• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Proof Conservatives Know They're Done

Started by NowhereInTime, February 06, 2014, 07:30:24 PM

onan

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 18, 2014, 09:03:01 AM
You know though, if you take him point by point, there is a kernel of truth in every point he made. He's a symptom, not a cause. Perhaps what's happening is that your president is creating a whole lot of people that feel disaffected and unrepresented. I certainly feel that way, I'm apparently footing everyone's healthcare bills now just by virtue of being self-employed, 38 years-old and middle class. He's cranky about it, just like you guys were cranky about Bush. You don't think that sort of talk wasn't widespread on the left during the Bush years? I remember that it was.

There is a kernel of truth in just about anything... take this sentence, for example. What does that make the rest of the assertion/s? And to nicely sum it up with a "fuck liberals"?

I can make a post about all the corruption in the conservative camp just as easily.
And I am a bit stunned by the assertion that liberals are in lock step. If anything the conservative party speaks in unison on every issue. Whereas liberals are always shooting themselves in the foot with their infighting and less than spectacular ability to come to a consensus on many issues.


NowhereInTime

Quote from: onan on April 18, 2014, 03:57:13 PM
There is a kernel of truth in just about anything... take this sentence, for example. What does that make the rest of the assertion/s? And to nicely sum it up with a "fuck liberals"?

I can make a post about all the corruption in the conservative camp just as easily.
And I am a bit stunned by the assertion that liberals are in lock step. If anything the conservative party speaks in unison on every issue. Whereas liberals are always shooting themselves in the foot with their infighting and less than spectacular ability to come to a consensus on many issues.
Yeah! Shaddup Onan!
See? Infighting!!

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: onan on April 18, 2014, 03:57:13 PM
There is a kernel of truth in just about anything... take this sentence, for example. What does that make the rest of the assertion/s? And to nicely sum it up with a "fuck liberals"?

I can make a post about all the corruption in the conservative camp just as easily.
And I am a bit stunned by the assertion that liberals are in lock step. If anything the conservative party speaks in unison on every issue. Whereas liberals are always shooting themselves in the foot with their infighting and less than spectacular ability to come to a consensus on many issues.

I'd say it makes it coarse but not entirely incorrect. I don't really see how it's different than the myriad times the words "fuck Bush" were uttered during and after his tenure. Bear in mind that I did not support Bush and was very much against the Iraq war.

So, you watched Ron Paul go from banned at the GOP debates to a prominent forerunner, towing the line on not very much at all (and yes, some of his ideas were completely bonkers) and you think these people speak with a unified voice. I just don't see the proof within the pudding. They are a party out in the weeds rethinking itself and debating.

I don't see any infighting on the liberal side. Infighting on what? All I see are changes in platform issued. Someone said "Support gay marriage now" and everyone flip-flopped in lockstep over a short period of time. How about climate change? Doesn't seem to be much disagreement there, in fact as far as I can see any dissent is crushed as a matter of policy.  Or how about health care? Any liberal worth their salt should be opposed to it and complaining. It's not socialized medicine, it's an insurance scheme. It falls far short of European-style healthcare. But there isn't any complaining. No one's mentioning universal socialized medicine right now to replace the disaster. Why not? It's because liberals succumb to group think.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 18, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
No, please, don't trouble yourself.
And, despite sterotype, I do not at all enjoy narcotics.

Well now we know why you're so bitchy! You've got no vices! My formula of happy living is simple: two parts Gordon's, one part dry vermouth and an olive, stirred or shaken who gives a shit which.

You'd like my ex-wife. Nobody knows how to redistribute wealth like that woman.

So now I'm just out to drive you nuts. I'll reprise my role of futurist and make another prediction. The dawn of artificial intelligence, the singularity as Ray Kurzweil calls it, will mean the absolute end of liberalism and the Democratic Party forever. Why? Because emotive ideas aren't logical. Elections, certainly by 2050, will involve everyone asking super intelligent computers who they should vote for in order to increase their own prosperity. Liberals can't win because your ideas, at present, hinge on everyone accepting less prosperity.

Oh, and here's a lil' easter present for ya.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/19/korea.beauty/


Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 18, 2014, 09:48:43 PM
I'd say it makes it coarse but not entirely incorrect. I don't really see how it's different than the myriad times the words "fuck Bush" were uttered during and after his tenure. Bear in mind that I did not support Bush and was very much against the Iraq war.

So, you watched Ron Paul go from banned at the GOP debates to a prominent forerunner, towing the line on not very much at all (and yes, some of his ideas were completely bonkers) and you think these people speak with a unified voice. I just don't see the proof within the pudding. They are a party out in the weeds rethinking itself and debating.

I don't see any infighting on the liberal side. Infighting on what? All I see are changes in platform issued. Someone said "Support gay marriage now" and everyone flip-flopped in lockstep over a short period of time. How about climate change? Doesn't seem to be much disagreement there, in fact as far as I can see any dissent is crushed as a matter of policy.  Or how about health care? Any liberal worth their salt should be opposed to it and complaining. It's not socialized medicine, it's an insurance scheme. It falls far short of European-style healthcare. But there isn't any complaining. No one's mentioning universal socialized medicine right now to replace the disaster. Why not? It's because liberals succumb to group think.
Wow, complimenting the right for healthy and open minded debate on issues, and then mentioning climate change and healthcare in the same post.  That takes some gumption.

Of course your are correct, there is plenty of soul searching and deep thought occurring in right wing circles on those issues.  For example conservatives are currently trying to establish a concrete position on climate change, and have narrowed it down to 2 choices:

1) Science, schmience

Or

2) a Christian God will save us

On the matter of health care, they are equally divided, torn between whether to focus their efforts on making sure health care is only available to those who can afford it, or working diligently to make sure fewer and fewer people can afford it.

Damn liberals with their groupthink.

SciFi, brother, we have to get you off that Gordons ...stuff.  You want  a good martini? I strongly suggest you use Belvedere  Intense.

Quote from: FightTheFuture on April 18, 2014, 10:59:33 PM
SciFi, brother, we have to get you off that Gordons ...stuff.  You want  a good martini? I strongly suggest you use Belvedere  Intense.
Gordon's is a gin, Belvedere is a vodka.  But if you are going with gin, Hendricks would be a better choice.  And for vodka, Russian Standard platinum, or Stoli Elit.

I like Tanqueray or Beefeater myself, but I drink with a bit of lemon peel which may give an overall different flavor than a Gordon's or Hendricks.

Quote from: Mind Flayer Monk on April 18, 2014, 11:45:06 PM
I like Tanqueray or Beefeater myself, but I drink with a bit of lemon peel which may give an overall different flavor than a Gordon's or Hendricks.
During my misspent youth in Quebec, in the dark of a northern winter,  we would stick a bottle of Beefeater in a snow bank for an hour,  and then drink it very, very quickly.  Good times - and bad times - ensued.  Just a sniff of the stuff turns my stomach now.  All because of Kiss:

http://youtu.be/VrlobjUhnc8

BTW, isn't about time Eddie Coyle was allowed back?

I didn't know people actually still consumed gin martinis.

Nothing better than a fresh,  high quality vodka martini...perhaps a tad dirty.

Quote from: FightTheFuture on April 19, 2014, 12:12:51 AM
Nothing better than a fresh,  high quality vodka martini...perhaps a tad dirty.
Never thought we would agree on anything,  and then you post something sensible like this.  It's a mixed up world we live in.

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 19, 2014, 01:12:42 AM
Never thought we would agree on anything,  and then you post something sensible like this.  It's a mixed up world we live in.


Miracles. 'Tis the season. ;)


SciFiAuthor

I don't know what it is, but while I do like a good vodka martini, I always seem to gravitate towards gin. It must be the juniper flavors, I like drinking pine trees or something.

Gordon's is more of a tradition than anything else though. It was my college years standby when I couldn't afford anything good and having a bottle around brings back memories (many of them about terrible hangovers). And besides, unlike Vodka, whiskeys, etc. gin is pretty much gin to me.

What drives me nuts though are modern bartenders and martinis. They basically pour you a glass of gin or vodka with a droplet of vermouth instead of the classic 2:1, or even 1:1 of the 19th century. I hate that. I blame the liberals.


NowhereInTime

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 18, 2014, 11:28:37 PM
Gordon's is a gin, Belvedere is a vodka.  But if you are going with gin, Hendricks would be a better choice.  And for vodka, Russian Standard platinum, or Stoli Elit.
Hendricks or Martin Miller's.  I wouldn't let SciFi out of my store with Gordon's.  (Unless he's 78 and not the 38 he claims to be...)

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 18, 2014, 10:46:06 PM
Wow, complimenting the right for healthy and open minded debate on issues, and then mentioning climate change and healthcare in the same post.  That takes some gumption.

Of course your are correct, there is plenty of soul searching and deep thought occurring in right wing circles on those issues.  For example conservatives are currently trying to establish a concrete position on climate change, and have narrowed it down to 2 choices:

1) Science, schmience

Or

2) a Christian God will save us

On the matter of health care, they are equally divided, torn between whether to focus their efforts on making sure health care is only available to those who can afford it, or working diligently to make sure fewer and fewer people can afford it.

Damn liberals with their groupthink.

Oh I got gumption and yes, of course I'm correct :)

1. At least they'll question climate change before we spend trillions on implementing measures to combat it, lowering our own standards of living in the process, and condemning the third world to another century of poverty and eugenic population control just to keep things green and 'sustainable'. You guys don't question it at all, you treat it as this done deal that if the slightest question is raised about its validity then that person is to be showered with shame, personal attack and derision.

Got news for you, that's not science. Science must always be open to question and criticism. That's how it works. You guys have forgotten that.

2. Everyone was covered anyway and have been for decades. Sure, there were horror stories, but Obamacare is full of horror stories too. All we've done is shift the cost of healthcare from the government to the individual in all but a few of the poorest people. What we have is not European or Canadian style healthcare, it's an insurance scheme. So you tell me, was it wise to cover healthcare by handing everyone a mandatory large bill to pay every month? By all rights the liberals should be opposing it because it does not provide universal healthcare, nor does it really do much of anything different than what we had in place before. That the liberals are not opposing it requires group think.


SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 19, 2014, 10:14:58 AM
Hendricks or Martin Miller's.  I wouldn't let SciFi out of my store with Gordon's.  (Unless he's 78 and not the 38 he claims to be...)

Pffft. Like I couldn't come up with a way get out of your store with my booze. Think live baboon released and running amok as a distraction. Or better yet, a Jorch disguise.

ItsOver

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 19, 2014, 12:09:51 AM
During my misspent youth in Quebec, in the dark of a northern winter,  we would stick a bottle of Beefeater in a snow bank for an hour,  and then drink it very, very quickly.  Good times - and bad times - ensued.  Just a sniff of the stuff turns my stomach now.  All because of Kiss:

http://youtu.be/VrlobjUhnc8

BTW, isn't about time Eddie Coyle was allowed back?
Looks like Eddie got the permanent boot.  He is missed.  Anybody manage to maintain a connection with him?

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 19, 2014, 10:16:32 AM
Oh I got gumption and yes, of course I'm correct :)

1. At least they'll question climate change before we spend trillions on implementing measures to combat it, lowering our own standards of living in the process, and condemning the third world to another century of poverty and eugenic population control just to keep things green and 'sustainable'. You guys don't question it at all, you treat it as this done deal that if the slightest question is raised about its validity then that person is to be showered with shame, personal attack and derision.

Got news for you, that's not science. Science must always be open to question and criticism. That's how it works. You guys have forgotten that.

2. Everyone was covered anyway and have been for decades. Sure, there were horror stories, but Obamacare is full of horror stories too. All we've done is shift the cost of healthcare from the government to the individual in all but a few of the poorest people. What we have is not European or Canadian style healthcare, it's an insurance scheme. So you tell me, was it wise to cover healthcare by handing everyone a mandatory large bill to pay every month? By all rights the liberals should be opposing it because it does not provide universal healthcare, nor does it really do much of anything different than what we had in place before. That the liberals are not opposing it requires group think.
Questioning climate change is not a a sign of healthy debate, but it is an outright sign of having a worldview override your brain, or being insufficiently bright to understand the scientific method and how it works. Got news for you, it isn't about criticism, it is about hypothesis, testable results, evaluation and improvement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).  Criticism of climate change is as valuable to public discourse as criticism of a sunset. And I find it particularly strange that you would seek first to determine what the costs of climate change would be as a means of determining if it exists or not.  Are you proposing replacing science with actuarial tables?

NowhereInTime

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 19, 2014, 10:22:05 AM
... Or better yet, a Jorch disguise.
Except we all know it wouldn't be a disguise, would it?
And, since you clearly are Jorch, you missed the point.  I have too much respect for gin drinkers to let them choose Gordon's when Tanqueray, Beefeater, or Bombay are better mixers and, really, you do only live once.  If you are "38", Jorch, then college is way back in the rear view mirror; it's time to grow up and drink like a man!

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: RealCool Daddio on April 19, 2014, 10:49:13 AM
Questioning climate change is not a a sign of healthy debate, but it is an outright sign of having a worldview override your brain, or being insufficiently bright to understand the scientific method and how it works. Got news for you, it isn't about criticism, it is about hypothesis, testable results, evaluation and improvement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).  Criticism of climate change is as valuable to public discourse as criticism of a sunset. And I find it particularly strange that you would seek first to determine what the costs of climate change would be as a means of determining if it exists or not.  Are you proposing replacing science with actuarial tables?

Climate science models as they stand today fail to predict correctly, it's that simple. The entire field has been subject to a constant flow of revision since the 1990's, most notably now where global temperatures seem to have inexplicably leveled, because these models are proving flawed in that they do not appear to account for all factors in what makes up the earth's climate and its behavior.

In any other science, no one would even think of making policy or taking action on that shaky of a basis. Think about physics, one wrong number and you're wrong. Or medical science, look at the stringent testing and proofs required before approval of a drug because one wrong molecule and the patient goes from cured to dead. Take any science you like, in any of them if your model doesn't give the right answer, then your model is not correct and requires more research before anything definitive can be done with it. Except climate science.

In climate science, true dissent is not tolerated even though the models are known to be flawed. Instead, we have scientists out there actively trying to ruin dissenting scientists, governments blowing trillions on a basis that may not be correct, treaties like the utterly ridiculous Kyoto protocols being written, the UN actively out participating in forced population control in the third world, food prices driven up worldwide due to biofuel mandates that threaten starvation in Africa, all while the human race is less than 20-30 years away from perfectly clean fusion energy that will solve the god damned carbon dioxide problem anyway--something liberals appear to be opposed to, if Greenpeace is any indication, because it involves an atom.

So no, I want climate science held to the same standards as all science. I want its proponents to behave like scientists instead of witch-burners, and I want it the fuck out of the political arena until definitive answers can be given just like I'd want a flawed rocket engine kept the hell off the space shuttle until it can be made to work right.

And, well, if it doesn't prove doable within 20 years, the problem will end up solved anyway. There's no need for pain and belt tightening for nothing.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: ItsOver on April 19, 2014, 10:23:43 AM
Looks like Eddie got the permanent boot.  He is missed.  Anybody manage to maintain a connection with him?
Why the hell was he banned?  I missed that somewhere.

NowhereInTime

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 19, 2014, 11:13:33 AM
Climate science models as they stand today fail to predict correctly, it's that simple. The entire field has been subject to a constant flow of revision since the 1990's, most notably now where global temperatures seem to have inexplicably leveled, because these models are proving flawed in that they do not appear to account for all factors in what makes up the earth's climate and its behavior.

In any other science, no one would even think of making policy or taking action on that shaky of a basis. Think about physics, one wrong number and you're wrong. Or medical science, look at the stringent testing and proofs required before approval of a drug because one wrong molecule and the patient goes from cured to dead. Take any science you like, in any of them if your model doesn't give the right answer, then your model is not correct and requires more research before anything definitive can be done with it. Except climate science.

In climate science, true dissent is not tolerated even though the models are known to be flawed. Instead, we have scientists out there actively trying to ruin dissenting scientists, governments blowing trillions on a basis that may not be correct, treaties like the utterly ridiculous Kyoto protocols being written, the UN actively out participating in forced population control in the third world, food prices driven up worldwide due to biofuel mandates that threaten starvation in Africa, all while the human race is less than 20-30 years away from perfectly clean fusion energy that will solve the god damned carbon dioxide problem anyway--something liberals appear to be opposed to, if Greenpeace is any indication, because it involves an atom.

So no, I want climate science held to the same standards as all science. I want its proponents to behave like scientists instead of witch-burners, and I want it the fuck out of the political arena until definitive answers can be given just like I'd want a flawed rocket engine kept the hell off the space shuttle until it can be made to work right.

And, well, if it doesn't prove doable within 20 years, the problem will end up solved anyway. There's no need for pain and belt tightening for nothing.
To summarize:

1) Climate science is irrefutably flawed and we should do nothing to respect Mother Earth.
2) Demmycrats is over edjucatin' chillin's.
3) Liberals are products of "groupthink" but conservatives are open minded free spirits.
4) Self employed people are paying for everyone's healthcare.

You too can enjoy a tremendous career in fiction writing by following Sci Fi Scribbler's one simple method: ignore all truths and create your own facts to fit your own narrative!  Happy fictionalizing!!



onan

There has to be some deep seated pathology to continue to argue against climate science.Salon has a very current article. It is worth the read.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/why_climate_deniers_are_winning_the_twisted_psychology_that_overwhelms_scientific_consensus/

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 19, 2014, 11:13:08 AM
Except we all know it wouldn't be a disguise, would it?
And, since you clearly are Jorch, you missed the point.  I have too much respect for gin drinkers to let them choose Gordon's when Tanqueray, Beefeater, or Bombay are better mixers and, really, you do only live once.  If you are "38", Jorch, then college is way back in the rear view mirror; it's time to grow up and drink like a man!

Ohh, role playing games! How aaarrreee yeeeeeeew! I get to call you Nancy, as I always think of Pelosi when you start up with your shrill liberal ranting. Shomethn's goin on here, I can feel it. You just want to sell the more expenshive boozsh to get the salesh numbers higher.

If I wanted to drink like a man, I'd go with straight rye whiskey on the rocks. That'll grow hair on your chest and dissolve your vocal cords.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: NowhereInTime on April 19, 2014, 11:21:38 AM
To summarize:

1) Climate science is irrefutably flawed and we should do nothing to respect Mother Earth.
2) Demmycrats is over edjucatin' chillin's.
3) Liberals are products of "groupthink" but conservatives are open minded free spirits.
4) Self employed people are paying for everyone's healthcare.

You too can enjoy a tremendous career in fiction writing by following Sci Fi Scribbler's one simple method: ignore all truths and create your own facts to fit your own narrative!  Happy fictionalizing!!

1. Yep. We should be geoengineering this bitch instead of treating it like it's some delicate perfect thing that we're too stupid to make better. You do realize that the rise in carbon dioxide has measurably increased crop yield over the last 50 years? They don't tell you things like that in the good ol' Kos.

2. No, you're creating more college degrees than you have jobs to employ them with.

3. It's moving in that direction, yes.

4. No, middle aged people are because the young people are too fucking cheap to sign up. Gee, like that one couldn't have been predicted before we enacted that piece of shit law.

Yes! You too can delude yourself into a blithering world of fantasy like the one Nowhere lives in if you just mischaracterize everything, only trust people that tell you what you want to hear, and ignore any and all problems that arise from the policies you support! Government never messes anything up! And if all else fails, rant about the rich people!


onan

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 19, 2014, 11:34:41 AM
1. Yep. We should be geoengineering this bitch instead of treating it like it's some delicate perfect thing that we're too stupid to make better. You do realize that the rise in carbon dioxide has measurably increased crop yield over the last 50 years? They don't tell you things like that in the good ol' Kos.

You posted this before, and as before you seem to have no real grasp of agriculture. You do seem to have the ability to look no further than you have to for supporting your beliefs. Higher crop yields as explained to you before produce lower nutritional value. Is there some trade off, I would imagine so? but to just make a point and hope no one notices is below your abilities.

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on April 19, 2014, 11:13:33 AM
Climate science models as they stand today fail to predict correctly, it's that simple. The entire field has been subject to a constant flow of revision since the 1990's, most notably now where global temperatures seem to have inexplicably leveled, because these models are proving flawed in that they do not appear to account for all factors in what makes up the earth's climate and its behavior.

In any other science, no one would even think of making policy or taking action on that shaky of a basis. Think about physics, one wrong number and you're wrong. Or medical science, look at the stringent testing and proofs required before approval of a drug because one wrong molecule and the patient goes from cured to dead. Take any science you like, in any of them if your model doesn't give the right answer, then your model is not correct and requires more research before anything definitive can be done with it. Except climate science.

In climate science, true dissent is not tolerated even though the models are known to be flawed. Instead, we have scientists out there actively trying to ruin dissenting scientists, governments blowing trillions on a basis that may not be correct, treaties like the utterly ridiculous Kyoto protocols being written, the UN actively out participating in forced population control in the third world, food prices driven up worldwide due to biofuel mandates that threaten starvation in Africa, all while the human race is less than 20-30 years away from perfectly clean fusion energy that will solve the god damned carbon dioxide problem anyway--something liberals appear to be opposed to, if Greenpeace is any indication, because it involves an atom.

So no, I want climate science held to the same standards as all science. I want its proponents to behave like scientists instead of witch-burners, and I want it the fuck out of the political arena until definitive answers can be given just like I'd want a flawed rocket engine kept the hell off the space shuttle until it can be made to work right.

And, well, if it doesn't prove doable within 20 years, the problem will end up solved anyway. There's no need for pain and belt tightening for nothing.
You are mixing myth and belief systems with fact again.  If anything, climate science is subjected to much greater scrutiny than other areas of study, in plain view of the public.  And the facts continue to hold up.

Facts on climate models, and debunking of many of the other myths:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Just in the interest of fairness, can you share some of the varied insight on the matter that is the result of the long, dark night of the soul that conservatives, in their ongoing quest for varied and diverse thought, have come up with?  Any scientific results from the numerous studies they have no doubt encouraged?  Any peer reviewed papers, with empirical evidence?  Anything at all that would show they aren't subject to ideologically induced groupthink and denial?

I don't know, guys and gals... I am sort of with the climate change deniers, too.  It's like the theory of "gravity" -- I think the science is pretty sketchy.  I mean think about birds?  Why aren't they affected by so-called gravity?

wr250

Quote from: West of the Rockies on April 19, 2014, 12:04:35 PM
I don't know, guys and gals... I am sort of with the climate change deniers, too.  It's like the theory of "gravity" -- I think the science is pretty sketchy.  I mean think about birds?  Why aren't they affected by so-called gravity?

and them thar ice ages, they be a myth to cause i never lerned about them from skrool. oh and hte erth is only 6000 years ol.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod