I resent ECF's campaign regarding the New Mexico State Rep. Liz Thompson

[Davey59]

Do you know where all the temperature sensors they use are located? Do you know when they were installed? Do you know what a heat island is?
If I put a sensor at an airport that is in the middle of nowhere and then years later urban sprawl causes the airport to be in the middle of a highly populated area, the sensor readings are affected.

Oh, that tired old the debate is over BS. Ignore the verified falsification of temperature readings that they ALL USED because it is an inconvenient truth.

What the hell does that have to do with this privately owned forum exercising it's right to do with what it wants with it's asset? I suppose I would not want to address that one either. Some have, yet followed by a but...................

I know! the problem MUST be we don't pay enough taxes! correction that guy over there doesn't pay enough!


This is pure misdirection.

Edit: not directed at Smann245 at all.

 

[beckdg]

That was exactly my point. The term science denial was used as if all information is known and all questions answered and anyone not agreeing with a certain political stance on the subject is just wrong and ignorant of what is supposedly already known to be true. Maybe I was unclear. Thanks for helping to clarify.

It's just tough following this emotional train wreck. You may have been clear. There's just so much going on.

 

[gph61]

Do you know where all the temperature sensors they use are located? Do you know when they were installed? Do you know what a heat island is?
If I put a sensor at an airport that is in the middle of nowhere and then years later urban sprawl causes the airport to be in the middle of a highly populated area, the sensor readings are affected.

Like I've already said, write a paper and overturn the consensus.

Arguing science on internet forums is pointless. Even if every single person on this thread agrees that the firmament exists after all the science still stands

 

[doots]

too bad the mods dont just close this thread. it is pointless.

 

[Vermonster13]

This horse has been whipped into pudding indeed.

 

[beckdg]

Did somebody say pudding?

 

[Vermonster13]

If everyone took a breath and had a nice bowl of pudding they'd realize that arguing amongst ourselves in this place will change nothing no matter how grand the hope. The republic is dead , long live the centralized government of America. Voting as a method of change has fast lost its viability. Those who can afford to run for office and that want them so badly are rarely someone to be entrusted with such power. Left, right or in the middle, matters none, power corrupts and those running tend to have already been started down that road.

 

[Avid]

Did somebody say pudding?

Chocolate and butterscotch, layered, with real whipped cream on top! Sadly, my endo says I can't have stuff like that.
And so I 'fired' him

 

[AndriaD]

Chocolate and butterscotch, layered, with real whipped cream on top! Sadly, my endo says I can't have stuff like that.
And so I 'fired' him

ROFL... like the Dr who diagnosed my asthma told me if I didn't quit smoking, he might have to stop seeing me. I just shrugged and said I'd get another doctor... they're not exactly in short supply.

Andria

 

[plumeguy]

For me the answer is simple. If a candidate is: anti-black, anti-gay, anti-religious, anti-vaping, anti-civil liberties in
general, then they have to go.

One of the lessons from 200+ years of American democracy is that people who do not insist that their rights
are respected will find those rights taken away.

 

[zapped]

I'm thinkin' that Greg must have been addressing you there, zapped.




May be. Or maybe it is just that the more extreme among us have been trained to froth at the mouth more readily than the moderates.





The question then becomes, "why is so hard for you (and your allies) to make that statement without the rest of your diatribe?"

Im pretty sure Greg wouldnt appreciate you putting words in his mouth...especially when he and I seem to be in complete agreement about this issue.........Nice try though. Neither of us are the types of bird that can be killed easily.....much less with one stone.

I agree completely, thats what true moderates have been trying to tell you all along.

Why is it so hard for us to make these statements without the rest of our so-called diatribe?

Because were sick of the abuse and the constant attacks against our freedoms and individuality. We arent going to take it any more. That fact will probably sink home for you in a big way in November.

The truly hilarious thing about all of this is that YOUR little diatribe along with the creation of this thread has actually garnered more support for Thompsons opponent than if you had said nothing at all.

Thank you for that.

 

[Davey59]

too bad the mods dont just close this thread. it is pointless.

I close threads all the time when I don't like them, it's easy

 

[Penn]

...The truly hilarious thing about all of this is that YOUR little diatribe along with the creation of this thread has actually garnered more support for Thompsons opponent than if you had said nothing at all.

Thank you for that.

That part needed to be echoed. On to my own thoughts on the subject.

When I first saw the request for financial support for a candidate I had mixed opinions. On one hand, I agree with the issue the OP PRETENDED to present. This is a vaping advocacy forum the has tried to walk the fine line between advocacy and political support.

On the other hand maybe it is necessary. As others have stated there is a mentality in "progressive" thought that does lead to taxation and restricting people's behavior in a way that differs form their opponents in a very dangerous way (note the acknowledgement of the other side doing some of the same things). The terms "left wing", "liberal", "Democrat" and "progressive" all mean different things (the same as the opposition terms all mean different things) and of those four "progressive" (in quotes since it is actually sociologically regressive unless you consider colony intelligence in insects to be a move forward for humans) is the only one that is dangerous. So if the OP is right that the candidate is truly progressive, that candidate needs to be defeated. Most reading this probably don't even know where the term progressive comes from though and this probably isn't the place to explain that. Those who do probably agree with the written doctrine of accomplishing the true goals of that belief system should never be referred to by their true name and that should tell you a lot about both the dangers and why most don't even know the origin of the movement.

More important on why i was okay with it in the end is the political leaning of this site. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is an intentional leaning (and Greg's views being posted support that belief) and I believe if the powers that be had their eyes opened to the minor and unintentional development of the administration here it would be rectified.

TLDR OR LOST INTEREST - I mentioned the OP "pretending". This thread was clearly not created to voice concern about this forum promoting political support. It was created only because the OP is clearly upset that perceived support is not what he believes.

 

[spartanstew]

You know, I often see bumperstickers that support the opponent of the candidate I support. Do I run over and yank the bumpersticker off? I do not. Do I go up to the car and harangue the driver about their political views? I do not. I just figure they're a total imbecile and go on with my life.

Same thing here exactly. SJ owns this forum, just as that person with the bumpersticker owns his/her car; both are free to shout their political beliefs from the rooftops. It doesn't mean anyone will listen, or agree. It just means they have the right to say what they think.

This entire thread seems to be the equivalent of yanking a bumpersticker you disagree with off a car, or haranguing its owner for being a political imbecile -- a whole lot of getting in someone's face for having views you oppose, and very little just getting on with your own life.

Andria

Sort of.

Except you don't know that person nor do you know if any of your beliefs were the same. Here, the majority have at least one thing in common (the advancement of vaping), so people of this forum that see that "bumper sticker" might think it's the right thing to do without doing their own research regardless of where either candidate stands on other issues. It's not necessarily about a "bumper sticker" for the other candidate, it's about a "bumper sticker" from someone with influence regarding candidates that many know nothing about. More akin to a pastor of a Church telling his congregation to vote for a specific candidate for 1 reason (pick one), even though there might be other reasons that they shouldn't vote for that candidate - and many will blindly follow.

 

[DC2]

Bottom line...

The idea of defeating an anti-vaping advocate under the right circumstances is a very good idea for vaping.
But not so much if that candidate is on your side of the fence.

And with that, I'm done here.

(For the next 10 minutes anyway)

 

[rolygate]

I close threads all the time when I don't like them, it's easy

Hah.

Anyway vaping is political, because whether it is legally allowed to exist or not, or restricted to the point of uselessness, is a political issue right now. Maybe in 50 years it won't be. Although, of course it's about the money, not really someone's 'viewpoint' or ideology - the people with the money pay for the voting seats, otherwise hardly anyone up there would care. They just want to keep their money, is all.

Maybe a good citizen would continue to smoke, given that you pay huge taxes, then get sick and buy expensive meds (to support the poor, downtrodden pharma corporations), then die early and save the state paying your pension or social care or healthcare for elderly etc. Maybe it's our civic duty to smoke. Sure looks like the law feels that way.

But, back to reality: I have strong political opinions but they count for nothing when someone is trying to kill me, or back me into a corner when they have no right to. Don't care what colour their badge is.

OK you pudding whippers - go for it.

 

[DC2]

Sort of.

Except you don't know that person nor do you know if any of your beliefs were the same. Here, the majority have at least one thing in common (the advancement of vaping), so people of this forum that see that "bumper sticker" might think it's the right thing to do without doing their own research regardless of where either candidate stands on other issues. It's not necessarily about a "bumper sticker" for the other candidate, it's about a "bumper sticker" from someone with influence regarding candidates that many know nothing about. More akin to a pastor of a Church telling his congregation to vote for a specific candidate for 1 reason (pick one), even though there might be other reasons that they shouldn't vote for that candidate - and many will blindly follow.

This is true, but...

The very idea of defeating an anti-vaping candidate BECAUSE vapers rose up is something that COULD really help our cause.
If it becomes known that WE did that, it's a great advancement for vapers and vaping.

And it sends a message, if it becomes known that WE did that.

The people that could suffer from this action are those who are under rule by the candidate that wins this election.
Because if this effort works, then it will be outside forces that intervened in a local election.

So the supporters of Liz Thompson will perhaps suffer in New Mexico for this effort.
But it all goes back to the fact that we are on a vaping forum.

Is it fair?
Maybe not.

But I'm just happy it's not MY candidate that I have to question.

I do understand the discouragement of some who are in the area where the election results could matter to them.
And I do have a bit of intellectual discord on that matter.

 

[beckdg]

when someone is trying to kill me

I've been waiting for this to be a topic in this discussion. Seems as if some people hold other priorities higher than life itself. What with all this one topic politics jargon.

Sent from my device.

 

[spartanstew]

This is true, but...

The very idea of defeating an anti-vaping candidate BECAUSE vapers rose up is something that COULD really help our cause.
If it becomes known that WE did that, it's a great advancement for vapers and vaping.

And it sends a message, if it becomes known that WE did that.

Totally agree.

I just would rather the "bumper sticker" listed the platform of both candidates on several different issues and did a better job of informing the forum members so they could make a more educated decision on whether or not they wanted to contribute to the campaign of one over the other.

And yes, I know it's a vaping forum, so that's probably all that matters, and I also know they're free to say anything they want, but I also think the owners/managers/moderators do have a position of influence (with many) and could have done a better job of educating about these particular candidate.

 

[AndriaD]

Sort of.

Except you don't know that person nor do you know if any of your beliefs were the same. Here, the majority have at least one thing in common (the advancement of vaping), so people of this forum that see that "bumper sticker" might think it's the right thing to do without doing their own research regardless of where either candidate stands on other issues. It's not necessarily about a "bumper sticker" for the other candidate, it's about a "bumper sticker" from someone with influence regarding candidates that many know nothing about. More akin to a pastor of a Church telling his congregation to vote for a specific candidate for 1 reason (pick one), even though there might be other reasons that they shouldn't vote for that candidate - and many will blindly follow.

Yeah, I can see what you mean -- but, even if a pastor acts in this way -- and I believe many of them do, actually, with certain other hot-button issues -- that still in no way compels his listeners to act as he decrees, or even as he believes; what's unfortunate is that you're also right that many are not capable of weighing such fraught subjects for themselves, and so will indeed blindly follow where they are led -- the sheep. But sheep get to vote like everyone else, unfortunately.

But, I think what I said is true; SJ is no "pastor," many probably don't even know it's his forum, and as we unfortunately saw with the FDA comments, those here who are actually willing to *do something* other than bellyache and prognosticate are a real minority. Clearly, SJ is willing to *do something* and if the venue he provides also carries his political beliefs, that is his right, and one of the benefits that may accrue to someone who provides a venue such as this -- just like ads. Pastors still pass the plate, last I heard.

Andria