colourwheel

I don't necessarily think anyone as being stupid who have a faith or have a system of beliefs. It's only when people try to make them policy trying to force them onto other people through legislation that gets me. Just imagine if a group of people took over the country who had the "belief" that every one had to wear underwear on their heads. Then imagine the outrage people would have across the country if those people legislated this "belief" into law. Huckabee has the right to believe anything he wants. But as a voice for the republican party such as at the RNC winter meeting, His "belief" that "the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government." was a very inappropriate thing to say. Also isn't something that is going to help the party gain more female voters, in fact it probably turned more away. The republican party has had a huge problem talking about or even talking to women as if they have never talked to women before in their lives... Republicans seriously have to stop talking about womens reproductive systems and their vagina, because every time they do it just turns them away...

Mike Huckabee after all has been talking to every woman he knows with an IQ above broccoli... :laugh: Seems like a pretty low bar he holds on a woman's intelligence, assuming he knows people with IQs that start at a broccoli level. Edit: Shocking News flash!?!... After these demeaning comments from mike Huckabee at the RNC winter meeting seems the GOP has decided to get a "female" spokes person Cathy McMorris Rogers to give the republican response to Obama's state of the union address this year... As if getting a woman nobody knows as their poster child to represent the same policies will change attracting female voters..... maybe they are hoping to lock down the female Broccoli IQ block. :laugh:

Maybe women don't "need" the democratic party. But unless the Republican party all of a sudden fights to protect a womans reproductive rights, pay equity, etc... I don't see the gender gap closing anytime soon for the party... The republicans need to seriously stop "trying" to "rebrand" the party and focus on "reforming" their social policies instead... Throwing a blanket over a pile of dun doesn't make it go away...

I will agree that "one" individual poll is not very conclusive when you can skew the questions in a way to favor one point of view. But if you look at a collection of polls done nationally by many different organizations you can get a clearer picture of what is going on. Polls are not as irrelevant as you may think...

I just read this article where Huckabee was speaking at the RNC winter meeting... http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/mike-huckabee-women-republicans-abortion/2014/01/20/id/548004 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/23/mike-huckabee-s-controversial-remarks-at-rnc.html Democrats want women to think "they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government." - Mike Huckabee Am I getting this correct?... seems he wants to the Republican party to fight to empower women "accepted as equals, for them to be respected as people who are not victims of gender but capable of anything that a man is capable of." yet.... Restrict them of their constitutionally protected reproductive rights? :laugh: Seems to me the Republican party might be on a launch to start off the new year fighting against womans reproductive rights. Do you really think Huckabee thinks this is a "working" strategy to appeal to more female voters? Further more do you really think the democrats are really waging a "war on women"?

You acknowledge her support for the ACA, then immediately contradict that acknowledgement when you state that for the past four years "all that republicans have tried to do is repeal the law". If that is "all that Republicans have tried to do" then what was Martinez doing? Key word "National" office... Here are some quotes to to refresh your memory a bit..... -snip- Key phase "in this entire thread so far"... Seriously lets not derail this thread anymore... posting quote snippets from "past debate threads" is pointless to the topic on hand... If you think Susana Martinez is the republicans hope to win nationally, I guess we can leave it right there for now. Didn't mean to give you such a hard time on the subject... Though it is worth noting, PPP shows Martinez in a hypothetical primary between all the other potential candidates coming in less than 1% but that poll was done in august. So I will give you the benefit of the doubt assuming her numbers have jumped over 20% since august.

If a Republican opposes the ACA you apply labels to them such as "far-right", "extreme", "outside the mainstream", and "too far from center". Now you are presented with a Republican governor who supports the ACA and you condemn them as nonviable for presidential candidacy. This is an illogical contradiction. I never "condemned" anyone for supporting medicaid expansion under the ACA. I actually think what she is doing is great. Was just simply stating that expanding the medicaid program under the ACA law alone most likely "should" disqualify her as a potential candidate from the base of the party since for the past 4 years all that republicans in national office have tried to do is repeal the law. Also you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth when you claim I apply labels such as "far-right", "extreme", "outside the mainstream", and "too far from the center" since I don't recall ever using any of these phases in this entire thread so far till this post... You might not think so, but Chris Christie's approval rating have drastically dropped since the begining of this year... You can call it a "left-wing" spin if you want. Doesn't change the facts, he has had a huge drop in national approval in less than a month. Last month he was one point ahead of Clinton in national approval in some polls.

Republicans in New Mexico did. But......how is that possible?!?! How could the racist sexist republicans elect a Latina to the highest state-level office? Could it be that they looked past her gender and ethnicity and were impressed by her qualifications and platform? Is it possible that Republicans are not the party of bigots that you think they are? In other words, yes I do think the Republican base could (continue to) support a Latina candidate. They have already demonstrated this. All I asked was a question. I wasn't advocating republicans being racist or sexist but seems you have. If the state was impressed by her qualifications and platform it should be noted Susana Martinez is going to expand the Medicaid program in her state based off the new Healthcare law "Obamacare". Right there that should totally disqualify her from the base of the party unless all of a sudden the republican party becomes all for Obama's legacy. “I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in 2008." -Senator Barack Obama It's note worthy back before 2008 the political atmosphere was completely different than it is now a days. Since the citizens united ruling it is almost impossible to expect to even stand a chance to run for national political office unless you have already been doing so for at least the past 2 years before an election day. After Obama won office in 2008 his campaign for re-election actually started the day he was sworn in. Even if Susana Martinez all of a sudden changes her mind she would have a huge uphill battle to compete for campaign money. In my opinion it is already too late. Possibly she could be a vice president nominee, but then even so does she really want to set a precedent for being the 1st Latino female governor to hold office who doesn't finish governing the state she was elected to only to end up abandoning her job unfinished to run for higher office?

Why not? You seriously believe the republican base could get behind a Latino female to be their front runner for president who has no desire to run in 2016 anyways? Every candidate says they are not going to run before announcing their candidacy. Susana Martinez has stated on record that America is over due for a female president then concludes it won't be her. That is a little different than a potential stating they are not "currently" running for president. Her statement was a bit more conclusive and defeating. Publicly it's clear she has no aspirations at all nationally for 2016.

1. Christie is not the only potential GOP candidate. For example, there are currently 29 Republican governors. 2. Hillary Clinton has not been nominated, has not won a primary election, and has not even announced her candidacy. 1. Never said Chris Christie was the "only" potential candidate but he is for sure the only one who would stand a chance in a "hypothetical" race against Clinton if the elections were held today. 2. Chris Christie hasn't been nominated or won a primary election either or even "officially" announced candidacy. But I do know "if" Hillary runs for president she won't even be challenged in a primary let alone worry to lose one if she does run for president. As for Susana Martinez, even though she is Latino and female, I highly doubt she would even be considered as their front runner for 2016 let alone someone the republican base could get behind. Besides she has already publicly ruled out 2016.. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/martinez-white-house-run/2013/11/05/id/534928

As you all may know Chris Christie is the only potential GOP candidate that would stand a chance at beating a hypothetical presidential race against Hillary Clinton if the election were held today. Recently Christie has been flooded with scandals from the 4 day traffic jam of the George Washington bridge for political retribution, the misuses of Storm Sandy aid for a TV commercial used as a political campaign ad, and political corruption denying Sandy relief money to a city unless redevelopment plans would resume for a private developer. Christie is right now being flanked on all fronts of the political spectrum as well as with in his own party... Can Chris Christie survive all of these scandals going on at the same time and still keep his presidential aspirations in check? or is he completely finished politically? Further more if not Chris Christie for President, then who can the GOP turn to who would actually stand a chance for a national win in 2016?

Fear is an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain or a threat. To try to eliminate or tame "fear" as if it is some sort of social ill is like trying to tame any other emotion. Fear is not a bad thing. To be fearful is to be mindful. Fear is just another thing that makes one human or even more so just living. Fear is just another thing to remind us that we are "alive"...

Newton's Laws are not wrong... Just because Newton himself acknowledged that they were incomplete does not prove they are wrong or broken... For instance, Newton's law of gravity is not wrong, in macroscopic scales and at relatively low speed it predicts the movement of objects accurately. However, objects at microscopic scale near the speed of light will have to take into account time dilation, and General relativity helps describe these. Einstein tried to prove Newton was wrong but it doesn't break his laws, it only changed it to take into account to be applied at high speeds and very large distances, but within our known solar system Newton's law is clear.... The key word is "theories" in your example of geocentrism which was never a "scientific law" anyways... But beside the point, scientific laws are not "meant" to be broken.... Also note "theoretically" if a scientific law is ever broken the science must change with it...

"Scientific laws" are not meant to be broken. For instance "The law of conservation of energy" it really can't be broken but the law has limits and can only be "changed". Giving you the benefit of the doubt, for any practical purposes, if virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are to be created, it will only be for a very short time. In cases of some other interesting physical effects too, there is no way this can be used to run any type of machine without energy input. You push Newton’s laws of motion to the extreme, they stop being accurate approximations. That does not mean Newton’s laws are wrong, it just means they have limits just like every other law... Another example, Ohm's law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the potential difference across the two points. Introducing the constant of proportionality, one arrives at the usual mathematical equation that describes this relationship; Voltage = V, Resistance = R, and Current= I. where as "V=(I)R" or "I=V/R" or "R=V/I" . To "theoretically" break "Ohm's law" you would also be breaking the laws of mathematics... I think you might be confused with scientific theories. Scientific theories are meant to be proven or dis-proven which is completely different from Scientific laws. Still... would be interesting for you to post all these so-called "scientific laws" that have been "broken" by an advancement in the fields, since you claim "all" scientific laws are eventually broken.....

I'm keeping on that idea because it is the topic of the thread. "Creating energy" has never been the topic of this thread..... The topic is "free energy". If the energy does not have "cost" and is "free" then it does not have a typical fuel source. If it does not have a typical fuel source it is accurate to say that the energy is being created. The energy did not exist, but then it did! I really don't get why you are taking such issue with my use of the phrase "creating energy" as a layman's description of a method of performing work without burning fuel. Mainly because you were the one who originally brought up this idea about "creating energy"... "In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy" Your idea of "free energy" is non-existent and is not what the topic was originally about....

I'm keeping on that idea because it is the topic of the thread. "Creating energy" has never been the topic of this thread..... UFOs? serious?....

Not sure why you keep on this idea about "creating energy", I have never advocated anything about creating energy through out this entire thread... Also It is possible to create devices that would "indefinitely" remain in motion, even on earth..... For now you could just stay with my "watermill" idea and place it in a bath tub full of water.... siphon the water through "hoses" and then place the end of the "hoses" directly above the "watermill" high enough to create the force to keep the "watermill" in motion... theoretically you would have something that would stay in motion "indefinitely"

Then you could create a series of bipolar transistor amplifiers that branches off the same current flow within the same circuit being produced by the "watermill" to be channeled back to the original source to help keep the continuous motion so the same device that is producing current will indefinitely stay in motion regardless of any counter force being produced from friction or anything else that would try to slow the motion down. The circuit would actually be looped in such a way the device would end up powering itself in zero gravity... Which is why circuits like this are probably very common now being used for space satellites to help keep them selves powered in addition to solar panels... or am maybe I am wrong to think such things exist today. But then again before 1998 an ion engine was "only" science fiction...

Sadly just like the Ion engine, Nasa must have taken my ideas while i was in college, because they already use my "watermill" in outer space idea integrated with solar panels spinning around space satellites that keep them powered.... oh well... :)

Thor, that was what I was talking about in my 1st post in this thread. Harnessing "Zero point energy" by creating small microscopic controlled vacuums on earth..... Imagine a black hole that is so tiny you couldn't see it. This can be done through means of using anti-matter which is beyond my understanding but we do have the current technologies to produce such things on earth in a controlled environments... I learned this when I was doing a research paper in college on perpetual motion...

@TRoaches Was never saying "energy" was being created. Also if you want to get technical you could say I was describing both "free" economically and production wise. Technically my watermill would be generating more current than my light bulbs could handle, hence the need to put resistance in the circuit to not blow out the light bulbs by dropping too much voltage on to them.... Even so if the water flow wasn't strong enough for me to power one light I could build a bipolar transistor amplifier circuit out of a simple transistor and a few resistors to amplify the current flowing through my light bulbs. meaning I am producing more current than originally being input to power my light bulbs properly.... better "free" and "clean" energy for my lights outside of my house :smile: Was also simply stating as long as the universe keeps moving in motion "current" will be infinite. Just imagine my watermill in outer space.... the current that could be produced just from one spin "if weighted properly" would be immeasurable... Also what you described is not what "free energy" means anyways... Free Energy : a thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a system to do work.

There is however an unlimited amount of ways to manipulate current to produce "free" energy. I could if I wanted to go out to the river behind my house and spend the time to create a few small watermills in parallel to each other, which could in fact generate enough current to sustain the lights outside of my home. would only need to buy a few magnets and then coil them with some copper wire then create a parallel circuit to each light after measuring the exact current I have. Calculate the exact amount of resistance I need between the line from the watermills and the lights for each light bulb then... Ta-Da!!! I have free energy for my lights outside of my home. :smile: How ever, it wouldn't be very cost efficient and most likely over time I would have to do maintenance on the small watermills. Also I probably wouldn't end up saving a substantial amount of money for at least a decade and this is taking in consideration the river will never dry out or lose it's water flow.... But, this would basically be "free" energy and "clean".... It's only a matter of understanding how to manipulate current to produce power and this can be done with just a few resistors, copper wire, magnets, and small understanding of ohms law....

Ironically, it has been calculated, if the entire world was to go cold turkey on oil and gas, we would have enough energy to power the entire globe with just solar and wind if we really wanted to....

Honestly, Since "fracking" has hit the U.S.A. all across the nation, I don't see America getting off natural gas or fossil fuels for at least 100 years or until America has completely destroyed it's own ground water in the process, which ever comes 1st.... But also the "world" is just not ready to invest in means to create "free" energy. Until the "world" collectively evolves beyond just profit for the purpose of profit there is little incentive for anyone to create and mass produce anything that is "free" regardless of trying to create something that will be zero destructive to the world environment...

When I went to college I did a research paper on perpetual motion devices. Back then an Ion engine was consider still science fiction then a year later the 1st Ion engine was shot out into outer space by NASA. One of the most interesting things I found in my research was almost all know ideas for perpetual motion devices had already been patented by all big oil companies which none of the ideas have ever been put to practical use or even tried... This Bloom box is not as science fiction as most people would think. for one thing it still uses fuel or another source of power to put the device in motion. The thing is every device (no exception) that can generate power always need something that 1st can create the "current" that can then be dropped onto some type of "resistance" to create "voltage". It's the basics of Ohms Law... I always thought "zero point" energy would be the next step in "free" energy creating mircoscopic "vacuums" like outer space on earth to generate unlimited "current". Guess the world is still not ready to get off fossil fuels.... And I know we have the existing technologies to create tiny controlled "vacuums" on earth that would be "clean" and "free"....