|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Trolls never actually respond.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Marc is pretty conscientious about responding, but he is often kept away from the forum by work. Give him time, he'll probably be back to answer the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Posting is not responding. He rarely addresses what people actually post. He is the forum king of the Gish Gallop.
Gish Gallop - RationalWiki I have no doubt he will respond, but he will not address the actual points. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The guy in the picture you posted in Message 4127 was referring to today's Democrats. ... Which are more like the republicans of the day when the women's vote amendment was passed, than today's republicans who refuse to pass the equal pay amendment. Seems to me passing one would mean you would also pass the other ... if you were dealing with the same political ideologies. And he didn't say democrats, he said liberals. There used to be many republican liberals back in the days (1920) and many democrat conservatives -- such as southern democrats.
quote: ... It was a lie. Not really. It was passed by a Democrat President, by 304 (to 89 against) representatives that would include a lot of democrats, and by 19 democrats (with 37 republicans) in the senate, so there was very strong democrat support and it was passed with bi-partisan votes. It also looks like President Wilson actively campaigning for its passage in the senate and scheduling a special session in congress was critical to it finally being passed. But let's just ignore the rest of the list because of this one little quibble? That how reason works in your world? It's a facebook meme -- want me to find some conservative facebook memes with bigger lies? I can think of several that I read today ... you know ones that call people communists, right? And I can also find some on what unions have done for working people while the current GOP is trying hard to turn all workers into poor starving sick wage slaves. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Like the health insurance companies did. VERY, VERY GOOD! If the government wouldn't have meddled, the health insurance companies wouldn't have profited from it. I'll be keeping an eye out for another brilliant flash from you, sometime in the next..... 5 years or so I hope. Let's include the rest of my comments on this issue, the ones you didn't respond to, where I had replied to your Message 4150 comment
I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets: Your healthcare increased because of the free market. There was/is no public option (medicare for all) to keep costs down. The republicans are responsible for keeping the public option out of the ACA. The second Obama administration was dominated by GOP house and senate, working as hard as possible to dismember the ACA, including raising costs. Blame the GOP as Obama had nothing to do with ACA costs in his second term. Among other causes healthcare increased because the the ACA now prevented then from excluding/omitting people with pre-existing conditions and provide insurance for more people than before, especially ones they considered high-risk patients. This is a good thing. This is what public healthcare would cover. We also KNOW that a universal single payer public healthcare system (medicare4all), like exists in every other advanced country, would result in lower net costs to the individual tax payers, but that Republicans block that as well. Because the republicans are owned by the big insurance companies. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"Some" yes, not constantly increasing. Increasing as need increases for social and economic justice. What we need less of is socialism for the rich and the big corporations. Companies that pay no taxes are living off the socialist teat instead of paying their fair share. Companies that pay starvation wages while reaping record profits are living off socialist teat instead of paying their workers a living wage (so the workers don't apply for and get for medicare, food stamps, etc -- the socialist teat paying what the corporation wages should). You want to reduce socialist spending on the poor, then make these companies pay a living wage. If they can't afford that, then they shouldn't be in business.
Yes, in different ways in different territories, so that they can be compared with each other, and the best way can be decided by those who are still deciding, or are considering changing something. It's not the same as FEDERAL decisions. Indeed we can, and the evidence shows that GOP run state economies fail while Dem run state economies prosper. This of course includes GOP fake trickle-down give tax to the rich policies as in Brownback's failed Kansas state economy: California, Illinois, and New York (state) are three of the biggest population losers in recent decades. The Results Are In: Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline Those 3 states still are net payers of tax to the Federal Government while the Conservative states mentioned are net receivers of tax benefits. Losing population is not the same as being economically successful. An ALEC report, color me surprised. Another cherry picking wonder. AND one published "By Troy SenikThursday, April 26 2012" Let's look at a more recent review "Submitted by Arn Pearson on January 21, 2016"
quote: IE you used an out of date fake news report by biased and misrepresenting ALEC, not reality. Since that report we have had the disaster of Brownback's Kansas bankruptcy proving GOP economics just don't work.
Those are both among the very few things authorized by the Constitution as being the responsibility of the Federal government. As is the post office. And all still socialist programs in being run by the government for the people's benefit/s. The GOP wants to "privatize" the post office because it doesn't make a profit, so I wonder if the military and the highways should be run for profit?
That's nice, but it's not specific about anything. Here's something that's specific; Curiously, I was using that as a counter example to your silly claim that the Pledge of Allegiance meant we weren't a democratic government. Similar logic means we are a union run by the people, and it's much more specific than the Pledge, which didn't come along until 1942 and was authored by a socialist, and modified in 1954, when the words "under God" were added.
quote: Not very well followed today, but the Federal governments powers are actually supposed to be limited to only those things spelled out in the Constitution. The states, or the people, are supposed to take it from there. The only real way to consult the people is by ISSUE VOTES, something that is seldom done today. We're pacified into thinking that it's okay for Congress to determine what people want. As in ICE is not mentioned in the constitution (which includes all amendments, of course). Reserved ... to the people. So we can enact things through our representatives that we want enacted, or we can do it by popular referendum ... including things like universal healthcare. Doesn't it also mean that congress cannot pass laws restricting the rights of people? Like voting rights? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Capitalism is the ONLY THING that goes along with liberty and limited government, that is the basis of U.S. foundings. Not really, and certainly not so much with our freedom and our pursuit of happiness, justice and the common good, and the degree that it goes against those means it is not the sole ideal economic system for this country.
THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who ... destroyed me. He didn't need your help! Interesting. Am I not allowed to comment on posts not directed at me? Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago, What was causing that?? Too many model T's? Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal.
The Paris Accord was about all countries coming together to address the issues, including who will "foot the bill" and it is appropriate that those that are the worst offenders will pay more. With no consideration to the countries who have benefitted greatly from U.S. technology and innovation, without paying anything for it? When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes. US companies today are not paying for 1900 technology and innovation, why should others? The technology and innovation of concern today is the use of alternative energy systems.
How do you dispose of nuclear waste? If you don't look at the full cycle including all the waste streams of a process you are not being honest. There is more to be done in that regard, but France and Sweden seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. Working on it and researching it seems like it could be a lot less painful than destroying lives and businesses in the U.S. Meanwhile Germany closes down all its Nuclear Generation plants.
It's a scientific fact that some types of climate change happen that aren't in any was associated with human activity, and that they are inconsequential compared to the anthropomorphic causes of climate change. So the climate never has changed much since the beginning of time up until about 100 years ago, when humans started burning fossil fuels? That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century). Of Note, saturday January 11th we set a new highest temperature for this day in history -- 69°F -- in Providence RI. The next day we broke it with 70°F, and that's over 100 years of documenting temps here.
Fear mongering again. Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up. Except one is real and yours is fake alarmism. Chicken Little claiming the sky is going to fall if we do anything to try to hold back climate change. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Just to add to the argument I can do that! I'm sure you can cite a library full of fake denial documents by people who are not climate scientists (like your electrical engineer), none of which cite any real evidence of a hoax. Meanwhile you ignore the article on The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial, while citing a conspiracy paper that is pure science denial and obscurantism. Yes, I read it, it's worthless pandering to fear and outrage, but not to facts. It relies on a lot of debunked garbage that is decades out of date.
Didn't get this from a google search, google is run by liberals, so much is covered up. I got the above from a yahoo search, there's plenty more. Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious. More to the point would be a search of scientific articles as opposed to conspiracy theorists. I searched for: scientific papers on climate change denial and the top paper was
quote: Need more?, there is plenty more. None of it actual science. For instance here's a review of the scientific papers:
quote: So there's 24 papers you could have cited with an actual (if flawed) scientific basis. LOL, thanks for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
So let's see what you have here:
The people doing measurements are stupid or dishonest seems to be point 1. Point 2 is they lie to scare people. The models have been almost always wrong is your point 3. Point 4 is historical climate changes are ignored. Fine. So what?(Of course, you've got a lot of crap there but let's not worry about that). Are the record high temperatures in the arctic (20 degrees above normal) reported last year also lies? The highs are occurring in both winter and summer. Is the melting of glaciers as shown at tourist sites in the US and Canadian rockies a bunch of fake pictures? Are the fires in Australia not happening? This is what we were told decades ago would happen. And they are. We don't need mislocated thermometers and what you claim are faulty models we just have to read the news. Separately from that. You and I already have our own climate model, don't we?We agree that CO2 is a green house gas. I am assuming (maybe that is silly of me) that you know when I took my car out this morning I added to the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. So we agree that the climate is being affected. What our, rather unsophisticated (very, very) model doesn't tell us is how much we can add before the lose Florida and certainly can't tell us when we will remove a state. Do you want to make a guess? What is unarguably true from the model you and I have so far is that we will lose it if we continue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Let's include the rest of my comments on this issue, the ones you didn't respond to, where I had replied to your Message 4150 comment marc9000 writes: I'll take the side of less government meddling, and more free markets: Your healthcare increased because of the free market. There was/is no public option (medicare for all) to keep costs down. The republicans are responsible for keeping the public option out of the ACA. My healthcare increased very little during the entire Bush 43 administration, when it was purely free markets. It stair-stepped up several times shortly after the ACA took effect. This forum usually requires posters to stay on topic, but this thread is going all over the place here in the Coffee House forum. I do appreciate the lack of stringent topic moderation on this thread, I sometimes like to see discussions wander from one subject to the next. But I'm not interested in basic conservative versus liberal discussions right now. I have a renewed interest in the climate change debate these days, though it should probably be taken to the official thread (started years ago by you) But unless I'm told to go there, I'm just as satisfied to keep going on that here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
marc9000 writes: THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU. It was to Theodoric, who asked me what I was referring to in my mention of "the text of the Constitution and intent of the framers", so that he could destroy me. I showed him, with a link, and he sputtered with rage, called me names, claimed to be referring to later amendments, the Constitution as of 2020, and destroyed me. He didn't need your help! Interesting. Am I not allowed to comment on posts not directed at me? Of course. But one of the many advantages that gangs of posters have against one or two is to try to cover for another poster that they might feel sorry for. One of the obvious pastimes here, when it's a gang against one, is sometimes to post not so much to respond to the outnumbered one, but to post simply to amuse one's friends and helpers. We see that in gangs against Faith all the time. But a drive-by reader with your worldview might read through here without knowing exactly what was going on, and it's not completely honest to make it look like you were responding to a post to you, when it was to someone else. You could make it more clear with just one or two added names or references.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago,
marc9000 writes: What was causing that?? Too many model T's? Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal. When world population was about 1/7 of what it is today. I wonder why the EPA didn't get busy on this when it was formed in 1970. I guess the reaction would have been the same in 1970 as in 1910, or 1920, or 1980, or 1990. Nothing but laughter, at the thought that putting the government in charge of energy production and use could cool the planet and calm storms. The world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing.
When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes. Fossil fuels are directly or indirectly behind most ALL technology.
That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century). From my link in Message 4228;
quote: and;
quote: There seems to be a LOT of selective quoting and omissions in the promotion of climate change fear. Just this evening, David Muir of ABC news did a quick mention of how the earths oceans were warmer than they've ever been, but he didn't mention that a significant part of ocean warming comes from the ocean floor, not just the air above it. When it comes to Darwinism, the scientific community has pretty much always had non-atheists very thoroughly outnumbered. They might not be so lucky when it comes to climatology, and the associated meteorology and astronomy that go along with it. The few links alone that I've already put up in Message 4228 go a long way in covering key omissions by today's climate alarmists.
marc9000 writes: Climate change alarmists accusing others of fear mongering. You cannot make this stuff up. Except one is real and yours is fake alarmism. Chicken Little claiming the sky is going to fall if we do anything to try to hold back climate change. NosyNed writes: It is pretty clear now that Florida is a gonner. The whole state. Gone! And I"M the Chicken Little!! I love this place!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I'm sure you can cite a library full of fake denial documents by people who are not climate scientists (like your electrical engineer), none of which cite any real evidence of a hoax. Yup, you took the bait! I c/p'd detail of only one of those links, where the guy starts out saying he's not a scientist, and you ran with that, without checking the fact that the last link there described a book by Dr. Tim Ball, a 40 year climatologist.
Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious. Just type "climate change hoax" into google, then type it into yahoo. Big difference in what comes up.
Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change? Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000. Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong. So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns. So there's 24 papers you could have cited with an actual (if flawed) scientific basis. LOL, thanks for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you. What those 24 papers show however, can offset a LOT of omissions from your 14,000, and most importantly, those and many other writings from non-scientists, (you know, those who can spot fraud a mile away) can address something that most of your 14,000 omit, like what proof do we have that turning all energy production and use over to the U.S. government is going to actually accomplish anything, other than starting a war.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Capitalism is the ONLY THING that goes along with liberty and limited government, that is the basis of U.S. foundings.
You poor delusional man. What capitalism do you mean? The original capitalism of the Italian city states? Agrarian capitalism of England of the 1600's? Mercantile capitalism? Or modern capitalism? All of these capitalist systems are heavily dependent on state control. The US at it's founding is not a good example of capitalism as two central pillars of capitalism were left out because of the slave economy. Those pillars are wage labor and voluntary exchange. Neither are very important in a slave economy
THAT MESSAGE WASN'T DIRECTED AT YOU
Quit being an ass. How long have you been posting here? Anyone can reply to any post. You know the rules. Shut up and take your medicine like and adult.
so that he could destroy me.
I do not think of or care enough about you to even think about destroying you. Never said it. I did say I would destroy your argument depending on what you meant. Your argument seems to be that since the founders did not call for a liberal democracy than to interpret the Constitution as supporting it is wrong. Is that your argument? If I misinterpreted your rantings please let me know and I will adjust my argument.The counter to this is that the argument is irrelevant. US laws and Constitutional amendments have changed the text and the meaning of a lot of the Constitution. This was the intent of the founders. Are you trying to claim amendments are invalid? Oh, if my response was so lacking. why no response? There was no sputtering with rage. I made a clear concise argument. Little things like you do not enrage me. You are the one that started with the rude condescending language. You will not intimidate me. If you want to be treated with respect than you need to start being respectful to others. Until then I will treat you like the disrespectful ass you are. Edited by Theodoric, : Cleanup of spelling, words etc.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024