Liberal, yes. Socialist, no.

Why do you supposed Christians use such hateful words for others. My prayers spared you from hell. Please don't poke the bear CB. You're a good guy Originally Posted by themystic

Just helpin' Speed Racer out, pal, that's all....

And no worries....you're next on my list. In time...by hook or crook....I'll help you see the light. As a confirmed capitalist your eyes will be opened and you'll see The Truth. Trump and Family is innocent of all alleged crimes and Hillary, Comey, and Others-to-be-Named will have their Comeuppance.

So there's yet time remaining for you to repent and join those of us whose eyes (and brains) know Trump was Heaven Sent.

St Peter has his fingers crossed (for you). He's looking forward to granting you admittance thru the Pearly Gates. But don't wait too long...

Tick tock tick tock.....

Biden??

Wait for the upcoming investigation into Collusion with the Government of The Ukraine by the Bidens centering around bribes, nepotism, and favors.

https://canadafreepress.com/article/...isy-in-ukraine

Beto & Kamala Harris will beat Trump Originally Posted by themystic

Beto has too many pending court dates, he won't have time to be president and Kamala Harris along with Bathroom Booker will be brought up on conspiracy charges for assisting Jussie Smollett in his hate crime hoax. The Dems only have first class chumps to go up against Trump.

Whats the use. You don't have the guts to admit it anyway. Originally Posted by Levianon17

To oeb11:
I read the newest Harper's magazine in a public library.
If I could easily link it to others on this board I would have done so.

To oeb11:
I read the newest Harper's magazine in a public library.
If I could easily link it to others on this board I would have done so. Originally Posted by agrarian

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/joe-biden-record/

I read the first half and scanned the rest. It's a hatchet job on Joe Biden. Assuming you agree with the writer, and given that when push comes to shove Beto O'Rourke is going to support fracking, albeit perhaps with more federal regulation, who's left for you as a viable presidential candidate? Really only Bernie Sanders, who says he's a socialist.

Getting back to the topic, based on this and carefully reading your past posts, I believe you suffer from a mental disease, latent socialism. We can fix this. I would propose something like in the movie MASH. This is what a group of educated doctors, who are almost like psychiatrists, did to cure a latent homosexual in the movie. We will put you through a near death experience. When you awake you will be in a well decorated, comfortable room, with Art Laffer and Stephen Moore, who are very affable capitalists. We could have picked LustyLad instead. But I figure kinder-and-gentler beats fire-and-brimstone when it comes to conversion therapy. Art and Steve will gently educate you on the advantages of free market capitalism over socialism.

This is my plan.

Seriously, I may have misjudged, which of the candidates are your favorites? I would be OK with Biden or O'Rourke provided that Republicans retain the Senate. That's certainly preferable to a Sanders or Warren presidency, in which case it would be Adios USA for me.

To oeb11:
I read the newest Harper's magazine in a public library.
If I could easily link it to others on this board I would have done so. Originally Posted by agrarian

Thank You, Sir.

Tiny: "Getting back to the topic, based on this and carefully reading your past posts, I believe you suffer from a mental disease, latent socialism."

I am opposed to excessive socialism, especially as it limits individual economic opportunities. However, I understand that different cultures and regions and societies are, perhaps, better served by a more expansive socialism than the approach the USA takes. If you've visited countries in northern Europe that embrace socialism you might understand that the type of socialism they practice is not some "mental disease." And, just because I'm okay with them doing it doesn't mean I'm okay with us doing it. For someone to term socialism as a mental disease reveals a closed-minded approach to appreciating the desires of other societies. Socialism is far from what we should have, in my opinion, though we currently apply aspects of socialism more broadly than many understand or care to admit.

Thanks for cogent, constructive posts, A.
+1

Tiny: "Getting back to the topic, based on this and carefully reading your past posts, I believe you suffer from a mental disease, latent socialism."

I am opposed to excessive socialism, especially as it limits individual economic opportunities. However, I understand that different cultures and regions and societies are, perhaps, better served by a more expansive socialism than the approach the USA takes. If you've visited countries in northern Europe that embrace socialism you might understand that the type of socialism they practice is not some "mental disease." And, just because I'm okay with them doing it doesn't mean I'm okay with us doing it. For someone to term socialism as a mental disease reveals a closed-minded approach to appreciating the desires of other societies. Socialism is far from what we should have, in my opinion, though we currently apply aspects of socialism more broadly than many understand or care to admit. Originally Posted by agrarian

IT'S A JOKE AGRARIAN. There's no such thing as a disease called latent socialism.

Jeez Tiny, pardon me. I misread the intent and tone of your post.

Jeez Tiny, pardon me. I misread the intent and tone of your post. Originally Posted by agrarian

No problem Agrarian. I'll ditto what oeb11 said, and add you're one of the few posters here on the left who puts some serious thought into his posts. Besides, I thoroughly enjoyed beating up on you in the hydraulic fracturing thread, and I'm sure you'll do the same to me at some point in the future on some other topic.

Tiny: beating up on you in the hydraulic fracturing thread...

Ha. Funny, I must admit I didn't walk away from that exchange thinking you'd beat up on me. Far from it, really. I don't think hydraulic fracturing stands up to any sort of logic except the economic ones. Misplaced priorities in my estimation. But the real focus of that conversation had less to do with fracturing than with green energy, right? My next post will detail subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels. Say, how did the private sector come up with the engineering science behind hydraulic fracturing?

Tiny: beating up on you in the hydraulic fracturing thread...

Ha. Funny, I must admit I didn't walk away from that exchange thinking you'd beat up on me. Far from it, really. I don't think hydraulic fracturing stands up to any sort of logic except the economic ones. Misplaced priorities in my estimation. But the real focus of that conversation had less to do with fracturing than with green energy, right? My next post will detail subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels. Say, how did the private sector come up with the engineering science behind hydraulic fracturing? Originally Posted by agrarian

Be real Agrarian, I knocked you up one side and down the other. Yes, fossil fuels do get ridiculous subsidies, but not so much in the USA and Western Europe as in developing countries. They don't make sense, even if you're a skeptic about global warming. In places like Indonesia and Venezuela where you see subsidies for gasoline and diesel, they represent a subsidy for wealthier citizens, who can afford to buy cars and trucks.

As to the science of hydraulic fracturing, until recently it wasn't worth jack shit. It was based on theoretical models from principals of rock mechanics. The models assumed you had fractures propagating out perpendicularly from the wellbore in the direction of least stress. So at each point along a horizontal wellbore where the operator injected fluid and sand, the thought was that you'd have something like two sheets, small gaps in the rock that you'd prop open with sand, extending in two directions, 180 degrees apart. (This is simplified btw, hard to explain just with text.) More recently they've obtained core data after fracking, where they actually retrieve the fractured rock from the subsurface. It shows it's much messier. The process actually creates rubble around the wellbore.

Anyway, a lot of practices were based on trial and error, using the faulty theoretical model. The companies try different fluids, different concentrations of sand, different quantities of fluids and sand, different pumping pressures, etc., and see how the wells perform.

Tiny, I don't follow exchanges on here as closely as many posting here do, so pardon my failure to comprehend the ass-whooping you administered to me about fracking. I finally went back to that thread and saw this, posted by you:

Agrarian's comments about carbon emissions, which he appears to confuse with air pollution, have more merit, because they potentially effect people outside the Permian Basin. I still disagree, but my arguments aren't as strong.

If I recall, the Supreme Court during Shrub's presidency classified (yeah, the Court doing this sort of thing is awkward) CO2 as a pollutant, correct? In other words, carbon emissions are classified as air pollution. I also stand by my contention that water use and water degradation associated with fracking is immense. It's a huge factor in the fracking sector. I think it's unacceptable. We should reconsider sacrificing air quality and so much water for energy that could be sourced in other ways.