NEW REPORT UNDERMINES CLIMATE CHANGE CLAIMS

[Ali]

Key scientific questions remain unanswered. (http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=266)
7 th December 2004: As the 10 th Conference of the Parties (COP) begins in Buenos Aires this
week - the first COP since the ratification of the Kyoto protocol - scientists have published
new research that calls into question many of the scientific assumptions driving global
climate change policy.
The report, produced by the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington DC and the
Scientific Alliance in London, suggests that calls for global action on climate change are often
based on poor or uncertain science. In particular, the report sets out nineteen key questions
and assumptions underpinning the climate change debate and global climate policy,
highlighting a number of important areas where scientific uncertainty remains, as well as
those where sound scientific evidence throws the Kyoto process into doubt.
Mark Adams, Director of the Scientific Alliance, said: “The debate over the state of
climate science and what it tells us about past and future climate has been going on for at
least 15 years. It is not close to a conclusion, in spite of assertions to the contrary. The
purpose of our paper is to subject the fundamentals of climate change science to the highest
level of scientific scrutiny and to highlight those areas where further research is still needed. “
William O’Keefe, President of the George C. Marshall Institute, said: “Climate change
science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric and as a consequence, the
quality of science and rigors of the scientific process have suffered. The result is extensive
misunderstanding over what we know about the climate system and what influences it, and
the impact of human activity on future climate. The world will be ill served if global climate
policy, planned out at events such as COP10, continues to be driven by politicized science
instead of scientific facts and reality. The aim of our paper is to go some way towards
restoring accuracy and clarity to the debate.”
There are key issues that must be better understood if policy is to more closely match current
knowledge levels. Examples of issues that are not adequately understood in the climate
debate include:
- The assertion that there is a direct causal relationship between increased
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other green house gases, and
increased temperature – during the 20 th century, greenhouse gases CO2 rose
steadily, while temperatures rose fell and rose in a pattern that showed no direct
relation to increased greenhouse gases.That's right, argue about the validity of studies which maintain that the world's heating up, rather than trying to find ways of using less fossil fuels and generating less pollution.

Here's some more from the GOP's environmental advisors: (http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9)
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
December 2, 2004

An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."

"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.

'Repetition makes people believe'

The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen.

"It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.

"There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said.

He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded.

'Alarm is the aim'

"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.

"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.

Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said.

The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.

Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said.

"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.

"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said. and there's the fukn RUB, innit? It's going to cost money, therfore it doesn't exist. Fukn arse holes.

[Qdrop]

Ali, you are so fuckin brainwashed....
both of these article completely call YOU, and other like you out, ...it walks up and slaps you in the face and you just pretend it never happened....

read the articles and digest them.....

"It is not close to a conclusion, in spite of assertions to the contrary. The
purpose of our paper is to subject the fundamentals of climate change science to the highest level of scientific scrutiny and to highlight those areas where further research is still needed."
“Climate change science has fallen victim to heated political and media rhetoric and as a consequence, the quality of science and rigors of the scientific process have suffered. The result is extensive misunderstanding over what we know about the climate system and what influences it, and
the impact of human activity on future climate. The world will be ill served if global climate policy, planned out at events such as COP10, continues to be driven by politicized science instead of scientific facts and reality.

"Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics,"

Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign

"Repetition makes people believe"

'Alarm is the aim'

"The research and support for research depends on the alarm,"

those articles are the reality of the situation....and they are both well written and informative.

if you TRULY believe in science......you cannot dismiss what science is REALLY saying....

those of you that dismiss this info and blindly swallow the global warming "truth" without skepticism....are no better than Racer and ILL with thier fundamentalism....


don't be fuckin hypocrits.....use your heads.

you ASSUME that because this info is endorsed by the GOP in some regards, it must be the twisted word of satan himself......

[Ali]

US EPA (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html)

EU warned against pursuing its climate change agenda (http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=885)

UCS (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm)

USINFO (http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Nov/22-490164.html)

NASA scientist rips Bush on global warming (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/) In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now,” James Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. He was also one of the first government scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers of global warming, testifying as far back as the 1980s.The Global Warming Debate (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/)The only way to have real success in science ... is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what's good about it and what's bad about it equally. In science you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty. — Richard Feynman

I have argued in a recent book review that some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. But some of the topics focused on by the skeptics are recognized as legitimate research questions, and also it is fair to say that the injection of environmental, political and religious perspectives in midstream of the science research has occurred from both sides in the global warming debate. -James Hansen This is a fair and balanced Scientist. Read what happens to him.

Edit: More stuff

http://www.climatehotmap.org/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#INTRO)

http://www.cato.org/current/global-warming/

Check out how many times they use Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen.

Then go and see what Michaels did to James Hansen's research findings.

As for Lindzen

RICHARD LINDZEN. As a Professor of Meteorology at the credible Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lindzen is the most reputable academic among the US climate deniers. Lindzen trades on his qualifications constantly to gain access to top level discussion in the US government or scientific institutions. His arguments, though, are identical to the other deniers. In an article in the Wall Street Journal (June 11 2001) he claims that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what casues them" and "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future". Lindzen works closely with other deniers, such as Fred Singer and the George C Marshall Institute.

FRED SINGER. Like Richard Lindzen, Singer is a leading denier who trades on his academic credentials as a Professor in the University of Virginia and a former director of the US Weather Satellite Service. Despite this he has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 15 years. Singer's main line of argument is that satellite temperature measurements show no increase in global temperatures. He shows no interest in accepting recent explanations for this discrepancy. He admits to having received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. Exxon is also among the funders ($10,000 in 1998 alone) of his academic sounding front organisation the "The Science and Environment Policy Project". Singer also has close links with the Rev Moon (leader of the Moonie cult) and his rabid right wing newspaper the Washington Post in which his articles regularly appear. He also writes for the far-right climate denying Hoover Institute, and the New American, journal for the extremist John Birch Society.

PATRICK MICHAELS
Dr. Michaels is a Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute's Environment and Natural Resources Program. His research has received direct funding from, among others, Western Fuels ($63,000) German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and Cyprus Minerals (440,000), a major funder of anti-environmental campaigns. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as "a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation". Michaels produces a newsletter "World Climate Report" sent free to every member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hall of Shame (http://www.risingtide.org.uk/pages/voices/hall_shame.htm)

Do you really think the GREEDHEADS won't pay some crooked scientists to argue their case?

Nobody's paying scientists to argue for Global Warming, why should they?

Think about that.

[Qdrop]

virtually NONE of those links provide ANY conclusive evidence about global warming being man made OR an imminant threat.

as far a scientists claiming that thier data is being screened.....i have no first hand knowledge is this obviously (none of us do), but goes without saying that many reports are outright rejected simply because they imploy VERY bad science and use over extrapolated data, and impossible scenarios....

the scientists are obviously going to be pissed off by their rejection and immediantly cry foul and make claims that the GOP is censoring and what not...


the biggest problem i have with people who claim that the GOP is being paid off by corporations...and that the both the GOP and big business are intentionally lying and trying to hide the "truth" about global warming:
why the fuck would they do that?

no matter how much money corporations could save....if the these "doomsday theories" about global warming catastrophies are true...NO ONE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH FUCKING MONEY THEY HAD, WOULD BE SPARRED....ALL WOULD SUFFER!

does it make any sense that corporations would lie, cheat, and steal to save billions....when they would be no safer from the ravages of this Climatic Armagedon?
what are they gonna do with thier billions of saved dollars?...build a magical Bio-dome to protect themselves and their rich buddies?

please, explain this too me....why would the GOP and big business delibrately lie and twist facts that would bring about thier own downfall.....


say what you want about CEO's and the like....but one thing they do VERY well, in addtion to make money, is plan for the future (the goods ones, anyway)....how does global catastrophy bode well for thier future?

[Qdrop]

This is a fair and balanced Scientist.

and you know this because....?

[Ali]

Read my edit.

[Qdrop]

Hall of Shame (http://www.risingtide.org.uk/pages/voices/hall_shame.htm)


what a piece of shit hack site.
can you just FEEL the baldface biasness coming from it?
do you need me to tear that site apart for you?


Do you really think the GREEDHEADS won't pay some crooked scientists to argue their case?


again...you still haven't answered my question:
why would corporations intentionally destroy thier future?
how can they make money if the world is leveled in climate catastrophy?

YOUR ENTIRE STANCE RESTS ON THAT QUESTION.
ANSWER IT!


Nobody's paying scientists to argue for Global Warming,


really?....REALLY?

do you like the way your foot tastes?

'Alarm is the aim'
"The research and SUPPORT ($$) for research depends on the alarm,"

you want me to google you some links showing where the greenleft get's their money from...and what they have to do to get it ?(hint: "show" that there is an immenant threat....and that they need more funding to prove more..repeat...)

i can go link for link with you here.....i too, have access to the almighty Google.

but i want to debate this with YOU...one on one.
fuck either of our links to other backing websites.

i wanna see what YOU know....i wanna test YOUR logic.

start by answering my above question.....

[ASsman]

Meh, we can't be 100% sure EITHER WAY, at this point IMO. So if ya'll want to play "flip the coin" and play with the Planet, that's up to you. I don't know but I was always taught that utmost precaution should be taken with irreplaceable things. Or irreversible situations.

[Ali]

Meh, we can't be 100% sure EITHER WAY, at this point IMO. So if ya'll want to play "flip the coin" and play with the Planet, that's up to you. I don't know but I was always taught that utmost precaution should be taken with irreplaceable things. Or irreversible situations.WORD

[phinkasaurus]

why would corporations intentionally look the other way, saving themselves billions right now, even though it "may" end up costing them more, like the planet?

well, Q, there is a little thing called profit, and in capitalism, it's the driving force. so alot of shortterm goals are stress, even though long term goals would make more sense.

i.e. polluntant free transportaion or renewable energy make great sense for the environment( whether you believe it causes global warming or not) but there are no profits in those, or at least not as much as in gas and OIL.

[Whois]

Meh, we can't be 100% sure EITHER WAY, at this point IMO. So if ya'll want to play "flip the coin" and play with the Planet, that's up to you. I don't know but I was always taught that utmost precaution should be taken with irreplaceable things. Or irreversible situations.

Heck, if things get too bad we can always build those L-5 colonys and move the rich there...

[Echewta]

Global warming, could be true, may not be true but I know I couldn't go to any stream or river around here and take a drink. Thats messed up.

[Qdrop]

Meh, we can't be 100% sure EITHER WAY, at this point IMO. So if ya'll want to play "flip the coin" and play with the Planet, that's up to you. I don't know but I was always taught that utmost precaution should be taken with irreplaceable things. Or irreversible situations.

you're right...
we can't be sure either way right now.
we need alot more research...and ALOT less hyperbole..

as far as your "it could go either way, so let's plan for the worst" theory...

even if it costs trillions and trillions....and cripples many of the largest economies in the fucking world?
for something we have NO consesus on and mountains of very shakey science?
fuck that SHIT!!

[Qdrop]

why would corporations intentionally look the other way, saving themselves billions right now, even though it "may" end up costing them more, like the planet?

well, Q, there is a little thing called profit, and in capitalism, it's the driving force. so alot of shortterm goals are stress, even though long term goals would make more sense.



Well Phink....that whole theory is a little thing called ridiculous.
so you are telling me that a big corporation would intentionally fudge data...so that they could push off dealing with global warming for 20-30 years and save billions...knowing that after that the world would begin to crumble and become chaotic as the climate reaks hell on us all....and their profit margins plunge.

that's what you're saying?

giant corporations that made thier billions by having amazing foresight and future planning....look only 20 years ahead and say "ahh...fuck it" to the years after that?

that makes sense to you?

see....you have demonized corporations to such an extreme extent in your mind.....that you are envisioning ridiculous TV-like scenarios in their boardrooms.


would a company hide toxic waste damage they have done in a certain area?
yes.....
if they could hide....they could continue on thier merry-profit ways...

but why would they hide something on such a globalally horriffic scale?

they have as much (more) to lose as ANYONE!!


IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!

why does no one address this?

[Ali]

a big corporation would intentionally fudge data (http://www.enron.com/corp/)never!

[phinkasaurus]

corporations have to made and forced to do anything for the good if it affects their bottomline.
look at 8 hour work days and child labor.
from that stand point, yes I believe the coprorations would look into the future and decide it's not a "proven, pressing matter" and continue on their current trajectory.

and no, I don't envision t.v. like scenrios in their board rooms. ilook at past experiences and intances and extrapolate form there. kind of like the scientific method, making hypothsis and then testing them.

look at the push to put shoulder stap seatbelts in cars. that was fought, even if just a little. and that is SAVING LIVES.

[Ali]

corporations have to made and forced to do anything for the good if it affects their bottomline.
look at 8 hour work days and child labor.
from that stand point, yes I believe the coprorations would look into the future and decide it's not a "proven, pressing matter" and continue on their current trajectory.the only proven, pressing matter is how much the directors can make before they retire.

That's the only future corporations care about.

[Qdrop]

corporations have to made and forced to do anything for the good if it affects their bottomline.
look at 8 hour work days and child labor.
from that stand point, yes I believe the coprorations would look into the future and decide it's not a "proven, pressing matter" and continue on their current trajectory.

and no, I don't envision t.v. like scenrios in their board rooms. ilook at past experiences and intances and extrapolate form there. kind of like the scientific method, making hypothsis and then testing them.

look at the push to put shoulder stap seatbelts in cars. that was fought, even if just a little. and that is SAVING LIVES.

you are NOT answering my question....
stop deflecting....

i am not arguing against any of the scenarios you are talking about....

why would a corporation INTENTIONALLY HIDE/FUDGE/CORRUPT DATA THAT WOULD BITE THEM IN THE ASS IN THE NEAR FUTURE!

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

THIS IS NOT SAFETY BELTS, THIS IS NOT CHILD LABOR, THIS IS NOT LOCALIZED POLLUTION OR TOXIC WASTE, OR STOCK SCANDALS....

this is a GLOBAL catastrophe that would directly effect everyone...including big business and THIER BOTTOM LINE!!
why would they sweep that under the rug, if they were gonna be fucked by it in a few decades....

answer that!!!

[D_Raay]

you're right...
we can't be sure either way right now.
we need alot more research...and ALOT less hyperbole..

as far as your "it could go either way, so let's plan for the worst" theory...

even if it costs trillions and trillions....and cripples many of the largest economies in the fucking world?
for something we have NO consesus on and mountains of very shakey science?
fuck that SHIT!!
You are a fucking idiot. The king of hyperbole telling us not to listen to it.

As if it's your "trillions" of dollars that's being spent, as if it fucking matters, what will be left to spend it on?
As if the environment were somehow down the list of priorities behind the really important stuff like profits for corrupt CEO's and killing Arabs to steal their oil to fuck up the environment with.
Pull your head out of your colon and stop telling us there is no threat to the environment. It really is ridiculous.

[Qdrop]

the only proven, pressing matter is how much the directors can make before they retire.

That's the only future corporations care about.

jesus christ.....
you guys are like brick walls.

Ali, you have zero understanding of the big business.....zero.

no big business looks only a decade down the road or so....
they project for 50 years at least....YOU HAVE TO IN ORDER TO SURVIVE!!

my company looks 20-30 years down the road for our industry and plans accordingly....
that is part of my job!

[Qdrop]

You are a fucking idiot. The king of hyperbole telling us not to listen to it.

As if it's your "trillions" of dollars that's being spent, as if it fucking matters, what will be left to spend it on?
As if the environment were somehow down the list of priorities behind the really important stuff like profits for corrupt CEO's and killing Arabs to steal their oil to fuck up the environment with.
Pull your head out of your colon and stop telling us there is no threat to the environment. It really is ridiculous.

you wrote 9 lines of nothing.

you, too, cannot answer the question....

you blindly follow what the left hyperbole machine spits out....without an ounce of skepticism.....

even when shown how your beliefs that big business only cares about the immediate future are shown to be ridiculous....
you just dismiss it....
and repeat the mantras....


you are no differant than fundamentalist christians....

you are hypocrits....

again:
"what are they gonna do with thier billions of saved dollars?...build a magical Bio-dome to protect themselves and their rich buddies?"

[Ali]

you are NOT answering my question....
stop deflecting....

i am not arguing against any of the scenarios you are talking about....

why would a corporation INTENTIONALLY HIDE/FUDGE/CORRUPT DATA THAT WOULD BITE THEM IN THE ASS IN THE NEAR FUTURE!

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

THIS IS NOT SAFETY BELTS, THIS IS NOT CHILD LABOR, THIS IS NOT LOCALIZED POLLUTION OR TOXIC WASTE, OR STOCK SCANDALS....

this is a GLOBAL catastrophe that would directly effect everyone...including big business and THIER BOTTOM LINE!!
why would they sweep that under the rug, if they were gonna be fucked by it in a few decades....

answer that!!!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5353713/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/24/news/international/royaldutchshell_sec/

Does that answer your question, or are you going to dispute the source in an effort to change the subject when you have been owned?

[D_Raay]

you wrote 9 lines of nothing.

you, too, cannot answer the question....

you blindly follow what the left hyperbole machine spits out....without an ounce of skepticism.....

even when shown how your beliefs that big business only cares about the immediate future are shown to be ridiculous....
you just dismiss it....
and repeat the mantras....


you are no differant than fundamentalist christians....

you are hypocrits....

again:
"what are they gonna do with thier billions of saved dollars?...build a magical Bio-dome to protect themselves and their rich buddies?"

A little of you goes a long way.

[phinkasaurus]

why would a corporation INTENTIONALLY HIDE/FUDGE/CORRUPT DATA THAT WOULD BITE THEM IN THE ASS IN THE NEAR FUTURE!
ANSWER THE QUESTION!

because they want money. that is the nature of their business. if this proves to be a 100% ssure thing, then maybe they'd start looking into it. but right now, they have at least a few scientists calling these findings into question, which means they can make reasons and justifications not to enact changes which would cost them BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS of dollars. So, in an effort not to affect their profit margins, they will search out and support every piece of sceinctific evicence that points away from a warming planet caused by man made pollutants.

is that enough of a direct answer?

it's not that they don't plan 20-50-100 years into the future, they just don't want to see that future where they have to spend alot of money to change their practices.

[Ali]

jesus christ.....
you guys are like brick walls.

Ali, you have zero understanding of the big business.....zero.

go look at my profile and tell me what I do for a living

I spend a LOT of time in corporate boardrooms and I know what goes on in there

my company looks 20-30 years down the road for our industry and plans accordingly....
that is part of my job! the other part being flipping burgers?

[ASsman]

even if it costs trillions and trillions....and cripples many of the largest economies in the fucking world?
Exhaustion of fossil fules will do the same thing.

[Qdrop]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5353713/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/24/news/international/royaldutchshell_sec/


jesus fucking christ!

THIS, IN NO WAY, ANSWERS THAT I ASKED.

i am NOT DISPUTING THE OCCURANCE OF BIG BUSINESS FRAUD OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

WHEN THE FUCK DID I EVER DISPUTE THAT!?

i am arguing about the fact that, BECAUSE OF THE BOTTOM LINE, no company would turn a blind eye to apparent or certain global catastrophe that is only of few short decades down the road...IF IT WERE REAL!!

are reading this?....

do have any fucking clue what i am asking....
you have yet to show it...

you just keep responding with links that show big business fraud....

here, check out this link: www.Ali.isaviodingthequestion.com

it's a great site.


the subject when you have been owned?
how in the fuck did you own anyone when you have yet to address the question?

[ASsman]

no company would turn a blind eye to apparent or certain global catastrophe that is only of few short decades down the road...IF IT WERE REAL!!
The power of Cheese, I mean greed. You have no idea what "companies" are willing to do.

Haha, yah no company would sell/market a product to adults and kids, that would cause cancer... NEVER.

[Qdrop]

Exhaustion of fossil fules will do the same thing.

absolutely....but oil reserves alone will last for nearly a hundred more years...depending on what stats you beleive...
even the most conservative rate it over 75 years....as far as i've seen.

none the less.....the fact that oil reserves will run out is UNDENIABLE....so even though big oil will look to get every last dollar out it before being forced to alter thier business model...they none the less WILL have to switch thier business model down the road....be it fuel cells, hydrogen cells....whichever direction technology goes in.
big business will go where the money is....
the PLAN for it.

[Qdrop]

because they want money. that is the nature of their business. if this proves to be a 100% ssure thing, then maybe they'd start looking into it.

your god damn right they will....and way before 100%....
no big business can afford to fall behind the curb.

FINALLY! YOU ARE ADDRESSING THE QUESTION.

THANK YOU.

you are quickly becoming one of the only liberals on this board i have much respect for...even though we differ so much.
at least you eventually address the issue...and break it down.


but right now, they have at least a few scientists calling these findings into question, which means they can make reasons and justifications not to enact changes which would cost them BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS of dollars.


there is some truth to this in that they don't want to spend money on something that is FAR from a sure thing....and they don't want to strong armed into it by biased greenliberals....

so yes...of course they will have a vested interest in opposing view points.

finally, progress.....

[Qdrop]

The power of Cheese, I mean greed. You have no idea what "companies" are willing to do.

Haha, yah no company would sell/market a product to adults and kids, that would cause cancer... NEVER.

you're not getting it.

sure, they would sell cigarettes- knowing they cause cancer....their customer base is endless.....


sure they would dump toxic waste under a playground....
if they can avoid resposibilities.......it all the more $$ for them.
fuck the kids....


the point here....is they cannot avoid global warming if it is real...
there is no legal loopholes they can use...no dodging the issue....
if it real...it is unaviodable and WILL effect them AND their profits!!
you could be DAMN sure they would take some serious actions if conclusive reports PROVED that the environment is gonna collapse in the near future and fuck up thier profit margin and customer base!!

believe it or not....BIG BUSINESS IS THE LITMUS TEST FOR GLOBAL WARMING....
THEY HAVE THE MOST TO LOSE!!

NO AMOUNT OF MONEY COULD SAVE THEM FROM GLOBAL CATASTROPHE!!

[phinkasaurus]

Q, do you think business don't want to see the Global Warming Trend, due to the mass amounts of profits they would lose, and therefore are actively searching for proof that it doesn't exist?

and then if they are, is it possible they would maintain that blind eye until it's too late?

and thank you for being a conservative who can talk about the issue. ;)

[Qdrop]

Q, do you think business don't want to see the Global Warming Trend, due to the mass amounts of profits they would lose, and therefore are actively searching for proof that it doesn't exist?

and then if they are, is it possible they would maintain that blind eye until it's too late?


no, why would they wait purposley until it's too late?
they would be helping to sign the death certificate (bye bye $$) of thier company's future profit if they turned a blind eye to upcoming global climate catastrophe.

tell me, what would make more money for the greedy big business owners world wide:

"fuck the environment....let's aviod paying billions in enviromental changes to our business....make as much money as we can.....then let the entire global economy (including our company) crumble as the global climate causes untold distruction.
but it's ok....at least we still have all that money we made.....so that we can....umm.....well....the world is falling to pieces irreparabley....umm....we could maybe burn our piles of money to keep warm?"


or


"dig into our profits considerabley now, to maintain the current global climate and mantain the the global economy that is keeping our pockets lined with cash for the forseeable future ....for us and our company's $$ filled future."

which makes more $$ sense to greedy big business owners....??

Big business is the litmus test.....
they follow the money....they will do whatever they have to establish LONG TERM $$ pipelines....
letting the global climate/economy crumble doesn't fit into this line of thought.


and thank you for being a conservative who can talk about the issue. ;)

if you are trying to make me cry......it's working.

[ASsman]

the point here....is they cannot avoid global warming if it is real...
there is no legal loopholes they can use...no dodging the issue....
if it real...it is unaviodable and WILL effect them AND their profits!!
you could be DAMN sure they would take some serious actions if conclusive reports PROVED that the environment is gonna collapse in the near future and fuck up thier profit margin and customer base!!
Heh, I wouldn't be suprised. Legal loopholes, no need for them they should already exist if they funded the right people.

[Qdrop]

Heh, I wouldn't be suprised. Legal loopholes, no need for them they should already exist if they funded the right people.

your missing the point.

fuck legal loopholes.
fuck trying to avoid responsibility for the environment....

if the environment collapses, no one will give a shit who is responsible....
people will just try to survive.

and in that situation, how would big business make any money?
what good would money even be?

you really think they aren't aware of this?

these people are smarter and more organized than fucking ALL of us lumped together...
don't deny it...

[Ali]

jesus fucking christ!

THIS, IN NO WAY, ANSWERS THAT I ASKED.

i am NOT DISPUTING THE OCCURANCE OF BIG BUSINESS FRAUD OR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

WHEN THE FUCK DID I EVER DISPUTE THAT!?

i am arguing about the fact that, BECAUSE OF THE BOTTOM LINE, no company would turn a blind eye to apparent or certain global catastrophe that is only of few short decades down the road...IF IT WERE REAL!!

are reading this?....

do have any fucking clue what i am asking....
you have yet to show it...

you just keep responding with links that show big business fraud....

here, check out this link: www.Ali.isaviodingthequestion.com

it's a great site.


how in the fuck did you own anyone when you have yet to address the question? So there is no global warming and we have nothing to worry about?

It's the fucking libs sounding off about the environment again, when all that you right wing pricks are interested in is profit.

What is all the fuss about if there's no Global Warming then?

Are all those countries ratifying the Kyoto protocol because they are going to make more money?

Yes, I agree with you, companies are motivated by the bottom line, the profit margin - hence the corporate fraud. THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? NOTHING MATTERS MORE THAN MAKING A FUCKING PROFIT. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. UNDERSTAND? CAPICE? COMPRENDRE?

The same margin which is prompting them to pay off Scientists to 'prove' that Global Warming is a myth.

[ASsman]

I don't get your point Qdrop... yah nothing will matter once the world explodes after 40,000 atomic explosions go off. No one thought about while they were building them....

[SobaViolence]

i think Einstein said something^

but i don't get it. how can someone say that corporations wouldn't squander the future for a profit today? i just didn't think someone like this could operate a computer, let alone navigate the internet...

enron showed a lot of 'improbable' events...dealings with the taliban, the willful witholding of energy to a large state's population, a few rich white guys stealing an enormous amount of peoples' money, the corruption of government and the distasteful inbred nature of business and politics, just to name a few.

cigarettes once had 'scientists' who denied it did any harm. 'experts' once proclaimed that seatbelts would ruin the auto industry, casettes and downloading would/is destroying the music industry, and there are many companies that do not put data/information about their products on them, because it may cost too much, but they always come across as having something to hide...seems parallel to these 'scientists'.

[phinkasaurus]

Qdrop's point, if I may speak for you sir, is that the otherside of the "there is no global warming" stance is obviously "there is global warming." therefore, if a corporation was to deny the chance that the world would quite literally end as we know it, due to global environmental collapse, where would they, the "profit seeking corporations", get profit in that outcome? and since we can all agree these fat cats are out for profit and money and gain at any expense, Q is saying they would not sell out their own selves to make a buck today, at the expense of their very survival and the survival of their way of life tomorrow.

i disagree though, i think the $$$'s make people very short sighted, even to the point of shooting their own feet.

[checkyourprez]

why would a corporation INTENTIONALLY HIDE/FUDGE/CORRUPT DATA THAT WOULD BITE THEM IN THE ASS IN THE NEAR FUTURE!



this is a GLOBAL catastrophe that would directly effect everyone...including big business and THIER BOTTOM LINE!!
why would they sweep that under the rug, if they were gonna be fucked by it in a few decades....

answer that!!!


many of these people at the head of these companies (includding probably everyone on this board and everyone living in the world right now) will not be alive to see what happens when global warming really starts to effect this planet. and i think that is the reason they are so readily willing to sweep stuff under the rug.

if they do stuff about somethign that could save people hundreds of years into the future it affects their bottom lines now.

in capitalism thats not how things works, they will keep dissmissing it until it really is a big problem, not something that might possibly turn into a problem, and then they will deal with it. and most likely make money in doing so.

[Echewta]

I.E. Superfund.

[D_Raay]

many of these people at the head of these companies (includding probably everyone on this board and everyone living in the world right now) will not be alive to see what happens when global warming really starts to effect this planet. and i think that is the reason they are so readily willing to sweep stuff under the rug.

if they do stuff about somethign that could save people hundreds of years into the future it affects their bottom lines now.

in capitalism thats not how things works, they will keep dissmissing it until it really is a big problem, not something that might possibly turn into a problem, and then they will deal with it. and most likely make money in doing so.
Ah, we get to the meat, and the pwning of sometime conservative, full time bullshit artist Q... My fingers were itching to type what you did check you beat me to it.

[Qdrop]

Qdrop's point, if I may speak for you sir, is that the otherside of the "there is no global warming" stance is obviously "there is global warming." therefore, if a corporation was to deny the chance that the world would quite literally end as we know it, due to global environmental collapse, where would they, the "profit seeking corporations", get profit in that outcome? and since we can all agree these fat cats are out for profit and money and gain at any expense, Q is saying they would not sell out their own selves to make a buck today, at the expense of their very survival and the survival of their way of life tomorrow.



exaclty.
thank you.

the first liberal on this board (even if he doesn't agree) to step up and actually comprehend what i am saying.

[Qdrop]

So there is no global warming and we have nothing to worry about?


never said that. and YOU KNOW i never said that.
we don't know yet! there has not been nearly enough study.


It's the fucking libs sounding off about the environment again, when all that you right wing pricks are interested in is profit.


i'm not a right winger.
you're ignorance and liberal brainwashing does not let you comprehend how someone and agree with a conservative viewpoint (mainly through coinsidence) without being a right wing stooge.

i have no allegiance to any partisan club.


What is all the fuss about if there's no Global Warming then?


still to early to tell.
there ARE some data and factors that seem to elude to a warming trend.
but they can also be misinterpratations, poor models, ect.
and other studies have shown this....
not enough science yet.



Are all those countries ratifying the Kyoto protocol because they are going to make more money?



no, they are swallowing the current shakey science to a much larger degree.
also, there is ALOT of politics in this...ALOT.
so what do you think?...only america has big greedy businesses?


Yes, I agree with you, companies are motivated by the bottom line, the profit margin - hence the corporate fraud. THEY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? NOTHING MATTERS MORE THAN MAKING A FUCKING PROFIT. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. UNDERSTAND? CAPICE? COMPRENDRE?

The same margin which is prompting them to pay off Scientists to 'prove' that Global Warming is a myth.

see phinks post....

[ASsman]

Hmmm, still doesn't make any sense. Things won't change immediatly, not like in that shitty movie. They would be gradual, there might be a point at which it is already too late, but there isn't an imediate threat. In other words if the threat isn't in the imediate future, out of sight, out of mind. You think they can't put themselves in denial over this? Just saying.

[Qdrop]

Ah, we get to the meat, and the pwning of sometime conservative, full time bullshit artist Q... My fingers were itching to type what you did check you beat me to it.

except check you liberal/green websites and blogs....THIER "perfect scientific" data shows the climatic effects taking place within the next 50 years....extreme global climate shifts, ect...IN OUR LIFETIME!
are you saying that those "angelic, pure, uncorrupted liberal scientists could be *gasp*, wrong?!
but i thought only greedy, paid off, conservative scientists could be wrong?
hmmm....


ya know, FUCK YOU D!

you are the most 2 faced muther fucker on this section.

you fucking flip flop on me so many fucking times....it's like a fuckin soap opera....
you PM me, applauding me for how i handle myself in certain debates....talking shit about other people on this board that "you don't care for either" and what not...

you applaud me whenever i agree with any liberal stance...

but if i don't...suddenly i'm a conservative-in-desguise, pig headed, fence-sitting dick.

what a fuckin fair-weather asshole....
and you are JUST as arrogant as i am....don't kid yourself.

take a lesson from phink....
he is probably the MOST liberal on this board.....and we agree on few things completely....
yet he at least has the decency and respect to listen to my side and digest it
without twisting it, or creating a strawman in retort.

[Qdrop]

In other words if the threat isn't in the imediate future, out of sight, out of mind. You think they can't put themselves in denial over this? Just saying.

oh, i can meet you halfway on this....
what your saying IS possible..i agree.
i just don't think it is likely that big business would be that short sighted when thier OWN profit is at stake....
big busines wants to remain sustainable....and continue growth and huge $$ for as long as possible...

this idea that liberals have that ALL CEO's just try to get rich quick, drive the company in the ground, then make a dash with all thier cash....
it's nonsensical....
yes, it has happened....but if you think that is the norm, then you have an incredibably shallow and ignorant understanding of the business world.

if that was the case....how would corporate america have risen to the degree it has now?...
truthfully...we have been a corporate empire for over a 100 years....
you get that way through longer term stategies...not quick, short term, "grab the cash and run" tactics.
like it or not....they are smart....and they know how to run a business for big $$ profit (be it ethical or not)....

[Ali]

...if the threat isn't in the imediate future, out of sight, out of mind. You think they can't put themselves in denial over this? Just saying. The real threat is the Totalitatian Tererists in Teheran Tooling Up to Nuke us all. That's why GWB needs 401 billion bucks and that's why the Emeriken Ekonimee kant afford to cut back on the amount of shit it spews into the air, rivers, sea and soil.

[Whois]

The real threat is the Totalitatian Tererists in Teheran Tooling Up to Nuke us all. That's why GWB needs 401 billion bucks and that's why the Emeriken Ekonimee kant afford to cut back on the amount of shit it spews into the air, rivers, sea and soil.

Get Your War On!

That's right...we have a decades long war to run, no time for worrying about other shite.

I welcome all major natural catastrophes (as well as artificial ones)...helps thin out the gene pool. (not sarcasm)

[SobaViolence]

All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep on fuckin' everybody 'til they're all the same colour.

[ASsman]

What a boring ass world that would be.

[checkyourprez]

The real threat is the Totalitatian Tererists in Teheran Tooling Up to Nuke us all. That's why GWB needs 401 billion bucks and that's why the Emeriken Ekonimee kant afford to cut back on the amount of shit it spews into the air, rivers, sea and soil.


im not sure if i can sense sarcasim here or not. i havent been posting in the po. forum long enough to get a hold of certain peoples attributes.

but if you are being sarcastic good.

if not, i dont know, i guess i think your wrong.

[Whois]

im not sure if i can sense sarcasim here or not. i havent been posting in the po. forum long enough to get a hold of certain peoples attributes.

but if you are being sarcastic good.

if not, i dont know, i guess i think your wrong.

I think it went over your head...the sarcasm that is.
:rolleyes:

[D_Raay]

except check you liberal/green websites and blogs....THIER "perfect scientific" data shows the climatic effects taking place within the next 50 years....extreme global climate shifts, ect...IN OUR LIFETIME!
are you saying that those "angelic, pure, uncorrupted liberal scientists could be *gasp*, wrong?!
but i thought only greedy, paid off, conservative scientists could be wrong?
hmmm....


ya know, FUCK YOU D!

you are the most 2 faced muther fucker on this section.

you fucking flip flop on me so many fucking times....it's like a fuckin soap opera....
you PM me, applauding me for how i handle myself in certain debates....talking shit about other people on this board that "you don't care for either" and what not...

you applaud me whenever i agree with any liberal stance...

but if i don't...suddenly i'm a conservative-in-desguise, pig headed, fence-sitting dick.

what a fuckin fair-weather asshole....
and you are JUST as arrogant as i am....don't kid yourself.

take a lesson from phink....
he is probably the MOST liberal on this board.....and we agree on few things completely....
yet he at least has the decency and respect to listen to my side and digest it
without twisting it, or creating a strawman in retort.

I'm not two faced, I've simply had enough of your rhetoric. Enough of it so as it pisses me off to read much on this board anymore. Sure, some of your posts I found insightful and refreshing for a fence sitter, but when you knock something as important as the environment , and the good people who are trying to do something about it well then you can kiss my entire arse.
It's got nothing to do with being liberal. The environment effects us all. For you to take the radical right wing's side on this shows your ignorance on the issue. It also puts you on the side everything I hate about this country and it's ridiculous practice of government.

[Qdrop]

It's got nothing to do with being liberal. The environment effects us all. For you to take the radical right wing's side on this shows your ignorance on the issue. It also puts you on the side everything I hate about this country and it's ridiculous practice of government.

see, that's you in a nutshell.
you are all about partisan loyalty...NOT facts or science or even logic.
the science doesn't concern you....logic does not concern you....
you are the equivalent of a fuckin liberal fundamentalist.

you sir, are not better than the mentality behind flag waiving neo-cons.

you blindly follow your "lefty club" without question....

YOU, are a shining example of why i am a centrist...and a shining example of why partisans bullshit is tearing this country apart.

[phinkasaurus]

It also puts you on the side everything I hate about this country and it's ridiculous practice of government.

i have to agree here. the environment is worse than it has been. Water is polluted, a hole is in the ozone, deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. No matter if the collapse will come in 50 or 200 or 1000 years, we humans are destroying the planet with our current course of action.
to me, i don't care how much it costs the big business or how "shaley" the science is. I know the planet is suffering.
like someone else posted, I know of rivers and lakes I cannot drink out of due to man made pollution. isn't there a river in Ohio that catches fire every year due to it's chemical toxic content?

You have to see the pollutin in the environment, Q. Or can you say the envrionment is not being destroyed?

[ASsman]

you are all about partisan loyalty...NOT facts or science or even logic.


adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.



you sir, are not better than the mentality behind flag waiving neo-cons.

you blindly follow your "lefty club" without question....

YOU, are a shining example of why i am a centrist...and a shining example of why partisans bullshit is tearing this country apart.

Who else is in this Lefty Club, I'd like to join. Again with the partisan stuff, that makes no sense WHATSOEVER.


http://thelefthand.com/

[Qdrop]

i have to agree here. the environment is worse than it has been. Water is polluted, a hole is in the ozone, deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. No matter if the collapse will come in 50 or 200 or 1000 years, we humans are destroying the planet with our current course of action.
to me, i don't care how much it costs the big business or how "shaley" the science is. I know the planet is suffering.
like someone else posted, I know of rivers and lakes I cannot drink out of due to man made pollution. isn't there a river in Ohio that catches fire every year due to it's chemical toxic content?

You have to see the pollutin in the environment, Q. Or can you say the envrionment is not being destroyed?

please don't confuse my doubts/uncertainties about global warming with general sentiments about the environment....

while some things get blown out proportion for funding reasons....i am FULLY aware of the enviromental woes facing this planet....and fully support action to fix those.
but the key here is that we have LIMITED RESOURCES ($$, MANPOWER, ECT) TO FIX EACH OF THE MANY ECOLOGICAL ILLS we face.
so we need to concentrate on those areas that need the most attention....those that have been undeniable proven to be major issues threatening the environment...
global warming IS NOT one of them.


if people on this board want to twist my doubts/uncertainties of global warming into general doubts about the ecological problems....go for it.
you're wrong.....
but, hey....whatever helps you log off and shut up.

[Qdrop]

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.



yeah....point?



Who else is in this Lefty Club, I'd like to join.

why bother?
why not just follow your own ideals....and make up your own mind about the facts in front of you.


Again with the partisan stuff, that makes no sense WHATSOEVER.


what part is confusing you?
my post was pretty direct and to the point.

[ASsman]

Which definition is the one you are using...

Devoted to a cause or group.... what cause? what group?

[phinkasaurus]

please don't confuse my doubts/uncertainties about global warming with general sentiments about the environment....

cool, i can see you feel the enviroment is threatened. and your argument about resources is valid, we do have limited resources. Iguess, it comes down to whether are not you think it's at the point where we need to put all our resources towards it. I feel it is and has been for some time. you do not.

we agree to disagree, once again Q.

[Qdrop]

Which definition is the one you are using...

Devoted to a cause or group.... what cause? what group?

you serious?

as if the liberal left and the conservative right don't have thier own YingYang ideologies, mantras,ect?
each side having very clear, laid out "requirements of belief"...

i'm not gonna sit here and explain what you already know.

don't play dumb.


and pleeeeeeeeeeease don't play that "the right may have pre-programmed beliefs and rhetoric...but the left don't. they simply know the enlightened truth" card.

that is such bullshit....both sides are as guilty as the other....as Draay so obviously demonstrated....

[ASsman]

I would really like this left to show itself. Don't know who you are refering to. And Im serious.


that is such bullshit....both sides are as guilty as the other....as Draay so obviously demonstrated....
What are these "sides" what are you talking about? Really, I don't have any clue. You are arguing about peoples ideas, something intagible. That is like saying Communism sucks (or it's just as bad as capitalism) because Stalin was a "communist", makes no sense whatsoever. Or maybe Im just confused about what you are trying to say.

Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.

[checkyourprez]

I think it went over your head...the sarcasm that is.
:rolleyes:


nah i got it, i just didnt want to look like an ass if that tiny bit of uncertainty i had about it was what he really ment.

[Qdrop]

I would really like this left to show itself. Don't know who you are refering to.

face right.
turn 180º.
there you go.

[ASsman]

This is like "The War on Terror" , bunch of mythical creature shit that doesn't even exist.

[checkyourprez]

please don't confuse my doubts/uncertainties about global warming with general sentiments about the environment....

while some things get blown out proportion for funding reasons....i am FULLY aware of the enviromental woes facing this planet....and fully support action to fix those.
but the key here is that we have LIMITED RESOURCES ($$, MANPOWER, ECT) TO FIX EACH OF THE MANY ECOLOGICAL ILLS we face.
so we need to concentrate on those areas that need the most attention....those that have been undeniable proven to be major issues threatening the environment...
global warming IS NOT one of them.


if people on this board want to twist my doubts/uncertainties of global warming into general doubts about the ecological problems....go for it.
you're wrong.....
but, hey....whatever helps you log off and shut up.


we've not been around long enough or have enough knowledge to really know how bad of a problem this is, or can become.

the man is just saying do you really really want to take that chance, albeit however small that chance may be? i dont think it really has anything to do about being an extreme leftist.


i dont really think iraq was a pressing issue where we would have had to devote all those resources (man power, and countless billions of dollars) to that. granted the world is not coming to an end tommarow, but slowy and surely i think by our actions it is.

its just peoples oppions on how bad it is, and when to do something. but its something if your wrong about for being too protective, ok then weve just solved a problem we would have had to someday anyways. but if not and were not quick enough to act, i think that is a far worse thing to have happen.

[Qdrop]

This is like "The War on Terror" , bunch of mythical creature shit that doesn't even exist.

sooo....

the left doesn't exist?
nor does leftist sentiment?


and what about the right wing?
is sean hannity just a figment of my imagination?


are you saying that i'm in the Matrix?

[checkyourprez]

This is like "The War on Terror" , bunch of mythical creature shit that doesn't even exist.


thats some shit im kinda undecided on.


there are definatly terrorists out there looking to put a hurt on the US. but a lot of it is just some shit for bush and dudes to look like there doing something after we got smoked on the towers bc dudes didnt want to listen when they were warned 52 times before it happend that al-queda and bin laden were planning some shit.

plus it helps the economy to be at a constant war so... seems to be our way of making sure we dont suffer and severe downturns.

[ASsman]

sooo....

the left doesn't exist?
nor does leftist sentiment?


and what about the right wing?
is sean hannity just a figment of my imagination?


are you saying that i'm in the Matrix?

Words made up by the White Man. Christ, Draay is right. Know the difference between "American Liberals" and actual far-left communists. That is all I am asking, and the "Left" you keep talking about, is just the opposition to the current American sentiments.

Keep refering to the "Left" and "Right" as if they were actual groups, made up by faggot pundits and Dem/Rep politicians.

[SobaViolence]

with these labels, we forget that we are all people and have more in common than we think.
'left' 'right' 'capitalist' 'socialist' 'american' 'iraqi', i think that labels often get in the way and ruin a debate before it begins...

of course, that makes everything complicated, and heaven forbid we have to think about stuff, when labels reduce your whole being into a single, far-reaching, poorly defined word.

plus, american liberals still equal right-wingers in the rest of the world.

[Qdrop]

Know the difference between "American Liberals" and actual far-left communists.

that line is so fuckin blurred....particulary with all of you on this section...
tell me...which of you are american liberal and which are far left "commies" or whatever...

YOU DON'T EVEN FUCKIN KNOW!

be you american liberal or far left commie.....
you all swallow the same liberal sentiment...without question.

i'm frankly amazed that you stated you're "unsure" about global warming.

careful....Draay may unleash his"wrath" on you too....


That is all I am asking, and the "Left" you keep talking about, is just the opposition to the current American sentiments.


opposition to 51% of american sentiment.



Keep refering to the "Left" and "Right" as if they were actual groups,

and you deny that?

left = liberal
right = conservative

don't fucking argue that....
don't try to break it down into even more subcategories...

the whole idea makes me sick enough as it is.

what are you saying?.....
you're an indendant?
a centrist?


hey, i don't beleive in picking a "side" ...but everyone else on here seems to...
so what side are you on?

[checkyourprez]

that line is so fuckin blurred....particulary with all of you on this section...
tell me...which of you are american liberal and which are far left "commies" or whatever...

YOU DON'T EVEN FUCKIN KNOW!

be you american liberal or far left commie.....
you all swallow the same liberal sentiment...without question.

i'm frankly amazed that you stated you're "unsure" about global warming.

careful....Draay may unleash his"wrath" on you too....



opposition to 51% of american sentiment.



and you deny that?

left = liberal
right = conservative

don't fucking argue that....
don't try to break it down into even more subcategories...

the whole idea makes me sick enough as it is.

what are you saying?.....
you're an indendant?
a centrist?


hey, i don't beleive in picking a "side" ...but everyone else on here seems to...
so what side are you on?


you just seem like your mad at the whole left like we all eat shit that is feed to us and cant think of anything for ourselves.

[ASsman]

Hmm, wan't a label? Let's see, communist.

Hahaha, you think half the "Liberals" in this country are actually that. Forget it, you are right, like "Democrats" and "Republicans", "Left" and "Right" are American labels. So you are right, I am wrong, sorry. I was trying to argue for the actual definition of the word, but obviously that doesn't fly because you are talking about American "Left".. etc.

[Qdrop]

you just seem like your mad at the whole left like we all eat shit that is feed to us and cant think of anything for ourselves.

not quite as bad as the right....
but yeah...you're not far off.

i am repulsed by anyone who has to identify with a group to "realize" their sentiments....

i use the label "centrist" or independant for conversational value only.
i hate labels, or groups....

i hate group think.......

[checkyourprez]

not quite as bad as the right....
but yeah...you're not far off.

i am repulsed by anyone who has to identify with a group to "realize" their sentiments....

i use the label "centrist" or independant for conversational value only.
i hate labels, or groups....

i hate group think.......


group think is a dangerous thing i agree. its easy to sway people whos convictions arent as strong as someone elses.

but if you hate the left for that i think youd have to hate the right even more. it seems to me bush acts like he can do no wrong and everything he believes and does is right. hes ruling a nation of people the way 51% of the people want it run. and i dont think that is right.

most of the liberals i know are like that for a reason not just being like that because they were told to. most of the rightiest people i know are like that because thats how they were raised and they dont question that sort of thing. i think the right tends to just go with the flow(as in the current "W" redoric), where the left will question if whats going on is right or wrong. now they might not always be right but i think in a democracy its important to question and make sure what is going on is right rather than jsut accepting it.

[Qdrop]

Hmm, wan't a label? Let's see, communist.

Hahaha, you think half the "Liberals" in this country are actually that. Forget it, you are right, like "Democrats" and "Republicans", "Left" and "Right" are American labels. So you are right, I am wrong, sorry. I was trying to argue for the actual definition of the word, but obviously that doesn't fly because you are talking about American "Left".. etc.

no i don't think all libels are communists.
you know me well enough by now, ASs....

i piss you off.....but i'm not an idiot.
and i have a point here.

whatever monicer you choose...liberal/democrat/left...

no, they are not identical....

but thier sentiments are so fucking similar....

tell me.....how many liberals do you know who are Pro life....what about democrats who are pro life?
and "lefties" who are pro life?

i can recite the same with a variety of topics....gun control, military sentiments, crime, welfare....
the results would be the same....and not a coincidance....
the sentiments would all be in line with each other.

same with conservative/republican/rigthies....

THERE ARE SPECIFIC SENTIMENTS THAT ARE SHARED BY ANY AND ALL LIBERAL ENTITIES.....JUST AS THEIR ARE FOR ANY AND ALL CONSERVATIVE ENTITIES.

are you really gonna deny that....

[Qdrop]

but if you hate the left for that i think youd have to hate the right even more.


agreed. and i do.


it seems to me bush acts like he can do no wrong and everything he believes and does is right. hes ruling a nation of people the way 51% of the people want it run. and i dont think that is right.

agreed.

most of the liberals i know are like that for a reason not just being like that because they were told to.

i used to think that too.

but this board, for one, has shown that to not necessarily be the case.

i really thought that, although i didn't take sides or label, i at least identified with the liberals more.

i do....
but still find myself just as disgusted by the group think on the left as i do by the right.


most of the rightiest people i know are like that because thats how they were raised and they dont question that sort of thing. i think the right tends to just go with the flow(as in the current "W" redoric), where the left will question if whats going on is right or wrong. now they might not always be right but i think in a democracy its important to question and make sure what is going on is right rather than jsut accepting it.

i agree.

i always thought that most liberals or leftists came to that sentiment through intellectual education and enlightenment....not through brainwashing.

i become less and less sure of that every day....

[ASsman]

American Labels, don't use them to generalize things outside of the US. Or things that exist completly seperatly, "Liberals" as you call them, make me sick, as do "Conservatives" and "Nazies" e.g. Cheney. All either moderates or "Right Wing Nazi" assholes. Relative to the rest of the world.

[checkyourprez]

American Labels, don't use them to generalize things outside of the US. Or things that exist completly seperatly, "Liberals" as you call them, make me sick, as do "Conservatives" and "Nazies" e.g. Cheney. All either moderates or "Right Wing Nazi" assholes. Relative to the rest of the world.


so basically americans make you sick?

[ASsman]

Basically.

Complacent crackers.

[Qdrop]

American Labels, don't use them to generalize things outside of the US. Or things that exist completly seperatly, "Liberals" as you call them, make me sick, as do "Conservatives" and "Nazies" e.g. Cheney. All either moderates or "Right Wing Nazi" assholes. Relative to the rest of the world.

okay. i understand.

then, once again, perhaps we aren't really arguing at all.
just having a misinterpretation of semantics.

how do you define/separate the apparent 50/50 (or which ever % you want to use) sentiment split in our country and the world....
what labels or names do you use?

"Liberals" as you call them, make me sick,

this made me smile.

[checkyourprez]

Basically.

Complacent crackers.


complacent as in?

[ASsman]

As in complacent with their Government.
These "liberals" Qdrop and everyone else seems to be talking about, they are the ones saying "Oh we might aswell finish what we started in Iraq" etc. "Oh Saddam is out! YEy!" , they ignore the fact that we are simply there to gain hegemony over their Oil.

[checkyourprez]

but still find myself just as disgusted by the group think on the left as i do by the right.



is it as much group think as opposed to just a bunch individuals that believe similarly about certain things.


i mean you can only be pro abortion, or anti abortion.

you can only be pro gun control or anti.

ect. ect.

a lot of it is basically a quick way to convey your views with out having to list off every specific little detail you believe in.


i believe there are people that believe stuff just because democrates believe it, but that doesnt mean all people do. and people with liberal tendencies shouldnt be punished because they fall in the same group as some mindless drones who just believe something because they think thats what they should be believing.

[phinkasaurus]

As in complacent with their Government.
These "liberals" Qdrop and everyone else seems to be talking about, they are the ones saying "Oh we might aswell finish what we started in Iraq" etc. "Oh Saddam is out! YEy!" , they ignore the fact that we are simply there to gain hegemony over their Oil.

yep...
to me, most people in the u.s political spectrum are too far to the right. becasue the u.s. sprectrum starts just right of center and goes further right.

i think we a "shift on over to the left"...

and left/right/liberal/conservative/whatever, like checkyourprez said, these are terms to quickly describe your stance. we can get into specifics if we want, but this way we can cover alot of ground real quickly.

my label? communist, maoist

[checkyourprez]

As in complacent with their Government.
These "liberals" Qdrop and everyone else seems to be talking about, they are the ones saying "Oh we might aswell finish what we started in Iraq" etc. "Oh Saddam is out! YEy!" , they ignore the fact that we are simply there to gain hegemony over their Oil.


Many "liberals" think we shouldnt have been there in the first place but you cannot just leave after what these "conservatives" have done to that place. that would not be fair to the people of iraq. that would unleash a massive civil war for power.

many of us dont denie and infact insist we are there for oil, but when a lot of the american public eats the shit that gets shoveled to them about how we are spreading freedom bla bla bla its hard to convince those people who believe that the american government has many alterier motives and has a very neo-conservative leardership at the helm right now.

[Qdrop]

is it as much group think as opposed to just a bunch individuals that believe similarly about certain things.

i wish that's how it worked.
but it seems that's rarer than i first thought.
on both sides.


i mean you can only be pro abortion, or anti abortion.

you can only be pro gun control or anti.

ect. ect.


correct.
but the issue is those that are pro-choice and pro-welfare....but don't really have much of view on gun control or military, ect.
but because thier personal views of pro-choice and pro-welfare draw them to the left....they simply adopt the other liberal mantras by default.
same with the right.

fuckin disgusting and intelectually lazy.

this is why i hate parties/groups, ect.

[checkyourprez]

my label? communist, maoist


in a perfect world i may say the same.


i dont think humans are capable of making it work.



i dont really know what i would call my self, i have very liberal/borderline communist views on things but i realize much of what i think wouldnt work on a wordly level. i think for it to work you would need a very educated empathetic population. and i just dont think we are anywhere near that. and probably never will be.

[ASsman]

Many "liberals" think we shouldnt have been there in the first place but you cannot just leave after what these "conservatives" have done to that place. that would not be fair to the people of iraq. that would unleash a massive civil war for power.
... Go ahead, vote for Kerry. Because he doesn't have blood on his hands. And you've made my point exactly.


i dont think humans are capable of making it work.
Meh, Democracy has worked... Why can't communism. We obviously can find ways around human greed .. etc.

[checkyourprez]

correct.
but the issue is those that are pro-choice and pro-welfare....but don't really have much of view on gun control or military, ect.
but because thier personal views of pro-choice and pro-welfare draw them to the left....they simply adopt the other liberal mantras by default.
same with the right.
.


with this statement i see where you are coming from. and i defiantly think its from a lack of wanting or trying to know anything more. and the sad thing is like ive said before the people that need to know, dont and wont and never will just because thats how they are.

[Qdrop]

i dont really know what i would call my self, i have very liberal/borderline communist views on things but i realize much of what i think wouldnt work on a wordly level. i think for it to work you would need a very educated empathetic population. and i just dont think we are anywhere near that. and probably never will be.

oh my god....
we're brothers separated at birth.

see....now what you are .....is a pragmatist.
be proud of that.

[Qdrop]

Why can't communism.

cause then i couldn't have all my "stuff"!
:(

[checkyourprez]

oh my god....
we're brothers separated at birth.

see....now what you are .....is a pragmatist.
be proud of that.


possibly dude, i was born in the roc too.

at first i was kinda like this dude is sounding like an ass with all this retoric, but once i understood what you really ment behind it i agree. non confrontational explanations of peoples views are the way to go about things. but too much of this world likes bombs and hating each other, its just easier.

[Qdrop]

possibly dude, i was born in the roc too.


you still live here?

what parts you from? HS? age? ect, ect.

[phinkasaurus]

i dont really know what i would call my self, i have very liberal/borderline communist views on things but i realize much of what i think wouldnt work on a wordly level. i think for it to work you would need a very educated empathetic population. and i just dont think we are anywhere near that. and probably never will be.

wouldn't work or hasn't worked?

it's not like despotism or feudalism or capitalism has worked perfectly, so it's no wonder communism has had it's failures. but I think with the right level of education and involvement, it could and would work. I don't think we can switch tomorrow or even in my life time, but I think we have to or we will destroy ourselves.
to me, we are headed in two directions, towards a world government that takes care of the planet and the populations and is as close to a "utopia" as is possible, or we will obliterate the human race and/or the planet. it seems extreme, but to me, our actions all lead to those two possible outcomes.

read ParEcon (link in my sig) it addresses how to reorder an economy aftter doing away with capitalist relations.

[ASsman]

Get a room.

[checkyourprez]

... Go ahead, vote for Kerry. Because he doesn't have blood on his hands. And you've made my point exactly.



Meh, Democracy has worked... Why can't communism. We obviously can find ways around human greed .. etc.


not really, i dont think kerry would have invaded iraq in the first place, you act like its a given he would have.


and o ya theres a little thing called the USSR it didnt work to well. and cuba and north korea? there doing excellent right now right?...

its just not possible for all humans to work together the way communism would intend, for it to work. youd always have lazy ass people that would say well im getting what im getting no matter what i do so fuck it im gonna slack off, and it would throw the system off. then you have people who get in power and like it too much and not want to leave or feel like they have the right to live lavishly unlike the working population, which is also not what the system is about. the problem is with humans, its not that we havent tried it. human nature does not have the capacity to make communism work.

[checkyourprez]

you still live here?

what parts you from? HS? age? ect, ect.


went to gates, i go to school in fredonia right now, i come home on breaks and shit. im 20.

and u?

[D_Raay]

most of the liberals i know are like that for a reason not just being like that because they were told to. most of the rightiest people i know are like that because thats how they were raised and they dont question that sort of thing. i think the right tends to just go with the flow(as in the current "W" redoric), where the left will question if whats going on is right or wrong. now they might not always be right but i think in a democracy its important to question and make sure what is going on is right rather than jsut accepting it.

That is it in a nutshell... You know what irritates me, being called a liberal just because I agree with them more than I do the right. Forgive me if I don't just swallow down the heaps of bullshit we are fed on a daily basis. I never give any significant thought to a "label", yet I am accused of being enconsed in one. Right and wrong are not designated to labels to be fought out like some infantile playground after school beating. It would seem the people who agree with the neo-con nutjobs warped view of what's important and what's not for the rest of the world, as if they had that right, always fall back on slinging the old "liberal" insult at us. The demonization of that very word goes to show you what an effective brainwashing job those very neo cons have done.

[ASsman]

wouldn't work or hasn't worked?

it's not like despotism or feudalism or capitalism has worked perfectly, so it's no wonder communism has had it's failures. but I think with the right level of education and involvement, it could and would work. I don't think we can switch tomorrow or even in my life time, but I think we have to or we will destroy ourselves.
to me, we are headed in two directions, towards a world government that takes care of the planet and the populations and is as close to a "utopia" as is possible, or we will obliterate the human race and/or the planet. it seems extreme, but to me, our actions all lead to those two possible outcomes.

read ParEcon (link in my sig) it addresses how to reorder an economy aftter doing away with capitalist relations.

Refer to http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=43353&page=1&pp=30&highlight=Starbucks

Yes all 4 pages of it. It's the same as arguing for a monarchy instead of a democracy. "Humans want all the power" blah blah blah, yah no shit. Checks and balances, etc.

[checkyourprez]

[QUOTE=phinkasaurus]to me, we are headed in two directions, towards a world government that takes care of the planet and the populations and is as close to a "utopia" as is possible, or we will obliterate the human race and/or the planet. it seems extreme, but to me, our actions all lead to those two possible outcomes.

QUOTE]


i think theres some truth to that. making us all seem like one instead of fracture groups seperated by imaginary lines drawn up by colonial powers.

but your comment abour raising the education level would be necessary but almost im possible in my eyes.

[Qdrop]

went to gates, i go to school in fredonia right now, i come home on breaks and shit. im 20.

and u?

CCHS....RIT....live downtown now.
27.

okay, ASsman is getting jealous.
enough with the reunion stuff.... :rolleyes:

[ASsman]

not really, i dont think kerry would have invaded iraq in the first place, you act like its a given he would have.
Well, when you kind of give the President a budget for said invasion, you kind of support the decision.
And when you don't cry out "Illegal War" , but "Wrong Time Conflict" or "Ill implemented Salvation of the Iraqis" , I don't buy that horseshit.


and o ya theres a little thing called the USSR it didnt work to well. and cuba and north korea? there doing excellent right now right?...
The link in my previous post, Enigma tried this. Didn't fly.

its just not possible for all humans to work together the way communism would intend, for it to work. youd always have lazy ass people that would say well im getting what im getting no matter what i do so fuck it im gonna slack off, and it would throw the system off.
You could say the same about a Republic or Democratic government. Yah we know one person will corrupt, we know too much power will corrupt, so on so forth. Not a real argument.


then you have people who get in power and like it too much and not want to leave or feel like they have the right to live lavishly unlike the working population, which is also not what the system is about. the problem is with humans, its not that we havent tried it. human nature does not have the capacity to make communism work.
What are you talking about? A totalitarian government? What? Are we talking about the same thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[Whois]

That is it in a nutshell... You know what irritates me, being called a liberal just because I agree with them more than I do the right. Forgive me if I don't just swallow down the heaps of bullshit we are fed on a daily basis. I never give any significant thought to a "label", yet I am accused of being enconsed in one. Right and wrong are not designated to labels to be fought out like some infantile playground after school beating. It would seem the people who agree with the neo-con nutjobs warped view of what's important and what's not for the rest of the world, as if they had that right, always fall back on slinging the old "liberal" insult at us. The demonization of that very word goes to show you what an effective brainwashing job those very neo cons have done.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin...all classical liberals.

[checkyourprez]

Well, when you kind of give the President a budget for said invasion, you kind of support the decision.
And when you don't cry out "Illegal War" , but "Wrong Time Conflict" or "Ill implemented Salvation of the Iraqis" , I don't buy that horseshit.

totally different man. if any US congressman didnt support that bullshit war(with that fake pretenses for it non the less) they would have been run out of office. they were thinking about their political carears also.

The link in my previous post, Enigma tried this. Didn't fly.

How do you figure?

You could say the same about a Republic or Democratic government. Yah we know one person will corrupt, we know too much power will corrupt, so on so forth. Not a real argument.

yea you could, but in democracys there is capitalism and capitalism breeds that sort of thing and is almost encouraged. its different in a communist state, i dont really see how your deniance of what i said works. our democracy is corrupt but it still works because it allows for some of it, in a communist state any of it would throw off the whole balance of what makes it work.


What are you talking about? A totalitarian government? What? Are we talking about the same thing?

i was talking about a communist government turned curropt because of human nature. a cumminst governemnt can easily turn in to a totalitarian one if allowed to. lennin/stalin kinda prove that point. but a real communist government shouldnt work like that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism[/QUOTE]

[ASsman]

totally different man. if any US congressman didnt support that bullshit war(with that fake pretenses for it non the less) they would have been run out of office. they were thinking about their political carears also.
Sorry, I hadn't taken that into consideration. I guess I'll excuse him, not so sure about those 100,000 dead Iraqis though. They might not understand that he needed to think of his career.


And that is the reason they are all cock suckers, "Liberals" and "Conservatives".

How do you figure?
Read the thread.

[SobaViolence]

i think everyone cares a little too much about language and words and not enough about action and results. I don't think we, as a race(humanity), can progress past our current world situation individually.

the united states can't do it by itself, arabs can't do it by themselves, buddhists can't do it by themselves, etc etc. the only way we(in a global sense of the word) can move towards a better world is to realize that we are stuck on some petty, schoolyard shit, fighting over abstract ideals, when life is passing us by, and lives are wasted for no good reason.

people who let words get in the way of results, technicalities in the way of success, deserve nothing but contempt. back to the issue, kyoto isn't perfect. science isn't either. but the fact is we must reduce our emissions and find efficient ways to subsist on this rock.

because, oppose to how most people act today, humans don't mean 1% of shit in the grand scheme of things...

[checkyourprez]

Sorry, I hadn't taken that into consideration. I guess I'll excuse him, not so sure about those 100,000 dead Iraqis though. They might not understand that he needed to think of his career.

yea well welcome to our governmental system, its us before anyone else. and this is the major problem why i believe communism wouldnt work.

[/QUOTE]

[Qdrop]

That is it in a nutshell... You know what irritates me, being called a liberal just because I agree with them more than I do the right. .... I never give any significant thought to a "label", yet I am accused of being enconsed in one.

oh you are so full of shit.
now you are going to shrug off the liberal tag..
"i don't know why i get labeled a liberal....i'm such a victim!"

do i need to pull up old posts of you calling yourself a liberal, ect?

flip flop....flip flop....

i'm the one who has been arguing the case of NO labels....of independant, centrist view....since the fucking beginning.
and you called me a fence-sitter.

but now YOU cast off the liberal label....

so which is it D?

are you a liberal?

or are gonna come to my side and cast off all labels and just call yourself an independant mind.

[ASsman]

Why won't communism work? Because US politicians aren't held responsible for anything they do wrong? Because Americans are complacent? Because the Media is complancent?

[D_Raay]

oh you are so full of shit.
now you are going to shrug off the liberal tag..
"i don't know why i get labeled a liberal....i'm such a victim!"

do i need to pull up old posts of you calling yourself a liberal, ect?

flip flop....flip flop....

i'm the one who has been arguing the case of NO labels....of independant, centrist view....since the fucking beginning.
and you called me a fence-sitter.

but now YOU cast off the liberal label....

so which is it D?

are you a liberal?

or are gonna come to my side and cast off all labels and just call yourself an independant mind.

Go ahead and find some posts where I call myself a liberal... I'd like to see it. And the reason why I've been so hard on you is because you can't be an independent thinker and actually believe that global warming shouldn't be addressed. If i am anything I am a anti-propagandist.

[checkyourprez]

Why won't communism work? Because US politicians aren't held responsible for anything they do wrong? Because Americans are complacent? Because the Media is complancent?


because money makes the world go round

[ASsman]

READ THE THREAD.

[phinkasaurus]

youd always have lazy ass people that would say well im getting what im getting no matter what i do so fuck it im gonna slack off, and it would throw the system off. then you have people who get in power and like it too much and not want to leave or feel like they have the right to live lavishly unlike the working population, which is also not what the system is about.

read ParEcon, it addresses this. basically, if you don't work, you don't get supported.

the problem is with humans, its not that we havent tried it. human nature does not have the capacity to make communism work.

i disagree. i can give you plenty example of selfless acts throughout humanities existance. and selfless acts, thinking of the group before the individual, is what makes communism work.

i think we need a societal evolutionary shift. it will happen one day, because as was brought up by Soba, we cannot succeed individually.

and i would like to note, this topic has gone way off the intial thread topic started.
:)

[checkyourprez]

READ THE THREAD.


dude ive read thread. i been on thread. how bout stop being such a mongerer and point out specifically what you want me to look at.

[checkyourprez]

i disagree. i can give you plenty example of selfless acts throughout humanities existance. and selfless acts, thinking of the group before the individual, is what makes communism work.

i think we need a societal evolutionary shift. it will happen one day, because as was brought up by Soba, we cannot succeed individually.

and i would like to note, this topic has gone way off the intial thread topic started.
:)


i agree on your disagreement. there are plenty of people that do acts like that and are good people and would make it work.

but the problem theirin lyes with the people who arent like that. you cant make them be that wayy and if you have this utopian society how do you decided who are the good and who will make it work and who are the lazy uncaring that will tear it down. and what do you do with the people who you think are unfit to enter this society. are they exiled to some early australian type prison island, or whats the deal? theres just too many uncertanties i think.

[phinkasaurus]

you make it worth their while to be a part of the society and to contribute. read ParEcon, it's a fabulous book. there is a free version on that site, plus parts snipped out in a FAQ kind of way.

it really only takes everyone who would do it and make it work, deciding that it needs to be done. Then, those who would not, the "lazy" or "power hungry" would be ostracized or expelled somehow, or would come around to it, or would be punished or imprisoned.
that last part I know will get responded too as it sounds harsh, but when a society has people that actively try to disrupt and destroy it in a non-constructive manner, what other choice do you have?



and I like the environment.

[Ali]

Back to the original topic. (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050218/325/fcr1y.html)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A parcel of studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts say.

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well underway, said Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said on Thursday climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

"The real place to look is in the ocean," Barnett told a news conference.

His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.

The report was published one day after the United Nations Kyoto Protocol took effect, a 141-nation environmental pact the United States government has spurned for several reasons, including stated doubts about whether global warming is occurring and is caused by people.

Barnett urged U.S. officials to reconsider.

"Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

His team used U.S. government models of solar warming and volcanic warming, just to see if they could account for the measurements they made. "Not a chance," he said.

And the effects will be felt far and wide. "Anywhere that the major water source is fed by snow ... or glacial melt," he said. "The debate is what are we going to do about it."

COLD WINTERS, HOMELESS POLAR BEARS

Other researchers found clear effects on climate and animals.

Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.

"As the Earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being pushed out of kilter," she said. "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet."

A circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down, she said. The last time that happened, northern Europe suffered extremely cold winters.

She said the changes were already causing droughts in the U.S. West.

Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels globally by 23 feet (7 metres), is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly, Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base and making it more unstable.

Sharon Smith of the University of Miami found melting Arctic ice was taking with it algae that formed an important base of the food supply for a range of animals.

And the disappearing ice shelves meant big animals such as walruses, polar bears and seals were losing their homes.

"In 1997 there was a mass die-off of a bird called the short-tailed shearwater in the Bering Sea," Smith told the news conference.

The birds, which migrate from Australia, starved to death for several years running when warmer waters caused a plankton called a coccolithophore to bloom in huge numbers, turning the water an opaque turquoise colour.

"The short-tailed shearwater couldn't see its prey," Smith said.Cue Qtip and much bollocks about how it doesn't exist (yawn).

[D_Raay]

Cue Qtip and much bollocks about how it doesn't exist (yawn).
Come on Ali, don't you know these guys are just radical "liberals". They are trying to undermine the big profit corporations for their own personal gain. Wait...... just what would they gain from it.....oh yeah they'd be fundamentalist lefties who slept well at night......Makes perfect sense.....

[Qdrop]

Go ahead and find some posts where I call myself a liberal... I'd like to see it.

oh lord....you're serious.


And the reason why I've been so hard on you is because you can't be an independent thinker and actually believe that global warming shouldn't be addressed.

that makes so little sense, it makes me naseous.


not only are you a liberal (or progressive).....you ARE a democrat.

and before you can shrug off THAT title....
tell me....how do you differ from the average democrat?....
in sentiment?

[Rancid_Beasties]

I'm coming into this argument late but I'd just like to point one thing out along the same lines as phinkasaurus. It is quite easy for the directors of a corporation to trick themselves into believing everything is going to be ok. If you only look at one side of this particular argument you would probably agree with it. Especially when not having to give a shit about the environment will save you billions upon billions of dollars.

Qdrop, you prove this point, if you really are one of the people who look to the future of a company I must say I'm worried. Every time a legitimate long-term environmental argument comes up you shoot it down with short-term economic rationalism. You are closed minded to anything that might cost alot of money, even if it will save the world in the long run. You choose what sources you believe so that you can sleep at night. I choose what sources I believe regardless of how morbid or pessimistic they might be based entirely on legitimacy and what I see with my own eyes. You always side with right wing arguments, unlike most liberals (in the true sense of the word not just as another word for communist :D) who are open both to the left and the right. With people like you in charge of the future of such companies its only going to get worse. Anyway I dont mean to personally insult you because usually you are moderately logical for a conservative :)

However, I hope your right. I hope nothing happens. Because if everything fucks up I'm betting the corporations will be the first to exploit a dying world before pulling a blade runner style relocation for the rich.

and o ya theres a little thing called the USSR it didnt work to well. and cuba and north korea? there doing excellent right now right?...
This kind of ignorance pisses me off. The USSR wasn't communist. They were socialist. In the sense they claimed they wanted to progress to communism but they never achieved it thanks to Stalin's efforts. They did well to survive as long as they did, especially with the lack of material abundance at the beginning that is specifically required for communism to work. Its much the same story with the other two but seeing as I am only vaguely familiar with their revolutions whereas I know alot about russia i'll stick to that.

[Qdrop]

Go ahead and find some posts where I call myself a liberal... I'd like to see it.

okay, well......interesting stuff i found on a quick search.....


Re: Ten Reasons Not to Move to Canada


"I know you aren't talking to me... I am as left as left gets...."
-D_raay
------------------------------------------------------------------------



hmmm......so you are as left as left gets?....but you are not a liberal?
okay....so being a lefty and being a liberal....are....differant?
the wonderful world of D semantics...

oh...but look at this:

Re: Why?
I don't get it.

".... I am neither liberal or conservative or progressive or whatever..."
-D_raay
--------------------------------------------------------------


okay...so now you're not liberal or progressive....

but wait:


Re: the FOX channel ?!


"...If you really knew this board, you'd see that alot of us are progressive thinkers ...."
-D_raay
------------------------------------------------------------------------

wait.....now you ARE progressive.


wow....gee, D....maybe you aren't a liberal...

i don't think YOU know what the fuck you are...



oh, but I'M the fence sitter, huh? ;)

[ASsman]

Idiots, arguing with yourselfs. Semantics.

If you use the ACTUAL definitions of the words, or were more clear about what you define the words as. Wouldn't be sitting here calling you idiots.

[Rancid_Beasties]

Now whos being semantic... he obviously means that he shares views from all of these groups but tends to lean more towards the left on his broader opinions. Call it fence sitting, call it hypocricy, call it whatever the hell you like. But having a broad spectrum of views...thinking with your own mind rather than toeing the party, or in this case the philosophical line, is in my opinion the only way to make a difference in this world.

EDIT: ASsman this is not directed to you, it is towards Qdrop :)

[ASsman]

(y)

[Qdrop]

I'm coming into this argument late but I'd just like to point one thing out along the same lines as phinkasaurus. It is quite easy for the directors of a corporation to trick themselves into believing everything is going to be ok. If you only look at one side of this particular argument you would probably agree with it. Especially when not having to give a shit about the environment will save you billions upon billions of dollars.


did you even read this whole thread?
i am pro-environment.....i am not a conservative.......i have a very big ax to grind with corporations and big business when they act irresponsible to their worker, the enviroment, ect....
but i do not believe that ALL big business is inherintly evil...


Qdrop, you prove this point, if you really are one of the people who look to the future of a company I must say I'm worried. Every time a legitimate long-term environmental argument comes up you shoot it down with short-term economic rationalism.

jesus....are you even reading the posts?



You are closed minded to anything that might cost alot of money, even if it will save the world in the long run. You choose what sources you believe so that you can sleep at night. I choose what sources I believe regardless of how morbid or pessimistic they might be based entirely on legitimacy and what I see with my own eyes.
are you judging me on the few posts of mine that you skimmed through on the last page?
you are so fucking backward on this....


You always side with right wing arguments,

okay....you are a complete ass...
this proves you have never read a 1/4 of my posts....
you are making a complete ass out yourself.

always side with right wing arguments?
like on the countless threads where i attack religion, christianity, and fundamentalism?

like the countless threads where i argue for gay rights, and to end the needless persacution of gays in general?

or that i voted for nader and kerry in the past 2 elections?

that i have argued FOR the legalization of drugs?

or like on countless threads when i have called out this neo-con administration for it's deplorable tactics in entering this war?

Do a fuckin search on my posts in this forum....


insert foot in mouth...


unlike most liberals who are open both to the left and the right.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAH!

that's a great one.....

very funny.



With people like you in charge of the future of such companies its only going to get worse. Anyway I dont mean to personally insult you because usually you are moderately logical for a conservative :)


what an idiot.

i could run rings around you in a debate....
christ, i probably have more liberal tendancies than you....
and i could probable defend them better as well...


However, I hope your right. I hope nothing happens. Because if everything fucks up I'm betting the corporations will be the first to exploit a dying world before pulling a blade runner style relocation for the rich.

yeah....movies...base your reality on movies.

[Qdrop]

he obviously means that he shares views from all of these groups but tends to lean more towards the left on his broader opinions. Call it fence sitting, call it hypocricy, call it whatever the hell you like. But having a broad spectrum of views...thinking with your own mind rather than toeing the party, or in this case the philosophical line, is in my opinion the only way to make a difference in this world.



funny...this is what i have been arguing for since i joined this forum....

if you would actually read more than 3 of my posts before making embarrasingly backward assumptions...you would know that.

[Rancid_Beasties]

funny...this is what i have been arguing for since i joined this forum....

if you would actually read more than 3 of my posts before making embarrasingly backward assumptions...you would know that.

Maybe if you were more consistent with your opinions those of us who aren't regulars here wouldn't get the wrong opinion of you. I mean I can't read everyone of your posts...but if you you are as liberal as you are claiming then there is a hell of alot of posts i've missed just to make up for the economic rationalism and conservatism i've heard you spout. Anyway I'll concede, at least I can admit when I'm ill prepared for an argument :)

[Qdrop]

Maybe if you were more consistent with your opinions those of us who aren't regulars here wouldn't get the wrong opinion of you.


see what you really mean is: you should be more liberal with all your views, but just fiegn understanding of the conservative side.
sigh....
didn't you just write about having a broad spectrum of veiws?
see, that means having views that range from conservative to liberal....

i look at every issue fresh and independantly....and i am very consistant with that.

the fact that i am pro-gay rights....and skeptical of global warming, for example,... shows how consistent i am.





I mean I can't read everyone of your posts...but if you you are as liberal as you are claiming then there is a hell of alot of posts i've missed just to make up for the economic rationalism and conservatism i've heard you spout.

guess you should do some research next time.
BEFORE you open your mouth.

i cannot stand someone who jumps into a debate 4 pages in, reads three posts, because they are too lazy to read the rest...and think they know the whole story and where everyone sits on the issues....


Anyway I'll concede, at least I can admit when I'm ill prepared for an argument :)
that's the smartes thing you said.




see people like this MAKE me an arrogant prick. they pull it out of me....
i can't help it.

they make stupid assumptions/statements....i get angry...and i just end up coming off as an arrogant prick.

just ain't no justice in the world.....

[Rancid_Beasties]

see people like this MAKE me an arrogant prick. they pull it out of me....
i can't help it.

they make stupid assumptions/statements....i get angry...and i just end up coming off as an arrogant prick.

just ain't no justice in the world.....

You should have just dismissed me, rather than take me on. Because I really have no idea about this subject. I just read something that interested me and made a fairly broad post based almost entirely on the few posts i've seen from you. Maybe it was a mistake...but I dont think I said anything that wasn't said on the first page of this thread.

This is what pisses me off about the political forum...the assumption that because I post something slightly ignorant about one topic i'm automatically ignorant and unintelligent on the whole.

[Qdrop]

This is what pisses me off about the political forum...the assumption that because I post something slightly ignorant about one topic i'm automatically ignorant and unintelligent on the whole.

you are not ignorant.
i have read a number of your posts in the past, you are not stupid or ignorant.

the assumption you made, and the post you made WAS....
but you owned up to that.


i'm sorry...i just got heated.
just be careful of such scenarios in the future.

[SobaViolence]

Q drop, i just re-read the whole thread in its entirety(bleh), and man, you have some pent up anger. you really need to check your qualms at the door, because no matter the quality of your arguements (which are very good, sometimes) you come across as a bully and it seems like you cover a weak point with more of an agressive tone.

i think that's why it is so easy to ignore and ridicule you. of course, if you WANT to be aggressive and have a hostile shouting match, then by all means...i'm just not interested in that kinda thing.

[Qdrop]

Q drop, i just re-read the whole thread in its entirety(bleh), and man, you have some pent up anger. you really need to check your qualms at the door, because no matter the quality of your arguements (which are very good, sometimes) you come across as a bully and it seems like you cover a weak point with more of an agressive tone.

i get angry because 9 times out 10, i am alone in my stance and get ganged up on with in a few posts.

or i see someone start a thread or post stating something that has already been argued to death and put to rest....
but yet it continues.....

i get real angry, particularly in situations like this...where i have pretty sound logic on my side...
yet those that are USUALLY logical, immediantly dismiss me and my view PURELY because it doesn't jive with thier pre-concieved notions.
it is maddening....and that is what the second half of the thread is really about.

and you are part of that problem.

you think that global warming is real. you think big business is responsible and refuses to acknowledge it. they are evil, craft bastards....virtually all of them.

now, you don't really have much science on your side...in fact you don't really even understand the science behind it...yet you cling to your belief like a safety line....
not because of the strength of the science or logic...but because you want to belong to the cause...you WANT to be liberal...and believing in global warming is the liberal thing to do.

and what's worse....when someone comes by (like me) with some conflicting science and logic....you will not hear it. you will not accept or digest it. you dismiss it...and quickly label me as misguided, conservative, ect.

and you relish and find strength in the other liberal posters who echo your sentiments. you feel this makes you right....

this is why i get so mad and hostile.


i think that's why it is so easy to ignore and ridicule you.

granted, i DO take a tone that often begs for hostile retorts...i am aware of this...
it's my nature....

but to simply state that it's my tone/sentiment that starts the hostility is BS.

see, soba....you have it pretty easy on this forum. you're liberal (or progressive, lefty, whatever you wanna call yourself)....just like 90% of those on here.

the only ones that cause you issue really, are the conservative posters.....all 4 of em.

conservatives on this board (all 4 of em) have it really fuckin hard (and rightfully so) as they a tiny minority.

then you have someone like me....a centrist....i don't belong to any one way of thinking.
i have a completely differant system of thinking and reasoning out my sentiments- and thus have such a wide array of beliefs that range from being pro-gay to pro-death penalty.

this is maddening to those who sway to one side...
they don't know where to put me...it annoys them....so they attack and dismiss.
the liberals claim i am a conservative (pointing to one view that i stated), while conservatives will claim i am a liberal.
or....i get dismissed as a fence-sitter...someone who is afraid to take a side....ect ect..

i get it from both sides.
thus the anger.....

[checkyourprez]

This kind of ignorance pisses me off. The USSR wasn't communist. They were socialist. In the sense they claimed they wanted to progress to communism but they never achieved it thanks to Stalin's efforts. They did well to survive as long as they did, especially with the lack of material abundance at the beginning that is specifically required for communism to work. Its much the same story with the other two but seeing as I am only vaguely familiar with their revolutions whereas I know alot about russia i'll stick to that.


yes i realize the ussr stands for united soviet socialist republics. what was the United states policy of containment about? it was containing communism, i never heard anything about containing socialism. granted it may not have been communism to a tee like you may be speaking of it. but its the closest this world has seen to it. and it did not work. not even close. it was much weaker than the United States thought it was. i dont think we could even ever get to the point where it would work. it would take massive revolution and reform that i just dont see plausable.

[ASsman]

yes i realize the ussr stands for united soviet socialist republics. what was the United states policy of containment about? it was containing communism, i never heard anything about containing socialism.
Did you hear the US tell you Uncle Sam needs you?

Thats as far as Im willing to argue with you, really read up. FFS.


For much of the 20th century, some countries were often called "communist states" by people living in other parts of the world. However those societies referred to themselves as socialist countries, and their ruling Communist Parties claimed to have established a socialist, democratic system, with the aim of eventually reaching communism. However, these countries were generally not seen as democratic by anyone except their leadership, and were not seen as socialistic by any (non-communist) socialists living outside their borders. In fact, most socialists strongly opposed them. Due to these reasons (as well as a number of others), the term "communist states" was invented to refer to those countries.

Nicejob reading the article I pointed you to. Now really lets stop this silly game.

[checkyourprez]

Did you hear the US tell you Uncle Sam needs you?

Thats as far as Im willing to argue with you, really read up. FFS.


For much of the 20th century, some countries were often called "communist states" by people living in other parts of the world. However those societies referred to themselves as socialist countries, and their ruling Communist Parties claimed to have established a socialist, democratic system, with the aim of eventually reaching communism. However, these countries were generally not seen as democratic by anyone except their leadership, and were not seen as socialistic by any (non-communist) socialists living outside their borders. In fact, most socialists strongly opposed them. Due to these reasons (as well as a number of others), the term "communist states" was invented to refer to those countries.

Nicejob reading the article I pointed you to. Now really lets stop this silly game.


gameboy i told you to show me what you are talking about because obviously i missed it.

[ASsman]

No not the thread. I won't bother reposting all those pages. The link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

[checkyourprez]

No not the thread. I won't bother reposting all those pages. The link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism


read the first part dont have time for the rest till after class i get back about it

[ASsman]

For much of the 20th century, some countries were often called "communist states" by people living in other parts of the world. However those societies referred to themselves as socialist countries, and their ruling Communist Parties claimed to have established a socialist, democratic system, with the aim of eventually reaching communism. However, these countries were generally not seen as democratic by anyone except their leadership, and were not seen as socialistic by any (non-communist) socialists living outside their borders. In fact, most socialists strongly opposed them. Due to these reasons (as well as a number of others), the term "communist states" was invented to refer to those countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

And then...


However, the term "communist state" is itself quite inappropriate. Besides the problem noted above (the fact that "communist state" is technically an oxymoron), there is one further issue with this term: there were (and are) many communists who opposed the governments of those countries and who argued that their ruling parties were communist in name only. The best known of these dissenting communists are probably the Trotskyists.

[Qdrop]

jesus,
this "the defination of communism vs. socialism" debate come up like once a month.

so does communism vs. capitalism.

we're on some kind of monthly cycle....

"the defination of communism vs. socialism"
"communism vs. capitalism"
"the iraq war"
"bush is evil...look at what he's doing now..."
"latest stupid legislation"
"latest expose on republican, CEO, ect"
"bush is evil...look at what he's doing now..."
"general, all out, personal attact thread"
"latest expose on republican, CEO, ect"
"the iraq war"
"bush is evil...look at what he's doing now..."
"suv's suck"

repeat next month....

[SobaViolence]

and you are part of that problem.

you think that global warming is real. you think big business is responsible and refuses to acknowledge it. they are evil, craft bastards....virtually all of them.

i never said global warming is real, i merely point out that there is an increasing amount of odd phenomenons happening around the world that are related to pollution and/or the weather...


now, you don't really have much science on your side...in fact you don't really even understand the science behind it...yet you cling to your belief like a safety line....
not because of the strength of the science or logic...but because you want to belong to the cause...you WANT to be liberal...and believing in global warming is the liberal thing to do.
i only post things that have been reported on by credentialed news outlets (altho, rarely american) that document reasearch that has been going a considerable time MANY scientists. none of my posts have ever been from the same 'liberal' group of leftists scientists...


and what's worse....when someone comes by (like me) with some conflicting science and logic....you will not hear it. you will not accept or digest it. you dismiss it...and quickly label me as misguided, conservative, ect.

and you relish and find strength in the other liberal posters who echo your sentiments. you feel this makes you right....

i have only seen a few posts with direct opposite claims and later research has shown they are suspicious. the fact that 'our' science is flawed, and 'your' science is correct from the start of our so-called debates is laughable. you are a hypocrite.

furthermore, i digest everything. i never choose sides, i merely chose that we must try to stop it BEFORE something happens. and I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE ECONOMY. so that arguement falls on def ears, because money and profit is not my be all and end all...


this is why i get so mad and hostile.
granted, i DO take a tone that often begs for hostile retorts...i am aware of this...
it's my nature....

but to simply state that it's my tone/sentiment that starts the hostility is BS.

i believe you get hostile when we oppose your views. when someone comes alone and does a better job explaining what you meant you are calm and even nice. but when assman, d_raay or myself question you in any way, you flip out and use these ridiculous tricks to try and manipulate us. if this is your nature, i don't feel angry at you (although i never have, but i feel a great sense of pity.


see, soba....you have it pretty easy on this forum. you're liberal (or progressive, lefty, whatever you wanna call yourself)....just like 90% of those on here.

the only ones that cause you issue really, are the conservative posters.....all 4 of em.

conservatives on this board (all 4 of em) have it really fuckin hard (and rightfully so) as they a tiny minority.


i'm Canadian, our governing party is the Liberal party, so you're out of your element. see, the problem is that you assume you know what i think and believe, when really you are just making an ass out of yourself. i would agree with anyone if i felt they had sound logic, but most of the time, these right wingers just fall short. and if you want me to feel bad for inarticualte people who debate me, well, don't hold your ill-tempered breath.


then you have someone like me....a centrist....i don't belong to any one way of thinking.
i have a completely differant system of thinking and reasoning out my sentiments- and thus have such a wide array of beliefs that range from being pro-gay to pro-death penalty.

is there a bruise from patting yourself on the back so vigorously?


this is maddening to those who sway to one side...
they don't know where to put me...it annoys them....so they attack and dismiss.
the liberals claim i am a conservative (pointing to one view that i stated), while conservatives will claim i am a liberal.
or....i get dismissed as a fence-sitter...someone who is afraid to take a side....ect ect..

i get it from both sides.
thus the anger.....

no, the anger comes from your frustration with not having an ally. there are people on this board who share some views with me, not everyone all the time...but opinions intersect often. there are some nice people and there are funny people, then there are trolls and people like you (probably just you).

assman, whois, checkyourprez, phink, greenearthal, echewta, droppinscience, ace42, d_raay, ali, marlene(where'd you go), schmeltz, and a few others (sorry
:o ) don't necessarrily agree, but we get it. i believe we enjoy being informed and informing others. plus, we can make stupid jokes...

you may be a centrist in America, but as an outsider, you are on the right side, the conservative side of the spectrum...sorry to tell you, but being a liberal is only offensive in america.

[Qdrop]

i never said global warming is real, i merely point out that there is an increasing amount of odd phenomenons happening around the world that are related to pollution and/or the weather...

which can only be attributed to man-made global warming, right?



i only post things that have been reported on by credentialed news outlets (altho, rarely american) that document reasearch that has been going a considerable time MANY scientists. none of my posts have ever been from the same 'liberal' group of leftists scientists...

k....how many opposing viewpoints and studies have you read....
i'm guessing....2, maybe 3....and you skimmed them.
am i way off?
prove it, find some research that opposes global warming...


i have only seen a few posts with direct opposite claims and later research has shown they are suspicious. the fact that 'our' science is flawed, and 'your' science is correct from the start of our so-called debates is laughable. you are a hypocrite.

look, ONCE AGAIN....i am not saying either side is completely correct, or has all the science perfectly lined up.

i think BOTH sides have some interesting science, and some shakey finding as well.

any report that categorically says global warming is obvious....or those that claim it is made-up hocus pocus ......are jumping the gun.
WE DON'T KNOW!
SCIENTIFICALLY, WE DON'T KNOW!!

granted, i have posted things like "global warming is a myth".
those are really just inflamitory posts....meant to stimulate conversation.

i usually spout that when the self-righteous start speaking so matter of factly that "everyone knows global warming is real....it's an obvious fact"
bull fuckin shit it is.
wake up, sheeple!



i believe you get hostile when we oppose your views. when someone comes alone and does a better job explaining what you meant ...

you mean "says it nicer"...

but when assman, d_raay or myself question you in any way, you flip out

only if i sense your conflicting argument is NOT coming from logic, studies, ect...
but from obvious lefty group think (siding with "your side"...just..to ....side with "your side")..ya know, "towing party lines" so to speak.


and use these ridiculous tricks to try and manipulate us.

the fuck are you talking about?
hypnotism?


i'm Canadian, our governing party is the Liberal party, so you're out of your element. see, the problem is that you assume you know what i think and believe, when really you are just making an ass out of yourself.

okay...so i am way out of line by predicting your heavy leaning liberal sentiment?
fine, i apologize.
please please....give me examples of some of your non-liberal, progressive views/sentiments that i have so calously assumed did not exist in you.


i would agree with anyone if i felt they had sound logic, but most of the time, these right wingers just fall short.

agreed.

and if you want me to feel bad for inarticualte people who debate me, well, don't hold your ill-tempered breath.

no....i never feel bad for republicans....


is there a bruise from patting yourself on the back so vigorously?

just above my right shoulder blade...
i put some aspercreme on it....



no, the anger comes from your frustration with not having an ally.

that definately plays a role....


there are people on this board who share some views with me, not everyone all the time...but opinions intersect often.

oh christ....see, i hate this shit.
when many of the hardened liberals on this board claim that they disagree with each other often....
you guys are almost mirror clones of each other!!!....
the only thing i ever see most of you argue about is personal shit.

granted, I DO recall you having more disagreements withing your liberal faction on this board than others...
bravo.


then there are trolls and people like you (probably just you).

yeah, lump me in with the likes of gsisko and such.

do you not see that you are just proving my point?


you may be a centrist in America, but as an outsider, you are on the right side, the conservative side of the spectrum...sorry to tell you, but being a liberal is only offensive in america.

i think you have a point there...
i CAN see how being anything other than an ardent liberal can get you lumped into the conservative category in other countries....particularly europeans....

[ASsman]

....particularly europeans....
Particularly not American you mean.

[Qdrop]

Particularly not American you mean.

point taken.


fucker.
;)

[D_Raay]

okay, well......interesting stuff i found on a quick search.....


Re: Ten Reasons Not to Move to Canada


"I know you aren't talking to me... I am as left as left gets...."
-D_raay
------------------------------------------------------------------------



hmmm......so you are as left as left gets?....but you are not a liberal?
okay....so being a lefty and being a liberal....are....differant?
the wonderful world of D semantics...

oh...but look at this:

Re: Why?
I don't get it.

".... I am neither liberal or conservative or progressive or whatever..."
-D_raay
--------------------------------------------------------------


okay...so now you're not liberal or progressive....

but wait:


Re: the FOX channel ?!


"...If you really knew this board, you'd see that alot of us are progressive thinkers ...."
-D_raay
------------------------------------------------------------------------

wait.....now you ARE progressive.


wow....gee, D....maybe you aren't a liberal...

i don't think YOU know what the fuck you are...



oh, but I'M the fence sitter, huh? ;)

You've got to be kidding me. That's the best you can do? I was actually worried that I have called myself a liberal at one time or another in the past that I couldn't remember. Unlike you, I don't see anything wrong with being a liberal. At least it shows some personal fortitude, not just randomly towing the line for our flunky leaders and mainstream news outlets. But, I can find fault with some liberals as well when they don't stick to the crux of an issue and become strictly opponents of whatever the right says. I agree with very little the right says, but there voice is just as viable as any other.

Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure a society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism.--taken from Wikipedia

Hmmm, well nothing wrong with being the opposite of Totalitarianism is there?
Not sure about the Communism though. So see, not always the same ideals of your classic liberal.

In politics, left-wing, political left, leftism, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the American sense of the word), or with opposition to right-wing politics. Communism (as well as the Marxist philosophy that it relies on) and anarchism are considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics. (See political spectrum and left-right politics for more on the merits/limitations of this kind of classification.)

So being leftist doesn't necessarily put you in any one group. The part where it says "or being opposed to right wing politics", that's the one which fits me just right. So label away Q I really am not interested anymore...

[Qdrop]

You've got to be kidding me. That's the best you can do? I was actually worried that I have called myself a liberal at one time or another in the past that I couldn't remember.


you have.....i didn't post everything i found...
i don't have that much time to do detailed searches on Draay...

but, yes....to answer your question....
you are a hypocrite.



Unlike you, I don't see anything wrong with being a liberal. At least it shows some personal fortitude, not just randomly towing the line for our flunky leaders and mainstream news outlets.

if you use that term as such....sure.


But, I can find fault with some liberals as well when they don't stick to the crux of an issue and become strictly opponents of whatever the right says.


THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! EXACTLY!
THAT IS WHAT 90% OF MINE AND YOUR ARGUMENTS COME DOWN TO!
THAT IS MY #1 COMPLAINT WITH LIBERALS!!

jesus fuck.....why does it take this long for you to voice this?

and you claim you are never guilty of this?
never?
come the fuck on....

this global warming debate is a PRIME example....
you basically came clean about it several posts ago.


I agree with very little the right says, but there voice is just as viable as any other.

well.....that's something.



Hmmm, well nothing wrong with being the opposite of Totalitarianism is there?
Not sure about the Communism though. So see, not always the same ideals of your classic liberal.


then stop calling yourself ANYTHING....

just say you are an independant rational minded guy.

you may have some liberal leanings (as do most of us on this board)...but don't call yourself Left, or liberal, or progressive then.

this is my point all along.

now stick with it!

you claim you're not a liberal or even a democrat....yet i have yet to see ONE FUCKING STATEMENT that clears you from easily fitting the common democrat mold....


The part where it says "or being opposed to right wing politics", that's the one which fits me just right.

yet a few lines before:


But, I can find fault with some liberals as well when they don't stick to the crux of an issue and become strictly opponents of whatever the right says.


sigh...

which is it D?

you're right....never mind.
you're just talking yourself in circles....

i don't even want to hear your bullshit rationalization....

you really aren't any differant then the rest.

[D_Raay]

you have.....i didn't post everything i found...
i don't have that much time to do detailed searches on Draay...

but, yes....to answer your question....
you are a hypocrite.



if you use that term as such....sure.



THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! EXACTLY!
THAT IS WHAT 90% OF MINE AND YOUR ARGUMENTS COME DOWN TO!
THAT IS MY #1 COMPLAINT WITH LIBERALS!!

jesus fuck.....why does it take this long for you to voice this?

and you claim you are never guilty of this?
never?
come the fuck on....

this global warming debate is a PRIME example....
you basically came clean about it several posts ago.


well.....that's something.




then stop calling yourself ANYTHING....

just say you are an independant rational minded guy.

you may have some liberal leanings (as do most of us on this board)...but don't call yourself Left, or liberal, or progressive then.

this is my point all along.

now stick with it!

you claim you're not a liberal or even a democrat....yet i have yet to see ONE FUCKING STATEMENT that clears you from easily fitting the common democrat mold....



yet a few lines before:



sigh...

which is it D?

you're right....never mind.
you're just talking yourself in circles....

i don't even want to hear your bullshit rationalization....

you really aren't any differant then the rest.

Just because I am opposed to right wing politics doesn't mean I am a Liberal not capable of forming my own opinions except for the party norm. Like I said, I find fault with certain Liberals but for the most part I lean their way.

You are right about one thing, we don't seem to grasp each other's point's all the time, hence the arguments, but independent thinkers we certainly both are. Except when you take the right's side on the environment of course. :mad:

[Qdrop]

but independent thinkers we certainly both are.

then let's leave it at that...

i'm sick of the fighting.....THINK OF THE CHILDREN, D....THINK OF THE CHILDREN!






i'm goin home....ya'll have a nice weekend.

[yeahwho]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/news/40747.html), this item just in. (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/news/40747.html)

[phinkasaurus]

the link yeahwho posted is about this intitution:
Scripps Intistution of Oceanography (http://sio.ucsd.edu/), part of University of California, San Diego.

their site has this under the
news section (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666) :
Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.


this is thier mission statement (http://sio.ucsd.edu/about/mission.cfm):
To seek, teach, and communicate scientific understanding of the oceans, atmosphere, Earth, and other planets for the benefit of society and the environment.

Q, how are they liberally biased?

since you know science, please refute these scientists.
thank you.

[ASsman]

Meh, you are making assumptions.

You could use the same argument in any debate,

"THE FACTS ARE HERE!!!"

"NO THEY AREN'T"

"YES, THEY ARE"

" YOU JUST BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE YOUR LIBERAL"

"Uh, no"

"YES! YOU SEE YOU DID IT AGAIN"
-------------

Yah we should get far soon.

[Qdrop]

Meh, you are making assumptions.

You could use the same argument in any debate,

"THE FACTS ARE HERE!!!"

"NO THEY AREN'T"

"YES, THEY ARE"

" YOU JUST BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE YOUR LIBERAL"

"Uh, no"

"YES! YOU SEE YOU DID IT AGAIN"
-------------

Yah we should get far soon.

well...yeah. that kinda is where we are at.

so if i googled and found other studies that countered that....would you believe global warming is fake?

no.

look, despite what some people are trying to presume, i am NOT rooting against the enviromentalists....
of course, I HOPE global warming isn't real.....just for the sake of us all....
but it's not as if i have automatic assumptions here....or a prejudice.
just being skeptical....
something not enough people are.....

i would like to look more into this study....see what other news organizations pick up....see if it is addressed....
(because one posting in a blog or linux site doesn't do it for me)
then we'll see where other scientist stand...

see, what all of the counter studies and books that i have been alluding to state, is simply that there is NOT enough research or conclusive scientific study yet to determine....
not that there is sumerally NO global warming.....

let's see where this goes.....

[ASsman]

You're Gay, get over it.

[Qdrop]

You're Gay, get over it.

a excellant argument....

another gem from Ass....

[ASsman]

Gahaha, I know what's causing global warming

All the hot air that's coming out of your MOUTH! ZING!

[infidel]

Don't know what's wrong with all these god damned scientists.
All we have to do is what GW says and turn up our air conditioners.
Instant cure for global warming.

[ASsman]

Don't know what's wrong with all these god damned scientists.
All we have to do is what GW says and turn up our air conditioners.
Instant cure for global warming.
Break out the cold beers, don't sweat it.