Why Do Deniers Try To Call Themselves "Skeptics?"

[Bret Cahill]

Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
evolution a "religion."

Same reason looneytarians try to call their despotism "freedom."

Twisted minds twist the natural meanings of words.

Clearly any nut job conspiracy theorist trying to vilify NOAA, NASA,
Scientific American, the MSM and every math and science department in
every university on the planet (except Liberty U.) has already made up
his closed/shut down mind.

That's not a skeptic.

That's a nut job conspiracy theorist denier.


Bret Cahill

[JohnM]

There is a problem also with the word "denier". It conjures up
"Holocaust Deniers". I prefer 'denial'+'ist', a neologism that is
getting more widely used nowadays.

de·ni·al n. An unconscious defence mechanism characterized by
refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

This is worth a bit of time. It is posted to sci.physics, but has
NOTHING to do with physics or even science. But he did cross-post to
political groups per my suggestion!

The question: "Why do Deniers try to call themselves "skeptics". Say
Bret are you STILL beating your wife? I've heard this kind of question
before, usually along racist lines: "Why do niggers try to call
themselves "human"?" Nice one Bret!

The truth of course is that "Deniers" is political word made up by
climate alarmists and applied to anyone who disagrees with their dogma.
The actual "denial" is coming form alarmists like Bret who are
anti-intellectual science deniers. The word "deniers" was invented to
apply to critics because it's so politically loaded being one step
removed from "Holocaust denier". So the critics are marginalized and
denigrated simply by the name the warmists apply to them!

It's the same propaganda trick that the invention of the term
"anthropogenic global warming" uses. The warmists cleverly provide the
terminology and if you use it, you are by definition admitting that
"global warming" is man-caused. You lose the argument simply by using
THEIR terms!

And then examine the rest of Bret's post above. Is there any science in
it? No. Bret knows no science. Is there any truth in it? A tiny bit but
only when it serves his agenda. The main point he makes is that anyone
who disagrees with him and his fellow conspirators is insane. WE can
note that he has exactly ZERO scientific or medical basis for such a
diagnosis. SO basically it's nothing but slander and political dirty
tricks.


But apparently Bret is hoping that there are enough people who think
that if it's on the internet it MUST be true, that he can convince
someone that he is making sense. He isn't. He isn't worth your time.
He's not worth anyone's time.

This post of his is all the proof you need of that.

Give him the old "Plonk". Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Nickname unavailable]

to be a skeptic, requires reasoning and logic skills. that of course
leaves all "CONSERVATIVES" out of it.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 25, 5:32 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

there is a big difference between a skeptic, or a denier. deniers of
many things seem to run in packs, like the tea party, which some in it
have nazi connections:)))))) so the question is quite appropriate.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> evolution a "religion."

In fact, Creationists are now calling themselves "evolution skeptics."
The NCSE noted this becoming popular among Creationist cultists over
the past three months or so.

They don't reject the evidence for evolution for occult superstitious
reasons---- oh, no! They are *SKEPTICAL* about observed reality.

> Same reason looneytarians try to call their despotism "freedom."
>
> Twisted minds twist the natural meanings of words.
>
> Clearly any nut job conspiracy theorist trying to vilify NOAA, NASA,
> Scientific American, the MSM and every math and science department in
> every university on the planet (except Liberty U.) has already made up
> his closed/shut down mind.
>
> That's not a skeptic.
>
> That's a nut job conspiracy theorist denier.

Skeptics accept evidence; Denialists reject the evidence; Alarmists
warn us about the evil world-wide multi-generation conspiracy of
scientists who are out to enslave us.

> Bret Cahill


--
"I think he believes error bars are where people like him who
are consistently wrong go to drink."

[Desertphile]

Social science journals use "Denialism" and "Denialist," mostly
regardeing health care and issues such as HIV/AIDS.

"Climate denier" is some times used in the science literature, but not
often: "denialism" and "denialist" are. See for example:

Reply to O’Neill and Boykoff: Objective classification of climate
experts
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/39/E152.full.pdf

Science Denialism: Evolution and Climate Change
http://www.reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/download/71/64

Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white
males in the United States
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5000/mccright_2011.pdf

[Tunderbar]

blah blah blah blah.... ya got nuthin'

[Nickname unavailable]

projecting again.

[Michael Dobony]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:13:41 -0600, Desertphile wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>> evolution a "religion."
>
> In fact, Creationists are now calling themselves "evolution skeptics."
> The NCSE noted this becoming popular among Creationist cultists over
> the past three months or so.
>
> They don't reject the evidence for evolution for occult superstitious
> reasons---- oh, no! They are *SKEPTICAL* about observed reality.
>

Both creation and evolution are outside of science. Only one was around for
creation and nobody has ever observed a single instance of evolution, the
emergence of a new species with new, more complex features.

>> Same reason looneytarians try to call their despotism "freedom."
>>
>> Twisted minds twist the natural meanings of words.
>>
>> Clearly any nut job conspiracy theorist trying to vilify NOAA, NASA,
>> Scientific American, the MSM and every math and science department in
>> every university on the planet (except Liberty U.) has already made up
>> his closed/shut down mind.
>>
>> That's not a skeptic.
>>
>> That's a nut job conspiracy theorist denier.
>
> Skeptics accept evidence; Denialists reject the evidence; Alarmists
> warn us about the evil world-wide multi-generation conspiracy of
> scientists who are out to enslave us.
>

Good explanation. Now all you need to do to convince us skeptics (a
necessity in science to keep it honest and birth new ideas to test) is to
present a single scientific study that measures both human CO2 production
and global annual average temperatures, that doesn't hide any data, and
that employs methodology that allows cause/effect conclusions
(quazi-experimental or experimental, though both would necessitate illegal
and unethical conduct).

[Harold Burton]

In article
<01d6d55e-b621-4287...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Same reason . . .


. . . leftards call themselves caring?



snicker

[James]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:01d6d55e-b621-4287...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
>
> Bret Cahill

Sceptics are re-defined as deniers by alarmists or leftists when they
are losing the argument. Happens a lot.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 25, 9:25 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <01d6d55e-b621-4287-aeda-18598a5ef...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,

>  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > Same reason  . . .
>
>  . . . leftards call themselves caring?
>
> snicker

you smeared our WWII vets here, when are you going to apologize.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/e891055dbf97c108?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=ol&

Harold Burton
View profile
More options May 19, 8:14 pm
In article
<90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:


- Show quoted text -

Well doh. Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and
numerous
other cities.
snicker


you were responded to promptly by a patriot.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
While It's ALWAYS DISconcerting To Encounter a HOPELESS IGNORAMUS,
it is Conversely, a GREAT PLEASURE To Illustrate - And Hopefully
DISSIPATE - The HARM of The DEPENDABLY, Self-Serving, Fact-
INTOLERANT, Delusional And INTRACTABLE IGNORANCE of such Notable
RighTARDS as "Harold Burton"...
THUS: The Rationale For AND Decision To Bomb [FIRST With High-
Explosives, THEN With Incendiaries] Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] Was a - Waaaaait Forrr Iiiiiit - *British* Undertaking...
FDR's Involvement being Limited To his Administration's LONG-Standing
Acquiescence To Placing [American] Eighth Air Force assets At The
Disposal Of British Air Marshalls... As Would Be Expected Of a GOOD
War-Time Ally...
ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] 
employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
Forces... 
The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
British 
Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
Level 
Attacking by Next Daylight...
ERGO - The Sequel: CONTRARY To Harold The RighTARD's HOPELESSLY
IGNORANT And Self-Serving, Ignoramus-Speak Blather, FDR had LITTLE OR
NOTHING To Do With The Bombing Of Dresden and Most Likely, Wasn't
Even 
Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb
Several 
East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian
Advance...

even after knowing the slaughter of americans in the Philippines,
and all of the other atrocities commited by them, they would have to
be worn down, as they tried to do to us.
and here is your response, you defended the nazis, and now you defend
the imperialists japanese.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services
do. 
The buck stopped at FDR's desk.

> . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
> Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Now THAT's even funnier.
I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of
Tokyo . . . 
and Osaka . . . and Kobe . . . and Fukuoka . . . and,
oh hell just 
check out http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html. How
are you going to 
blame that on the Brits?
then i demanded a apology,
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
and he owes WWII vets a apology.

you said,

Just as you owe sentient beings an apology
Hahahahahahahahahahah


you sir are not only a liar, but a unpatriotic one at that.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 25, 9:34 pm, "James" <kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

its turning out to be a bad day for "THE CONSERVATIVE":krugman was
proven right/deregulated markets are imploding/and now KOCH funded
denier says:Former climate change skeptic now says global-warming is
man-made




http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now-says-global-warming-134617449.html



About Face: Former climate change skeptic now says global-warming is
man-made


By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News

He finally came around to what other climate scientists have been
spouting for years. Richard A. Muller, a  physics professor at the
University of California-Berkeley, announced over the weekend that his
much-publicized investigation into climate data has found that humans'
production of carbon dioxide is causing the world to slowly warm up.
And this process could speed up dramatically in the next few years.
Muller's conclusions attract special attention because of his vocal
self-styling as a converted climate change skeptic. Muller criticized
global warming studies for sloppy and self-serving data selection and
a lack of transparency that obscured errors; he then lambasted fellow
scientists for circling the wagons and calling any climate change
deniers wrong. Muller says he's still upset that the American Physical
Society declared the evidence for warming "incontrovertible" a few
years ago in an official statement.
"We don't do things in science that are incontrovertible," Muller said
in an interview with Yahoo News.
Muller took matters into his own hands and embarked on his own
investigation into the data with his daughter Elizabeth and a team of
scientists three years ago. His Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
project attracted funding from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation,
the non-profit outfit of a wealthy businessman who denies that global
warming is happening. Three years later, Muller ended up surprising
himself when his research confirmed everything those same studies that
drew his skepticism concluded, and then some. Muller says his study's
results are more reliable than many previous ones because he
intentionally avoided the data pitfalls he objected to, such as only
using a portion of the global temperatures available. (He expounds on
his methods here.)
Muller's study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal, but he says he plans to do so at some point. One
climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer, told the LA Times he thinks
posting the study online and not in a journal is in "the spirit of
publicity, not the spirit of science" that may do more to hurt the
global warming cause than help it. But Muller wants to get feedback on
his methods and to share his results with everyone, avoiding what he
sees as a secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounded earlier
climate change studies.
Though Muller is now entirely convinced that the earth is warming due
to man-made causes, he still expresses disdain for people who try to
raise passions around the issue by pointing to local weather events,
such as the drought scorching up America's Midwest right now, as proof
of the phenomenon. (He attributes the drought to La Niña, a temporary
cooling of the ocean.) The effects of global warming on local weather
patterns is unknown, and even as two-thirds of the world has heated
up, another one-third has shown a gradual cooling over the past 250
years. The overall effect is a troubling global warming, but Muller
has no patience for simplifications that stray from the truth.
"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says
so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the
process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."
Muller is now wading into another controversy, by endorsing the
process of natural gas extraction called fracking for developing
countries, which tend to rely more on coal. Coal production creates
more carbon dioxide, but fracking has also drawn its share of
environmentalist critics.
"I believe the only kind of action that is sustainable is that which
is profitable and fortunately we can do that," he says. "We can become
much more energy efficient."

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 9/26/2012 2:23 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:34 pm, "James"<kingk...@fewpb.net> wrote:
>> "Bret Cahill"<BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:01d6d55e-b621-4287...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> Sceptics are re-defined as deniers by alarmists or leftists when they
>> are losing the argument. Happens a lot.
>
> its turning out to be a bad day for "THE CONSERVATIVE":krugman was
> proven right/deregulated markets are imploding/and now KOCH funded
> denier says:Former climate change skeptic now says global-warming is
> man-made

> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now-says-global-warming-134617449.html

I'll see your "former skeptic" and raise you one "Godfather of Global
Warming" who "lowers the boom" on "climate change hysteria"!

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

The word he uses, dear propaganda spokesperson, is "Drivel"!

(that "former tobacco executive" ploy worked pretty well against the
tobacco industry, didn't it?)

[Gary Forbis]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:03:48 PM UTC-7, Michael Dobony wrote:
> Both creation and evolution are outside of science. Only one was around for
> creation and nobody has ever observed a single instance of evolution, the
> emergence of a new species with new, more complex features.

So, here's the thing about empirical science...
A scientific theory needn't be true it merely needs to have testable
components where empirical evidence can prove it false. An accepted
theory will have provided testable empirical predictions not known to
be true at the time of the prediction but which have been born out by
subsequent empirical evidence. An accepted theory will be consistent
with all applicable empirical evidence.

Evolution makes lots of empirical predictions that could prove it
wrong. As evidence comes in and agrees with Darwin's theory it is
given weight. Since it's proposal no evidence has come in that
disproves it.

Unlike Darwin's theory none of the Creationist theories have made
empirical predictions that could disprove them if the evidence
came in. This puts them outside empirical science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics
might be helpful. Some of Darwin hypothesized mechanisms have
been discredited. This doesn't reflect upon the theory.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:03:45 -0500, Michael Dobony
<sur...@stopassaultnow.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:13:41 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> > <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >> evolution a "religion."
> >
> > In fact, Creationists are now calling themselves "evolution skeptics."
> > The NCSE noted this becoming popular among Creationist cultists over
> > the past three months or so.
> >
> > They don't reject the evidence for evolution for occult superstitious
> > reasons---- oh, no! They are *SKEPTICAL* about observed reality.

> Both creation and evolution are outside of science.

Maybe you should finish high school first before making such odd
claims. Creation and evolution are both observed facts, and have been
and are being actively studied.

[Desertphile]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:34:38 -0400, "James" <king...@fewpb.net>
wrote:

> "Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:01d6d55e-b621-4287...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
> >
> > Bret Cahill

> Sceptics are re-defined as deniers by alarmists or leftists when they

Huh? Deniars call skeptics "alarmists," idiot.

> are losing the argument. Happens a lot.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 26, 5:45 am, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

> On 9/26/2012 2:23 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 9:34 pm, "James"<kingk...@fewpb.net>  wrote:
> >> "Bret Cahill"<BretCah...@peoplepc.com>  wrote in message
>
> >>news:01d6d55e-b621-4287...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com
>
> >>> Bret Cahill
>
> >> Sceptics are re-defined as deniers by alarmists or leftists when they
> >> are losing the argument. Happens a lot.
>
> > its turning out to be a bad day for "THE CONSERVATIVE":krugman was
> > proven right/deregulated markets are imploding/and now KOCH funded
> > denier says:Former climate change skeptic now says global-warming is
> > man-made

> >http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now...

>
> I'll see your "former skeptic" and raise you one "Godfather of Global
> Warming" who "lowers the boom" on "climate change hysteria"!
>
> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
>
> The word he uses, dear propaganda spokesperson, is "Drivel"!
>
> (that "former tobacco executive" ploy worked pretty well against the

> toba


yes crank science is embraced by "CONSERVATIVES".

the republican party is simply running out of al bundy, homer simpson,
archie bunker types. people so stupid, they cannot even do basic math,
let alone come in from the rain.
the constitution of the united states was a anti-conservative
statement by the majority of the founders of the united states of
america.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 but upon careful examination "THE CONSERVATIVES"  feeble attempts at
confusion and dishonesty does not stand up to the light. they live in
a counter-factual universe, the product of the hermetically sealed
"CONSERVATIVE" subculture. Trying to see the world through the lens
of
"THE CONSERVATIVE", is like looking at a fun-house mirror;
everything’s backwards and distorted.

"THE CONSERVATIVES" world view is flawed because its based upon a
small and particularly rosy sliver of reality.  To preserve that world
view, "THE CONSERVATIVES" believe that people had morally earned their
“just” desserts, and had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to
point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.  I think this
shows why "THE CONSERVATIVES" put so much effort into “creat[ing]
their own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts,
scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be
dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it).  It explains
why study after study shows that avid consumers of "THE CONSERVATIVE"-
oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news
sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<f894044f-542d-44f7...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 9:25 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <01d6d55e-b621-4287-aeda-18598a5ef...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Same reason  . . .
> >
> >  . . . leftards call themselves caring?
> >
> > snicker
>
> you smeared our WWII vets

And you smeared our Iraqi vets.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<f894044f-542d-44f7...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 9:25 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <01d6d55e-b621-4287-aeda-18598a5ef...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Same reason  . . .
> >
> >  . . . leftards call themselves caring?
> >
> > snicker
>
> you smeared our WWII vets

Just as you smeared our Iraqi vets.


snicker

[Bret Cahill]

> And you smeared our Iraqi vets.

And you and Dumbya Bush need to keep up the good work!

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

[Bret Cahill]

> > you smeared our WWII vets
>
> Just as you smeared our Iraqi vets.

Try not to spree but if you do spree, spree local. Very local. Just
shoot up your trailer.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 27, 9:26 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <f894044f-542d-44f7-b891-ba3529be3...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 9:25 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <01d6d55e-b621-4287-aeda-18598a5ef...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Same reason  . . .
>
> > >  . . . leftards call themselves caring?
>
> > > snicker
>
> > you smeared our WWII vets
>
> Just as you smeared our Iraqi vets.
>
> snicker

i never did, however,
when are you going to apologize for calling our WWII vets war
criminals.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/e891055dbf97c108?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=ol&

Harold Burton
View profile
 More options May 19, 8:14 pm
In article

<90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

[Desertphile]

"Our?" Who is "our?" I don't have any Iraqi vets; 99.9% of Americans
do not have Iraqi vets. Only George Bush2 and Iraqis have Iraqi vets.


--
"If you don't mind, I'll take advice from real scientists as to what is
"correct or not." --- Denialist "tunderbar" on alt.global-warming

[Harold Burton]

In article
<fc90bf42-6a98-4bd2...@u2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,

Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > you smeared our WWII vets
> >
> > Just as you smeared our Iraqi vets.
>

> Try not to spree but if you do spree . . .


don't spree in Bret's trailer park.



snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 28, 9:25 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <fc90bf42-6a98-4bd2-b727-e9aed1105...@u2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,

>  Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > you smeared our WWII vets
>
> > > Just as you smeared our Iraqi vets.
>
> > Try not to spree but if you do spree . . .
>
> don't spree in Bret's trailer park.
>
> snicker

when are you going to apologize for calling our WWII vets war
criminals.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/8455997cbba5630d/e891055dbf97c108?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=ol&

Harold Burton
View profile
 More options May 19, 8:14 pm
In article

<90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

[Harold Burton]

In article
<41956fd2-fbaa-48a2...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<040076ac-9aef-4155...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

snicker

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I doubt that FDR would have allowed the unnecesary nuking
of Hiroshima and Nagaski; that was President Strangelove ... and, yes,
it was under British advizement. see http://larouchepub.com; thank
you.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

anyway, I was actually going to say,
it is okay to be skeptical, some of the time, but
to "be" a Skeptikos is to apply a derogatory termj
to yourself, out from under the many cults of the Oracle
at Delphi.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 29, 8:29 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <040076ac-9aef-4155-a5d7-d8f4d2c09...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 9:26 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <f894044f-542d-44f7-b891-ba3529be3...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 9:25 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <01d6d55e-b621-4287-aeda-18598a5ef...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > >  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Same reason  . . .
>
> > > > >  . . . leftards call themselves caring?
>
> > > > > snicker
>
> > > > you smeared our WWII vets
>
> > > Just as you smeared our Iraqi vets.
>
> > > snicker
>
> >  i never did, however,
> > when are you going to apologize for calling our WWII vets war
> > criminals.
>

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> > 55997cbba5630d/e891055dbf97c108?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=ol&
>
> > Harold Burton
> > View profile
> >  More options May 19, 8:14 pm
> > In article
> > <90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well doh.  Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
> > thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and
> > numerous
> > other cities.
> > snicker
>
> >  you were responded to promptly by a patriot.

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> > 55997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
> > The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services do.
> >
> > The buck stopped at FDR's desk.
>
> > >  . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
> > > Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> > > East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...
>
> > Hahahahahahahahahaha.  Now THAT's even funnier.
> > I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of
> > Tokyo . . .
> > and Osaka . . . and Kobe  . . .  and Fukuoka . . . and,
> > oh hell just

> > check outhttp://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html.  How

> > are you going to
> > blame that on the Brits?
> >  then i demanded a apology,

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> > 55997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
> > and he owes WWII vets a apology.
>
> >  you said,
>
> > Just as you owe sentient beings an apology
> > Hahahahahahahahahahah
>
> >  you sir are not only a liar, but a unpatriotic one at that.
>
> snicker

when are you going to apologize for calling our WWII vets war
criminals.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

Harold Burton
View profile
More options May 19, 8:14 pm
In article
<90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Well doh. Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and
numerous
other cities.
snicker

you were responded to promptly by a patriot.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services do.

The buck stopped at FDR's desk.

> . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
> Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Now THAT's even funnier.
I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of
Tokyo . . . 
and Osaka . . . and Kobe . . . and Fukuoka . . . and,
oh hell just 
check out http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html. How
are you going to 
blame that on the Brits?
then i demanded a apology,

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 29, 8:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I doubt that FDR would have allowed the unnecesary nuking
> of Hiroshima and Nagaski; that was President Strangelove ... and, yes,

> it was under British advizement.  seehttp://larouchepub.com;thank

> you.
>
> >    ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
> > Targets] 
employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
> > Forces... 
The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
> > British 
Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
> > Level 
Attacking by Next Daylight...

he hates our WWII vets because we beat "THE CONSERVATIVES" in WWII.
he defends the fascists.

[Bret Cahill]

> > I doubt that FDR would have allowed the unnecesary nuking
> > of Hiroshima and Nagaski; that was President Strangelove ... and, yes,
> > it was under British advizement.  seehttp://larouchepub.com;thank
> > you.
>
> > >    ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
> > > Targets] 
employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
> > > Forces... 
The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
> > > British 
Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
> > > Level 
Attacking by Next Daylight...
>
>  he hates our WWII vets because we beat "THE CONSERVATIVES" in WWII.
> he defends the fascists.

Today's teabagger won't even support the patriotic Dumbya Bush getting
equal time to rebut Ahmadinejad!

Try to offer the the olive branch of reviving the glory days of BushCo
and today's teabagger will _not_ reciprocate.

Can't figger it out.

: - )

[Nickname unavailable]

Q: Where does a retired Teabagger go for medical treatment after the
GOP has abolished Medicare?

A: No Teabagger ever thinks that far ahead.

Q: How do you hide something from a teabagger?

A: Put it in a
textbook.

Q: How do you start a teabagger parade?

A: Roll a few cans of Skoal
down the street.

Q: Where does a retired Teabagger go for medical treatment after the
GOP has abolished Medicare?

A: No Teabagger ever thinks that far
ahead.

Q: What did the Teabagger say to the doctor when she found out she was
pregnant?

A: Are you sure it s mine?

Q:Who do Teabaggers call an elitist?

A: Someone with a sixth-grade
education.

Q:What s the difference between an angry Teabagger and a terrorist?
A:You can negotiate with a terrorist.

You know you're a Teabagger when you put the beatdown on your tattoo
artist for spelling "MOM" backwards.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

too busy being a glibcat.

> Can't figger it out.

thus:
however, it should be enough,
simply to calculate the actual albedo
of open arctic waters, by using Snell's law
to find the angle of total reflection
off of water, mod waviness & turbulence etc.
in the land of the midwinter twilight.

thus:
are the Fermat primes characterizable,
if and only if they be Gaussian,
in the sense of their being nonskware factors
of the number of sides of compass-constructible polygona?
that is to say,
are there no more F-primes, if
there are no more G-primes of compass-constructability?...
well, wait; the answer to that is, Yeah, verily, iffsville.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<4f859c1d-88f6-486d...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<737849ae-8f99-4207...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

> On Sep 29, 8:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I doubt that FDR would have allowed the unnecesary nuking
> > of Hiroshima and Nagaski; that was President Strangelove ... and, yes,
> > it was under British advizement.  seehttp://larouchepub.com;thank
> > you.
> >
> > >    ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
> > > Targets]
> employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
> > > Forces...
> The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
> > > British
> Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
> > > Level
> Attacking by Next Daylight...

. . . and deliberately targeting and murdering civilians.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<61492a3e-ba08-4a10...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

That figures.


snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <737849ae-8f99-4207-8807-0408cee85...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 8:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I doubt that FDR would have allowed the unnecesary nuking
> > > of Hiroshima and Nagaski; that was President Strangelove ... and, yes,
> > > it was under British advizement.  seehttp://larouchepub.com;thank
> > > you.
>
> > > >    ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
> > > > Targets]
> > employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
> > > > Forces...
> > The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
> > > > British
> > Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
> > > > Level
> > Attacking by Next Daylight...
>
> . . .  and deliberately targeting and murdering civilians.
>
> snicker

   ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] 
employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
Forces... 
The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
British 
Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
Level 
Attacking by Next Daylight...

and you added this recently

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/3803f1d64d8e4b45/5d73a1560313be84?hl=en&

[Harold Burton]

In article
<4965e558-529f-44ee...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

4 minutes. You're clearly glued to your keyboard just waiting for my
post. I OWN you.


snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On Oct 3, 9:30 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <4965e558-529f-44ee-9136-747ce5d2b...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>  Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <737849ae-8f99-4207-8807-0408cee85...@j14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 8:51 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I doubt that FDR would have allowed the unnecesary nuking
> > > > > of Hiroshima and Nagaski; that was President Strangelove ... and, yes,
> > > > > it was under British advizement.  seehttp://larouchepub.com;thank
> > > > > you.
>
> > > > > >    ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
> > > > > > Targets]
> > > > employing Combined Military Assets of British and American
> > > > > > Forces...
> > > > The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per
> > > > > > British
> > > > Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-
> > > > > > Level
> > > > Attacking by Next Daylight...
>
> > > . . .  and deliberately targeting and murdering civilians.
>
> > > snicker
>
> >  when are you going to apologize for calling our WWII vets war
> > criminals.
>

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> > 55997cbba5630d/e891055dbf97c108?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=ol&
>
> > Harold Burton
> > View profile
> >  More options May 19, 8:14 pm
> > In article
> > <90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well doh.  Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
> > thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and
> > numerous
> > other cities.
> > snicker
>
> >  you were responded to promptly by a patriot.

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> > 55997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
> > The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services do.
> >
> > The buck stopped at FDR's desk.
>
> > >  . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
> > > Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> > > East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...
>
> > Hahahahahahahahahaha.  Now THAT's even funnier.
> > I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of
> > Tokyo . . .
> > and Osaka . . . and Kobe  . . .  and Fukuoka . . . and,
> > oh hell just

> > check outhttp://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html.  How

> > are you going to
> > blame that on the Brits?
> >  then i demanded a apology,

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> > 55997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
> > and he owes WWII vets a apology.
>
> >  you said,
>
> > Just as you owe sentient beings an apology
> > Hahahahahahahahahahah
>
> >  you sir are not only a liar, but a unpatriotic one at that.
>
> >  and you added this recently
>

> >https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/...

> > 03f1d64d8e4b45/5d73a1560313be84?hl=en&
>
> >  . . .  and deliberately targeting and murdering civilians.
> >  snicker
>
> 4 minutes.  You're clearly glued to your keyboard just waiting for my
> post.  I OWN you.
>
> snicker

no you do not. what you do is give me a chance to expose you for what
you are, and for all to see.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

Yawn. Sure. And Algore invented the INTERNET too!

snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<a351f090-e9fa-45f9...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/84

> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/84

> 55997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
> The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services do.
>  
> The buck stopped at FDR's desk.
>
> >  . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
> > Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> > East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...
>
> Hahahahahahahahahaha.  Now THAT's even funnier.
> I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of
> Tokyo . . .  
> and Osaka . . . and Kobe  . . .  and Fukuoka . . . and,
> oh hell just

> check out http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html.  How
> are you going to
> blame that on the Brits?
> then i demanded a apology,
> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/84

> 55997cbba5630d/b08042a9da25f19f?hl=en&q=Harold+Burton++world+war+two&lnk=nl&
> and he owes WWII vets a apology.
>
> you said,
>
> Just as you owe sentient beings an apology
> Hahahahahahahahahahah
>
>
> you sir are not only a liar, but a unpatriotic one at that.
>
> and you added this recently
>

> https://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/browse_thread/thread/38

> 03f1d64d8e4b45/5d73a1560313be84?hl=en&
>
> . . . and deliberately targeting and murdering civilians.
> snicker

Snicker

[Gary Forbis]

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:41:40 PM UTC-7, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
> Yawn. Sure. And Algore invented the INTERNET too!
> snicker

I can't read your thinking, only your writing.
I'm not sure Harold know Al Gore never said he invented
the internet. This is a right wing myth from a misquote
of what he did say.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I happen to participate in a set of discussions
where the form of the internet was being discussed.
I'm not sure how many people remember darpanet,
fidonet, k12net, etc. They hadn't even decided to
go with tcp/ip at the time. Gawd, many were so
proud they could bounce around the nation using UUCP.

[Super Turtle]

"Bret Cahill" wrote in message
news:01d6d55e-b621-4287...@n7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

>Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>evolution a "religion."

Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
of a static universe which is wrong!

it is the Christians that taught the idea of the universe being a caused one
all along!

The idea of a caused universe, or one that didn't have to exist is a
uniquely Christian view of things (at least for any mainstream religion that
had great influence on people).

Note that up to about the 1920's the scientific community held
onto this idea and concept of a static universe. As we started deploying
better telescopes and discovery things like fusion, we realized that those
stars in the sky are not points of light, but in that in fact tanks of
"fuel" that are constantly being used up.

If the stars fuel tank is
constantly being used up, then logic dictates that those stars could not
always been there. They had to have a start and therefore MUST have been
caused. It is this marriage of logic and correct philosophy combined with
observation of the world around us that gives rise of the scientific
process.
You can't have science without reason and logic, and you cannot make any use
of
observations you make without correct sound reasoning and logic
(philosophy).

If I walk into a room and see a lit candle, then I can deduce logically that
the candle could NOT always been burning forever because we know that candle
has a limited life Span and limited amount of fuel.

And that logic for a candle having limited fuel and life when lit is the
SAME
for those stars and their limited fuel (it is using energy, going downhill
and
wearing out!). It is no different then your battery going dead.

This crushing blow of logic and discovery by the scientific community means
they were now forced to accept the Christian view of a caused universe! This
was a huge blow, and many a scientists actual refused to accept this point
view of a caused universe.

Why?

The scientists well knew that accepting this
point of view was playing into the hands of the philosophical order of
things and view that the Christians held for the universe. In other words,
science was proving our view to be correct. Many a scientists went to their
graves refusing to accept this idea of a caused universe

Funny how your science community taught the static universe for centuries
while it was the Christians that taught the idea and concept of a caused
universe of which your Science and observations now supports.

So we all know and realize that the science community was shown
to be WRONG in adopting the view of a always existed (not caused) universe.

With the above in mind it is no small wonder that most of our science
heritage much based on the Christian philosophical view of things. Our
science heritage is from our western culture. Be it Planks law, Newton's
law, Ohms law, Faraday law, Kepler law...I can go on for listing hundreds
and hundreds of scientists and "laws" that these people created and the vast
majority of these "laws" are all from the west and our Christian the
culture. In fact all these laws came from Universities founded by Christian
charters.

The Christians of the west don't have better brains than other people and
other faiths of the world. The only differentiating factor here was the
adoption of a different view of the universe and the adoption of the
scientific process. This scientific process can't occur in most religions
other than that of the particular Christian view of the world that we see
today. (the caused universe).

Christians burned people at the stake for believing
in a love god, or even a wind god. And this teaching that god is NOT in a
rock or the wind means unlike native populations that believed in silly
thinks like a wind god, the Christian view meant we would now have to
observe and FIND OUT how and why the wind exists yet we cannot
see it! And this view of things also meant that such science was not
in opposition to the Christian view of things.

And there is more:

Most physics books today to refer to the motion system that of the planets
around the sun as the Copernican motion system. It is not widely reported
that history records that the Copernicus was a catholic priest.

Funny how this bit of history is always left out!

And even more funny how it is the science community now adopting the
Christian idea of a caused universe, and not the other way around!!!

Super Turtle

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Super Turtle" <super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message news:Hpfcs.4191$EP3....@newsfe07.iad...

=================================================

If you replace all the parts of a car; the engine, the seats, the transmission,

the body, the wing mirrors, the tyres, every single part, is it the same car?

And what car doesn’t have a tyre replaced in its life?

The point is that if a star is born, lives and dies the universe is still essentially

the same, always was and always will be, and infinite in extent,  no matter

what mere men believe. 

Why you mix that up with a Xtian rant only you know.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

 

[Bret Cahill]

> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >evolution a "religion."
>
> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> of a static universe which is wrong!

Never heard of "static universe theory" but it's probably for the same
reason Christians were once Catholics like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney

They didn't know any better.

Now answer this question: Since Christians were once wrong, does that
mean they are always wrong? That they are wrong today?

[Super Turtle]

"Bret Cahill" wrote in message

news:b0ac2cd9-3c66-44f4...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>> >evolution a "religion."
>>
>> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the
>> idea
>> of a static universe which is wrong!

>Never heard of "static universe theory"

Then obviously you rather uneducated about anything in science and history
then.

Plato, Aristotle, and virtually all the great philosophers and that of the
science community taught the the concept of the universe that always
existed.

it it was the great philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas that cracked this
riddle of reason and logic with brilliance!

Don't know why you never heard of the static universe theory, but a few
seconds of Google should've been able to educate you.

>
>They didn't know any better.

Well if you're saying that the scientific community for well over 1000 years
taught this idea of a static and always existed universe?
Then yes, this is absolutely correct, they were wrong! Thank you kindly for
admitting the science community often teaches the wrong thing for a long
time - very much like CAGW is also wrong!

The very definition of infinite means that there's something that does not
require a beginning. So the concept of a static universe means that the
universe always existed, and therefore did not have to be caused.

>Now answer this question: Since Christians were once wrong, does that
>mean they are always wrong? That they are wrong today?

What you mean they were wrong on what? And wrong about what in this context?

The simple Point I've made, that you seem to be un-able to grasp is this:

The view of a caused universe is a uniquely Christian view, and as I pointed
out such a viewpoint rose up from the Christian west.
There is no other major religion of any type of influence that has ever
taught this point of view.

And as I stated until as late as the 1920s, the general world scientific
community, and that includes the VERY long and storied history of
philosophers and the general science community has always taught the theory
and concept of a static universe. In other words the general view was that
the universe was always present, always existed, and therefore did not
needed beginning, and therefore the scientific community did not have to
search for a starting point!

I mean if the universe has always existed, then why do we have to use
science to try and figure out some starting point in some kind of theory to
explain a starting point?

It's pretty logically simply to point out that if the universe was always
existing, then it does not need a starting point, and it doesn't need to be
a caused universe.

And if the universe is always existing, then you don't have to cook up some
fairy tale like the big bang.

Of course the big bang becomes a circular reference type of logic, since you
have to ask yourself what about the state of the universe before the big
bang, say a few 1,000,000 years earlier! And you've really don't have to use
the concept of time here, but you do have to address the state of the
universe before such an event as the big bang occurred, and you still have
to address what caused that event to occur unless you're going to say
nothing caused this event at all! In other words you have to adopt something
that happened, but say there's no reason for to happen!

So you obviously don't understand the reason and logic of the scientific
community on this matter.

When the scientific community discovered fusion it instantly realized that
the stars in the sky are not points of light, but in fact tanks of fuel
burning up that could NOT always existed. In other words fuel is being
burnt, and used up, and therefore the star could not have been lit and
burning forever. In other words all the stores will eventually run out of
fuel, and therefore we have to explain the starting point when they had all
the fuel tanks topped up so to speak!

So just like walking into a room and witnessing and observing that a candle
is burning, logic dictates that the candle could've not been burning
forever!

Thus as science logic and technology improved, the evidence began to pour in
that FORCED the scientific community to DROP their long time and WRONG view
of the universe being a static and always having existed.

Science and technology therefore forced the community to adopt the Christian
point of view of that of a caused universe, and one that was not static, and
one that could have always existed.

In other words, your side lost this round and debate. As I pointed out, the
scientific community did not want to adopt this point of view, but the
evidence forced them.

In other words the longtime historic Christian point of view has only been
VERY recently adopted by the scientific community that the universe could
not be static.

So it is the science that provides us with the concept and proof that the
universe must have a beginning!

In other words if the universe always existed, the scientific community does
not have to spend times and resources looking for a starting point! The big
bang would in fact be an arbitrary point, and you would want to look at the
universe long before that single point in time! However their focus is on
that single point in time because as I've pointed out the science community
has adopted the Christian point of view of a caused universe with a
beginning.

As I pointed out, the whole science community now having to adopt this
concept of a caused universe plays right into the philosophical view of the
Christians on this matter.

Super Turtle

[Stan de SD]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:40:15 PM UTC-4, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Sep 25, 5:32 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
>
> wrote:

>
> > On 9/25/2012 2:44 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
>
> > > evolution a "religion."
>
> >
>

> > > Same reason looneytarians try to call their despotism "freedom."
>
> >
>
> > > Twisted minds twist the natural meanings of words.
>
> >
>
> > > Clearly any nut job conspiracy theorist trying to vilify NOAA, NASA,
>
> > > Scientific American, the MSM and every math and science department in
>
> > > every university on the planet (except Liberty U.) has already made up
>
> > > his closed/shut down mind.
>
> >
>
> > > That's not a skeptic.
>
> >
>
> > > That's a nut job conspiracy theorist denier.
>
> >
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> >
>
> > This is worth a bit of time. It is posted to sci.physics, but has
>
> > NOTHING to do with physics or even science. But he did cross-post to
>
> > political groups per my suggestion!
>
> >
>
> > The question: "Why do Deniers try to call themselves "skeptics".  Say
>
> > Bret are you STILL beating your wife? I've heard this kind of question
>
> > before, usually along racist lines: "Why do niggers try to call
>
> > themselves "human"?" Nice one Bret!
>
> >
>
> > The truth of course is that "Deniers" is political word made up by
>
> > climate alarmists and applied to anyone who disagrees with their dogma.
>
> > The actual "denial" is coming form alarmists like Bret who are
>
> > anti-intellectual science deniers.  The word "deniers" was invented to
>
> > apply to critics because it's so politically loaded being one step
>
> > removed from "Holocaust denier". So the critics are marginalized and
>
> > denigrated simply by the name the warmists apply to them!
>
> >
>
> > It's the same propaganda trick that the invention of the term
>
> > "anthropogenic global warming" uses. The warmists cleverly provide the
>
> > terminology and if you use it, you are by definition admitting that
>
> > "global warming" is man-caused. You lose the argument simply by using
>
> > THEIR terms!
>
> >
>
> > And then examine the rest of Bret's post above. Is there any science in
>
> > it? No. Bret knows no science. Is there any truth in it? A tiny bit but
>
> > only when it serves his agenda. The main point he makes is that anyone
>
> > who disagrees with him and his fellow conspirators is insane. WE can
>
> > note that he has exactly ZERO scientific or medical basis for such a
>
> > diagnosis. SO basically it's nothing but slander and political dirty
>
> > tricks.
>
> >
>
> > But apparently Bret is hoping that there are enough people who think
>
> > that if it's on the internet it MUST be true, that he can convince
>
> > someone that he is making sense.  He isn't. He isn't worth your time.
>
> > He's not worth anyone's time.
>
> >
>
> > This post of his is all the proof you need of that.
>
> >
>
> > Give him the old "Plonk".  Nothing to see here. Move along.
>
>
>
> there is a big difference between a skeptic, or a denier. deniers of
> many things seem to run in packs, like the tea party, which some in it
> have nazi connections:))))))

You have proof of this, or are you merely making up crap as usual?

[Stan de SD]

You can't "figger" anything out because you don't deal with reality, windbag. You make no attempts at any semblance of intellectual honesty, as you really couldn't care what your personal opponents stand for or think - in the end, you're going to put words in their mouths anyway.

[Super Turtle]

 

>"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org> wrote in message news:JUfcs.230228$512....@fx28.am4...

>

>The point is that if a star is born, lives and dies the universe is still essentially

>the same, always was and always will be, and infinite in extent, no matter

>what mere men believe.

 

No the universe IS NOT THE SAME AFTER the stars dies

(that would be a theory of a static universe).

 

If I light a candle and it burns up, the candle is NO LONGER CAPABLE OF REMAINING LIT AND PRODUCING HEAT. 

 

It's called basic physics and science you silly fool!

 

You're making the claim that a star is born, but the gas tank in that Star must be fueled up with fuel to sustain the heat and energy it produces. 

 

Science teaches us that the heat in energy produced by that Star is limited. The tank will run out! Therefore the universe should eventually burn itself out. This means the universe could NOT have always existed! (because if the universe had always existed, then there would always be these stars burning and using up their LIMITED fuel). 

 

The problem here is, is that a star in the universe has a limited fuel supply and they are burning up!

 

So, no, the universe is not the same after a star brings up and exhausts its tank of fuel.

 

 

If the universe has always existed, then we DO NOT have to come up with a scientific explanation of how the universe came to be, because it always existed. 

 

So you're stupid logic is not accepted by the scientific community at all anymore! (used to be!).

 

And when you burn up a candle, burn up a star, then that Star does not exist anymore. To build another candle, or build another star, you have to go find some more fuel to power up that candle or in this case that Star.  That fuel supply is limited!

 

Since the fuel supply in which those stars rely on is limited in quantity, then logically we have to find out where this fuel came from, and how it came into existence!

 

In other words the fuel could've not always existed, since it would been burned up a long time ago.

 

Energy and fuel is required to keep a car running, or in this case to keep a star running. Once the fuel supply is exhausted, the star can no longer continue its existence and operation. 

 

And you can't take the leftover material of that Star and create another star, since it will not provide the fuel that you require to power a new one.

 

So, NO NO NO, the Universe does not remain the same after a star dies!

And the reason is because it burned up all the fuel that its existence was based upon!

 

However, before the discovery of the science and technology and the concept of things like the understanding of particles, and that of atomic fusion, then it was relatively easy for the science community to hold your position that the universe was the same before and after a star came and went out of existence.

 

And as I pointed out, your quote and position simply is the same of the static universe theory that's been taught for several 1000 years.

 

Unfortunately, such a theory is dead, is wrong, and MOST worse is for your side this dead and "past" static theory idea was at least something that was opposing and different from the Christian point of view .

 

However by the 1920s with the discovery fusion, better telescopes, better technology, and improved science, the general science community has now been forced to adopt the obvious scientific evidence that the universe cannot be static, and therefore must be a caused universe. this happens to be the same position the Christians had all along and taught!

 

Super Turtle

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Super Turtle" <super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message news:RRwcs.1661$hh5...@newsfe03.iad...

 

>"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" <LordAn...@October2012.org> wrote in message news:JUfcs.230228$512....@fx28.am4...

>

>The point is that if a star is born, lives and dies the universe is still essentially

>the same, always was and always will be, and infinite in extent, no matter

>what mere men believe.

 

No

 

================================================

 

It would be a theory of a steady state Universe. Nobody said “static” except you.

 

 

 

It's called basic physics and science you silly fool!

 

=================================================

Name-calling now, is it?

Steady state is basic physics and science, conservation of mass/energy,

the first law of thermodynamics, you fucking stupid arsehole.

 

You're making the claim that a star is born, but the gas tank in that Star must be fueled up with fuel to sustain the heat and energy it produces.

=================================================

And the by-product of that fuel, the spent fuel, has to still exist, the

matter and the energy cannot vanish, it can only dissipate and there

is nowhere for it to go except back into the universe for recycling

where it has all eternity to become fuel again, however long it takes,

forever and ever amen.

 

 

Science teaches

=================================================

Science didn’t teach you much, you ignorant mass/energy conservation

denier. So  NO NO NO, you fucking imbecile, a steady state universe

is science and your religious Big Bonk theory is a load of old bollocks,

you clueless cunt. Now fuck off and preach somewhere else before

you call me a silly fool again, you brain-dead dumbfuck.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Gary Forbis]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:57:41 AM UTC-7, Super Turtle wrote:
> Don't know why you never heard of the static universe theory, but a few
> seconds of Google should've been able to educate you.

You know, I was thinking about steady state universe rather than static
universe. You do know these are taught as theories rather than facts?
The best theory of the time can be later proven false based upon evidence.
This doesn't mean one should equate scientific theory with religious doctrine.

One acts based upon the theories one holds. It's all about predicability.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 10/8/2012 9:43 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:57:41 AM UTC-7, Super Turtle wrote:
>> Don't know why you never heard of the static universe theory, but a few
>> seconds of Google should've been able to educate you.
>
> You know, I was thinking about steady state universe rather than static
> universe. You do know these are taught as theories rather than facts?
> The best theory of the time can be later proven false based upon evidence.
> This doesn't mean one should equate scientific theory with religious doctrine.

Neither are fact, so they both reside in the same tray..... neither can
be treated as they are absolute. So neither deserve laws to steal
freedoms and force people to do things on their behalf.

Both are essentially religions and both are NOT permitted to be made
into National religions. Yet you want Global Warming to become the
National religion and forced on us by laws.

> One acts based upon the theories one holds. It's all about predicability.

That means you will be wrong.... if I wait for facts to act, then I
will be correct.

Sometimes you can't wait for fact, then we both guess.

Global warming is NOT an apocalypse that has to be stopped by midnight
or we all die. We can pace ourselves and see what makes sense and what
part is hyped up Eco-Socialism.



Eco-Socialism and Social Justice and Redistribution all add up to
Socialism run a muck. NO facts all they use is predictability, they
predict they can scare you and agitate you into doing stupid things.


So far they have you pegged correctly.


*Rumination*
#40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.

[Bret Cahill]

> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >evolution a "religion."

> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> of a static universe which is wrong!

Probably for the same reason Christians were once Catholics like Paul
Ryan and Mitt Romney

They didn't know any better.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >> >evolution a "religion."
>
> >> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the
> >> idea
> >> of a static universe which is wrong!

> >Never heard of "static universe theory"
>
> Then obviously you rather uneducated about anything in science and history
> then.

So many wrong theories, so little time.

Why not focus on learning the theories that have yet to be discredited
first?

Here, let's start again:

> >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> >evolution a "religion."

> Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> of a static universe which is wrong!

Probably for the same reason Christians were once Catholics like Paul
Ryan and Mitt Romney

They didn't know any better.

Now answer this question: Since Christians were once wrong, does
that
mean they are always wrong? That they are wrong today?

This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.

[R. Dean]

On 10/8/2012 11:55 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 9:43 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>> On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:57:41 AM UTC-7, Super Turtle wrote:
>>> Don't know why you never heard of the static universe theory, but a few
>>> seconds of Google should've been able to educate you.
>>
>> You know, I was thinking about steady state universe rather than static
>> universe. You do know these are taught as theories rather than facts?
>

Two things: 1) the static universe and the steady state universe is
exactly the same thing. Sir Fred Hoyle advanced your steady state
universe the gist of the hypothesis was the universe was eternal. had
no beginning and no end. however 2) This universe has been falsified by
the big bang and the expanding universe which is the present day
accepted scientific opinion.

>
>> The best theory of the time can be later proven false based upon evidence.
>> This doesn't mean one should equate scientific theory with religious doctrine.
>
> Neither are fact, so they both reside in the same tray..... neither can
> be treated as they are absolute. So neither deserve laws to steal
> freedoms and force people to do things on their behalf.
>

As I pointed out before this was a falsified scientific hypothesis. This
never was a religious view at least never a Jewish or Christian
belief.

>
> Both are essentially religions and both are NOT permitted to be made
> into National religions.
>

Wrong, again there never was a religious component to this view. In
fact the Religious view was there was a beginning and a ending.

Yet you want Global Warming to become the
> National religion and forced on us by laws.
>

Global warming is a fact, but this is a natural cycle. The earth has
gone through many cooling and heating cycles in its history. Whether
or not man has anything to do with affecting climate change, maybe
but only to a miniscule degree. Perhaps we humans are arrogant enough
to think we are doing it. We are like primitive man watching a solar
eclipse and medicine man devising ritualistic dances designed to help
the sun break away.
Then as the moon moves away, there is rejoicing; they see their
ritual as greatly successful. And the medicine man takes the bows. But
this had nothing to do with it. How much advanced are we when it comes
to global warming.

>
>> One acts based upon the theories one holds. It's all about predicability.
>
> That means you will be wrong.... if I wait for facts to act, then I
> will be correct.
>
> Sometimes you can't wait for fact, then we both guess.
>
> Global warming is NOT an apocalypse that has to be stopped by midnight
> or we all die. We can pace ourselves and see what makes sense and what
> part is hyped up Eco-Socialism.
>

Good point - very good!

>
>
> Eco-Socialism and Social Justice and Redistribution all add up to
> Socialism run a muck. NO facts all they use is predictability, they
> predict they can scare you and agitate you into doing stupid things.
>

Well said.

[Bret Cahill]

[Gary Forbis]

On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:03:40 PM UTC-7, R. Dean wrote:
> Global warming is a fact, but this is a natural cycle.

The issue isn't whether or not it is a natural cycle but
rather or not this occurance is related to human activity.
Humans are part of nature.

The release of sequestered carbon can be measured by isotopic
ratios found in atomospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide
level is strongly correlated with average temperature. We don't
have as much time to fix this as some would think. We are already
seeing food price increases due to global warming. How long should
we wait. Some talk about shifting the national debt onto our children.
That's small picking relative to the economic impacts of global warming.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Oct 8, 4:05 am, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >  there is a big difference between a skeptic, or a denier. deniers of
> > many things seem to run in packs, like the tea party, which some in it
> > have nazi connections:))))))
>
> You have proof of this, or are you merely making up crap as usual?

yawn, its well known that the tea party has
nazi(CONSERVATIVE)sympathizers. this is just one of them. nothing made
up, you just refuse to accept reality.

 here are the three 3 phases of conservative decay.
1.conservatism(policies always fail)
2. libertarianism(the drive for purity, the conservative polices and
those that implemented them, were not pure enough)
3. fascism(the rise of the strong man to ensure purity), the
strongman
will drive out the impure, liberals, jews, immigrants, trade
unionists, communists, socialists, those with mental and physical
defects,
gypsies, etc. this to fails on a huge scale. just look what happened
to the central european fascists. they collapsed their economies, and
came up millions of workers and soldiers short.



crank conservative/libertarian/fascist republican tea party nut case
idealizes the nazi s.s. typical conservative:Why is This GOP House
Candidate proudly Dressed as a Nazi?:click on the link for the pics
of 
the proud conservative in his natural state wearing a nazi
uniform:)
 click on the link for the pics of the proud conservative in his
natural state, wearing a nazi uniform:)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/why-is-this-gop-h...
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2010

JOSHUA GREEN - Joshua Green is a senior editor of The Atlantic and a
weekly political columnist for the Boston Globe.
Why is This GOP House Candidate Dressed as a Nazi?
OCT 8 2010, 10:00 PM ET 
An election year already notable for its
menagerie of extreme and 
unusual candidates can add another one: Rich
Iott, the Republican 
nominee for Congress from Ohio's 9th District,
and a Tea Party 
favorite, who for years donned a German Waffen SS
uniform and 
participated in Nazi re-enactments.
Iott, whose district lies in Northwest Ohio, was involved with a
group 
that calls itself Wiking, whose members are devoted to re-
enacting the 
exploits of an actual Nazi division, the 5th SS Panzer
Division 
Wiking, which fought mainly on the Eastern Front during
World War II. 
Iott's participation in the Wiking group is not
mentioned on his 
campaign's website, and his name and photographs
were removed from the 
Wiking website.
When contacted by The Atlantic, Iott confirmed his involvement with
the group over a number of years, but said his interest in Nazi
Germany was historical and he does not subscribe to the tenets of
Nazism. "No, absolutely not," he said. "In fact, there's a disclaimer
on the [Wiking] website. And you'll find that on almost any
reenactment website. It's purely historical interest in World War
II."
Iott, a member of the Ohio Military Reserve, added, "I've always been
fascinated by the fact that here was a relatively small country that
from a strictly military point of view accomplished incredible
things. 
I mean, they took over most of Europe and Russia, and it
really took 
the combined effort of the free world to defeat them.
From a purely 
historical military point of view, that's incredible."
Iott says the group chose the Wiking division in part because it
fought on the Eastern Front, mainly against the Russian Army, and not
U.S. or British soldiers. The group's website includes a lengthy
history of the Wiking unit, a recruitment video, and footage of
goose- 
stepping German soldiers marching in the Warsaw victory parade
after 
Poland fell in 1939. The website makes scant mention of the
atrocities 
committed by the Waffen SS, and includes only a glancing
reference to 
the "twisted" nature of Nazism. Instead, it emphasizes
how the Wiking 
unit fought Bolshevist Communism: 
Nazi Germany had no
problem in recruiting the multitudes of volunteers 
willing to lay
down their lives to ensure a "New and Free Europe", 
free of the
threat of Communism. National Socialism was seen by many 
in Holland,
Denmark, Norway, Finland, and other eastern European and 
Balkan
countries as the protector of personal freedom and their very 
way of
life, despite the true underlying totalitarian (and quite 
twisted, in
most cases) nature of the movement. Regardless, thousands 
upon
thousands of valiant men died defending their respective 
countries in
the name of a better tomorrow. We salute these idealists; 
no matter
how unsavory the Nazi government was, the front-line 
soldiers of the
Waffen-SS (in particular the foreign volunteers) gave 
their lives for
their loved ones and a basic desire to be free. 
Historians of Nazi
Germany vehemently dispute this characterization. 
"These guys don't
know their history," said Charles W. Sydnor, Jr., a 
retired history
professor and author of "Soldiers of Destruction: The 
SS Death's Head
Division, 1933-45," which chronicles an SS division. 
"They have a
sanitized, romanticized view of what occurred." Sydnor 
added that re-
enactments like the Wiking group's are illegal in 
Germany and
Austria. "If you were to put on an SS uniform in Germany 
today, you'd
be arrested."
Christopher Browning, a professor of history at the University of
North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said, "It is so unhistorical and so
apologetic that you don't know to what degree they've simply caught
up 
innocent war memorabilia enthusiasts who love putting on
uniforms."
Iott says he does not recall exactly when he joined the Wiking group
(his name appears on a unit roster as far back as 2003), but did so
with his son "as a father-son bonding thing." He says his name and
pictures were removed from the Wiking website not out of concern that
they would harm his political career, but because he quit the group
three years ago, after his son lost interest.
Iott participated in the group under his own name, and also under the
alias "Reinhard Pferdmann," which has also been removed, and which
Iott described as being his German alter ego. "Part of the
reenactor's 
[experience]," Iott said, "is the living-history part, of
really 
trying to get into the persona of the time period. In many,
not just 
in our unit, but in many units what individuals do is create
this 
person largely based on a Germanized version of their name, and
a 
history kind of based around your own real experiences. 'Reinhard'
of 
course is 'Richard' in German. And 'Pferdmann,' 'pferd' is a
horse. So 
it's literally 'horse man.'"
Asked whether his participation in a Nazi re-enactor's group might
not 
upset voters, particularly Jewish voters, Iott said he hoped it
would 
not: "They have to take it in context. There's reenactors out
there 
who do everything. You couldn't do Civil War re-enacting if
somebody 
didn't play the role of the Confederates. [This] is
something that's 
definitely way in the past. ... [I hope voters] take
it in context and 
see it for what it is, an interest in World War II
history. And that's 
strictly all."
Rabbi Moshe Saks, of the Congregation B'nai Israel in Sylvania, Ohio,
a suburb of Toledo that sits in the 9th district, disagreed. "Any
kind 
of reenactment or glorification of Nazi Germany, to us, would
be 
something unacceptable and certainly in poor taste, if not
offensive," 
he said. "I think the reaction here will be very
negative. And not 
just among the Jewish community, but the broader
community."
In a follow-up email today, Iott seemed at pains to address concerns
that his conduct may have alienated veterans groups but made no
specific mention of possible offense to Jews or human rights groups:
"Never, in any of my reenacting of military history, have I meant any
disrespect to anyone who served in our military or anyone who has
been 
affected by the tragedy of war. In fact, I have immense respect
for 
veterans who served our country valiantly, and my respect of the
military and our veterans is one of the reasons I have actively
studied military history throughout my life." He added that he has
participated in re-enactments as a Civil War Union infantryman, a
World War I dough boy and World War II American infantryman and
paratrooper.
The actual Wiking unit has a history as grisly as that of other Nazi
divisions. In her book "The Death Marches of Hungarian Jews Through
Austria in the Spring of 1945," Eleonore Lappin, the noted Austrian
historian, writes that soldiers from the Wiking division were
involved 
in the killing of Hungarian Jews in March and April 1945,
before 
surrendering to American forces in Austria.
"What you often hear is that the [Wiking] division was never formally
accused of anything, but that's kind of a dodge," says Prof. Rob
Citino, of the Military History Center at the University of North
Texas, who examined the Wiking website. "The entire German war effort
in the East was a racial crusade to rid the world of 'subhumans,'
Slavs were going to be enslaved in numbers of tens of millions. And
of 
course the multimillion Jewish population of Eastern Europe was
going 
to be exterminated altogether. That's what all these folks were
doing 
in the East. It sends a shiver up my spine to think that people
want 
to dress up and play SS on the weekend."




the republican party is simply running out of al bundy, homer simpson,
archie bunker types. people so stupid, they cannot even do basic math,
let alone come in from the rain.
the constitution of the united states was a anti-conservative
statement by the majority of the founders of the united states of
america.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 but upon careful examination "THE CONSERVATIVES"  feeble attempts at
confusion and dishonesty does not stand up to the light. they live in
a counter-factual universe, the product of the hermetically sealed
"CONSERVATIVE" subculture. Trying to see the world through the lens
of
"THE CONSERVATIVE", is like looking at a fun-house mirror;
everything’s backwards and distorted.

"THE CONSERVATIVES" world view is flawed because its based upon a
small and particularly rosy sliver of reality.  To preserve that world
view, "THE CONSERVATIVES" believe that people had morally earned their
“just” desserts, and had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to
point out that the world didn’t actually work that way.  I think this
shows why "THE CONSERVATIVES" put so much effort into “creat[ing]
their own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts,
scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be
dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it).  It explains
why study after study shows that avid consumers of "THE CONSERVATIVE"-
oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news
sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:05:48 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> > >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> > >evolution a "religion."

> > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > of a static universe which is wrong!

Why did Creationists teach for 5,000+ years that the universe was
created by gods which is wrong!

> Probably for the same reason Christians were once Catholics like Paul
> Ryan and Mitt Romney
>
> They didn't know any better.

"The correct answer is Mormon; that's Mormon." --- god

> Now answer this question: Since Christians were once wrong, does that
> mean they are always wrong? That they are wrong today?

--
"I haven't seen any defensible explanation of any errors by Miskolczi." --- Bill Ward

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 10/26/2012 1:03 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:03:40 PM UTC-7, R. Dean wrote:
>> Global warming is a fact, but this is a natural cycle.
> The issue isn't whether or not it is a natural cycle but
> rather or not this occurance is related to human activity.
> Humans are part of nature.
>
> The release of sequestered carbon can be measured by isotopic
> ratios found in atomospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide
> level is strongly correlated with average temperature.

STOP you have a water cycle (you know like the circle of life ) so
how did heat stop the humidity from falling every night as the air
cools? And "strongly correlated" means that it's like the charriot
that pulled the sun across the sky.... the sun moves so it correlates
with the idea that a God must be moving it.

> We don't
> have as much time to fix this as some would think.

STOP fix what? You are still saying "strongly correlated" which
means you are still nursing a dieing hypothesis, that has no facts
supporting it.

> We are already
> seeing food price increases due to global warming.

STOP That is Obamanomics and I've been telling you about Stagflation
and rising prices for about 2 years now.... you Liberals said I was
crazy. Here is the inflation you and Obama asked for with your policies.

> How long should
> we wait.

Until Obama is gone and we have a RATIONAL economic policy.

> Some talk about shifting the national debt onto our children.

Some talk about that mythical Global Warming as being an immediate
threat and use Global Warming as an excuse to pass even more debt to our
children....

> That's small picking relative to the economic impacts of global warming.

The greats impact being misuse of money and it being wasted by taxing
and regulating for a mythical disaster that doesn't exist.