It is currently Tue May 23, 2017 7:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1011 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 2616
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:

This started before Obama. They impeached Clinton and said he had people murdered. It started with right wing radio in the 90s.
Both parties do this crap. Bush was declared illegitimate before he took the oath of office.

While the right had Rush and radio, the left had Move On. Both are toxic.


How did Bush win the White House? It's not even comparable.

He won it legally where every single recount (even the media one performed after SCOTUS decision) declared him the winner in Florida.

Calling him illegitimate was no different than how the Republicans treated Clinton or Obama. If you take off the partisan blinders, you would see that and admit that both parties have treated opposing party Presidents like shit.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/med ... unt_04-03/


To say a contested election that had to be settled in the Supreme Court by the conservative majority while losing the popular vote is the same as saying Obama is not president because he is African and from Kenya is about as partisan as you can be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 1327
pizza_Place: Pequods
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:

This started before Obama. They impeached Clinton and said he had people murdered. It started with right wing radio in the 90s.
Both parties do this crap. Bush was declared illegitimate before he took the oath of office.

While the right had Rush and radio, the left had Move On. Both are toxic.


How did Bush win the White House? It's not even comparable.

He won it legally where every single recount (even the media one performed after SCOTUS decision) declared him the winner in Florida.

Calling him illegitimate was no different than how the Republicans treated Clinton or Obama. If you take off the partisan blinders, you would see that and admit that both parties have treated opposing party Presidents like shit.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/med ... unt_04-03/


To say a contested election that had to be settled in the Supreme Court by the conservative majority while losing the popular vote is the same as saying Obama is not president because he is African and from Kenya is about as partisan as you can be.

Both are despicable and both are wrongful allegations that threaten the very essence of democracy. You really should see that.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 2616
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Both are despicable and both are wrongful allegations that threaten the very essence of democracy. You really should see that.


They are not remotely comparable. The first one was a reflection of a poorly ran election. Gore lost because thousands of your people in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan, and recounts were not allowed. Gore also won the popular vote. These are all legitimate complaints.

The other is just blatant vile racism.

This is not to say that the left does not have it's ugliness either. The fringe of the left are the fascist anti-free speech groups on college campuses. The fringe on the right is Fox News, and certainly more mainstream in their party at this point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 11473
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Between money, the negative claims of elitism and the southern strategy this got started with Nixon in '68. And since he rationalized burglary of psychiatrist's and political offices it's gone downhill from there. Not to mention how Nixon sent his emmisarys to disrupt the Paris peace talks that year.

And to think that the late worm Ailes famously believed that if FoxNews and today's right wing radio was of current levels back in 73, Nixon never would have felt the pressure to resign or possibly even be impeached.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 19436
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
I miss Scorehead.

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. All these answers are definitely wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 11473
Location: "Across 110th Street"
And let's not ignore the whopping stupidity of Americans, most of whom either don't vote or not in line with the majority of the country's better interests


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 16806
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
leashyourkids wrote:
I miss Scorehead.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 19436
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Regular Reader wrote:
And let's not ignore the whopping stupidity of Americans, most of whom either don't vote or not in line with the majority of the country's better interests


Elitist

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. All these answers are definitely wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 11473
Location: "Across 110th Street"
leashyourkids wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
And let's not ignore the whopping stupidity of Americans, most of whom either don't vote or not in line with the majority of the country's better interests


Elitist


Usually republicans call people like me "uppity or arrogant ", so that's improvement :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:02 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 18384
Location: pittsburgh
pizza_Place: giordanos
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Nas wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
This started before Obama. They impeached Clinton and said he had people murdered. It started with right wing radio in the 90s.


I would say HW but I am fine with you saying Clinton. It was different then from what it became with Obama. It was okay for republicans to work with Clinton then. Compromise wasn't evil.


Compromise was dying by then. Republicans let the government shutdown. They impeached him.


You do not do well trying to act non partisan. Embrace your leftism and stop trying to deny that there are not equally reprehensible sides of both left and right. Anyway, you are not correct on your timeline of the dying of the compromise and the dawn of the trickery. I am not sure how old you are but in Clinton's time there was the unfortunate impeachment but the contemptuousness was nowhere near what it was with W and Obama. Not a speck on an elephant's ass compared to now. In fact Clinton and Gingrinch worked pretty well together on MANY things.

_________________
I can't complain but sometimes I still do... - J. Walsh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 16806
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
pittmike wrote:
[ In fact Clinton and Gingrinch worked pretty well together on MANY things.


DPing interns for example....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 25448
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Nas wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
This started before Obama. They impeached Clinton and said he had people murdered. It started with right wing radio in the 90s.


I would say HW but I am fine with you saying Clinton. It was different then from what it became with Obama. It was okay for republicans to work with Clinton then. Compromise wasn't evil.


Compromise was dying by then. Republicans let the government shutdown. They impeached him.


You do not do well trying to act non partisan. Embrace your leftism and stop trying to deny that there are not equally reprehensible sides of both left and right. Anyway, you are not correct on your timeline of the dying of the compromise and the dawn of the trickery. I am not sure how old you are but in Clinton's time there was the unfortunate impeachment but the contemptuousness was nowhere near what it was with W and Obama. Not a speck on an elephant's ass compared to now. In fact Clinton and Gingrinch worked pretty well together on MANY things.


W and Kennedy worked together

_________________
In this country American means white. Everybody else has to hyphenate.

https://youtu.be/7oVW3HfzXkg
Ballot or the Bullet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 19436
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Regular Reader wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Regular Reader wrote:
And let's not ignore the whopping stupidity of Americans, most of whom either don't vote or not in line with the majority of the country's better interests


Elitist


Usually republicans call people like me "uppity or arrogant ", so that's improvement :lol:


In hillbillyville where I grew up, they call me an elitist. It hurt me deeply. If you think about it, your people and my people have had to overcome the same obstacles in America.

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. All these answers are definitely wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 5419
pizza_Place: Malnati's
pittmike wrote:

You do not do well trying to act non partisan.


pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
So who exactly is the puppet master that controls them? It's so obvious this shit is coordinated.


Obama's shadow resistance run out of Podesta's home where he now lives?





Quote:
Is Obama 'Commanding' an Army of 30,000 Anti-Trump Activists From His Home?
We found no credible evidence of an "army" or "shadow government" being formed by the former president. On 13 February 2017, InfoWars.com (the web site belonging to excitable conspiracy theorist Alex Jones) posted a story reporting a claim that former United States President Barack Obama was marshaling an “army” of 30,000 foot soldiers while choosing to live near the White House in order to plot against his successor, President Donald Trump:

Throughout American history, most ex-presidents have chosen to move away from Washington D.C. once their terms have ended, and the vast majority of them have tried very hard not to interfere with their successors.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama has opted for the exact opposite approach. His new home is less than two miles from the White House, and from this “command center” he will be directing the activities of an army of more than 30,000 anti-Trump activists. In fact, as you will see below, this army has already been heavily involved in many of the protests and riots that have been popping up around the nation in recent days. “Sabotage” is a very strong word, but it is becoming apparent that Obama intends to do all that he can to sabotage the Trump administration, and that is very bad news for the American people.
The InfoWars story is based entirely on a story published two days earlier in the New York Post, which speculated that President Obama (who vacationed overseas after leaving office) is somehow pulling the strings on an army that he operates through the non-profit organization Organizing for Action:

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.
Organizing for Action officials told us that Obama does not currently have any formal relationship with the group. Meantime the Obamas have reportedly decided to stay in Washington D.C. temporarily to allow their youngest daughter to finish high school. They made no mention of remaining near the White House to act as a shadow administration:

Over lunch with a small group of supporters in Milwaukee, Obama said he and his family plan to stay in Washington for a couple of years after his presidency so that Sasha, the younger of his two daughters, can finish high school…

“We haven’t figured that out yet,” he said. “We’re going to have to stay a couple of years so Sasha can finish” school, he said. “Transferring someone in the middle of high school — tough.”
The organization’s executive director is Katie Hogan, and Obama’s name is not listed on financial forms as an “officer, director, trustee or key employee.” Spokesman Jesse Lehrich told us:

OFA is a non-profit group dedicated to grassroots organizing. We have volunteer-led chapters around the country who are working to engage fellow members of their communities and enact positive change on key issues – it’s not a very diabolical endeavor.”
No doubt Organizing for Action, which as of 2014 lists a total of 32,525 volunteers, has been associated politically with Obama, first as a candidate and then as 44th president of the United States. Various iterations of the organization backed his presidential campaigns, and many of its goals involve defending aspects of Obama’s legacy, like the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform and gun legislation. Some of its key staffers, like Jim Messina and Jon Carson, are a former Obama campaign manager and White House aide, respectively.

Obama, who is 55 years old, has hinted that he may have a politically active future upon leaving office, saying at a town hall event in North Carolina in October 2016:

Most prominently we’re gonna be interested in figuring out how we can develop the next generation of leaders…

Michelle and I, I think, If we look back 20 years from now and can say that we helped to contribute to the leadership of the next generation to replace us and to exceed what we’ve accomplished, we’ll feel pretty good about ourselves.
The former president may well engage in civic activity or political activism in his post-presidential life, and the non-profit group that has been aligned with him for years is engaged in political opposition activity during the term of a president with vastly different policies. Neither of these items are particularly surprising, but neither do they mean that President Obama is hunkered in Washington in a “shadow White House” from which he sends forth armies to thwart President Trump.


http://www.snopes.com/obama-army-anti-trump-activists/

_________________
And I said, when was Andrew Jackson? It was 1828. That's a long time ago

I really need to stop making wagers with FavreFan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:07 pm
Posts: 482
Location: The 309
pizza_Place: Nowhere
Well you left Leash. If you leave you think you're too good or if you aren't from around "these parts"'you are viewed with much suspicion. It's an interesting dynamic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:18 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 18384
Location: pittsburgh
pizza_Place: giordanos
veganfan21 wrote:
pittmike wrote:

You do not do well trying to act non partisan.


pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
So who exactly is the puppet master that controls them? It's so obvious this shit is coordinated.


Obama's shadow resistance run out of Podesta's home where he now lives?





Quote:
Is Obama 'Commanding' an Army of 30,000 Anti-Trump Activists From His Home?
We found no credible evidence of an "army" or "shadow government" being formed by the former president. On 13 February 2017, InfoWars.com (the web site belonging to excitable conspiracy theorist Alex Jones) posted a story reporting a claim that former United States President Barack Obama was marshaling an “army” of 30,000 foot soldiers while choosing to live near the White House in order to plot against his successor, President Donald Trump:

Throughout American history, most ex-presidents have chosen to move away from Washington D.C. once their terms have ended, and the vast majority of them have tried very hard not to interfere with their successors.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama has opted for the exact opposite approach. His new home is less than two miles from the White House, and from this “command center” he will be directing the activities of an army of more than 30,000 anti-Trump activists. In fact, as you will see below, this army has already been heavily involved in many of the protests and riots that have been popping up around the nation in recent days. “Sabotage” is a very strong word, but it is becoming apparent that Obama intends to do all that he can to sabotage the Trump administration, and that is very bad news for the American people.
The InfoWars story is based entirely on a story published two days earlier in the New York Post, which speculated that President Obama (who vacationed overseas after leaving office) is somehow pulling the strings on an army that he operates through the non-profit organization Organizing for Action:

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.
Organizing for Action officials told us that Obama does not currently have any formal relationship with the group. Meantime the Obamas have reportedly decided to stay in Washington D.C. temporarily to allow their youngest daughter to finish high school. They made no mention of remaining near the White House to act as a shadow administration:

Over lunch with a small group of supporters in Milwaukee, Obama said he and his family plan to stay in Washington for a couple of years after his presidency so that Sasha, the younger of his two daughters, can finish high school…

“We haven’t figured that out yet,” he said. “We’re going to have to stay a couple of years so Sasha can finish” school, he said. “Transferring someone in the middle of high school — tough.”
The organization’s executive director is Katie Hogan, and Obama’s name is not listed on financial forms as an “officer, director, trustee or key employee.” Spokesman Jesse Lehrich told us:

OFA is a non-profit group dedicated to grassroots organizing. We have volunteer-led chapters around the country who are working to engage fellow members of their communities and enact positive change on key issues – it’s not a very diabolical endeavor.”
No doubt Organizing for Action, which as of 2014 lists a total of 32,525 volunteers, has been associated politically with Obama, first as a candidate and then as 44th president of the United States. Various iterations of the organization backed his presidential campaigns, and many of its goals involve defending aspects of Obama’s legacy, like the Affordable Care Act, immigration reform and gun legislation. Some of its key staffers, like Jim Messina and Jon Carson, are a former Obama campaign manager and White House aide, respectively.

Obama, who is 55 years old, has hinted that he may have a politically active future upon leaving office, saying at a town hall event in North Carolina in October 2016:

Most prominently we’re gonna be interested in figuring out how we can develop the next generation of leaders…

Michelle and I, I think, If we look back 20 years from now and can say that we helped to contribute to the leadership of the next generation to replace us and to exceed what we’ve accomplished, we’ll feel pretty good about ourselves.
The former president may well engage in civic activity or political activism in his post-presidential life, and the non-profit group that has been aligned with him for years is engaged in political opposition activity during the term of a president with vastly different policies. Neither of these items are particularly surprising, but neither do they mean that President Obama is hunkered in Washington in a “shadow White House” from which he sends forth armies to thwart President Trump.


http://www.snopes.com/obama-army-anti-trump-activists/


Funny. Pull the post of mine that was clearly tongue in cheek replying to previous question. I am surprised you didn't edit my own question mark off the end. Regardless, I toll Ruffcorn he was not doing well acting non partisan I did not claim I was not partisan. I certainly am. I give more ground than he though in recent conversations that is sure.

_________________
I can't complain but sometimes I still do... - J. Walsh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 32524
Location: Raytheon Acres, VA
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Obama really stayed in Washington for the "pizza"

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 2616
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
pittmike wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Nas wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
This started before Obama. They impeached Clinton and said he had people murdered. It started with right wing radio in the 90s.


I would say HW but I am fine with you saying Clinton. It was different then from what it became with Obama. It was okay for republicans to work with Clinton then. Compromise wasn't evil.


Compromise was dying by then. Republicans let the government shutdown. They impeached him.


You do not do well trying to act non partisan. Embrace your leftism and stop trying to deny that there are not equally reprehensible sides of both left and right. Anyway, you are not correct on your timeline of the dying of the compromise and the dawn of the trickery. I am not sure how old you are but in Clinton's time there was the unfortunate impeachment but the contemptuousness was nowhere near what it was with W and Obama. Not a speck on an elephant's ass compared to now. In fact Clinton and Gingrinch worked pretty well together on MANY things.


You are wrong on both accounts, which does not surprise me. How do you measure "contemptuousness" as you put it? It's purely your opinion, and certainly not based on any measurable.

I am certainly able to be less biased about politics than you. You deny basic scientific facts about the environment because of your political beliefs. This is not a "leftist" opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 18384
Location: pittsburgh
pizza_Place: giordanos
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
I am certainly able to be less biased about politics than you. You deny basic scientific facts about the environment because of your political beliefs. This is not a "leftist" opinion.


No sir you are incorrect. You have an inability to even consider anything from the right without going on about Fox news and tea party. When someone tries to pin you down on something you move the goal posts. You move them more than the workers for California NFL teams.

In this thread alone people have tried to discuss the current situation as it relates historically and you will have none of it. In many other threads it is predictable when someone gets too close to a point you are trying to preach about you come back with climate change, automation replacing workers and other nonsense.

Lastly, no matter how often you or anyone else tries to paint me as some denier it simply isn't true. What I state strongly in the past around here is I do not believe there is some grand consensus among all scientists on climate change. The science is not settled. That is not denial that is stating there are degrees of agreement and disagreement. There are in fact present matters where data was fudged mainly published in the UK. Another point I make is there does not have to be a destroying of our current livelihood without more knowledge on how best to serve many elements related to it. In general, I believe we should not do harm to the environment.

_________________
I can't complain but sometimes I still do... - J. Walsh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:39 pm
Posts: 2616
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
pittmike wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
I am certainly able to be less biased about politics than you. You deny basic scientific facts about the environment because of your political beliefs. This is not a "leftist" opinion.


No sir you are incorrect. You have an inability to even consider anything from the right without going on about Fox news and tea party. When someone tries to pin you down on something you move the goal posts. You move them more than the workers for California NFL teams.

In this thread alone people have tried to discuss the current situation as it relates historically and you will have none of it. In many other threads it is predictable when someone gets too close to a point you are trying to preach about you come back with climate change, automation replacing workers and other nonsense.

Lastly, no matter how often you or anyone else tries to paint me as some denier it simply isn't true. What I state strongly in the past around here is I do not believe there is some grand consensus among all scientists on climate change. The science is not settled. That is not denial that is stating there are degrees of agreement and disagreement. There are in fact present matters where data was fudged mainly published in the UK. Another point I make is there does not have to be a destroying of our current livelihood without more knowledge on how best to serve many elements related to it. In general, I believe we should not do harm to the environment.


:lol:

You are totally full of shit. I rarely talk about the Tea Party. You can't even get your facts straight you are so biased.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 19436
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
pittmike wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
I am certainly able to be less biased about politics than you. You deny basic scientific facts about the environment because of your political beliefs. This is not a "leftist" opinion.


No sir you are incorrect. You have an inability to even consider anything from the right without going on about Fox news and tea party. When someone tries to pin you down on something you move the goal posts. You move them more than the workers for California NFL teams.

In this thread alone people have tried to discuss the current situation as it relates historically and you will have none of it. In many other threads it is predictable when someone gets too close to a point you are trying to preach about you come back with climate change, automation replacing workers and other nonsense.

Lastly, no matter how often you or anyone else tries to paint me as some denier it simply isn't true. What I state strongly in the past around here is I do not believe there is some grand consensus among all scientists on climate change. The science is not settled. That is not denial that is stating there are degrees of agreement and disagreement. There are in fact present matters where data was fudged mainly published in the UK. Another point I make is there does not have to be a destroying of our current livelihood without more knowledge on how best to serve many elements related to it. In general, I believe we should not do harm to the environment.


What's one issue in which you would call your views "liberal"?

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. All these answers are definitely wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 3729
Location: Lake of the Ozarks (whenever I can)
pizza_Place: Mauries Table
pittmike wrote:
Lastly, no matter how often you or anyone else tries to paint me as some denier it simply isn't true. What I state strongly in the past around here is I do not believe there is some grand consensus among all scientists on climate change. The science is not settled. That is not denial that is stating there are degrees of agreement and disagreement. There are in fact present matters where data was fudged mainly published in the UK. Another point I make is there does not have to be a destroying of our current livelihood without more knowledge on how best to serve many elements related to it. In general, I believe we should not do harm to the environment.


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

_________________
chaspoppcap wrote:
You guys seem a little uniformed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 31627
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Lastly, no matter how often you or anyone else tries to paint me as some denier it simply isn't true. What I state strongly in the past around here is I do not believe there is some grand consensus among all scientists on climate change. The science is not settled. That is not denial that is stating there are degrees of agreement and disagreement. There are in fact present matters where data was fudged mainly published in the UK. Another point I make is there does not have to be a destroying of our current livelihood without more knowledge on how best to serve many elements related to it. In general, I believe we should not do harm to the environment.


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Jury is still out.

_________________
I AM FASCINATED BY TALL MIDGET.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 19436
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
This will offend more than just Mike, I'm sure, but if you don't believe that man contributes to global climate change, I can't take anything you ever say after that seriously. If you don't believe that climate change even exists, I can't even muster an opinion on your credibility.

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. All these answers are definitely wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 9:52 pm
Posts: 268
pizza_Place: Barraco's
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Both are despicable and both are wrongful allegations that threaten the very essence of democracy. You really should see that.


They are not remotely comparable. The first one was a reflection of a poorly ran election. Gore lost because thousands of your people in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan, and recounts were not allowed. Gore also won the popular vote. These are all legitimate complaints.

The other is just blatant vile racism.

This is not to say that the left does not have it's ugliness either. The fringe of the left are the fascist anti-free speech groups on college campuses. The fringe on the right is Fox News, and certainly more mainstream in their party at this point.

Popular vote is a weak argument.

Candidates don't run campaigns tailored towards winning the popular vote. They try to win the Electoral College. A Republican isn't going to waste an awful lot of time in true Blue areas, despite the high likelihood of losing popular votes. They don't matter. If Republican X went to NYC and Chicago and tirelessly worked the neighborhoods, getting popular votes, it wouldn't matter, because they wouldn't turn the state red. They make an appearance and move on, concentrating on battle states.

...

I don't care if one action was worse than the other - they're both toxic. Getting into a political dick measuring contest, claiming one toxic action was more toxic than the other?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 19436
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
ChiefWampum wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Both are despicable and both are wrongful allegations that threaten the very essence of democracy. You really should see that.


They are not remotely comparable. The first one was a reflection of a poorly ran election. Gore lost because thousands of your people in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan, and recounts were not allowed. Gore also won the popular vote. These are all legitimate complaints.

The other is just blatant vile racism.

This is not to say that the left does not have it's ugliness either. The fringe of the left are the fascist anti-free speech groups on college campuses. The fringe on the right is Fox News, and certainly more mainstream in their party at this point.

Popular vote is a weak argument.

Candidates don't run campaigns tailored towards winning the popular vote. They try to win the Electoral College. A Republican isn't going to waste an awful lot of time in true Blue areas, despite the high likelihood of losing popular votes. They don't matter. If Republican X went to NYC and Chicago and tirelessly worked the neighborhoods, getting popular votes, it wouldn't matter, because they wouldn't turn the state red. They make an appearance and move on, concentrating on battle states.

...

I don't care if one action was worse than the other - they're both toxic. Getting into a political dick measuring contest, claiming one toxic action was more toxic than the other?


Yes, one is clearly more vile than the other. And it was sickening. Obama was the first black president in history - something which should be celebrated - and he was accused of being a fucking Kenyan. It was despicable. And there were Democrats culpable in that discussion also (see: Clinton, Hillary).

Democrats should not have fought the Florida recount with W, but there was a legitimate reason for them to whine. Many did not move on quickly enough, which was wrong, but it's not even close to the ridiculous claims of Obama being a Muslim Kenyan.

_________________
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. All these answers are definitely wrong though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:24 pm
Posts: 1327
pizza_Place: Pequods
leashyourkids wrote:
ChiefWampum wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Both are despicable and both are wrongful allegations that threaten the very essence of democracy. You really should see that.


They are not remotely comparable. The first one was a reflection of a poorly ran election. Gore lost because thousands of your people in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan, and recounts were not allowed. Gore also won the popular vote. These are all legitimate complaints.

The other is just blatant vile racism.

This is not to say that the left does not have it's ugliness either. The fringe of the left are the fascist anti-free speech groups on college campuses. The fringe on the right is Fox News, and certainly more mainstream in their party at this point.

Popular vote is a weak argument.

Candidates don't run campaigns tailored towards winning the popular vote. They try to win the Electoral College. A Republican isn't going to waste an awful lot of time in true Blue areas, despite the high likelihood of losing popular votes. They don't matter. If Republican X went to NYC and Chicago and tirelessly worked the neighborhoods, getting popular votes, it wouldn't matter, because they wouldn't turn the state red. They make an appearance and move on, concentrating on battle states.

...

I don't care if one action was worse than the other - they're both toxic. Getting into a political dick measuring contest, claiming one toxic action was more toxic than the other?


Yes, one is clearly more vile than the other. And it was sickening. Obama was the first black president in history - something which should be celebrated - and he was accused of being a fucking Kenyan. It was despicable. And there were Democrats culpable in that discussion also (see: Clinton, Hillary).

Democrats should not have fought the Florida recount with W, but there was a legitimate reason for them to whine. Many did not move on quickly enough, which was wrong, but it's not even close to the ridiculous claims of Obama being a Muslim Kenyan.

On a personal level yes the attacks on Obama are worse (and yes there is racism tied into it, which adds to the awfulness).

On a systematic level, I'd say the attacks on Bush were worse as such attacks threatened the foundation of our Republic. To insinuate that an election was stolen at that level was to argue that our entire system is illegitimate. I think you can see why as a whole that is more damaging when you look at it from a wider perspective as an attack on the legitimacy of the election itself.

As for the Obama is a Kenyan accusation, wouldn't having an American mother have made him a natural born US citizen? I wonder how many people tried to explain that fact to the birthers.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson


Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on Fri May 19, 2017 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:31 am
Posts: 6684
Location: On Frozen Pond
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Would one of the Mods please just change Mike's avatar to a snowflake already?

_________________
Frank Costanza wrote:
You're just an idiot. You're not a rapist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:13 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 18384
Location: pittsburgh
pizza_Place: giordanos
For Leash, gay marriage is only one liberal view of mine.

Regarding climate scientists 97% (from the post above) is not 100%. Secondly Gore and others state ALL scientists agree without making any distinction to their discipline or the degree to which they agree. They do this to bolster their own positions. Is it not possible some scientists say "I agree with you but?"

_________________
I can't complain but sometimes I still do... - J. Walsh


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:16 am
Posts: 16319
pizza_Place: Aurelios
leashyourkids wrote:
This will offend more than just Mike, I'm sure, but if you don't believe that man contributes to global climate change, I can't take anything you ever say after that seriously. If you don't believe that climate change even exists, I can't even muster an opinion on your credibility.


Sign me up on the side of:

1. Climate change exists
2. The amount of people on this planet impacts the climate
3. The danger of climate change is likely exaggerated

_________________
drinky wrote:
If you hate Laurence, then don't listen - don't comment. When he co-hosts the B&B show, take that day off ... listen to an old podcast of a Bernstein solo show and jerk off all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1011 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pittmike and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group