Fairweather Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 come on, he is an active global warming denier Don't you mean, j_b, that he's a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 isn't impeachment, like, for high crimes n' misdemeanors n' whatnot? what's illegal about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) KKK's probably closest to the mark, here. Who fucking cares? Poll the average American and see if they can tell you the name of one, any one, post 911 terrorist to be tried in the United States...or held at Gitmo, for that matter. The public just doesn't follow this issue that closely for the most part. It's not really very much of a political football at all. Plus, it's old, tired news. Our own dear FW, despite his Home Talk Radio predictions, understands neither news cycles nor the media in general. It seems that other news...the collapse of the...oh, nevermind. So this is really a question for the judiciary, and that branch, in the form of the Supreme Court, has already weighed in on the issue; strongly recommending exactly what is taking place now. Again, Home Talk Radio Boy is apparently unaware of the long history of back and forth that preceded what is actually a widely agreed up on and prudent course of action. Sea lawyer. One of the Navy's great phrases. Edited November 14, 2009 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The best thing we can do is to treat these murdering punks just like other murdering punks. One of the worst things the Bushes did was to elevate their enemies to godlike (satanlike) stature by demonizing them. Saddam was a tinpot dictator not a reincarnation of hitlerstalinmao. Bin Ladden and Co. were a bunch of dirtbages living in caves who got lucky because we did not lock cockpit doors and let pilots pack. They should convict them and toss them into the general population at Sing Sing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 If it's so obvious it should be easy for you to explain what you mean because I don't see anything here incriminating for Gore or that would change my opinion that Monckton is a charlatan. As to the denialists' accusations toward Gore, most of them are complete non-sense. I am no great fan of Gore but his film was very well received among climate scientists, and the British judge who criticized the movie should stick to law because he clearly has no expertise to place judgment on the science. How the climate data is interpreted is only a sidetrack to the whole issue, that being, your obliviousness to Al Gore’s tendency to demagoguery, who BTW also received a Nobel Peace Prize and for what exactly, that of being the chief propagator of global warming? So your modus operandi when the issue aligns with your political bent is to give a free pass to the propagator. You truly have the mark of a true believer in that you harbor no skill in critical evaluation of the means to achieve an end. In that respect, you possess a devout faith in the chief priests of your Left-Statist (totalitarian) religion. Even environmentalists such as Steward Brand (Whole Earth Catalog) were criticized by the true believers by the former’s acceptance of the manifest role of the new generation of nuclear power reactors in alleviating the downside of electrical production. But really, this is not so much about the transition in power generation towards a carbon neutral strategy as much as an attack on our elevated standard of living with respect to the larger part of the world. Beware of the means to achieve this end because the cure may be far more serious in its far reaching implications than the disease. And don’t deny that you have taken up the mantle for advancing your religion. It’s obvious in your posting of Glenn Greenwald’s criticism of the Obama administration. It is not the man so much that you support but rather the use of his position to further an agenda that runs counter to the established tradition of the United States as a free and sovereign nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The best thing we can do is to treat these murdering punks just like other murdering punks. One of the worst things the Bushes did was to elevate their enemies to godlike (satanlike) stature by demonizing them. Saddam was a tinpot dictator not a reincarnation of hitlerstalinmao. Bin Ladden and Co. were a bunch of dirtbages living in caves who got lucky because we did not lock cockpit doors and let pilots pack. They should convict them and toss them into the general population at Sing Sing Of course, some of them may not be murdering punks at all. There's that little pesky detail. Fucking Constitution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Maybe we should petition the great omnipresent, omniscient kitty in the sky for guidance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Perhaps, but Kitties usually answer every question by pooing in your shoe. Interpretation remains a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Maybe Todd can weigh in on these worldly issues. He is a musician after all. [video:youtube]fvdGPD443nE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 If it's so obvious it should be easy for you to explain what you mean because I don't see anything here incriminating for Gore or that would change my opinion that Monckton is a charlatan. As to the denialists' accusations toward Gore, most of them are complete non-sense. I am no great fan of Gore but his film was very well received among climate scientists, and the British judge who criticized the movie should stick to law because he clearly has no expertise to place judgment on the science. How the climate data is interpreted is only a sidetrack to the whole issue, certainly not. it is central to the issue of Monckton being a crackpot who pretends to be a climate scientist (among other things) that being, your obliviousness to Al Gore’s tendency to demagoguery,who BTW also received a Nobel Peace Prize and for what exactly, that of being the chief propagator of global warming? the IPCC also received the prize and for good reason because Gore has only been popularizing what the experts have said for decades So your modus operandi when the issue aligns with your political bent is to give a free pass to the propagator. just formulate an accurate criticism of Gore and I'll agree with you but Mockton and other global warming deniers are wrong in their criticism of Gore. You truly have the mark of a true believer in that you harbor no skill in critical evaluation of the means to achieve an end. Nonsense. I repeat constantly that the means determine the ends. Process is almost everything. Gore's movie was right on the mark and was needed to counter fossil fuel industry and corporate media lies. In that respect, you possess a devout faith in the chief priests of your Left-Statist (totalitarian) religion. I have fought my entire life against all form of totalitarianism of any stripe. I believe in the government being the instrument to enforce the will of the people and nothing more. If libertarians were credible they would denounce the hijacking of government by corporations instead of worrying about "statists" Even environmentalists such as Steward Brand (Whole Earth Catalog) were criticized by the true believers by the former’s acceptance of the manifest role of the new generation of nuclear power reactors in alleviating the downside of electrical production. But really, this is not so much about the transition in power generation towards a carbon neutral strategy as much as an attack on our elevated standard of living with respect to the larger part of the world. Beware of the means to achieve this end because the cure may be far more serious in its far reaching implications than the disease. And don’t deny that you have taken up the mantle for advancing your religion. It’s obvious in your posting of Glenn Greenwald’s criticism of the Obama administration. It is not the man so much that you support but rather the use of his position to further an agenda that runs counter to the established tradition of the United States as a free and sovereign nation. "sovereign nation"? i sense far right lunacy ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Seems like Fauxwhether is having yet another one-man "Pathetic Moron Festival". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The best thing we can do is to treat these murdering punks just like other murdering punks. One of the worst things the Bushes did was to elevate their enemies to godlike (satanlike) stature by demonizing them. Saddam was a tinpot dictator not a reincarnation of hitlerstalinmao. Bin Ladden and Co. were a bunch of dirtbages living in caves who got lucky because we did not lock cockpit doors and let pilots pack. They should convict them and toss them into the general population at Sing Sing Of course, some of them may not be murdering punks at all. There's that little pesky detail. Fucking Constitution! That is why you have a trial You do not want to call them (War Criminals) either, because if you charged them with war crimes you would have to be very careful as "Shock and Awe" was just as much a war crime as 9/11 was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 You start out by making an unsubstantiated allegation in calling someone a crackpot and then proceed to label any critic of your static worldview a far right lunatic. Are you for real or are you craning for the inspirational position of a character in a new po-mo graphic novel? What’s that, Mr. Objective? You don’t see the irony in refusing to acknowledge and study the views of the opposition? Are you familiar with the definition of zealot? Consider that a small mind cannot simultaneously hold two opposing views to observe a new synthesis but is instead lost in the low level dialectic all the while missing the progression that’s actually occurring. It’s like a shell game and you’re the sucker. FYI, I don’t mean totalitarian in the sense that large numbers of the population are subjugated and disappeared as witnessed in third world countries and formerly socialist regimes, I mean it in the sense where control is applied through the evolving mechanism of technology and especially where the division between corporation and government blurs. For instance, take a look in part at the evolution of surveillance cameras in your friendly neighborhood Safeway or Albertsons. You also gotta love those buyer loyalty programs. Your profile is you and they own your profile. The ability of the combination of these tech developments to capture what you are in essence does not rely on the dominant party in Washington just as all the intrusions into our privacy during the Bush years were not abandoned with the arrival of the One. Take it for what it’s worth, the Buddhists and the other Gnostics were right, ignorance is bliss. And why not also mention that Cervantes’ guy? Maybe his fictional work, Don Quixote, held more truth than any scientific journal. I bet that sure flies over your head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote And my mention of Stewart Brand? I don’t subscribe to everything he believes but I believe he is more honest than you in his examination of his beliefs to coincide with the reality of what is today and his vision of what will be tomorrow (Stewart Brand proclaims 4 environmental 'heresies'--TED). If only you were as rigorous in an honest assessment of your religiously held beliefs then you’d see that learning does not end with the granting of an university degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 You start out by making an unsubstantiated allegation in calling someone a crackpot Isn't Monckton a ferocious global warming denier with a degree in journalism who has no formal knowledge in climatology yet pretends to know better than the immense majority of experts? Just 2 examples among many of Monckton’s handy work: Monckton's deliberate manipulation Cuckoo Science and then proceed to label any critic of your static worldview a far right lunatic. No, not ‘any’ critic. Only those that spew the typical far right wing pablum about environmentalism as a religion, depict Gore as a liar because of his work on global warming, conceive the role of government like cavemen would and accuse everyone else of ‘statism’, and push conspiracy theories about communist world government that supposedly threaten our “freedom and sovereignty” Are you for real or are you craning for the inspirational position of a character in a new po-mo graphic novel? What’s that, Mr. Objective? You don’t see the irony in refusing to acknowledge and study the views of the opposition? Are you familiar with the definition of zealot? a zealot? Like the free-marketeers who actively deny global warming when they barely have a scientific education. Consider that a small mind cannot simultaneously hold two opposing views to observe a new synthesis but is instead lost in the low level dialectic all the while missing the progression that’s actually occurring. It’s like a shell game and you’re the sucker. FYI, I don’t mean totalitarian in the sense that large numbers of the population are subjugated and disappeared as witnessed in third world countries and formerly socialist regimes, I mean it in the sense where control is applied through the evolving mechanism of technology and especially where the division between corporation and government blurs. For instance, take a look in part at the evolution of surveillance cameras in your friendly neighborhood Safeway or Albertsons. You also gotta love those buyer loyalty programs. Your profile is you and they own your profile. The ability of the combination of these tech developments to capture what you are in essence does not rely on the dominant party in Washington just as all the intrusions into our privacy during the Bush years were not abandoned with the arrival of the One. Take it for what it’s worth, the Buddhists and the other Gnostics were right, ignorance is bliss. And why not also mention that Cervantes’ guy? Maybe his fictional work, Don Quixote, held more truth than any scientific journal. I bet that sure flies over your head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote And my mention of Stewart Brand? I don’t subscribe to everything he believes but I believe he is more honest than you in his examination of his beliefs to coincide with the reality of what is today and his vision of what will be tomorrow (Stewart Brand proclaims 4 environmental 'heresies'--TED). If only you were as rigorous in an honest assessment of your religiously held beliefs then you’d see that learning does not end with the granting of an university degree. As if accusing me of zealotry and having religious beliefs were a rational argument. You certainly aren’t afraid of contradictions when you denounce ‘statists’ on the one hand yet push nuclear power on the other. Nuclear power development always was and still is mostly the fact of states because private investors know that without taxpayers shouldering the burden of development and clean up there is no future in nuclear power. We won’t even talk about the kind of state needed to keep nuclear power safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 ...and inside it he finds she's wearing a "meat dress" made out of possum steaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 You're getting shrill and long winded. I could give a shit if Monckton were a scientist. He's first and foremost a politician. It's the implications that he airs that should be of concern because these are very real concerns. However, if you want a more credible witness perhaps a geologist would suffice: New geologic evidence of past periods of oscillating, abrupt warming, and cooling. Of course, that's only one reference but there's a legion of others available if you weren't so sheltered in your insular worldview. And your so called rationality? You can be completely rational and completely wrong. Thomas Kuhn spoke of this in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I only mention Stewart Brand and his view of nuclear power to illustrate to you a salient example of someone whose worldview has evolved considerably yet stays true to some basic tenets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 And now.....[font:Arial Black]ETERNITY...[/font] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 Here's a scientist/professor from WWU who sees things differently: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/index.htm More to help temper your fanaticism: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/geoev.pdf No doubt Feck's attention span will take him into the first or second sentences before he remembers that the IPCC preacher-man told him reading actual statistics was against UN scripture--at which point he will promptly denounce the good professor as a veterinarian crackpot. I'm only expecting slightly more from j_b. After all, he did spend a full two quarters at Western before his status lapsed from academic warning into permanent suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 You're getting shrill and long winded. I could give a shit if Monckton were a scientist. next time your elderly parent has a pain in his chest, you ought to call your plumber just to see how it works out. He's first and foremost a politician. right, he was Thatcher's adviser so he knows a thing or two about dismantling/preventing all regulations on businesses. We are witnessing how his neoliberal vision worked out. It's the implications that he airs that should be of concern because these are very real concerns. about the "communist world government" the greens are about to sneak on us? huhuh ... However, if you want a more credible witness perhaps a geologist would suffice: New geologic evidence of past periods of oscillating, abrupt warming, and cooling. It's not a peer-reviewed publication so it has only limited interest to validate your point of view. Easterbrook is well known for being a contrarian. Can you cite one of his publication that would refute modern climate science? I didn't think so. climate has changed in the past but the carbon stored in the earth crust over millions of years was never before the last century released in 100 years. Carbon dioxide is a well known greenhouse gas as established by 19th century science. Of course, that's only one reference but there's a legion of others available if you weren't so sheltered in your insular worldview. says the dude who denies the science put out by the immense majority of climate scientists. And your so called rationality? You can be completely rational and completely wrong. Thomas Kuhn spoke of this in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. don't let me stop you from developing an argument. I only mention Stewart Brand and his view of nuclear power to illustrate to you a salient example of someone whose worldview has evolved considerably yet stays true to some basic tenets. who says that he holds true to basic tenets? you? hearing him push nuclear power, genetically modified organisms and geo-engineering as the solution to various environmental/social issues, I doubt that it is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Sorry about the diversion... Regarding the thread topic, although my crystal ball is specked with dust, I'd suspect that Eric Holder and company would not pursue this venue if it weren't to be a slamdunk for the administration. I'd rather believe that something else will derail the partisan upset of 2006/2008, thus the insertion of the effect of international treaties and by inference the potential harnessing by the GOP of populist discontent with government handling of the financial mess. On the other hand, I don't feel so generous to see much hope or optimism emanating from either party in 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 damn, I love cognac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 Sorry about the diversion... Regarding the thread topic, although my crystal ball is specked with dust, I'd suspect that Eric Holder and company would not pursue this venue if it weren't to be a slamdunk for the administration. I think the Obama Administration could care less about prosecuting these terrorists. In their bizarre world, they no doubt believe the discovery process required in a public trial will reveal the true extent of Bush's "crimes". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 It's not a peer-reviewed publication so it has only limited interest to validate your point of view. Easterbrook is well known for being a contrarian. Can you cite one of his publication that would refute modern climate science? I didn't think so. Um, you didn't read any of it, did you. Easterbrook's resume: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resume.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.