Axiomatic

Just read the one fusion and the sun, the first three quarters of it is a general explanation of how the sun works, then it just says 'but thats not how it happens' and goes on to present its alternative. Not very "Scientific". This may just be complete garbage.

"Ball of lightening"? That does sound absurd. Please provide a link of where the theory states this.

Hmmm, I never heard those quoted arguments. Admittedly I have only watched a couple of documentaries and read on published paper on this, but I don't think PC attempts to refute existing evidence. I will obviously have to read more, but so far I am still intrigued.

Just watched a documentary on E.U. and am quite interested in the theory, especially in relation to Plasma Cosmology. Might have to buy some books on it. I would expect this would get more interest in O'ist circles

Now THAT would be a paty I would go to!

This has to be the most depressingly geeky theme for a party ever....... Whats the address?

I've heard worse nonsense from the mystics than this. That sure was nonsense though.

Appease - pacify: cause to be more favorably inclined; gain the good will of;

Refer to my last question and answer it. Then I will answer yours.

Let me give an example question: If I go on national television with a Libertarian and agree with most of their political views, would you view that as appeasement or not?

You are very picky about wording and fail very well at looking at the meaning of what I say, especially when I elaborate so explicitly. This was my reply to you: "I am not embracing any fallacy, I am saying that sitting down and nodding head with Beck on political issues IS appeasement of his views. Brook IS addressing Beck, don't say that he is not when he most certainly is. Regarding Kelly, yes I understand that he is addressing that particular people at the conference, that was not my point. When Brook goes on Beck, he is more than just addressing an audience, he is addressing political points and agreeing on most of them with Beck himself." I do not mean to say he is guilty by association, I mean to say that he is guilty in as far as he appeases Becks views. I make myself very clear, yet you seem to get hung up on every word I typed and not the meaning behind them. Its quite annoying, especially when I clarify my position so much. Now how about you actually address my most recent reply to you?

I already replied to that. I am not making such a fallacy.

You must elaborate and prove else it is your assertion that is wilfully irrational and fallacious.

No, so what? That is not my point at all.

So what exactly is he going to do in the Senate? Continue to give 'economic predications'? Or does he have a more 'libertarian' platform?

I am not embracing any fallacy, I am saying that sitting down and nodding head with Beck on political issues IS appeasement of his views. Brook IS addressing Beck, don't say that he is not when he most certainly is. Regarding Kelly, yes I understand that he is addressing that particular people at the conference, that was not my point. When Brook goes on Beck, he is more than just addressing an audience, he is addressing political points and agreeing on most of them with Beck himself.

So he has credence and education in economic circles, same thing.

So the podium from which he speak does not matter at all, as long as he speaks the truth? So much for the Peikoff/Kelly debate then, I didn't know we could just drop the whole context. Thanks.

My main concern or question about Schiff is this. Do you need economic advisor's in the Senate? Will it have some benefit? Will it result or support the goals that need to be achieved? This is my basic question.

No, he should stay away from Beck because his agreement on political issues with Beck will actually render him guilty by association. EDIT: Guilty of what you may ask? My answer is political appeasement of the Right.

This begs the question though, what kind of a 'name' is he creating for himself by this association?

It would be interesting to try and come up with an objective list of extreme examples that we could compare. I'd probably pitch Marx against Hobbes Chomsky might go against .....? Might be a good topic for another thread.

As I said earlier I am omitting the extremes because at that stage both sides of the coin are 'hermetically sealed' so to speak. Also, I do not accept your examples. To be fair and objective you should always be comparing like for like and that is a very difficult thing to do with specific individuals. But it has to be said that in general the case of a young (18-25) Socialist vs the young Christian, there is usually no contest as to which is the most rational and able to grasp the fundamentals of logic. All that you generally have to do is strike at the ethics of altruism and work from that basis with the secular Socialist, but with the Christian conservative its a much more complex and difficult task to get through the layers of indoctrination, although in some cases you may even agree with them on some political grounds. But don't be fooled into thinking that they are any closer to your view after after a nice little chat about 'liberty' or 'economics'.

Well, History and Economics are poisoned with Marxism pretty much everywhere these days. Nice one on the blanket psychoanalysing of all socialists by the way. Sure, they 'all' must have 'hermetically sealed minds'.

This was pretty much my whole point. Socialists at least have some logical consistency. That qualifies them as better candidates for rational discourse than any republican or libertard. Many socialists can understand that A leads to B which leads to C.