Fairweather Posted December 5, 2009 Author Share Posted December 5, 2009 the corporate media chose which candidates were "electable" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Not at all. Europe's imposition of Versailles on Germany--our absence notwithstanding--is what brought about the counter result. In fact, I believe the US actually loaned Germany money in 1924 to help them get France off their collective backs. Don't look in the mirror if you want to understand the collapse of the Wiemar Republic--look at utterly arrogant European "victors"--like France. I'm just glad Senator Lodge and Borah were there to keep Woodrow from making fools out of us here. at least you're a CONSISTENT wing-nut conservative  so, hypothetically, a vigorous, shit -any-, US participation in a league of nations would have had no effect, zero, in preventing/minimizing ww2? "hey hitler - remember who kicked the fucking shit out of you bitches last time you got mouthy? touch the rhineland and we'll kick the shit out of you like we do wetbacks n' chinamen, ya dig?"  hitler did what he did calculating on a complete american disinterest in anything more immediate than getting their fuck on - a whole lot has changed in 70 years, no? half the reason our modern conservative generation bangs its cock against the bar-top and worships "the greatest generation" is b/c it has no interest in putting forth that kind of effort itself, or of learning its fore-father's fuckup.  so long as your powers of denial operate in all places and in all times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2009 Author Share Posted December 5, 2009 I think your history is a little off re Germany's status on 11-11-18. I would also point you toward the Ruhr Valley in March of 1921 if you need additional examples of French arrogance. Better revisit you Hitler thesis too while you're at it--after all, he declared war on us. As for the rest of it, well, it sounds like typical everything's-our-fault lefty mouth diarrhea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 the corporate media chose which candidates were "electable" Â Yes, I was only stating fact that you have yet to rebut, intelligently if possible but I am not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I think your history is a little off re Germany's status on 11-11-18. I would also point you toward the Ruhr Valley in March of 1921 if you need additional examples of French arrogance. Better revisit you Hitler thesis too while you're at it--after all, he declared war on us. As for the rest of it, well, it sounds like typical everything's-our-fault lefty mouth diarrhea. don't head too far off the track - arguing the why's'n'wherefores of a historical process is neessarily more messy than climatology - french arrogance isn't the issue, though i know no conservative can go stand to go too long w/o bashing on our former allies  the point was, we, the us (who i hate no more than i hate on any other nationality - and by the way, what is it w/ you conservatives and your desire to assert that you love sweet jesus/usa more than The Others? our country isn't our prom date! ) are just like everybody else- all humans are short-sighted and petty (you would never stick a fork in machiavelli's eye, forsoothe!) - our refusal in 1918, as a signficant part of the relevant world, to join an international organization that could, as a solid front, stand up to tyranny is a historical embarassement, and an excellent analogy to today - if we had been an active part of the LON in the 20s, we would have been active from the start in preventing the ungratitious shit-kicking of the weimar republic, in drawing the line at the rhineland, in the opposition to fascism in italy and germany. sure, we were involved in an independent fashion at that time, but the message was clear: we dont' really give a shit what happens over there so long as it doesn't disturb us over here.  the thing is, in ww2 we could wait until the world hung in the balance to act, and still see a happy ending - this next epic is a very different bird, and our tardiness may very well prove fatal - and what really is the great sacrifice you're being called to? buying energy efficietn light bulbs and driving a faggy prius? business can do just fine, and waiting to get whole-hog into it might just as well put us far back in terms of new technolgy and industries. what exactly are you afeared of again?  i was hardly a good econ student, but the basic lesson wasn't that hard - price reflects cost - cost in an enligthened world should include the carbon cost of doing business - why does this basic concept equal the jack-boot of uncle sam equal kicking the virgin mary in the shitter? the price of a gallon of gas or a car or an hour of electricty should include the cost of getting the co2 back out of the atmosphere - holy shit call national enquirer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Douche Nozzle thinks that because he has an extra chromosome he's extra more smarter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 "Where's the data" Â The data is on various pages of this web site http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/ Â Perhaps Fairweather can explain it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 johndavidjr, that is just guvmint propergander. you want the real truth, listen to fairweather. his posts are divinely inspired. really. god speaks directly through him. you can tell by the tone that you'll be turned into a pillow of salt if you disergree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 5, 2009 Author Share Posted December 5, 2009 Does the HCGW (Holy Church of Global Warming) hold services on Saturday or Sunday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denalidave Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Does the HCGW (Holy Church of Global Warming) hold services on Saturday or Sunday? Friday night at the bar, DUH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Does the HCGW (Holy Church of Global Warming) hold services on Saturday or Sunday? Â monday through friday, dude. it's a secular religion. Â hey fairweather, do the women in your cult have to wear veils? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Does the HCGW (Holy Church of Global Warming) hold services on Saturday or Sunday? i'm not sure, but i think we do still masterbate manually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 6, 2009 Author Share Posted December 6, 2009 Â hey fairweather, do the women in your cult have to wear veils? Â No. If they did, you'd probably be making excuses for me. The sad truth is that I often see HCGW women imprisoned in Subaru's and hybrids by effeminate males like you. Most of them are barren for reasons upon which I can only speculate. No doubt some are secretly lusting after that guy who just passed them in the SUV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el jefe Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 making excuses for you? there is no excuse for you, thunderthighs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 (edited) Does the HCGW (Holy Church of Global Warming) hold services on Saturday or Sunday? i'm not sure, but i think we do still masterbate manually   be expecting a fleshlight in your stocking this year... Edited December 6, 2009 by pink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Â hey fairweather, do the women in your cult have to wear veils? Â No. If they did, you'd probably be making excuses for me. The sad truth is that I often see HCGW women imprisoned in Subaru's and hybrids by effeminate males like you. Most of them are barren for reason upon which I can only speculate. No doubt some are secretly lusting after that guy who just passed them in the SUV. Â That's hawt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Fairweather, you ask about "data" as though you are capable of evaluating it. About as likely that I can evaluate the same stuff. Â I don't much like or respect doctors, but if a half-dozen of them independently tell me I've got cancer, I'd probably go with that. Â I could, however, visit a hundred additional doctors, find one who tells me I'm fine, and stick with that opinion, because the others I'd figure are greedy rich liberals who want my insurance money (though have none). Â Is that a fair analogy? Â (But wait, since they're wrong, and I'm a Democrat, that'd be six doctors I could sue!! This could work out really well for me!!! I'll split proceeds with you. Thanks for the tip!!) Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I don't deny that there's climate change and that there's an anthropogenic component. The attention should be focused on the hyped urgency of rushing measures through, actions which are reminiscent of another rush that actually became a costly affair and which was based on faulty assumptions.  You gotta wonder when one of the leading climate scientists is saying that the Copenhaugen talks are so flawed that they should fail. Couple that together with the role of investment banks in cap and trade and given the mess that these same entities caused in the financial markets, perhaps we should give pause to look more closely at this method of regulating carbon emissions.  Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist Investment banks are chasing opportunities in a $126 billion carbon market  The emphasis should be on the alarmist scenarios raised by the ICPP and CRU. These research and political bodies should be scrutinized. The data is there but how much were the models tweaked to support a catastrophic scenario? All of the controversy over the leaked emails should serve as a counterbalance to the alarmist rhetoric.  CRU's programming 'way below expected standards' Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'  Questioning the alarmist scenario is not the same as denial of climate change. But comparing others who question the alarmist rhetoric to flat earthers etc. is definitely divisive, not inclusive. All of the defensiveness should ideally yield to an open atmosphere to prevent the bitter divisiveness that all to often seems reflective of partisan politics.  Oh, and BTW, I heard that Copenhaugen is unofficially choosing a Dylan song as its anthem. Not this one but it seems more fitting to the situation:  [video:youtube]IMIlP4zB0EM  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Dyson's proposal is actually modeled after a natural process evident in biological history. You see more efficient carbon sequestering by plants (C3--->C4 & CAM plants, for instance) through evolutionary time. The process might work better with photosynthetic oceanic plankton which I believe bury carbon on a greater scale than terrestrial plants. The carbon compensation depth might rise due to carbon dioxide levels but the actual effects of ocean acidification though seemingly simple are not fully known.  In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production  So what if all the measures to combat climate change are ineffective? The rules of the game have been up to now, adaptation or extinction. Is extinction necessarily bad, similar to the related question of whether individual death is bad in itself? We seek to prolong life and postpone death at all costs even when quality of life suffers. Death is a necessary evil. It opens the way for future generations. Similarly in evolution, extinction opens ecological niches to be filled through adaptative radiation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Dyson's proposal is actually modeled after a natural process evident in biological history. You see more efficient carbon sequestering by plants (C3--->C4 & CAM plants, for instance) through evolutionary time. The process might work better with photosynthetic oceanic plankton which I believe bury carbon on a greater scale than terrestrial plants. The carbon compensation depth might rise due to carbon dioxide levels but the actual effects of ocean acidification though seemingly simple are not fully known. In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production  So what if all the measures to combat climate change are ineffective? The rules of the game have been up to now, adaptation or extinction. Is extinction necessarily bad, similar to the related question of whether individual death is bad in itself? We seek to prolong life and postpone death at all costs even when quality of life suffers. Death is a necessary evil. It opens the way for future generations. Similarly in evolution, extinction opens ecological niches to be filled through adaptative radiation. Is that an Hummer ad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Â Fairweather can't offer an interpretation OF THE DATA any more than I can, but rather only an opinion based on Glen Beck's latest show or his reading of WorldNet Daily or whatever. Â Fairweather, bless him, actually believes the data don't exist. Â Doesn't understand that there aren't a few scientists coordinating or conspiring, but rather, thousands of scientists who are, to a signficant extent, competing to prove each other wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Fairweather can't offer an interpretation OF THE DATA any more than I can, but rather only an opinion based on Glen Beck's latest show or his reading of WorldNet Daily or whatever. Â Fairweather, bless him, actually believes the data don't exist. Â Doesn't understand that there aren't a few scientists coordinating or conspiring, but rather, thousands of scientists who are, to a signficant extent, competing to prove each other wrong. Â at least he is smart enough to know that the Walmart pup tent is a piece of shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Awww, I think the puptent has potential to be a good running gag around here, we need a new one now that a new Smith guide is actually being published. Â Of course, maybe its just that I agree with our Jersey boy on this particular subject... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 [video:youtube]ewoEFmbZEzo 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.