More bigoted, racist blather from the Paul family:
Rand Paul: I don’t understand same-sex marriage
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 16:35 EST'
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who describes himself as a libertarian, said Wednesday that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because it could unintentionally result in same-sex marriage becoming legal.
“I believe in traditional marriage,” he said during an interview with Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. “I really don’t understand any other kind of marriage. Between a man and a woman is what I believe in, and I just don’t think it is good for us to change the definition of that.”
Paul noted that his state, Kentucky, had approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. He said he was “not sure” about DOMA, but warned the federal law could result in conservatives losing “the battle for the whole country.”
Paul said marriage rights should be decided state-by-state rather than nationally so that “urban centers” couldn’t dictate the law.
President Barack Obama in 2011 directed the Department of Justice to stop defending a key portion of DOMA in court because it was unconstitutional. The law prohibits legally married same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA later this year.
the difference between "libertarians" and "conservatives."
They look like the same animal to me.......
They are. And they're both losers.
Republicans ... Libertarians ... they're all racist, misinformed, ignorant bigots.
The only reason that Republicans/Libertarians/Teabaggers don't wear their KKK hoods in public is because there are too many cameras around these days.
This post was modified from its original form on 30 Jan, 18:52
I was the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Colorado..calling me racist and a Klansman?? Gonna call Russell Means who took on the US Government in ways you'd be afraid to even consider racist? Anti War Senator Eugene McCarthy who took down Lyndon Johnson??
Ignorant?? The ones who weren't afraid to make marijuana a primary issue like Gary Johnson?
Don't think Republicans call for the abolishment of CIA,withdrawal from NATO,non intervention.
As for Rand Paul,if you've paid any attention,Rand has never claimed to be Libertarian and prefers to be known as a Constitutional Conservative
So ... what? You're a supporter of Ron Paul but not Rand Paul? What, exactly, is the difference between those two?
David, you need to start understanding that the crap American parties you vote for are just that: Crap. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian ... they're all crap. Their platforms are all bullshit. They're all part of the same bullshit scam you're being fed by corporate news.
Time to vote for someone else and make some real change.
This post was modified from its original form on 30 Jan, 19:39
Christian,I don't pay attention to corporate news. You dont seem to listen when I tell you about my personal experiences with some of the people you trash.
As for Rand Paul,he's not a non interventionist,in fact he's a supporter of Israel
Civil contracts would work out fine. Why should the State have this authority? When did the State grab that power? .......We need the State to give us a license? Are we going fishing or getting a dog??
GREAT ANSWER!!!!! Below.
Hey Archie.....did you bother to see what real Libertarians said? Especially the last? Betting no.
What happened to you Archie? In the 60's you seemed to understand the State was a danger. At one time, anti-war seemed to be important to you. Imperial America was something you got. You recognized what liberty was then........ Why did you sell out to the State? And what has made you hate those that would do you no harm? What brought you to the point where you see everything as "sides"? Good vs evil? Why are you so bitter?
It's only C2....
I'm sure that I protest the actions of our government, live, in person, with my body and my guitar more than you or most folks here - no matter who's president or whose party is in power. Got protest songs taped all over the top of my guitar. I've spent a hundred dollars earned by maual labor to attend occupy and anti-war events when I couldn't hardly pay my rent many times. It's called democracy.
I can't create a utopia. I can vote, I can agitate, I can march, and I can sing. I do all of those. Our government works best when more us do all of those. I think the corporate elites are a bigger threat than our elected government. Elected government is still more responsive to the will of the people.
Now post some more meaningless graphs......
How is the "live in person" protest working out Archie? Haven't seen so much of that since the Democrats are in control. Perhaps your empowering of what the State does with your support is redeemed a bit by "protest? The corporate elites are running the government, not the people. So, you are empowering those elites by seeking more government control and power.
Of course, you also continue to support pro war politicians that continue to torture, and imprison millions for no real crime, Not a hint of protest about the government refusing to prosecute Wall Street criminals. On the other hand, not a word of complaint on the prosecution of government whistle blowers. So, how exactly does your "vote" and "agitation" and "marching" and "singing" work when you don't apply it against the politicians you like? Because they use the correct rhetoric and throw you a bone now and then. It seems more like entertainment for you than anything else.
You say; "Elected government is still more responsive to the people? Than what? The political class has won every battle. The media is a collaborator.. The State gets more powerful, puts more people in jail, continues the wars, the Wall Street financial aristocracy enriches itself and they produce little or nothing of value. Meanwhile average Americans lose ground.
We have different ways of opposing the corruption and carnage State. You assume that your way is the only way, and you talk about the vote. But notice the vast majority of anti war vote is coming from the libertarians you despise so much. And the most steadfast anti war critics are libertarians. We see it all as having the same root cause: an out of control State.
I'm sorry you can't understand the charts Archie. Most can. I guess I shouldn't be surprised about that. Since you can't figure out the difference between libertarians and conservatives............I think you can. You just refuse to even try. And that is selling out yourself and the principles you once had.
Have it your way.
The question isnt how are Rand and Ron Paul are different - that list is long. The question is how are Ron and Rand anything alike?
Christian, if you were a decent human being you would apologize to David and the group for calling David and like minded members racists. The KKK?? Are you nuts? You are aware the KKK supported your guy in 2008, right? David didnt, but you did.
Wasn't it Rand Paul who said shop owners should be able to refuse service to black people? (I didn't use the term "African-Americans" because I presume he was also referring to African-Canadians and all other people of colour from whatever part of the world).
Yes he did..it's about the individual right to associate or not associate with whoever one chooses...Waiting for your apology Christian
I'm pretty sure I didn't call you a racist, David.
As for anyone else, can they prove they are not?
If a shop owner wishes to exclude a customer, he is stupid. If he does that on the basis of skin color or whatever, true, he is a racist. If that store owner is forced to admit a person of color because of a law, he is still a racist. The law does not change that.
In a free state, people have the right to be assholes. Only if a potential non racist person tries to enter the marketplace as a competitor to the racist and is prevented from doing so, should the government intervene. Seems to me that it would be a good investment to back a competitor to the racist, as there would be more potential customers.
There is an old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. I have a better view of people. Although it may take a longer time for some to accept what is right, I think that not using force results in a better outcome. The use of force leads to the opposite of what the intention is.
At least one member was all over the other groups last year posting Obama birth certificate Birther nonsense.
Yeah, I get the whole 'freedom-to-run-your-own-business-how-you-want' thing, but Rand Paul put his foot in it with that one.
Chrsitian: "I'm pretty sure I didn't call you a racist, David.
As for anyone else, can they prove they are not?"
That is a "negative proof fallacy" Christian.
This post was modified from its original form on 31 Jan, 10:03
Where as: "Republicans ... Libertarians ... they're all
Republicans ... Libertarians ... they're all racist, misinformed, ignorant bigots.
David is a Libertarian. Since you have made the claim of "all", Then you have indeed called David a; "racist, misinformed, ignorant bigot(s)".
Big deal. "Most," then. And it's true, especially in the case of Republicans, which is why the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans is a mystery, but I digress ...
Not freedom to run your own business, but freedom to use your own peoperty as you see fit and freedom of association, Christian. Note that Rand Paul affirms the rights of all on public property and the governments authority to inforce non discrimination laws and statutes.
Regardless, Rand Paul does not have a huge support with libertarians. For example, if I had a choice between him or Dennis Kucinich, I'd pick Kucinich. Why? Because ending the carnage of US foreign policy is a higher priority. You can't raise all those murdered people from the dead, recreate broken families or erase all the hatred the wars have caused. I would also trust him to end the destructive drug wars and curb the security/police state.
This post was modified from its original form on 31 Jan, 10:25
Well, IMO many progressives are racists Christian. They have just transformed from a more overt form of past progressives to a more subtle kind they now have.
Who are "the progressives," anyway? Since that label is only used in the US, and since there is a big, wide world out there containing billions of other people who may not know what that label means, could you please enlighten us as to who these "progressives" are?
What is right. What is left. What is up.
> As Noam Chomsky points out, these names are often distorted. But there are close relationships with "social democrat" and "social liberalism". BTW, the term "Progressive" is now used as a political identification in a at least dozen countries, although the term varies somewhat in meaning.
Like Neo-Conservative, the ideology is highly Statist with Progressives calling for massive domestic interventions and Neo-Conservatives calling for massive international interventions. In the past, Progressives undermined classic liberal ideology with the idea of increased government involvement in society believing that "government would be a force for good", and excessives of government could be controlled by democracy and the vote.
I'll include a Nolan chart and survey below.
The above is chart with people and ideologies simplistic, and I disagree on a number of points, but taking the Nolan test above is interesting.
Xtian, yes, it is a "big deal" for you or anyone else to come in here to proclaim David and others are ignorant biggoted racists. Its a HUGE deal. And you, of all people - one who pretends to be the anti-racist champion sure shouldnt have to have it explained to you. Unless its yourself who is the ignorant bigot?
Oh and xtian, finding the President to be a treasonous liar does not a racist make - not even if you have doubts about his citizenship. All that means to them is that Obama's birth place is questionable, that he has committed treason against the people, and that he has lied to America from day one. Obama could be as lily-white as you are and the facts and criticisms would be he same.
Deal with it.
I am curious tho, xtian... How would you have attacked your "C2 opponents" these past 4 years if Obama had been white and you coundnt play the race card?
I thought Bush and Cheney were criminals too. How does that jive with the racist claim? And people that hated them and were of a different race, were they racists also? Or could it just mean that they didn't think they were very good people?
IMO the birth record thing was WAY overdone. It was also a moot point. Short of a time machine, it would be impossible to prove beyond a doubt that Obama was, or was not born here. A waste of time that just divided and got peoples backs up.
"Jive"? Don't you mean "jibe"?
Bush and Cheney are criminals as far as I'm concerned. If there is a hell they'll be there to greet Obama - or vice verse. Baby killers. With guns. Ban Obama's guns.
how did Rand Paul get through medical school?
This guy wants to run for POTUS in 2016, keep talking Rand, the more we know what you are, the faster we can run.
Young people do not like this war on LGBT. They hate it.
They accept LGBT.
The young people are going to determine what direction we are going in and the over 60s crowd can pout and whine all they want.
I have said and believed that gay marriage is one step forward to secularism.
Gay marriage does not affect me, I live in a very high gay area and many are my friends.
I do find LGBT far more educated, kinder to animals and heavily involved in politics.
I have read nasty stuff about them and animals which is far too disturbing for me.
I hate that stuff.
I know the pet owners and they are good to their dogs, cats and not using them.
Disgusting talk which is so upsetting and it is perverted minds who want to keep it going.
The far right People want prayers in school- you tell me when there were prayers in public schools? NEVER. They did pledge of allegiance and sang God Bless America.
Prayers were in Catholic schools daily.
People make up stuff and want to go back to a past that never existed. oNly in their minds.
That chart, as usual, is completely US-centric and means little to those outside the US. All US politicians with some classic US enemies/bogeymen thrown in. Like anyone else cares.
Where is Tommy Douglas? Where is Pierre Trudeau? Where is Salvador Allende? Where is Golda Meir? Where is Mohandas Ghandi? Where is Lech Walensa? Where is Margaret Thatcher? Where is Winston Churchill? Where is Valéry Giscard d'Estaing? Where is Mustafa Atatürk?
This post was modified from its original form on 01 Feb, 6:35
Who's politics do you think we are discussing here, xtian, if not America's?? Do you go to UK groups and tell them their labels are wrong because they are different than US labels too?
Is that really your best effort to be contrary?
Have you apologized to David and the group yet?
Hitler, Stalin, Marx and the Ayatollah Khamenei were Americans? Who knew? And Ghandi was on that chart. BTW, note also that I did not endorse that chart, but said "I disagree on a number of points"......
There will always be disagreements on these things. You can revise such if you choose. Make your own chart.
Just curious Christian....where do fit on the Nolan test/chart? Again, it does not relate to the chart with the people placed on it.
Angry Jim asked sarcastically:
<<Hitler, Stalin, Marx and the Ayatollah Khamenei were Americans? Who knew?>>
Good morning, Angry Jim. I'm guessing you haven't had your coffee yet, so I'll repost the sentence that you apparently skipped over or forgot to read:
All US politicians with some classic US enemies/bogeymen thrown in.
Glad to see you don't endorse the chart. Nothing wrong with the chart, per se, it's just that it really only applies to Americans.
Katii, I was unaware that the internet was only based in the US and that only Americans were allowed to use it.
LOL........ Nit pick away Christian. If that yanks your cord. Say, did you take the Nolan test? Or is in beneath you?
This post was modified from its original form on 01 Feb, 8:12
You said: "How does that jive with the racist claim?" meaning how is that connected with the racist claim.
intr.v. jibed, jib·ing, jibes Informal
To be in accord; agree: Your figures jibe with mine.
Jibe (third-person singular simple present jibes, present participle jibing, simple past and past participle jibed)
(intransitive, nautical) To perform a jibe
(intransitive) To agree.
That explanation doesn't jibe with the facts.
Jive (third-person singular simple present jives, present participle jiving, simple past and past participle jived)
(transitive, intransitive, US, colloquial) To deceive; to be deceptive.
Don’t try to jive me! I know where you were last night!
(intransitive, colloquial) To dance.
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life; ooh, see that girl, watch that scene, diggin' the dancing queen! (ABBA, "Dancing Queen")
This post was modified from its original form on 01 Feb, 8:11
Got it Christian. Like in: "most of what you say is jive".LOL
Didn't realize that a single letter was so critical to a discussion. Most here got the idea. And that is the point.
This post was modified from its original form on 01 Feb, 8:17
IMO the youtube above by the Gay libertarian was spot on.
I dunno, Angry Jim. I did that test years ago, and I was, predictably, somewhere in the middle.
I understand the "differences" between "Libertarian" and "Conservative," but they really don't seem to be significant enough for anyone to truly care what they are. Fundamentally, both ideologies contain serious flaws with great holes in logic and common sense. Both are right-wing.
As to single-letter differences between two words, well, a single letter is all it takes for a word to mean something totally different. If you aren't bothered by the use of linguistic inaccuracies when trying to make a point, that's okay, I guess, but most people do take word definitions seriously, just so you know. Otherwise, why attach definitions to words in the first place?
Sounds like a UFO cult.
Any relation to the Raelians?
We all want lower taxes, less government, more government accountablitiy, etc., but why build a rigid, ideological cult around these things? There's no flexibility or room for x-factors.
LOL. Christian wants less government and less taxes? As far as a "cult" goes? Statism is a cult. The most dangerous cult of all. Libertarian is the deprograming of that cult.
Take, for example, Ron Paul's positions on war, marijuana and increased ballot access to third-party candidates. Great! I agree! But why do I also have to support nuclear power, believe in Creationism, and take a stand against the environment as well?
Germany now gets about half of it's energy needs met by solar power. Individually-owned, private solar panels on people's homes whose sales were initially spurred by government subsidies/tax credits/rebates/etc. Now that the majority of citizens have invested in solar energy, the tax credits are being lowered, and eventually, solar will simply be the way it is without the need for government incentives. By your Libertarian logic, the individual ownership and personal choice parts of solar panel ownership are a-okay, however, on the flip side, subsidies or tax credits are not okay, ever, for anything, no matter how beneficial to society as a whole. Therefore, things like advances in alternative energy would stagnate under a Libertarian government for no other reason than rigid adherance to strict ideology must be met at all costs.
Ideology wins over common sense.
This is why Libertarians are little more than a UFO cult.
This post was modified from its original form on 01 Feb, 9:16
I live in a state, where gay marriage is and happened first here in MA.
I don't see anything except there is some who push for more secularism like getting rid of St. Patrick's day and calling it green day.
I do find gays are more in politics here and they fight for lots of things on local, city, state levels and somethings are okay and other things are not. Like pushing young adolescents into sex change operations, I am against. They should be in their twenties.
Rand Paul did make comments about blacks which many took offense to awhile back.
I don;t want this type of dogmatic thinking taking over - I think I prefer Gov. Susannah Martinez and if they don't run her, the GOP will lose again.
she is conservative but she is not a whacky doodle.
No,xtian, libertarians never believe in tax funded subsidies to privately owned property or businesses, but they always support tax incentives. You dont know much about libertarianism, do you.... Makes one wonder why you attempt to debate the subject.
Which is why Germany, and most of the rest of Europe, is light-years ahead of North America on the alternative energy front. Results, not ideology, are what's really important.
Why should I care what someone's religious beliefs are Christian? Paul is not trying to impose those beliefs on anyone. Unlike the Statists that ARE trying to force their beliefs on us.......using government force. And IMO, State cultists come close to a worship the State and they make claims the indicate that think that almost all good and human progress derive from the government. They deify Statist leaders of the past like they are saints.
Note that Paul stated that he believes that there is a supreme being that created the universe and us but the precise time and manor of that are not known. That puts him squarely with the majority of Americans and probably the world.
SL, I saw several online stories about the troops breakfasts last week, and they all related the exact same info you linked to. I didn't see any hoax posts at FB. It is what it was when the story broke, our troops at those posts will be eating food product and the equivalent of canned dog food for breakfast (which doesnt exactly please me, just the same - these guys deserve THE BEST meals possible that my tax dollars can afford. We all know its possible to continue doing what they have been doing all along.
What was the hoax story?
Wait ... so you are okay with your tax dollars being spent to feed the military while they occupy another country, but you are against your tax dollars being spent on the military invading other countries?
I actually know some Germans, Xtian, they are upper middle class, producers/job providers, and they hate their heavy tax burden and regulations, and the ones I know who are middle class hate "subsidies" that ONLY property & business owners enjoy.
Well then Christian. You must like nuclear power then because Europe uses a lot more that the USA.
United Kingdom 15.7%
United States 19.3%
Czech Republic 33.0%
And yes I know the Swiss are not part of the EU. (very clever those Swiss).
'Cept some of those countries, most notably Germany, have current concrete plans to phase out nuclear in the near future, whereas the US and Canada just keep building more and more.
And let's ask Japan what they think of nuclear power, shall we?
Our troops are being USED AS FODDER, xtian, of COURSE I support FEEDING them.
So, I take it you blame the military adventurism of the PRESIDENT du jour on the "troops" who are lied to about their missions? Is that right? No, you didnt say as much, but you suggested that in your odd question.
So your position on tax dollars changes to suit whatever argument you happen to be using at the time?
Actually, again Christian's "information" is wrong. He has, again, omitted what Ron Paul really advocates, which is for the FREE MARKET (that dems and reps destroyed together with their different flavors of welfare and being equal opportunists for cronyism) iron out what is the most efficient means of providing energy, where competition is encouraged and not eliminated under the guise of "regulations"
So, I take it you blame the military adventurism of the PRESIDENT du jour on the "troops" who are lied to about their missions? Is that right?
I answered your question, if you are not going to return the courtesy then just get the hell out of here. Stop wasting peoples' time.
Christian, of course, does not understand economics. By subsidizing the solar power, the Germans just took financial resources from some and gave it to others. Their tax rates were higher. Potential productivity in other areas was impaired.Of course, the people in the USA will switch to whatever is most cost efficient. Unless the government butts in. Like the debacle at Solyndra and other green energy "investments" that have lost billions.
For example, the use of graphene cells and carbon nanotube conduction will give a MUCH more efficient, longer lasting durable solar electric generation with a wider spectrum and more stable output in temperature extremes. So, Germany and countries like Spain have technology that will soon be obsolete. Hopefully the USA will be able to implement the improved technology produce it cheaply enough and sell it to other countries. This is, unfortunately unlikely, as the government usually subsidizes obsolete technology via the crony infested DC establishments.
By the way, Germany has been subsidizing not just the cost of the solar cells but the power produced by them. Last figure I saw was 40%, but that was being cut back. In Spain, the solar attempt has been a financial disaster contributing to that countries economic depression where 26% of the population is unemployed. Over 50% unemployment with the younger working Spanish.
"And let's ask Japan what they think of nuclear power, shall we?" Hey, it was you that were telling us how wonderful the Europeans were. I didn't endorse their use of nuclear power, did I? Those nuclear power plants in Europe were funded by their governments. Didn't you know that??????
I don't like the idea of the government subsidizing nuclear power and insuring those companies for potential disasters either. It takes about 10 years to get one of these POS going. And why?
Most don't know it is because a powerful corporation controls the patents and equipment on these cr^p U-235 reactors. The government subsidized the plants that were built. That company involved used government to suppress other nuclear technologies. That company became much bigger.
The suppressed technology included thorium reactors, which the USA had a working model of in the 1970's. The advantages here were profound. There would be less than 2% of the waste and the half life was a fraction of the waste from current plants. The reactors CAN NOT melt down. It is difficult to enrich weapons grade material with them especially because U235/238 are not used by this technology. Plutonium is not a byproduct either......Best of all, these reactors can be made smaller, do not require the containment of the current reactors, do not produce anywhere the amount of lethal radiation and thorium is found in many areas including the USA and Canada.
Is the USA working on this technology? Nope. India is. China is. Why? potential investors are deterred because of DC's favoritism toward that crony corporation. BTW, the Fukishima plant was the same technology that is used in the USA. By the same company. Only Soviet nuclear technology was worse, but that's socialism for you.
All Christian "understands" is what already fits his preconceived beliefs or ideas. He has no room for realities, well, except his own.
And no, he has zero understanding of economics - he doesnt understand that economics or economies are organic in nature, and that they will not survive under "artificial means." I will bet he doesnt understand what I just said.
Katii that story from voting american et al is a false story. DOD had to go into internet and correct it.
By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2013 – If it’s on the Internet, it has to be true, right?
There is no truth to the Internet myth that Washington budget cuts have taken away breakfast for service members in Afghanistan, Defense Department officials said.
Americans serving in Afghanistan can have up to four meals a day: breakfast, lunch, dinner and a midnight meal, if one is needed.
The Internet myth’s genesis came from a few forward operating bases in eastern Afghanistan’s Paktika province that are closing or being turned over to Afghan security forces. Instead of a hot, prepared breakfast, service members at those bases receive packaged meals known as “meals, ready-to-eat,” or MREs. This streamlines the logistics for these closing bases, officials explained.
Snopes.com -- a website that looks into Internet myths -- rates this tale as &ldquoartly true.” The original email that sparked the controversy vastly overstated the extent of the “MRE for breakfast” policy. The original email also said the reason for the policy was because of DOD budget cuts. This is not true, defense officials said.
The vast majority of service members in Afghanistan are receiving a hot breakfast, officials emphasized.
As I said, I didn't see any of the false hoax stories in my usual net travels, just the ones that explained it just like the DOD did.
JIm doesn't mention that no nuclear power is available without government insurnace, because no insurance company will back them, regardless of what "process" is used.
Further, without "government subsidies" we wouldn't have things like the interstate hwys and rural electification - just a few of thosw little things that have allowed the US economy to prosper. - There are other things too, like all utilities - water, natural gas,..
There there are things like the NSF, NASA, Universities
Those things that libertarians would never have funded and would have left us in 1800's.
Libertarianism is little more than a UFO cult.
you do, Rhonda, its called representation.
Right...... "There is no progress without government." No other way is conceivable. That's akin to the idea that only a particular religion or belief can be "correct". Which is, in fact, the central premise of a cult. In this case, the cult of the State.
Chile: "no nuclear power is available without government insurance, because no insurance company will back them." ................EXACTLY: The fact that private insurance were and are not willing to do that shows that the dangers and potential liabilities are too high. Cost/ benefit /risk is something that governments have a pretty poor record on. In Germany, they are going to obsolete the nuclear power that that country subsidized. What a colossal waste of resources. Waste is something governments are good at. In France, they are sending troops to Mali to secure Uranium used in their plants. Wars. That is something governments are good at getting into.
Some of the results are disasters like Fukishima which would not have happened without the government of Japan subsidizing that plant. Those costs are massive. Or the US government advancing Uranium power plants by favoring one technology over another because of a powerful US corporation. Or like the French Mali involvement, and US wars for resources that the US taxpayers fund to secure those resources for other powerful US corporations. These are distortions of the economy that result in a poorer outcome.
You talk about "alternative energy". Those technologies might have been more advanced if the State had not effectively subsidized oil by it's foreign policy including wars. And the same thing was and is done with nuclear power.
And with that said, Jim, there is nothing else to say about it. A 12 year old should be able to understand the concept of cost/benefit/risk (since they practice it everytime they contemplate doing something they were told not to).
Lol. UFO cult.
The true free market drives technological advances and lowers costs, for energy and everything else.
The cult of statism makes people blind to how that works.
UFO: Unimpeachable Freedom Objective