands of scientists, but politicians, as it the leaders of the world's nations that hold in their hands the commands that will launch the thousands, even tens of thousands, of weapons of mass devastation that the nations of the world have stockpiled and aimed toward one another.

"Like it or not your life hinges on God stopping their efforts, not on them being smart. WE'RE ALL UNDER GOD'S PROTECTION, BOTH BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS."
If that were true, then we would all have been dead a very long time ago, as there has never been any evidence of any kind whatsoever to even so much as suggest that any such thing as a god even exists in any way shape or form at all.

Are you referring to "alexandrek" as being "blank slate"?
No.
I don't think "alexandrek" is religious.

right... Ron paul would also slaughter all the wales in all the oceans and deforest all of north america and fill in the grand canion with coal sludg and blow up Mt Rushmore for the gold underneath it and will drain the great lakes to make room for a golf course and and and you fill in the BS.

I think Paul would settle for letting the timber companies destroy the forests.

But, these are HIS words --- he WOULD completely eliminate, or try to, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

HIS words.

Not mine.

People who buy the timber destroy the forest. Have you ever benefited from Timber?

Under a federal law called the National Forest Management Act, the Forest Service is REQUIRED to manage the nation's forests at a sustainable rate. To wit: "Forest Service must manage for non-timber values, like recreation, range, watershed, wildlife and fishery purposes, but it wasn't until NFMA that these uses were embodied by the forest planning process...."

That means you couldn't wipe out all the trees. The problem was the USFS -- which had a revolving door of managers with the timber Industry and thus was in cahoots with the industry -- was completely ignoring the NFMA because gosh, sustainable forestry was just too much bother. It wasn't until the agency got its butt kicked by a few federal judges that they finally changed their forestry practices.

My point is Ron Paul has come right out and said he would eliminate NEPA, the ESA, the CWA and the CAA. I've never heard him specifically say anything about the NFMA, but based on his near-total antipathy toward environmental laws, I have no doubt he would attempt to scuttle this law too.

Thanks for your response.

And your comment regarding the environment? You don't care? Did you read his stances? They are anti-environment. If you want to see BP and other companies getting away with continuing to toxify the planet and us then I suppose he's your man. And yes, the possibility of absolutely no regulation on companies that pollute which increases our chances of getting cancer does scare me. I know what it is like to lose loved ones to it. It's obvious however, that the tea bagger set and others on all sides can't see through their politics to understand that real people are hurt by such policies.

I've already seen that, I live in a Gulf Coast state. Who was the President letting them get away with it?

"Who was the President letting them get away with it"
Bush

Not Bp, but certainly Katrina. And I never voted for him either.

It was Dick Cheney's policies of deregulation that led to the BP gulf oil spill.
Even though Cheney was never technically President of the United States,
Then again, neither was Bush

Do you really trust the faceless bureaucrats of Administrative Agencies over the Courts (open to the public)?

I get your point, but my feeling is that without regulation (meant to protect us and the environment without prejudice), it would just open up too much room for (as I mentioned) cronyism/lack of fair-practice ethics.
Just a gut feeling and I'm sticking to it. If it doesn't make you uncomfortable, well.. that's your choice, and I support you having your choice. o0

I understand that. I just want to explore that sentiment.

What if the Courts could enforce environmental policy instead of administrative agencies? (let's assume for a moment there is an equivalent mechanism for Court to do that ) Who would you prefer?