All Posts by bhagamu

Originally posted by Razorback

 

 

The court has not made itself an authority on anything except the simple notion that the facts as we understand them do not support most of the assertions made in the film.

I'm familiar with the ruling. The judge's basic point was that nine scenarios in the film were hyperbole. The judge also said that the four central hypothesis behind the film were correct and well supported. How you've misconstrued this ruling to say that the entire film is wrong is beyond reality.

Have a good night.

Originally posted by Razorback

 

Im not rebuting anything you have said on a scientific basis becasue you cant refute nonsense with science.

 

You have just admitted there are more immediate problems facing the world and I thank you for that breif foray into the real world.

My motivation is I dont like being bullshitted too.... if you do thats fine.

Al Gore is a Bullshitter..... plain and simple and now its been proven in the British high court.

We will have to agree to disagree about whether being a bullshitter qualifies your a Nobel Prize.

It's true that the task of proving that global warming exists is on my shoulders, and that it is logically impossible to prove its nonexistence. But one has to wonder what level of proof scientists need to array to convince someone who would flat out deny its possibility and dismiss all scientific claims as "bullshit". Such a person is beyond persuasion.

Of course there are immediate problems. When people might die tomorrow, whether it be innocents in Iraq or Africa, or elderly relatives or anyone, for that matter, it becomes a more immediate problem. But I believe that the impact of global warming on humanity will be much greater.

We can disagree about whether or not Al Gore deserves the Nobel, but we can do it without you having to attack the Nobel Peace Prize because you disagree with the committee's decision.

On the other hand, now that a Court has been ruled by the anti-Global Warming population to be the absolute authority on Science, irony has gone into cardiac arrest.

Oh wow, so, we're at the point where, "I can think of a problem bigger than yours" is scientific rebuttal? Yeah, the fact that millions of people are starving is terrible, and it's of course, more immediate. But you're going to say that I listen to no scientific evidence because there exist many really bad problems in the world and I'm picking one? Does that make sense?

People who are profiting off of this are criminals, if, indeed, that is happening.

Fantasy world? Dude, I'm invested in reality. I don't even understand your motivation.

How does that, at all, prove your point? It doesn't! You're just trolling now. Because you didn't agree with the award, you're attacking it.

I think it's quite shameful that the lot of you dismiss global warming as some sort of scare tactic to control people. That doesn't even make sense. There's nothing that anyone could possibly gain from raising environmental awareness.

No, actually, what's really weird is why things like this matter to the Congress. So what if genocide is defined as genocide? Why should that be causing an uproar?

Besides that, it wasn't even Turkey that did it, it was the Ottoman Empire, which has since been deconglomerated.

Uh-oh, another "phony soldier". Where does the left get these guys? /rolls eyes

On a serious note, wasn't this guy the commander during Abu Ghraib? And didn't he cheerlead the invasion at the start? If that's so, this is just a political smoke screen :(.

Instead of honoring Gore for the achievement, those who cannot accept it are simply reduced to the dirty task of attacking the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize, and that's a disgrace. It's also an act of desperation.
If you can't accept global warming, the best way to defend your position is by attacking everyone who speaks out about it. I believe that it is the most important issue of our time.

Opponents of global warming, supporters of the young Earth theory and similar are quick to produce small numbers of dissenting scientific opinions and raise these opinions on a platform, claiming that these are justifications for flat-out smackdown of the rest of the scientific community.

 Razorback said:

Firstly wait 20-50 years and see if we still have polar icecaps and dont have hundreds of millions of so called "environmental refugees". If Im wrong, I apologise to you, people who think like you and everyone involved with the Co2 driven Global Warming theory, for ever calling you all nutbags, that wouldnt understand evidence based science if it bit you on the a$$.

On what authority do you say that people who don't believe what you do cannot understand science? The same fools who place so-called "Christian Scientists" on a pedestal for saying that the Earth is 5,000 years old, who reduce global warming to a "communist" plot? I think you are mistaken. The debate is no longer about whether or not global warming exists, but about how severe it is and the extent to which carbon emissions affect it.

Furthermore, you'd entertain the possibility of global instability and reduce it to an "apology" if you're wrong? Even if global warming is natural, is it entirely unreasonable to try and do something about it?

Originally posted by UniqueName

The income tax gives the corrupt elites excessive POWER. So he is in fact "speaking truth to power" by abolitioning the income tax and putting the power back to the people. It's when people can keep their money that they can become powerful and keep their government in check. When people are taxed to death they:
1. Become poor
2. Rely on the government for everything.
3. They give up their power to the government...they had no choice, it just happens.
Then the government gets bigger and bigger. Then one day some corrupt bastard gets elected into some powerful office, implements martial law at the seat of the big powerful government...and history repeats itself.

He is not anti-choice on abortion. He leaves it up to the states which gives YOU power to implement change in your state. Much easier to resolves problems as a citizen at a state level than a federal level, right? Maybe you could become an activist or something...get involved.

The abortion debate is not about "resolving change". That's a silly interpretation of an issue that is about equal protection under the law. If it makes sense for state governments to have more power than the federal government, how come it doesn't make sense for individuals to have jurisdiction over their own bodies? How about, instead of letting state governments decide about abortion issues, you let the women themselves decide? Oh, look at that. That's what we have now.

Originally posted by truenorthbg

 

I reached a conclusion that they are both fundamentally, the Democratic and Republican parties, the same.  More to the point, they are really the same on the most important issues:  1) Iraq, 2) Patriot Act, 3) larger government, 4) and satisfying special interests. 

Yeah, I'll agree with you on this point. But there are some Democrats, in my opinion, who are taking a principled stand against the four issues. The DLC center is holding with the Republican Party though.

I appreciate Ron Paul's presence in the Rethuglican party, because, even though he believes in rediculous things like the abolition of the income tax and takes the anti-choice position on abortion, he speaks truth to power on almost every other issue. It's great to hear that Republicans have someone who is waking up.

I read your whole post, by the way.

Originally posted by Dekron

What amazes me is that the Democrats use this against the Republicans. The Demos point out that it is wrong for him to do this, to be gay, etc., etc., but then they are the ones trying to promote "gay rights". Go figure.

And for the record, laws against sodomy were ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

You know... taking an apolitical stance here... wouldn't anyone paying attention to the news figure out that this foot tapping thing is a bad idea?

Just saying.

advwjadklsl ladfwien ;; adsnafwen nndnndnd aadoskofwnjb aldfka
adfafl;;avkniwvouiqwkfllsdfdfadfdfl?d??dfl?d????wf???????

?v?????????bv????bg????j?f?vz?jv??f?j???v

kaldf

You're missing out.... it's a lot more fun being a liberal... don't have to be so angry all the time.

Yeah, having enough money to pay off the national debt is probably a horrible idea. It's not like we're selling off our country to pay for a war like Napoleon sold the Louisiana Territory or anything like that. And it's not like a safety net has helped this country, nope.

And Canada. Why would anyone want to be like a country that the rest of the world likes?

Originally posted by ImixZinz

It's unfortunate he doesn't get the support he deserves and that hes being blatantly blocked out by the media, but you can bet your ass if hes not the republican nominee, a democrat is going to be our president in '08.

And thank goodness. I can't wait for an Obama or Edwards presidency.

Transcripts don't lie. Post the transcript here and prove it. I read the transcript, I know exactly what was said. I don't need to rely on the conservative and corporate owned media to make my conclusion, thanks. (Liberal media? As if?)

By the way, you ended your post by calling me a socialist. Wtf?

Lastly, Rush Limbaugh compared the VoteVets soldier to a suicide bomber with "lies strapped around his belt". That's shameful.

Originally posted by dirtyjoe78

  You missed the point of "national resolve" I said that undermining the unity of this nation has adverse effects on not only troops but policy applied to troops.  For example I was there from the beginning my unit ran casualty evacuation so we were constantly at thye front line in and out of places where we took a lot of enemy fire, now in the beginning it was weapons free i could shoot back at people that were shooting at me, but at time went on and more people protested and whined and cried and generally threw a fit how and when i could shoot back under the same circumstances became more and more restrictive, to the point that i could not fire back unless they actually hit my aircraft.  I am damn lucky that they missed a lot because having to sit and look at some bastard shooting at you while you are flying people already injured to a field hospital, knowing that one round in the wrong spot and we are all F'd...why for what because it wasn't popular? because america is the only country on the planet that will sacrifice troops for how you look on capital hill or your popularity with the public.  This on one of the huge reasons i got out of the military, don't give me a gun and tell me not to use it to defend myself. And the only thing Osama Bin Laden needs is a 50cal round in the brain.

And your first statement is equivalent to saying, "In a time of war, do not disagree with it." Thats unfortunate.

Originally posted by arvainis

I don't care too much for Rush Limbaugh but, if you actually did some research other then the Lib sites, you would find out it was taken totally out of context.  I happened to be listening that day, I listen to a variety of News Talk not just conservative talk, and he was talking about civilians that were being paraded as war veterans, most notably one man who was in  boot camp for a short time before being discharged.  I don't get it, you sound smart yet you blurt out the same garbage as the mainstream without researching it.

The transcript is absolutely clear. The second caller said, "I have a retort to [insert other guy's name here]". Then he and Rush talked about the phony soldiers. Then, the second caller talked about WMDs "actually existing" in Iraq. Then Limbaugh talked about Jesse Macbeth.

If this is about being "out of context", then you folks had no right to jump on John Kerry in the week before the 2006 elections either. I think it's damn right to hold you to your own standard.

Yeah.. we're walloping each other on the left over this. Some people want the Democrats to show balls and call the Repubs out on the difference in reactions between the MoveOn ad vs. the Limbaugh gaffe, and the others want them to stop wasting time and get us the hell out of Iraq, which is what they were elected to do.

The Dems are just using this to make some noise over the 2008 elections, and they're doing the same with the Iraq war. They're asking for a ransom of votes in a Presidential election in exchange for pulling out of Iraq. Which is such B.S., since they can easily defund.

Oh, and just to take a nice shot at the other useless party, here's an interesting tidbit for you:

From a Resolution sponsored by Republican Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia:

"...Whereas Mr. Limbaugh has consistently used his broadcast time to praise American troops and support them during their ongoing efforts to secure peace in a troubled world"

Yeah, they're trying to pass a resolution praising Rush Limbaugh. Two useless parties. Woot.

Originally posted by Orca

That's not a joke.

A joke is supposed to be funny.

Look up "funny" in your dictionary.

I thought the joke was creative, in a nerdy sort of way.