Liberals think protesting is racist!
AZDuffman
Still think B Hussein Obama doesn't catch a break based on skin
color? PMSNBC lets a liberal guest say the tea parties are just about
a black being in The White House. No challenge from the host shows a
clear bias.
And I love how they change "Tea Party" to a bath-house reference.
Where are the howls of protest form the gay community? Oh, I forgot,
liberals can make such statements unchallenged.
Newt/Palin in 12--the country you save may be your own!
John Passaniti
> Still think B Hussein Obama doesn't catch a break based on skin
> color? PMSNBC lets a liberal guest say the tea parties are just about
> a black being in The White House. No challenge from the host shows a
> clear bias.
There are a wide variety of reasons why people got involved in the "tea
parties." Some were indeed sincere. Others were not. Some when
interviewed gave all sorts of bizarre reasons why there were there. And
yes, there were a handful of racists who latched on. To pretend there
weren't a wide array of reasons why people joined on the "tea parties"
is simply ignoring the news.
Wow, thanks for exposing that Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo have
a liberal bias. What is your next amazing statement-- that the sky is
blue and that grass is green? In case you didn't get the memo, it's
perfectly acceptable for television hosts of commentary programs to have
a bias. Indeed, that's the reason why people tune in.
> And I love how they change "Tea Party" to a bath-house reference.
> Where are the howls of protest form the gay community? Oh, I forgot,
> liberals can make such statements unchallenged.
First, "tea party" isn't a bath-house reference. The phrase "tea party"
is more commonly associated with pot smokers. I've heard some use of
"tea party" refer to sex parties, but it's not exclusively homosexual.
The word you're probably thinking of is "teabagging", which is also not
a bath-house reference. It may have originated in gay subculture, but
hasn't been limited to that for years. I remember seeing straight porn
in the early 90's that referred to "teabagging."
As for why the gay community isn't in "howls of protest" over "tea
party" and "teabagging" you'll have to explain to me why we should give
a damn. Most of us are just amused to hell at how typical out-of-touch
Republicans and Conservatives stepped on a double entendre landmine.
Hell, if anything, sexually literate liberals of all stripes have been
having oodles of fun trying to get the protesters and leaders of
protesters to call themselves teabaggers. There is no howls of protest
from anyone over this-- there is just howls of laughter.
> Newt/Palin in 12--the country you save may be your own!
Yes! Newt can talk about where he met his third wife while espousing
traditional marriage values, and Palin can trot out her daughter as a
example of abstinence. Republicans: Do as we say, not as we do.
AZDuffman
> There are a wide variety of reasons why people got involved in the "tea
> parties." Some were indeed sincere. Others were not. Some when
> interviewed gave all sorts of bizarre reasons why there were there. And
> yes, there were a handful of racists who latched on. To pretend there
> weren't a wide array of reasons why people joined on the "tea parties"
> is simply ignoring the news.
I didn't say there weren't a wide array of reasons people joined in.
And if you interview in a crowd long enough you will get a crazy type
to give a crazy answer. My point is as soon as a conservative protest
sprouts up (conservative protests are less common as during the week
conservatives are most often in school or at some sort of job)
liberals just shout "RACIST" just because we have a black in the WH.
So I guess to the left, any criticism of B Hussein Obama will be
considered "racist."
> Wow, thanks for exposing that Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo have
> a liberal bias. What is your next amazing statement-- that the sky is
> blue and that grass is green? In case you didn't get the memo, it's
> perfectly acceptable for television hosts of commentary programs to have
> a bias. Indeed, that's the reason why people tune in.
Trying to expose more that liberals complain FoxNews, which is mostly
down the middle, is some how biased while their own networks will let
liberals say anything without challenge. Of course, FOX does a much
better job at balance and that is why it leads in the ratings.
> First, "tea party" isn't a bath-house reference. The phrase "tea party"
> is more commonly associated with pot smokers. I've heard some use of
> "tea party" refer to sex parties, but it's not exclusively homosexual.
>
> The word you're probably thinking of is "teabagging", which is also not
> a bath-house reference. It may have originated in gay subculture, but
> hasn't been limited to that for years. I remember seeing straight porn
> in the early 90's that referred to "teabagging."
You need to read closer. I didn't say "tea party" is a bathhouse
reference. I said they CHANGED the term to a bathhouse reference, and
you are right in that by that I meant they say the protesters were
"teabagging." to my knowlege, no party organizers said they were
"teabagging"--that was done by the mainsteream media in their desire
to show any protest when a liberal is in office to be a bunch of
kooks.
> As for why the gay community isn't in "howls of protest" over "tea
> party" and "teabagging" you'll have to explain to me why we should give
> a damn. Most of us are just amused to hell at how typical out-of-touch
> Republicans and Conservatives stepped on a double entendre landmine.
> Hell, if anything, sexually literate liberals of all stripes have been
> having oodles of fun trying to get the protesters and leaders of
> protesters to call themselves teabaggers. There is no howls of protest
> from anyone over this-- there is just howls of laughter.
Why should you give a damn? Well, because anytime a gay is shown in a
bad way, gay leaders seem to howl in protest. Gays say, "what is
wrong with being gay" all the time. So comparing a group to something
gay--well, it would seem to me that gay leaders would say, "Why do you
imply they are gay?"
I mean, if you want to be gay, hey, that is your choice. But why
should a bunch of people standing up against waste and high taxes have
it implied they are gay?
> > Newt/Palin in 12--the country you save may be your own!
>
> Yes! Newt can talk about where he met his third wife while espousing
> traditional marriage values, and Palin can trot out her daughter as a
> example of abstinence. Republicans: Do as we say, not as we do.
What has Palin's daughter got to do with it? What do Newt's marital
problems got to do with anything?
But, since you are not in favor of traditional marrige or abstinence
from what I have seen I would assume you would give them your vote!
John Passaniti
> I didn't say there weren't a wide array of reasons people joined in.
> And if you interview in a crowd long enough you will get a crazy type
> to give a crazy answer. My point is as soon as a conservative protest
> sprouts up (conservative protests are less common as during the week
> conservatives are most often in school or at some sort of job)
> liberals just shout "RACIST" just because we have a black in the WH.
> So I guess to the left, any criticism of B Hussein Obama will be
> considered "racist."
Correction. Janeane Garofalo shouted "racist." Janene says lots of
things-- some I agree with and some I don't. To pretend she is the de
facto "voice of liberals" is stupid.
Most liberal commentary I've seen on the subject of the protests made no
mention of racist elements (which of course *were* there). Most chose
instead to focus on how utterly manufactured the outrage was. What may
have started as a grass-roots effort by some was taken over by the
Republican party as a smokescreen for having no concrete solutions--
just recycled catchphrases.
Of course, the best part is that the vast majority of protesters did
make less than $250k, and they all got a tax cut. Kind of takes the
wind out of sails, so they had to shift the argument. And that's when
they started to show the cracks of this manufactured outrage.
> Trying to expose more that liberals complain FoxNews, which is mostly
> down the middle, is some how biased while their own networks will let
> liberals say anything without challenge. Of course, FOX does a much
> better job at balance and that is why it leads in the ratings.
Yes, if you're already heavily skewed to the right, then you'll likely
see Fox News as balanced.
> You need to read closer. I didn't say "tea party" is a bathhouse
> reference. I said they CHANGED the term to a bathhouse reference, and
> you are right in that by that I meant they say the protesters were
> "teabagging." to my knowlege, no party organizers said they were
> "teabagging"--that was done by the mainsteream media in their desire
> to show any protest when a liberal is in office to be a bunch of
> kooks.
Actually, I believe it was Eric Cantor who was the first to use use the
phrase "teabagging" and it was Jon Stewart on The Daily Show who picked
up on his unintended double entendre. Michelle Malkin was the second
person I'm aware of who tried to ride the populism wave by using
"teabagging" in a non-ironic context.
On Fox News, commentators galore used "teabagging" left and right, again
to the amusement of those who were more sexually literal (or who had
UrbanDictionary.com available).
> Why should you give a damn? Well, because anytime a gay is shown in a
> bad way, gay leaders seem to howl in protest.
Again, what is supposedly "gay" about "teabagging." It's not an
exclusively homosexual activity. And even if "teabagging" is
interpreted by some as being a gay activity, why is it supposedly a bad
thing? It's just a subset of oral sex. I enjoy it. It's fun.
> Gays say, "what is
> wrong with being gay" all the time. So comparing a group to something
> gay--well, it would seem to me that gay leaders would say, "Why do you
> imply they are gay?"
I read that several times, and it still doesn't make sense to me.
Your error is in assuming "teabagging" is exclusively (or even
predominately) a gay thing. Yep, it involves one man and one mouth.
But the gender attached to that mouth doesn't matter.
> I mean, if you want to be gay, hey, that is your choice. But why
> should a bunch of people standing up against waste and high taxes have
> it implied they are gay?
They aren't, but let's assume they are. Why would there be outrage from
the gay community? Like I wrote before, we're just amused to hell that
irony-impaired Republicans and Conservatives seem so sexually clueless
as to pick "teabagging" as a verb. It's funny to us; I'm sorry that
your fantasy that this would be seen as an outrage didn't occur.
> What has Palin's daughter got to do with it?
Last I checked, she had a parent who presumably was responsible for
teaching her to abstain from sex until marriage. So there is an obvious
question of if Palin is a poor parent, a poor communicator to her
daughter, or if her daughter just ignored Mom's advice. Regardless, it
vividly shows that even in supposedly ideal families, abstinence is not
a realistic option to prevent pregnancy.
> What do Newt's marital problems got to do with anything?
It's mostly the hypocrisy that does it for me. At the same time Newt
was leading the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton's affair, he
was having an affair while married to his second wife. That woman later
turned out to be his third wife.
If Newt wasn't out there moralizing about marriage, I wouldn't have a
problem. But there he is-- after the poor treatment of his first wife
and his cheating on his second, yeah, I think that goes directly to
character.
Or are you saying that character doesn't matter? Please tell me why
Newt's personal history shouldn't matter. Explain that to me.
> But, since you are not in favor of traditional marrige or abstinence
> from what I have seen I would assume you would give them your vote!
Actually, I am all for the traditional secular institution of marriage,
and want to fully participate in it, since that is how my partner and I
choose to model our relationship.
And I'm all for abstinence, but I'm also realistic and understand that
abstinence alone is... dumb. I think abstinence should be discussed and
promoted, but not at the expense of other birth control.
As for voting, no, I wouldn't vote for either of them. Newt's ethics
violations scare me, and Palin's stupidity makes me fear for our country.
AZDuffman
>
> > What do Newt's marital problems got to do with anything?
>
> It's mostly the hypocrisy that does it for me. At the same time Newt
> was leading the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton's affair, he
> was having an affair while married to his second wife. That woman later
> turned out to be his third wife.
>
> If Newt wasn't out there moralizing about marriage, I wouldn't have a
> problem. But there he is-- after the poor treatment of his first wife
> and his cheating on his second, yeah, I think that goes directly to
> character.
Ah, yes, ignoring the facts of the matter. It was not "investigating
an affair for charachter" sake. It was about perjury. Let me place
you in an example.
Suppose you get a job at say Xerox. It comes time fore review. You
are called into your bosses office and after he closes the door, he
drops his pants and says, "take it in your mouth or no raise!"
Naturally you will decline and run out. Next you will get a lawyer!
So you justifiably sue for harassment. Then it comes time for the
"discovery phase."
In the interim you hae heard rumors this guy has done it before, and
in fact another male employee is having an affair with the boss. It
is clearly stipulated that this is against company policy.
Discovery begins. Your boss is sworn in, which means a lie carrys the
weight of perjury. Your lawyer says, "Are you now or have you ever
had an affair with another male employe; or propositioned another male
employee who reports to you?"
You boss answers, "No, never!" And out goes your chance of hurting
his credibility on cross-examination,
STILL THINK IT IS NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS?????? STILL THINK NEWT WAS
BEING "NOSY?"
Because that is esentially what happened when Bill Clinton was asked
about an affair by Paula Jones' lawyer.
AZDuffman
> Correction. Janeane Garofalo shouted "racist." Janene says lots of
> things-- some I agree with and some I don't. To pretend she is the de
> facto "voice of liberals" is stupid.
Yet somehow Rush Limbaugh is "the voice of the GOP?"
> Most liberal commentary I've seen on the subject of the protests made no
> mention of racist elements (which of course *were* there). Most chose
> instead to focus on how utterly manufactured the outrage was. What may
> have started as a grass-roots effort by some was taken over by the
> Republican party as a smokescreen for having no concrete solutions--
> just recycled catchphrases.
>
> Of course, the best part is that the vast majority of protesters did
> make less than $250k, and they all got a tax cut. Kind of takes the
> wind out of sails, so they had to shift the argument. And that's when
> they started to show the cracks of this manufactured outrage.
Maybe they are not as greedy as you are and are upset when taxes go up
in general? Or maybe they are tired of suggestions of all other kinds
of new taxex, liek on non-diet pop? Or maybe they know they will be
whalloped when B Hussein Obama tries to push thru his "cap-and-tax"
carbon plan for a nonexistant problem?
> Again, what is supposedly "gay" about "teabagging." It's not an
> exclusively homosexual activity. And even if "teabagging" is
> interpreted by some as being a gay activity, why is it supposedly a bad
> thing? It's just a subset of oral sex. I enjoy it. It's fun.
It is clearly connotated to be a gay activity. No straight guy would
say it in terms of being with a female. But if you want to be a
catcher, your choice.
> > wrong with being gay" all the time. So comparing a group to something
> > gay--well, it would seem to me that gay leaders would say, "Why do you
> > imply they are gay?"
>
> I read that several times, and it still doesn't make sense to me.
1. Gay leaders get upset when "gay" is presented in a negative way
2. The tea partys were being portrayed in a negative way by
mainstream media saying "teabagging"
3. The inference is clearly that teabagging=gay
4. Teabagging/gay is thus being shown in a bad way by the media
5. Where is the same gay-leader outrage as when Arnold called the CA
legislature "girly men?"
> > What has Palin's daughter got to do with it?
>
> Last I checked, she had a parent who presumably was responsible for
> teaching her to abstain from sex until marriage. So there is an obvious
> question of if Palin is a poor parent, a poor communicator to her
> daughter, or if her daughter just ignored Mom's advice. Regardless, it
> vividly shows that even in supposedly ideal families, abstinence is not
> a realistic option to prevent pregnancy.
Abstinence works every time it is tried.
> > But, since you are not in favor of traditional marrige or abstinence
> > from what I have seen I would assume you would give them your vote!
>
> Actually, I am all for the traditional secular institution of marriage,
> and want to fully participate in it, since that is how my partner and I
> choose to model our relationship.
Anyone can participate in the institution of marrige when you marry
one person of the oppisite sex. After that it is not "marrige"
secular or religious. Though various judges are trying to do an end
run around that pesky Constitution and make their own laws on the
matter.
> As for voting, no, I wouldn't vote for either of them. Newt's ethics
> violations scare me, and Palin's stupidity makes me fear for our country.
Meanwhile you are not worried about Obama's naive outlook?
John Passaniti
> Ah, yes, ignoring the facts of the matter. It was not "investigating
> an affair for charachter" sake. It was about perjury. Let me place
> you in an example.
Wow, what a breathtakingly stupid reply.
What I feel about Bill Clinton is completely irrelevant. The issue I'm
bringing up is that during the time of the Congressional investigation
into Bill's infidelity, Newt was having an affair of his own. Newt was
cheating on his second wife with the woman that eventually became his third.
You can try to deflect the issue away from Newt, but the character issue
remains. Bill Clinton is an asshole who cheated on his wife and lied
about it. Newt is at least in the same asshole territory for moralizing
about Bill while at the same time sticking his cock into someone other
than his second wife.
You have infinite patience and forgiveness for all manner of sin-- drug
abuse (Rush), marital infidelity (Newt), etc. When it's one of your
boys, then it's no big deal. But if they have a (D) after their name,
then it's gnashing of teeth and your favorite quotes from Leviticus. I
guess this is just another example of your rather fluid sense of morality.
John Passaniti
>> Correction. Janeane Garofalo shouted "racist." Janene says lots of
>> things-- some I agree with and some I don't. To pretend she is the de
>> facto "voice of liberals" is stupid.
>
> Yet somehow Rush Limbaugh is "the voice of the GOP?"
When liberals say Jeanene is over-reaching, there isn't some liberal
cabal screaming and demanding an apology. Yet when Republicans and
Conservatives point to Rush's whoppers, there is a cry out followed by
genuflection at the altar of Rush.
I'm sorry, I guess you've been out of the country for the past three
months. You may want to look at the number of Republicans who have
expressed their unflattering views on Rush who had to recant when Rush
snapped his fingers.
Yep, he's a de factor leader of the Conservatives, and since the
Republicans still believe that's where their future is, they dare not
cross paths with Rush.
> It is clearly connotated to be a gay activity. No straight guy would
> say it in terms of being with a female. But if you want to be a
> catcher, your choice.
Both pitcher and catcher. It's fun.
> 1. Gay leaders get upset when "gay" is presented in a negative way
Sometimes, yes. Depends on context.
> 2. The tea partys were being portrayed in a negative way by
> mainstream media saying "teabagging"
Maybe *you* perceived it as negative, but I certainly didn't feel it was
negative and I can't find any gay commentator who isn't anything but
amused at the whole thing. I'm sorry that others don't take your
hang-ups and call them their own, but that's your problem.
> 3. The inference is clearly that teabagging=gay
For some, the inference is that teabagging is a gay activity, sure. And
that's part of the fun-- when Eric Cantor says he "wants to teabag the
White House", we're rolling on the couch, laughing our asses off. I
still fail to see why you think we should be outraged.
> 4. Teabagging/gay is thus being shown in a bad way by the media
Nope. What is being shown by the media is the clueless Republicans and
Conservatives didn't know alternate meanings of what they were saying,
it it caused us great amusement.
> 5. Where is the same gay-leader outrage as when Arnold called the CA
> legislature "girly men?"
I guess in your twisted mindscape, these things are all equivalent. And
again, you're free to try to manufacture outrage-- that after all is the
basis of the "tea parties". But I do find it odd that you think you're
at all qualified to express what outrage gays should have. Are you
channeling your inner gay? Wow, this is a big step for you. Do you
need someone to help you through your coming out process?
> Abstinence works every time it is tried.
Yep. Too bad Bristol couldn't keep her legs together. So, who's to
blame there? Mom for not teaching her daughter the wonders of
abstinence? Bristol for being a normal teen, seething with hormones?
Or an unrealistic view of human sexuality?
> Anyone can participate in the institution of marrige when you marry
> one person of the oppisite sex. After that it is not "marrige"
> secular or religious. Though various judges are trying to do an end
> run around that pesky Constitution and make their own laws on the
> matter.
Yep, and we're winning. Must be burning you up inside.
>> As for voting, no, I wouldn't vote for either of them. Newt's ethics
>> violations scare me, and Palin's stupidity makes me fear for our country.
>
> Meanwhile you are not worried about Obama's naive outlook?
I don't see Obama as naive, but even if we accept that, naive beats
ethical violations any day. Newt's past baggage is something you're
evidently able to ignore. Must be that (R) after his name.
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > Ah, yes, ignoring the facts of the matter. It was not "investigating
> > an affair for charachter" sake. It was about perjury. Let me place
> > you in an example.
>
> Wow, what a breathtakingly stupid reply.
I'd say it is spot on. You want to make what Clinton did out to be
"no big deal," "his own business" or whatever. The example I gave
was completely parallel to what Clinton did. Newt does not even
compare.
> What I feel about Bill Clinton is completely irrelevant. The issue I'm
> bringing up is that during the time of the Congressional investigation
> into Bill's infidelity, Newt was having an affair of his own.
And YOU are missing the point. It wasn't an investigation into
"infedelity" it was an investigation into PERJURY. Last I heard, Newt
was not accused of perjury. As Speaker of the House, it was Newt's
Constitutional Duty to investigate the matter.
> You have infinite patience and forgiveness for all manner of sin-- drug
> abuse (Rush), marital infidelity (Newt), etc. When it's one of your
> boys, then it's no big deal. But if they have a (D) after their name,
> then it's gnashing of teeth and your favorite quotes from Leviticus. I
> guess this is just another example of your rather fluid sense of morality.
I'll keep saying it on Limbaugh--he got hooked on an addictive
painkiller for (at first) inoperable pain. I put that in a different
class than someone doing herion, coke, or "X" to go get high. But I
love how lefties keep attacking him for it--shows their real lack of
compassion.
AZDuffman
> > Anyone can participate in the institution of marrige when you marry
> > one person of the oppisite sex. After that it is not "marrige"
> > secular or religious. Though various judges are trying to do an end
> > run around that pesky Constitution and make their own laws on the
> > matter.
>
> Yep, and we're winning. Must be burning you up inside.
Gay marrige has yet to win ONCE when it is put to a vote. Even CA
turned it down.
> > Meanwhile you are not worried about Obama's naive outlook?
>
> I don't see Obama as naive, but even if we accept that, naive beats
> ethical violations any day. Newt's past baggage is something you're
> evidently able to ignore. Must be that (R) after his name.
He would rather be liked than feared and thinks that is the way to
look out for a superpower's interests. He thinks "apologizing" for
everything makes us look better rather than admit guilt and look
worse. He thinks there is global warming and higher taxes will stop
it. He thinks there should be a Division I College Football Playoff
System.
John Passaniti
>> Yep, and we're winning. Must be burning you up inside.
>
> Gay marrige has yet to win ONCE when it is put to a vote. Even CA
> turned it down.
Yep. And ten years ago, it was unthinkable that it would even get this
far. See the problem is mostly generational. As old farts like you die
off, younger generations who grew up with out gays don't see it as a big
deal anymore. Look at any poll about gay marriage that breaks down
responses by age and you'll see the future of this issue.
> He would rather be liked than feared and thinks that is the way to
> look out for a superpower's interests. He thinks "apologizing" for
> everything makes us look better rather than admit guilt and look
> worse. He thinks there is global warming and higher taxes will stop
> it. He thinks there should be a Division I College Football Playoff
> System.
The idea that other countries would "fear" America is a sad joke. After
Bush decimated our economy and wasted the effort and lives of our
military, what exactly does any country have to "fear" about America?
How exactly does that work? Let me guess-- some country acts up and we
respond with "if you don't stop, we're going to run to China for more
money, buy some guns and ammo from our bloated military-industrial
complex, and then see if we can scrape up enough troops to point them at
you." Yeah, terrifying.
Yes, in short, Obama recognizes that America's moral and ethical
standing (remember that?) has suffered greatly from the past eight
years, and is now doing his best to get us back to the point of being
respected. I don't consider that naive.
Obama apologizes for the excesses of the last administration because he
has to. I know this rubs Conservatives the wrong way-- to them America
is always right, no matter what bat-shit crazy leaders come up with and
no mistakes must ever be admitted. Too bad the adults are running the
show now.
And yep, there is global warming. The question isn't if there is global
warming, but what effect it's having. Good thing you're old and
probably won't be on the planet by the time the really bad shit starts
happening.
By the way, good diversion away from Newt. So, does his marital
infidelity not contribute to character? You apparently have no problem
voting for him, despite how he treated his first two wives. What other
excesses are you willing to ignore with your fluid and subjective sense
or morality?
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > Gay marrige has yet to win ONCE when it is put to a vote. Even CA
> > turned it down.
>
> Yep. And ten years ago, it was unthinkable that it would even get this
> far. See the problem is mostly generational. As old farts like you die
> off, younger generations who grew up with out gays don't see it as a big
> deal anymore. Look at any poll about gay marriage that breaks down
> responses by age and you'll see the future of this issue.
At least one young person has good values!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html
I love how the gays who want "tolerance" have none for the values of a
person who disagrees with their positions!
AZDuffman
> Obama apologizes for the excesses of the last administration because he
> has to. I know this rubs Conservatives the wrong way-- to them America
> is always right, no matter what bat-shit crazy leaders come up with and
> no mistakes must ever be admitted. Too bad the adults are running the
> show now.
What "excesses" would that be? Looking out for the interests of the
USA instead of defering to the UN? Or when the UN does make a
resolution, actually following thru with removing the dictator defying
it? Or invading a country that hosted terrorists that attacked us?
Putting people captured on a battlefield in a POW-style prison?
Fighting AIDS in Africa? Sending rescue supplies to a tsunami-
destroyed area? I don't see anything to apologize for.
> And yep, there is global warming. The question isn't if there is global
> warming, but what effect it's having. Good thing you're old and
> probably won't be on the planet by the time the really bad shit starts
> happening.
No, there is not. First, the trend is down since 2001. But taking a
"trend" from anything we can measure is crazy. The world if 4.5
Billion years old. At best we have records for some areas for 150.
Most areas didn't keep accurate records as the USA did, but lets
assume they did. That means we have records for .00005% of the
existance of the planet. To make an extrapolation with that would be
like asking the next 15 people who they will vote for in 2012 and
saying "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" like Algore and Co.
On top of that, there is no proof warmer is not better. I'd bet
during "the year without a summer" they would have loved a little
warming.
> By the way, good diversion away from Newt. So, does his marital
> infidelity not contribute to character? You apparently have no problem
> voting for him, despite how he treated his first two wives. What other
> excesses are you willing to ignore with your fluid and subjective sense
> or morality?
Not saying he was perfect. Reagan was divorced. Lots of people have
been. But Newt has proven an effective leader who can move an agenda
as well as the right agenda for my beliefs. Imagine how much more
people would like him if he had married a doormat like Hillary!
AZDuffman
> >What "excesses" would that be?
>
> Nothing real big. Just torture of prisoners, running secret
> prisons under the noses of our allies, holding prisoners
> indefinitely without charges, letting a narrow definition of
> god retard scientific advances, awarding military contracts
> to buddies behind closed doors, firing public servants for
> personal political views... nothing alarming about any of
> that, right?
Nice Dem talking points. Too bad Obama is continuing most of the
same.
> Saw a guy on TV today saying that we're moving from a
> two-party system to a party-and-a-half system. Seems
> the republicans are intent on collecting insults to hurl like
> "socialist" and "communist" and new today: "fascist".
Right--and the left never used, Fascist, racist, bigot, homophobe in
the last 8 years, right?
> The language of the right wing is driving the middle away,
> leaving the white males from the South and Mountain West
> as the only remaining constituency. You can't win if you
> lose the Reasonable Majority.
GOP is down right now, but will regroup. Dems were left for deal many
times since 2001-2006 all they controlled was "The West Wing."
> The funny part is that overuse of "socialist" is combining
> with the general approval of Obama's administration, so
> the word "socialist" is losing the negative connotation
> that it once had. I'm not kidding; that's how a republican
> strategist said it, followed by "but 'fascist' will always be
> a negative."
It will only lose the negative connotation to the less educated who do
not know what it really means.
I'm not worried--we are still in the "Honeymoon Period" and there are
already protests of all this taxing and spending. Obama has the
luxury of a lap-dog media, but I expect his popularity to fall when
people realize he cant wave a magic wand and fix the economy.
John Passaniti
> At least one young person has good values!
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html
Wow, you can judge the totality of her values by her stance on gay
marriage! That's amazing! Such perception! So, when she was on stage
jiggling her tits, did you have any other stunning insights into her
character? When you eyes were tracking the edges of her crotch when she
wore a string bikini and your dick was quivering, did anything else
about her morals and ethics come to mind? Just asking.
> I love how the gays who want "tolerance" have none for the values of a
> person who disagrees with their positions!
I personally don't have a problem with her. She's entitled to express
her opinion, and those of us who disagree are free to express ours as
well, including (if she had won) to her corporate sponsors.
How exactly does tolerance work in your mind? Does it mean that a gay
organization must allow Rev. Fred Phelps to speak? Does it mean that
anytime a gay couple gets married, they must invite someone from Exodus
International? Tell me exactly how far tolerance is supposed to go.
John Passaniti
> What "excesses" would that be? Looking out for the interests of the
> USA instead of defering to the UN? Or when the UN does make a
> resolution, actually following thru with removing the dictator defying
> it? Or invading a country that hosted terrorists that attacked us?
> Putting people captured on a battlefield in a POW-style prison?
> Fighting AIDS in Africa? Sending rescue supplies to a tsunami-
> destroyed area? I don't see anything to apologize for.
Cute. I like how you try to minimize the Bush administration's excesses
by tossing in some positive things America did at the end.
Those excesses you're struggling to find include the examples of
America's abdication of a moral high ground we once had. Torture,
imprisonment without charging them with a crime, spying against US
citizens are the biggies. You know-- all the things that Conservatives
jizz their pants anytime they are discussed. And that's just the
external excesses. We can also talk about the internal excesses where
politics, cronyism, and payback turned America into a caricature.
> No, there is not. First, the trend is down since 2001. But taking a
> "trend" from anything we can measure is crazy. The world if 4.5
> Billion years old. At best we have records for some areas for 150.
False. We have measurements stretching back millions of years,
depending on what is being measured. Playing the game of only counting
human record-keeping is dumb, but a common tactic. Playing the game of
looking at short-term variations without considering the larger trends
is equally dumb.
But I am glad to see you age the world at older than 6000 years. I know
you're a Fundamentalist fruitcake, but apparently even you don't drink
that Kool-Aid. Congratulations. There may be hope for you yet.
> Most areas didn't keep accurate records as the USA did, but lets
> assume they did. That means we have records for .00005% of the
> existance of the planet. To make an extrapolation with that would be
> like asking the next 15 people who they will vote for in 2012 and
> saying "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" like Algore and Co.
This is a lie-- but are you being dishonest or just being stupid? The
climatological data isn't being extrapolated from 150 years of
measurement. There are ice cores going back 800,000 years giving a
history of the planet. And there are other ways to measure the effects
of climate going far before that.
> On top of that, there is no proof warmer is not better. I'd bet
> during "the year without a summer" they would have loved a little
> warming.
They wouldn't if they lived in regions that get less water, or that are
on the coast. Warmer means melting which means rising sea level.
Warmer means decreasing the salinity of oceans. Warmer means harder to
grow food. Warmer means ecological margins move. Warmer means less
resources leading to the potential for more wars over those resources.
Warmer means increased electrical consumption to run more air
conditioners. Warmer means more heat-related deaths. Warmer means
areas that were previously considered permafrost causing foundations for
homes to crumble, causing millions of dollars in damages.
But like I wrote before, why should you give a shit? You'll be dead
before the really bad effects start in, so why should you care? Just
leave it as a legacy for your kids to worry about.
>> By the way, good diversion away from Newt. So, does his marital
>> infidelity not contribute to character? [...]
>
> Not saying he was perfect. Reagan was divorced. Lots of people have
> been. But Newt has proven an effective leader who can move an agenda
> as well as the right agenda for my beliefs. Imagine how much more
> people would like him if he had married a doormat like Hillary!
You seem to have a real mental block here. The character issue isn't
that he was divorced and is on his third marriage. The character issue
is how he left his first wife, and his cheating on his second wife with
the woman who would be his third. Yep, try to abstract it away with the
word "divorce" without addressing the *how* and *why* of those divorces.
And we haven't even really gotten into his *other* ethics violations!
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Conservatives talk a good game
about character and values, but they toss all that out the window if
it's politically expedient. Of course, if Newt was a Democrat and did
the exact same thing, you would wringing your hands and gnashing your
teeth. But because Newt has a (R) after his name, all is forgiven.
In any case, I sincerely hope Newt runs and is given the same level of
scrutiny into his past that you would demand of any Democrat. But I'll
make a fearless prediction here-- if he does run, you'll be on the front
line saying, "but that's all in the past and not relevant" or some other
equivocal statement.
AZDuffman
> > No, there is not. First, the trend is down since 2001. But taking a
> > "trend" from anything we can measure is crazy. The world if 4.5
> > Billion years old. At best we have records for some areas for 150.
>
> False. We have measurements stretching back millions of years,
> depending on what is being measured. Playing the game of only counting
> human record-keeping is dumb, but a common tactic. Playing the game of
> looking at short-term variations without considering the larger trends
> is equally dumb.
You can drill an ice core or look at tree rings all you like, but you
will not get measurements accurate to 1 degree celcius, which is the
level of change global-warming alarmists are concerned about.
> > Most areas didn't keep accurate records as the USA did, but lets
> > assume they did. That means we have records for .00005% of the
> > existance of the planet. To make an extrapolation with that would be
> > like asking the next 15 people who they will vote for in 2012 and
> > saying "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" like Algore and Co.
>
> This is a lie-- but are you being dishonest or just being stupid? The
> climatological data isn't being extrapolated from 150 years of
> measurement. There are ice cores going back 800,000 years giving a
> history of the planet. And there are other ways to measure the effects
> of climate going far before that.
See my previous statement on accuracy. But also add that in even
800,000 years 150 years is barely a trend worth worryng about. Unless
your goal is to raise "carbon taxes" of course.
> > On top of that, there is no proof warmer is not better. I'd bet
> > during "the year without a summer" they would have loved a little
> > warming.
>
> They wouldn't if they lived in regions that get less water, or that are
> on the coast. Warmer means melting which means rising sea level.
> Warmer means decreasing the salinity of oceans. Warmer means harder to
> grow food. Warmer means ecological margins move. Warmer means less
> resources leading to the potential for more wars over those resources.
> Warmer means increased electrical consumption to run more air
> conditioners. Warmer means more heat-related deaths. Warmer means
> areas that were previously considered permafrost causing foundations for
> homes to crumble, causing millions of dollars in damages.
Melting ice caps will not raise sea levels. The ice has already
displaced the water, just like an ice cube melting does not overflow
the glass of water it is in. Save me the crap on glaciers--they have
been melting away since the ice age. Food grows better in California
than Maine, so warmer is better there. Warmer does not mean less
resources--where do you get that idea? Warmer means a longer growing
season. Warmer means less electric, gas, and heating oil to run
furnaces. Warmer means less cases of frostbite. Lower salinity in
the oceans means desalination plants can be that much more efficient.
In my lifetime we have worried about food shortages from cold far more
than warm.
WARMER IS BETTER!
> But like I wrote before, why should you give a shit? You'll be dead
> before the really bad effects start in, so why should you care? Just
> leave it as a legacy for your kids to worry about.
Even IF there is warming we cannot change what the sun and sunspots
are doing so correct, I'm not going to waste time worrying.
AZDuffman
> Sorry, Duffer. You have to give this one to John. The
> real science is all lined up in a row on it. Like you, i am
> not convinced that humans are the largest cause, and
> i do not think that warming is necessarily a terrible thing.
> Also like you, i am not convinced that we can do a damn
> thing about it anyway.
The science was lined up for global cooling in the 70s as well.
> But on this topic, they're dead wrong. Conservatism doesn't
> have to automatically mean idiocy. It's the christian
> conservatives who introduce that claptrap into what should
> be a serious discussion about the future of humanity. And
> since the christian right was 40% of the total McCain vote
> last year, the republican half in the infotainer puddle are
> pressured to appeal to them. Trust me, it's hogwash.
I don't see "the Christian Right" questioning global warming in any
way as a group. OK, maybe a few end-of-the-world types, but nothing
serious. It is possible that Christians have a religion already and
do not need to invent a new one in the form of envrionmentalism, which
has become a secular one. As a side note, was watching an old "All in
the Family" and Arche wanted to say grace before a meal and told the
Meathead to "say grace to mother earth if he is an atheist." Kind of
prophetic.
> False. You will get measurements that are accurate to within
> one tenth of one degree. Finer for some technologies, coarser
> for other data, but in general, the accuracy is about 1/10th of
> one º C when interdisciplinary data is combined.
I checked out the charts, they do not back up a claim of 1/10th a
degree accuracy. No methadology was listed in the links. There is no
way taking a core sample will give you "atmospheric" temps with good
accuracy.
> No. The effects of +1º C are not a big concern, but the effects
> of +2º C are. The effects of temperature change are exponential,
> not linear. The difference between -12 and -10 in Greenland
> matters much more than the difference between 20 and 22 in
> our temperate homes. We don't know for certain, but the best
> current consensus is that average temperatures will rise 2º C
> in the next hundred years. Add that to the 1º C change in the
> last 150 years, and look at what a 3º C change does to the
> graphs linked above. That's some serious shit, brother.
And wh have had temperature rises like that in the past and survived.
Mankind will adapt again. Easier to adapt than try to change what the
sun is doing to the planet. Of course, I just saw today that the sun
is quieter than they can remembe so it might all be for nothing.
> No. Rate of change is the real concern, not the baseline
> change in 150 years. Carbon Taxes, LOL. If the rate holds
> similar for another 150 years, there will be no "carbon taxes"
> because there will be no human societies large enough to
> standardize a monetary system, let alone collect taxes.
If things get too out of whack the planet will take care of it.
Always has for 4.5 Billionyears.
> False. Ice coverage on mountains in Africa, Asia, Europe,
> and both Americas is decreasing, and again it is the rate that
> is the concern. Every interglacial period melts the ice, and
> every interglacial raises the sea levels. Ours is speeding up.
And when the earth decides to cool it will slow down again and
reverse. Nothing we are doing is causing it, nothing can be done
about it.
> >Food grows better in California than Maine, so warmer is better there.
>
> False. When you talk about California agriculture, you mean
> the Central Valley. The fertility there has nothing to do with
> the temperature. Rather, it's a peculiar geographic situation.
It grows better in the south with longer growing seasons than the
north with shorter, soil conditions being equal.
.
>
> >WARMER IS BETTER!
>
> False. Warmer is just different. There's no better or worse.
> We'll get more arable land, but less irrigation. We'll get more
> coffee and sugar, but less corn and rice. We'll catch more
> squid but less cod. On the balances, warmer means less
> food and that spells trouble.
Well, we agree it is just "different" my rant is to point out that
warmer <> worse. But there is no intelliget proof warmer means less
food. Growing season legnth alone proves that.
> >Even IF there is warming we cannot change what the sun and sunspots
> >are doing so correct, I'm not going to waste time worrying.
>
> Well, you should be worrying. The warming is real, and we
> have good science to prove the effect, if not the cause.
No use worrying about what can't be changed. If global-warming
alarmists like Algore were serious they would not be living in
mansions. It is a shake-down.
> Denying global warming or its effects has nothing to do
> with conservatism. It comes from the choir of the lunatic
> christian fringe, and gets around on wheels greased by
> oil and chemical companies. Infotainers only really care
> about one thing: Ratings. Since the infotainers on the right
> know that 40% of the McCain vote was from christian
> conservatives, they assume that their audience *wants*
> them to be ignorant when it comes to science.
My disbelief in global warming has nothing to do with Rush/Hannity/et.
al. While there will be dovetailing as our beliefs are similar, my
belief that it is a crock is developed on my own. In the 70s I was
told the world would be starving by 1984. Didn't happen. In the 80s
I was told we had enough oil for just 30 or so more years--25 years
later we still have enough for 50 years. In 1985 I was told there
would be a major heterosexual AIDS problem--it is still byand large a
disease of gays and drug needle sharers. They keep promising "flying
cars" and they never come (we are just 6 years form when Marty and the
Doc get the hover conversion so they better hurry!)
Point is that the media and popular culture always want to worry us
about something to drive ratings and control. I am no longer buying
what they are selling.
AZDuffman
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
> McCain would have been a fantastic Prez from 2001 to
> 2009. He's smart, knows how to get things done, and
> has an honest sense of duty to the best interests of his
> country. I blame South Carolina, the whole stinking place,
> for swinging to Bush in the 2000 primary. That primary race
> did enormous damage to America, in so many ways.
McCain would have lost in 2000. based on how he would not go after
Obama, who had pelnty of weak points to attack, he would have done the
same in 2000. His appeal has always been to so-called independents
who vote Dem in the general. Barely anyone remembers that SC
primary. But again, McCain only did well where there are "open"
primaries (which I would ban if I had any say.) 2000 was a weird
primary season in that no one on either side wanted to run and the
eventual nominees were almost chosen old-school-smoke-filled-room days
with token oposition.
> It led us to the current 1.5 party system, and the perfect storm
> is not yet done battering the republicans. Hell, they're not just
> battered, they're already in the fryer. Next year you might
> debate whether the recovery was inevitable or Obama's
> "magic wand" but it will happen my friend, and the republicans
> are setting themselves up for an even deeper plunge by being
> the party of Doctor No.
Maybe yes, maybe no. GOP was on the ropes in '76 yet roared back 4
years later. Obama is acting much like Carter foreign policy wise.
Real Americans don't like a "weak and apologize for everything"
America.
> Obama is doing everything right, from scolding greedy execs
> to reducing taxes for the lower 95%. His foreign moves are
> just right for the Reasonable Majority at home, and stands on
> social issues so far have been temperate and levelheaded.
> The case the Supreme Court heard today, about the Arizona
> teen girl being strip searched at school to find her ibuprofen?
> Obama's DOJ filed an amica curiae brief in support of the girl.
> That's the right thing to do, it's the *reasonable* thing to do.
He is following populist sentiment. But watch the economy double-dip
in 10/11 if he lets the Bush Tax Cut expire, which he intends to.
Watch us keep appearing weaker and get played buy various dictators.
Watch him back gay marrige. Watch people react when they realize they
will lose health care choices.
The "Tea Partys" alone are proof that people won't buy the "But I gave
95% of you a tax cut" line. Bush gave 100% of taxpayers a tax cut!
> Stop praying for Obama to screw up. Pray instead that the
> republicans will ditch the lunatic christian fringe and find an
> atheist conservative to win back the Reasonable Majority.
Why would the GOP ditch a solid group like Christians? I don't see
you saying that B Hussein Obama should tell moveon.org to drop dead?
As for the first part, I don't need to pray for him to screw up--he is
already doing it. The results will be seen over the next 1-3 years.
NEWT IN 2012!
AZDuffman
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 21, 7:39 pm, Scaly Lizard <x...@null.cam> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
>
> political irrelevance. Can't win without the middle, and the
> next incarnation of the middle is the young votes that Obama's
> race drew out into the open. They are socially tolerant, which
> means the republicans will never win the middle, as long as
> the party has to kowtow to the ghost of Falwell.
>
> SL
bizzare social ideas? Oh, you mean that marrige is between a man and
a woman? Yeah, that has been wrong for 10,000 years I guess.
AZDuffman
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
> a Mayan catun ends then.
>
> There's a difference between that and global warming. The
> difference is observable scientific evidence. I can show it to
> you, but i can't make you believe in science.
No, I believe in science. I just don't believe in the junk-science
global-warming believers are selling. The skeptical side on the
issue is growing. We will have to agree to disagree.
AZDuffman
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:37:35 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
>
>
>
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 22, 11:53 pm, Scaly Lizard <x...@null.cam> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:14:31 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
> >> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 21, 7:39 pm, Scaly Lizard <x...@null.cam> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:27:00 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
> >> >Why would the GOP ditch a solid group like Christians?
>
> >> Because their bizarre social ideas are dragging the party into
> >> political irrelevance. Can't win without the middle, and the
> >> next incarnation of the middle is the young votes that Obama's
> >> race drew out into the open. They are socially tolerant, which
> >> means the republicans will never win the middle, as long as
> >> the party has to kowtow to the ghost of Falwell.
>
> >> SL
>
> >bizzare social ideas? Oh, you mean that marrige is between a man and
> >a woman? Yeah, that has been wrong for 10,000 years I guess.
>
> wrong for, um i don't know.. like, forever.
I don't see that idea being propogated. However, I can see mentioning
"intelligent design" when teaching evolution. Since we still can't
answer the question, "If we came from apes, why do we still have apes?"
AZDuffman
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:39:21 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
> there's nothing to worry about. Burning things may not be
> the primary cause for warming, but it is a contributing cause.
>
> SL- Hide quoted text -
Enjoy worrying about somehting that can't be changed. Menawhile I'll
turn on every light in the house next time they have another "lights
out" hour.
See you at the July 4th tea parties.
John Passaniti
>> The idea that dinosaurs walked with people has been
>> wrong for, um i don't know.. like, forever.
>
> I don't see that idea being propogated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
Enjoy in particular the "displays and exhibits" section, including the
picture taken at the museum that shows humans and Tyrannosaurus living
together peacefully. Didn't you hear? The reason why Tyrannosaurus
have such sharp teeth is to crack open coconuts. They were really
peaceful vegetarians. Says so in the Bible.
> However, I can see mentioning "intelligent design" when
> teaching evolution. Since we still can't answer the
> question, "If we came from apes, why do we still have apes?"
Because we didn't come from apes. That's not evolution, but a dumb
simplification for morons who can't handle science. We and apes came
from a common ancestor. We took one evolutionary path, the apes took
another. Hint: Read a book on evolution before you criticize it.
John Passaniti
> Enjoy worrying about somehting that can't be changed. Menawhile I'll
> turn on every light in the house next time they have another "lights
> out" hour.
Why wait for the next "lights out" hour? I suggest you go to every room
in your home, and turn on every light and every other electrical device
in your home. Suck as much power as you possibly can! That will show
those stupid environmentalists!
Oh, and when you get that utility bill, you can wave it in the air as a
badge of honor!
> See you at the July 4th tea parties.
So you enjoy teabagging after all? I didn't expect that. Does that
mean you're also interested in 2M4M?
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > I don't see that idea being propogated.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
>
> Enjoy in particular the "displays and exhibits" section, including the
> picture taken at the museum that shows humans and Tyrannosaurus living
> together peacefully. Didn't you hear? The reason why Tyrannosaurus
> have such sharp teeth is to crack open coconuts. They were really
> peaceful vegetarians. Says so in the Bible.
Hardly even a mainstream christian belief that this is science. One
museum. You seem to really have a problem with anything involving
religion.
> > However, I can see mentioning "intelligent design" when
> > teaching evolution. Since we still can't answer the
> > question, "If we came from apes, why do we still have apes?"
>
> Because we didn't come from apes. That's not evolution, but a dumb
> simplification for morons who can't handle science. We and apes came
> from a common ancestor. We took one evolutionary path, the apes took
> another. Hint: Read a book on evolution before you criticize it.
Not criticizing it, but saying science doen not explain everything.
Consider:
You can't breed a dog and a cat and get a bird. So if all species go
back to one-cell "animals" as we have been taught, why do we have
dogs, birds, and cats?
Even with selective breeding you do not change the basics of a
species. Most species developed two and only two eyes over time. Why
did the second eye pop up, but not a third?
"Conservation of matter" states that matter cannot be created nor
destroyed. Yet we are told "the big bang created the universe." But
there is zero explanation as to what was there beore the big bang. If
the universe is finite in time then the matter was created. How was
it created since science says this is not possible?
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > Enjoy worrying about somehting that can't be changed. Menawhile I'll
> > turn on every light in the house next time they have another "lights
> > out" hour.
>
> Why wait for the next "lights out" hour? I suggest you go to every room
> in your home, and turn on every light and every other electrical device
> in your home. Suck as much power as you possibly can! That will show
> those stupid environmentalists!
Beacause that would be useless to do and show nothing. Just like a
"lights out hour" is useless. But if they say "turn out your lights
to support the global warming fight" and I leave them on, then I make
a statement.
> > See you at the July 4th tea parties.
>
> So you enjoy teabagging after all? I didn't expect that. Does that
> mean you're also interested in 2M4M?
Nope, just tea parties. I'll leave the "tea bagging" to the guys at
"The Blue Oyster Bar."
John Passaniti
> Hardly even a mainstream christian belief that this is science. One
> museum. You seem to really have a problem with anything involving
> religion.
You really should do some basic research before you pull claims out of
your ass. It would make you look less stupid, and might open your eyes
to reality. Oh, wait, I forgot-- you're not part of the reality-based
community. You prefer to live in your own reality. How's that working
out for you? When will you take the red pill?
So you don't think that Young Earth Creationism is a mainstream
Christian belief? Then how do you explain this:
There is lots of fun and sad data there, but the best is right at the
top. See that light green line on top-- the line that represents the
percentage of people who believe in the same Young Earth Creationism as
represented by the museum? Gosh, it's consistently been the majority
opinion since 1982, wobbling around 44%.
Does majority not equal mainstream to you? Hey, I'm sorry if you want
to marginalize the majority of your Christian peers who believe the
world is no older than 10,000 years old. Gosh, you should be more
tolerant of their beliefs.
Oh, and as for having a problem with religion, yes, I do. I much prefer
living life rationally and to embrace my mortality. It means I don't
waste precious time with the supernatural nonsense you do, and it drives
me to search for meaning and purpose in my life. You on the other hand
look forward to death so you can play a harp in heaven with Jeeezus for
eternity.
Reality. Try it. Once you do, you'll have a problem with religion too.
> You can't breed a dog and a cat and get a bird. So if all species go
> back to one-cell "animals" as we have been taught, why do we have
> dogs, birds, and cats?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking why we have
multicellular animals, or are you asking why we have different kinds of
multicellular animals?
As for the former, multicellular animals evolved from single-celled
organisms through symbiotic communities of cells sharing genetic
information. It isn't difficult to show-- take genetic information from
complex organisms and compare it to simpler organisms and you'll find
multiple ancient simpler organisms genetic information scattered
throughout the complex organisms.
As for the latter, dog and birds and cats and every other species came
about through specialization. Genetic information changes over time,
through mutation and other processes. Those changes result in organisms
that have some degree of fitness for the environment.
Any other questions?
> Even with selective breeding you do not change the basics of a
> species. Most species developed two and only two eyes over time. Why
> did the second eye pop up, but not a third?
Sharing genetic information through sexual reproduction is not the only
way that genetic changes occur. The most obvious changes occur from
mutation. When a mutation is beneficial, it can later create a new species.
Why not a third eye? Hmmm...
Awww, poor thing. Probably won't live long. But this one has lived for
a long time and has three eyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
Here's an insect that has only one eye:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bythotrephes_cederstroemi
Oh, and most spiders have four pairs of eyes.
Genetic mutations occur all the time. Sometimes they impart a benefit
on the organism and the change survives. Other times, the genetic
change is harmful and the organism dies (or simply doesn't reproduce).
Most species have two eyes, but not all do.
Why do most species have just two eyes? Gosh, could it be that we have
common ancestors?
> "Conservation of matter" states that matter cannot be created nor
> destroyed. Yet we are told "the big bang created the universe." But
> there is zero explanation as to what was there beore the big bang. If
> the universe is finite in time then the matter was created. How was
> it created since science says this is not possible?
I'm not sure what this has to do with what we were talking about, but
you have a habit of shifting the topic when your ignorance is exposed.
What happened prior to the big bang? Great question-- you just touched
on the fundamental difference between religion and science.
Science doesn't know for sure what came before the big bang. But there
are plenty of theories, and there are active and proposed experiments
into answering that very question. The Large Hadron Collider is one
very publicized experiment that is looking into questions about the
origin of the universe. Various other groups are looking at the problem
from various other angles.
The key is that science doesn't know for sure and says this up-front.
Indeed, there are scientists who don't believe in the big bang theory
and have their own models and they are actively working to find evidence
for what they believe. But at the core, regardless of where scientists
fall on the issue of the big bang, they are united in actively trying to
find the answer. It's not a matter of faith. It's something that they
seek to actually prove (or disprove).
Religion on the other hand doesn't look for any answers. To a theist,
the origin of the universe and dozens of other important questions are a
matter of faith. And faith is not something you test, because to test
faith is to introduce doubt and ultimately to question the basis of the
faith itself.
John Passaniti
> Beacause that would be useless to do and show nothing. Just like a
> "lights out hour" is useless. But if they say "turn out your lights
> to support the global warming fight" and I leave them on, then I make
> a statement.
Seems like a wussy statement. The environmentalists aren't just focused
on a single hour. They want to make permanent changes to how energy is
created and consumed. So don't be a wuss-- use up as much power as you
can and make that statement year-round! C'mon, show them! You can hold
up your utility bill in their faces and have the last laugh.
By the way, you don't have any energy-saving light bulbs or other
technologies in your home, right?
>> So you enjoy teabagging after all? I didn't expect that. Does that
>> mean you're also interested in 2M4M?
>
> Nope, just tea parties. I'll leave the "tea bagging" to the guys at
> "The Blue Oyster Bar."
Given what you've written on gay marriage, I kind of expected you might
be a supporter of 2M4M.
AZDuffman
> Seems like a wussy statement. The environmentalists aren't just focused
> on a single hour. They want to make permanent changes to how energy is
> created and consumed. So don't be a wuss-- use up as much power as you
> can and make that statement year-round! C'mon, show them! You can hold
> up your utility bill in their faces and have the last laugh.
Pretty stupid argument. Neither I nor anyone else is advocating long-
term waste of resources for no reason. OTOH, envrionmental whack-jobs
have suggestet not lighting Haunnaka Candles every night to prevent so-
called global warming. They have suggested banning black cars to
prevent so-called global warming. They send money to some scam artist
to plant trees to help so-called global warming. They are all
symbolism over nothing. So I'll make a reverse statement once in a
while.
> By the way, you don't have any energy-saving light bulbs or other
> technologies in your home, right?
Only if they save MONEY and not just energy. I'm not a dope who pays
$4,000 more for a hybrid car to only get the savings in gasoline back
in 5 years. And hybrids are bad for the envrionment anyways. But
same for those compact flourescent light bulbs. They are terrible and
I don't like them so no way I'm paying several times as much for worse
light. Maybe in five years LEDs will give off good light at a fair
cost.
John Passaniti
> Pretty stupid argument. Neither I nor anyone else is advocating long-
> term waste of resources for no reason. OTOH, envrionmental whack-jobs
> have suggestet not lighting Haunnaka Candles every night to prevent so-
> called global warming. They have suggested banning black cars to
> prevent so-called global warming. They send money to some scam artist
> to plant trees to help so-called global warming. They are all
> symbolism over nothing. So I'll make a reverse statement once in a
> while.
Hmmm, so let me see if I understand this "part is the whole" logical
fallacy you wallow in so often. So, because there are some
environmentalists who express moronic views, that allows you to dismiss
all environmentalist views. Well, at least you're in good company with
them. The people you describe suffer from junk science and you don't
understand science. The end result is that you both say some pretty
dumb things.
>> By the way, you don't have any energy-saving light bulbs or other
>> technologies in your home, right?
>
> Only if they save MONEY and not just energy.
Ummm, I hate to break this to you, but you are billed by the amount of
energy you use. So saving money *is* saving energy.
Feel free to make your "reverse statement." It just means more of your
money going to the utility company. That amuses me.
AZDuffman
If I pay $5 for a light bulb that only saves $4 of energy over its
useful life then I didn't save money, just energy. Just like all
those Prius buyers who paid $5,000 over sticker and wait five years or
more for a money payback. It is the kind of math you do when you
think beyond second-grade level.
Even if they could make a light bulb that uses NO energy and just
burned for "free" I wouldn't buy it if the cost was higer over-
lifetime-use of a quality incandecent.
John Passaniti
> If I pay $5 for a light bulb that only saves $4 of energy over its
> useful life then I didn't save money, just energy.
Current compact fluorescent bulbs (at least those qualified by the
Energy Star program) save about $30 over the useful life of the bulb
and result in a payback in about six months. In my experience, it's
rare for an incandescent to burn out in six months, so I don't see an
economic downside. Consumer Reports has done various reports on
compact fluorescent bulbs (some available online), documenting the
price drop and improvement in quality over time. There are still some
places where compact fluorescent bulbs don't work well (basically
anywhere full brightness is needed immediately, where the bulb will be
cycled on and off often, or in places like closets where the bulb is
infrequently used). Concerns over color temperature and startup time
are now mostly limited to off-brand bulbs and those that don't pass
the Energy Star program.
We use compact fluorescent bulbs in our home where appropriate and
have seen a savings. Part of that is intelligently using the bulbs
where it makes sense.
> Even if they could make a light bulb that uses NO energy and just
> burned for "free" I wouldn't buy it if the cost was higer over-
> lifetime-use of a quality incandecent.
Well, it's a good thing then that the world of stupid hypothetical
situations that you pull out of your ass doesn't actually exist.
AZDuffman
> > Even if they could make a light bulb that uses NO energy and just
> > burned for "free" I wouldn't buy it if the cost was higer over-
> > lifetime-use of a quality incandecent.
>
> Well, it's a good thing then that the world of stupid hypothetical
> situations that you pull out of your ass doesn't actually exist.
It is an even better thing that most intelligent people understand why
you use a hypothetical situation whether it exists or not. But for
those of you in Rio Linda (and Irondequoit) is that total operating
cost is what matters. So even if the electricity was "free" if you
pay $100 for the bulb it is not a savings.