Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me find a hypocrite!
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 106 of 160 (415615)
08-11-2007 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by macaroniandcheese
08-10-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
i guess being a pervert doesn't matter as long as he supports the right people.
nator called him well meaning, argue with her, she has an education.
Besides, isn't being a pervert some kind of requirement to be a politician?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-10-2007 9:01 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 160 (415623)
08-11-2007 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
08-10-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Buzsaw's Two Bits.
quote:
Example #1. I know I'll get flack on this but nevertheless I have always viewed it as hypocritical science and likely always will. From what I read of brother ICANT, likely he is with me on this. On the one hand mainline secularist science disallows any hint of the supernatural into the science agenda until the supernatural can be verified. On the otherhand mainline secularist science which bases much of it's agenda on the observable thermodynamic laws rests on the alleged fact that the universe, energy and space/time is temporal (about 15 billion years last I heard), having no before and no outside of without verification.
This sums up to "scientists don't worship ignorance". Maybe you want to abandon the germ theory of disease and modern meteorology in favour of old superstitions but science has advanced by rejecting supernatural beliefs.
Science does not base it's "agenda" on the laws of thermodynamics. Nor does it base its ideas on a finite age for the universe - these are conclusions, not assumptions. And the 2nd law of thermodynamics argues AGAINST an infinite past.
SO really this is a simple whine about the fact that scientists DARE to disagree with the great Buzsaw.
quote:
Example #2. On the one hand, the FDA, in the power & $$ bed with the pharmaceuticals, hospitals & mainline medical practitioners, is ever so fussy about relatively minor problems with the herbals, vitamin & mineral alternative health agenda, disallowing pretty much any claims to advocating as treatment. On the other hand, several hundred thousand deaths and who knows how much suffering is tolerated in the billions of $$ pharmaceutical driven conventional health agenda blessing them along with all the devastating side effects with all the claim for effective treatments of the given ailments. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths & likely millions of side effect complications, the alternative wholistic health practitioners and the products are the cause of nearly no deaths and relatively few side effects, nearly all side effects being good for the user or patient.
This is agreat example of YOUR hypocrisy. The FDA strictly regulate the parmaceutical industy costing the pharmaceutical companies a great deal of money. They want to extend that to other areas (which are riddled with fake remedies, and even dangeorus drugs). So FDA regulation is supposedly "bad" because it is too lax on the pharmaceutical companies - but you don't want any regulation at all on your favoured industry. The fakes and the frauds antd the poisoners should be allowed to go on stealing money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 08-10-2007 8:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Answers in Gene Simmons
Junior Member (Idle past 6074 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 08-08-2007


Message 108 of 160 (415627)
08-11-2007 9:16 AM


Well, if we want to cover the hippy tree huggers, there is a Penn and Teller video on youtube right now where they sent someone to a tree hugger convention of some sort with a petition to ban dihydrogen-monoxide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
They got hundreds of people to sign up based on spurious ideas such as it being found in lakes and rivers, being used by the nuclear industry and Styrofoam companies, it is used in pesticides (thus when you wash your produce, it never really comes out), it causes excessive sweating and urination, and so on.
Of course there is nobody really famous in that clip but hundreds of lefties signing a petition without taking a moment of thought or stopping to ask a single question is not exactly the best move. Basically, they have decided to let other people do their thinking for them so long as they get to feel like they have done something good at the end of the day.
Then too, if you want a famous left leaning hypocrite, just remember that video clip of Bill Clinton saying that he did not have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky. Well, sure, every guy on the planet has been in a locker room when someone advanced the idea that what those two did “does not count as sex”. Yet we all know the truth on that score.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5FunbZvJ8

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 9:50 AM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 109 of 160 (415628)
08-11-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
08-10-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Buzsaw's Two Bits.
quote:
Example #2. On the one hand, the FDA, in the power & $$ bed with the pharmaceuticals, hospitals & mainline medical practitioners, is ever so fussy about relatively minor problems with the herbals, vitamin & mineral alternative health agenda, disallowing pretty much any claims to advocating as treatment. On the other hand, several hundred thousand deaths and who knows how much suffering is tolerated in the billions of $$ pharmaceutical driven conventional health agenda blessing them along with all the devastating side effects with all the claim for effective treatments of the given ailments. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths & likely millions of side effect complications, the alternative wholistic health practitioners and the products are the cause of nearly no deaths and relatively few side effects, nearly all side effects being good for the user or patient.
You are making a meaningless comparison, buz, as I have explained many times to you in the past, but that you apparently have never learned.
Where are the detailed records of how many people have used herbal drugs, why they have used them, what the dosage of the active ingredient was, how long they took the drug, what the side effects were, if any, and if they were helped by the ingestion of the drug or not?
The reason we know about the deaths and injuries from conventional drugs and treatments is becasue doctors and pharmaceutical companies are required, by law, to keep lots and lots of records of the sort I mentioned above.
Unless you have similar records of herbal drug use, you have no idea if the rate or percentage of injuries and deaths is greater or lesser than that of conventional medicine.
Also, you have consistently ignored the fact that, as conventional medicine including vaccines has advanced and use of folk or herbal cures has receded over the last 500 years or so, overall health and lifespan has improved dramatically.
So Buz, where are the detailed results of the tests comparing the people who took an herbal medicine compared to those who took a synthetic drug? What about those who took a herbal medicine against those who took a placebo?
Where are the results of tests to show what the effects are, both positive and negative, of botanical chemicals that people consume in herbal teas and in pill form in the hopes of curing an illness?
Untill you can provide that information, your comparisons are meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 08-10-2007 8:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 160 (415630)
08-11-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
08-10-2007 9:00 PM


Re: Here's Another.
quote:
Tree huggers and greenie type (usually leftist) decry, complain, march & demonstrate against just about anything related to carbon dioxide, all the while ignoring the fact that the trees they hug and the green they claim to be promoting trives luciously on the carbon dioxide they are demonstrating against. The more carbon dioxide we read and hear about from these hypocrits, the more of a jungle the woods on my land is becoming and the more oxygen the lush growth is producing for me and my neighbors to breath. I need a machette sometimes to get up the paths anymore. Not only that, my sweet corn gets taller every year, this year about 8 ft tall & growing.
Yeah, buz, the plant growth on your little plot of land in New York state is the only measure anyone ever need use to see if carbon levels on the entire planet are causing problems.
Bloody hell, why does anyone ever bother consulting climatologists, ecologists, or any other highly-educated expert since you, Buzsaw, clearly know better than they do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 08-10-2007 9:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 160 (415631)
08-11-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by riVeRraT
08-11-2007 3:36 AM


Re: And you wonder why no one can take you seriously.
Rat, are you going to demonstrate how Hillary is engaging in international prostitution?
Are you going to demonstrate that she is a liar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 08-11-2007 3:36 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 08-11-2007 3:01 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 160 (415632)
08-11-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by riVeRraT
08-10-2007 7:30 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
quote:
Being popular doesnt make you skillful.
I live in NY, and I have yet to experience anything positive from her. Pretty much any time I pay attention to her, it's like a joke.
Last thing I really got involved in was her kooky ideas for health coverage for the US, when Clinton was President.
What kooky ideas?
If they are all hypocrites, then so is Arnold. He's just as bad, right?
quote:
Arnold is in politics, but he's no politician.
Bullshit. He's a very skillful politician, otherwise he couldn't have gotten elected as a Republican in California.
quote:
If Arnold's well meaning, isn't enough to make him president, then what is? A good liar?
Well, he wasn't born in the US, so that disqualifies him right there.
He isn't experienced enough to be president, either.
He's not done a very good job in California, in case you haven't noticed.
Oh, and since you are a father, I thoght you might like to read this page on Senator Clinton's website that outlines her efforts in the Senate to improve services to children and families.
Have you ever been to her website and read about her positions on the issues and her votes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 7:30 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by riVeRraT, posted 08-11-2007 3:11 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 113 of 160 (415634)
08-11-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Answers in Gene Simmons
08-11-2007 9:16 AM


Neither of these are what the OP is about, though.
The example we are looking for is the democrat or liberal version of something like "Republican legislator who pushed for ban on public sex arrested for having sex in public".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Answers in Gene Simmons, posted 08-11-2007 9:16 AM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 114 of 160 (415682)
08-11-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by nator
08-11-2007 9:35 AM


Re: And you wonder why no one can take you seriously.
Rat, are you going to demonstrate how Hillary is engaging in international prostitution?
That's already been done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 9:35 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 3:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 115 of 160 (415684)
08-11-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by nator
08-11-2007 9:46 AM


Re: Hillary Clinton
What kooky ideas?
Exactly.
And here is a quote from the link you provided.
"I have also spoken out against the culture of violence and sex in the media, comparing this growing problem to a disease that, if left untreated, will become an epidemic."
But she takes money from those very same rappers.
Also interesting was this quote:
"I have championed legislation that would create the first-ever coordinated research center devoted to revealing the impact of media on our children. This center would focus particularly on the impact of media on infants, an area that is widely not understood, and on the growing link between television viewing and childhood obesity."
From which you say there is no problem at all. So the politician you are sticking up for, goes against your own morals.
She is a threat to our constitution, according to your very own logic.
I am not interesting in debating about Hillary Clinton, her own actions should speak for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 9:46 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 3:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 116 of 160 (415691)
08-11-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by riVeRraT
08-11-2007 3:01 PM


Re: And you wonder why no one can take you seriously.
Rat, are you going to demonstrate how Hillary is engaging in international prostitution?
quote:
That's already been done.
Really?
You have evidence that she's a madam in a brothel somewhere, perhaps?
Is she running a cartel that traffics in humans?
Is she offering $20 to blow some guy in a public restroom?
...oh, wait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by riVeRraT, posted 08-11-2007 3:01 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 117 of 160 (415695)
08-11-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by riVeRraT
08-11-2007 3:11 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
quote:
Also interesting was this quote:
"I have championed legislation that would create the first-ever coordinated research center devoted to revealing the impact of media on our children. This center would focus particularly on the impact of media on infants, an area that is widely not understood, and on the growing link between television viewing and childhood obesity."
From which you say there is no problem at all. So the politician you are sticking up for, goes against your own morals.
She is a threat to our constitution, according to your very own logic.
WTF are you talking about, rat?
When did I ever say it would be bad to do research on the impact of media on infants and the link between TV watching and childhood obesity?
What I am against is L E G I S L A T I O N that controls content.
She does not support censorship, but instead wishes to fund the research that would give parents the information they need to do their jobs as parents regarding the TV watching their children do.
It is remarkable how wrong you are, all the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by riVeRraT, posted 08-11-2007 3:11 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-11-2007 11:26 PM nator has replied
 Message 120 by riVeRraT, posted 08-13-2007 5:48 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 118 of 160 (415750)
08-11-2007 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Answers in Gene Simmons
08-10-2007 12:26 AM


quote:
So apparently, nobody has ever heard of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?
Sure, I've heard of them.
How are they hypocrites, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Answers in Gene Simmons, posted 08-10-2007 12:26 AM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taz, posted 08-13-2007 1:58 PM nator has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 119 of 160 (415760)
08-11-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
08-11-2007 3:59 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
the main reason i don't like her is because she was behind a huge censorship movement. the "parental guidelines" she promoted have resulted in limited availability of speech outlets.
if parents aren't smart enough to know that sitting on your ass in front of the television isn't exercise, then there's nothing her research can do to help. further, if people don't know that flashing lights and amplified baby talk aren't good for infants, then they just have no common sense.
i'm concerned about her history and i'm concerned about a future with her.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 3:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 08-13-2007 7:33 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 120 of 160 (415959)
08-13-2007 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by nator
08-11-2007 3:59 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
When did I ever say it would be bad to do research on the impact of media on infants and the link between TV watching and childhood obesity?
What I am against is L E G I S L A T I O N that controls content.
And just what do you think that survey would be used for?
It is remarkable how wrong you are, all the time.
Keep your BS comments to yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 3:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by nator, posted 08-13-2007 7:41 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024