Page 8 of 8 [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Aug 2011, 8:19 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
cw10 wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Orwell wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
If I want to argue with "conservatives" I prefer to do so with one
that is honest and knows what he is talking about.

Good luck finding one. You may need to enlist Diogenes' help.


Intellectual honesty and broad knowledge tend to disqualify one from being a "true believer" in any camp.
be it Objectivist or Marxist. Reality always confounds the panaceas.
It usually makes one a liberal is the truest and oldest sense.
a person who is generous.


You can argue all you want as the country burns. But take note, your house is still on fire.


that is not the statement of a conservative but an alarmist, and it has more in common with fascism than a defense
of the american way. Also it in no way engages what I said.
So new Guy thanks for reinforcing my belief that young conservatives are spineless disingenuous old women
who use emotional appeals instead of logical ones.


It is not the state of an alarmist when the assessment is accurate.



cw10
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 973

23 Aug 2011, 8:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Obama never granted amnesty to my blanket.

ruveyn


Do you have an illegal blanket? If so, your blanket may be eligible for benefits under the new executive order.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Aug 2011, 8:41 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
blunnet wrote:
I mean, are there alternative systems that support freedom, human rights, social justice, reform and all that, that we can get from history, as that is what we get under democratic governments in the 20th century?

Enlightened despotism. Or some form of technocratic republic, eg one where involvement in civil government is restricted to the educated classes.


I used to think this was a bad idea. Now, I think you may be on to something. We've dumbed it down substantially. Every idiot with a twitter account is an 'expert' on something, and the real experts are dismissed as elitists. I don't go visit a high school dropout when I'm sick. By the same logic, I'd prefer not to leave the fate of our country to people who can't distinguish a government benefit from a paycheck. Perhaps you are wise beyond your years.


I fail to see how someone is an expert when they tamper with the recorded data just to get the results they want. I was taught that something of that nature was academic dishonesty.

I fail to see how your comment has any relationship to anything whatsoever that was said in the post you quoted.


I bolded the part to show you how it is relevent, when you have "real experts" doctoring their data to make their position seem valid, why should I believe those "experts."

Um... if they're doctoring data, then for the most part, they are discredited. Intellectual dishonesty happens in multiple groups, and it isn't as if Republican talk radio is known for a data-driven research program. I don't think anybody is considering intellectually dishonest experts to be the "real experts". Certainly not Orwell.

Quote:
Case in point, is a reply in which you bashed me instead of reading what I was quoting carefully, it doesn't take a freakin Einstein to figure out how what I said was relevent. Fact of the matter is you just replied that way because of your arrogant belief that I am somehow inferior to you, so you didn't stop and actually look at what I quoted.

Umm....... your post still didn't appear to directly follow at all. There is no legitimate way I, or anybody, could be expected to arrive at your response from what you quoted and how you quoted it.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Aug 2011, 8:48 pm

John_Browning wrote:
You are being naive. The "silver or lead" doctrine Mexican officials are submitting to in order to save their lives is slowly turning Mexico into a failed state.

And you're probably cherry-picking data. Do you really think that most emerging economies have perfectly clean governmental systems? They don't, and crime, corruption, and everything else tends to be common in those nations. The issue though is that economic growth will improve institutional well-being. Mexico is in a position where it can experience economic growth as they are a major trade-partner with the US. I mean, I suppose you could be claiming that the government will outright collapse, but that kind of claim usually isn't a very credible prediction.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Aug 2011, 10:03 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
blunnet wrote:
I mean, are there alternative systems that support freedom, human rights, social justice, reform and all that, that we can get from history, as that is what we get under democratic governments in the 20th century?

Enlightened despotism. Or some form of technocratic republic, eg one where involvement in civil government is restricted to the educated classes.


I used to think this was a bad idea. Now, I think you may be on to something. We've dumbed it down substantially. Every idiot with a twitter account is an 'expert' on something, and the real experts are dismissed as elitists. I don't go visit a high school dropout when I'm sick. By the same logic, I'd prefer not to leave the fate of our country to people who can't distinguish a government benefit from a paycheck. Perhaps you are wise beyond your years.


I fail to see how someone is an expert when they tamper with the recorded data just to get the results they want. I was taught that something of that nature was academic dishonesty.

I fail to see how your comment has any relationship to anything whatsoever that was said in the post you quoted.


I bolded the part to show you how it is relevent, when you have "real experts" doctoring their data to make their position seem valid, why should I believe those "experts."

Um... if they're doctoring data, then for the most part, they are discredited. Intellectual dishonesty happens in multiple groups, and it isn't as if Republican talk radio is known for a data-driven research program. I don't think anybody is considering intellectually dishonest experts to be the "real experts". Certainly not Orwell.


Actually, a lot of you do. You can start with the left-wing drive by media, the climate scientists, etc. People still believe them, even when it has been proven that they have been totally dishonest.

Example: Sll the accusations towards Glenn Beck about half a year ago about him preaching violence, and then it gets debunked when I found the full clip.

Example 2: I'll let you find this for yourself but Ed Schultz tried to smear Governor Rick Perry as a racist, when the full speech clearly shows Perry was referring to the National Debt.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Case in point, is a reply in which you bashed me instead of reading what I was quoting carefully, it doesn't take a freakin Einstein to figure out how what I said was relevent. Fact of the matter is you just replied that way because of your arrogant belief that I am somehow inferior to you, so you didn't stop and actually look at what I quoted.

Umm....... your post still didn't appear to directly follow at all. There is no legitimate way I, or anybody, could be expected to arrive at your response from what you quoted and how you quoted it.


Maybe you should ask for clarification next time.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,013
Location: Northern California

23 Aug 2011, 10:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Obama never granted amnesty to my blanket.

ruveyn


Bring it over to my house. I'll give it a job.


_________________
Mom to an amazing AS son, who recently graduated from the university (plus an also amazing non-AS daughter). Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Aug 2011, 10:17 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Obama never granted amnesty to my blanket.

ruveyn


Bring it over to my house. I'll give it a job.


While our immigration system needs reforms, that does not excuse the fact that they came here illegally.

Furthermore, I should point out that this is partially due to the man that was in the DoJ when a young Cuban refugee had a gun shoved in his face by a SWAT team, and taken back to Cuba where he was brainwashed.

That seems to tell me that this is about politics, and it wouldn't surprise me if they won't suddenly be able to vote too, and able to draw on our entitlements, ensuring the re-election of Obama, and wrecking the country further in the process.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

23 Aug 2011, 10:17 pm

@ Inuyasha

Do you think the family of a serving soldier should be deported? That would be pretty disrespectful of their commitment. Perhaps you ought to read the history of the 442nd Infantry Regiment.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Aug 2011, 10:21 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, a lot of you do. You can start with the left-wing drive by media, the climate scientists, etc. People still believe them, even when it has been proven that they have been totally dishonest.

Example: Sll the accusations towards Glenn Beck about half a year ago about him preaching violence, and then it gets debunked when I found the full clip.

Example 2: I'll let you find this for yourself but Ed Schultz tried to smear Governor Rick Perry as a racist, when the full speech clearly shows Perry was referring to the National Debt.

Inuyasha, nobody has ever claimed that the entire field of climate science has been proven dishonest. That level of dishonesty could not even exist, not even getting into the issues of climate-gate not being considered a failure of integrity by outside investigators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... #Responses (which I assume you are referring to)

The latter two aren't matters of expert opinion, thus would not be covered by the situation. Experts can be discredited, and other experts will be aware of this. The public is not necessarily aware though, as seen by the various bogus experts.

Quote:
Maybe you should ask for clarification next time.

I'd only do that if it seemed reasonable that I had misinterpreted something, not that you had made a random comment.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

23 Aug 2011, 10:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Actually, a lot of you do. You can start with the left-wing drive by media, the climate scientists, etc. People still believe them, even when it has been proven that they have been totally dishonest.

Example: Sll the accusations towards Glenn Beck about half a year ago about him preaching violence, and then it gets debunked when I found the full clip.

Example 2: I'll let you find this for yourself but Ed Schultz tried to smear Governor Rick Perry as a racist, when the full speech clearly shows Perry was referring to the National Debt.

Inuyasha, nobody has ever claimed that the entire field of climate science has been proven dishonest. That level of dishonesty could not even exist, not even getting into the issues of climate-gate not being considered a failure of integrity by outside investigators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... #Responses (which I assume you are referring to)

The latter two aren't matters of expert opinion, thus would not be covered by the situation. Experts can be discredited, and other experts will be aware of this. The public is not necessarily aware though, as seen by the various bogus experts.


I'm not claiming all the climate scientists are dishonest, it really would only have take a handful to screw up all the others' models. I actually was an intern at Goddard Space Flight Center at the time this came to light, and what I heard was the climate scientists at Goddard were extremely pissed off at the scientists that pulled that stunt, because it screwed up their models, and made them look like they were trying to mislead the public, when they had in fact been mislead as well.

My last two examples have to do with public trust, as we've seen lately a lot of what Glenn Beck warned about is coming true, many investors are afraid the US dollar is going to lose a lot of value very rapidly now. Only thing that saved us from it happening already, is the European financial meltdowns.

Was Glenn Beck wrong about things sometimes, sure, but he never claimed to be a prophet or a psychic. He showed people what he had researched, and showed how he was fitting pieces together rather like a detective. His presentation methods were intended to provide people some comic relief, probably also to keep people from ending up in depression, and his messages were actually rather good ones. I'm still concerned about who ends up in power in Libya, considering the fanatics are the ones that are the best organized.

Ed Schultz is in a position of trust, I don't really care that he is on the air, but people here need to wise up to the fact that a lot of the horrible things that they have been told about Conservatives, are largely not true. A lot of what they were told about the tea party, was a load of garbage.

You guys need to realize that I live a couple hours from Chicago (thankfully not in the state of Illinois), it is well known that Chicago is extremely corrupt. What I have seen coming from the White House is pretty much the Chicago way, of pay to play, intimidation tactics, etc. For all you people that claim I'm somehow stupid for watching Fox News, you need to consider the fact that I expected the kind of corruption we're seeing from the Obama Administration back in early 2008, because I watched Fox News. I didn't just pay attention to Fox News though, I used Drudge Report and other online sources.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you should ask for clarification next time.

I'd only do that if it seemed reasonable that I had misinterpreted something, not that you had made a random comment.


Okay, then be prepared for another situation like that in the future.


Finally when Obama is talking about millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share, that is nothing more than a line he has had poll-tested to get the most public approval he can possibly get. In reality he actually does mean the middle class, he actually does mean small business owners, and he actually does mean retirees. People need to face the fact that he is doing precisely what he said he'd do.

That our energy costs would, "necessarily sky rocket."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxnT5tHVIo[/youtube]

He wants high energy costs.

In fact, I really can't think of one good thing Obama has done for Jobs (I consider the green energy thing to be a scam) and the economy.

Obama is in reality looking for anyone he can blame for his failed policies, he's blaming Republicans, the rich, hell he's even blaming the Japanese Earthquake, and the Arab Spring.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

24 Aug 2011, 8:38 am

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not claiming all the climate scientists are dishonest, it really would only have take a handful to screw up all the others' models. I actually was an intern at Goddard Space Flight Center at the time this came to light, and what I heard was the climate scientists at Goddard were extremely pissed off at the scientists that pulled that stunt, because it screwed up their models, and made them look like they were trying to mislead the public, when they had in fact been mislead as well.


^ Case and point as to why people without a formal education on a particular subject should not be making judgements about said subject.

It's unclear whether this statement was made from ignorance or whether it's genuine deceit, but either way it's false. The CRU does control or contribute to the majority of the models used around the world. There's no way the scientists at Goddard were some how pissed off about their own models being messed up because the GISS models from Goddard (which are remote sensing models) and the NCDC models from NOAA are completely, 100% independent from all CRU data. These models have, however, shown agreement with the CRU models (again, independent) which has helped to debunk the notion that any meaningful messing with data had even occurred at CRU to begin with.

Now I do not doubt that the Goddard scientists were angered with CRU controversy. But their reason for anger was likely because they knew what reactions would be coming down the pike from non-experts looking for any shred of doubt to completely 'debunk' climate change for their own personal agendas. Reactions from non-professionals should not count, period. Non-experts are clearly not in a position debunk anything when they lack sufficient understanding of the subject and basic testing/modeling procedures.

If there is any sort of consensus among true scientists doubting the integrity of the data used today (from various global sources - not just the CRU) then please bring it. Otherwise, there is no solid argument here.