Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 158 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:12:43 PM
_mungojoe_ said:

...when the US "imported" common law... it knew it was "importing' this concept (prosecutorial discretion) as well...


The only way you can even vaguely claim to be correct saying... "prosecutorial discretion comes EXCLUSIVELY from the Constitution"... is by pointing out the Constitution declares the law... as enacted... the "supreme law"... but in fact... it is a commonly... widely... understood FACT... that the US... when formed... imported the common law tradition... into it's national law... along with it's well established principles... The principles of common law STILL... tend to dominate US law...

If I am not somehow misunderstanding you, you are wrong on all counts. The U.S. did not import the common law. But, don't take it from me. Let's see what the U.S. Supreme Court has to say about it:

Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, in private correspondence, 1800:

In political controversy it often happens that the precise
opinion of the adversary is not understood, & that we are at
much labor to disprove propositions which have never been
maintained. A stronger evidence of this cannot I think be
given than the manner in which the references to the com-
mon law have been treated.'

Marshall added that he did not believe that "one man [could] be
found" who maintained "that the common law of England has . . .
been adopted as the common law of America by the constitution of the United States."14 "This strange & absurd doctrine," he continued, "was first attributed to the judiciary of the United States by some frothy newspaper publications which appeared in Richmond something more than twelve months past, but I never suspected that an attempt would be made to represent this as a serious opinion entertained by respectable men ...."

Letter from John Marshall to St. George Tucker (Nov. 27, 1800), quoted in University of Pennsylvania Law Review, VOL. 133, No. 6, July 1985

Associate Justice William Johnson, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court, 1812:

The only question which this case presents is, whether the Circuit Courts of the United States can exercise a common law jurisdiction in criminal cases. We state it thus broadly because a decision on a case of libel will apply to every case in which jurisdiction is not vested in those courts by statute.

Although this question is brought up now for the first time to be decided by this Court, we consider it as having been long since settled in public opinion. In no other case for many years has this jurisdiction been asserted; and the general acquiescence of legal men shews the prevalence of opinion in favor of the negative of the proposition.

The course of reasoning which leads to this conclusion is simple, obvious, and admits of but little illustration. The powers of the general Government are made up of concessions from the several states — whatever is not expressly given to the former, the latter expressly reserve. The judicial power of the United States is a constituent part of those concessions — that power is to be exercised by Courts organized for the purpose, and brought into existence by an effort of the legislative powers of the Union. Of all the Courts which the United States may, under their general powers, constitute, one only, the Supreme Court, possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it. All other Courts created by the general Government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general Government will authorize them to confer.

United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32 (1812)

Associate Justice John McLean, U.S. Supreme Court, 1834:

It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.

Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (Pet. 8) 591 (1834)

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme Court, 1981:

Federal courts, unlike state courts, are not general common-law courts and do not possess a general power to develop and apply their own rules of decision.

Milwaukee vs. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 312 (1981)

Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court (1997):

[I]n the federal courts, . . . with a qualification so
small it does not bear mentioning, there is no such thing as common law. Every issue of law resolved by a federal judge involves interpretation of text—the text of a regulation, or of a statute, or of the Constitution.

Antonin Scalia, Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws, in A Matter of Interpretation:
Federal Courts and the Law 3, 13 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997)

Graham Hughes, NYU Law Professor, 1996:

It should be noted that, while each set of state courts has inherited the law-making power of the common law judicial system, this is not true of the United States federal courts. These courts are creatures of the United States Constitution, professing only jurisdiction and powers expressly conferred by that Constitution.

Unlike the situation with the states, there is no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law and thereby granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent like their English predecessors. Federal courts are solely creatures of the federal Constitution and the federal Judiciary Acts.

Graham Hughes, "Common Law Systems," in Fundamentals of American Law, ed. Alan B. Morisson, 9-26 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 13; 33.

_mungojoe_ said:

And here I was complementing (sic) you on being... the only really smart right-winger here... I guess it is just SO impossible... to bring yourself to agree... that you had to go and "blow it" like that... I guess "hidebound" and "willfully ignorant"... so that your right-wing buddies won't call you a commie... are more important than being right...

Joe, I have no problem agreeing with anybody who is accurate in their claims. I won't agree just to be agreeable, however. I am interested in truth, not acceptance.

The fact that you assume that I'm a rightwinger simply because I disagree with you, an (apparent) left-winger, is telling. This binary thinking, this 'you're either with us or against us" attitude is beneath you - it is more suitable to intellectual midgets like GWB.

If I'm a right-winger, I'm not a very good one. I am anti-war, pro-choice, anti-racism, supportive of Planned Parenthood, affirmative action, equal pay for equal work, marriage equality, universal background checks for gun sales, Obama's Iran deal, and - gasp! - I believe that Reagan was a lousy President whose policies were more destructive to the 'American Dream' than any other President, at least in my lifetime.

If I misunderstood you, please clarify - otherwise, I'll consider the matter settled.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 155 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 9/1/2015 11:18:11 AM
Pardon my delayed response - I actually have a life apart from the POF forums.

_mungojoe_ said:

No... it is an artificial distinction... the term "assembly of the people"... includes the notion of representation... because "Demos"... also refers to the legislative body itself... which almost never involved the whole of "the people"... but did... and was intended to... act as the representative of the whole of "the people"...

You can't be serious. Whether or not the 'Demos' ultimately 'represented' all the people (it didn't) is irrelevant. A 'notion' is not what makes a democracy 'representative' - it is the election of representatives by the whole of the people. What an utterly specious assertion.

Let's see what James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution,' has to say about the matter.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.

James Madison, Federalist Number 10

I think Madison's clear statement of the facts trumps your weak, dishonest attempt to muddy the waters.

_mungojoe_ dishonestly claimed:

I would suggest that... your point is that you are also misapplying the concept of "the rule of law"... as a concept in politics and governance as well...

Since I did not misapply the concept of elected representation in a republic (you did), the word 'also' does not apply, nor am I misapplying anything. Get over yourself.

_mungojoe_ said:

Here is a quick rundown... of what I mean... just so I don't have to type all this out...

What?!? You're deviating from your normal routine of googling somebody else's words, rewriting them, and pretending they're your own, and acting like you knew them all along. Careful there, joe. Your posts might begin to actually make some sense.

Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that democracy is part of the rule of law.[28]

The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects some or all individual rights.

Hmmm... 'characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty.' Based on the definition you have provided, it is safe to say, again, that neither democrats nor republicans actually believe in the rule of law - except as it applies to the other side of the aisle. Thanks for strenghtening my point for me.

_mungojoe_ claimed:

In the way you are describing "the rule of law"... by example... would imply... that concepts such as "prosecutorial discretion" are contrary to "the rule of law"... when the exact opposite is true... it is a necessary part of "the rule of law"...

I implied no such thing, and prosecutorial discretion is in no way a necessary part of the 'rule of law' - what in hell makes you think you can just make sh1t up without being called on it?

The grant of broad discretion to prosecutors is so deeply ingrained in American law that U.S. lawyers often assume that prosecutorial discretion is inevitable. In fact, some countries in Europe and Latin America adhere to the opposite principle of "mandatory prosecution," maintaining, at least in principle, that prosecutors have a duty to bring any charge that is supported by evidence developed by the police or presented by citizens.

Read more: Prosecution: Prosecutorial Discretion - Varieties Of Discretion, Subjects Of Prosecutorial Discretion, Standards Of Prosecutorial Judgment, Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion -
JRank Articles


Foreign legal systems offer alternatives to unfettered prosecutorial discretion. Three methods of limiting or controlling discretion can be distinguished: (1) the law can impose a duty to prosecute whenever, given the evidence available, conviction appears likely; (2) the prosecutor's refusal to bring charges can be subject to judicial review; (3) the complainant (or any citizen) can be given the right to file criminal charges directly with the court. Most European systems employ at least one of these checks upon prosecutorial discretion.

_mungojoe_, again, claimed:

...and has been accepted as so for centuries... so much so... that when the US "imported" common law... it knew it was "importing' this concept as well...

Again, utter bullsh1t. The case that I chose as an example involve violations of federal law, and would be prosecuted in the federal courts. Prosecutorial discretion in the federal system is derived EXCLUSIVELY from the Constitution and federal statutes. The common law is completely irrelevant.

I'm through responding to you as if you were an adult. You are a congenital liar with a mediocre mind and a malignant personality. Enjoy your life.


I watched Judge Napolitano's take on the 17th Amendment, and I must say that he is wrong. It may or may not be anti-constitutional, if you will, but it is not unconstitutional by definition, in that it was passed by constitutional means.

If you wish to see an amendment that was not passed by constitutional means, look no further than the 14th amendment. Check out the Utah Supreme Court's analysis of the amendment's 'ratification' in Dyett v. Turner.

There has been much talk lately about repealing the 14th Amendment to get rid of 'birthright' citizenship. However, because the 14th Amendment conferred U.S. citizenshp to exactly nobody, such a repeal would be little more than symbolic, at least where U.S. citizenship is concerned.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 126 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:22:34 AM
_mungojoe_ said:

well... actually... we were discussing what the word "democracy" meant... as in... "rule of the assembly of the people"... and how that meaning applied to the US... as in "rule of the assembly of the people"...

I think you are omitting a crucial distinction. Ancient Athenian Greece was a 'pure' democracy - a true "rule of the assembly of the people." America is not, and was never intended to be "rule of the assembly of the people" - it was intended to be "rule of the assembly of the people through their representatives." This is a crucial distinction, in that the representatives serve as a buffer between the emotions of the people (the 'mob') and the enacting of the law. It is the presence of representatives that defines a republican form of government.

So, while a representative democracy is a republican form of government, a pure democracy is not a republican form, by definition.

Our founders were fairly knowledgable men:

Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.” - George Washington

There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; for the true idea of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.' That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics." - John Adams

_mungojoe_ said:

I think you would have look far and away... and still never find even close to a majority... of Americans who don't believe in "the rule of law" as a governing concept...

You are certainly correct in saying that Americans believe in 'the rule of law' as a concept - in practice, however, not so much.

For example, were we to ask 100 Republicans if the believe in the rule of law, they would say 'yes,' nearly unanimously. Ask, then, if they believe the Bush cabal should be prosecuted for violations of the laws against torture and for launching an illegal war and see what they have to say.

Or, ask 100 Democrats if they believe in the "rule of law' and, again, they would most certainly answer in the affirmative. Then ask them if they believe that the Bush cabal should be prosecuted - again, most would say 'yes.' Now, ask them if they feel that Obama, who is breaking the law under the same "Convention Against Torture" by not prosecuting the Bush cabal, should also be prosecuted and see what they have to say.

I could easily provide several more examples, but I think you get my point.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 82 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 8/25/2015 8:03:28 PM
_mungojoe_ said:

You can't just simply "pick a meaning"... It has to be considered in terms of... what it meant... and how it was used... in the political context... of the Greeks...

My error - I thought we were discussing our current American democracy. That was the context in which I chose the meanings posted. A large majority of our founding fathers were very much against direct, Athenian-style democracy, considering it to be unsustainable, as history had convinced them. It is easy to find many quotes against direct democracy by the founding fathers.

Sadly for the poster who 'quoted' Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson actually considered direct democracy to be the best form of government, but was aware that the population, and size, of the (soon to be) United States, made direct democracy unworkable - hence, representative democracy.

BigBadNIrish said:

I'm curious...if we are a republic and cannot be called a democracy in any way...then why are we continually attempting to bring democracy to the rest of the world...

The founding fathers actually sometimes used the terms 'republic' and 'democracy' interchangably. As Joe pointed out, one is systemic while the other is structural - though it can be argued that the system is the structure or, at the very least, the system informs the structure. It is certainly nothing to get upset about.

I prefer the term 'republic' over 'democracy for 2 reasons. First, the sine qua non of a republic is adherence to the rule of law, without which, there is no republic. A democracy, on the other hand, can exist without the rule of law, as long as the people feel that their wishes are reflected in government policy. Factionalism, however, will eventually doom such a democracy, and despotism will inevitably follow - some will claim that we are at that point in the U.S. right now.

The second reason is really an extension of the first. By constantly pushing the idea that we are a democracy, our government is able to manipulate the masses into allowing egregious violations of the law to stand effectively unchallenged. Our collective non-response to the Bush criminal cabal is a good example. By pushing the idea that "torture worked" and we are safer because of it, the current administration was able to get away with refusing to prosecute Bush, i.e., refusing to honor both United States law and treaty obligations. It is, in effect, governing by opinion polls, and, I believe, we will eventually descend in an overt tyranny if we do not change course, and soon.

I think that feeling is, in part, what's behind the current popularity of both Trump and Bernie Sanders, and the dislike of the civic cancers known as Bush and Clinton. Neither Trump nor Sanders are the outsiders they are pretending to be. I think the supporters of each will be deeply disapppointed if they get what they are asking for. In short, gentlemen, I think we are in deep doo-doo.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 71 (view)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, Where can we begin?
Posted: 8/25/2015 1:44:50 PM
'Demos' means 'people,' or 'the common man.' 'Kratos' means 'power,' or 'force.' The word for 'rule' is 'arche.' The literal meaning of 'democracy' is 'rule by the power of the people,' i.e., 'mob rule.'

At least you're not just playing stupid word games to make a point.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 313 (view)
Barack Hussein Obama honors Trayvon Martin Today
Posted: 3/28/2015 11:00:04 AM
joe said:

Really...?!? "imminent" DOESN'T mean "in the future"...? So... what you are trying to tell us is that "imminent" is a synonym for "presently occurring"...? Or are you saying it is synonymous with "already happened"...?

My goodness, are you really that dense? Of course 'imminent' means 'in the future.

That is why I said:

Imminent (about to happen) means just that - it does not mean 'could happen at some point in the future,' or 'might happen if he comes closer.'

See those 3 words in parentheses: '(about to happen)' - they indicate 'in the future." C'mon, Joe, you can lie better than that. In the Martin case, Zimmerman was never close enough to Martin for any violence to be imminent. That was a really weak and transparent attempt to create a strawman - and you can't even do that correctly. In context, as applied to Martin, my statement is 100% accurate, and you are still wrong.

Incidentally, if one were to attack the person of another, one would commit both a tort (civil offense) and an assault (criminal offense). Imminence is the same concept in either case.

For more evidence of your failure to comprehend basic english, lets look at what you describe as my 'other act... of being a lying fvck...' hee-hee. Gosh... that's so hurtful.

Your portion of the quote, sans the unnecessary bolding, merely restates and reinforces the portion that I posted. Let's compare:


Imminent. Near at hand; mediate rather than immediate; close rather than touching; impending; on the point of happening; threatening; menacing; perilous.


Something which is threatening to happen at once, something close at hand, something to happen upon the instant, close although not yet touching, and on the point of happening.

As you see, the meanings conferred are nearly identical - and, in both cases, show clearly that your insistence that Martin could reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger, fails. Zimmerman was keeping his distance, i.e., was not close at hand, was not in any way acting menacing or threatening, and was not displaying a weapon.

Your are wrong on the facts and on the plain meaning of the words. No amount of twisting words and lying is going to change that. Olwhatzisname was right in his take on the meaning and application of 'imminent' - you were wrong. BussOfEsprit was reasonable in suggesting alternative choices that Martin had before him; your attempted characterization of the choices as implying 'duty' was wrong - your strawman failed.

It's okay to be wrong, joe. Nobody's perfect - least of all, you. Your pathological need to be right - to be smarter than anybody else, is truly unfortunate. Of course, if you really felt that your assertions were true, you wouldn't have to repeat them ad nauseum. You're not convincing anybody - obviously, not even yourself. Your posts are little more than a display of your deep psychological issues - inadequacies and anger issues on parade.

You are too self-absorbed to be self-aware; too self-loathing to be self-reflective. You are truly a sad character - not man enough to admit that you just might be wrong sometimes; not man enough to control your little temper; not man enough to honor the ban from posting that you so richly deserved; not a man at all by any measurethat I can see, excepting age and gender.

You have a lot of growing up to do, littlejoe. I suggest you put down the keyboard and begin the real work that you have been so long avoiding - that of growing up and becoming a man.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 306 (view)
Barack Hussein Obama honors Trayvon Martin Today
Posted: 3/27/2015 5:14:36 PM
C'mon little joe, is that all ya got?


What happened to that 'soup...eerie...oar inn...tull...eckt' of yours. Aren't you gonna show us how you are right and the courts and law dictionaries are wrong? I mean, you gots da braynes, right? Show us how they don't understand what 'imminent' means, but you do.


Man, that cuts deep. I doubt I'll be able to sleep tonight, what with your brilliant dissection of my post. Golly... I am seriously hurt. You are such a meanie.

Better luck next time, little man.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 299 (view)
Barack Hussein Obama honors Trayvon Martin Today
Posted: 3/27/2015 10:52:38 AM
The Trayvon Martin case and the Mike Brown case have one obvious thing in common: two azzholes meet, one is armed, and tragedy ensues. Two entirely unnecessary, tragic deaths. The biggest difference that I see is that Zimmerman should never have been charged, while Wilson should have been. Just my opinion.

On to some facts re: Martin and Zimmerman:

_mungojoe_ said:

Martin "feelings" about Zimmerman's actions are entirely relevant... they are really the only thing that is in this case... according to Florida's "stand your ground" laws...

Wrong. Martins 'feelings' are utterly irrelevant, as he was never in imminent danger, nor was he on trial. Florida's 'stand your ground' laws are also irrelevant, as they were inapplicable to Martin and not invoked by Zimmerman.

BussOfEsprit said:

It’s that decision by TM to move from an area where GZ couldn’t see him (bottom of “T”) to the area where he confronted him (top of the “T”) that I see a problem. TM could have remained where he was (where GZ couldn’t see him) and waited for GZ to leave, could have called his father, could have gone home, could have knocked on a neighbor’s door, could have called 911 or could have ran, all which would have resulted in a different conclusion. Out of those choices, TM decided to confront GZ. So you conclude it was GZ “racist assumption” and I put it on TM’s decision to confront, instead of several other viable options.

Absolutely correct. Once again, the fact that Martin was far enough from Zimmerman to hide is proof positive that Martin was NOT in any imminent danger. Martin made a choice - to launch a criminal assault - with deadly consequences.

_mungojoe_, however, said:

What... exactly are you trying to imply... by suggesting Martin had a "duty to retreat"... that IS what all those options you listed means (sic)... rather than... a "right by birth to self-defense"... Just who DOES that "right by birth to self defense"... that "stand your ground" laws are meant to enshrine... apply to... if not a person who is feeling immediately threatened...?

There is no suggestion of a 'duty to retreat' in any of the options listed by BussOfEsprit - that is NOT what any those options he listed mean. That is why he said 'could have.' They are simply choices that Martin 'could have' made. Maybe if you weren't such an angry little man, your reading comprehension would improve. Martin certainly had time to make a better choice, as he was at no time in imminent danger by any reasonable use of the term. It is interesting to see that you are such a staunch supporter of 'stand your ground' laws, however. Who woulda thunk...?

_mungojoe_ said:

Nope... he used his firearm to terminate a legal application of self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground" law on "Justifiable Use of Force"...

Wrong again. Zimmerman justifiably used his firearm to terminate an aggravated assault initiated by Martin. Both the law, and the verdict, make that fact rather obvious. In fact, had Zimmerman not been armed, Martin would most likely have been charged, as an adult, with aggravated battery. The verdict would have the same in every state of the union, and in every western jurisdiction. This should have never gone to trial.

_mungojoe_ said:

Sorry stupid... there goes your reading comprehension issue again... on a few levels...

Here is your first one... "imminent"... "imminent" does NOT mean "must be in progress" in law... it means... "about to happen"...


Zimmerman's actions presented to Martin a reasonable belief... at the time... that Zimmerman presented an imminent threat... that Zimmerman was about to commit a forcible felony against him...

Sorry stupid. While you are right in that 'imminent' means 'about to happen,' you are completely wrong in your assertion that Martin was facing an 'imminent threat' from Zimmerman. Zimmerman was keeping his distance, was not exhibiting his firearm, and was in no way threatening Martin - therefore, 'imminent' does not apply. Imminent (about to happen) means just that - it does not mean 'could happen at some point in the future,' or 'might happen if he comes closer.' It means exactly what you said - but failed, again, to comprehend.

Here are some definitions from Blacks Law Dictionary (6th Edition) which quote language used by the courts in defining 'imminent.'

) "Something which is threatening to happen at once, something close at hand, something to happen upon the instant, close although not yet touching, and on the point of happening." From Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. U.S., C.A.Ill., 504 F.2d 586, 588.


"...certain, immediate, and impending, and not remote, uncertain, or contingent; and likelihood or bare possibility of injury is not sufficient to create imminent peril." From Hastings v. Coppage, Mo., 411 S.W.2d 232, 236.

You might have known this if, rather than throwing one of your all too frequent tantrums, you had taken the time to find out what you were talking about - before talking about it.

Olwhatzhisname was right; you were wrong. BussOfEsprit was right; you were wrong. If you weren't so astoundingly immature, you might have taken the time to find ways to refute their comments, rather than just blurting out inanities and profanities - all the while proclaiming your intellectual superiority.

Intellectually superior people people don't need to use obscenities and personal insults to make their points - the veracity of their words are sufficient. Intellectually superior people don't get banned from posting due to their inability to control their juvenile tempers. Intellectually superior people use their time in banned camp to examine and modify their behaviors (like a grown-up would), lest they prove themselves, upon their return, to be the intellectual and emotional equivalent of an emotionally stunted recidivist.

I wouldn't normally quote the most profoundly immature 56 year year old I have ever encountered in my life, but I think this applies perfectly.

You aren't stupid because you don't know stuff... you are stupid because you revel in carrying on endlessly... quite incorrectly... about things you have never even bothered to learn about... You just assume you know... based on what you want to believe... and never actually check for the truth of it... before running your mouth...

Oh... and

Stupid fvck

It's one thing to call everybody who disagrees with you 'idiot teabaggers' or 'stupid fvcks' or whatever other half-witted insult pops into your empty little head, but this reference to cautiousluv

"What a silly bunt..."

is way out of line, even for a half-witted little punk like you. You are utterly despicable. You are an insecure, pathetic little boy, and too stupid and self-absorbed to notice. Pitiful.

What a fvcking Maroon

Bugs Bunny (paraphrased for clarity and accuracy)

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 219 (view)
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/18/2014 11:17:05 AM
Re: the term "acidification" of the oceans (the use of which I dispute), gingerosity said:

Yes they are.

No, they are not. "Acidification" is a deliberately misleading term - useful for little more than scaremongering. The correct term for what the climate fraudsters are alleging is "neutralization."

There is no proof that there has been any change in pH due to increasing "acidity"in the oceans. The imagined change in pH is based on models which ignore the oceans' incredible buffering capacity and assume that increased CO2 necessarily causes a quantifiable lowering of the pH level, which is then extrapolated backwards in time to create the supposed change in pH which the fraudsters then claim is evidence of "acidification." Model outputs re: neutralization, like model outputs regarding global warming, ARE NOT evidence - they are nothing more than pseudoscientific bullshit - a reflection of the agenda of the modeler.

One other thing the global warming / ocean acidification liars have failed to notice - higher CO2 levels in the oceans (you can call it "acidification" if you must) are highly beneficial to coral, not detrimental, as evidenced below.

Let's start with a couple of quotes from the alarmist liars:

First, from the Royal Society -

Published data on corals, coccolithophores and foraminifera all suggest a reduction in calcification by 5–25% in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial values (from 280 to 560 ppm CO2).

This is an outright lie, as is conclusively proven below.

Next, from S.A.Wooldridge of the Australian Institute of Marine Science -

This so-called “ocean acidification” reduces the degree of oversaturation with respect to the precipitation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The great fear of many scientists is that suboptimal saturation states will affect the calcification process of marine calcifying organisms, with potential negative consequences for many marine ecosystems including coral reefs (reviewed by Kleypas and Langdon, 2006)

Yes, it was "reviewed" by Kleypas & Langdon, though "refuted" is the more accurate term.

Kleypas et al -

…HCO3- is the preferred substrate for coral photosynthesis (Al-Moghrabi et al., 1996; Goiran et al., 1996; Allemand et al., 1998), coral calcification uses both HCO3- from seawater and metabolic CO2 as sources of carbon (Erez, 1978; Furla et al., 2000)…Biochemical studies fail to provide any evidence that CO32- plays a direct role in coral calcification…Results from several studies indicate that the substrate for calcification in E. huxleyi is HCO3- (cf., Paasche, 2001), which increases under elevated pCO2 conditions…

It is not calcium carbonate, but bicarbonate, which is necessary for calcification. In addition, bicarbonate reacts with charged calcium to form calcium carbonate. Wooldridge, above, has it exactly backwards in his thoroughly "peer reviewed" article.

Now for some actual science:

Marubini et al -

…the present dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) content of the ocean limits coral growth…adding DIC increases coral calcification rates and confers protection…

Marubini again -

The addition of 2 mM bicarbonate to aquaria containing tropical ocean water and branches of Porites porites caused a doubling of the skeletal growth rate of the coral. Nitrate or ammonium addition (20 μM) to oligotrophic sea-water caused a significant reduction in coral growth, but when seawater containing the extra bicarbonate was supplemented with combined nitrogen, no depression of the higher growth rate was evident. We infer that (1) the present dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) content of the ocean limits coral growth, (2) this limitation is exacerbated by nitrate and ammonium, and (3) adding DIC increases coral calcification rates and confers protection against nutrient enrichment.

More CO2 leads to more dissolved inorganic carbon, facilitating the formation of bicarbonates, which in turn forms calcium carbonate.

Wood et al -

One of the most surprising results is that there was no decrease in the total amount of calcium carbonate in individuals exposed to acidified water. Indeed, individuals from lowered pH treatments had a greater percentage of calcium in their regenerated arms than individuals from control treatments, indicating a greater amount of calcium carbonate…In regenerated arms, calcium levels were greater in those organisms exposed to acidified seawater than in those held in untreated seawater. This was true for all three levels of acidified seawater…there was actually an increasing rate of calcification with lowered pH. Calcium carbonate in established arms was also affected by lowered pH. At pH 6.8, calcium levels increased and at pH 7.7 and pH 7.3, calcium levels were equal to the control indicating that A. filiformis actively replaced calcium carbonate lost by dissolution.

Seawater acidification stimulated arm regeneration. After the 40-day exposure, the length of the regenerated arm was greater in acidified treatments than in the controls…This increased rate of growth coincided with increased metabolism. Regeneration was not affected by the number of arms removed, nor was there a significant difference in any of the physiological parameters measured as a result of having two arms regenerating instead of one. The ability to regenerate lost arms faster meant a reduction in the length of time animal function (e.g. burrow ventilation and feeding) was compromised by reduced arm length.
Interestingly, even at high levels of hypercapnia (the 6.8 pH treatment crosses the threshold into acidic water, i.e. pH<7.0) investigated here, no mortality was observed.

These results change the face of predictions for future marine assemblages with respect to ocean acidification. Whereas it was previously assumed that all calcifiers would be unable to construct shells or skeletons, and inevitably succumb to dissolution as carbonate became undersaturated, we now know that this is not the case for every species.

Note how these non-alarmist scientists correctly characterize "acidic" water as water with a pH level of less than 7.0. Also note that, even in actually acidic water, NO mortality was observed. This is an example of why I believe that characterizing alkaline water as "acidic" is misleading at best and, as used by the alarmists, dishonest. It's a shame that there is no reliable "litmus test" to check our claims against….

Iglesias-Rodriguez et al -

Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.

Vogt et al -

…the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects.

The CO2 effects mentioned were CO2 concentration levels 3 times higher than is currently provided by nature.

Gutowska -

No differences in soft tissue growth performance were measured between cuttlefish incubated at ~4000 and ~6000 ppm CO2 and controls…Standard metabolic rates of cuttlefish exposed acutely to ~6000 ppm CO2 showed no significant increase or decrease over time…there were no significant differences between the mantle lengths of control cuttlefish and those incubated at 6000 ppm CO2…Interestingly, in the ~6000 ppm CO2 growth trial, the CO2 incubated animals incorporated significantly more CaCO3 [calcium carbonate] into their cuttlebones than did the control group…Functional control of the cuttlebones (i.e. buoyancy regulation) did not appear to be negatively affected by low pH conditions.

Herford et al -

A wide range of bicarbonate concentrations was used to monitor the kinetics of bicarbonate (HCO3-) use in both photosynthesis and calcification in two reef-building corals, Porites porites and Acropora sp…additions of NaHCO 3 [bicarbonate is added as the sodium salt because additional sodium ions are ‘lost’ in the sodium ions already present in seawater] to synthetic seawater proportionally increased the calcification rate of this coral until the concentration exceeded three times that of seawater (6 mM). Photosynthetic rates were also stimulated by HCO3- addition…Similar experiments on aquarium-acclimated colonies of Indo-Pacific Acropora sp. showed that calcification and photosynthesis in this coral were enhanced to an even greater extent than P. porites, with calcification continuing to increase above 8 mM HCO3-.

There are many more studies showing that increased CO2 concentrations in the oceans are beneficial to coral - as it is to all living things. So, the Royal Society is proven to be lying, and Mr. Wooldridge has been shown to have published a misleading irrelevancy - such is the state of government "science."

lyingcheat claimed:

Q. Why is it that 'climate change skeptics' ^^^ rely on rhetoric and irrelevancy?

A. Probably because they can't cite any reputable research, studies, or actual facts to back up their denialist fantasies.

What a moronic statement - even for you. I challenge you to name even one person (even an insane person) who denies that climate changes - bet you can't. Your deliberate attempt to mischaracterize skeptics as deniers (like "holocaust deniers" - Godwin, anyone?) shows the impotence of your arguments and your lack of intellectual integrity.

In addition, your use of the term "climate change" indicates a retreat from rational thought on your part. You demand that others follow the rules of logic and display rationality yet clearly don't believe such rules apply to you. The ONLY legitimate term that you, or anyone else can use is "global warming." "Climate change," "extreme weather," "climate weirding" are all strawmen created by moving the goal posts. But, you knew that... didn't you?

It's interesting that you would call somebody else out on that kind of irrationality if it was used in an argument against you, but feel it's acceptable for you to use to "win" your own argument. There is a term for that kind of dishonest, juvenile behavior - isn't there?

Here is a link which you could have readily found had you been interested in facts rather than in appearing to be clever.

It's a government site, so it must be true, and it has lots of other sciencey sounding stuff for you to misinterpret. Enjoy!

Now, what was that you were saying about rhetoric and irrelevancy?

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 210 (view)
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 7/14/2014 3:51:06 PM
gingerosity said:

We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases the acidity of the ocean. Higher acidity of the ocean kills coral reefs.

First off - some basic science. The oceans are not becoming more acidic. Any scientist who claims otherwise is either an incompetent or a liar (or both). The oceans may or may not be less alkaline - that does NOT equal being more acidic.

Neutral pH is 7.0. Anything above 7.0 (i.e., the oceans) is alkaline (base). Anything below 7.0 is acidic. Nothing above pH 7.0 CAN become more or less acidic, because it is not acidic to begin with, by definition.

Water freezes at 32 degrees fahrenheit. Water above 32 degrees is liquid (or gas). Water below 32 degrees is frozen. No water above 32 degrees can become more or less frozen, because it is not frozen to begin with, by definition.

If we follow your logic (and that of the alarmist liars), water which is at 50 degrees fahrenheit is MORE FROZEN than water at 60 degrees. Sorry dude - that isn't logic - it's non-scientific bullshit.

Pure, unpolluted rain water has a pH of about 5.2. That's right - pure rain water is acidic. In fact, during thunderstorms, rain can have a pH as low as 2. All of this acidic water, which is often made more acidic by industrial pollution, pours down our rivers, through our estuaries, and into our ocean shallows, where the reefs are located.

This has occurred for millions of years, during times with much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, much more acidic rain, and much higher (and lower) temperatures. Somehow, the coral has managed to adapt and survive. It will continue to do so.

Incidentally, it turns out that the coral "bleaching" which was blamed on CO2 and was being studied incessantly by oh-so-concerned pseudo-scientists, was actually being caused by the chemicals in the sunscreen these morons were slathering all over themselves. Luckily for our coral reefs, there is now "coral safe" sunscreen available.

gingerosity said:

If you assigned a 0.1% probability to the risk of losing $6.4 billion/year, that means you can spend up to $6.4 million/year to prevent it happening and break even or be ahead on average. Or $640 million/year if you assigned a 10% probability.

Are you serious? If you spend $6.4 million a year, the odds of breaking even, as you put it, are miniscule. The odds that you will NOT break even are 999 to 1. To spend as you suggest would be extremely irresponsible, especially if you are basing it on the unscientific nonsense earlier in your post.

So - did you waste your breath? Well… yes, you did - but not, I suspect, for the reasons you imagined. It's not because you had something intelligent and well thought out to say that was just TOO sophisticated for us poor ignorant skeptics to comprehend - you wasted your breath because what you wrote was both extremely unscientific and completely illogical - i.e., utter nonsense.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 31 (view)
Posted: 6/27/2014 12:26:28 PM
DameWrite said:

Unfair laws, detentions, spying, so much tyranny going on. There is a way to say no.

Nullification is just one possible way.

Yes indeed. Nullification is an extremely powerful and effective tool. It would have been helpful if you had defined your terms, however. That would have made it more difficult for the usual suspects to destroy a promising thread with their usual ignorance. There are 3 distinct types of nullification which are currently in use - so-called "hard" nullification (which includes "judicial" nullification), "soft" nullification, and jury nullification.

"Hard" nullification occurs when a state or local government not only refuses to enforce federal laws, but also does not allow the feds to enforce their laws within the state or locality. This is the only form of nullification which remains undecided.

In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court disagreed, and sent the mandate to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. As of today (06-27-14) the mandate has not been filed, and the Wisconsin courts still hold to their decision..

"Soft" nullification occurs when a state or local government refuses to aid the feds in enforcement of federal law. This is a legally and constitutionally protected act, and has been very much in the news lately. The statute DameWrite posted is an example.

Jury nullification is the most effective means to reign in government abuse - and, it is also constitutionally protected. Governments hate it, and so deliberately lie to the people about it.

IgorFrankensteen, ever the ahistorian, said:

Nope, and nope. Nullification was shot down long ago…


Where you are wrong, is in claiming that there exist certain actual, functioning, established methods of doing so, which have the force of law behind them.

Because Igor also failed to define his terms, he is wrong, and wrong. Oh -


quite wrong.

Igor also said:

But when you suggest something like the idea of Nullification, what you are actually talking about is encouraging the functional dissolution of the United States itself.

Not at all. When one speaks of nullification, one speaks of a government of, by, and for the people finally functioning as designed.

As already stated, only "hard" nullification is controversial - "soft" nullification and jury nullification are both constitutionally guaranteed and protected.

mungojoe said:

Well now, isn't this interesting... Whoever thought that Ms. Write would be on the same side of the fence as some of our more notorious right wingnuts…

Well now, isn't this typical… childish name-calling and an incorrect characterization of the issue. At least you are consistent.

In U.S. history, the most famous example of nullification is the refusal of the North (see Wisconsin, above), prior to and during the Civil War, to honor federal law - the Fugitive Slave Act. Is freeing the slaves and fighting racism really a right wingnut cause?

The vast majority of nullification in the news lately has, of course, been of the left wing, "soft" variety. For instance, the state of California started the so-called "modern nullification movement" in 1996 by nullifying federal marijuana laws - obviously not a right wingnut cause. Currently at least 22 states have nullified federal marijuana laws. In addition, many states have effectively nullified the NDAA - including notoriously right wingnut California.

On a more local level, several municipalities throughout the country have nullified federal law by establishing so-called "sanctuary cities." Protecting illegal aliens is hardly a right wingnut idea, is it?

Even individual citizens, when of a like mind, have effectively nullified federal law. Surely you are aware of the Real ID (national ID) and national 55 mph speed limit crap the feds tried to force on the people. The states' governments were all for it - controlling its citizens is very helpful to authoritarian bodies. But, the people refused to comply, the states were forced to give up (due to their inability to force the people to comply), and - just like that - the people nullified the fed's national ID scheme and national 55 mph speed limit..

The above are examples of "soft" nullification - effective, constitutionally protected nullification. It is extremely powerful and very effective. The feds' own courts have consistently held that the feds cannot force states or local governments to enforce federal law. This is the one of the actual, functional, established methods of nullification that Igor claims doesn't exist.

The most powerful tool for change in the citizen's arsenal is, of course, jury nullification. Federal, state, county, and local judges will all tell you that you must follow the law as given to you (the jury) by the judge. Each and every judge who tells that to the jury is deliberately lying, and the judges are all well aware of it.

The Constitution guarantees the right to trial by a jury of your peers. Note that it does NOT add "with the judge telling you what the law is and how you are allowed to apply it." There is a simple reason for that - jurors have the absolute right to decide both the facts and the law at issue.

Jury nullification is our best hope against government overreach and criminality. Our Founding Fathers gave us a wonderful tool to retain control over our servant governments - it is shameful that we are too ignorant to use it. Best of all, neither governments nor their courts can do anything about it - it is an established constitutional right of the people.

Here is a recent (2005) story on jury nullification, in which a man faced 5 to 20 years in jail:

In some areas, particularly the San Francisco/Oakland area of Northern California, it seems likely that jury nullification may be an increasing threat in federal marijuana cases. In 2003, jurors revolted after convicting Ed Rosenthal of growing 100 pounds or more of marijuana in a highly disputed San Francisco federal case. The jury was outraged that they had not been informed that Rosenthal was growing the marijuana for distribution to medical dispensaries. Juror Marney Craig, a 58 year old Marin County property manager, labeled the trial "a cruel charade." "It is the most horrible mistake I have ever made," she said. "I feel like we were sheep, we were manipulated."

The foreman, Charles Sackett, said, "I fail to understand how evidence and testimony that is pertinent, imperative and representative to state government policy, as well as doctor and patient rights, and indeed your own family, are irrelevant to this case."

Following Rosenthal's conviction, five of the jurors joined Rosenthal on the steps of the Federal Courthouse, denouncing their own verdict, saying they had been manipulated and misdirected, and demanding that Rosenthal receive a new trial. Not surprisingly, the trial court judge, Charles Breyer (brother of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer) refused to consider the jurors protests or grant a new trial. However, in the glare of negative publicity, Judge Breyer eventually gave Rosenthal - whom the federal government wanted to send to prison for six and a half years - a startling one-day sentence.

Matt Gonzalez, president of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, or city council, said jurors in cases like Rosenthal's should know that they can nullify a verdict if they find the law is unjust. Craig said she and her fellow jurors had no idea that they had power to disregard the federal law, because the judge never told them. "We were good little girls and boys, and we did what he said because we trusted the system," said Craig. "We felt so intimidated by the way the trial proceeded."

How badly does the government want to keep the truth about jury nullification from their citizens? How badly do they want citizen jurors to be "good little boys and girls?" Well, in California a lawyer can (will) face sanctions if he tell the jurors. A juror who informs other jury members of their constitutional duty will be removed from the jury if found out. The judges will sit on the bench, representing the government, and lie directly in the faces of the jurors by claiming that the jurors must follow the judge's interpretation of the law. It is pretty much the same in every state - but one.

The people of the state of New Hampshire have, through intelligent use of their representatives, mandated that judges in their courts MUST tell the jurors that they have the right, under the U.S. Constitution, to judge both the facts and the law. That's right - the people of New Hampshire have taken back the constitutional rights which were stolen from them by corrupt judges and a corrupted judicial system and, in so doing, have taken back rightful control of their courts.

To learn of the rights of jurors (in the US) try this link:

How cool is that? A mature citizenry assuring (not just demanding) that their constitutional rights be upheld. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.

Oh - if you want out of jury duty, just tell the judge that you are a "fully informed" juror. Then, enjoy your day off.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 204 (view)
Timothy Ball on Climate Change Denial
Posted: 6/4/2014 4:55:19 PM

That is the single most divorced-from-reality post I have read on POF in almost 10 years.

BTW, it is obvious that you have absolutely no clue what is going on, nor do you even begin to grasp the true state of things.

Jeezus - take a tranquilizer - and learn how to do research.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 52 (view)
Posted: 1/24/2014 7:58:20 PM
There have been many studies showing differences in distribution of mental health issues, particularly schizophrenia, among people based on the season of birth. This links to just one such study. I believe that there are studies that suggest that much more than mental health is affected by season of birth.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 48 (view)
Aaron Hernandez
Posted: 7/26/2013 4:57:29 PM
pete, the biggest difference between the OJ case and the Hernandez case is the presence of witnesses. In addition, the surveillance tapes, phone and text records, and the fact that a Mr. Ortiz admits to being at the scene during the murder makes this case very different from the OJ case, which was entirely circumstantial.

It doesn't even matter if Hernandez pulled the trigger - if the prosecution can establish that Hernandez was present during the murder, he is done.

In answer to your OJ case question - I won money on that verdict. The OJ case depended on blood (DNA) evidence and police conduct - both were tainted. In the Hernandez case, it will be text messages, video surveillance, and witness statements which will be his undoing. Fancy scientific evidence leads to dueling experts and jury confusion - the Hernandez case comes down to one thing - was he there. Video evidence, texts, and phone calls all say that he was there. So, I feel confident in saying that he will be convicted of first degree murder.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
Aaron Hernandez
Posted: 7/25/2013 12:32:15 PM
petebelongs said:

Four weeks after arresting Aaron Hernandez, the Prosecution went to court yesterday and asked for additional time in order to put forth a case for probable cause to move forward and conduct a trial for murder.

Probable cause is not a high standard to achieve! But the Prosecution was not confident that they could show that probable cause. They better find something in the next month or Hernandez may not even be tried for the murder of Odin Lloyd!

You are mistaken, sir. Not only could they easily show probable cause, but they have - it was the basis of Hernandez's arrest. The reason that the prosecution wanted to delay the probable cause hearing is because they are waiting for a grand jury indictment. Had they held the probable cause hearing, the prosecution would have had to reveal some of its evidence - witnesses could be called and cross-examination would be allowed.

The prosecution is simply waiting for an indictment so that they can proceed to trial without a probable cause hearing - thus avoiding revealing anything more about their case ahead of time. Hernandez will most assuredly be tried (and convicted) of the murder of Mr. Lloyd.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 64 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/30/2013 12:50:25 PM
Wax, LC:

Thank you! I knew I could count on you guys. Nothing like a good laugh to start one's day. You true believers are hilarious!

Wax disingenuously stated:

If you want data rather than your misguided attempts at falsifying the greenhouse effect all you need to do is look at the data and the scientific publications I've already posted. You are ignoring this. You are ignoring the increase in atmospheric energy at specific greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths. You are also ignoring actual measurements of outbound radiation.

Translation: Waaaahhh!

Sorry, Wax. I ignored no data. I merely pointed out that the data you reference does not show what you think it does. As for "misguided attempts" - I provided data - empirical, objective data. It's a shame that reality has no place in your belief system. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. And the facts are clear and indisputable - an atmosphere with a CO2 concentration of 96.5% has the same temperature as an atmosphere with a CO2 concentration of .04%, all other factors being equal. There is no greenhouse effect - period. You can whine all you want - and that is what you are doing - but your lame protestations mean squat in the face of empirical data. Try again, if you like - or not. I don't care, nor do the data.

Not that we've dealt with your glaring ignorance, let's move on to your dishonesty.

You can continue on with this ridiculous charade of bring new arguments to the table every time one of your old ones is debunked or you could finally accept real science as opposed to your pseudo-science propaganda. You stated you did not know what denial blogs were yet you posted a link to one where you are getting this info from.

I have brought one, and only one, argument to the table - your dishonest claim to the contrary is just that - dishonest. And your claim that anything I've said has been debunked is a lie - plain and simple. Your assertion that speculative theory is"real science" while objective, empirical data are somehow "pseudo-science propaganda" is so transparently stupid as to be laughable. And, to be honest, I have been laughing at your little emotional rant all morning. I even showed it to my daughter, and I'm glad I did - she went to work with a smile on her face, thanks to you.

So, Wax, I'm sorry. Your own words expose you. You're not interested in science - you just want to be right. Objective data which do not fit your belief system are dishonestly labeled "propaganda," and consequently, ignored. Pathetic. And you dare to mention the scientific method - like I said - laughable.

And... speaking of pathetic, lyingcheat attempts to characterize the factual data as somehow compromised by pretending that the data belongs to Mr. Huffman. I personally don't care if the factual data (and that is what it is) was found on Charles Manson's blog, or Adolph Hitler's blog, or the blog of Satan himself - that is utterly irrelevant. The data is taken from NASA's Magellan spacecraft. If you have a problem with the data, take it up with NASA.

Your entire post is an appeal to authority coupled with an ad hominem attack - followed by a dishonest attempt to portray NASA's data as Huffman's data. You're the guy who, whenever it suits you, points out the fallacies in other peoples' thinking - yet you don't hesitate to use the same faulty thinking when it supports your beliefs. Hypocrite much? At least you're not a transparent phony, hey!

So, in conclusion - the data compiled from NASA'a Magellan spacecraft is unassailable. Rather than engage in whining and spouting fallacies, how about you confront the data and state clearly what those data mean to you, and how they support your position. Otherwise, shut the fvck up. You are just making fools of yourselves.


P.S. - Please don't shut up - keep the ignorance and petulance coming. I can't even begin to tell you how entertaining it is. God, you guys are priceless.
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 60 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/29/2013 9:20:42 PM
There is no doubt that an atmosphere is necessary to the warmth of a planet - no atmosphere means nothing for the sun's rays to warm. That does not mean that the atmosphere then behaves like a greenhouse.

The following data have been available since 1991. Just one competent and honest climate scientist could have saved us hundreds of billions of dollars of wasted money, just by asking the obvious question: "all other things being equal, how much hotter is Venus (96.5% CO2) than Earth (.04% CO2)?

The answer may surprise you. I will provide links below.

Here are 2 charts showing the pressure and temperature profiles for Venus, taken from data gathered by the Magellan spacecraft in 1991.

So, let's make all things equal - starting with distance from the sun.

The Earth is, on average, 93 million miles from the sun - Venus is, on average, 67.25 million miles from the sun. Venus receives 1.91 times more energy from the sun than the Earth. Via the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be 1.176 times that of the Earth.

Now, let's make the atmospheric pressure equal, by comparing those portions of Venus' and Earth's atmospheres with corresponding pressures. If there is no greenhouse effect, the temperatures at comparable pressures should be the same as Earth's, multiplied by 1.176.

Here are the empirical data for your perusal.

at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168

(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)

You will note that, where the ratio dips, the corresponding temperature on Venus is LOWER than that of Earth. So much for all that nasty CO2 burning up poor old Venus.

Here is a chart showing how close the the temperatures of Venus and Earth correspond at the same atmospheric pressure.

Empirical data trumps theory, especially when the data is indisputable, and the theory weak (or, as in AGW, ridiculously weak). The greenhouse effect hypothesis was an honest, if misguided, attempt to make sense of the world - AGW / CAGW is, and has been from the beginning, a blatant fraud, attaching itself to the greenhouse effect hypothesis like a parasite. Now that the body of the theory has been laid to rest, we'll see how long the parasite can hold out. It's only a matter of time. Truth has a way of working its way out of the darkness (of fraudulent scientists and their incompetent minions) to the light. I think we can all see this a little more clearly now.

So, to answer the question - there is no temperature difference, i.e., there is no greenhouse effect, either on Venus or on Earth.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 56 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/29/2013 12:00:41 PM
Maybe I should start reading blogs. I didn't even know that there were "denier" blogs out there. You must be getting your "science" from some of the hysteric's blogs. I did look up Gerlich, just to see what he said. IF it is true that no visible light reaches the surface of Venus, Gerlich is absolutely correct - the so-called "greenhouse effect" does not apply to Venus.

You said:

you seem to be taking the stance of the greenhouse effect not existing.

Yes, I am. There is no evidence of the so-called greenhouse effect on Venus, with an atmosphere of over 95% CO2 - there is certainly no evidence of any greenhouse effect on earth, at .04% CO2.

Your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary are just that - unsubstantiated claims. The idea that .04% of atmospheric CO2 drives the climate is ludicrous on its face - especially when we see that an atmosphere with over 95% CO2 (Venus) exhibits no greenhouse effect.

Sorry, Wax - there is no greenhouse effect, either on Venus or on Earth. Your protestations to the contrary are incorrect. The sun is the one and only climate driver.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 52 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/28/2013 10:06:14 AM

So, a doubling of CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will cause a temperature increase of 1C. Does this mean a 1C temp rise per 400 ppm, or a 1C rise per doubling of CO2 percentage? I.e., would a subsequent doubling (from 800 ppm to 1600 ppm) then cause another rise in temp of 1C, or would the temperature rise be greater?

Just trying to get my head around this - your help is appreciated.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 47 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/27/2013 12:40:32 PM
Sorry I had to bail. I was under the weather for so long I was beginning to wonder if I was under the climate.

WaxItYourself122 said:

quote]CO2 can be found not to be the cause of the warming by having most of the energy retention outside of the CO2 absorption band. Do you understand? How many times do I need to repost this before it sinks in?

Thank you. A nice, understandable answer, in your own words. However, I believe that you are mistaken - that would falsify nothing. If, for instance, it could be shown that CO2 merely increases temperature distribution within the atmosphere (which is my belief), and has no other effect on temperature, your falsification would fail. An unproven assumption falsifies nothing.

Here is the problem I'm having:

You would have me believe that a colder body can somehow warm a warmer body.
You would have me believe that there is no degradation of thermal energy with each energy exchange.

You do realize that those are two extraordinary claims, don't you? Extraordinary claims are made more palatable with extraordinary evidence. Actually, ANY evidence would be nice.

Instead we get ridiculous back-radiation speculation and contrived feedback loops - and somehow you accept those suppositions (and they are suppositions, NOT observations) as extraordinary evidence? Wow.

But, because you at least seem to have a handle on the "science," I would like to pose a question, if I may, to make sure I understand what you're claiming.

With ALL OTHER THINGS being equal, does an large increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere necessarily mean an increase in temperature?

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/17/2013 12:34:32 PM

Any of you pseudoscience loving anthropogenic warming alarmists got the balls (or knowledge) to answer my very simple question?

Here - I'll repeat it more slowly so that your compromised intellects can understand it. Show. Us. How. AGW. Can. Be. Falsified.

It is an indisputable fact that if you do not know how to falsify AGW, you do not know the science at even a basic level. So, all you pretend science fans - can you do it? Can you state simply how to falsify AGW. If not, all your long, rambling posts mean squat. If you know the science, it should be extremely simple - you shouldn't even need to research it.

It has already been established that wvwaterfall, who was asked twice and was unable to answer, has no clue to the answer, so his opinions on AGW carry no weight whatsoever. They are just the repeated words of somebody else.

(As an aside, (and not specific to wvwaterfall), why is it that so many people who have "good" memories, and are able to repeat what others tell them, i.e., possess a skill, fancy themselves as intelligent. This pervasive misapprehension of the self is astounding.)

So, WaxItYourself122 and lyingcheat - show how to falsify AGW, or it will be made clear for all that you are just repeating what you've been told, without understanding the science (as is already obvious).

C'mon - don't be scared - it is already clear that your grasp of science is tenuous at best - prove us wrong - falsify AGW, or shut the fvck up with your ignorant bullshit. C'mon - lift your game - the self-laudatory - and self-satisfied - tone of your posts has become laughable, and you have become caricatures of gullibility.

Well, are you up to it, boys? I doubt it - prove me wrong.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 28 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 6:32:24 PM
Oh come on wvwaterfall, your reading comprehension is better than that. Or did you deliberately avoid my questions?

The list you provided, while boring, does not respond in any way to my questions. I don't care about votes, I don't give a shit about belief, I don't care how many misguided articles you present - I want science.

wvwaterfall said:

However you want to define legitimate science,...

How about YOU define "legitimate science" for us? Stretch it as far as you like - climate pseudo-science still won't fit.

If it is not falsifiable, it ain't science. So, show us how to falsify climate "science." If you can't (you can't), we will know that you, wvwaterfall, do not know if climate science is legitimate at all. We will know that your belief in the political sham that is climate "science" is based on emotion, not science.

Prove me wrong - show us how to falsify climate "science," or we will all know that you are lying.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 25 (view)
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 12:22:10 PM
wvwaterfall referred to climate science (sic) as "legitimate science."

I will believe your attribution if, and only if, you can show specifically how the "science" of AGW can be falsified, and; if you can convince me that a "science" is legit which demonizes opponents, refuses to share data and methods, and attempts to stop differing views from being published, and; if you can explain why a science which has failed miserably with so many of its predictions and (extremely unscientific) scenarios should nevertheless be given a pass for said failures and still be called a "science."

Absent clear and convincing evidence of the above, I'm just gonna have to continue to believe that the UN is a political organization with political goals, and science is a high and honorable calling, and never the twain shall meet.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 165 (view)
Can Republicans permit us to suffer the cliff...
Posted: 12/28/2012 9:14:20 AM
IgorFrankensteen said:

In addition to Obama NOT setting up the "cliff" law, it takes at least two sides working to create an impasse.

The "impasse" is indeed fairly blamed on both sides of the aisle, but the "fiscal cliff" is 100% Obama's creation. Yes, Igor, Obama created the fiscal cliff as a bit of political theater to fool the masses into accepting austerity. Here's a little bit of truth for you, from an honest progressive (yes, they are extremely rare, but they do exist.) It's from the Real News Network, a progressive site that attempts to find and report the truth.

Well, we're headed into the next year. Right at this point, it looks like the grand fiscal cliff negotiations won't succeed before the end of this year.

I've just done a piece, you know, that asks the question, since everybody agrees now that the fiscal cliff is incredibly stupid and really dangerous, in the sense that it's designed to impose austerity, and they're saying that if we were to continue this austerity for very long, we would throw the nation back into recession, I went back and looked. How did we come about—you know, who's the moron that created this fiscal cliff that they're talking about? And it turns out it's President Obama. And it's not only President Obama that insisted on this, but he insisted on the fiscal cliff for the express reason that it would create what he called "discipline"—what I would call extortion—on liberals to vote in favor of beginning to unravel the safety net—Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps—'cause if they didn't, lo and behold, there'd be this fiscal cliff and all kinds of social programs would be gutted. So throw Grandma under the bus was the logic.

IgorFrankensteen said:

As for who gets the most blame, according to recent polls, most Americans are indeed blaming the Republicans ( Bad press clippings? Bad self-representation? Dedication to principles? Sticking to their promises? Take your pick.

Ooh, let's poll of the ignorant and pretend the results are somehow meaningful. Sorry, but I think you forgot the main reason, Igor. It's the inexcusable ignorance and gullibility of the American people.

IgorFrankensteen said:

But if you insist in blaming only Obama, you are refusing to look at reality. That's great for your emotional self-reward system, but it's not remotely persuasive or factual.

Talk about self-blinded.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 95 (view)
The debates
Posted: 10/19/2012 6:58:24 PM
Aristotle_Amadopolis said:

So what part about where he called the attacks, acts of terror did you not understand?

Imported_labor said:

Here it is: context is an essential part of language. The when and where of something that is said helps to understand its full meaning. So, the president said "act of terror." Where he said it? At a statement to the media event at the Rose Garden in the White House. When did he do that? After the country had learned that the US ambassador to Libya had been killed in Benghazi. Do you now understand what the president said?

So you two gentlemen are fans of context? How about we expand the context beyond the narrow confines of your statements all the way into reality and see what we find. (I've summed up each statement in capital letters for your convenience).

White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13

"America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence."


As you know, Jay Carney is Obama's mouthpiece, and speaks for the entire administration - he says no more, and no less, than Obama decides he will say.

Hilary Clinton, at the transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”


Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16

“Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”


Mathew Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, before Congress, Sept. 19

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy….The best information we have now, the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours at our embassy — our diplomatic post in Benghazi. It evolved and escalated over several hours.

It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the — into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don't have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.


Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News, Sept. 20, reporting what the Obama admin certainly already knows:

"Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account."

The Obama admin also has security footage and drone footage confirming the above. So... will they now tell the American people the truth? Let's see...

White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that's self- evident.
“He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”


Note how now it is "self-evident" that it was a terrorist attack (but only a spontaneous one). Too funny!

President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?”

OBAMA: “Well, we're still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”


Hilary Clinton, statement at a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Sept. 21

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”


Finally - the Obama admin tells the truth But wait...

President Obama, on ABC’s “The View,” Sept. 25

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”


Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 25

“That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”


Obama blames the Benghazi incident on the video 6 times, but does not say the word "terror," "terrorist," or "terrorism" even once in his 30 minute speech - the message Obama was pushing was that the video was the cause of the Benghazi attack.

Watch Obama's UN speech for yourself.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 26

QUESTION: “Is there any reason why the President did not — he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no? Is there any reason why he didn’t say yes?”

CARNEY: “He answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover. But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”


Now, gentlemen, tell me again about context...

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Obama considered the Benghazi attacks to be a planned terrorist attack, or act of terror, from the very beginning, as he and his supporters are claiming. I have a question for you two - what the fvck kind of human being, let alone the freaking president, goes out fundraising, shaking hands, smiling, laughing - the day after a terrorist attack that killed 4 American citizens, while at the same time sending out his underlings to lie about it for him, as proven above?

Why the fvck didn't Obama come out right away and assure the American people that he was doing all he could to bring the terrorists to justice, instead of acting like it was a spontaneous riot gone bad?

Why did Obama not come out and admit that the attack was obviously pre-planned, rather than lie about it?

Why didn't he say something like "look, we have hundreds of embassies, consulates, and other American interests all over the world - we can't make every one an impregnable fortress - that is not the purpose or function of our diplomatic mission. Yes, ambassador Stevens did request addidtional security, but what he requested, and what we anticipated sending, would not have been enough to repel such a well planned and executed attack, and would only have resulted in more dead Americans?"

I would have accepted that explanation - and it's way closer to the truth than anything that has come from the lying Obama admin.

Rather than be a leader - a man - Obama immediately slithered to his 'comfort zone,' where he is at his best - that of the lowest form of life on the planet - a politician. He, and his scummy minions, have lied and spun - politicized it - from the start, and then had the nerve to blame the Rebubs for politicizing it.

Even worse, semi-literate Obama backers are all over the internet pretending that they understand context and correcting the poor dumb conservatives. It's hilarious - and sad.

sweetest said:

And it's this type of behavior that will bleed rational people away from this party. I find the Republican's behavior on this issue completely embarrassing and unbelievably petty.

As the statements listed above clearly show, the despicable behavior, the deliberate lie after lie, the politicizing of the attack, is on the part of the Obama admin. But, you say the Republicans are embarrassing and petty for pointing it out?!? Interesting take on the situation - though not exactly what I'd call "rational."

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 23 (view)
Posted: 8/2/2012 7:58:26 PM
Some interesting but, unfortunately, not surprising responses.

IgorFrankensteen said:

My advice to you, join the good guys. Behave yourself. And when one of the uniformed good guys does check up on you, recognize that he's actually on your side, and cooperate cheerfully.

He was behaving - he did nothing wrong. In addition, only a fool thinks the cops are on his side - unless he's a fellow cop.

lotustemple said:

Geez, he was doing his job, keeping the area safe so you can freely come and go at 2 am and not worry about getting robbed or mugged or whatever. Apparently it caught his attention and he was checking to make sure you were the owner. Why didn't you thank him for checking? It could have been a thief stealing your car. Call him at the station and apologize for your rudeness.

Or, you could call him at the station and ask why he lied to you about your eyes - and tell him to fvck off.

xxsmexixx said:

He had probable cause.

No he didn't. Not even close.

Fleuron said:

If you had shown a bit of respect and appreciation, it probably wouldn't have gone any further than showing your ID and proof of insurance.

"Respect and appreciation" for being needlessly harrassed? I would have put my wallet (with my ID) on the seat, locked the car doors, and told him my name only. I would have asked if I was being detained: If he said "yes," I would have demanded that he state the "probable cause" he was detaining me under - since he had none, he would have been SOL at that point - then I would have told him to move his fvcking car. If he said "no," I would have told him to move his fvcking car.

The police serve the state - if they serve the people, it is only incidentally. The cop who harassed you also lied to you - fvck him.

orangejay8448 said:

first off paul, why did you delete your previous posts? you've been trolling my discussion for about a day now, so i wouldn't blame you. secondly, the founding fathers would be rolling in their f*ckin' graves if they knew half of what was goin' on today. our leaders today, are literally undoing everything that was fought for over 200 years ago. third, i am not mistaken about your generation. you prove this point exactly.

Damn! I was right there with you until number three. I'm only a couple years younger than Paul and Igor, and I can assure you that not all people from that generation have had their minds so compromised. It is true that our generation has been subjected to many years more of propaganda than you have at your age, but not all of us have given up independent thought for the false comfort of acceptance - unfortunately, most have.

Don't become one of them - remember, none are so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. I forget who said that, but it sure seems to apply here. Stick to your guns and keep your mind free.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 418 (view)
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 7/23/2012 5:21:19 PM
flyguy51 said:

Your much larger error is that your comment about Boeing nose cones, if I interpret the sarcasm correctly, shows that you have very little conception of the physics equation F=ma.

F=ma is only part of the problem. Unless you believe that a half ounce egg travelling 500 mph will penetrate a brick wall exactly as much as a half ounce steel ball travelling 500 mph, that is - in which case, you are mistaken (As you surely know).

But, you are correct - this is all off-topic - for that I apologize, and will post no more on the matter.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 416 (view)
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 7/23/2012 4:26:53 PM
Bladesmith81801 said:

They spent hours pulling the dead bodies OUT of the aircraft.

Really? What aircraft? According to the official reports, there was no fuselage, no passenger compartment - nothing but small, isolated pieces of an aircraft. So, if your friends told you that they pulled bodies from the wreckage of an airplane, they are contradicting both the official story and the scientific facts.

I believe you that they are honorable men, but they are mistaken if they stated what you claim.

Incidentally, if by "you people" you mean those who demand evidence before making up their minds, then, thank you very much - I am one of "those people.".

BTW, the fact that two of our most partisan (i.e., intellectually immature) posters agree that I'm a big meanie means less than nothing to me. Believe whatever makes you feel good, little ones.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 414 (view)
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 7/22/2012 9:42:53 PM
flyguy51 said:

I think you've got the wrong hole.

No sir. That is the hole allegedly made by the 757. Here is a slightly different view.

The view that is usually shown is after the roof collapsed from 'fire damage,' but this is the hole before the collapse, as allegedly made by the 757.

Here, for anybody interested, is the 757's exit hole inside the third ring of the pentagon. Look at all familiar?

I gotta give credit to Boeing - the aluminum nose cone of their 757 is one bad mother...


Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 412 (view)
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 7/22/2012 7:33:03 PM

This is the text that accompanies the fake image you posted.

The image on the right is a rough version of what I would have come up with had the Pentagon sought my assistance. I've doctored the CCTV frames to introduce a to-scale Boeing 757 coming in at the correct angle. It took me about ten minutes in Macromedia Fireworks so I'm sure the Pentagon could have come up with something much better. If there's any truth in the official version of events then those frames should really look something like this.

Nice try. Now, do you have the courage to answer the question (rather than try to avoid it)? Could a 757 create that hole in the pentagon?

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 411 (view)
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 7/21/2012 8:02:20 PM
skoochie said:

Alex Jones never provides one shread of factual evidence to support his conspiracy theory claims...

Either you have never read Alex Jones' websites or you are a liar.

skoochie said:

The worst part of his filthy lies is that he implies that Americans didn't die on the plane that hit the Pentagon. That was a missile in his world. Go to the families of victims who didn't come home that day and tell them their family members didn't die on that plane. Dumb!!!

Not just 'lies,' but 'filthy lies.' Ouch! So, explain to me how a 757 made this hole.

Wake up, boy. It was a missile.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
Posted: 7/18/2012 12:16:36 PM
j_ason said:

Can you test faith? Or am I just going to have to accept what holy books say about god, miracles and afterlife? As a sceptical person, I would find that a difficult thing to do.
If faith can be tested please explain how.

I'm not sure if this example fits, but I'll relate my experience anyway. When I was 12 years old, I was out walking in the fields behind my house, talking to god/nature/my(inner)self, as I often did, and do. I suddenly felt that I had made an important leap in understanding my relationship to god/nature/my(inner)self and my fellow man.

I walked home, filled with inner joy. I felt I was glowing inside.

I went into my house and headed upstairs to my room, when I ran into my little brother. He had found a lock with 4 rollers containing 6 numbers each. Line the numbers up correctly and the lock opens.

He was going to throw the lock out, because he didn't know the combination, and couldn't unlock it. I don't know why I said what I did - it was almost as if something inside me spoke up before I had time to think - but my mouth said "Give it to me. I'll open it for you."

I took the lock, went into my room, closed the door, and asked god/nature/my(inner)self to allow me to open the lock - so that I would know I was not misunderstanding myself

I knelt in front of the window, absolutely ready to be wrong - i.e., full of acceptance, humility, and hope. I turned the lock to the numbers which seemed like the right ones, and the lock opened immediately, one try only.

I was more humbled than joyous at that point. I left my room, handed the opened lock to my shocked brother, and went about my life.

I really didn't feel like I was so much testing my faith as testing the accuracy of my perceptions. I still don't know what it proves, if anything - but I have NEVER left the path I chose that day. Hope this helps, at least a little.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 491 (view)
George Zimmerman (watchguard) is in FBI custody!
Posted: 5/2/2012 1:45:44 PM
Interesting bit of news.

George Zimmerman's 2005 MySpace page, unearthed by the Miami Herald on Wednesday, suggests Trayvon Martin's shooter had a history of racial profiling.

On Wednesday, Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, confirmed that the page--registered under the username "onlytobekingagain"--was real.

In the "About Me" section, Zimmerman--identified as "Joe G."--expressed resentment toward Mexicans living in his former Manassas, Va., community:

I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!

In a blog post dated Aug. 24, 2005, Zimmerman downplayed an alleged domestic dispute involving his ex-girlfriend: "Im still free! The ex hoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look a million bucks, broke her down! Thanks to everyone for checkin up on me!"

In another, on Aug. 30, 2005, he boasted about how a pair of felony charges related to an alleged assault on a police officer were dropped. "2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!!" Zimmerman wrote.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 327 (view)
George Zimmerman (watchguard) is in FBI custody!
Posted: 4/25/2012 2:55:45 PM
Sciencetreker said:

Nope. You have it wrong . You are confusing criminal law with liability. No male is declared 'guilty' of impregnating a woman...he is liable for his obligations to society.

I am not confusing anything, though I did use a civil case as an example - here's a criminal law "rebuttable presumption" for you.

If you are caught having sex with an underage child, the legal presumption is that you were aware of the child's age, and are thereby guilty of rape. If you sit silently at trial and offer no evidence to the contrary, you WILL be found guilty of rape, 100% of the time.

In effect, rebuttable presumptions in criminal law often reverse the burden of proof and place it on the defendant. They are somewhat controversial, but they are very common. As stated above, we don't know what rebuttable presumptions are in effect in Florida law, so we can't say for sure what the outcome of the case will be.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 10 (view)
Posted: 4/25/2012 2:32:58 PM
HalftimeDad said:

Your understanding of that phrase is completely at odds with every credible legal interpretation of it. Let it go.

How do you define "credible?" Can you cite a credible authority? I have seen no credible legal interpretation that defines "natural born citizen" as just "anybody born in the country." But that hasn't stopped the courts.

A couple of courts have recently held that, because they believe the Obama was born in America, he is therefore a natural born citizen. This is incompetence of the highest order.

Both judges who so held should be immediately disbarred. By holding (incorrectly) as they did, they have rendered Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution irrelevant. They have made the (improper) decision that the framers of the Constitution inserted irrelevant and superfluous clauses to the Constitution. According to former Chief Justice John Marshall, such an interpretation of the Constitution is "inadmissible." Justice Marshalls was, and is, the correct, Constitutional interpretation, and has been BINDING for 230 years.

These judges' decisions go against 230 years of legal precedent - specifically, statutory construction - and are legally indefensible. IF it ever reaches the Supremes, they will be compelled to find Chief Justice Marshall's (and my) interpretation correct, or they will be compelled to overturn 230 years of Constitutional jurisprudence. If it reaches the Supremes, they will find that a "natural born citizen" requires 2 citizen parents and a child born in America. They have no choice. Perhaps that is why Justice Thomas has stated that they (the Supremes) are "avoiding" the issue.

OyVay said:

According to what I read, his parents had lived in the USA since 1956, and Marco was born in Miami. If that is the case, whether his parents were naturalized or not, by virtue of his being born here, being subject to it's laws, he is a natural born citizen.

Then you assert that Article 2, Section 1 is superfluous, and that our framers didn't understand the law? Really? Sorry, Oy - you are mistaken.

Cotter said:

LMAO ... If President Obama is not a natural born citizen, then neither are 99.99999% of us.

Cotter has no conception of legal or Constitutional interpretation - or she wouldn't have made such a facially ignorant statement.

Sorry to push this somewhat off topic, but an explanation was needed.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 326 (view)
George Zimmerman (watchguard) is in FBI custody!
Posted: 4/25/2012 2:00:55 PM
HalftimeDad said:

Self defence is an affirmative defence. It's up to Zimmerman to prove that he was acting in self defence

PGL7 said:

It's up to Zimmerman to prove... I thought it was innocent until proven guilty?
In fact it is the prosecutions burden to prove guilt otherwise known as "Presumption of Innocence."

Sciencetreker said:

hint...the defense needs 'to prove' zilch. Nada. Nil. Zip. The defense has to do nothing. The defendendent need not utter a word. Need not take the stand. He can sleep through the's his FUNDAMENTAL right.

It's 100% the role of the prosecution 'to prove' guilt. Nobody has to prove they are innocent.

PGL7 and Sciencetreker, do you know what a "rebuttable presumption" is, under the law? If not, you have no business pretending to understand the law and, specifically, trial law. HalftimeDad is completely correct on this issue.

An example:

A married man has a pregnant wife. The man swears that the child is not his. He leaves his wife, files for divorce, and refuses to pay child support. The husband assumes that -

"...the defense needs 'to prove' zilch. Nada. Nil. Zip. The defense has to do nothing. The defendendent need not utter a word. Need not take the stand. He can sleep through the's his FUNDAMENTAL right.

Ooops! The husband forgot about rebuttable presumptions. The law always presumes that the father of the child is the husband. Yep, that's right. The husband must 'rebut' the presumption that he is the father, or he will be legally held to be the father, and bound for life. He must prove that he is NOT the father, usually by DNA testing..

I assume that there is a rebuttable presumption that a civilian, standing over a dead person in a public place while holding a gun, has unlawfully killed that person. That may well be the key to this case - but neither you nor I know the ins and outs of Florida trial law, or what, if any, rebuttable presumptions adhere in this particular case.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 7 (view)
Posted: 4/25/2012 1:34:44 PM
From wikipedia:

Marco Antonio Rubio (born May 28, 1971) is the junior United States Senator from Florida...


His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.

So, Rubio was born in 1971 and his parents were naturalized in 1975 - Rubio, like the Obama, is not a natural born citizen and is Constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency.

With our criminal government, it probably doesn't matter - after all, the fraud Obama IS the President, even though he is also Constitutionally ineligible.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 22 (view)
Strip searches for any reason?
Posted: 4/4/2012 11:49:27 AM
BalderDog2 said:

This was a 5-4 decision. You don't have a problem with that? I certainly do. ...When you see a 5-4 ruling along ideological lines, then you have judges who are making rulings based on their political beliefs, or judges who have been corrupted by the influence of the very rich.

People need to pay attention to this.

flyguy51 said:

It's always the same, predictable 5 justices, isn't it? With each ruling, the predictable agenda behind their reasoning becomes more apparent: if it's a case of the state vs. an individual citizen, these 5 rule in favor of the state; if it's a case of a corporation vs. an individual citizen, they rule in favor of the corporation; if it's the state vs. a corporation, they rule in favor of the corporation. Just those 5.

Yeah, those five conservative jerks. They're doing everything they can to take rights away from the people - why can't they just be like the Obama, and fight for our rights? Why can't they... What? He did what? Ooops - never mind.

The Obama administration is siding with the prisons in the case and urging the court to allow a blanket policy for all inmates set to enter the general prison population.

What makes the Obama DOJ’s position in favor of this broad strip-search authority particularly remarkable is that federal prisons do not even have this policy. As The New York Times‘ Adam Liptak explained, “the procedures endorsed by the majority are forbidden by statute in at least 10 states and are at odds with the policies of federal authorities. According to a supporting brief filed by the American Bar Association, international human rights treaties also ban the procedures.”

Looks like the Obama is on the same side as the Gang of Five, as usual. Pull your heads out, Obots.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 49 (view)
To God or Not to God
Posted: 3/27/2012 9:14:31 AM
Microevolution has been proven - macroevolution, however, still has many problems as a theory.

mejehoward said:

Archeopteryx is considered the first transitional link between dino and bird.

That was once indeed the case - but no more. The archaeopteryx can no longer be properly considered a transitional link.

"Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390.


"Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs." "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say. "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives". "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought." "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news

Science marches on.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
Trayvon Martin-Stand Your Ground Laws abuse.
Posted: 3/23/2012 1:53:39 PM
Here's what the person who wrote the "stand your ground" law has to say about the incident. Not looking good for Zimmerman.

The authors of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" self-defense law say George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin, reports the Miami Herald.

"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper.

Florida's law, called "stand your ground" by supporters and "shoot first" by critics, was passed in 2005 and permits residents to use deadly force if they "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Traditionally, self-defense laws did not typically extend beyond a person's home, but the Florida law, and at least 20 more passed across the country since them, allows a resident to "meet force with force" almost anywhere, including the street or a bar.

Zimmerman, 28, reportedly admitted to police that he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on the evening of February 26. He was released without being charged after claiming he killed the boy in self-defense. But 911 recordings released over the weekend suggest that Zimmerman, who has a concealed weapons permit and volunteered in an apparently informal neighborhood watch program, pursued Martin, despite being told police were on their way.

It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 94 (view)
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/11/2012 7:30:43 PM
OyVay... said:

You gotta love hypocrisy!! Now who was it recently lectured me about the calling of names, being childish and immature. Hmmmm...let me think now....Oh yeah, it was you.

I believe that you misunderstood me, sir. I had no problem with any of your statements about Rush Limbaugh. It was the "you liberals..." and "you conservatives..." comments that were unnecessary and childish (and apparently led to the demise of your thread).

I was speaking to the emotional immaturity of those who make such blanket statements. The entire thread, like every partisan thread, was nothing but variations of "my dad can beat up your dad," "Bobby does it too," and "at least we don't eat it..."

Every partisan thread resembles an out of control fifth grade classroom - that was my point. First, everybody calls each other names - then, a few run and tattle to the principal. Then, what could have been a good thread devolves into childishness until the mods mercifully shut it down. I hope we are clear now.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 92 (view)
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/10/2012 9:22:26 PM
Claiming that Obama's impeachment has begun is a bit of an overstatement, but maybe not by much. Panetta's statements that the Obama administration would seek international approval for a military strike, but may or may not consult with congress - despite what the constitution demands - apparently has some members of congress up in arms. In my opinion, every American should be concerned.

Here's the bill, courtesy of Rep Walter B.Jones, Jr. [NC-3]



2d Session

H. CON. RES. 107

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

The reason that I said "maybe not by much" is because I don't think that this fraudulent, arrogant, lying sh!tbag of a president will, for the first time, honor the Constitution that he swore to uphold. If Obama attacks Iran or Syria without congressional approval, it could get rather interesting.

Bladesmith81801, I'm sure it was just an oversight on the part of the MIC press in failing to report it - they report all the news - dispassionately, and with honesty and integrity, don't they?

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 90 (view)
Marines Urinating On Dead Taliban Fighter
Posted: 1/14/2012 9:37:17 AM
Sniper308 said:

Seriously, I wished they'd have urinated on a Koran as well. Had the moment been right, it would have been hunky dory with me if they'd taken a serious dump on the bodies (and Koran) as well. Too bad there weren't some pigs handy; pig blood and pig guts on a dead raghead carcass. Works for me.

I see that you have no children - thank you. I would hate to think that the likes of you would have any influence on our young people. By the way, what's it like being 54 years old with the emotional maturity of a 5 year old?

mjyawn67 said:

Sure just go back and read the statements by the many known libs here. Not hard to find them....they are the ones bashing the country they enjoy freedom in while denigrating the very ones that fight for their freedom.

Pure bullshit. Not one American soldier has fought for American freedom since World War II, if then. Every conflict since then, without exception, has been fought for imperial power with no thought as to what is best for the American people. Gullible much?

matchlight said:

What evidence is there, if any, that the U.S. ever tortured or waterboarded anyone at Guantanamo? Spreading a slander against this country is a disservice to the people fighting to defend it.

I have seen this claim from you many times in many different forms, and have chosen to ignore it, mainly because nobody believes you anyway. But, just so you know, not only did (and does) America torture detainees, we have brutally tortured over 100 persons TO DEATH. Not a single one was tortured in defense of this country or its people. And not a single charge has been laid against the murderous American scum who committed the torture murders.

Earthpuppy said:

If the 9/11 incident WAS indeed carried out by those who allegedly indicated as per the official propaganda, even that was in retaliation for our mucking about in the lands of others.

Come on EP - you know damn well that 9/11 was a false flag - stop ****-footing around the obvious. It requires willful blindness (or incomprehensible stupidity) to believe the government's half-witted, and disproven, conspiracy theory.

Nevertheless, you should be careful posting such things (as should I). Whenever 9/11 comes up, the sheeple begin to bleat so loudly in their cowardice that it wakes up the mods who are then forced to close down the discussion.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
Good bye Hitch! Your voice of reason will be missed.
Posted: 12/23/2011 1:25:30 AM
thebigflick said:

I (and my awesome fiancee) were questioning the definition of "Intelligence"

irregulator, always ready with a kind word, said:

You should.

So should you. You might also look up "humility," "kindness," and "unwarranted arrogance."

60to70 said:

Christopher knew how to talk very well and think with his thoughts being arrows that did not always hit the truth in any way, shape or form so many believed.

irregulator responded with ... the mocking laughter emoticon. How very articulate. So, you believe Hitchens' "arrows" always "hit the truth?" Really? Then why say this?

There were many things he espoused that I didn't agree with, …

Are you saying that you don't agree with the truth? Or are just trying to find any excuse to demean somebody you dislike by pretending to disagree?

60to70 said:

He was like a fire that needed a generous bit of water to teach him a limit to what ran through his mind and came out of his mouth.

irregulator responded:

You do support torture!

Oops! Sorry …I forgot; you don't think waterboarding IS torture.

This non sequitur (look it up) is not only off topic and utterly irrelevant, it shows a (not suprising) lack of basic reading comprehension. How does quenching a fire relate to waterboarding in a healthy mind? Hint --> it doesn't, but it apparently does give you yet another excuse to demean somebody you dislike.

60to70 said:

I touched a nerve. Really.

irregulator responded:

Yes, this is what trolls do.

Look out - here come the ad hominems (look it up). Where I come from, that's what the loser of the argument resorts to. Sorry. I guess that means - you lose.

As for her so-called "trolling" - I call b.s. She is in no way, shape, or form, attempting to troll the thread. She was pointing out that Hitchens was a less than perfect "voice of reason." She is absolutely correct, and entitled to her on topic opinion in any case. And, best of all - she's not acting like an obnoxious, self-deluded bully.

For any adults reading, here is an excerpt from a recent Glenn Greenwald column about Hitchens. Greenwald is the most intellectually courageous, honest, and rigorous political commentator in America today, I.M.O.

But for the public at large, at least those who knew of him, Hitchens was an extremely controversial, polarizing figure. And particularly over the last decade, he expressed views — not ancillary to his writings but central to them — that were nothing short of repellent.

Corey Robin wrote that “on the announcement of his death, I think it’s fair to allow Christopher Hitchens to do the things he loved to do most: speak for himself,” and then assembled two representative passages from Hitchens’ post-9/11 writings. In the first, Hitchens celebrated the ability of cluster bombs to penetrate through a Koran that a Muslim may be carrying in his coat pocket (“those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. So they won’t be able to say, ‘Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.’ No way, ’cause it’ll go straight through that as well. They’ll be dead, in other words”), and in the second, Hitchens explained that his reaction to the 9/11 attack was “exhilaration” because it would unleash an exciting, sustained war against what he came addictively to call “Islamofascism”: “I realized that if the battle went on until the last day of my life, I would never get bored in prosecuting it to the utmost.”

Exhilaration over impending horror - the mass murder of men, women, and children. What a gutless, evil **stard. We should be glad he's gone: I certainly am - and good riddance. If I ever see his grave, I'll have my dog leave an offering on his grave stone for him.

Hitchens (lying) said he drinks "because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored." Isn't he just so precious? How does he manage to suffer us poor fools? Could there be a more self-serving statement? A more honest version of his statement would be "because it makes other people less scary. I have a great terror they will discover how inadequate I am." What a small, contemptible creature he was.

I consider Hitchens a competent defender of atheism (BFD), but nothing more. He is certainly not a person worthy of any adulation. In the end, despite all the self-serving praise being heaped on him, Hitchens is nothing but a phony, mean-spirited, cowardly little **** with a big vocabulary.

Seems there's a lot of that going around.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 88 (view)
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/2/2011 1:18:34 AM
wvwaterfall said:

Nice rant, rpl. Did I pick the right line to sum up your thoughts?

Thank you, sir. Yes, that sums it up nicely.

wvwaterfall said:

Warming has stopped? Huh. I could have sworn that all three major dataset sources show the last decade to be the warmest in recorded human history. I guess if your fever plateaus at 103 F for a while that means you're not sick any more, right?

Your argument isn't with me - it's with the science. Perhaps I should repost this bit. I think you missed it the first time through. It's from a scientist who worked with Muller on BEST. Unlike you and I, she has seen, and understands, the data.

Professor Judith Curry (Chair, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech) - and BEST co-author said:

There is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for saying that warming hasn’t stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.

As further proof, this graph shows the past ten years plotted from BEST's own data:

The following describes the graph and its significance:

It is a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient. Indeed, most of the largest variations in it can be attributed to ENSO and la Nina effects. It is impossible to reconcile this with Professor Muller’s statement.


Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure the past decade. They present data covering almost 200 years with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

When examined more objectively Best data confirms the global temperature standstill of the past decade. That the standstill should be present in land only data is remarkable. There have been standstills in land temperature before, but the significance of the past decade is that it is in the era of mankind’s postulated influence on climate through greenhouse gas forcing. Predictions made many times in the past few years suggest that warming should be the strongest and fastest in the land data.

Ooops! Again, the fake science of global warming makes a prediction which turns out to be utterly wrong. Kilimanjaro still has snowy peaks, polar bears are thriving, the Arctic is still frozen, Greenland's ice sheet survives, Venice is still above water, the rise in sea level is NOT accelerating, hurricanes are NOT getting stronger - I could go on, but how much evidence does it take?

And you want to call that crap science? Really?

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 81 (view)
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 8:45:12 PM
wvwaterfall said:

The consensus IS strong that human activity plays a significant role in a warming planet.

So what? Consensus is an irrelevant and blatantly unscientific concept which has NO place in the discussion. The constant harping on "consensus, as if it meant anything, is ridiculous, and VERY telling.

wvwaterfall said:

To reject AGW after the amount of research and science that currently supports it is essentially rejecting the same scientific method that brought us so much over the last century.

That is utter crap, unless you believe that the "scientific method" typically includes fudging data, hiding or ignoring inconsistent data, refusing to share data, homogenizing data with preconceived results in mind, attempting to shut out opposing views from the peer review process, and calling those with opposing views "deniers" and attempting to ruin their careers.

Calling the theory of AGW "science" is an insult to reason, common sense, and the scientific method.

As for the OT - new study into global temperatures - just another lie from the alarmists. Don't think so? Let's see you climate frauds bullshit your way around this.

It begins with Muller lying to the public.

Muller claimed on the BBC Radio 4 Today show:

In our data, which is only on the land, we see no evidence of [global warming] having slowed down.

The MSM, ever ready to catapult the propaganda, reported Muller's lie as proof of AGW. Here's an example:

Eugene Robinson (Washington Post):

We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.

After the MSM broadcasts the lie, the true believers come online and bleat out their ignorance, based on the same lie. It would be funny - if only these true believers weren't so dangerous in their delusions.

So - what is the truth about Muller's claim? Let's see what a real scientist (rather than a shill) has to say about Muller's conclusion - let's check what Muller's co-author says:

Professor Judith Curry (Chair, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech) - and BEST co-author said:

There is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for saying that warming hasn’t stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.

There it is, in black and white - Muller, according to a co-author (and the facts) is a liar and a shill. Refute that.

The fact is that there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING for the last 10 years. That is the plain, undeniable, scientific fact. Carbon dioxide concentrations, on the other hand, continued to rise steadily. That, also, is the plain, undeniable, scientific fact.

Even you struggling alarmists should realize what that means. The facts have destroyed the theory. The AGW alarmists have been exposed as the frauds and liars they are.

But go ahead, try to refute the facts. See how many pages of sh1t you can write defending your gullibility and insulting others. I find it quite entertaining.

Your fake "science" of AGW is dead - it will be buried in the coming weeks at COP17. Good riddance.

MikeWM, the people attacking you are, for the most part, the usual suspects. You will not get through to them - they have too much self esteem invested. And, you are asking them to think - something they have shown themselves to be incapable of doing. They are so full of belief that there's no room for truth.

They got nothing except long winded appeals to authority and ad hominems. They are a waste of your time. And, they are now conclusively proven wrong.

swingarm1966 said:

Its no use Mike the sliver of indoctrination is stuck deep in their minds.

That ain't a sliver, swingarm - it's a damned sequoia.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 31 (view)
government vs. personal privacy
Posted: 10/27/2011 8:25:35 PM
Lint Spotter said:

Cupcake, you have your tinfoil hat screwed on a little too tight if you think that the government cares about your personal census information.

I will say I do find these consipiracy theories amusing. Do y'all bend over for the anal probes from the alien invasion or do you clench?

Muffin, I don't think that the gov cares about my personal census information at all. That's why I never said anything so much as implying that.

I will say I do find people who use the meaningless term "conspiracy theory" to be consistently dense. I don't believe in alien anal probes either - I'll bet you just wrote that because you like the idea.

In sum, your post was nothing but a weak red herring. Rather than admit that you were wrong, you tried to change the subject.

But, that doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about the sanctity of census data. Those who distrust the gov were right to be suspicious - you were naive, and quite wrong, and not even a bit gracious. Not my fault, HoneyBun.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 28 (view)
government vs. personal privacy
Posted: 10/27/2011 3:01:34 PM
Lint Spotter said:

I wonder how many people are truly aware of what the information is used for by the gov't... funding!

These census programs determine which communities get how much money to fund required services in the individual areas.


Census such as these (though I will say that some of the questions actually make me wonder if the OP has exaggerated and paraphrased to lose the original question) are designed to determine which services are needed in which area.

Here's an answer to the terminally naive who still believe our criminal government has their best interests at heart.

Racial Profiling on an “Industrial Scale”: FBI Using Census Data to Map and Police Communities By Race

Anybody wanna bet that the NSA, under the Obama administration, does not have absolute, unfettered access to the census data, too?

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 71 (view)
megalithic construction
Posted: 10/26/2011 6:19:23 PM
Gwendolyn2010 said:

As I said, I watched the first episode in the series mentioned and didn't watch the rest because of the provable inaccuracies in the that episode. IF the pyramid or outbuildings were scenes of

"Harmonic convergence or more acurately, harmonic diagnosis and treatment"

the treatments were highly ineffective. Skeletons of Egyptians show that the people suffered from severe and debilitating, diseases, their teeth were bad (very often worn down to the gum), and they suffered from parasites. Why couldn't or wouldn't such a medically advanced society do something to alleviate these problems?

The problem with your "inaccuracies" is that they are based on an unproven, and highly unlikely scenario - i.e., that the pyramids were built by Egyptians. Common sense indicates otherwise.

If the Egyptians built the pyramids and the sphinx, they are then the only society in human history to have appeared on the scene with a fully developed technology - which they then all forgot, all at once. They would be history's only example of a civilization built in reverse, starting at the pinnacle of science, and ending up in mud huts. This is so unlikely as to be laughable.

It makes much more sense that the pyramids were already built when the Egyptians arrived. How, when, and by whom are still mysteries - but it's a safe bet it wasn't the Egyptians.

Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 29 (view)
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 11:37:31 AM
lyingcheat said:

All I was doing, bearing in mind that you had raised the issue of a 'money trail', was pointing out that you'd missed some clues.

Perhaps some work on reading comprehension is in order.

I did not raise the issue. I was obviously responding to EarthPuppy's post:

Please do follow the money on the skeptics motivations and benefits for their funders.

That's why I quoted him. That's why I said:

Of course. But, let's not be fools and hypocrites. Follow the money on BOTH sides of the issue. You alarmists act like you think Jesus himself is funding the pro-global warming machine.

lyingcheat said:

But you hadn't appeared to notice that groups on the other side of the debate can also have such motives ascribed to them, and that likewise therefore their motives may also be suspect.

I noticed. See above. Note "BOTH sides."

lyingcheat said:

...'secret societies' like the Masons, and the 'Illuminati' and their alleged connection to an allegedly ancient secret group called the 'Club of Rome'

Allegedly ancient? Reading comprehension, my friend, reading comprehension. The Club of Rome was founded in 1972, as noted in my earlier post.

lyingcheat said:

Gosh, looks like we're all up shit creek hey?

No way, man. America is thriving - our economy is booming, our Constitution is secure under the beneficent watch of our brilliant leader, our country is at peace, the people are in agreement, and justice prevails. Not only that, but our leaders are working tirelessly to safeguard our sovereignty, refusing to get entangled with globalist organizations like NATO and the UN.

lyingcheat said:

Yes, silly me for being so gullible. Instead of reading up on the pseudo-science of global warming I obviously should have been reading the scientific facts about 'The Club of Rome'.

If your conclusion, based on your selective "reading up on the pseudo-science of global warming" is that it is indeed occurring, then yes, you are gullible.

As for "scientific facts about 'The Club of Rome'," I have no idea what that means.

Show ALL Forums