I don't usually do it but I couldn't help it. I asked my cousin who she was supporting in the primaries. My cousin and I avoid even the most pedestrian of political questions because, as anyone who has attempted to have a mature conversation with a leftist, unless one agrees with them, one can count on anger and hostility.
But I began the instant message conversation by promising I wouldn't "push it" (in other words, ask for thoughtful reasons behind her decision) and that I just wanted to know who she supported.
She wrote that she "likes Hillary."
I was dying to ask her on what basis she supported this person to soon become the most powerful human being on the planet, but knew that since he answer would be along the lines of most leftists "I like that she's a woman" or "I liked Bill" (which would only beg the question "why?")
I asked if she'd considered supporting Rudy? She instantly replied "NO!!!"
Again, I was dying to ask "why not?" After all, my cousin lives in New York City. She lived there as New York plummeted into the filth and violence years under leftists Ed Koch and David Dinkens. She'd seen her city resurrected under the care of the Republican Rudolph Giuliani, with her free to walk the streets, play in the park and even visit Times Square at night to catch a play.
She was in New York when Islamic fascists murdererd thousands, closed her city down for weeks, and wrought fear and hatred and she watch as Giuliani became not just the Mayor of New York, but "America's Mayor" with his calm and efficient handling of this sudden disaster.
I was dying to ask her why she wouldn't even consider such an effective and accomplished hero but I didn't because I knew she didn't have any thoughtful reason. That's what makes her a Democrat. It's what allows an unknown like Barack Obama to lead the pack of Democrats running on such tripe as "hope" and "change." It's why such a corrupt fool as John Edwards is in serious contention. After all, Guiliani may have battled the mob, cleaned up New York and led the city through its darkest days, but Edwards his nice hair.
This is why the Democrats don't fear Iran. After all, doesn't Ahmadinejad wear a nifty jacket? How can he be evil (Hitler was evil, though, because of that funny mustache. So not GQ of him.)
Hillary's a chick, Obama is "tall, dark and handsome" and Edwards has pretty hair. Again that, how can a national hero hope to win?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
282 comments:
1 – 200 of 282 Newer› Newest»Haha...well it appears the sanctimonious tight ass moralizer has it up for that great moral leader, Rudith JulieAnnie...the guy who the fire fighters and policemen of NY despise and know to be a phony and a fool. That's how rightists choose their little tin fuhrers...by the same brilliant process that gave them GDumbya...the stupidest and most spectacular failure in US history and, god love him...the monkey who destroyed the goofball "conservative" movement.
More straw men arguments from our buddy, Dancing Monkey. Ignores all the negatives about Rudy Giuliani - the authoritarian streak that left New York swimming in civil rights lawsuits, cozying up to creeps like Bernie Kerik, the fact that he was too stupid, or too stubborn, or both, to place the city's emergency response headquarters in a building that wasn't the number 1 terrorist target in the world - rather than honestly confronting them like an actual political pundit would do (which is why you, Evan, reside in the absolute bottom of the barrel of right-wing demagoguery, spewing your hate in the backwaters of the internet where no one but a few parrots and those of us who enjoy watching the freak show actually pay attention to you. But I digress). I'm sorry that your cousin can't form a cogent argument against someone as repugnant as Rudy Giuliani, but she is, after all, related to you, so one can reasonably assume that myopia runs in the family.
From The American Conservative magazine (hardly a bastion of liberal thought):
"In April, Cato Institute’s president, Ed Crane, asked several candidates if they believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil, and detain them with no review of any kind. National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru reported Giuliani’s response: “The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.”
In aggressively rejecting that such a power could exist, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” Yet Giuliani’s instinct was to assume that he would automatically possess that tyrannical power."
But you're not interested in honest debate, are you Evan? You're interested solely in demonizing people who disagree with your point of view.
Actually, I often make fun of Evan's insanity, as do the rest of his relatives. He is very resentful of that and the way his silly, two dimensional,black and white repetitions are ridiculed by his own blood. I know precisely why I would oppose a hypocritic, power hungry poseur like Giuliani, but Evan would not be able to understand...he would just go on mindlessly repeating his uptight morality while at the same time supporting the thrice married, corrupt grotesque and never be able to see anything wrong with it. Now, if my cousin, Evan, wants to talk about me behind my back, it's time he was confronted. Some members of the family actually read his blog...I'm not one, but I was informed of his silly comments by those who do and decided I'd had enough.
That's right, I'm "resentful." I'm resentful of the Islamic fascists slitting the throats of hard working people, murdering the pilots, innocent moms and dads, their flying airplanes into the towers burning alive THOUSANDS of innocent human beings.
But, alas, Rudy Giuliani, that Nazi, facsist Hitler's actual actions are MEANINGLESS to the leftist. What's TRULY important in this debate are WORDS (twisted by Michael Moore-ians) about what Giuliani really MEANT when he was saving innocent lives...and, of course, what he MEANT was any lie that the hate-America-always crowd can claim.
Forget our argument here. Go see the mindset of the people who vote Democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVROC-gsnXA&feature=related
These are the college "educated" who are typical of the hate-America-always crowd.
Isn't this the definition of a strawman, because Sayet didn't actually ask the sister any questions, he just put words in her mouth, and then proceeded to argue against those words?
This post doesn't make any argument other than "Democrats are all stupidheads." How clever. :)
PS What is it exactly that makes Giuliani an American hero?
PPS This is from Sayet's website: "Evan's blog has become required reading by college professors and professional pundits on six continents."
I would like more details on this interesting claim.
There was an actual IM conversation. Evan then proceeded to "speculate" upon his cousin's reasonings.
But isn't divining and then impugning the motives of others YOUR speciality, oh hypocritical Queen of Nits?
You hit the nail on the head, Dora. Notice that Evan didn't respond, at all, to any of the things I posted about Rudy, but went off (once again) into straw man territory, throwing around Nazi and Hitler references like they're going out of style and claiming that's what the "other side" says. No Evan - that's what you say. Hopefully that response should tell people everything they need to know about this blog - that it's not about debate or discussion, but about demonization of large swaths of his fellow Americans who choose to vote Democratic.
Thissitemakesmesad, it seems that Sayet is not really interested in changing any minds or actually basing any argument in FACT, he seems possessed by an irrational hatred of everyone who is a Democrat or votes for Democrats. I find it incredibly hard to believe that he truly really does believe that everyone who votes for Democrats can't have a "mature conversation" and is "irrational." I don't believe that about everyone who votes for Republicans, even though I am a staunch Democrat.
And if he really does believe that every single person who votes for democrats is a stupidhead, well, then... you know.
And FJ, i think it is reasonable to guess at the motives of persons you converse with based on what they say. It is quite a different matter to imagine what they would say, and then to guess at their motives for hypothetically saying what they said. Seems too much like talking to an imaginary friend, don't you think?
If I was one of Evan's friends or relatives I certainly wouldn't want to talk to him about politics, considering how much of a one-note demagogue he is and how insufferable a political conversation with him must be. I'd smile and nod and then talk about the weather. I welcome debate with conservatives and Republicans (and I talk politics with my own friends and relatives who vote the other way) but when someone is just interested in demonization and personal attacks, like Evan is, then what's the point?
I think that after forty-seven years of conversing with someone -- often for many hours a day -- one can fairly speculate as to their "thinking."
I absolutely DO believe that people who still vote Democrat are incapable of holding a factual and reasonable argument. This is why folks like Dick Durbin call our troops "Nazis," college professors call the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns," Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are the personification of the anti-war (read: anti-America) movement, and Rosie O'Donnell is chosen by Barbara Walters to be the "moderator" of her "news" program even though she's a morbid obese, sexually confused, clinically diagnosed mental case so intellectually sick that she believes that "never before in history has fire melted steel."
It's not that there aren't troubled people on the right, it's that we encourage them to get help. On the left the bigger the lie, the greater the slander, the more insane the attacker the MORE you champion him.
More half-truths, straw men and demagoguery. I have news for you Evan - you are one of the troubled people on the right. Only a diseased mind would truly believe that labeling half of his fellow Americans as incapable of rational thought is worthwhile political discourse. Only a truly sick mind would call the 70% of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq "anti-American". Only someone without a good grasp on reality would hold up examples from the extremes of the left and say, "see, this is how all you people think". So Evan, I say this with all seriousness - seek help. Talk to a professional therapist, someone who can help you figure out why things have gone so off course for you.
Well Evan I would say that most political campaigns are based on public perception and since Edwards has nice hair he must be a nice guy. Obama is young and innocent which makes him honest and Hillary is a women which makes her compassionate.
Rudy, even though he's a proven manager, is a big 'ole meany because he cracked down on jay-walkers as a way to apprehend people with outstanding warrants.
Read what you just wrote again. He had his policemen hand out fines (and take time out of their day, in a city of 18 and a half million where ) for jaywalking. And you're actually praising him for it.
From the Rocky Mountain Chronicle:
"But most of the crime reduction was achieved during his first term, when the economy was fairing well. By the second term, Giuliani’s agenda became bizarre. He outlawed ferrets and banned squeegee men, panhandlers who move through stopped or slowed traffic soliciting to wash car windows for change. He built massive networks to track graffiti artists. He lined streets with formidable barricades to prevent jaywalking.
“For Rudy, governing New York was conquering New York,” Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning at New York University, told Newsweek. “He thrived on confrontation.”
Giuliani’s zero-tolerance “quality-of-life crackdown,” which allowed for anyone to be stopped and patted down, raised the ire of even the police.
James Savage, then-president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, told Daily News, “If we don’t strike a balance between aggressive enforcement and common sense, it becomes a blueprint for a police state and tyranny.”"
I've said it before and I'll say it again - you people are fucking delusional. You paper over every abuse, every harmful policy decision, every just plain old nutso idea from your boys on the right, and yet you dig up the same few leftist boogeymen (Rosie O'Donnell, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan) to "prove" that the left is wrong all the time. Seek help. I'm dead serious.
For some morning hilarity, read this:PPS This is from Sayet's website: "Evan's blog has become required reading by college professors and professional pundits on six continents."
I would like more details on this interesting claim.
Yes, so would I!!! Especially since he seems to have about three high school age fans and one pedantic bloviator on this site. Who are the professors...profs who use his inanities as examples of bad reasoning in their logic classes?
We've seen in this short thread that the leftists have given several very good and demonstrable reasons for their opposition to Rudy...meanwhile, the rightist merely ignores these charges and in his very next comment goes on to tell usthat the leftist has no argument!!!! That is astonishing...and it happens several times right here...he's disturbed, alright...very severely.
Oh, I certainly don't expect any rational responses to my posts. It's a freak show here, I knew that going in. I challenge this nonsense because it deserves to be challenged, not because I expect honest and open debate. Evan, like every nutjob pontificator from the far right (or far left, for that matter) fringe is a master of obfuscation, certainly not of debate or logic.
Evan, why do these Libs continue to get so worked up over a blog.
Also, you would think that they would concede to the superior resume of Rudy G! Well, assuming that cleaning up NY City counts as resume worthy. If not then you could always cite his years as a US Attorney.
I think I answered my initial question. These hired guns that continue to trash your blog only lend credit to your ideas on Liberal behavior. Wear it as a badge of honor my friend.
Point. Proven. (I even changed my name, to indicate my new point of view).
mine too.
mine too.
Well, some of us are hear to play with the nutcases...some word got around about how whacked out this Sayet freak is after someone happened by accident on his site...I guess they heard him on something and at first thought he was doing satire...when they found out he was serious, they thought...wow...freak show time...
I like prodding these simple twits and watching them blither...not very challenging matching wits with such peabrains - impregnable stupidity is their only defense - but still fun to revile the vile.
Evan, I love how the Lib fascist try to silence opinions with constant prattle. This blog should be an endless supply of quotes for your book.
What's really hilarious is watching them get behind Rudith...they howl sanctimoniously about family values for years on end then get behind his thrice married, alienated from his children, cross dressing, corrupt, panty clad ass...hahahahaha...they're willing to overlook his shaved legs because he's just exactly the kind of little, authoritarian, American freedom hating, tin pot dictator they really like bleating after like the pathetic sheep they are. And, his phony NY resume...what a joke ...that's been debunked a hundred times. The firemen and police...the real heros of 911 have nothing but contempt for the phony...not to mention all the rescue workers, construction guys and residents he poisoned when they cleaned up the mess...I guess adding to the casualties of that day doesn't mean anything to these braindead clowns.
He's the daddy-figure in high heels that they've been pining after for so long. A man (one who would no doubt have been called a conservative, if such labels existed at the time) once said, "Give me liberty or give me death" and it was the rallying cry of a generation. The rallying cry of the modern conservative was summed up quite nicely by Mitt Romney - "The most important civil liberty I expect from my government is the right to be kept alive." Better to live on one's knees, beholding to Big Daddy Government to protect widdle biddy citizen, then die on one's feet protecting actual civil liberties from people like Rudy who would love nothing more than to take them away.
These idiots laugh at Rudy Giuliani's attention to the "small things" like jaywalking. They call it idiotic. But James Q. Wilson's Broken Windows Theory worked in New York. Rudy Giuliani proved it.
And it's attention to the little details that distinguish petty bloviators from real leaders.
and again, the left is quick to prove your point!
you really know how to stir them up, evan - kudos!
if they wouldn't begin with the ad hominem they probably wouldn't give themselves away so soon.
hey dora - how they hangin'?
never forget - the left cannot maintain a civil conversation with ANYBODY who disagrees with them. never. they're incapable.
I couldn't agree more. Rudy's plan was to start his administration off with small successes. He took care of problems he know he could fix, i.e. jaywalking. By doing this the police noticed that they were arresting more and more scum bags with outstanding warrants. Small successes! I think Rudy has a fresh and new pragmatic approach to executive management (who cares about family values after Bill raised the bar). This is something in which Hillary, Edwards, and Obama know nothing about (since they have never even calculated a payroll, much less had a real executive position).
Watch the Libs not comment on there top tier candidates lack of executive experience.
Broken Windows Theory is, at best, difficult to prove and, at worst, complete nonsense
So what. You googled Broken Windows theory and found a argument against it. In fact the theories success rate is much more than just NY (only 8 million people). Is this the result of your profound your investigative skills?
Why does Hillary sound like a communist?
"So what. You googled Broken Windows theory and found a argument against it. In fact the theories success rate is much more than just NY (only 8 million people). Is this the result of your profound your investigative skills?"
I realize that research is anathema to the sort of person who would take Evan at all seriously, but maybe you could do some research on the subject yourself. Here's another excellent overview. But what's the rallying cry of the Modern Evan Sayet Follower? "If it goes against reason, logic and sanity, it must be true"? I hope I quoted it right.
One potato
Two potato
Three potato
Four?
Eeenie meenie minee moe?
Oh, I know...
This little piggie went to market...
God, even your "comedy" is totally retarded.
See, Evan, here's what I think. Look, someone wrote this:
never forget - the left cannot maintain a civil conversation with ANYBODY who disagrees with them. never. they're incapable.
Now, I don't have high expectations for a high-school educated 25%-er like the above-quoted poster. The above-quoted poster is a Duncan Hunter/Tancredo supporter, for god's sakes!
But you, Evan, you're smarter than this, aren't you?
You write: I absolutely DO believe that people who still vote Democrat are incapable of holding a factual and reasonable argument.
If you really do believe than, then you are just really stupid, because it's quite ridiculous to say that 1/2 of the voting public is incapable of rational thought. Even non-college-educated people like the above-quoted poster are capable of rational thought. Not all, but most for sure. That is why they're called 25%-ers -- because 75% of the public, at the very least, is capable of of some bare minimum rational thinking.
I suspect you don't actually believe it. You just found a way to self-promote and make money peddling crap like that to rightwingers who eat it up by the shovelful. It's a way to make a living, but it's a really sad way to make a living, don't you think? You want to be so outrageous that you will get airtime on Fox or something, and people will learn your name, and you will be the next Glenn Beck or Michael Savage.
(Normally I'd apologize for taking a discussion off-topic, but not in this sludge-pile of a blog)
I dig your blog, Dora. I hadn't seen that "Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution" clip before - I find it oddly comforting that he's just as retarded, in the exact same way, as more traditional Republican idiots like Tancredo and Huckabee. When he goes on about how the war in Iraq was a bad idea sometimes I have to remind myself that he is, really, mostly a crazy old man who would dissolve the federal government and allow 12 year olds to work 16 hour days stitching garments in some run-down loft in New York because that's how teh fr33 m4rk3t wrks!!!!!1111, so a little bit of tangible proof of standard right-wing crazy is very nice to have.
I b a civel libral deb8r...
If you really do believe than, then you are just really stupid, because it's quite ridiculous to say that 1/2 of the voting public is incapable of rational thought.
...becuz only 1/2 of da peeples R below average... by definition.
I hurd that only 1/8 of all peeples can cipher keerectly. Is that tru?
I jes maid up the 25%ers cuz it sounded kinda gud at the time.
I like ur site too. I call mine a mirror site cuz it jes reflects the talkin' points memo from Hillery!
Mybe we kin get together and kimpare R IQ's 1 day, Hokay?
As if the Half Hour News Hour didn't provide the final nail in the coffin, here it is - right-wing whackjobs just don't do comedy. Exhibit C? Evan. Oh I laugh. Just....not in that way.
Thanks, Thissitemakesmelaugh. Like I said on my blog, I was kind of shocked that he turned out to be just as idiotic (as you note) in the very same way as the other republican idiots (clarification: by republican idiots, i only mean people who oppose the theory of evolution, not all republicans). I have an atheist, highly rational friend who is a Ron Paul supporter, and I can't wait to ask him about this, because I don't know how he's going to explain it away.
As for 25%-ers ... well, they used to be the 33%-ers, remember? But 8% have peeled away, as the positions and actions of Bush & co. have been shown to be crazier and crazier.
...becuz only 1/2 of da peeples R below average... by definition.
True, true, but i'm gonna wager than the average voter is actually more intelligent than the average person, plus, just because you are below average in intelligence does not mean that you can't think rationally at all.
Y 2 outa 4 times wen I add 2+2 I git 4. I am very rashunal 1/2 of da time!
Gee Republikans r idjuts only if evolution b'leave ok or r stoopid. And evan u r rilly stoopid if you think 1/2 the voters r dum cuz I call u dum then call bushies stoopid and he won the last elekshun so 1/2 kinnot b stoopid!
only 33% not 25% cuz da smart stoopid guys dun change dare minds.
"(clarification: by republican idiots, i only mean people who oppose the theory of evolution, not all republicans)"
Naturally. Normally this would go without saying, but on a blog written by a party-before-country creep like Evan, it actually has to be spelled out by those of us who are sane enough to realize that having a differing point of view isn't synonymous with being evil.
I wonder if the phonetically-spelling person is just Sayet.
I wouldn't put it past him.
Well, I happen to be one of those professors who request that my students look at this blog. At least Evan Sayet's comments are lucid. The bloggers like elitegal and thissitemakesme.. illustrate how ineffective ad hominem arguments are--not to mention the other fallacies. Several other instructors are also doing the same--even ones with a different viewpoint. One says it is because students are to respond in writing using logical, developed reasoning. He doesn't mind which side the student takes, but instead getting the writing right is what's important.
I'm going to call bullshit on this anonymous professor.
If you are really using this blog in your class at a university, why are you anonymous? :)
Young Dora, I have a question since you like really know the law. Can you have a civil discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you--or do you shout them down? Do you believe that we all have the right of free speech? Do you think Evan Sayet should shut up and go away? How about every registered Republican? Should they just shut up and go away so that 26-year olds can run the country? What do you like know about the law? Have you been arrested? But really, these are only rhetorical questions. I know the answers.
I am anonymous? ...and you aren't? Oh please.
Well, it didn't take long to flush that word out of your young mouth--the one with which I hope you kiss your mother.
Alora, buona notte, bambini.
Well, it didn't take long to flush that word out of your young mouth--the one with which I hope you kiss your mother.
My mother, dear friend, is not beholden to petit bourgeois morality which dictates that mothers don't curse. :)
And here come the anonymous defenders, including a "professor". You're a professor like I'm the Queen of England, anon. This blog is a textbook example of how to make straw man arguments and other logical fallacies - reading this tripe makes me dumber by the minute. You're either Evan, or another sock puppet who has already posted under other names.
Young Dora, I have a question since you like really know the law. Can you have a civil discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you--or do you shout them down? Do you believe that we all have the right of free speech? Do you think Evan Sayet should shut up and go away? How about every registered Republican? Should they just shut up and go away so that 26-year olds can run the country?
Well, you're showing you know very little about the law, as you are conflating two separate questions.
Does Sayet have a legal right to say whatever he wants? Of course he does, it is protected.
Do I, in turn, have a right to criticize him for what he says, ridicule him even, dismiss him, ignore him? Of course I do.
Just because me and my fellow citizens of whatever political persuasion have the right to free speech does not mean that we should never disagree with each other, always be civil to each other, or that we can never think the other is an idiot who has nothing worthwhile to say.
It is a strange question you ask, because it presumes that someone or some thing has the ability to take away people's right to freedom of speech. That's not the government we have today, but perhaps this is a government conservatives imagine in the future?
Can you have a civil discussion with someone you disagree with? Of course. I'm not really sure, however, what that question has to do with anything that's happening here.
Oh, I couldn't resist talking to a daughter of the revolution and the Queen of England--and so easily, too.
Well, both of you are young and very unsophistocated, it's really wrong of me to have a battle of wits with unarmed persons--even the babes of the unmarried unpetty boudoirs whose spawn spews the easies. Why so sensitive, children? I know you are trying so hard to be grown up--I see it every semester--and most of the time it just makes me smile. Still, this is too easy, so again, I'll say again with no ill feelings: goodnight children.
Oooh. Conflating. My oh my. Is that big word in my dictionary?
just because me and my fellow citizens
It's not "me," dear.
..and do watch your prepositions.
just because me and my fellow
It's not "me," dear.
...and do watch your prepositions.
..oh and it's Bernie Carrick, dears.
Below, we get an idea of what rightwing attempts at sarcasm amount to...talking in a childs voice, lamely attempting to mock someone...I passed through that phase, too -- for a short time many years ago...then I realized I was being childish and grew up...whoever said these guys are teenagers might be giving them too much credit.
Gee Republikans r idjuts only if evolution b'leave ok or r stoopid. And evan u r rilly stoopid if you think 1/2 the voters r dum cuz I call u dum then call bushies stoopid and he won the last elekshun so 1/2 kinnot b stoopid!
w
you hit the nail on the head
...cliche alert.
elitegal
spectacular failure
no, that wouldn't be Bush, that would be Carter.
Oooh. Conflating. My oh my. Is that big word in my dictionary?
Um, no, it's just a word. If you don't know it, that's your problem. What kind of a "professor" are you, anyway?! LOL
Battle of wits? Don't flatter yourself.
Dora said...
I'm going to call bullshit on this anonymous professor.
I don'tknow about the phony-etic speller, but this is definitley Sayet. Since several people have made factual arguments against Dame Rudith, no one on their side has responded with anything but childish charges, toothless ad hominems and unsupported claims...it's like stirring up a nest of hornets in the early morning when they're too cold and slow to do anything but writhe around...and these pathetic insects never seem to warm up enought to STING.
Well, Larry, unfortunately, they aren't teenagers. Teenagers would not be sitting at their computers typing away on a political blog. They are very, very young ideologues who don't have dates on this Wednesday night. Alora, I must go prepare syllabi for others, who will be much like these tyros.
Oh my dear girl, I never have to flatter myself--as you do--like I know so much about the law. like.
Dora said:
i think it is reasonable to guess at the motives of persons you converse with based on what they say. It is quite a different matter to imagine what they would say, and then to guess at their motives for hypothetically saying what they said
And I say..what?
Oh, don't forget capital letters for that pesky "I" of which you are so fond. Don't you have an up-to-date version of Word or an IMAC that can fix these little things for you? Ask mommy.
Anonymous said...
Well, Larry, unfortunately, they aren't teenagers. Teenagers would not be sitting at their computers typing away on a political blog
Anon, I said they were probably pre-teens, but on their behalf, let me say they could be teens pounding with one hand on the keyboard, and pounding with the other hand on something else.
Careful now. Play nice. Don't run with scissors or eat the paste.
Well, like Woody Allen said in his definition of the activity to which you slyly refer ...is having (fill in the blank, here--three letters across) with the person you love best." ...and these young ones sure have that in common.
Well, for the young law professor:
Argumentum ab auctoritate fortissimum est in lege.
You need to keep on growing, otherwise, we'll knock on it.
looks like you've been found out, adorable one.
time to come clean.
evan - have you thought of installing a sitemeter? you know, so you can sort the riff-raff?
Republicans picking their leaders:
Iowa GOP Quotes
"I wish we had someone like Ronald Reagan again."
--Jim Bellman, a 53-year-old insurance agent,
"It's the end of the conservative revolution that started with Goldwater."
--Longtime party activist Donald Devine,
"If Goldwater initiated the conservative revolution,
George W. Bush may have ended it."
--Mickey Edwards, former Okie congressman and current handjob
"McCain's too unpredictable. Giuliani has "character issues" and Huckabee
is too moralistic. There's nobody who stands out as the one."
--Sara Opie, 43, who might support a Democrat,
Really simple, little naif axes: evan - have you thought of installing a sitemeter? you know, so you can sort the riff-raff?
The only life in this dead zone is from libs here for a little slumming...do you think he wants to go back to having a couple little geeks like you posting some inanities ...like three fawning pieces of drivel in each section?
It's daylight! She's back in the coffin by now.
In the night I see that she's left a dropping, but how sweet that someone thinks I'm a geek--and I always thought I was a Greek. I guess the computer dropped the arrrrrgh.
"How Liberals Pick Their Leaders"
...the same way they pick their noses?
"How Liberals Pick Their Leaders"
...by whichever venereal disease they've caught from the candidates itches the most?
These Libs are so Open-Minded that their brains fell out of their heads.
Maybe they'll grow up once they move up to a new tax bracket.
So, let's see, the people complaining about a lack of civilized debate have boiled thier argument down to:
- you are very young
- you are supported by your parents (which I am not, though I don't know about the others)
- you make typos and you made one grammatical error
- you are a stupidhead.
Hum, ok. I have nothing to reply. Carry on, various personalities of Sayet and his 3 supporters. You're not going to get on Fox at this rate, "political commentator" Sayet.
First of all, Dora: Dig your blog!
Family Values, Republican Style:
TPM´s Great List of Scandalized Administration Officials
Since a complete catalog of administration officials who've been accused of some form of corruption or abuse of power would be endless, we tried to maintain a high standard for inclusion. Most of those below were the subjects of criminal probes, but we also included officials who were credibly accused of acts that, if not criminal, were a corruption of office (like the U.S. attorney scandal). And even then, such officials were only included if their accusers had them dead to rights (which is why Karl Rove didn't make the cut). We also limited ourselves to officials who were either political appointees or whose actions were so political that they were effectively political appointees (like John Tanner).
Enjoy:
Indicted / Convicted/ Pled Guilty
* Eric G. Andell - deputy undersecretary in charge of newly created Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (previously senior adviser to Secretary of Education Rod Paige) - pleaded guilty to one count of conflict of interest for using government travel for personal causes and was sentenced to one year of probation, 100 hours of community service, and fined $5,000.
* Claude Allen - Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy- resigned, pled guilty to shoplifting from Target stores.
* Lester Crawford - Commissioner, FDA - resigned in late September 2005 after only two months on the job. On October 17th, he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts, making a false writing and conflict of interest. On February 27, 2007, Crawford was sentenced to to three years of probation and was fined $90,000.
* Brian Doyle - Deputy Press Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - Resigned in wake of child sex scandal. Doyle was arrested on April 4th, 2006 and pleaded no contest on September 19, 2006 to seven counts of use of a computer to seduce a child and sixteen counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor. On November 17th, 2006 Brian Doyle was sentenced to five years in state prison and ten years of probation. He will also need to register as a sex offender.
* Steven Griles - Deputy Secretary at the Interior Department - is the highest-ranked administration official yet convicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. In March 2007, Griles pleaded guilty to lying about his role in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Sentenced to 10 months incarceration.
* John T. Korsmo – Chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board from 2002 to 2004 – pleaded guilty in 2005 to lying to the Senate and an inspector general. He swore he had no idea how a list of presidents for FHFB-regulated banks were invited to a fundraiser for his friend's congressional campaign. On the invites, Korsmo was listed as the "Special Guest." Got 18 months of probation and a $5,000 fine.
* Scooter Libby - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff - resigned after being indicted for lying to a grand jury and investigators in connection with the investigation stemming from the leak of Valerie Wilson’s covert CIA operative's identity. Convicted on four of five counts, making him the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-contra scandal. Sentenced to thirty months imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. On July 2nd, after a judge decided that Libby would remain in prison during the appeals process, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence by removing the thirty months in prison.
* David Safavian - former head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget - convicted of lying to ethics officials and Senate investigators about his ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. On October 27, 2006, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He is currently appealing the ruling.
* Robert Stein - former comptroller and funding officer for the now disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority, Southern Central Region in Al-Hillah, Iraq - pleaded guilty to conspiracy, bribery, conspiracy to commit money laundering, possession of a machine gun, and being a felon in possession of a fire arm. On January 30, 2007 Stein was sentenced to nine years in prison and ordered to forfeit $3.6 million.
* Roger Stillwell - desk officer, Interior Department - pleaded guilty to failing to report Redskins tickets and free dinners from Jack Abramoff.
Resigned Due to Investigation, Pending Investigation or Allegations of Impropriety
* Philip Cooney - chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality - a former oil industry lawyer with no scientific expertise, Cooney resigned after it was revealed he had watered down reports on global warming.
* George Deutsch - press aide, NASA - resigned amid allegations he prevented the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming.
* Michael Elston - chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty - announced his resignation on June 15, 2007. Despite allegations that he’d threatened at least four of the eight fired US Attorneys, McNulty said Elston had served the Justice Department "with distinction for nearly eight years."
* Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo - appointed executive director of the CIA, the agency’s third-highest post, in October 2004 - resigned and was ultimately indicted on bribery charges related to the Duke Cunningham scandal.
* Alberto Gonzales - former Attorney General - resigned without explanation amidst investigations of the firings of U.S. Attorneys, the politicization of the Justice Department, warrantless surveillance, and the torture and mistreatment of detainees.
* Monica Goodling - former Justice Department liaison to the White House and senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales - resigned on April 7, 2007 amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.
* Michelle Larson Korsmo - deputy chief of staff, Department of Labor - Helped her husband (see John Korsmo, above) with his donor scam. Quietly left her Labor plum job in February 2004, about two weeks before news broke that she and her husband were the targets of a criminal probe.
* Howard "Cookie" Krongard - former State Department inspector general -- accused of not properly investigating State Department contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan; of retaliating against whistleblowers in his own office; and of not telling the truth about his knowledge of his brother's ties with Blackwater, a State Department contractor. Faced with a possible perjury investigation, Howard Krongard resigned on December 7, 2007.
* Julie Macdonald - former deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department - resigned in May 2007 after an "inspector general's report found she had improperly leaked information to private organizations, bullied staff scientists and broken federal rules." The Department of the Interior is investigating many of her decisions regarding endangered species; so far seven have been overturned.
* Paul McNulty - Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Justice – resigned, after questions about his involvement in the U.S. attorney firings and his testimony to Congress about the firings.
* Richard Perle - Chairman, Defense Policy Board - resigned from Pentagon advisory panel amid conflict-of-interest charges.
* Susan Ralston - assistant, White House - resigned amidst revelations that she had accepted thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff without compensating him, counter to White House ethics rules.
* Janet Rehnquist - inspector general, Department of Health and Human Services - resigned on June 1, 2003 in the face of an investigation into her alleged efforts to block a politically dangerous probe on behalf of the Bush family.
* James Roche - secretary, U.S. Air Force - resigned in the wake of the Boeing tanker lease scandal, after it was revealed he had rather crudely pushed for Boeing to win a $23 billion contract.
* Kyle Sampson -former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales - resigned amidst the investigation of the firings of U.S. Attorneys.
* Joseph Schmitz - Inspector General, Defense - Resigned amid charges he personally intervened to protect top political appointees.
* Bradley Schlozman - resigned from his third and final post with the Justice Department after accusations of actively politicizing the department. He's currently under investigation by the Department's inspector general.
* Thomas Scully - Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - shortly after Scully resigned in 2003, an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that Scully had pressured the agency's actuary to underestimate the full cost of the Medicare reform bill by approximately $100 billion until after Congress passed the bill into law. Scully was also hit with conflict of interest charges by the U.S. attorney's office for billing CMS for expenses incurred during a job search while he still headed the agency. He settled those charges by paying $9,782.
* David Smith - deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, Interior Department - resigned on July 21, 2006 after shooting a buffalo and accepting its skeletal remains and meat as an illegal gratuity. He eventually paid over $3,000 for the dead buffalo, but only after the internal inquiry had commenced. The Department of Interior inspector general also noted in a May 16, 2006 report that Smith's involvement in the designation of Houston as a port of entry for imported wildlife in order to benefit a friend was inappropriate.
* John Tanner - Voting Rights Section Chief, Justice Department - resigned in December of 2007 and moved to the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. Already under suspicion for aiding efforts to politicize the voting section, the bumbling proponent of voter identification laws angered lawmakers with his comments that such laws actually discriminate against white voters because "minorities die first". Even more impressive was his apology for the comment. The DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility is currently investigating his travel habits and those of his deputy.
* Sara Taylor - Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs at the White House, where she was Karl Rove´s top aide - resigned amidst the U.S. attorneys investigation and other probes of Rove´s alleged politicization of the government.
* Ken Tomlinson - Board Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting; member, Broadcasting Board of Governors - resigned at the release of an inspector general report concluding he had broken laws in spending CPB money to hire politically connected consultants to search for "bias" without consulting the board. At BBG, a separate investigation found he was running a "horse racing operation" out of his office, and continuing to hire politically-wired individuals to do "consulting" work for him. After being nominated and serving another term, he finally stepped down from that spot earlier this year.
* Carl Truscott - Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau - resigned. A report by the Justice Department's inspector general found that Truscott wasted tens of thousands of dollars on luxuries, wasted millions on whimsical management decisions and violated ethics rules by ordering employees to help his nephew with a high school video project.
* Paul Wolfowitz - World Bank President - resigned in May 2007 after a committee report found that he broke ethics rules by giving his girlfriend a substantial raise.
Nomination Failed Due to Scandal
* Linda Chavez - nominated, Secretary of Labor - withdrew her nomination in January 2001 amidst revelations that an illegal immigrant lived in her home and worked for her in the early 1990s. Chavez blamed what she said were the "search-and-destroy" politics of Washington.
* Timothy Flanigan - nominated, Deputy Attorney General (also Alberto Gonzales’ top deputy at the White House) - withdrew his nomination in October 2005 amidst revelations that he'd worked closely with lobbyist Jack Abramoff when he was General Counsel for Corporate and International Law at Tyco, which was a client of Abramoff's.
* Bernard Kerik - nominated, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security - withdrew his nomination amidst a host of corruption allegations. Eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor relating to improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a New York City official in the late 1990's. Subsequently, on November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted on sixteen counts for bribery, tax fraud, and false statements with a maximum sentence of 142 years and more than $5 million in fines. Kerik has pleaded not guilty. For a rundown of Kerik's myriad indiscretions, check out TPM's Ultimate Kerik Scandal List!.
* William Mercer - the former associate deputy attorney general and US Attorney for Montana - withdrew his nomination to be the permanent number three official at the Department of Justice on June 22, 2007 due to his role in the U.S. attorney firings.
* Hans von Spakovsky - Commissioner, FEC - nomination to another term after his recess appointment failed due to allegations that he'd worked at the Justice Department to suppress minority voter turnout.
Under Investigation But Still in Office
* Stuart Bowen - Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) - was once admired for his successes while investigating allegations of waste and fraud in Iraq, but now employee allegations have prompted four government investigations into the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR).
* Lurita Doan - Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration - still in office, despite investigations by both the Office of Special Counsel and the House oversight committee that found that Doan had "crossed the line" by suggesting that the GSA use its resources to help Republicans get elected.
* Alfonso Jackson - Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - following reports that Jackson told a business group in April 2006 that he once canceled a contract after the contractor criticized President Bush, an investigation by the HUD inspector general found that while Jackson told his deputies to favor Bush supporters, there was "no direct proof that a contract was actually awarded or rescinded because of political affiliation." A second, criminal investigation was triggered in part by Jackson's claim before Congress in May 2007 that "I don't touch contracts." That probe, now before a federal grand jury, has turned up evidence that Jackson may indeed have touched contracts - and steered them towards friends.
Mike Roch, (1) thanks, and (2) that list is AWESOME. Every american should get a printed copy in their mailbox.
Nasty sez: evan - have you thought of installing a sitemeter? you know, so you can sort the riff-raff?
....probably means a site "monitor," that's more like the authoritarian type she really is. I don't believe she would really want a meter as it might measure the stupidity of evan & co.
ps: The bogus prof. is the same as the bogus engineer (on the gw article) who is the same as farmer john whose bio says that he's "in
accounting."
Sho nuff is a crazy, but really small, bunch of reichwingos...talking to imaginary people, muliple names (but the same, freakin personality). Whoa, baby!
I happen to know quite a bit about this Farmer John person. He's not a prof, but he is an engineer by training, so it may very well be him.
Sorry, but I don't teach, and I would NEVER take money for trying to.
Oh, and my profile says LOTS of stuff that isn't true. I did take two accounting classes at a Community College back in the early 80's though. And I could probably do your taxes for you in a pinch.
Is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
SHHHHH, be quiet! It's hard to write, let lone read, good dialogue anymore.
while you're enjoying your
glass house someone will be throwing stones
SNAP!
Farmer John sez: my profile says LOTS of stuff that isn't true.
So do your posts.
And, no thanks, on the taxes. I've actually been an accountant. A 25%er do MY taxes? Ivanna Laugh!
Ivanna, trust me when I tell you that you do not want to scrap with Farmer John. He will mess you up. Save your junior high mentality for fifth graders. They might respect you.
Danny Glover, FJ ran away from my blog, and had a banner saying boo hoo waa waa "Dora's NOT welcome" on his blog for some time. He's just a confused old man.
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
Here comes the long quote fro Plato/Freud/Nietzsche.
That's all he's got, these long quotes to obscure his paper-tigerness.
Oh, and let a 25% do your taxes? Lol. Those people are this close to protesting the pythagorean theorem.
It's just a theorem, you know. Teach the controversy! LOL
Thanks for the vote of confidence, danny.
As for all the fibs I tell, it seems a shame that Ivanna has yet to successfully controvert one.
Yeah, you don't vanna scrap with Farmer John...those yahoos are known for throwing crap from the trees...from which they have not evolved enough to come down.
...and I don't post at dora's blog becuase she likes to selectively censor the parts of your argument that she doesn't wish to deal with. She's also very selective with regards to the 'pedigree' of facts she's willing to entertain.
Kinda like the IPCC...
Framer says: As for all the fibs I tell, it seems a shame that Ivanna has yet to successfully controvert one.
Wait til she stops laughing.
But seriously folks, he's been CONTROVERTED on everything from climate change to his claim that he changes his shorts more than once a month.
simes,
Hey, why not drop the anonymity and post your website's URL for us all?
Or is it you're afraid the crap you throw will get thrown back?
Then you can produce evidence supporting your claim?
We're waiting.
btw - the "operative" word was sucessfully controverted.
I know you Lefties love to lower the bar, but simply controverting a claim would hardly be an accomplishment.
Framer makes a further ass of himself thusly:
She's also very selective with regards to the 'pedigree' of facts she's willing to entertain.
Kinda like the IPCC...
Precisely, she likes confirmable info with serious evidence behind it...like the IPCC does...not three whores from a right wing stink tank. You make the case for the other side so effortlessly. What's your secret?
Look, y'all, Farmer John believes that blacks are on average stupider than white people, genetically.
He believes that dictators are okay as long as they are working for democracy (wonder why they are dictators then, don't you).
He believes Nietzsche actually loved Christianity and religion.
He believes that Plato, Freud, Nietzsche and Rousseau said anything there is worth saying about humanity, and everything else is irrelevant.
He thinks everything Freud said about psychology is correct, and nothing else said about psychology is correct.
He believes all sorts of horrible things about homosexuals and homosexuality.
He has homosexual thoughts, but he represses them, and he thinks that's the way every other man is. So, basically, he's a self-hating gay too.
Oh and on a more personal note, he once came to my blog, knowing that I have ancestors who died in the Holocaust, and managed to tell me that, in a hypothetical sitaution , if I refused to torture a suspected terrorist, it was the equivalent of me putting my mother in a gas chamber.
btw - More hyperbole, simes? Only 3 GW dissenters, now... even after the Senate Report quoted at the GW thread by 3 seperate posters named 400 very respected scientists, only 30 of whom you accused of being "corporate schills". What about the other 370?
Like I said before. Successfully controverted.
400 vs. tens of thousands. That's some good work you're doing there.
Um, yeah, and on the substance, FJ, you're wrong.
"many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming. Others simply cited phenomena that might be causing warming in addition to that caused by greenhouse gases."
...a few grains of truth in a sea of fictions, dora.
And I see you're still crying about having to LIE and say you WOULDN'T waterboard someone you KNEW could give you the info you needed to save your mother. Tsk - Tsk.
...and then playing the holacaust victim card at all my firends sites telling them what a brute I was.
Get over yourself.
Thanks for the info on FJ, Dora. I've read his posts with the loooooooong quotes from Plato, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. It's obvious that he is sucking his thumb (when he isn't sitting on it)while pasting/copying them. He must have been fixated at the oral stage of development.
More hyperbole? TENS of thousands? Start naming them (and please, if they are members of the Union of Concerned Scientists, don't double count them.) And not everybody who contributes to the POLITICAL GREEN UCS is a scientist.
"ditto for the UCS".
Why should my scietists be held to a higher standard?
What about the other 370? says Farmer.
The "Senate Report" was not even a legitimate Minority Report...as you know...it was an Inhofe farce...pulled off on a late Friday. The "scientists" were not only not respectable, they were, very often, not even scientists. One, for instance, was a RETIRED architect...an exercise in scraping the bottom of the barrel. Exxon was actually hiring whores to make their case...until they decided to admit the truth...not that they'll do very much constructive about it. Look at BP, who touts their green credentials, while planning to tear up half of Canada to get oil out of the sands. Oh, that was hyperbole...it's not actually half...just a huge area in pristine forest land.
Most people achknowledge the phenomena known as "global warming". Few, however, agree as to the degree anthropogenic sources are responsible for any measurable part of that warming OR that even if they were, anything at all could be done about it.
BROWN PEOPLE ARE COMING TO KILL YOU!!!!!!1111111111
Okay. One was an architect. 366 to go to get down to 3.
And I see you're still crying about having to LIE and say you WOULDN'T waterboard someone you KNEW could give you the info you needed to save your mother. Tsk - Tsk.
...and then playing the holacaust victim card at all my firends sites telling them what a brute I was.
Get over yourself.
You're not denying you said any of those things, FJ. You seem to only be upset that I told others about what you said. Well, buddy, if you say something, you better be accountable for it. You crossed the line vis-a-vis the gas chamber. You were being absolutely vile for no reason except to be unbelievably vile. I'm not smearing you, because I'm simply restating what you yourself said.
You can always apologize.
Okay. One was an architect. 366 to go to get down to 3.
A bunch of them were economists.
Oh the brown people sure are coming. Either messicans or mohammedins.
I guess I'm an honorary brownperson myself, not being a native-born American, nor a Christian. And I'm taking some American kid's job, you know. Even though I'm a US citizen.
Brown people?
Does the Left know any argument at all that doesn't immediately translate into a race card?
Talk about myopia. Buch of 1 trick rhetorical johnnies, if you ask me.
Apparently Farmer John thinks he hasn't been controverted unless he pulls his hands out of his bib overalls with his (once) white shorts in his hand and waves them like a surrender flag. That's not the way it works, manure spreader...reality is the judge and by that standard you're controverted everytime somebody decides to bother with you.
...more specific? 1? 10? 100? LOL!
...and dora, Russian immigrant, daughter of a privledged suburban upbringing and Ashkenazi Jew is an "honorary" brown person?
Do you know the secret brown-person handshake?
Okay. One was an architect. 366 to go to get down to 3.
Looks like you've got a lot of homework to do then, Farmer...git out of the rutabaga patch and git down to it...you're the one who needs the education, not me.
Dora,
I get the distinct impression that you like to debate.
Hypothetically speaking, if you were to get older and find out that your views in life were more in line with a conservative outlook would you then help others to better understand conservatism?
"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
- question asked of South Carolina voters during the 2000 Republican primary season. John McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. The McCain camp believed the Bush campaign did the polling.
Who plays the race card?
Hypothetically speaking, if you were to get older and find out that your views in life were more in line with a conservative outlook would you then help others to better understand conservatism?
I actually used to do that, then I turned 14. BTW there are no conservatives on here..just a pack of goofball neocon/Bush lackeys who don't know what conservatism is.
Hypothetically speaking, if you were to get older and find out that your views in life were more in line with a conservative outlook would you then help others to better understand conservatism?
Um, yes, but that does not render every thing a conservative person says convincing, appropriate, interesting or correct, or is aimed at convincing or spreading the conservative's views. Posting that every one who votes Democrat is incapable of rational thought does not convince or convert anyone to be a conservative, nor is it really meant.
In other words, reasonable minds can disagree, but that does not mean that every mind that disagrees is a reasonable one.
Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
I would be more likely to vote for him. I wonder what that makes me.
Well, you claimed that there were only 3 legitimate dissenters to global warming theory. Please, name them. And the moment I name 4, YOU are successfully controverted.
Now, where is that Senate list
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases."
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Simes successfully controverted? - Or perhaps he could point out which of these are the "three whores from a right-wing think tank"
Apparently Farmer John thinks he hasn't been controverted unless he pulls his hands out of his bib overalls with his (once) white shorts in his hand and waves them like a surrender flag. That's not the way it works, manure spreader...reality is the judge and by that standard you're controverted everytime somebody decides to bother with you.
Oh yes, I forgot, that is the best part of debating with FJ, he never admits he's wrong, even when all his arguments have been thoroughly decimated. I've actually given up on ever getting him to admit he's been defeated. It's impossible. Here's a a sample thread.
Also, I forgot, he hates the roma people (gypsies) and thinks they are "a plague of locust."
A racist?
You forget that Farmer John is an expert in all things. He don't need no dadgum scientician or historian or none of them elite liberal Jews to tell him what's real because he already knows.
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling
The Natural Resources Stewardship Project is a Canadian non-profit organization presenting itself as undertaking "a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other greenhouse gas reduction schemes while promoting sensible climate change policy."
It is headed by global warming skeptic Tom Harris, formerly Ottawa director of the consulting firm High Park Group, and Tim Ball, formerly Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg. Harris has stated that the NRSP was set up on the initiative of the High Park Group:
"According to Harris, the idea behind the project came from Timothy Egan, President of the High Park Group, a Toronto-based lobby organization. Harris is the former head of its Ottawa office. The federal Lobbyists Registration System indicates that High Park's clients include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association."[
...and dora, Russian immigrant, daughter of a privledged suburban upbringing and Ashkenazi Jew is an "honorary" brown person?
Privileged suburban upbringing? It officially became "upper middle class" when I was 15. When i was 8, mom worked at Marshalls hanging clothes on racks, and my dad worked as a grocery bagger.
Unlike Simes the serial abuse spammer, dora actually HAS her own blog. In that sense, she is worthy of a bit more respect than our anonymous friend, Simes (and his countless sock-puppets).
Perhaps dora would care to point out the arguments that were "decimated" (killed 1 out of 10).
Perhaps dora would care to point out the arguments that were "decimated"
Um, yeah, okay. here you are (*as a bonus, at the end, FJ says slavery is oaky sometimes):
FJ: Well we did our best from 1830-60, became a little shoddier, but did okay from 1865 to 1914, but lost self-control after the Great Depression, and drove the final nails into the economic coffin in the late 60's/early 70's (when we went off the gold standard - thankyou Cambridge boys). I think these charts speak "volumes" as to the greatest mistakes of the twentieth century.
Dora: What was so great about those times? [referring to "Well we did our best from 1830-60, became a little shoddier, but did okay from 1865 to 1914,"]
FJ: People were free.
Dora: Don't make me laugh, FJ. 1865-1914... have you heard of this Jim Crow thing? How about this woman's suffrage business? 1830-1865? Surely you've heard of slavery?
White men were free. But that's right, I forgot, white men are the only people you consider to be "people."
FJ: The world is will to power dora... nothing else.
The Amazon's are ascending. We have rotated to the western side of the Parthenon (Amazonomachy), that's all.
The sun is setting. The gods are no longer seated. The battle between Poseidon and Athena begins again.
Dora: You know, I love it when you descend into classical name-dropping nonsense when you've been cornered and look stupid.
But it only makes you look more pathetic and more stupid.
FJ: Please, tell me what you've cornered me on... and I'll be happy to point out the proof's for that one again before you begin to try and push me into the next one.
Dora: You were just plain wrong when you wrote "What was so great about those times? People were free. " unless you consider only white men to be "people."
FJ: That's a corner? LOL! Everyone was free then. Africans were free. White people were free. Arabs were free. Free even to enslave each other or become enslaved. Isn't "choice" your "big thing"? What wrong with slavery? Can it serve NO "good"? There are many ancient but "wise" options modern men have taken completely off the table. But to unto EVERY purpose there is a proper time, even slavery.
* You can read the whole thing here.
But dora, you claimed that BOTH your parents currently earn over $100k a piece. If a 3 person family income of over $200K is not one of privledge, then what is? And you are a 3rd year law student at a New York Law School who has signed a six-figure salary deal with a top US law firm. You can't say you received no "privledge".
My dad was retired at 42 as a Sr. Master Sergeant (USAF). My mom clerked with the county. I doubt our family of 5's income ever topped $30K. My brother and I both had to attend a military academy because we couldn't afford college. We both had to repay our college tuition with "years of national service".
Yet you are an "honorary" brown person, and I'm an evil white racist.
That is rich.
Unlike Simes the serial abuse spammer, dora actually HAS her own blog. In that sense, she is worthy of a bit more respect than our anonymous friend, Simes (and his countless sock-puppets).
I have no sock puppets as I am not really very dextrous...ambi or uni. Farmer just can't believe there are more than two or three people in the world who could disagree with him. I do, however, have some friends who find this site as amusing as I do and they like to post here. Also,apparently, word has got around that this small backwater is a good fishin hole for lunker crackpots and that some fun can be had here, though it'll probably be soon fished out. As for a blog, if that makes one more "respectable," I suppose I could set up a phony one like some of the rightist crackpots who post on here.
Again, dora... you refuse to acknowledge a difference between freedom and liberty. Freedom knows no common limit. Liberty observes at least 1 artifical rule/law (like non-first-use of force).
Not being willing to explore or understand my point, you declare victory and the end of the conversation. Stopping in the middle of a Socratic dialectic is not always a good idea. But then, deleting the points that will be referred back to is an even worse one.
Some things cannot be taught. They can only be learned.
but did okay from 1865 to 1914,"]
FJ: People were free.
These were also the high/low point years of the industrial revolution when kids would spend 16 hours on the factory floor if they weren't mangled by the machinery or killed by disease... and then sleep there because they were too tired to go home. In addition to the black slave, there were millions of wage slaves and slaves of the company store. During that era, the US had, literally, the worst slums in the world. Free my ass. Controverted again, hayseed.
But dora, you claimed that BOTH your parents currently earn over $100k a piece. If a 3 person family income of over $200K is not one of privledge, then what is?
Like I said, i would say that my life officially turned privileged, at least in terms of money, when I was 15. Until I was 8, i lived in the USSR, which you would hardly call privileged, and when we moved to the US, my mommy worked in Marshalls and my daddy at a Tom Thumb grocery store. What is so unclear?
And you are a 3rd year law student at a New York Law School who has signed a six-figure salary deal with a top US law firm. You can't say you received no "privledge".
Well, i'm on full loans for law school, which I have to pay back out of that 6-figure salary. I'm not sure where the "privileged upbringing" comes into play here.
My dad was retired at 42 as a Sr. Master Sergeant (USAF). My mom clerked with the county. I doubt our family of 5's income ever topped $30K. My brother and I both had to attend a military academy because we couldn't afford college. We both had to repay our college tuition with "years of national service".
Yet you are an "honorary" brown person, and I'm an evil white racist.
Have you taken into account inflation? Had you been a Jewish female immigrant, would you have had the same opportunities?
In any case, being "brown" has nothing to do with growing up privileged. Muslims in the US actually earn more than the average American. It has to do with how the 25%-ers see you.
In the case of Hispanics, the 25%-ers see them all as illegals who are taking Americans' jobs, and there's no question that while I am a legal immigrant and now a US citizen, I am taking the law firm job of some native-born American person.
In the case of Muslims, the 25%-ers see them all as potential terrorists, who, if not immediately all deported (even if they are US citizens), should all be closesly monitored by the government and fellow citizens. It's true, Jews are not subject currently to the same kind of scrutiny, but Jews know better than to trust the current climate into perpetuity, esp those of us who would have much bigger extended families were it not for some unpleasantries 50-odd years ago. When Huckabee runs his Christ-loving ads, it makes everyone who is not Christ-loving feel like an outsider, if you get what i'm saying.
Now now Dora, you remember that song "Turn Turn Turn": "A time to have slaves, a time to...not have slaves. I guess. I'm not so good with lyrics but the point is, slaves are pretty goddamn cool so long as you have the slaves and aren't doing the slavin', dig? And the freedom to have slaves is, truly, a kind of freedom and we don't have that one anymore which is just one more way the defeatist, leftist, Commie DemRATS have taken away our God-give rights.
You are a "renter" Simes. A "renter" with no property to defend and so no stake in maintaining a "civil" exchange of viewpoints.
You don't even keep your own name for more than a couple of dozen posts. A name is merely a skin for a snake to shed.
Yet you demand others treat YOU with some modicum of respect. WHY should they? You don't respect yourself enough to stand behind what you said 3 posts previous.
Freedom knows no common limit. Liberty observes at least 1 artifical rule/law (like non-first-use of force).
You drew no such distinction in your previous argument. Trying to append it now seems even more pathetic than not conceding that you made a serious misstatement earlier.
In fact, finding yourself seriously cornered after having delcared that "people were free" before the emancipation proclamation, you widened the scope of your argument for just discussing America to the whole world's confoundingly original "freedom to enslave."
Tap dance around it all you want, FJ. Everyone sees that you were wrong and refused to admit it in the face of the most undeniable evidence.
No. Slavery has a purpose. And there is a time and a place and a purpose for slavery.
And no, I'm not talking about 'perpetual' inter-generational forms of slavery.
You lock your prisoners away at Gitmo for the duration. I bring them into my house and make them serve me.
dora,
"In other words, reasonable minds can disagree, but that does not mean that every mind that disagrees is a reasonable one."
If you truly believe this then why don't you point out when your like minded colleagues engage in unreasonable arguments. You seem like a biased person hiding behind and education. Please prove me wrong by pointing out the hypocrisies consistent in the Clinton or Edwards prez campaigns.
Had I previously made that distinction in other posted exchanges with you? Did you listen the 1st time I made the distinction?
Mine is not a cafeteria approach to a "liberal" education. Liber (latin for freedom, but also latin for books).
If you truly believe this then why don't you point out when your like minded colleagues engage in unreasonable arguments. You seem like a biased person hiding behind and education. Please prove me wrong by pointing out the hypocrisies consistent in the Clinton or Edwards prez campaigns.
Um, what? So you think that because I am a Democrat, I think everything all Democrats say is correct and reasonable? Maybe that's how your Republican-ism works, but certainly not my Democrat-ism.
I am a liberal. You, are anything, but.
Did he say that? Try again.
A renter!!! wow...see, his version of conservatism is respecks for only the landed gentry...in his case constitued by a silly, little joke of cheap bandwidth in cyberspace and an inflated self image in his pinhead...the day I want respect from some pretentious goofball like is not a day you'll see. You're a joke for me to mess around with, boy...can't you tell that? Now, as an exercise for your attenuated brain, show me my inconsistencies and, really, try to understand the elementary difference between sarcastic hyperbole and serious intent. An utter lack of humor is characteristic of the right wing brain...which is why your weirdo guru was such a failure as a comedian.
dora,
It was only an opportunity for you to prove your objectivity. Sorry to bother you but next time you attempt to discredit other people you should remember that you can't even display your own neutrality.
Earlier I said I get the distinct impression that you like to debate. Replace debate with argue.
WHY do you suppose property has historically been used as a measure of civic participation, simes?
Did you know that up until around the 1840's you had to own property to VOTE in NYC? Did you know that the DEMOCRATIC Tammany organization was organized around buying proiperties and putting many people on the deeds, thus allowing them to VOTE?
I didn't think so, simes. You're about as deep a thinker as a kiddie pool lifeguard.
Oh, and in that thread there were more wrongs: (1) that out-of-wedlock birth rates have been steadily rising since the 1950,s (when in reality, they capped at 1990 and have been decreasing slightly/holding steady since then), and (2) that the rising out-of-wedlock births since the 1950's are all caused by stupid black people breeding too much (when it reality, the highest rise in out-of-wedlock births since the 1950's has been among whites by far).
FJ, simes will not respond to this. They never do when you shine the light on 'em.
Had I previously made that distinction in other posted exchanges with you? Did you listen the 1st time I made the distinction?
Keep tap dancing, fool.
See, folks, he still won't admit he was wrong, and it was on an easy, factual question too!
Dance, monkey, dance!
dora,
Will not comment either because she knows that I'm right.
Sorry to bother you but next time you attempt to discredit other people you should remember that you can't even display your own neutrality.
Um, you don't need to be "neutral" to correctly point out to someone that 2 + 2 = 4.
I am not neutral, but I am fair, and will admit when I am wrong. I have many times, even to FJ. But the stupid dog won't learn by example.
Did you know that up until around the 1840's you had to own property to VOTE in NYC? Did you know that the DEMOCRATIC Tammany organization was organized around buying proiperties and putting many people on the deeds, thus allowing them to VOTE?
um, yes, but we've agreed as a society that that was wrong. What does the voting mechanisms of 1840's new york have to do with whether simes makes good points? Let me add to my previous idea, you don't have to have a blog to argue that 2 + 2 = 4.
WHY do you suppose property has historically been used as a measure of civic participation, simes?
Duh you really think anyone doesn't know...because those were the guys who had the POWER, turnip brain. And, while I'm sure I have more property than you have, though not in the overpopulated blogosphere, its really my brain power which should give me more of a vote than you have ...in an unattainable ideal world, of course. Since we don't have that ideal world, we find it best to spread the vote around so that it's not just self interested fat asses who get to tell everyone else what to do. That way, the idiocy is more diluted and SOMETIMES actually works rather well for a while...til we have an era like this one where the propertied sociopaths retake the strings of power and mess things up all over again.
1) that out-of-wedlock birth rates have been steadily rising since the 1950,s (when in reality, they capped at 1990 and have been decreasing slightly/holding steady since then),
actually they dipped in the 70's with the Roe vs Wade decision. Ooops. Live births dropped... DEAD aborted fetus' skyrocketted!
"I am not neutral, but I am fair, and will admit when I am wrong."
Why, then, can you not admit that coming onto this blog and calling people names is unfair considering that we do not call you names?
FJ, if you want to relive how wrong you were on that one, feel free to go back to that thread. I'm not getting into that debate with you again, with no chance of you ever admitting you were wrong, even if you had alleged that 2 + 2 = 5.
Who have I called a name, other than Farmer John?
(2) that the rising out-of-wedlock births since the 1950's are all caused by stupid black people breeding too much
Your words, not mine. I did point to the Moynihan Report on the Black family though, which had a black out-of-wedlock birth rate then of 30%. It is NOW closer to 70% and the white out-of-wedlock rate is now near 30%... right where black families were forty years ago.
I called the black families "canaries in the coalmine of liberl policies". I know... what vile racism that is.
Farmer J Wrong Again!
actually they dipped in the 70's with the Roe vs Wade decision. Ooops. Live births dropped... DEAD aborted fetus' skyrocketted!
Stats show that anti-abort laws do not decrease the number of abortions...they only increase the amount of misery and botched abortions...oh, as a friend of Simes, I can only say that if I ever caught him in my socks, I'd kick his ass...buddy or no buddy.
dora says: "I was kind of shocked that he turned out to be just as idiotic (as you note) in the very same way as the other republican idiots (clarification: by republican idiots, i only mean people who oppose the theory of evolution, not all republicans)."
Are you not calling some people of faith idiots?
Who gives a rat's about wedlock...thank gar society is at long last able to move away from the unfortunate economic need to have a family unit which obtained for far too long a time...good riddance. There was no hell so great as the hell of the dysfunctional family trapped together forever in a few tiny rooms ...huis clos indeed.
Are you not calling some people of faith idiots?
No, that would be me...Dora's too nice...I usually call them superstious, hypocritical maroons...often murderous too.
um, yes, but we've agreed as a society that that was wrong.
No, not completely. We may have changed our policies to suit a more "progressive" and 'modern' mindset of a 'majority' of voters, but I don't think that the policies were necessarily "wrong" at the time they were in effect. In fact you could say that since they were legally binding and enforced... at THAT time, they were "right" and our current attitude is "wrong".
After all, do you think we should let Simes dictate what Sayet posts here on this blog? Do we, as a society, believe that Simes has a vote? Who's "property" is this blog? And should Evan even listen to Sime's complaints?
Simes gets no say. Evan can simply "delete" his comments... just like YOU deleted mine.
Simes, you make it to easy. What you are saying is that families are no good even though they are an integral part of nature. I guess this explains the pain you are feeling. Do you miss your papa?
"No, that would be me...Dora's too nice...I usually call them superstious, hypocritical maroons...often murderous too."
So I guess we are to never get along. I thought Libs were supposed to be the tolerant ones.
Dora?
If you don't "believe" in evolution, you are an idiot. It's like saying you don't "believe" in gravity.
You mean to say. Simes, that Roe had no impact on the number of abortions performed pre-vs-post Roe? There were 750,000 back-alley abortions in 1972? LOL!
"Are you not calling some people of faith idiots?"
Us liberals like to perform some measure of discrimination between those people with reasonable views about science and those people who believe in things that are batshit insane. But I guess in indiscriminate wingnut land, all views about the creation of species are equal.
If you don't "believe" in evolution, you are an idiot. It's like saying you don't "believe" in gravity.
Precisement...idiot is not a "name" as such. It is a psychologically correct designation for people of a certain intelligence level. If there is a skydaddy, and I believe there may be a shitload of them in the cosmos if all gathered into one place and counted, it is most certainly not the goofy nobodaddy in the Old Testiclement.
thismakes me sad,
Believing or not believing isn't the point. You are supposed to just get along with others. I can't believe I have to explain this.
So in order to be liberal we must break people down into 2 groups. Those who have faith and those who don't. Good luck with the Muslim population.
I'm not supposed to do shit, at least not yet in what is still a free country (for the time being). And I say again - if you don't "believe" in evolution, you're a fucking idiot.
I don't believe in "gravity." Oh, there's a force alright. But is it a particle or a wave? Is it merely a "warp" in space-time? And how it interacts w/EM is still a bit of a "scientific" mystery. There are "theories". Some people believe in "gravitons". Do you?
What is the mass of a photon, simes?
Contervertated agin, slim...
Abortion rates same whether legal or not
AP Associated Press
Study: Rich, poor countries have equal statistics; half of procedures unsafe
Updated 11:58 a.m. MT, Thurs., Oct. 18, 2007
LONDON - Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.
In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe.
The study was done by Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in the United States and colleagues from the World Health Organization. It was published in an edition of The Lancet medical journal devoted to maternal health.
and here's your link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/
dora says: "I was kind of shocked that he turned out to be just as idiotic (as you note) in the very same way as the other republican idiots (clarification: by republican idiots, i only mean people who oppose the theory of evolution, not all republicans)."
Are you not calling some people of faith idiots?
People of faith? No, i'm calling people who refuse to accept basic scientific principles idiots. has nothing to do with whether they are "of faith" or not.
For clarification, I thought meant that I called one of you names. I did not call anyone here any names except for Farmer John.
All you're doing is obfuscating again, FJ. Just because all of the specifics of gravity haven't been worked out doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. Same thing goes for evolution. But I'm sure we're all impressed with your dime-store education.
So in order to be liberal we must break people down into 2 groups. Those who have faith and those who don't.
No. Break them down into those that have "faith", but not knowledge. Those that think they have "knowledge". And those who admit they can't know".
Or better, use Plato's "divided line" epistemology. You'll soon learn that "knowledge" is an extremely difficult, 'n'er IMPOSSIBLE standard to achieve.
What is the mass of a photon, simes?
The mass of the ass is equal to the angle of the dangle...well, that's from my colonoscopy friend, but it's about as relevant as your horseshit and thrice as funny. Try remaining in the practical world...you have more than enough trouble with that.
FJ you are, literally, the most insufferably boring person in the universe. I'm actually kind of shocked you're not a Paultard, with the whole quoting Greek philosophers thing.
After all, do you think we should let Simes dictate what Sayet posts here on this blog? Do we, as a society, believe that Simes has a vote? Who's "property" is this blog? And should Evan even listen to Sime's complaints?
What does this have to do with whether what simes has to say is worthwhile depending on whether he has a blog, and voting rights? What?! You must have just taken a hit off the pipe and are not making any sense.
Simes gets no say. Evan can simply "delete" his comments... just like YOU deleted mine.
Baby Farmer is crying. How many of my posts did you delete? More than one. I deleted one, i explained why, I invited you to repost. Waa waa boo hoo.
Get over it. You're just bitter that you say shit, then I tell others what you've said, and everyone sees what kind of a vile idiotic person you are.
Just because all of the specifics of gravity haven't been worked out doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. Same thing goes for evolution.
...and the same goes for GOD.
for as Plato said in "Parmenides",
"If One is not, then nothing is".
That doesn't sound like much. But ir really says everything. That is as "good" as "knowledge" gets.
FJ you are, literally, the most insufferably boring person in the universe. I'm actually kind of shocked you're not a Paultard, with the whole quoting Greek philosophers thing.
Don't alienate him...I want his stack of Cliff's notes and his Classics comics when he's done with them
"Just because all of the specifics of gravity haven't been worked out doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist. Same thing goes for evolution.
...and the same goes for GOD."
No, Most Insufferable Person In The Universe, this is not how it works. This is how I know you're not a scientist, just someone with a library card and an assload of free time.
Farmer John went to Merchant Marine, class of 78 or something like that, and then was in the navy, and then got a master's in engineering from USC.
He has no liberal education. His formal education was in military, marinery, and engineering.
Perhaps he's so confused with the Plato and all because he never had anyone help him learn it.
No. Break them down into those that have "faith", but not knowledge. Those that think they have "knowledge". And those who admit they can't know".
Or better, use Plato's "divided line" epistemology. You'll soon learn that "knowledge" is an extremely difficult, 'n'er IMPOSSIBLE standard to achieve.
Oh, here we go... next we'll have something about the difference between liberty and freedom, and the difference between wisdom and knowledge. Take it away, FJ! LOL
Oh, and PS, FJ doesn't think Socrates was gay. Because in his word, gays are all inferior and deficient, so his idol could not possibly be gay.
Oh, but He Who Is Most Insufferable has a job, y'all. Though it can't be a very challenging or high-paying one if he has all this free time to post here. At least I have an excuse, i'm on winter break.
It's called an analogy. If you can't see any similarity in cases, fine.
Nietzsche, "Gay Science"
Origin of the Logical. Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally have been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we! Whoever, for example, could not discern the "like" often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality. The preponderating inclination, however, to deal with the similar as the equal - an illogical inclination, for there is no thing equal in itself - first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." In itself every high degree of circumspection in conclusions, every skeptical inclination, is a great danger to life. No living being might have been preserved unless the contrary inclination - to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to mistake and fabricate rather than wait, to assent rather than deny, to decide rather than be in the right - had been cultivated with extra ordinary assiduity. The course of logical thought and reasoning in our modern brain corresponds to a process and struggle of impulses, which singly and in themselves are all very illogical and unjust; we experience usually only the result of the struggle so rapidly and secretly does this primitive mechanism now operate in us.
I shudder to think of what bizarre niche porn this guy jerks off to. It must be terrifying.
Oh!!!! here we go!!! Long-ass Nietzsche quotes!!!
That's what I deleted on by blog, btw.
Didn't God create evolution?
You think I'm boring. Try reading some of the inane drivel you post.
Niche porn -- I'd say it's gay, has muslims, mexicans, and all sorts of other "degenerate" elements of our society FJ loves to hate. under age, premarital, lots of racial minorities.
i mean, FJ has a wife and coupla kids too. A daughter who studies theater at NYU, even. And a son who is really into musicals.
I don't think you're boring, my friend, I motherhumping know you are. I haven't met anyone who unironically quoted Plato and Nietzsche since I was in high school, and even then those people were outcasts, nose pickers and assorted douchebags.
Be honest dora. You liked Nietzsche and told me I could post HIM. It was the Plato and Rousseau that you couldn't take.
Like I said. A "Limited" pantheon of admissable arguments.
;-)
Oh, and PS, FJ doesn't think Socrates was gay. Because in his word, gays are all inferior and deficient, so his idol could not possibly be gay.
I hear he gave head like a rabbit on a carrot...call Fudd.
Post a Comment