The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[section8]

You're merely trying to generalise the argument, because you know you're on undefendable ground with the specific argument.

If you really want to argue against the scientific method (which is what you'd actually have to do to win this argument with the line you're taking) then I think we'd need a new thread.

No we don't. You know that you don't have the evidence. Give it up socialist.

 

[section8]

vengeful gods are where the sceptics should concentrate, their aint any real facts hanging around which have been gathered as facts nowadays. All those facts were gathered when populations kind of worshipped guys that were "half horse, half man", if youknow what I mean. They kind of probably wrote teh bible back then too, so i leave that to those who want to debate it.
Global warming is like now, there is no book that was written 2000 years ago by whoever wrote it telling you this, its like now people telling you this, kind of more factual than a bible i guess.
Dont think a scientist nowadays would have written about a guy that walked on water do you?

Global warming is the scientific equivalent of priests scaring peasants into going to church by threatening woe be upon them if they didn't.

 

[CoggaRules]

Global warming is the scientific equivalent of priests scaring peasants into going to church by threatening woe be upon them if they didn't.

yep there is validity in what you say , but what is needed to prove your theory invalid?

 

[MightyFighting]

No we don't. You know that you don't have the evidence. Give it up socialist.

^ The parting shot of the loser.

 

[rick James]

I've heard that even a lot of the pro-global warming folk say that man made gasses are only responsible for up to 1% of the warming anyway.. so even a concerted effort to reduce our emissions would only reduce it by a small margin of a percentile....


Couldn't we better use the money to just look at alternative reosurces? I mean, the only downer is that as most physics students will tell you, it's nigh on impossible to find a better way fo creating energy than combustion... but still...

 

[section8]

^ The parting shot of the loser.

You lost a few posts back, doublespeak.

 

[MightyFighting]

You lost a few posts back, doublespeak.

Mate, at least try to put forward a proper argument. You're talking over your head about scientific concepts you know nothing about.

 

[rick James]

Mate, at least try to put forward a proper argument. You're talking over your head about scientific concepts you know nothing about.

ooh oohh answer mine plz k thx.

 

[section8]

Mate, at least try to put forward a proper argument. You're talking over your head about scientific concepts you know nothing about.

And you won't accept how easy, empirically valid and sensible it is to refute your position.

 

[MightyFighting]

Couldn't we better use the money to just look at alternative reosurces? I mean, the only downer is that as most physics students will tell you, it's nigh on impossible to find a better way fo creating energy than combustion... but still...

That's basically true, but there are no doubt many things that could be made just a little more efficient.

Maybe car engines are about as efficient as they can get (I don't know, but the physical limit on engine efficiency is fairly low), but lighter car materials, and that sort of thing are always an option.

 

[section8]

That's basically true, but there are no doubt many things that could be made just a little more efficient.

Maybe car engines are about as efficient as they can get (I don't know, but the physical limit on engine efficiency is fairly low), but lighter car materials, and that sort of thing are always an option.

Is the "1% of gases" statement accurate as well?

 

[MightyFighting]

Is the "1% of gases" statement accurate as well?

The statement was "1% of warming", and it is part of the ongoing speculation, theorising, and modelling. You should know that while 1% may seem very little, it can be plenty to have a serious effect on human life.

You seem to be aware of the fluctuations, so are you aware that the Earth seemed to be heading toward an ice age until the effects of global warming kicked in? Speculation again, I know, but it implies that global warming combined with an upward fluctuation could, in the future, bring the average global temperature to an inhospitable. (This is the other extreme of the current theories, but according to either theory, we are facing serious consequences. Massive hurricanes, for example.)

 

[camsmith]

I love how this thread has talked about almost every topic one could ever think of.

Pity about the idiots in here.. *looks at "just maybe"*

 

[rick James]

I love how this thread has talked about almost every topic one could ever think of.

Pity about the idiots in here.. *looks at "just maybe"*

Everyone here is an idiot at some stage, depending on the subject.

 

[just maybe]

I love how this thread has talked about almost every topic one could ever think of.

Pity about the idiots in here.. *looks at "just maybe"*

Hahahah, don't you have some homework to do?

 

[rick James]

Hahahah, don't you have some homework to do?

*looks at the evidence against the claim you and murray made*

awaiting reply...

 

[just maybe]

Yes. It would be nice to read rather than broad sweeping statements.

Pretty much everything I've written in the first post is undisputed fact. I see some of those facts as negative legacies.

If you disagree, explain why. If you think some of them aren't facts, explain why.

Your comparison was completely invalid. You made a critique of my personality. Big difference, as that is not something that can inherently be defined.

Further proof you look not to contribute to anything I produce, but to nitpick and harrass me like a troll.

This was a discussion thread of fairly commonly understood situations - not a thread where I come out and provide voluminous evidence that each point occurred before we can discuss it. You will find few people who will dispute any of what I have written.

If you can, please do so. I suspect you won't, because you are not here to contribute, merely to attack me. If you are going to take that immature path, I suggest you look elsewhere.

 

[rick James]

Pretty much everything I've written in the first post is undisputed fact. I see some of those facts as negative legacies.

If you disagree, explain why. If you think some of them aren't facts, explain why.

Your comparison was completely invalid. You made a critique of my personality. Big difference, as that is not something that can inherently be defined.

Further proof you look not to contribute to anything I produce, but to nitpick and harrass me like a troll.

This was a discussion thread of fairly commonly understood situations - not a thread where I come out and provide voluminous evidence that each point occurred before we can discuss it. You will find few people who will dispute any of what I have written.

If you can, please do so. I suspect you won't, because you are not here to contribute, merely to attack me. If you are going to take that immature path, I suggest you look elsewhere.

but why will you not defend a claim you agree with and added to yourlist? You can't claim it, see it get shot down then refuse to back up where you were coming from.

 

[just maybe]

Just for you, skip, here's the points again.

- the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century

Fact.

- the deterioriation of relations with China

Fact. Consider the spy plane incident and the Taiwan issue.

- the alienation of numerous countries with rhetoric such as 'axis of evil'

Fact.

- the denial of 'global warming' as a phenomenon and a refusal to face it as a policy issue

Fact.

- horrifically slow responses to Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser extent, Rita, turning parts of the Deep South into Third World scenes

Fact.

- the deepening instability of the US economy

Fact.

- the invasion of two sovereign countries (Iraq and Afghanistan)

Fact.

- overseeing Iraq descend into chaos, brutally exposing US lack of a post-Saddam plan

Fact.

- the increasing crisis of the worst health system in the First World

Fact.

- the refusal to work with others to reduce pollution and emissions

Fact. Bush says: 'Our industry is paramount and any agreement will be subjugate to our industries'.

- the demotion of human rights as a practical priority (cf: Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay etc)

Fact.

- the unveiling and actual use of the repugnant 'pre-emption' doctrine

Fact.

- the chance to load the Supreme Court for two generations in deeply conservative, Republican favour

Fact.

- the disturbingly increased fusion of church and state in politics

Fact.

- the weakening of the UN as a multilateral organisation

Fact.

- the push for the National Missile Defence doctrine

Fact.

- the double standards on nuclear proliferation

Fact - happy for some states to have nukes but not others - ie India, Pakistan, Israel vs North Korea, Iran etc

- the unqualified support of Israel

Fact.

- the double standards on human rights and 'terrorism'

Fact. Cf: New civil rights crackdowns in the name of 'protecting against terror'

- the fragmentation of world trade through bilateral focus

Fact: look at America's attitude to APEC and increasing use of bilateral TAs

- deliberately giving the finger to world free trade with the astonishingly protectionist US Farm Bill

Fact.


None of them are broad, sweeping statements, skip. They're all FACTS. And I consider them all to be negative - THAT is the point of the thread. That those FACTS are negative LEGACIES of Bush's tenure.

Now, if you wish to contribute, please do so. If you instead wish to take indefensible stances to try and attain some sort of 'moral high ground', you should leave. Your attempts to degrade me are becoming puerile and pathetic.

 

[just maybe]

but why will you not defend a claim you agree with and added to yourlist? You can't claim it, see it get shot down then refuse to back up where you were coming from.

I didn't agree with the claim or add it to my list. Check it again.

The fact is, Moore's statement is not a lie, and your attempts to paint it as a lie do not change anything. It is a deliberate use of the facts to paint a certain picture, but it is not a lie.

 

[rick James]

some of those are, at the least, open to interpretation.

Now, for the final time, will you defend the claim you said was 100% accurate that saudi's, specifically the bin ladens, were allowed out of America before airspace was reopened on September 13?

If NOT, that's great, just simply admit that you were wrong and that in fact they were not allowed out prior airspace being reopened.

 

[rick James]

I didn't agree with the claim or add it to my list. Check it again.

The fact is, Moore's statement is not a lie, and your attempts to paint it as a lie do not change anything. It is a deliberate use of the facts to paint a certain picture, but it is not a lie.

moore was clever in his statement, his indeed, was not a lie.

However I said MURRAY'S was a lie, which it was, as he flat out said (whereas moore trickily tried to infer even though it was inaccurate) that the bin ladens were allowed out before other planes had been cleared for departure.

Would you agree with that? Because earlier you specifically said MURRAY wasn't lying, not moore, murray.

 

[rick James]

do we all agree this was a lie on murray's part?

Not at all. It wasn't a lie.

that's what I was referring to.

 

[just maybe]

some of those are, at the least, open to interpretation.

Now, for the final time, will you defend the claim you said was 100% accurate that saudi's, specifically the bin ladens, were allowed out of America before airspace was reopened on September 13?

If NOT, that's great, just simply admit that you were wrong and that in fact they were not allowed out prior airspace being reopened.

I never said it was 100% accurate. Don't misquote me. I said it was not a lie. And it isn't. It is a twisting of the facts to paint a certain picture.

And airspace was not simply 'reopened' on the 13th, it was a limited reopening for a limited class of airflight.

And if anything I've stated is open to interpretation, point it out. As far as I am concerned, they are all verifiable facts.

 

[just maybe]

moore was clever in his statement, his indeed, was not a lie.

However I said MURRAY'S was a lie, which it was, as he flat out said (whereas moore trickily tried to infer even though it was inaccurate) that the bin ladens were allowed out before other planes had been cleared for departure.

Would you agree with that? Because earlier you specifically said MURRAY wasn't lying, not moore, murray.

The Bin Ladens were allowed out before pretty much any other planes had been cleared for departure - in fact they may have been the first.

In which case it was either

a. not a lie
b. a deliberate use of words to give you that impression.

Neither of which are lies