Another point I left out: Maybe they aren't being targeted as much because they aren't making as many stupid statements. Yet people here like to say ALL Republicans are stupid, gay hating, tea-baggers, young-earthers, birthers, etc. I can show you posters who have used those terms as if they were interchangeable.
Obama Without a Teleprompter!
- Thread starter Nester6
- Start date
Another point I left out: Maybe they aren't being targeted as much because they aren't making as many stupid statements. Yet people here like to say ALL Republicans are stupid, gay hating, tea-baggers, young-earthers, birthers, etc. I can show you posters who have used those terms as if they were interchangeable.
no one was mocking Romney for saying something stupid and proving he is an idiot.
people were mocking Romney for his ideology that big business should trump consumer/labor rights
people were mocking Romney for his ideology that big business should trump consumer/labor rights
ban-one
Works for panties
So? Lots of people believe the theory(yes, it is a theory) of intelligent design. And I'll give you one, really good reason why. You know the big bang theory? Now by my understanding of the latest version I've heard, all the matter that is now in the Universe (and that's a lot of matter) and twice that in matter and anti-matter for annihilation after, existed in an impossibly tiny space. First, where did all that come from to begin with? And second, three times all the matter in the Universe was in a very tiny area, of which 2/3s would've annihilated each other. If some God didn't do that, what did? Or, are we in some Petri dish of some even larger civilization?
You're citing me someone who is clearly in the bag for 'man-made climate change,' and apparently has an ax to grind with those of us who would dare question them, with facts and not talking points? They're a dime a dozen. Climategate emails call into serious question those who backed this theory, and that website wants me to ignore them? So, I'm just supposed to blindly trust scientists that use questionable methods and have dubious claims and goals? Hmm, well, now that wouldn't be a very good idea, would it? Seems to me something like this happened before, where science and government got together, and a bunch of people got killed because science said they weren't worthy to live. Hmm, now where was that? I think it was the 1930s...
However, I will say that I disagree with the theory of 'man-made climate change,' for both scientific and political reasons, because both apply, and to separate the two is impossible because they are so intertwined, by those on the left who are backing it and pushing it so hard.
As for the 'BS,' you really think our little planet has always been this temperature? Did you not pay attention in school when they covered how warm it was when there were dinosaurs, how it was cold enough for an Ice Age(woolly mammoths, saber tooth tigers, bridge from Asia to Alaska, etc), warmed and we flourished, Vikings found Greenland (I'll emphasize that for you again Greenland), got cold and forced them to leave, and then we had a year without a summer, or how much crap volcanoes spew into our atmosphere, or how much impact the sun's energy has on our little world, or how giant space rocks hit Earth and mess with its climate, or how the Earth's climate does naturally sway back and forth, or did they not cover all that or is all that science wrong?
Also, by it's very definition, we are still currently in an Ice Age, because of that white stuff at the poles.
Oh, and speaking of BS, have you heard Al Gore's rant? I think we may have you guys alittle rattled. And for the record, I chose that one for it's clear audio, and not that little cartoon intro.
There have been a few, here's two of them which I found with a cursory search.
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=246756
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=281198
And this is the Republican primary season while Biden have been rather quiet lately, so the imbalance is understandable.
Not interested in watching that video but I will be happy to fact-check them if anyone quotes from it.
'Corporations are people my friend' one? First, it wasn't a gaffe. Second, I don't think anyone said he was stupid for saying that, just politically naive.
Sure, 8 years of Bushisms alone would run into dozens of pages. I don't think Bachmann, Santorum etc would even feature till the 50th page.
On the one hand right-wingers do not want to believe in AGW for a variety of reasons but are very eager to put their faith in something as flimsy as Intelligent Design - speaks volumes of their scientific bent.
And lots of people believe in the tooth fairy, however matters of science is about the scientific consensus and not about majority beliefs.
Every single one of your talking point has been refuted there with numerous references and peer reviewed journals. Feel free to question them and maybe debunk them as well with your own peer reviewed research.
You seem to be very upto date.
Well, they are called peer reviewed for a reason, you don't have to blindly trust anyone. However I am sure they have far nobler intentions than the oil companies funding anti-AGW studies.
Between, recently a Koch funded group trying to disprove AGW ended up testifying in front of the Congress supporting it.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404
Very scientific analysis, now how about trying to go through that link again? You will find answers to most of your questions pretty easily.
Fuck Al Gore, only right-wingers seem to be obsessed about him. A scientific consensus is more than about one person.
ban-one
Works for panties
First, who the hell is 'snopes?' Two, I didn't say he was a Muslim, just that in a clip I had seen he said that, and then was corrected. And you know what, the clip may have been edited to look like that. I don't know. And frankly, I (and more of us than you'd probably care to admit) don't really care what religion he is, if any as that also seems to be a choice for some, and it's people on the left that keep bringing it up to accuse us of it when you have no where else to go. I do have a question for you. I thought you guys on the left had a problem with those of faith, or is just with people of faith who disagree with your views? Hypocrisy, anyone?
That may be, however, remember a little conversation Obama had with a certain plumber?
Two, Obamacare is another good example. It's socialized medicine, just like in Europe.
Hmm, now as I wasn't born until 1984, I wasn't really cognizant of the events of the '80s as they happened and while I lived through them. However, I seem to recall an annoying (for you anyway) little fact that Reagan had Democrat Congresses. Hmm, where do tax bills come from? Oh, that's right, Congress. And to get anything he wanted done, Reagan had to compromise with Democrat Congress. I believe that was also the case with Obama and the Congressional Republicans for those tax cuts that, as I seem to recall, Obama didn't want.
As I recall, Obama wanted to end the tax cuts for the 'rich' (which is in quotes, because it changes from time to time, with the low end ranging from $100K or lower to $1M, and depending on where you live, that's not rich) thus raising their taxes for the purposes of turning around and using that money to give tax cuts and freebies to those who make less or nothing. Hmm, sounds like 'redistribution of wealth' to me.
Redistribution of wealth, it's solely a Marxist, socialist thing. And raising taxes in itself doesn't make you a 'Marxist.' It's what you want to do with that money that does.
Also, I though you guys hated Reagan, and now there's all kinds of comparisons as to how like Reagan Obama is. I got news for you. Obama's no Reagan.
They act as fact-checkers, that's right - facts - something you seem to be allergic to.
Right, you didn't. You were just hinting it using a debunked old video.
The left is not a monolith and do check out what the term 'strawman' means when you get a chance.
Right, advocating for tax cuts that are more evenly distributed is Marxism. A position that many Republicans had including Mccain and the current Senate Minority Leader Mcconell.
Right, extending private health insurance using tax credits which the leading Conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation promoted in the 90's is socialized medicine and Marxist. And let's not even talk about Romney here.
You don't have to live through an era to know what happened during it, that's why we have history books. And Presidents' have something called the veto pen, if they didn't want those tax increases then they could have used it. But do keep assuming whatever you want to believe.
Between, Obama pushed through a lot of tax cuts on his own but since they were not for the top 2%, I guess you never heard of them.
First of all, you got the numbers wrong again right after I posted a chart highlighting them. Second, in case you haven't heard there are wars going on along with massive deficits due to a recession, maybe he wanted to close that gap instead of giving all that money to the undeserving poor.
So Bush was Marxist too? He pushed through Medicare Part D, a costlier healthcare program than Obama's.
Oh he is not, Unemployment never touched 10% under Obama like it did under Reagan.
No, actually. I'm sure that you couldn't. Regardless of what you think about him, he's 1. better educated, 2. better informed, 3. likely smarter. He's an awfully smart guy, you know. You simply can not deny that.
ban-one
Works for panties
So, instead of challenging me on something worthwhile, we're getting into semantics here? 'Looked at,' 'studied,' to many those are synonyms.
I have thought about it. Yes, there are many more vehicles on the planet now, as in fact there used to be none. I also know those vehicles pollute less and less with each model year. Same with pollution from other sources, except China who doesn't seem to be real worried about it do they, with all those coal power plants they're building? Hmm, that's strange, China is building many, many new coal power plants, but we can't because of 'man-made climate change.' The silence from the left about the effect on the climate that'll have is deafening. Just like how alotta people don't like to admit that by the time you get your Prius, it's polluted more than most vehicles in their lifetime with the minerals from Chinese mines and shipping them around the wold a few times for assembly. Not to mention, what exactly happens to all those batteries once they die? Uh-oh. That could be a problem, huh? I also know that volcanoes put more crap into the air in one eruption, than we do from all the various ways we do in years, so still small by comparison. The plants still love it.
Okay, shrinking rain forest. Boy that's a tough one. Hmm, I wasn't aware that all the plants on Earth were in jungles? I know alot of them are, but there's still plenty of plants in other places, and I think I've heard somewhere that actually the algae in the seas and oceans does far more than the jungles. And that's what, 70% of the Earth's surface? Also, the other plants will grow better with more CO2, and if it gets warmer, to quote Dale Gribble for some levity here, "We'll grow oranges in Alaska."
I think you missed my point. They're using that analogy incorrectly. Go back and read it again. As for what harm comes from one or the other, if we're wrong, what? The Earth gets warmer by a few degrees over a hundred years? Plants grow better, fewer deaths, we flourish in warmth as proven by when we expanded the last time it was warmer than this (Greenland? Vikings?), and like Dale Gribble said, "We'll grow oranges in Alaska." If those who believe are wrong, but yet still get all their things done, what happens? Well, alotta rich people get richer, which I thought the left didn't like, while the rest of us are living in the Middle Ages (or worse), when I thought the left was for the middle and lower classes (Hmm, quite the conundrum.), and alotta people die from starvation because we can't farm as efficiently as we once could. Even more depending on who you ask, because some of them want a significant decrease in the human population because we're somehow harming our precious and delicate Earth (see below). That's scarey. But I remember some other people from the left wanting that too, but for a different reason. Hmm, same goals, different tactics to get there. Not allot has changed in 110 years, has it?
'Precious?' Until we can colonize other worlds, you bet. As for 'delicate,' may I remind you yet again that our planet constantly spews toxic crap into its own air from volcanoes, constantly leaks oil into the ocean without us ever being affected by it (and in most cases unaware), and has survived millions of years of all kinds of horrific celestial collisions? I believe one theory has our moon being created by a collision with a body the size on Mars. And that there have been thousands, if not millions of comet and asteroid impacts on our planet, some larger than others, but the planet's still here, and life is still here and thriving.
emceeemcee
Banned
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors. Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years.
http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm
I don't think you know anything,at least on this subject.
ban-one
Works for panties
I give you credit for your use of logic to get to you're little gotcha there about the oxygen, however your moment of logical thinking must've been fleeting, because you didn't go the step or two further beyond that. First, it wouldn't be an overnight change, and I would assume you believe in evolution to some degree. Even I concede it must happen at some level, because things adapt to their changing surroundings. So, wouldn't creatures adapt and change? You know there was more oxygen back when the dinosaurs were around. That's why they and all those bugs were so big. It's happened before, and it can happen again. Secondly, with more food and oxygen, the Earth can support more animals to use up the surplus. I would think that would be good for all those that are endangered. Might suck to be a polar bear or penguin, but oh well. That's the sad conclusion to evolution for you. If you can't adapt, you're gone. Third, and this is just thinking outside the box, but, what do you say we bottle it, and take it to the moon or Mars to set up a base there before some space rock tries to do to us what one may have done to the dinosaurs?
Well, first, all your stuff has been 'professionally scrutinized' by like-minded people. And I haven't heard of anyone on our side not wanting their data scrutinized, to just get the other side out there. But they aren't allowed to even do that. They're just dismissed because they don't tow the line, and your side can't afford to have a counter view. Why else do you think they say 'consensus' so much? It's because they don't want us looking at their data. Consensus isn't science. Fact, whatever it may ultimately be, is science.
Uh-huh. So, you'll just take them from science journals parroting studies paid for by people who stand to gain from 'man-made climate change?' You do that.
? who stands to profit from 'climate change'? specifically?
who stands to profit from climate change denial? specifically the entire petrol industry hands down
incentives - one glaringly clear cut, the other is just a concept
who stands to profit from climate change denial? specifically the entire petrol industry hands down
incentives - one glaringly clear cut, the other is just a concept
Ace Bandage
The one and only.
Manbearpig is thrilled that you're all focusing on global warming rather than the true threat...
:elaugh:
:elaugh:
So you're just blindly defending him... Even better. Well, here is just a few:
- Talking about traveling 'to every corner of the United States' he went to '57 states, with one more to go.' And Alaska and Hawaii he was 'not aloud to go to.'
- Speaking of 'fallen heroes' he said he saw a few of them 'in the audience'. I have no doubt some of those in attendance looked like corpses, but I'm sure that's not what he meant.
- He says the reforms he seeks would bring 'inefficiencies to our health care system.' Obviously he meant efficiency.
There were more, but once again, my point isn't what Obama said, but that people are so one-sided here. There is even a thread about the Republican hypocrisy, but the left hypocrisy is never brought up because that is the norm on this forum. Only one party is consistently mocked here. Fine, it's a porn forum, I expect it to be liberal. But when one side is mocked, and the other side is DEFENDED for doing the SAME thing - it's hypocritical.
He uses ProPrompter... Then downloads his script to his cellphone, then acts like he's busy. :1orglaugh
boo hoo
When are you attack the president for his policies (y'know, the things that affects the US? There is a fuck obama thread already on the board, but because it doesn't deal with teleprompters, label pins, birth certificates, or fascist socialism....you're all out of material, I guess.
The stuff you're complaining about is meaningless bullshit. I guess his job AS a president is A-okay for you then
ban-one
Works for panties
Did you seriously write that? "matters of science is about the scientific consensus and not about majority beliefs" I'm sorry, I believe by its very definiti0on 'a consensus' is majority belief. Look it up.
We don't believe, and 'believe' is the key word there, because of all the times our planet's climate has changed without any possible interference by us, but now if it is happening, it's our fault? And I wouldn't call our belief in Intelligent Design 'flimsy,' if I were you.
I would submit to you that 'man-made climate change' is just as much a religion as it is anything because of how much faith is in it actually happening, or that we're causing it, with no tangible proof. And actually, 'consensus' has nothing to do with science. What is is, whether one person, or two million, say it.
I'm sorry, I didn't know I got talking points. Besides, even if I did question and debunk your stuff with my stuff (which I have to my satisfaction), I'm not gonna change your mind, now am I? Just like you're not gonna change mine.
Seriously? You're citing me Wikipedia? Really? How desperate are you? I have a feeling of deja vu, but here goes. Any and everyone can and does edit Wikipedia, no matter their background, or if they have expertise, let alone knowledge, in that area(and most do not). Many times things are edited for political gain. Just ask Rush and Glenn Beck. They're pages get edited by the left all the time. You cannot trust Wikipedia. You have no idea who wrote what.
More deja vu, 'peer reviewed' by like-minded scientists. And as for the 'nobler intentions than the oil companies,' how 'bout GE? You don't think they stand to profit greatly if all this stuff gets done? They had 'Green' Week' seemingly every month on their channels for propaganda purposes, and they make those squirrely little CFLs. Oh, and I hope you don't break one of those. Lots of mercury. Very, very toxic. EPA has to come in and clean it up. Cost you lots of money. (personally, I'd just scoop the damn thing up and toss it in the trash, cut out the expensive middle man) But, they're gonna be tossed in the trash and crushed at landfills anyway when they burn out. I know, 'cause I've done it. Hmm. Maybe we should've stuck to the incandescent light. Worst they could do is cut you with the glass.
What is with the left and the Koch brothers? Jeez, let it go. And by the way, you have a very large assumption there that I even care about what the Koch brothers do. Apparently because I'm on the right, I must know who they are and agree with them. I can't even tell you who they are, or what they do. I've heard of them, and know enough to know the left likes to harp on them, but that's all. I have no idea if I agree with anything of theirs.
Also, did you read what's just under the main headline that tells you everything you need to know?
"A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies."
Hmm, 'UC Berkeley,' and 'preliminary findings.' Don't hafta read beyond that to know what that story's worth. Not even the paper, or hard drive space, that story is printed on.
I had questions? Oh, yes, I did. They were to you, about if you payed attention in class, or if they even taught those things to you or if that science is wrong. I have no questions that link may answer.
Well, he might not appreciate that. Then again, he might. Who knows? But, um..., Al Gore is the face of and one of the biggest proponents of 'man-made climate change.' That is why us right-wingers seem so obsessed with him. He's bringing all that attention to himself.
And more deja vu, science is not consensus. A consensus of scientists said the world was flat. Consensus is just basically mob rule.
Talk about hypocrite...how prodigious is it to see someone criticizing the Faux pas of someone else while making a Faux pas...
:hairpull:
:hairpull:I often complain about Obama's policies (spending mostly), and have never bitched about his birth certificate, lapel (not label) pins, or anything you list here. I haven't even said anything about a teleprompter because everyone uses teleprompters. So I think this 'boo hooing' should be directed elsewhere.
Besides, aren't you the one not voting? What do you care? You aren't part of the solution, so why follow politics at all? Seems like you're just making an out for yourself to bitch about whoever gets elected.
Similar threads
