Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8960 total)
37 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,133 Year: 881/23,288 Month: 881/1,851 Week: 4/321 Day: 4/48 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News (renamed)
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6951
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4231 of 4334 (870145)
01-12-2020 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4230 by JonF
01-12-2020 6:56 PM


Re: LIBERAL FASCISM IS HERE: IGNORANT FAKE NEWS
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4230 by JonF, posted 01-12-2020 6:56 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4232 by Faith, posted 01-13-2020 5:06 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34335
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 4232 of 4334 (870154)
01-13-2020 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4231 by Theodoric
01-12-2020 8:26 PM


Re: LIBERAL FASCISM IS HERE: IGNORANT FAKE NEWS
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4231 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2020 8:26 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4233 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2020 8:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6951
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 4233 of 4334 (870158)
01-13-2020 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 4232 by Faith
01-13-2020 5:06 AM


Re: LIBERAL FASCISM IS HERE: IGNORANT FAKE NEWS
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4232 by Faith, posted 01-13-2020 5:06 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 4234 of 4334 (870163)
01-13-2020 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4222 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:45 PM


Re: LIBERAL is not a derogatory term, no matter how hard you try ...
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:
Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Final congressional challenges

In 1918, President Wilson faced a difficult midterm election and would have to confront the issue of women's suffrage directly.[42] Fifteen states had extended equal voting rights to women and, by this time, the President fully supported the federal amendment.[49][50] A proposal brought before the House in January 1918 passed by only one vote. The vote was then carried into the Senate where Wilson made an appeal on the Senate floor, an unprecedented action at the time.[51] In a short speech, the President tied women's right to vote directly to the war, asking, "Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not to a partnership of privilege and right?"[42] On September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage, prompting the NWP to direct campaigning to senators who had voted against the amendment.[50]

Between January 1918 and June 1919, the House and Senate voted on the federal amendment five times.[42][51][52] Each vote was extremely close and Southern Democrats continued to oppose giving women the vote.[51] Suffragists pressured President Wilson to call a special session of Congress and he agreed to schedule one for May 19, 1919. On May 21, 1919, the amendment passed the House 304 to 89, with 42 votes more than was necessary.[53] On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after Southern Democrats abandoned a filibuster,[42] 37 Republican senators joined 19 Democrats to pass the amendment with 56 ayes and 25 nays.[54]


... 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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4222 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 4235 of 4334 (870164)
01-13-2020 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 4214 by marc9000
01-12-2020 4:34 PM


Health Insurance increase due to Republicans preventing Public Option
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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4214 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 4:34 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4241 by marc9000, posted 01-13-2020 8:27 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4236 of 4334 (870166)
01-13-2020 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4220 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:15 PM


Social Policies + Capitalism in a Democratic Country
"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 Senik
Thursday, April 26 2012"

Let's look at a more recent review "Submitted by Arn Pearson on January 21, 2016"

quote:
The Koch-Fueled ALEC's "Rich States, Poor States" Paints a Happy Face on Failing State Policies

Today, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) rolls out another edition of its "Rich States, Poor States" publication. The publication annually slaps a fresh coat of paint on the flawed fiscal and economic austerity policies favored by the group and its corporate patrons.

It's going to take a lot of paint this year.

The poster child for the ALEC anti-tax, low-wage policy agenda is Koch Industries' home state, Kansas, which has been plugged by Governor Sam Brownback as a "real live experiment in supply side economics. But Brownback's tax cuts have thrown the state into fiscal crisis, saddling the state with a projected budget deficit of $190 million for the next fiscal year, no reserves, slashed public services, and lagging job growth. Although wealthy taxpayers and businesses have reaped big benefits, it's an economic disaster for working families.

Sold to the press and state policymakers as an objective, academic measure of state economic performance, "Rich States Poor States" is in reality a scorecard ranking states on the adoption of extreme policies pushed by the Koch-funded ALEC that have little or nothing to do with good economic outcomes.

Report's Methodology Has Been Debunked

The lead author of the "Rich States, Poor States" report is economist and "ALEC scholar" Arthur Laffer. Influential in Republican circles, Laffer is considered the father of "supply side" economics–the notion of slashing taxes and government spending to spur economic growth. Adoption of Laffer's policies generated enormous federal deficits under presidents Reagan and Bush I, and have been widely dismissed as "voodoo" and "junk" economics.

Since ALEC first published the "Rich States, Poor States" report in 2007, with its Economic Outlook Ranking, experts say states rated better by ALEC have actually done worse economically.

"Obviously ALEC is ranking states based on each state's level of deregulation and awarding the most deregulated states, but the outcomes seem to have very little bearing in where companies actually want to launch and do business," Weisenthal said.


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:
10th Amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4220 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4304 by Percy, posted 01-17-2020 2:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4237 of 4334 (870167)
01-13-2020 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4226 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:54 PM


Re: Lame claims
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?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4226 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:54 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4242 by marc9000, posted 01-13-2020 8:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 4238 of 4334 (870168)
01-13-2020 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4227 by marc9000
01-12-2020 6:04 PM


Re: Climate Issues
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, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4227 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 6:04 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4243 by marc9000, posted 01-13-2020 9:24 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20454
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 4239 of 4334 (870169)
01-13-2020 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4228 by marc9000
01-12-2020 6:20 PM


Re: Climate Issues - The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial
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:
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.

Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.

The review serves as an answer to the charge that the minority view on climate change has been consistently suppressed, wrote Hayhoe. “It’s a lot easier for someone to claim they’ve been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can’t find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology… They weren’t suppressed. They’re out there, where anyone can find them.” Indeed, the review raises the question of how these papers came to be published in the first place, when they used flawed methodology, which the rigorous peer-review process is designed to weed out.


Need more?, there is plenty more.

None of it actual science. For instance here's a review of the scientific papers:

quote:
A Simple Pie Chart Shows Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:

The thin red wedge.
Image credit: James Lawrence Powell

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.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4228 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 6:20 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4244 by marc9000, posted 01-13-2020 9:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8886
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4240 of 4334 (870170)
01-13-2020 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4228 by marc9000
01-12-2020 6:20 PM


Focus
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4228 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 6:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1079
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 4241 of 4334 (870176)
01-13-2020 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 4235 by RAZD
01-13-2020 1:06 PM


Re: Health Insurance increase due to Republicans preventing Public Option
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4235 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 1:06 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4250 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 9:49 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1079
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 4242 of 4334 (870177)
01-13-2020 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4237 by RAZD
01-13-2020 3:04 PM


Re: Lame claims
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4237 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:04 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 4246 by Theodoric, posted 01-13-2020 10:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 4247 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2020 12:29 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 4305 by Percy, posted 01-17-2020 3:03 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1079
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 4243 of 4334 (870178)
01-13-2020 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4238 by RAZD
01-13-2020 3:18 PM


Re: Climate Issues
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:
● Ancient mega-droughts were infinitely worse than anything people living in modern times have seen. Example: Around the year 850 AD, a mega-drought in what is now the Desert Southwest lasted a staggering 240 years, and that catastrophic climate event was preceded a half-century earlier by another mega-drought that lasted 180 years. Absent that kind of information, it's no wonder so many otherwise intelligent Americans have been conned into believing that the current drought is the "worst ever."

and;

quote:
● The Great Hurricane of 1780 killed 20,000 people in the Caribbean. On Sept. 8, 1900, a Cat-4 hurricane obliterated the island of Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 10,000 residents. In 1927, weeks of heavy rains along the Mississippi River caused flooding that covered 27,000 square miles, leaving entire towns and surrounding farmland submerged up to a depth of 30 feet and displacing 640,000 people, from Louisiana to Illinois. The Yangtze River flood of 1931, one of the deadliest single events in human history, was responsible for a death toll estimated at 3.7 million.
Hurricane Florence and the flooding it caused were unquestionably devastating. But the worst ever? You decide.
You won't hear a peep about past ecological disasters in the debate over global warming. The climate crisis industry conceals inconvenient parts of Earth's climate history that undermine its "worst ever" claims.

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!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4238 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 3:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4248 by NosyNed, posted 01-14-2020 9:18 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 4249 by JonF, posted 01-14-2020 9:31 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 4251 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1079
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 4244 of 4334 (870179)
01-13-2020 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4239 by RAZD
01-13-2020 4:00 PM


Re: Climate Issues - The 5 corrupt pillars of climate denial
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4239 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2020 4:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4253 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:51 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6951
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 4245 of 4334 (870180)
01-13-2020 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4226 by marc9000
01-12-2020 5:54 PM


Re: Lame claims
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4226 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2020 5:54 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020