Log in

View Full Version : Any strippers want to be on MSNBC?



Pages : 1 [2]

cameron_keys
08-23-2007, 08:35 PM
I'm nearly 100% positive that he's stated the states have the right to legalize abortion. :) I can try to find the link for you :)

I'd love to see it..because on his website he is adamant that abortion should NEVER be allowed under ANY circumstances.

DjLoTi
08-23-2007, 08:58 PM
"But how to do this? Paul is also a fervent federalist, which puts him somewhat at odds with the über-pro-life movement that wants to abolish abortion rights nationwide. "I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue," Paul said in an interview earlier this year. He previously argued that this is necessary to create "a pro-life culture," because federalization "has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric

My pleasure :)

Rinna
08-23-2007, 09:07 PM
Why are you trying so hard to get a stripper to do this?

I'm wondering the same thing? Could it be payment of some kind :thinking:

cameron_keys
08-23-2007, 09:14 PM
"But how to do this? Paul is also a fervent federalist, which puts him somewhat at odds with the über-pro-life movement that wants to abolish abortion rights nationwide. "I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue," Paul said in an interview earlier this year. He previously argued that this is necessary to create "a pro-life culture," because federalization "has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens."



My pleasure :)

Thanks! But this still sounds like he wants this because he thinks people as a whole will agree and make this country pro-life. He doesnt want to leave it alone and let people decide for themselves. He wants people to agree with him.And he thinks that current laws are the only thing preventing that, which is why he wants to change them.

I'm sorry..I know you like this guy and you are more then welcome to have your own opinion of course..but he does NOT seem to have any good intentions for womens rights.

And I'm going to venture a guess that strippers are not exactly stellar citizens in his eyes...and def not in the eyes of the right wing conservatives he is seeking to impress. So having a stripper on the show would not be good for either him or her.

DjLoTi
08-23-2007, 09:30 PM
I don't think he would say there should be a 'pro-life' culture and that the 'people should decide' only because he thinks they would agree with him. That would be foolish for any person to think a majority in every state will think the same. That's quite a stretch. He is a huge advocate for states rights.

He said prostitution was around before the government, so why should the government decide on the issue? Since he doesn't see people in groups, I don't think he has a personal opinion on 'strippers' in particular. I believe he views everyone as an individual. He really drives that home.

hopefully, people can stop playing party politics and get behind the individual as Ron Paul is. Us Ron Paul supporters believe in living what we say. Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians are all rallying behind him because he is truly a man of the people.

He is the only politician running for office that has never received corporate donations, never voted to increase his pay, and voted consistently against the Iraq war and Patriot Act. He has 20 years of record. He also lives by what he believes. He's a republican because he must be... but it's really so much deeper then that.

And trust me, I'm putting my rep down on this statement, that if he becomes president, so many things will change. And I mean good things. I mean all over the world. Oil will no longer be needed. We will figure out a solution to the water crises.

I'm definitely not getting paid, lol. I'm not part of the official campaign.

But truth is, if anyone as knowledgeable on the issues who is so deeply involved in current news/politics that can talk to a community like this, I believe it is me.

I have only known about politics for about 5 months, but when I started learning... I didn't sleep. I researched day and night, learning more and more. Finally I had something I felt was real.

So if you all like the idea, and think it's cool, then maybe you'll get on board. Because it's not an issue of republican/democrat, it's facts and truth and knowledge. He's the best out of all of them, hands down. And any American or citizen of the world should know, I believe, because it is important to society as a whole. So that's why I'm here talking. Because you are society, and I'm reaching out to you.

Lysondra
08-23-2007, 09:38 PM
I don't think he would say there should be a 'pro-life' culture and that the 'people should decide' only because he thinks they would agree with him. That would be foolish for any person to think a majority in every state will think the same. That's quite a stretch. He is a huge advocate for states rights.

He said prostitution was around before the government, so why should the government decide on the issue? Since he doesn't see people in groups, I don't think he has a personal opinion on 'strippers' in particular. I believe he views everyone as an individual. He really drives that home.

hopefully, people can stop playing party politics and get behind the individual as Ron Paul is. Us Ron Paul supporters believe in living what we say. Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians are all rallying behind him because he is truly a man of the people.

He is the only politician running for office that has never received corporate donations, voted to increase his pay, and voted consistently against the Iraq war and Patriot Act. He has 20 years of record. He's a republican because he must be... but it's really so much deeper then that.

And trust me, I'm putting my rep down on this statement, that if he becomes president, so many things will change. And I mean good things. I mean all over the world. Oil will no longer be needed. We will figure out a solution to the water crises.

I'm definitely not getting paid, lol. I'm not part of the official campaign.

But truth is, if anyone as knowledgeable on the issues who is so deeply involved in current news/politics that can talk to a community like this, I believe it is me.

I have only known about politics for about 5 months, but when I started learning... I didn't sleep. I researched day and night, learning more and more. Finally I had something I felt was real.

So if you all like the idea, and think it's cool, then maybe you'll get on board. Because it's not an issue of republican/democrat, it's facts and truth and knowledge. He's the best out of all of them, hands down. And any American or citizen of the world should know, I believe, because it is important to society as a whole. So that's why I'm here talking. Because you are society, and I'm reaching out to you.


He is not seriously promising that, is he? HAHAHA.... *dies*

DjLoTi
08-23-2007, 09:52 PM
No, he's not. But I know about technology probalby more then he does.

The technology is available right now. I have personally talked to Dennis Lee, a member of the international inventors hall of fame.

One of the reason it is so hard for alternative technology to advance is the massive amount of oil subsidies the oil companies receive. Surely you've heard about the major oil companies getting huge tax breaks. Yeah, that's what that means.

Why is it we can make phone calls around the world for free via internet, but our cell phones haven't caught up to that technology? Here's a few reasons why:

- No government or corporation can keep up with the exponential rate of growth in technology
- We have the technology to create free energy. But if we do that, who makes money? Not the corporations. That is why it is not embraced.

A perfect example of #2 is why is the USA lagging behind internet speeds and capabilities of other industrialized nations? Because the upgrade of 56k to broadband was so large, all the customers were satisfied. No reason to increase the service at a cheaper price with so many satisfied customers.

He is against the oil subsidies and against government assistance with large corporations. The lobbyists lobby the government to pass laws that protect the company and not the American citizen. This happens entirely to much, and is one reason why people can barely afford heath care.

I know more about technology then a lot of people ( I am a weather man, science is one of my things). Dennis knows more then 99% of the people on the planet. I am fully confident that if the free market was embraced, and companies stopped receiving these massive subsidies from the government, we would see a boom in the alternative technology sector.

Lysondra
08-23-2007, 09:59 PM
No, he's not. But I know about technology probalby more then he does.

The technology is available right now. I have personally talked to Dennis Lee, a member of the international inventors hall of fame.

One of the reason it is so hard for alternative technology to advance is the massive amount of oil subsidies the oil companies receive. Surely you've heard about the major oil companies getting huge tax breaks. Yeah, that's what that means.

Why is it we can make phone calls around the world for free via internet, but our cell phones haven't caught up to that technology? Here's a few reasons why:

- No government or corporation can keep up with the exponential rate of growth in technology
- We have the technology to create free energy. But if we do that, who makes money? Not the corporations. That is why it is not embraced.

A perfect example of #2 is why is the USA lagging behind internet speeds and capabilities of other industrialized nations? Because the upgrade of 56k to broadband was so large, all the customers were satisfied. No reason to increase the service at a cheaper price with so many satisfied customers.

He is against the oil subsidies and against government assistance with large corporations. The lobbyists lobby the government to pass laws that protect the company and not the American citizen. This happens entirely to much, and is one reason why people can barely afford heath care.

I know more about technology then a lot of people ( I am a weather man, science is one of my things). Dennis knows more then 99% of the people on the planet. I am fully confident that if the free market was embraced, and companies stopped receiving these massive subsidies from the government, we would see a boom in the alternative technology sector.

Yes you can get that. Phones are now capable to pick up public wifi making calls free. I have it on my phone. HELL, I have it on my Nintendo DS!

Free energy? FREE? Are you saying there's actually a source for free perpetual energy? The law of physics is you can only get an equal but opposite reaction. To CREATE energy, you have to MAKE energy. With water. With wind. With substances that can contribute to energy. Either way, it's not 'free'.

You can't promise all these things. You also can't promise me that Mr. Pauly boy isn't going to suddenly change his mind on how oil is used in the country when Mr. OilMan has decided that lining the president's pockets is fun and profitable.

Oil will still need to be used NO MATTER WHAT. You can significantly cut it down with green energy, hydroelectric cars and various other things - but it will never be free and it will never stop being needing for a long time to come.

DjLoTi
08-23-2007, 10:17 PM
It's called zero point energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_energy

Though it may not be widely available and practical, certainly eventually it will be. Also, with the implementation of the golden radio formula ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio ) the rate in growth of technology will grow far faster then humans have ever experienced.

I know about phones picking up wifi, does that apply to international calls as well? I just heard about that with T-mobile. lol

But.. oil will run out eventually. That'll make life hard. Water will run out about 25-50 years later. That will make the entire planet fall into chaos. Couple that with climate change, and we certainly need to evolve in the technology sector. I mean, why haven't we had a major technological advance in the automobile in the past 50 years?

However, you are correct. I shouldn't make such promises. I will say I honestly believe my statements, and a Ron Paul presidency will help accelerate the market especially for smaller-cap, up and coming, and innovative companies/technologies. Ron Paul has also never accepted corporate donations for over 20 years, never voted to increase his pay, always gave a portion of his salary back to the US treasury, so I don't think he really cares how rich he or his buddies are. Unlike GW and Cheney.. heh

Minette
08-24-2007, 10:49 AM
I think someone said on another thread that he's Mormon? In which case, I wanna know how he feels about the gays.

cameron_keys
08-24-2007, 10:53 AM
I think someone said on another thread that he's Mormon? In which case, I wanna know how he feels about the gays.

Ron Paul circa 2004:

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] … In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]

I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.

[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Yekhefah
08-24-2007, 11:43 AM
DjLoTi wins this month's award for Most Entertaining Poster. :D

doc-catfish
08-24-2007, 12:02 PM
Is this thread officially poo?

cameron_keys
08-24-2007, 12:39 PM
Is this thread officially poo?

Yes i believe it is

Katrine
08-24-2007, 12:57 PM
Meh, I won't be mean to the OP. He means well. Just keep in mind, dancing onstage at your buddy's show has absolutely NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH to do with being employed as a real stripper.

Mastridonicus
08-24-2007, 01:48 PM
Meh, I won't be mean to the OP. He means well. Just keep in mind, dancing onstage at your buddy's show has absolutely NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH to do with being employed as a real stripper.

This totally sounds like a job for me then.

DjLoti, if you want to see me shake the FUPA my momma gave me on your guy's show...Hit me up!

Paris
08-24-2007, 02:30 PM
Now if I was a hot ladie.... then it'd be different. hah

Not really. You'd still have to dance for undesirable men (most of the time). It's all an act. We get turned on by money, not the customer himself.

Sorry for the threadjack.

DjLoTi
08-24-2007, 07:02 PM
Haha, yeah when I realized I'd actually have to dance in order to make a living, and I would *have* to dance almost daily, I kind of got turned-off to the idea. I mean, I can dance really good, and I dance like a stripper anyway, and I make money in the clubs every now and then..

But if I was a woman I would be more secure with my image as a stripper. As a male, I don't feel so secure about it. I'd only be able to entertain men, because if I entertained women I'd judge myself too much. However, if I was a woman, I think I'd be able to have more confidence in myself to take it strictly as a job and be confident I look good. Also, it's just easier not to feel anything with the idiot guys in the club. hah. But with women... I just can't stop having feelings for them. I love women. It just wouldn't work. Plus I'd have to look perfect, which I don't, and since I have a weird perception of aesthetics, art, and beauty, I'd have to make it a busy full-time lifestyle. I didn't want to take the fun out of things I loved.

My friends played at the biggest rock club in San Antonio at the time, they headlined, packed the house, played almost every weekend, and I danced and stripped on stage everytime, as well as more extreme performances, such as jumping directly up and landing on my side, jumping from stage into the mosh-pit (occasionally falling head-first on the concrete floor), constantly slam-dancing and performing in the mosh pit.. that's about it, but it was very extreme dancing, and took lots of energy out of me. It's not like I was like, "oh... snap ya fingaz!" lol

anyway

Ron Paul on gay marriage: He thinks the government should get out of marriages. He says marriages have lasted longer then government, so why should it be a governmental issue?

Here's a youtube vid of him explaining the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg (go to 11:35)

Paul: "I want to protect the freedom of contract, which is one of the elements in a free society that's crucial. It's free contract is similar to the free association of two individuals in the social sense, the sexual sense, religious sense, you (government) don't want to interfere. "
...
VP of Google: "So clearly then your position on issues like, gay marriage, you'd be supportive of that?"

Paul: "I'm supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call it what you want"

VP: "So, prostitution, contract, fine?"

Paul: "You know, I think that's been around a long time, and they haven't been able to stamp that out. (applause) I wouldn't be having the prostitution police energized from Washington"

Djoser
08-24-2007, 07:31 PM
He's for the people, sure--unless you are a woman who wants control over her own body, that is.

Why must women lose all rights at conception? Because in the eyes of this sort of 'public servant', women are breeding machines to be controlled at all costs, when it comes down to it.

And any woman appearing on this show will be publicly butchered. It should pay a lot of money for this reason alone.

But who cares? I feel a sudden urge to go dance and show my penis to strange women...

DjLoTi
08-24-2007, 07:36 PM
He wants to leave it up to the states, because as strongly as you feel about pro-choice, there are many other people who feel just as strongly that abortion is murder. There's really no middle compromise, unfortunately.

So, if it depends on the states, not only does that allow states to make it legal, but it allows other states to make it illegal. It also provides the opportunity for states to progress from pro-life to pro-choice as social culture and perceptions change in those respective states.

I don't think the woman going on the show will be butchered. I'll be sure to post the YouTube after it airs next week :)

Hell yeah it's Friday night! Have fun!

Lysondra
08-25-2007, 01:12 AM
He's for the people, sure--unless you are a woman who wants control over her own body, that is.

Why must women lose all rights at conception? Because in the eyes of this sort of 'public servant', women are breeding machines to be controlled at all costs, when it comes down to it.

And any woman appearing on this show will be publicly butchered. It should pay a lot of money for this reason alone.

But who cares? I feel a sudden urge to go dance and show my penis to strange women...

I like you more now.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 01:16 AM
Damn I'm throwed. Haha. I had a killer show. Yeah I'll post the link up of youtube of the interview on msnbc. Mush respect to all of u peace i'm out


hahaha i'm so glad 2 bring u ppll together haha well ok my internet is wak so now 4sho i'm out peace

Melonie
08-25-2007, 06:49 AM
Free energy? FREE? Are you saying there's actually a source for free perpetual energy? The law of physics is you can only get an equal but opposite reaction. To CREATE energy, you have to MAKE energy. With water. With wind. With substances that can contribute to energy. Either way, it's not 'free'.

well, not exactly ! The discovery of nuclear fission certainly threw a curve ball into the 'classical' view of practical energy sources 70 years ago.

Arguably, there are at least a couple of similarly revolutionary discoveries on the table today. Among these are the Aharonov-Bohm effect, which garnered the discovering physicists a Nobel prize nomination - but which has been totally ignored in terms of mainstream practical research re electrical generation. Yet another is Philo Farnsworth's Fusor and positive energy coefficient vacuum tubes using radioactive metal plates. Another is Brown's Gas i.e. an electrolyzed water (hydrogen poissoir) 'fuel additive' that repeatably produces far more BTU's at the tip of a torch than are contained in the basic fuel gas being burned.





The latter is of particular interest since the Chinese are now taking a serious interest. Western gov'ts have offered no support whatsoever, and have complicated the issue by their opposition to the granting of patents (which are necessary to attract private investment capital). Variations on the Brown's Gas theme are 100mpg via adding Brown's Gas to carburetors / fuel injection etc.

Historically, from the time of Nicola Tesla (who also invented crackpot technologies like AC electricity and flourescent lights) and certainly from the time of Philo Farnsworth (who also invented another crackpot technology called television by the way !), the 'west' has poo-poo'd any such lines of research as they would immediately threaten the status quo of western society's established power base. Almost without exception, these scientific discoveries are undeniable. However, by 'sheer coincidence', when the researchers then attempt to develop hardware to turn these discoveries into functioning practical devices that would fundamentally undermine established industries (and thus established power structures), they all seem to develop sponsorship problems / financial problems / health problems.



He wants to leave it up to the states, because as strongly as you feel about pro-choice, there are many other people who feel just as strongly that abortion is murder. There's really no middle compromise, unfortunately.

It is also my understanding of Ron Paul's position on abortion that, beyond his personal opinion, his public opinion is that federal abortion laws ... like every other federal gov't regulation power that was not specifically granted to the federal gov't under the US constitution ... are illegal on constitutional grounds. Therefore any gov't authority to regulate abortion ( as well as the authority to regulate a whole lot of other things that were not specifically delegated to the federal gov't by the US constitution) is NOT the province of the federal gov't but of the individual states. Thus if NY and CA want to make abortion 100% legal , whereas TX and AL want to make abortion 100% illegal, it should be left up to the voters of those states to decide.

Along similar constitutional lines, Ron Paul's quote '1913 was a VERY bad year' says it all (look it up if you don't already know the connection)!

doc-catfish
08-25-2007, 08:29 AM
there are many other people who feel just as strongly that abortion is murder. There's really no middle compromise, unfortunately.
I disagree. Its perfectly within bounds to suggest that something is morally wrong, but despite that one feels that way, that its even more morally wrong to use government power (at ANY level or by ANY branch of government) to push one's strongly held beliefs upon the entire populace, even by democratic means.

Yekhefah
08-25-2007, 08:34 AM
^^^ I'm pro-choice so I agree, but if you truly believed that abortion was the murder of a child, this would not be a tenable position. Wouldn't you find it abhorrent if I said, "I believe that dismembering toddlers is morally wrong, but the government shouldn't intervene when people do it"?

Most anti-choicers do not actually believe that abortion is equivalent to murdering a toddler, but plenty do. And it's not really fair to expect them to stay out of a situation they see as a massacre.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 09:02 AM
Damn Melonie you are sexxxie ...... hahah know about Nicola Tesla and everything... hell yeah..... hell yeah

I'm sure you know the government illegally raided Nicola Tesla's home after he died, stole all his work, and still refuse to hand papers over to his family. There's really know telling how far we'd be technologically if the government hadn't stolen his revolutionary work..... :( sigh.... :(


I disagree. Its perfectly within bounds to suggest that something is morally wrong, but despite that one feels that way, that its even more morally wrong to use government power (at ANY level or by ANY branch of government) to push one's strongly held beliefs upon the entire populace, even by democratic means.

I totally agree. Ron Paul mentions about protecting the minority, because he says it's not fair that the majority can rule the minority. I'm ... uh... a little lazy plus I have a music event to do this morning but I can elaborate more on this later

Melonie
08-25-2007, 09:49 AM
There's really know telling how far we'd be technologically if the government hadn't stolen his revolutionary work

Absolutely no question about that ... according to one of Tesla's assistants -

"Another one of his great inventions was the electric car. He built the first one in 1897 and he drove from New York City to Buffalo, New York and it had an average speed of 94 miles an hour. This car, if it was built today, would cost one-cent a mile to operate and it would cost practically nothing for repairs because apart from the mechanical parts, that is to say the wheels and the steering apparatus where they would compose the only moving parts, the engine in this electric car is a small alternating current motor which runs at the tremendous speed of thirty thousand rpm and this is reduced to eighteen hundred by means of a fluid transmission, also the invention of Tesla. The whole electric car is a magnificent piece of work and it could be put in use today and save the public hundreds of billions of dollars now wasted in gasoline and oil and spare parts. I could give a few details about this electric car. You see, it does not use a storage battery. It uses the special primary battery and if you know anything about primary batteries you'll know that the only part of a primary battery which fails is the negative plate. Any little dry cells you use for your flashlight, for instance, is the zinc which gives way, and when that gives way the battery goes dead.

Well now, Tesla invented a completely new kind of primary battery and in this primary battery, if the negative plate wears out, it can be replaced even by a child in a few seconds. And the battery, when installed in this electric car, will run that car five hundred miles before the battery needs to be attended to. And when the battery does need to be attended to it would take you ten minutes to remedy whatever is going on and the spare parts are all in the trunk. You have enough spare parts to keep that battery running twelve months of the year. You do not have to stop at the service station. You could run five hundred miles for instance at seventy five miles per hour, if you were allowed to do it of course, but you could run this car say fifty or sixty miles an hour right across the country and probably not have to stop more than fifteen minutes to attend to the batteries.

Well, some time in the future somebody will no doubt build this Tesla electric car but it will be when we have no more fuel oil or gasoline? I don't know how long the present oil supply will last. It certainly will not last forever so, we will have to have other means of transportation. Would it be by the Tesla electric car?" from



I'm sure you know the government illegally raided Nicola Tesla's home after he died, stole all his work, and still refuse to hand papers over to his family.

as far as the true reason that Tesla's apartments and personal belongings were 'gone through' (with many items arguably confiscated) by the O.S.S. upon his death in 1943, the 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you this is it !



from a 1040 NY Times article ...

"The beam, he states, involves four new inventions, two of which already have been tested. One of these is a method and apparatus < section not legible eliminating the need for a "high vacuum;" a second is a process for producing "very great electrical force;" third is a method of amplifying this force, and the fourth is a new method for producing "a tremendous repelling electrical force." This would be the projector, or the gun of the system. The voltage for propelling the beam to its objective, according to the inventor, will attain a potential of 80,000,000 volts.

With this enormous voltage, he said, microscopic electrical particles of matter will be catapulted on their mission of defensive destruction. He has been working on this invention, he added, for many years and has made a number of improvements on it. "(snip)

today we call this technology a particle beam weapon !

http://www.teslainc.com/gallery/d/4106-1/td_tower02.jpg


note : this picture was taken in 1903, the same year that the Wright Brothers first flew. The Wardenclyffe tower wasn't actually completed until 1904.

Also note that the laboratory building only comes up to the first 'rung' of Tesla's 187 ft tall Wardenclyffe Tower !


With all of the 'stories' surrounding Tesla's less mainstream work, one really has to question whether these are the ravings of a crackpot (as the US gov't and mainstream media would have us believe), or whether Tesla was so far ahead of his time that extremely few people could even begin to grasp the types of things he was experimenting with ...

(snip)"The mechanism behind Tesla's death ray is not well understood. It was apparently some sort of particle accelerator. Tesla said it was an outgrowth of his magnifying transformer, which focused its energy output into a thin beam so concentrated it would not scatter, even over huge distances. He promoted the device as a purely defensive weapon, intended to knock down incoming attacks -- making the death ray the great-great grandfather of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

It is not certain if Tesla ever used the death ray, or indeed if he even succeeded in building one. But the following is the often-related story of what happened one night in 1908 when Tesla tested the foreboding weapon.

At the time, Robert Peary was making his second attempt to reach the North Pole. Cryptically, Tesla had notified the expedition that he would be trying to contact them somehow. They were to report to him the details of anything unusual they might witness on the open tundra. On the evening of June 30, accompanied by his associate George Scherff atop Wardenclyffe tower, Tesla aimed his death ray across the Atlantic towards the arctic, to a spot which he calculated was west of the Peary expedition.

Tesla switched on the device. At first, it was hard to tell if it was even working. Its extremity emitted a dim light that was barely visible. Then an owl flew from its perch on the tower's pinnacle, soaring into the path of the beam. The bird disintegrated instantly.

That concluded the test. Tesla watched the newspapers and sent telegrams to Peary in hopes of confirming the death ray's effectiveness. Nothing turned up. Tesla was ready to admit failure when news came of a strange event in Siberia.

On June 30, a massive explosion had devastated Tunguska, a remote area in the Siberian wilderness. Five hundred thousand square acres of land had been instantly destroyed. Equivalent to ten to fifteen megatons of TNT, the Tunguska incident is the most powerful explosion to have occurred in human history -- not even subsequent thermonuclear detonations have surpassed it. The explosion was audible from 620 miles away. Scientists believe it was caused by either a meteorite or a fragment of a comet, although no obvious impact site or mineral remnants of such an object were ever found.

Nikola Tesla had a different explanation. It was plain that his death ray had overshot its intended target and destroyed Tunguska. He was thankful beyond measure that the explosion had -- miraculously -- killed no one. Tesla dismantled the death ray at once, deeming it too dangerous to remain in existence. "(snip) from


Of course the same 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the US Gov't has done more with Tesla's notes, documents and models which they removed from his apartment after his death than simply stick them in a basement at the Smithsonian for the past 60 years ...



~

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 10:47 AM
Wow, what an interesting article. Thanks for your replies.

You can only imagine that, in 1897, if he was able to build the electric car with such capabilities, that over 100 years later we should have reached and also greatly surpassed his level of inventions.

However, there is much more that we have not advanced upon, though the level which we have is certainly much greater then what we currently accept as 'advanced'. When the golden ratio is exposed, the limits most likely will be relatively endless, so far as to possibly creating wormhole-like 'teleportation' (no better word for it lol) by utilizing a '3rd dimension' in space. It's much easier to explain IRL then by typing.

If you'd like to learn more about Nikola Tesla, check this out: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/tesla.htm

It's the FBI's official documented report from 1943. It's in PDF format, and part 1 is 156 pages, so it actually froze up on me. I'd either have to 1-get better RAM or 2-close everything I'm running, but according to the little I did see on part 1, there's 223 pages of documentation, so that would mean part 2 is only about 70 pages, so that might load easier.

Also, being a weather man myself (as my 'real' job), I am fully aware of the technology being developed for weather and ionosphere manipulation. The US government says it's not a weapon, however it could be used as such. What is being developed will remove the protections of the ionosphere and essentially 'cook' by any 'hole' that is created. Very dangerous terrortory.

And we're still wondering why we can only get 18 MPG?

Melonie
08-25-2007, 11:05 AM
^^^ thanks, I'll do that. Of course there is also speculation that 'foreign' agents got to Tesla's apartment before the FBI/OSS agents did, thus America only got the leftovers from Tesla's treasure trove of scientific research !

Back to the topic of this thread, the real point here is that there are arguably at least a handful of 'unexplored' technologies out there with great promise in providing alternatives to our oil/gasoline based society ... where the basic research has led to very promising conclusions ... but where the first attempts to take the step from scientific discovery to practical application have arguably been suppressed / sabotaged. This has been going on for at least the past 100 years. It also arguable that Ron Paul is the only politician who would even consider bucking the oil and gas industry + the auto industry + the electric utility industry and actively promote these 'unexplored' technologies.

This very month a new 'free energy' engine design is being tested. We'll see how far this development effort proceeds before it mysteriously 'disappears' like so many predecessors.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 11:19 AM
I will definitely stay tuned and see how it develops :) I'll also check out the other inventors you mentioned, as I knew of Nikola Tesla but do not extensively know of the other inventors you mentioned. Look forward to seeing what happens this month :)

And yes, I would argue Ron Paul is the only politician (certainly that is running for president, both parties included) that would end the governments 'tax-breaks' and other benefits these industries receive. What's so great about Ron Paul? He actually has a chance! lol

To another question earlier I saw as I was looking over this thread, Ron Paul is not a Mormon, he's .... like a Christian or something. haha ( I don't follow religion much )

BrunetteGoddess
08-25-2007, 11:27 AM
Like I said in another thread....

I don't think RP will win because he's too real and makes too much sense ::) It seems this country would rather do anything than make sense, so RP looks scary to them. I know logically this might not make sense, but then again I don't understand this country at all!

So even if RP has to run as the independent candidate (assuming he doesn't have the choice to run as the Repub candidate, and has the funding to run as an Independent) I will vote for him anyways. And so will my husband.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 11:37 AM
The idea is to reach out to people and make a difference yourself :) An example of that is me coming here talking about him hahaha

Me personally, will do everything I can to get him elected. I started the internet radio station, and I'm currently working on some major, major projects that will gain national and possibly international news. It's one of my goals to change the world for the better, and now that I have the opportunity, I'm doing everything I can to make a difference.

If anyone would like to do that, they are welcome to as well :) Just make sure to register republican and vote in the primaries, because that's when the vote really matters.... in about 5-6 months from now.

BrunetteGoddess
08-25-2007, 11:45 AM
When exactly is the election?

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 11:56 AM
The presidential election is next year, dec I believe. The primary elections happen early next year, from Iowa starting in Jan to the last ones I think in feb or march.

If you tell me what state you live in, I can look up the primary info for you.

The primary vote is really the important one. That's when they decide who is the 'one' republican and democrat running for president. That's what we're trying to win first... that's the next major major goal... with lots of other smaller goals in between, but that (right now) is so far the ultimate goal of the campaign.

actually you can go to http://www.primarilypaul.com/ron-paul-in-the-primaries/ to find out when the primaries are. It's a new website, but soon he'll have the information on when the last day to register republican will be to vote for him in your state

BrunetteGoddess
08-25-2007, 12:01 PM
The site says "Cannot be found".

I'll PM you my location.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 12:08 PM
Yeah I fixed the link... wrong link. My bad

Also, 'Closed' means you have to register republican. 'Open' means you don't have to register republican to vote for him. But, the ever-changing and complicated rules makes it a good idea to register anyway.

This also goes for anybody who wants to vote for anybody in the primaries, democrat or republican.

hardkandee
08-25-2007, 12:14 PM
But truth is, if anyone as knowledgeable on the issues who is so deeply involved in current news/politics that can talk to a community like this, I believe it is me.

What does that mean?

And the election is Nov. 4th, 2008. (Always the first Tuesday of November unless the 1st is Tuesday.)

BrunetteGoddess
08-25-2007, 12:21 PM
Thanks HK, I was asking about the primaries too. DJLoti has been very helpful.

BrunetteGoddess
08-25-2007, 12:22 PM
Ack! I forgot I won't be in this state by the time primaries are held, but it looks like the state I'll most likely be in has the same primary date.

cameron_keys
08-25-2007, 12:24 PM
What does that mean?

And the election is Nov. 4th, 2008. (Always the first Tuesday of November unless the 1st is Tuesday.)

Yeah..I find it odd that someone who is "so knowlegable" doesnt know when presidential elections are....
no offense...

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 12:53 PM
What does that mean?

It means that at the time (Tuesday) that this forum was posted on RonPaulforums.com, I felt that (since I know most of the people there, and nearly everyone knows me) I would be the most qualified person from that website to come here and talk about him

As far as not knowing when the presidential elections is, yeah, I don't know (but now I know, thanks! :) ), but really, I don't care. The presidential election doesn't matter unless Ron Paul can win the Primaries. So all I care about is winning the primaries.

I know about the issues, and I know about current events, and I know about lots of news going on in reference to the government, but I don't know everything. I've really only been following politics for 3-4 months.

Also, at the time the primaries are held, if you're out of state I believe you'll need to cast an absentee ballot. I don't believe you can vote in the other state.

Melonie
08-25-2007, 06:53 PM
I don't think RP will win because he's too real and makes too much sense It seems this country would rather do anything than make sense, so RP looks scary to them. I know logically this might not make sense, but then again I don't understand this country at all!

Believe it or not, the logic is there ... but the mainstream media makes it a huge point not to talk about it ! It makes a lot of sense for the 'rich and powerful' to continue the status quo i.e. cashing in on the energy industry. In general, republican types are cashing in old school (i.e. Halliburton, Exxon Mobil) while democrat types are cashing in new school (i.e. wind farms and ethanol distilleries). Govt's in general are cashing in big time on gasoline taxes. Bankers and financiers of both persuasions are cashing in big time on 'petrodollar' recycling as well as on financing of wind farms / nuclear plants / natural gas generating stations etc. Gov'ts are also cashing in on the 'fixed' energy industry i.e. natural gas, power plants etc. via gross receipts / excise taxes on the sale of natural gas / electricity etc.

The LAST thing that any of them want is for some 'upstart' to develop a relatively simple and relatively affordable alternative energy technology that does NOT run along the lines of the existing industry / power structure / tax structure. This is why there has been a lot of support for ethanol, since it runs exactly along the lines of existing industry, since it is taxed in the same manner, and since it is by definition limited to 10% of the total liquid energy market (leaving the other 90% unthreatened).

This is also the reason that there has been zero support (other than lip service) for the development of new types of high efficiency batteries, zero support for the development of new types of electric generators (that don't require billions of dollars in order to construct one generating plant i.e. nuclear power), new types of engines and motors etc.

Check out for a fairly accurate summary.

Check out for a list of promising technologies. The 'tin foil hat' crowd will tell you that the Adams Magnetic Motor probably offers the most promising alternative technology in terms of practical applications --->

~

Minette
08-25-2007, 11:35 PM
Awesome! I am so glad this man is for liberty and individual rights. Personally, I hope his campaign fails miserably - the last thing I want is another right wing, pro-life, homophobic, jesus-freak running the country. We've already got some of those, and we've seen how well that's going. Thank you Cameron, for looking that and the abortion stuff up. :)


Ron Paul circa 2004:

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman[.] … In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act[.]

I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction.

If I were a member of [a state] legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system.

[I]f federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 11:40 PM
We all have our own opinions :)

Mine is, there's no one running for president that'll really fix all the real problems we have.

At least, check out some youtube videos of all the candidates and figure out which one is best for you.

Respect!

Minette
08-25-2007, 11:53 PM
Just to throw this out there - I'm not going to argue the possibility that Tesla came up with some kinds of technology that the government stole - it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility. However, just on the geological front. There has actually been plenty of evidence that the Tunguska impact was caused by either an asteroid fragment or a comet, including non-earth carbons and other minerals. I personally go for the asteroidal theory rather than the cometary one. Not to bring down Tesla, but space stuff is way too cool to let a human get credit for an impact. Geology nerds forever!





On June 30, a massive explosion had devastated Tunguska, a remote area in the Siberian wilderness. Five hundred thousand square acres of land had been instantly destroyed. Equivalent to ten to fifteen megatons of TNT, the Tunguska incident is the most powerful explosion to have occurred in human history -- not even subsequent thermonuclear detonations have surpassed it. The explosion was audible from 620 miles away. Scientists believe it was caused by either a meteorite or a fragment of a comet, although no obvious impact site or mineral remnants of such an object were ever found.
~

DjLoTi
08-25-2007, 11:55 PM
Do you have a source of proof that the impact left geological evidence? Because I couldn't find any.

Minette
08-25-2007, 11:58 PM
Do you have a source of proof that the impact left geological evidence? Because I couldn't find any.

My geology textbooks, just for starters. Also, if you google Tuskanga Event and throw in some words like asteroidal or cometary particles - you should come up with something pretty quickly.

DjLoTi
08-26-2007, 12:06 AM
I'm totally going to look everywhere and I'll post what I find ;)