|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2004 12:09:06 PM · #176 |
| Insignificant or not, we do influence the planet's welfare. I object that this president, [whom I voted for mind you]spoke of preserving our natural heritage, then appoints people to be in charge of most of our caretaker agencies who are known to be dedicated to the dismantling and restraining of the agencies. My Dad was in big business and believe me they own the president and most of the Republican legislators. They will do [or try to do]what they want, primarily for their own benefit and that of people like themselves, whenever and however they want ... because they want to and can ... sort of like having a war because your friends say this the opportunity of a lifetime, and, you CAN you know. Might makes right in their view. They know that the extremeists on the left hold almost no sway with anyone, but they use fear of them against everyone, not because it's honest; it's just "good for bidness." |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 01:15:31 PM · #177 |
Global warming not real? Have a google on it.
Now at this point, I would like to implore those with logical thinking patterns to stop responding to graphicfunk. It is obvious he is not a thinker of logic and his views are firmly planted in ignorance, fear and very old ways of thinking.
He is forcing us to go from logical argument with information to back, to name calling and ridiculous extreme radical views sounding alot like the religious extreme Pat Robbertson and Jerry Falwell.
Pat Robbertson and Jerry Falwell talking about September 11.
THE TRANSCRIPT
Here are their comments in context:
Pat Robertson began the interview asking Falwell what his response has been to the terrorist attacks. Falwell said there had been a massive prayer gathering of members of his congregation along with students from Liberty University. He told the TV audience that they had humbled themselves before God, prayed for President Bush and his advisers and for the victims of the attacks.
Falwell then likened the attacks to Pearl Harbor and that at that time, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews and conquer the world. Now, "Islamic fundamentalists, radical terrorists, Middle-Eastern monsters" want to destroy Israel and conquer the world.
The two men then talked about religious revival and whether the events of September 11 might spark spiritual renewal in America.
Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."
Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."
From www.truthorfiction.com
Message edited by author 2004-08-07 13:16:37. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 01:30:17 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Global warming not real? Have a google on it |
Must be true if it's on the internet...
Yes we have an effect on the environment and yes we may be contributing to global warming and yes we should minimize our contributions. However, our contributions to global warming are about the same as saying throwing rocks in the lake is going to make the water level rise. One volcano blast does more harm then all our cars and all our hair spray cans combined over time have done. Some of the large fires we've had in Arizona the last few years are the same.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 01:55:09 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Global warming not real? Have a google on it |
Must be true if it's on the internet...
Yes we have an effect on the environment and yes we may be contributing to global warming and yes we should minimize our contributions. However, our contributions to global warming are about the same as saying throwing rocks in the lake is going to make the water level rise. One volcano blast does more harm then all our cars and all our hair spray cans combined over time have done. Some of the large fires we've had in Arizona the last few years are the same. |
Do you not understand that right now is just the begining? Do you think global warming will just go away for our children and grandchildren? Not, its going to get worse, alot worse, until we address our oil consumption (not just for environment, but so as to not reley on the highly unstable middle east, so we can stop having wars over there).
I meant to post a link for that google, here google search for scientist +global +warming
This was on in particular I thought should be looked at, along with //www.climatehotmap.org/
Beyond global warming though, if you are not aware that human behavior on this planet is making it more toxic and polluted, you are dilusional or ignorent. Just 2 weeks ago my girlfriends uncle came to stay with us for a few days. He is a surgen and doctor. He said he has seen lungs of a non smoker at 30 and 40 years of age that he could not distinguish from a smoker. That is an extreme case, he mostly sees people that live in downtown Tucson AZ. But if thats the extreme now, what will it be in 30 years?
Fact of the matter is, we humans, are hurting our planet and with it, our children and grandchildrens freedom. How free will they be if it becomes toxic to breath outside air or swim in a lake or ocean? |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 02:10:01 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Global warming not real? Have a google on it. |
No-no. Number (13) Begging the question (pp 65-66)
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Now at this point, I would like to implore those with logical thinking patterns to stop responding to graphicfunk. It is obvious he is not a thinker of logic and his views are firmly planted in ignorance, fear and very old ways of thinking. |
No-no. Number (16) The use of a speculative argument (pp 78-83)
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
He is forcing us to go from logical argument with information to back, to name calling and ridiculous extreme radical views sounding alot like the religious extreme Pat Robbertson and Jerry Falwell. |
No-no. Number (34) Argument by forced analogy (pp 178-179)
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Pat Robbertson and Jerry Falwell talking about September 11.
THE TRANSCRIPT
Here are their comments in context:
Pat Robertson began the interview asking Falwell what his response has been to the terrorist attacks. Falwell said there had been a massive prayer gathering of members of his congregation along with students from Liberty University. He told the TV audience that they had humbled themselves before God, prayed for President Bush and his advisers and for the victims of the attacks.
Falwell then likened the attacks to Pearl Harbor and that at that time, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews and conquer the world. Now, "Islamic fundamentalists, radical terrorists, Middle-Eastern monsters" want to destroy Israel and conquer the world.
The two men then talked about religious revival and whether the events of September 11 might spark spiritual renewal in America.
Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."
Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."
From www.truthorfiction.com |
No-no. Number (6) Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection (pp 44-48)
For reference see this thread about the Thirty Eight Dishonest Tricks in which MadMordegon welcomed an analyis of his posts.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 03:13:56 PM · #181 |
Haha Ron, thank you. Now lets see here...
(bold added as my reply to try and ease the reading)
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Global warming not real? Have a google on it. |
Originally posted by RonB:
No-no. Number (13) Begging the question (pp 65-66) |
Not sure I agree with this one, but ok.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Now at this point, I would like to implore those with logical thinking patterns to stop responding to graphicfunk. It is obvious he is not a thinker of logic and his views are firmly planted in ignorance, fear and very old ways of thinking. |
Originally posted by RonB:
No-no. Number (16) The use of a speculative argument (pp 78-83) |
I dont consider this #16. I was trying to remove graphicfunk from these arguments by asking others to not "egg him on".
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
He is forcing us to go from logical argument with information to back, to name calling and ridiculous extreme radical views sounding alot like the religious extreme Pat Robbertson and Jerry Falwell. |
Originally posted by RonB:
No-no. Number (34) Argument by forced analogy (pp 178-179) |
And a good and accurate analogy it was.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Pat Robbertson and Jerry Falwell talking about September 11.
THE TRANSCRIPT
Here are their comments in context:
Pat Robertson began the interview asking Falwell what his response has been to the terrorist attacks. Falwell said there had been a massive prayer gathering of members of his congregation along with students from Liberty University. He told the TV audience that they had humbled themselves before God, prayed for President Bush and his advisers and for the victims of the attacks.
Falwell then likened the attacks to Pearl Harbor and that at that time, Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews and conquer the world. Now, "Islamic fundamentalists, radical terrorists, Middle-Eastern monsters" want to destroy Israel and conquer the world.
The two men then talked about religious revival and whether the events of September 11 might spark spiritual renewal in America.
Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve."
Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population."
Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."
Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God."
From www.truthorfiction.com |
Originally posted by RonB:
No-no. Number (6) Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection (pp 44-48) |
No Ron, this was an example of what I stated above. So that others could see the similarity of the analogy I made for themselves.
Now Ron, minus your ripping apart my argument, am I not correct in my analogy in your opinion?
Message edited by author 2004-08-07 15:18:47. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 03:20:54 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Do you not understand that right now is just the begining? Do you think global warming will just go away for our children and grandchildren? Not, its going to get worse, alot worse, until we address our oil consumption (not just for environment, but so as to not reley on the highly unstable middle east, so we can stop having wars over there). |
No-no. Number (18) The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between two extremes (pp 103-105) and Number (11) The use of an argument of logically unsound form (pp 58-64) - e.g. what does our reliance on "middle eastern" oil in particular, or the middle east's stability and/or wars in the middle east have to do with Global Warming? All these thing just muddle the argument.
Still begging the question. But just for balance do a search on scientist+global+warming+myth.
Though interesting, they can be countered by other equally reputable scientists and scientific evidence. Hence, Number (23) Suggestion by prestige (pp 115-118)
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Beyond global warming though, if you are not aware that human behavior on this planet is making it more toxic and polluted, you are dilusional or ignorent. |
No-no. Number (1) The use of emotionally toned words (pp 10-25) - e.g. name-calling ( dilusional or ignorant ) and or Number (35) Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly (pp 146-147).
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Just 2 weeks ago my girlfriends uncle came to stay with us for a few days. He is a surgen and doctor. He said he has seen lungs of a non smoker at 30 and 40 years of age that he could not distinguish from a smoker. That is an extreme case, he mostly sees people that live in downtown Tucson AZ. |
No-no. Number (3) Proof by selected instances (pp 32-37). Such damage to the lungs of one or even several non-smokers could easily be caused by his/her environment completely unrelated to global warming ( e.g. a chain-smoker in the house, work as a diesel mechanic, etc. )
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
But if thats the extreme now, what will it be in 30 years? |
Objection. Leading the witness. Er-uh. I mean Number (20) Illegitimate use of or demand for definition (p 109)
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Fact of the matter is, we humans, are hurting our planet and with it, our children and grandchildrens freedom. |
No-no. Number (14) Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both (pp 67-77)
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
How free will they be if it becomes toxic to breath outside air or swim in a lake or ocean? |
Good question. But a no-no. Number (18) The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between two extremes (pp 103-105)
Ron |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 03:31:00 PM · #183 |
Ok Ron, as you were an expert and manipulating arguments before hand, your a friggin pro now w/ your cheat sheet.
Im not going to go through that again instance by instance. But I will say on:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just 2 weeks ago my girlfriends uncle came to stay with us for a few days. He is a surgeon and doctor. He said he has seen lungs of a non smoker at 30 and 40 years of age that he could not distinguish from a smoker. That is an extreme case, he mostly sees people that live in downtown Tucson AZ.
No-no. Number (3) Proof by selected instances (pp 32-37). Such damage to the lungs of one or even several non-smokers could easily be caused by his/her environment completely unrelated to global warming ( e.g. a chain-smoker in the house, work as a diesel mechanic, etc. )
1st that, she did not have a chain smoker in the house or in her family and did not work in any diesel or mechanic work. Maybe I should have added that as an extra point. She worked in an office building in downtown Tucson, where thousands, maybe millions of other people work and breath the same air.
And as far as you saying im implying my whole last post that you quoted was about global warming than you didn’t read it through. I simply moved from the black/white argument of global warming onto earths environmental problems as a whole (because so many people say global warming is BS) and because I think everyone can agree that we are polluting our water and air at least a little bit.
Maybe I should not have done that as to add more factors into a black/white argument but that’s me. I don’t see shit in black and white.
Thanks though Ron, your critiques should help me have a more sound argument in the future.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 04:26:21 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Ok Ron, as you were an expert and manipulating arguments before hand, your a friggin pro now w/ your cheat sheet.
Im not going to go through that again instance by instance. But I will say on:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just 2 weeks ago my girlfriends uncle came to stay with us for a few days. He is a surgeon and doctor. He said he has seen lungs of a non smoker at 30 and 40 years of age that he could not distinguish from a smoker. That is an extreme case, he mostly sees people that live in downtown Tucson AZ.
No-no. Number (3) Proof by selected instances (pp 32-37). Such damage to the lungs of one or even several non-smokers could easily be caused by his/her environment completely unrelated to global warming ( e.g. a chain-smoker in the house, work as a diesel mechanic, etc. )
1st that, she did not have a chain smoker in the house or in her family and did not work in any diesel or mechanic work. Maybe I should have added that as an extra point. She worked in an office building in downtown Tucson, where thousands, maybe millions of other people work and breath the same air.
And as far as you saying im implying my whole last post that you quoted was about global warming than you didn’t read it through. I simply moved from the black/white argument of global warming onto earths environmental problems as a whole (because so many people say global warming is BS) and because I think everyone can agree that we are polluting our water and air at least a little bit.
Maybe I should not have done that as to add more factors into a black/white argument but that’s me. I don’t see shit in black and white.
Thanks though Ron, your critiques should help me have a more sound argument in the future. |
First, Thanks for the complement - though I don't consider myself an "expert". And, as I said in another thread, I will not be using the "cheat sheet" anymore - that was just an exercise to show how often those tricks are employed - AND, I didn't intend to make only YOU the target but 1) you post frequently, 2) you actually invited analysis according to those rules, and 3) your style DOES lend itself to employing those tricks.
That being said - I know that you and others whom I engage in debate have strong, heartfelt feelings about the issues, and look forward to hearing what you have to say, and seeing what information you can provide to bolster your positions. It is my style to challenge generalizations, innuendo, accusations, etc. I am one who looks for FACTS. Where FACTS are not available, I rely on the credibility of those providing first-hand accounts. For ANYONE with an interest in convincing me of anything, they need to be prepared to provide credible evidence of that nature. It CAN be done - Olyuzi, my pal, through persistence and patience ( and evidence, of course ), has brought me around to actually believing that there are circumstances in the Sibel Edmonds affair that are worthy of investigation ( thanks, Olyuzi ).
You, MadMordegon, seem to enjoy surfing the internet. Please continue to do so, and bring matters that you feel important to our attention - none of us can keep up with everything, so we rely on others to make us aware of what's going on outside of our own circles of interest. But DO remember the 38 tricks and try to avoid them - they do you no favor in your attempts to influence the thinking of others. Thanks for bearing with me. I appreciate your participation.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 04:41:58 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by RonB:
First, Thanks for the complement - though I don't consider myself an "expert". And, as I said in another thread, I will not be using the "cheat sheet" anymore - that was just an exercise to show how often those tricks are employed - AND, I didn't intend to make only YOU the target but 1) you post frequently, 2) you actually invited analysis according to those rules, and 3) your style DOES lend itself to employing those tricks.
That being said - I know that you and others whom I engage in debate have strong, heartfelt feelings about the issues, and look forward to hearing what you have to say, and seeing what information you can provide to bolster your positions. It is my style to challenge generalizations, innuendo, accusations, etc. I am one who looks for FACTS. Where FACTS are not available, I rely on the credibility of those providing first-hand accounts. For ANYONE with an interest in convincing me of anything, they need to be prepared to provide credible evidence of that nature. It CAN be done - Olyuzi, my pal, through persistence and patience ( and evidence, of course ), has brought me around to actually believing that there are circumstances in the Sibel Edmonds affair that are worthy of investigation ( thanks, Olyuzi ).
You, MadMordegon, seem to enjoy surfing the internet. Please continue to do so, and bring matters that you feel important to our attention - none of us can keep up with everything, so we rely on others to make us aware of what's going on outside of our own circles of interest. But DO remember the 38 tricks and try to avoid them - they do you no favor in your attempts to influence the thinking of others. Thanks for bearing with me. I appreciate your participation.
Ron |
I would to point out, I have NEVER used a "cheat sheet" like that to learn skills of argument or anything like that. To be honest, being as im only 25 years old, and ive only become interested in politics since 9/11, I have had MUCH less practice than you in discussing them. I still feel however I have shown many, many different sources of evidence backing up my arguments and they often don’t get any due credit. And many are completely overlooked. Ill explain some reasons why below.
I would also just like to point out, from my perspective, that page of tricks you have had access to for a long time. But better than that is your ability to mince words and dig so deep into actually words used so that you bypass the original meaning. You have done this in MANY instances in an attempt to show that Bush was not lying (mostly in the WMD/Iraq debates). Because of your ability to show that it was not an actual LIE as the definition is, it is lossed in debate that he was still MISLEADING. Politicians have advisors who read and re-read everything to make sure they cant be actually called lies. But misleading is their true skill. Ron you use that technique so well to show they weren’t lying, that everyone misses the point that they did however, mislead. Weather it was intentional or an accident, misinformation was given as correct. But that point was missed cause you drew attention to the fact they were NOT lying.
This is why I have said before Ron, you have a valuable skill there. Im not sure your financial situation, but you could probably make some decent money in politics.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 04:55:38 PM · #186 |
removed because Ron did it much better then I tried.
Message edited by author 2004-08-07 17:02:01.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 05:01:20 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I guess you didn't fully read my post. I said: "Yes we have an effect on the environment and yes we may be contributing to global warming and yes we should minimize our contributions."
|
I guess not. Im more used to having to bash down a wall with info, instead of just having to slip some under the door. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 05:03:02 PM · #188 |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 07:08:16 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I'm not on either side of this. I consider it the same as F911, but I saw this today:
//humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_aff.html
Anti-Kerry Vietnam Veterans Hold Strong
The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is in response to an article appearing in the morning edition of the Boston Globe ("Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry") which implies that one Vietnam Veteran wishes to retract an affidavit he signed regarding John Kerry's actions during and after Kerry's time in Vietnam. The signed affidavit can be seen below.
"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today's edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played. [See both affidavits below.]
"Additional documentation will follow. The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry's military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam." |
Louddog,
You've repeatedly claimed to be independent-minded and only interested in the "truth." However, some of your posts belie your leanings -- that is, the side that holds more sway on you (namely, Dems vs. Reps). From some of your previous posts, I gather (very broadly, of course) that you're like many Americans, proud to wear the label of an "independent voter." Because somehow, one believes, the label puts one above so-called mindless partisan rancor/thinking; and, too, because the self-identification as a so-called "independent voter" is fostered by the popular notion that political parties don't matter, and that only the candidate does. (Yes, Louddog, I'm revisiting a topic we touched on in the Voting outside DPC: Please do it thread.) I only mention this here to broaden that conversation, and not merely to single you out.
Anyhow, I looked at the source of the press release quoted above. It was released by The National Conservative Weekly, via its website: //humaneventsonline.com, which is owned by Eagle Publishing, Inc. (see here), which also owns and operates Regnery Publishing, which just so happens to be the publisher of the book that Eddy keeps on erroneously/maliciously pawning as the gospel on Mr. Kerry.
So, how does all this tie to what I have "very broadly" gathered are your political leanings? Well, the source and that the material would be compelling to you in anyway, speak (at least to me) as to the channels of information you seek (or are exposed to), and the level of skepticism you choose to apply to the given material. But this is a different conversation, and not important to the point at hand.
My point: This group of men represent an elaborate smear campaign against Mr. Kerry; therefore, we should exercise EXTREME SKEPTICISM as to the source of the material, and the motives of the people passing personal attacks as fact.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 07:41:35 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Anyhow, I looked at the source of the press release quoted above. It was released by The National Conservative Weekly, via its website: //humaneventsonline.com, which is owned by Eagle Publishing, Inc. (see here), which also owns and operates Regnery Publishing, which just so happens to be the publisher of the book that Eddy keeps on erroneously/maliciously pawning as the gospel on Mr. Kerry.
|
Thats some good research bdobe. Im glad logic should show (thats for Ron) that we can close the book on that book being the source of all this BS.
So, anyone else know some vets who want to make a quick $$ to bash Kerry? I bet I can take a walk downtown Tampa right now and find a whole bunch of Veitnam vets who would do it, in the homeless areas. :/ |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 07:42:23 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
My point: This group of men represent an elaborate smear campaign against Mr. Kerry; therefore, we should exercise EXTREME SKEPTICISM as to the source of the material, and the motives of the people passing personal attacks as fact. |
I agree. It is this very type of illustration that prompted my response to the "38 rules". We each must examine 1st the propaganda from our own side before we can ever be prepared to effectively pursue conversions.
As some may find these rant discussions a terrible waste of time, I am not in that camp. I do learn from the vast span of opinions and facts presented. Sometimes I even agree with those that I normally disagree. Even more than that.....some on the left have some darn good shots in their portfolios. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 07:52:51 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Flash:
As some may find these rant discussions a terrible waste of time, I am not in that camp. I do learn from the vast span of opinions and facts presented. Sometimes I even agree with those that I normally disagree. Even more than that.....some on the left have some darn good shots in their portfolios. |
Yes we do, though I wish I had more. Maybe I should stop doing all this research and just listen to the evening news.. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 08:07:19 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by louddog:
I do. And I know for every expert that says we are ruining the environment there is one that says we aren't. I also know that one large forest fire or one volcano blast can do more damage to the preciuous ozone layer then we could ever imagine doing with our cars and hair spray. |
Louddog,
1) Who is talking about the ozone layer? I am talking about greenhouse warming.
2) The "volcano blast" myth is a Rush Limbaugh favorite, but is, alas, baloney. Humans put out at least 350 times as much CO2 every year as do all volcanos combined. Besides - it is all bad, no matter how it gets in the atmosphere.
3) Don't beleieve me - here is a website on global warming by a Republican. A conservative republican, even! :D
He addresses all these issues and more, and talks about all the myths, fallacies out there, and does a good job explaining the science and the politics behind the whole subject.
Good reading for any sceptic on the subject of global warming - and again, it's not from a liberal! :D
//www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html
Message edited by author 2004-08-07 20:08:11. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 09:06:05 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by louddog:
I do. And I know for every expert that says we are ruining the environment there is one that says we aren't. I also know that one large forest fire or one volcano blast can do more damage to the preciuous ozone layer then we could ever imagine doing with our cars and hair spray. |
Louddog,
1) Who is talking about the ozone layer? I am talking about greenhouse warming.
2) The "volcano blast" myth is a Rush Limbaugh favorite, but is, alas, baloney. Humans put out at least 350 times as much CO2 every year as do all volcanos combined. Besides - it is all bad, no matter how it gets in the atmosphere.
3) Don't beleieve me - here is a website on global warming by a Republican. A conservative republican, even! :D
He addresses all these issues and more, and talks about all the myths, fallacies out there, and does a good job explaining the science and the politics behind the whole subject.
Good reading for any sceptic on the subject of global warming - and again, it's not from a liberal! :D
//www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html |
Any argument on the ozone layer (which happens to create the green house effect which is blamed for global warming) is a useless argument because you will find experts that say we are and we aren't doing damage and they are split pretty much 50/50. So, I stand by my original statement of I thik we should do what we can, but I don't think it's a big deal. You can choose to believe who you want. And for what it's worth, most of the info I have is from PBS documentarys I've seen over the years, which I believe is a pretty liberal source of info.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 09:43:41 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Louddog,
You've repeatedly claimed to be independent-minded and only interested in the "truth." However, some of your posts belie your leanings -- that is, the side that holds more sway on you (namely, Dems vs. Reps). From some of your previous posts, I gather (very broadly, of course) that you're like many Americans, proud to wear the label of an "independent voter." Because somehow, one believes, the label puts one above so-called mindless partisan rancor/thinking; and, too, because the self-identification as a so-called "independent voter" is fostered by the popular notion that political parties don't matter, and that only the candidate does. (Yes, Louddog, I'm revisiting a topic we touched on in the Voting outside DPC: Please do it thread.) I only mention this here to broaden that conversation, and not merely to single you out.
Anyhow, I looked at the source of the press release quoted above. It was released by The National Conservative Weekly, via its website: //humaneventsonline.com, which is owned by Eagle Publishing, Inc. (see here), which also owns and operates Regnery Publishing, which just so happens to be the publisher of the book that Eddy keeps on erroneously/maliciously pawning as the gospel on Mr. Kerry.
So, how does all this tie to what I have "very broadly" gathered are your political leanings? Well, the source and that the material would be compelling to you in anyway, speak (at least to me) as to the channels of information you seek (or are exposed to), and the level of skepticism you choose to apply to the given material. But this is a different conversation, and not important to the point at hand.
My point: This group of men represent an elaborate smear campaign against Mr. Kerry; therefore, we should exercise EXTREME SKEPTICISM as to the source of the material, and the motives of the people passing personal attacks as fact. |
Yeah so I quoted a conservative web site. Since they have scanned copies of signed affidavits I believe they have some factual information. I thought it was relevant to the point at hand since it directly relates to the topic (silly me for thinking that). I also find it funny how since this all came out what was this:
//64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cxZw7ydSwWsJ:www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display%3Fbook%3D1586483145+kranish+kerry+edwards&hl=en
is now this:
//www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=1586483145
Notice how the reporter in question in the link I originally posted disappears from the Kerry corp? Wonder why that would happen?
Now, yes I am an independent and when these swift boat guys first came out I cringed as much as I did when F911 came out. Since the people that were there don't agree on what happened I have no reason to believe either side since they are probably both imbelishing anyway. Doesn't mean I'm not going to point out some fishy things that have happened since (that are pretty factual and hard to deny).
Yes as of now I support our current president on more issues then I support Kerry, or you can say it the reverse and the things Kerry has done disturb me more then the things Bush as done. You caught me, the cat is out of the bag. You can call me ignorant, a moron, or any other names you can think of, but when I look at the issues, how they will effect me, and what direction the country is currently moving I stand by my choice. Plus, I have looked over Kerry's voting record and I can't see myself voting for a guy that will raise my taxes and push to make me unemployed. Kerry has voted for military downsizing and against products that my comapany makes (that have proven very effective in recent military campaigns by the way) numerous times.
So, if I have a choice to vote for a guy that gave me tax cuts and keeps me employed over a guy that in the past has raise my taxes and tried to run me out of a job, what do you think I will choose?
And for the record, choosing a republican in this election does not make me a republican. And even more for the record, there are two republicans in local races in my area that I do not like and will not be voting for when the time comes.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:31:32 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by louddog:
I do. And I know for every expert that says we are ruining the environment there is one that says we aren't. I also know that one large forest fire or one volcano blast can do more damage to the preciuous ozone layer then we could ever imagine doing with our cars and hair spray. |
Louddog,
1) Who is talking about the ozone layer? I am talking about greenhouse warming.
2) The "volcano blast" myth is a Rush Limbaugh favorite, but is, alas, baloney. Humans put out at least 350 times as much CO2 every year as do all volcanos combined. Besides - it is all bad, no matter how it gets in the atmosphere.
3) Don't beleieve me - here is a website on global warming by a Republican. A conservative republican, even! :D
He addresses all these issues and more, and talks about all the myths, fallacies out there, and does a good job explaining the science and the politics behind the whole subject.
Good reading for any sceptic on the subject of global warming - and again, it's not from a liberal! :D
//www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html |
Any argument on the ozone layer (which happens to create the green house effect which is blamed for global warming) is a useless argument because you will find experts that say we are and we aren't doing damage and they are split pretty much 50/50. So, I stand by my original statement of I thik we should do what we can, but I don't think it's a big deal. You can choose to believe who you want. And for what it's worth, most of the info I have is from PBS documentarys I've seen over the years, which I believe is a pretty liberal source of info. |
Hey Louddog!
The ozone layer has very little to do with the greenhouse effect. Ozone is not CO2. (The ozone thing has to do with damaging radiation getting through and frying us.)
Your slip is showing here, my stubborn friend. Check out the site I provided, it is good stuff. :) |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 10:45:21 PM · #197 |
You are correct, my bad. They are related somewhat but not quite like I said. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2004 11:37:45 PM · #198 |
| I agree we should exrcise caution when observing or hearing things that disparage...and probably an independent view is a good one to maintain as a rule. Still, what can one say about the motives of say MSNBC Countdown, when they show a clip of the president fumbling horribly as he tries, totally in vain, to define "sovreign nation or sovreignty." I mean there it was...nobody made it up. Didn't matter WHAT context that as in. I ached for him, but it also reconvinced me he is not presidential material, probably never was. As for Kerry, it wouldn't have mattered WHO had been nominated, fake dirt and hyberbole would have been dished out cause lately it doesn't seem to matter what the truth is, just that their man wins. AT least the right has quit trying to crucify Edwards, Kerry's choice, for being a lawyer (gasp!) I mean for Pete's sake; they're most all of them lawyers. You just really gotta be digging for that one. AS for the Republican issues. I wouldn't mind their going easy on everyone's taxes if the budget was balanced, of it was at least proportional and great big favors were not being done for those few who either should not be getting HUGE subsidies, or have such extremely adequate wherewithal that increased taxes would neither blunt their entrepeneurial spirit nor their private life in the least. Recently Bush said we're "behind" 'cause we've had a war. Well guess who pushed that? We will never know if there may have been another way. AFter all the people who had lost retirement funds in the market or through friendly white collar scams, it was no secret a war in the middle of nowhere was going to be expensive and stretch us to an economic breaking point in a way that would not necessarily protect us. It would have made sense to let congress figure and test out whether we were obligated to do someting preventative in Iraq and why not seek out world-wide action,if appropriate,where Sadam's behavior against his own people was concerned. I mean he had been acting depraved for like ever and ever, why JUST THEN were we called to do something? And I guess I like the Republican stance against abortion, but that's only because I believe the government has a responsibility to protect all its citizens and prevent rash acts that interfere with that. However, I have heard more staunch Repbulicans say anti-abortion is one Republican plank they do not agree with [and sound like they are making a concension,] and they don't mind explaining that in their view abortion is good as it prevents "those people" from becoming too numerous. I voted that issue last time and I will never be a one issue voter again. |
|
|
|
08/07/2004 11:41:05 PM · #199 |
So...on the coorelation between CO2 and Global Warming, I offer this reference from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which contains this quote, concerning analysis of CO2 levels and air temperatures over the last 250,000 years:
"Clearly, the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature over the last century or so proves nothing of a cause-and-effect nature. When all available CO2 and temperature records are analyzed, one can find much longer periods of absolutely no correlation and even opposing trends"
Just another set of facts to consider in our quest for the truth ( though more credible, in my belief, than the unsupported statements offered in the links some others have offered in this forum - for example, the last link that Gingerbaker posted only uses other commentaries as references to support what it puts forth as "facts", but this link actually supports its statements with references to actual SCIENTIFIC studies. To some, that may be significant. )
Ron |
|
|
|
08/08/2004 12:26:48 AM · #200 |
Here is ignorant and antiquated Graphicfunk.
Are you guys for real? There is a theory, which is as old as the hills. It deals with cycles, much like the expression of wheels within wheels. Imagine one sine wave with an amplitute of many millions years pulsating on any of the paradigns you believe which brought the existence of the universe. Then within this vast expanse there are more waves, but with smaller amplitude. Much like when you divide the number 1 into fractions which never end. It goes on and on infinitum. Here take a one inch of paper cut in half and then take one half and half it. Keep going until you realize that you will need a magnifier, then a microscope, then an atomic microscope. Suddenly the atomic won't even do. If you could, you would reach the particles. This is known as infinity.
Back to the cycles. Since all of you lefty loonies are very astute and intelligent, you are aware of what the Tropic of capricorn and tropic of Cancer represent. They slice the globe at the precise demarcation of the apparent travel of the sun. This demarcation is closely related to the tilt of the earth on its axis. There is a phenonema known as warble.
In short, while the earth rotates on its axis and that of the ecliptic, there is a deviation. Keep in mind the entire structure is hurling through space. All gravitational force comes from the sun, but the sun itself is a pulsating mass with direct effect on all of the planets it maintains. We will not argue that the sun is a constant because we know that it is a star with a limited life. Now comes the most pronounced phenomena known as black spots. They shake up the entire equation and can radically change weather pattern and place them in those cycles within cycles I spoke of earlier.
For your edification, the ancient Egyptians knew the precise location of the first point of Aries. They knew the speed of the Sun travelling through space and Newton put the entire picture together.
Now in these cycles there are going to be even cataclismic upheavels which will alter and have an adverse effect on bothe poles and all weather for out little planet.
So how can these pin head, so called scientist, dream up so much hogwash of cycles they are not even aware exist. The left has adopted the theory of earth warming and they attribute the cause to the Republicans. The Left wants to show that it knows better and above all they really care. let me prove you and all your leftish professors wrong once and for all:
When Nasa was planning the moon trip it was unable to find a handful of professors or scientist to map out spatial dynamics.....Yes, they had to import them because the universities in this country are more concerned in advancing the leftish agenda than in teaching the hard core subjects which are required to conquer space. This is why the average College Grad has been greatly shortchanged because education of the leftish agenda is their primary goal...They love social architecture and the average grad lacks the basic knowledge which was once sacred. End of story.
My definition of a lefty looney: One headed towards socialism, even though they know it doen't work. One who believes that he knows more than anybody else. Since they love socialism they hate America, they hate its founders, they do not believe in God and they want to inhibit the actions of others.
Message edited by author 2004-08-08 01:24:47. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:27:25 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:27:25 PM EDT.
|
