Page 16 of 29 [ 421 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 29  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,539
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Aug 2019, 8:16 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I tried to do a search for the number of times you wrote 'Breitbart' but that caused the server to overload and crash.


I'm pretty sure Trump's decision on choosing Steve Bannon as chief strategist was no accident. The level of hate that permeates the editorial in that publication gives a fairly accurate insight into the mind of Donald Trump.


There is a flip side you don't see. But I do.

About Bannon advising Trump? he may as well resurrected Josef Goebbals it amounts to the same thing...


I am talking about the flip side of the level of permeating hate.

Still don't follow? if its the usual tripe about "left wing hate" that doesn't fly...we don't go to starbucks or the Gap and kill white folks after reading the left wing press


Nonetheless I see the left displaying conceited seething contempt towards those who are not part of their collective.


It can be hard not to considering those on the right promoting racism, denying the existence of racism, fighting for the rich to get a tax cut, for fighting for homophobia, and the rejection of science on religious grounds.


Whereas the flip side is to accuse everyone else of being a racist and a phobe, ban, tear down and burn things, fight to tax those who contribute to the economy to give free stuff to those who don't, go on about science without really understanding it, and make stuff up like russiagate, while in a constant state of self righteous outrage.


Almost everything you wrote is wrong:
People who do discriminate and hate due to race, religion, sexuality, etc, are racists and phobes.
Granted, things shouldn't be destroyed or torn down out of rage.
Taxation is hardly a punishment like the right likes to make out to be. It's just the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Those with financial success should pay more simply because that's where the money is. Some of that tax money goes to people who are disabled, to the retired, to the disadvantaged, etc. Rather than showing a bit of empathy, the right declares all these people as being parasites who should be left to die.
As if the right understands science any better. In fact, I'd say their grasp on science is quite a bit more deficient.
You have to be willfully blind to think Russiagate is a hoax. Then again, most of the right is.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,030
Location: Twin Peaks

10 Aug 2019, 8:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Almost everything you wrote is wrong:
People who do discriminate and hate due to race, religion, sexuality, etc, are racists and phobes.
Granted, things shouldn't be destroyed or torn down out of rage.
Taxation is hardly a punishment like the right likes to make out to be. It's just the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Those with financial success should pay more simply because that's where the money is. Some of that tax money goes to people who are disabled, to the retired, to the disadvantaged, etc. Rather than showing a bit of empathy, the right declares all these people as being parasites who should be left to die.
As if the right understands science any better. In fact, I'd say their grasp on science is quite a bit more deficient.
You have to be willfully blind to think Russiagate is a hoax. Then again, most of the right is.


It is about accusing everyone else of such things and branding them so they will be seen as enemies of society.
Wanting the kind of taxation that puts the government in control of what people earn and get.
Over-exaggerating racism et al to as an excuse to express hatred towards people who are not part of the organization.
Over-exaggerating racism et al and climate change as an excuse to ban, tear down and burn things.
Creating a prevailing threat of racists, phobes, nazis, Russians and doomsday science to create anger and fear.
Convincing people who are sucked in that they are intellectually and morally superior ie (ironically) supremacism.
All of which amounts to trying to create an organization exercising total control over people's lives.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

10 Aug 2019, 9:30 pm

EzraS wrote:
Whereas the flip side is to accuse everyone else of being a racist and a phobe. Ban, tear down and burn things. Heavily tax those who contribute to the economy to give free stuff to those who don't. Make stuff up like russiagate. Go on about science without really understanding it. All while in a constant state of self righteous outrage. All of which amounts to trying to create an organization exercising total control over people's lives.


Succinct and very true.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,620

10 Aug 2019, 9:35 pm

EzraS wrote:
Convincing people who are sucked in that they are intellectually and morally superior ie (ironically) supremacism.
All of which amounts to trying to create an organization exercising total control over people's lives.


Can't really add anything further to Kraichie's post, basically cuts through the BS you seem to be forever defending.

I am, however, a little amused at the left "doesn't understand science" comment

Climate science and environmental degradation are one of the cornerstones of left wing politics and in that area we certainly have science and scientists on our side. The right choose to side with developers, mining companies, coal and petroleum industries to dscredit actual science purely for monetary gain. I can't think of a more blatant disregard for science than when it comes to the right's attitude to the environment.



Borromeo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jun 2019
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Posts: 594

10 Aug 2019, 9:51 pm

A very valid point, cyberdad, about conservation and climate change.

Now one minor bit, on a "blatant disregard for science," some of us old-line conservatives would like to ask leftists what they think about life(human or otherwise) beginning at conception...and also the questions I have for the Deplorable knuckle-dragger who said that life can't exist without a heartbeat. I should like to ask him how he thinks chicks are made incubating in eggs.

But I suppose that is another squabble entirely, and not one I consider worth burning bandwidth over. (do we have a yawning emoji? I really need a yawn emoji right now.)



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,030
Location: Twin Peaks

10 Aug 2019, 9:55 pm

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Convincing people who are sucked in that they are intellectually and morally superior ie (ironically) supremacism.
All of which amounts to trying to create an organization exercising total control over people's lives.


Can't really add anything further to Kraichie's post, basically cuts through the BS you seem to be forever defending.

I am, however, a little amused at the left "doesn't understand science" comment

Climate science and environmental degradation are one of the cornerstones of left wing politics and in that area we certainly have science and scientists on our side. The right choose to side with developers, mining companies, coal and petroleum industries to dscredit actual science purely for monetary gain. I can't think of a more blatant disregard for science than when it comes to the right's attitude to the environment.


There have been instances where I have tested yours, Kraichie's and others actual knowledge of it, only to find it does not exist. You believe what the organization wants you to believe.The default rebuttal is that climate change scientists believe in climate change science and in each others findings so that makes it real. And of course there is gobs of monetary gain to be had in it. But foremost it is about controlling society through fear. It started around 50 years ago with a 10 year deadline that gets moved up another 10 years each decade.

Most people who debunk it do believe climate change exists, they just do not believe that the system known as climate change science is reliable.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,539
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Aug 2019, 11:07 pm

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Almost everything you wrote is wrong:
People who do discriminate and hate due to race, religion, sexuality, etc, are racists and phobes.
Granted, things shouldn't be destroyed or torn down out of rage.
Taxation is hardly a punishment like the right likes to make out to be. It's just the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Those with financial success should pay more simply because that's where the money is. Some of that tax money goes to people who are disabled, to the retired, to the disadvantaged, etc. Rather than showing a bit of empathy, the right declares all these people as being parasites who should be left to die.
As if the right understands science any better. In fact, I'd say their grasp on science is quite a bit more deficient.
You have to be willfully blind to think Russiagate is a hoax. Then again, most of the right is.


It is about accusing everyone else of such things and branding them so they will be seen as enemies of society.
Wanting the kind of taxation that puts the government in control of what people earn and get.
Over-exaggerating racism et al to as an excuse to express hatred towards people who are not part of the organization.
Over-exaggerating racism et al and climate change as an excuse to ban, tear down and burn things.
Creating a prevailing threat of racists, phobes, nazis, Russians and doomsday science to create anger and fear.
Convincing people who are sucked in that they are intellectually and morally superior ie (ironically) supremacism.
All of which amounts to trying to create an organization exercising total control over people's lives.


I've heard conservatives not only brand liberals as enemies of society, but claim that only conservatives are Godly.
Then who should be taxed? Those without anything?
Kind of hard to over exaggerate racism when we have mass shootings, and violent demonstrations when that scum crawls out from under their rocks. I have not blamed all conservatives for racism, but too many choose to deny that their political ideology has opened their arms to racists as a counterbalance to blacks joining the political left.
Denial on the part of the right's rank-and-file, herded in that direction by irresponsible and reprehensible talking heads like Tucker Carlson.
Kind of hard not to feel morally superior to people who espouse racism or just plain ignorance.
Social control is more likely to be achieved through conservative hierarchies that rank people's worth by how much money they have in their bank accounts, and who believe equality is earned in the social sphere and the market place rather than being guaranteed by the constitution.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,620

11 Aug 2019, 12:29 am

EzraS wrote:
The default rebuttal is that climate change scientists believe in climate change science and in each others findings so that makes it real. And of course there is gobs of monetary gain to be had in it. But foremost it is about controlling society through fear. It started around 50 years ago with a 10 year deadline that gets moved up another 10 years each decade.


Evidence based science is the basis of our modern developed world, technology, transport, building etc...it also used to predict the weather, something we have become better at doing in the last 50 years. Science is not based on belief (as you would have us believe).

Modelling developed in the 1960s over population explosion and food production was inaccurate because of agricultural technology and innovation which we were unable to predict that alleviated food shortages. The problem with the climate is that changes in temperature are becoming harder and harder to control in terms of sequestering carbon (or the lack of will to sequester carbon by conservatives) and we are putting the planet at risk in ways we humans have never done before.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,620

11 Aug 2019, 12:34 am

Borromeo wrote:
A very valid point, cyberdad, about conservation and climate change.

Now one minor bit, on a "blatant disregard for science," some of us old-line conservatives would like to ask leftists what they think about life(human or otherwise) beginning at conception...


I think the ethics of abortion rest with the woman's human right to control her own body. There is a trade off in terms of when science considers life is sentient (21-24 weeks) and when a woman no longer has the right to terminate the life inside her

That's not reliant on heartbeat but rather the ability of the infant/fetus to think for themselves.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,030
Location: Twin Peaks

11 Aug 2019, 5:29 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
The default rebuttal is that climate change scientists believe in climate change science and in each others findings so that makes it real. And of course there is gobs of monetary gain to be had in it. But foremost it is about controlling society through fear. It started around 50 years ago with a 10 year deadline that gets moved up another 10 years each decade.


Evidence based science is the basis of our modern developed world, technology, transport, building etc...it also used to predict the weather, something we have become better at doing in the last 50 years. Science is not based on belief (as you would have us believe).

Modelling developed in the 1960s over population explosion and food production was inaccurate because of agricultural technology and innovation which we were unable to predict that alleviated food shortages. The problem with the climate is that changes in temperature are becoming harder and harder to control in terms of sequestering carbon (or the lack of will to sequester carbon by conservatives) and we are putting the planet at risk in ways we humans have never done before.


Of course science is based on belief. Many top scientists do not believe the theories of other top scientists are correct. Scientists themselves call bullshit all the time regarding research, conclusions and theories of other scientist. I have had to repeat this several times. For example physicist John Bell proved Eisenstein wrong, likewise Eisenstein proved Newton wrong and so on. The list is endless.

And climate change science is not immune to that. There are a number of qualified scientists who do not agree with the conclusions of climate change science. But the ardent layperson climate change science believer will not concede to that. They take a religious type of stance that it must be 100% correct and any "naysayers", no matter how qualified they are, must be disregarded.

And it seems obvious this steadfastness, like with many things liberal, comes down to votes. The message being put out is, as long as republicans are in charge the earth is doomed. Only the democrats being in charge will save us. Human existence depends on you voting democrat. And hurry, we are out of time! :skull:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,620

12 Aug 2019, 2:27 am

EzraS wrote:
And climate change science is not immune to that. There are a number of qualified scientists who do not agree with the conclusions of climate change science. :


The 3% of climate scientists who oppose anthropogenic cause for the high carbon emissions are on the payroll of the petroleum and coal industry.

There used to be a handful of scientists paid handsomely by cigarette companies like Phillip Morris to publish research discrediting the link between smoking and cancer. I am sure Apple and Samsung would happily pay a scientist to demonstrate no link between mobile phone wifi and brain cancer.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,030
Location: Twin Peaks

12 Aug 2019, 3:58 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
And climate change science is not immune to that. There are a number of qualified scientists who do not agree with the conclusions of climate change science. :


The 3% of climate scientists who oppose anthropogenic cause for the high carbon emissions are on the payroll of the petroleum and coal industry.

There used to be a handful of scientists paid handsomely by cigarette companies like Phillip Morris to publish research discrediting the link between smoking and cancer. I am sure Apple and Samsung would happily pay a scientist to demonstrate no link between mobile phone wifi and brain cancer.


Of course, anyone who goes against the collective is guilty of something.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,539
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

12 Aug 2019, 4:57 am

EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
And climate change science is not immune to that. There are a number of qualified scientists who do not agree with the conclusions of climate change science. :


The 3% of climate scientists who oppose anthropogenic cause for the high carbon emissions are on the payroll of the petroleum and coal industry.

There used to be a handful of scientists paid handsomely by cigarette companies like Phillip Morris to publish research discrediting the link between smoking and cancer. I am sure Apple and Samsung would happily pay a scientist to demonstrate no link between mobile phone wifi and brain cancer.


Of course, anyone who goes against the collective is guilty of something.


There is no "collective." There's just honest scientists presenting their evidence as compared to paid corporate shills.
It should be remembered that lead was commonly used in gasoline, paint, and other everyday items, despite the fact that science had exposed lead as a deadly poison. When scientists had revealed this, corporate America first tried unsuccessfully to buy off said scientists, then tried to destroy their credibility while promoting their own hacks who claimed lead poisoning was exaggerated, and that big business should be left alone to regulate themselves.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,030
Location: Twin Peaks

12 Aug 2019, 7:09 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
And climate change science is not immune to that. There are a number of qualified scientists who do not agree with the conclusions of climate change science. :


The 3% of climate scientists who oppose anthropogenic cause for the high carbon emissions are on the payroll of the petroleum and coal industry.

There used to be a handful of scientists paid handsomely by cigarette companies like Phillip Morris to publish research discrediting the link between smoking and cancer. I am sure Apple and Samsung would happily pay a scientist to demonstrate no link between mobile phone wifi and brain cancer.


Of course, anyone who goes against the collective is guilty of something.


There is no "collective." There's just honest scientists presenting their evidence as compared to paid corporate shills.
It should be remembered that lead was commonly used in gasoline, paint, and other everyday items, despite the fact that science had exposed lead as a deadly poison. When scientists had revealed this, corporate America first tried unsuccessfully to buy off said scientists, then tried to destroy their credibility while promoting their own hacks who claimed lead poisoning was exaggerated, and that big business should be left alone to regulate themselves.


The collective is my pet name for liberals. And how do you know climate change scientists are not corporate shills? The green industry generates billions of dollars. You should find a way to get in on the gravy train yourself.

Of course the thing is gas powered automobiles are diminishing anyways and will continue to do so as the auto industry continues to become more of a tech industry. Consumers want what is state of the art. I do not know much about Elon Musk. Is the Tesla corporation in existence because he is a major environmentalist or because there is big bucks in it?

But what really matters to the collective is putting out the the message that republicans will destroy the earth and democrats will save it.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,030
Location: Twin Peaks

12 Aug 2019, 8:07 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Almost everything you wrote is wrong:
People who do discriminate and hate due to race, religion, sexuality, etc, are racists and phobes.
Granted, things shouldn't be destroyed or torn down out of rage.
Taxation is hardly a punishment like the right likes to make out to be. It's just the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Those with financial success should pay more simply because that's where the money is. Some of that tax money goes to people who are disabled, to the retired, to the disadvantaged, etc. Rather than showing a bit of empathy, the right declares all these people as being parasites who should be left to die.
As if the right understands science any better. In fact, I'd say their grasp on science is quite a bit more deficient.
You have to be willfully blind to think Russiagate is a hoax. Then again, most of the right is.


It is about accusing everyone else of such things and branding them so they will be seen as enemies of society.
Wanting the kind of taxation that puts the government in control of what people earn and get.
Over-exaggerating racism et al to as an excuse to express hatred towards people who are not part of the organization.
Over-exaggerating racism et al and climate change as an excuse to ban, tear down and burn things.
Creating a prevailing threat of racists, phobes, nazis, Russians and doomsday science to create anger and fear.
Convincing people who are sucked in that they are intellectually and morally superior ie (ironically) supremacism.
All of which amounts to trying to create an organization exercising total control over people's lives.


I've heard conservatives not only brand liberals as enemies of society, but claim that only conservatives are Godly.
Then who should be taxed? Those without anything?
Kind of hard to over exaggerate racism when we have mass shootings, and violent demonstrations when that scum crawls out from under their rocks. I have not blamed all conservatives for racism, but too many choose to deny that their political ideology has opened their arms to racists as a counterbalance to blacks joining the political left.
Denial on the part of the right's rank-and-file, herded in that direction by irresponsible and reprehensible talking heads like Tucker Carlson.
Kind of hard not to feel morally superior to people who espouse racism or just plain ignorance.
Social control is more likely to be achieved through conservative hierarchies that rank people's worth by how much money they have in their bank accounts, and who believe equality is earned in the social sphere and the market place rather than being guaranteed by the constitution.


Liberals mock conservatives for being "xians" so of course that is going to make conservatives look godly and liberals ungodly.
It is not a matter of people getting taxed. It is a matter of how much they are taxed. Democrats seem to come up with some new plan to tax on a daily basis. One shooter is one shooter. And I saw lots of violent demonstrations in late 2016 and early 2017.
The term racist is so liberally applied by liberals it does not take much more than not being a liberal for them to call someone a racist.