Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Listen Glen Beck, I know it's hard for you to actually construct a real rebuttal containing facts and logic, but it never looks good on a person when their only comeback is "you're an idiot". But at least you spelled it all correctly.
My example was actually quite good. Parallels the Maldives quite nicely and does the whole "putting you in their shoes" kind of thing. But you never actually responded to it. What you do if someone did that to you?
Also, I would like to point out the short-sightedness and lunacy of your thinking in relation to pillaging a land, then moving. That's how we should live? Burn the land, use all the natural resources, take all the fish, dry up lakes, poison rivers, hunt species till they're gone, etc, etc. Then just move to somewhere new and do it all over again?
What an absolutely terrible way of looking at things. If you were leader of a country, your country would perish in a couple decades.
There's something to be said for doing things smartly and sustainably. Thinking long-term is actually of benefit, believe it or not.
You're a living example of the broken philosophy that is captured in Futurama. Only problem being we don't have another planet to go to.
Tourists aren't citizens of the Maldives and they're put far away from the average person who actually lives in the Maldives.
Regardless, they don't kill non-Islamic citizens. They don't allow non-Muslims to acquire citizenship. Killing non-Muslim citizens simply doesn't make sense, for if such a policy existed, there would have not been any people like that; they would have long ago been killed off, and considering that renouncing Islam is punishable by death according to Sharia law (which is used in the Maldives), nobody else would have acquired citizenship without first being a Muslim.
Regardless, they don't kill non-Islamic citizens. They don't allow non-Muslims to acquire citizenship. Killing non-Muslim citizens simply doesn't make sense, for if such a policy existed, there would have not been any people like that; they would have long ago been killed off, and considering that renouncing Islam is punishable by death according to Sharia law (which is used in the Maldives), nobody else would have acquired citizenship without first being a Muslim.
And? You're not making any point here at all your first sentence is basically wrong and the rest is an artificially constructed scenario that has no bearing in reality.
And? You're not making any point here at all your first sentence is basically wrong and the rest is an artificially constructed scenario that has no bearing in reality.
He's saying that in fact they do NOT kill their own citizens that aren't Muslim. You are saying that they do.
And I'm saying that just because they practice a different religion than we do, that's no reason to not help them out, especially since the major Western countries have had a bit to do with the sea levels rising.
Listen Glen Beck, I know it's hard for you to actually construct a real rebuttal containing facts and logic, but it never looks good on a person when their only comeback is "you're an idiot". But at least you spelled it all correctly.
My example was actually quite good. Parallels the Maldives quite nicely and does the whole "putting you in their shoes" kind of thing. But you never actually responded to it. What you do if someone did that to you?
Also, I would like to point out the short-sightedness and lunacy of your thinking in relation to pillaging a land, then moving. That's how we should live? Burn the land, use all the natural resources, take all the fish, dry up lakes, poison rivers, hunt species till they're gone, etc, etc. Then just move to somewhere new and do it all over again?
What an absolutely terrible way of looking at things. If you were leader of a country, your country would perish in a couple decades.
There's something to be said for doing things smartly and sustainably. Thinking long-term is actually of benefit, believe it or not.
You're a living example of the broken philosophy that is captured in Futurama. Only problem being we don't have another planet to go to.
I'll repeat: Your example is ****ing stupid, you're an idiot.
I'll repeat: Your example is ****ing stupid, you're an idiot.
No. But thanks so much for your elaborate and thoughtful explanation.
Because of what certain countries are doing, we are causing ice to melt and oceans to rise. We know this, but we are continuing to do it anyway. The Maldives is one country that is directly punched in the face by this consequence. Their country is being eliminated through no fault of their own, but because of other countries' doing.
And they're just supposed to accept this and move from their homeland without trying to stop it? And then probably move from there once that area is ruined too by someone else?
If someone was doing this to YOUR HOME, you would try to solve the problem instead of just dealing with the consequences.
Let's try to stop the oceans from rising instead of just shipping a bunch of people away from the affected areas. Let's deal with problems instead of just running away from them.
Man did it. Bombers is right. All mankind's fault. Nothing whatsoever to do with geology, the polar shift, nothing. Sorry about Atlantis.....I wish I could have used less hairspray.
Pretty amazing that countries like New Zealand or Japan don´t feel the effect like the apparantly do. I must have missed couple classes when I was at school....
Something rather interesting is happening at the moment with one of the more infamous global warming skeptics, "Lord" Christopher Monckton, who of course doesn't hold any scientific credentials in the field he proclaims expertise in. This of course doesn't stop him to hold presentations about it. He held one of these presentations at Bethel University last October. Bethel University is one of those christian colleges who aren't necessarily tied to scientific correctness, as is evident by their biology curriculum not mentioning evolution once.
However, another person was also in the audience, one John Abraham, who made a full rebuttal of that presentation. Abraham's rebuttal presentation, i.e. the full version, is also quite interesting but the length might be a bit prohibitive for anyone not deeply interested in it.
Of course Monckton didn't leave it at that and published some sort of response through his employer, the Science and Public Policy Institute, one of those conservative think tanks I have gone on about in the past. The document itself is somewhat hilarious, very long, serve little other than a smoke and mirrors campaign and has already come under firefrom varioussources.
The most hilarious things are of course Monckton's claims that Abraham acted in malice with such claims as "[Monckton] has not written a single peer-reviewed science paper on any topic".
Monckton has also started more or less a rabble campaign in an attempt to get the Abraham's university to take down the rebuttal presentation, basically intimidation and bullying. I have compared unscientific global warming skeptics to creationists in the past. This is pretty much a microcosm of why. If the smoke and mirrors don't work, try intimidation and censorship.
We received your email response to our June 25, 2010 letter. The University of St Thomas respects your right to disagree with Professor Abraham, just as the University respects Professor Abraham’s right to disagree with you. What we object to are your personal attacks against Father Dease, and Professor Abraham, your inflammatory language, and your decision to disparage Professor Abraham, Father Dease and The University of St Thomas.
Please be advised that neither we nor the University of St Thomas will communicate with you any further about your decision to sully the University of St. Thomas, Professor Abraham, and others rather than to focus on the scholarly differences between you and Professor Abraham.
Signed: Phyllis Karasov, Moore Costellow and Hart, P.L.L.P.
The NOAA is taking the liberty of declaring 2010 the hottest ever, even though it’s only July! So what’s all the hurry? Well, you have to get them scary global-hotting headlines out while you can, and any way you can. When you’re desperate - you’re desperate.
They’ve seen their own forecasts for the rest of the year, and so they know it’s their last chance. Just check the leading climatic indicators on my homepage and you’ll see why.
Now on Arctic sea ice, allow me to use the same NOAA “scientific” method and declare that the Arctic has experienced the slowest July ice melt ever! (Well, at least so far).
Wow, that blog post isn't just only malicious, it's outright ****ing retarded. NOAA declared the month of June the hottest June on record. Apparently the author of this blog post doesn't have the reading comprehension to understand that as he outright declares that "NOAA is taking the liberty of declaring 2010 the hottest ever".
He then proceeds to simply extrapolate what appears to be a 15 day period over the next several months to make an absolutely facetious claim layered on top of an outright lie and idiocity a la "that's exactly how NOAA's doing it" when this idiot is too ****ing stupid to realize that all they did was make a statement about a single month, which is OVER, not the entire year!
And Pubs, as always, apparently lacks the reading comprehension to do so as well, or just simply doesn't care.
When you restrict yourself to Fox News and the blogs of global warming deniers willing to spin a story any-which-way to make it suit them, you'll get a bunch of posters like Pub who never seek out the true story for themselves.
and they gathered around the campfire, and sat intently listening to tales of horror and cable journalism.....45 couldn't sleep that night at the campground. Mwuuuahahahaha......
always fun. Then again, always posted, in every thread. Fox News ate me baby!
So when you stop looking at information that doesn't believe the world will end, then you are better able to.....believe the world will end. Science suits you.
and they gathered around the campfire, and sat intently listening to tales of horror and cable journalism.....45 couldn't sleep that night at the campground. Mwuuuahahahaha......
always fun. Then again, always posted, in every thread. Fox News ate me baby!
So when you stop looking at information that doesn't believe the world will end, then you are better able to.....believe the world will end. Science suits you.
I don't think I've heard one person seriously claim the world will END because of global warming.
When will people understand that Global Warming is just a scam to "go green" and then give money to businesses.
Nah, most will stay like idiots and stay glued to their television and believe what the media reports.
And who has money invested in the industry? Carbon Credit Exchange opens under Obama, Gore makes millions and millions, big wigs are poised to make fortunes as this grows further, other nations will bleed money out of the more prosperous.....
