(Close Window)
Topic: "Worst Ever" Summer in the UK
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 8, 2012 06:42AM)
Hope the Olympics come off without a hitch, but [url=http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/331299/It-will-rain-til-September]2012 weather[/url] is similar to 2011.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 8, 2012 06:51AM)
Odin, Odin, Send the wind to turn the tide. :)

I have been here for well over half a century and never seen so much rain in the summertime. We had quite a dry winter though.

News flash! The sun just came out! :)
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 06:59AM)
It can't possibly be global warming could it?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 8, 2012 07:10AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 07:59, Al Angello wrote:
It can't possibly be global warming could it?
[/quote]

You're talking about the UK. Since I began visiting there in 2000, I can't recall much nice whether. It's not all bad thoud. It's fun hanging out in the pubs. There are a lot a lot of interesting and friendly people there. :)
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 07:27AM)
With the ocean temperature rising, and catastrophic weather events all over the world happening every day it has to be the presidents fault.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 8, 2012 07:39AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 08:27, Al Angello wrote:
With the ocean temperature rising, and catastrophic weather events all over the world happening every day it has to be the presidents fault.
[/quote]

Nah, it's those global warming deniers. Those self-fulfilling prophecies come back to kick some people in the butt every time! :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 8, 2012 07:51AM)
Speaking of which Mt Kenya, Africa’s second highest peak is regarded as the realm of Ngai, god of the local Kikuyu people. Traditionally, all Kikuyu home were built to face this sacred peak. They call it Kirinyaga, or place of light.

The mountain is an awe-inspiring sight. Its ragged series of peaks are crowned with snow, and its slopes are thick with forest. The mountain is best seen at dawn, when the days early light silhouettes its impressive summit high over the surrounding plains.

While the 5199 metre summit is a difficult technical climb, the lesser peak of Point Lenana (4985m) can be easily reached by any fit trekker.

This trek takes between 3 and 5 days, through a fascinating world of forests, wildlife, unique montane vegetation including podocarpus and grounsel, and finally one of the worlds rarest sights, equatorial snow.

http://www.magicalkenya.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=405
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Jul 8, 2012 07:59AM)
What’s so bad about global warming? My pool’s been 86 degrees most of the season so far. I’m loving it!

PS Can’t wait for the Olympics!
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 8, 2012 08:06AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 08:51, tommy wrote:
Speaking of which Mt Kenya, Africa’s second highest peak is regarded as the realm of Ngai, god of the local Kikuyu people. Traditionally, all Kikuyu home were built to face this sacred peak. They call it Kirinyaga, or place of light.

The mountain is an awe-inspiring sight. Its ragged series of peaks are crowned with snow, and its slopes are thick with forest. The mountain is best seen at dawn, when the days early light silhouettes its impressive summit high over the surrounding plains.

While the 5199 metre summit is a difficult technical climb, the lesser peak of Point Lenana (4985m) can be easily reached by any fit trekker.

This trek takes between 3 and 5 days, through a fascinating world of forests, wildlife, unique montane vegetation including podocarpus and grounsel, and finally one of the worlds rarest sights, equatorial snow.

http://www.magicalkenya.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=405
[/quote]

That sounds pretty incredible, but I can be just as awe inpired by a beautiful sunrise or sunset. Nature is pretty amazing, and no supernaural forces are needed to make it so.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 8, 2012 08:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 08:59, Ken Northridge wrote:
What’s so bad about global warming? My pool’s been 86 degrees most of the season so far. I’m loving it!

PS Can’t wait for the Olympics!
[/quote]

You're in luck. After a few more years of global warming, you may not have to worry about the cost of maintaining a pool. Your backyard (or state), may BE a pool...
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Jul 8, 2012 08:24AM)
LOL. That's ok, the ocean temperature's been pretty warm too!
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 8, 2012 08:48AM)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/06/1106948/-How-Hot-Has-It-Been-and-why-you-should-be-alarmed


"For July -- i.e., July 1st through July 5th -- there has been 942 records broken and 273 that were tied. For 2012 to date, 23,613 maximum temperature records have been set. Over the same period in 2011, only 13,582 maximum temperature records were broken. That is an increase of 71% over last year, which was more than hot enough as I recall. What's even more worrying is that, while all these temperature maximums are being set, the earth 94.5 million miles away from the sun, the farthest distance it will be this year, and we are breaking record high temperatures willy-nilly, like a store holding a going out of business sale."



Ron
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 8, 2012 08:56AM)
Yes, it's another hot summer in North America. But the rest of the world is rather cool, if not downright cold.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 09:04AM)
Woland
Wide fluctuations of the world's weather conditions is the first sign of global warming. You are rapidly running out of denial space here.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Jul 8, 2012 09:17AM)
When I was a kid back in the 50's, I remember summer temperatures over 100 degrees keeping my friends and I in our basements playing Monopoly for part of the summer. I don't seem to recall anyone panicking about global warming at that time.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2012 09:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 07:59, Al Angello wrote:
It can't possibly be global warming could it?
[/quote]

Is it proof.global warming does not exist when it is cooler than average?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 09:35AM)
Danny
Wide fluctuations in weather patterns, ocean temp rising, and large scale forest fires are a certain sign of global warming.

NicholasD
Do you have any proof that it was this hot when you were a kid? We have just had the two warmest Winters in recorded history.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Jul 8, 2012 09:48AM)
Sounds like nice weather. It is over 120 here.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 8, 2012 09:51AM)
Don't worry, life on Earth will do just fine.
Human life--well--that we're not too sure about.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Jul 8, 2012 09:53AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 10:35, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
Wide fluctuations in weather patterns, ocean temp rising, and large scale forest fires are a certain sign of global warming.

NicholasD
Do you have any proof that it was this hot when you were a kid? We have just had the two warmest Winters in recorded history.
[/quote]

I lived in Maryland in the '50's ( about ten minutes from where I live now ) and I remember 104 degree temperatures.
Oh, and don't bother calling me about my backyard, I'm probably not going to be around 5000 years from now.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 8, 2012 09:56AM)
Weather fluctuates. Why tax people for it is my question. We have UNCERTAINTY and a huge amount of it.

Not as to IF it is happening, but as to IF we can do anything about it.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 10:02AM)
NicholasD
So you have no proof that past Summers were as hot it is this year, and the best you can do is tell me where you grew up.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 8, 2012 10:11AM)
[quote]When I was a kid back in the 50's, I remember summer temperatures over 100 degrees keeping my friends and I in our basements playing Monopoly for part of the summer. I don't seem to recall anyone panicking about global warming at that time. [/quote]

No, the Chicken Littles were worried about another Ice Age back then, and through the 1970s.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 8, 2012 10:35AM)
"Chicken Littles to the left of me; Ostriches to the right; here I am, stuck in the middle with you..."
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 8, 2012 10:44AM)
Very ornithological.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 8, 2012 10:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 11:35, Steve_Mollett wrote:

"Chicken Littles to the left of me; Ostriches to the right; here I am, stuck in the middle with you..."
[/quote]
Great line ... where is it taken from, or is it one of your own?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 10:53AM)
Balducci
That is from a song by the late Jerry Rafferty.

"clowns to the left of me
jokers to the right,
and I'm stuck in the middle with you"

Great memory Steve
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 8, 2012 11:06AM)
Hi Al, I know THAT line ... it is the 'chicken littles' and 'ostriches' change-up version that I had never heard before.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 8, 2012 11:10AM)
Hey--I'm a spontaneous wit.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 11:23AM)
Ah yes those words are all Steve's

I must say that the ostrich line does gives one a visual image of the global warming problem, and how some people look at it, or choose not to look at it.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 8, 2012 11:30AM)
No, the ostriches give the image of the New Ice Age problem, it's the chicken littles who give us an issue of how some people look at Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 8, 2012 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 08:10, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
It's fun hanging out in the pubs. There are a lot a lot of interesting and friendly people there. :)
[/quote]

Don't be fooled, they just want tips!
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 01:33PM)
So global warming believers are chicken little, and the ice age believers are ostriches. That puts Woland right in the middle as a denier who believes that he will be dead before the global warming complications hit the fan.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 01:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 09:48, R.S. wrote:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/06/1106948/-How-Hot-Has-It-Been-and-why-you-should-be-alarmed


"For July -- i.e., July 1st through July 5th -- there has been 942 records broken and 273 that were tied. For 2012 to date, 23,613 maximum temperature records have been set. Over the same period in 2011, only 13,582 maximum temperature records were broken. That is an increase of 71% over last year, which was more than hot enough as I recall. What's even more worrying is that, while all these temperature maximums are being set, the earth 94.5 million miles away from the sun, the farthest distance it will be this year, and we are breaking record high temperatures willy-nilly, like a store holding a going out of business sale."



Ron
[/quote]

The line, "What's even more worrying is that, while all these temperature maximums are being set, the earth 94.5 million miles away from the sun, the farthest distance it will be this year, and we are breaking record high temperatures willy-nilly, like a store holding a going out of business sale" really undercuts all of the credibility of this post for me. I mean, REALLY? It's "even more worrying" that temperature maximums are being set in the summer? Because from the link in the article, the earth's CLOSEST point to the sun is in January, and personally, I'd be "even more worried" if we were breaking heat records in JANUARY, in the Winter.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 02:10PM)
Lobo
The past two Winters have been the warmest Winters in recorded history.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 02:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 15:10, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
The past two Winters have been the warmest Winters in recorded history.
[/quote]

That's a separate point. When you talk about "the warmest Winters in recorded history," then you're comparing apples to apples. You're comparing winter to winter.

But when you're just talking about record temperatures, regardless of time of year, it's ridiculous to be particularly concerned that it's happening during the summer.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 02:20PM)
The 30's were also apparently awfully hot. I'm even more impressed with Joe Louis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 02:24PM)
You were talking about the predictions for January 2013, and I said that the two previous Winters will be hard to beat.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 8, 2012 02:28PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_zAUrOq-Dc
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 02:52PM)
Tommy
You sure can pickem.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 03:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 15:24, Al Angello wrote:
You were talking about the predictions for January 2013, and I said that the two previous Winters will be hard to beat.
[/quote]

If you're responding to me, I wasn't talking about the predictions for January 2013.
Message: Posted by: Dr. Van Van Mojo (Jul 8, 2012 04:06PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 10:51, Steve_Mollett wrote:
Don't worry, life on Earth will do just fine.
Human life--well--that we're not too sure about.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBbResOr5mo
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 8, 2012 04:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 15:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
But when you're just talking about record temperatures, regardless of time of year, it's ridiculous to be particularly concerned that it's happening during the summer.
[/quote]

Lobo,

Why aren't record summer temperatures worthy of our concern? And what WOULD it take, in your opinion, for us to be concerned?


Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 8, 2012 04:25PM)
I think that anything less than an epidemic of spontaneous human combustion wouldn't be sufficient to convince skeptics of the reality of global warming. (And even then many of them would probably argue that combusting humans is something nature does periodically on her own and has nothing to do with man's activity.)
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 8, 2012 04:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 17:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that anything less than an epidemic of spontaneous human combustion wouldn't be sufficient to convince skeptics of the reality of global warming.
[/quote]

I think you're aiming low.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 8, 2012 04:31PM)
When you refer to the "warmest Winters in recorded history," you are referring only to the past 200 years, since thermometers weren't standardized until the XVIIIth century, and even since then, the temperature records are sketchy and skewed towards places where people happen to live. The problem is, we tend to think of the current conditions that we have enjoyed during our brief lifetimes as "normal," "usual," and "desirable," when the whole period of systematic temperature measurement (as poorly standardized as those measurements are) represents a blink of the eye of climate history. There is really no reason to believe that the warm temperatures being recorded in the United States (or the cool temperatures being recorded in Britain) this Summer are anything out of the ordinary at all, oreven anywhere near to the extremes that may have occurred in the past.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 04:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 17:19, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 15:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
But when you're just talking about record temperatures, regardless of time of year, it's ridiculous to be particularly concerned that it's happening during the summer.
[/quote]

Lobo,

Why aren't record summer temperatures worthy of our concern? And what WOULD it take, in your opinion, for us to be concerned?


Ron
[/quote]

I'll try the first half of that. The issue I have isn't about "record [i]summer[/i] temperatures." It's about record TEMPERATURES, period. The article said that it's particularly troubling that record TEMPERATURES are being set in the summer. In other words, let's say Loboville's all-time high temperature was 105 degrees, and last week, it hit 106. NOT the all-time "summer" high. The all-time high.

[i]The author is particularly concerned because in July, the earth is at its farthest from the sun.[/i] In other words, he'd be LESS concerned if it hit 106 in JANUARY, because the earth is closer to the sun then. That's the part that casts serious doubt on his credibility. When would EXPECT record high temperatures to be set, January, or July?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 04:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 17:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I think that anything less than an epidemic of spontaneous human combustion wouldn't be sufficient to convince skeptics of the reality of global warming. (And even then many of them would probably argue that combusting humans is something nature does periodically on her own and has nothing to do with man's activity.)
[/quote]

Please think like a lawyer who hasn't been retained by either side, and comment on this particular phrase:

"What's even more worrying is that, while all these temperature maximums are being set, the earth 94.5 million miles away from the sun, the farthest distance it will be this year, and we are breaking record high temperatures willy-nilly"

Note that per the link, the earth is farthest from the sun in July, and closest to the sun in January. So it's of [i]particular[/i] concern that the record temperatures are occurring in July, not January.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 06:11PM)
There is no limit to the deniers denying. Thank you Bob I will go watch TV now that we all know who's who and what's what on that subject.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 8, 2012 06:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 17:31, Woland wrote:
When you refer to the "warmest Winters in recorded history," you are referring only to the past 200 years, since thermometers weren't standardized until the XVIIIth century, and even since then, the temperature records are sketchy and skewed towards places where people happen to live. The problem is, we tend to think of the current conditions that we have enjoyed during our brief lifetimes as "normal," "usual," and "desirable," when the whole period of systematic temperature measurement (as poorly standardized as those measurements are) represents a blink of the eye of climate history. There is really no reason to believe that the warm temperatures being recorded in the United States (or the cool temperatures being recorded in Britain) this Summer are anything out of the ordinary at all, oreven anywhere near to the extremes that may have occurred in the past.
[/quote]
Don't you just love obfuscation?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 06:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 19:11, Al Angello wrote:
There is no limit to the deniers denying. Thank you Bob I will go watch TV now that we all know who's who and what's what on that subject.
[/quote]

It's a hot one, Al...you might want to double up on the Kool-Aid while you watch TV.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 8, 2012 06:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 17:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:


Please think like a lawyer who hasn't been retained by either side, and comment on this particular phrase:

"What's even more worrying is that, while all these temperature maximums are being set, the earth 94.5 million miles away from the sun, the farthest distance it will be this year, and we are breaking record high temperatures willy-nilly"

Note that per the link, the earth is farthest from the sun in July, and closest to the sun in January. So it's of [i]particular[/i] concern that the record temperatures are occurring in July, not January.
[/quote]

That argument loses most of its effect if you stop and consider that whether January is summer or not has a lot to do with which hemisphere you live in. I guess we should look at temperature records set in Australia last January.

That's what you get for asking me to think like a lawyer. :eek:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 06:43PM)
Heh. Well done!

The argument regains its effect, though, when you look at the maps and read the post and realize that he's talking about North America (and more specifically, the United States).

But my fault for not directing you to an exhibit that had been entered into evidence: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/06/1106948/-How-Hot-Has-It-Been-and-why-you-should-be-alarmed

So now that you know he's particularly concerned by the fact that it's happening during the [i]summer[/i]...
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 8, 2012 06:49PM)
"So now that you know he's particularly concerned by the fact that it's happening during the summer..."

I think the idea is that it is alarming to see it happening now, because what does that portend for records later in the year (in other parts of the world, when it is summer there) when the sun is closer.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 8, 2012 08:15PM)
Oh so that is why its raining. Can't wait for it to come back.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 08:28PM)
It sure is odd that when I tell Lobo something he insults me, but when Bob says it Lobo thanks him. Curious very curious.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 08:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 21:28, Al Angello wrote:
It sure is odd that when I tell Lobo something he insults me, but when Bob says it Lobo thanks him. Curious very curious.
[/quote]

What's the thing that you and Bob both said where that happened?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 08:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 19:49, balducci wrote:
"So now that you know he's particularly concerned by the fact that it's happening during the summer..."

I think the idea is that it is alarming to see it happening now, because what does that portend for records later in the year (in other parts of the world, when it is summer there) when the sun is closer.
[/quote]

Good read, if correct. I hadn't considered that possibility.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 08:57PM)
Lobo
Insulting me just because you deny global warming is not a sign of class.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 8, 2012 09:00PM)
In fire-ravaged Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper said Sunday that cool, wet weather allowed him to lift the statewide fire ban he ordered last month. The governor gave thanks to Mother Nature for "finally giving us some relief" as extreme fire conditions have abated in all of Colorado's 64 counties.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 09:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 21:57, Al Angello wrote:
Lobo
Insulting me just because you deny global warming is not a sign of class.
[/quote]

I apologize, Al.

You have no idea what my position is on global warming.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 8, 2012 09:16PM)
69?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 8, 2012 09:40PM)
Whatever your position is it's fine with me.
Thanks
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 8, 2012 09:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 22:40, Al Angello wrote:
Whatever your position is it's fine with me.
Thanks
[/quote]

I appreciate the reminder to civility. It's rare that I drift on purpose.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 8, 2012 11:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 22:43, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 22:40, Al Angello wrote:
Whatever your position is it's fine with me.
Thanks
[/quote]

I appreciate the reminder to civility. It's rare that I drift on purpose.
[/quote]

You shouldn't be drifting. You have to keep focus. Focus is good. I need to figure out how to get my cell phone cam to focus better. I should get a larger battery for my cell. I was in a cell for a couple hours years back. My back got hurt, but it's fine. I paid a fine to get out of jail. Just heed my point. If you keep focused, your back will be fine.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 9, 2012 12:22AM)
Al gore has a condo on the San Francisco waterfront. I guess he is not too worried about oceans rising is he?

See my problem is all the people telling us we MUST ACT NOW and then burning through 20x the amount of energy that an average American home does a year in the Tennessee mansion and then flying on private jets to have a conference on supposed man made climate change.

Oh then he buys carbon credits from HIMSELF! Better yet he doesn't purchase them....oh no he gets them as part of a benefits package from the company!

Why do we never want to talk about that sort of hypocrisy from those who want to claim global warming? Certainly he has a stake in it at least as much as any skeptic right? Why do none of you self appointed liberal fact checkers and supposed truth detectors start using your oh so well sharpened skills on BOTH SIDES so we might eventually wind up at the truth?

Seriously both sides of this idiotic never ending argument are so corrupt and confuse science with politics.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 9, 2012 12:32AM)
Oh meanwhile back at the ranch we have unemployment, poverty, and things that if we put our minds to it we could actually do something about. But it is better to let them have us argue about this crap, so they all get away with COLOSSAL failures on BOTH SIDES and consolidate power while we are busy letting them

Good plan. When exactly did the people become each others enemy? Seems the only way anyone deals with anyone is with labels. Heck like I just did in the above post as a bad example. When we get back to being "the people" again I think it will be much better. Till then we deserve what we get.
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Jul 9, 2012 07:10AM)
Danny Doyle for President!

Seriously, when will we have leaders that look at BOTH sides of the issue and come to independent conclusions, instead of basing their actions on polls or what they think their contributors expect of them.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 9, 2012 09:17AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-09 01:22, Dannydoyle wrote:
Al gore has a condo on the San Francisco waterfront. I guess he is not too worried about oceans rising is he?

[/quote]

There's only this much water http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/if-you-put-all-water-earth-one-place-itd-look-like-this.html in the world anyway, so why worry?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jul 9, 2012 10:11AM)
"Al gore has a condo on the San Francisco waterfront. I guess he is not too worried about oceans rising is he?
"

It is frustrating I guess for all of us that something as important as climate change is dismissed because people don't like the messenger. What difference does it make to the clear changes in climate to bash Al Gore. Does it make the heat any less oppressive, does bashing Gore make the problem go away.

Personally, I don't have much hope for the world. I think we are incapable of changing or even thinking straight on this issue for any solution to work. Things will just get worse over the years, the nutcases will attack Gore rather than offering solutions to the problem (or, more insanely, think that there is no problem because dag nab it, they read on the internets somewhere that this global climate change scare is just some liberal commie plot). We are polarized in this world and in this country. We are incapable of saving ourselves and we'll all just go down with the ship. I pity my kids and what they are going to have to live through.

I think at this point we have to admit the following to ourselves:

1. There is global climate change going on that threatens our existence
2. 20th century industrialization is probably a root cause.
3. We are incapable of doing anything about it.

It is already too late friends. But if it makes you feel better, you can always blame Al Gore.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 9, 2012 10:56AM)
So people who disagree with you are nut cases?

Thanks for proving my point.

What good exactly would any of the proposed solutions do?

Want to get past the name calling and speak productively? I admit it is not white as easy but it is more helpful.

But in case you don't, and somehow I think ya don't, I agree when you said you pity your kids and what they have to live through. See? Common ground.
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Jul 9, 2012 11:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-09 11:11, Slide wrote:
1. There is global climate change going on that threatens our existence
2. 20th century industrialization is probably a root cause.
3. We are incapable of doing anything about it.
[/quote]
At least we agree on number 3.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 9, 2012 11:52AM)
Wow there is a lot money being made from this global warming scam!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfaIqNq7G58

Anyone got any idea just how much taxpayers money has gone on it so far?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jul 9, 2012 01:01PM)
"So people who disagree with you are nut cases? "

Danny, as has been pointed out by others, you do seem to have some issues when it comes to reading comprehension. Try reading it again. Honestly, it isn't my job to help you interpret what was clearly stated in the post.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 9, 2012 01:11PM)
Its your job to prove your claims
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Jul 9, 2012 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 07:51, tommy wrote:
Odin, Odin, Send the wind to turn the tide. :)


[/quote]

Tommy, you will need a virgin, I believe...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 9, 2012 02:47PM)
Perhaps York writing skills are the problem . You quote me showing Al gore and his.hypocricy, then say the but cases will attack him, and end by saying don't worry I can always attack him.

Your job is to perhaps write more clear if you want to follow it with sarcasm about comprehension.

Sure though as I suspected all you really want is to attack. You offer no solution or explanations.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jul 9, 2012 04:33PM)
"Your job is to perhaps write more clear if you want to follow it with sarcasm about comprehension.
"

It is "more clearly". It might be time to clean the glass house.

"Its your job to prove your claims"

You are right. But it is not my job to be Danny's reading comprehension tutor.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 9, 2012 05:13PM)
So having a spellchecker and grammar editor is what now passes for wit in your world?

Fact is your writing is quite unclear. But just attack. It makes you feel less inadequate.

Can we be done? This is even more boring than the original stupid unending debate.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 9, 2012 06:27PM)
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/09/12643016-feeling-the-heat-first-half-of-2012-is-warmest-on-record?lite


Ron
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 10, 2012 05:11AM)
Results for the USA only, Ron.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 10, 2012 12:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 06:11, Woland wrote:
Results for the USA only, Ron.
[/quote]

Yes, indeed. Would only a "worldwide" report of record breaking temps of that magnitude concern you?


Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 10, 2012 12:33PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrrq7xqr5Go
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2012 12:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 13:18, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 06:11, Woland wrote:
Results for the USA only, Ron.
[/quote]

Yes, indeed. Would only a "worldwide" report of record breaking temps of that magnitude concern you?


Ron
[/quote]

It is after all "global climate change" that is at issue right?
Message: Posted by: stanalger (Jul 10, 2012 12:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 12:23, Al Angello wrote:
Ah yes those words are all Steve's

I must say that the ostrich line does gives one a visual image of the global warming problem, and how some people look at it, or choose not to look at it.
[/quote]

Here's the visual:
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/cooked_20120708/
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 10, 2012 12:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 13:18, R.S. wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 06:11, Woland wrote:
Results for the USA only, Ron.
[/quote]

Yes, indeed. Would only a "worldwide" report of record breaking temps of that magnitude concern you?
[/quote]
FWIW, only a few months ago there were weeks of record breaking temperatures across Europe and Asia.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2012 01:02PM)
I think the comparison is appropriate. In reality it is a MYTH that the Bird does any such thing!

They lay their head close to the ground and it blends in with the sand. People look quick and make snap decisions and then the myth spreads. (Sort of like global warming.)
But people continue to make the comparison as if it is valid. Yet you show your ignorance by doing so.

Now that you know better do forth and sin no more.

Is global climate change happening? Has been since the start of it all. Don't confuse science and ideology. You end up with ostrich comparisons that are wrong and make you look foolish.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 10, 2012 01:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 14:02, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yet you show your ignorance by doing so.
[/quote]

Here we go again with the name calling.

The "head in the sand" phrase is common and has nothing to do with whether ostriches actually bury their heads in the sand or not. We all know what the concept means.

And in the context of global warming it aptly describes the behavior of the deniers. (I know you don't like that term, but if you're going to refer to people who disagree with you as being ignorant, I guess I'll continue to use it.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2012 01:39PM)
Bob ignorance is an absence of information not name calling. Come on you know this sir. People can be ignorant of the facts and not be stupid, you know this. Please do not play that way.

Ignorance is not having another opinion Bob, it is not having information.

Why do you want to take any opportunity to misinterpret what I say and turn it into an excuse to be mean? You KNOW what words mean Bob. You of all people know the difference. I just don't know why you seem so ready to jump to the worst possible conclusion and then immediately to confrontation.

You are better than that.

And I am not falling for it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 10, 2012 01:58PM)
LOL.

You said the poor guy showed his ignorance because he cited a common metaphor to illustrate a point.

Yes, I understand language very well. Words have connotations. For example, do you think it would be a good idea to start your hypnosis show by saying to the audience, "Before we begin, allow me to clear up your ignorance about hypnosis?"

Or, would you say, "Before we begin I'd like to clear up some misconceptions about hypnosis?"

Do you think that some people would think that the first example was a bit condescending and rude?

You have gone on at some length about why you think the word "denier" is offensive name-calling. But if I just follow your example and cite the dictionary definition of "denier" it really just means "one who denies."

But this is different, right? You could have just apologized for referring to the guy's "ignorance." Sadly, you decided to defend it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2012 02:48PM)
Again you choose to paint in the worst possible terms for confrontation. Why do you do that Bob?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 10, 2012 03:01PM)
Why can you never acknowledge when you are doing the name calling? Why do you do that, Danny?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 10, 2012 03:17PM)
Hi Ron,

It's quite cold in much of Europe right now.

Even if it wasn't, you still would have to prove that this summer's weather is out of the range of the usual variation in the "global climate." With fewer than 100 years of accurately recorded temperatures, and even those measurements representing only a tiny fraction of the earth's surface, you really have no idea what the earth's temperatures have been even over the past few thousand years.

There is more than a little evidence that many parts of the world were considerably warmer during the Middle Ages than they are now, and somehow, the Renaissance managed to occur.

I just don't see the AGW movement as anything other than a call for the industrial democracies to turn over all of the wealth they have created to third world kleptocracies and their creature, the U.N., and then dismantle the economies that make it possible for the planet to support the world's population. I don't think a hot summer is reason enough to do that, that's all.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 10, 2012 03:28PM)
The case that man is the enemy is so weak and tenuous it does not warrant the war on mankind going any further, if there were any justice the case would be thrown out and the accussed set free.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2012 04:10PM)
Right you just want to fight.

First who said "nut cases"? Wasn't me. Then the names fly with heads in the sand and it wasn't me again. I point out how it was they are wrong and use the right word and bamo. I enjoy your trademark selective outrage.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 10, 2012 06:08PM)
Ahh--Summer reruns.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 10, 2012 06:44PM)
Well, I'm not a climate scientist, so who am I to argue with 97% of legitimate scientists who actually study this stuff?


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm



Ron
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 10, 2012 07:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-10 19:08, Steve_Mollett wrote:
Ahh--Summer reruns.
[/quote]
Post of the Year Nominee!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2012 09:53PM)
Now it is LEGITIMATE scientists. You guys crack me up.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 10, 2012 10:58PM)
Okay- it's 97% of climate scientists on one side and the Heritage Foundation paid experts on the other- you know, those same illegitimate "scientists" who they paid to say that there was no connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Pretty easy pick if you ask me.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 10, 2012 11:21PM)
Gee, it's really the same scientists disagreeing with global warming now that disagreed with a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer back in the 60's?? Now that's quite a coincidence!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 10, 2012 11:36PM)
Yes and wow they must move like a thousand years old.
Message: Posted by: Mary Mowder (Jul 10, 2012 11:55PM)
I think we know what Bob is saying.

It's Heritage Foundation's Scientists for hire who are saying there is no global warming. If any of their Scientists came to the conclusion that there is global warming and it is caused by man's elevating the green house gasses you can bet they would be sacked on the spot.

You can't deny the eerie similarity with the Tobacco "Scientists".

The 97% of the Climate Scientists who are not being paid based on their position but for their expertise have come to a different conclusion.

I'd rather think nothing was going on and just keep doing what I'm comfortable with as well but that is a cruel thing to do to our Children and the rest of the Life Forms on our (and I don't mean just humans) planet.

-Mary Mowder
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 11, 2012 12:01AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 00:55, Mary Mowder wrote:
The 97% of the Climate Scientists who are not being paid based on their position but for their expertise have come to a different conclusion.
[/quote]

I suspect it's a lot more lucrative to be a climate scientist, and funding sources are exponentially more available, in a world where Global Warming is perceived to be the biggest threat to human civilization in the history of the planet than in a world where it's perceived to be insignificant.

The above is not to be construed as a position on Global Warming, but rather on the widespread position that only one side has a basis for bias.
Message: Posted by: Devious (Jul 11, 2012 12:04AM)
Once again, I can't stand it when my friends fight....arghhh!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 11, 2012 12:16AM)
Oh Mary, It must be wonderful to live in your world where all Climate Scientists opinions are only based on their expertise on not on thier access to government grants, and whoever pays 'their' salaries. The only scientists questioning it are all employed by the Heritage Foundation!

Here, how about some data from those highly paid Heritage Foundation scientists from NASA.

As Al likes to point out:
"It's been a hot year. In fact, the first six months of 2012 accounted for the warmest January-through-June period on record for the contiguous U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Monday."

Aha! Note the phrase, "contiguous U.S." You know how big the contiguous US is? Its area is just 1.5% of the planet's surface. Brazil is bigger.

So how did the planet do this year? NASA/GISS has the data, but only through May so far. Here is where 2012 global temperatures stand (Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water).
•2nd warmest May.
•6th warmest spring (Mar-May).
•10th warmest Jan-May.
•14th warmest winter (Dec-Feb).
•21st warmest January.

In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than that same month in 2012 so far.
Message: Posted by: Mary Mowder (Jul 11, 2012 12:21AM)
LobowolfXXX,

I don't say that your statement is untrue, that both sides could have some monetary reason for their position.

In a game of who do you trust I'll go with the 97% because I have a hard time believing that 97% of Climatologist are corrupt.

I don't believe that the 97% have chosen their position based on money. Sadly the world is teeming with evidence that supports man-made global warming.

-Mary Mowder
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 11, 2012 12:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 01:16, rockwall wrote:

Aha! Note the phrase, "contiguous U.S." You know how big the contiguous US is? Its area is just 1.5% of the planet's surface. Brazil is bigger.

So how did the planet do this year? NASA/GISS has the data, but only through May so far. Here is where 2012 global temperatures stand (Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water).
•2nd warmest May.
[/quote]
Second doesn't impress you? Only beaten (recently) in 2010, btw. But still the warmest globally-averaged land surface temperature and all-time warmest May on record in the Northern Hemisphere.

<sarcasm on> Remind me again, how much of the planet's surface is the Northern Hemisphere? <sarcasm off>

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/14/499800/noaa-second-hottest-may-on-record-globally-hottest-for-northern-hemisphere/

NOAA has released its “State of the Climate Global Analysis” for May 2012. Here are the highlights:

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.

The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 11, 2012 05:03AM)
OK, well then how about a study funded by the Koch Brothers and reported in the Christian Science Monitor? Surely that report would be welcomed by conservatives, right?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming


Ron
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 11, 2012 06:55AM)
Yes and wow they must move like a thousand years old.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 11, 2012 06:57AM)
Hi balducci,

The periods under examination are too short. The European climate has been cooling for 2000 years. Details [url=http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html]here.[/url]
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 11, 2012 07:09AM)
Y'all realize that I once had a fellowship with the Heritage Foundation, right? I mean, I don't mind y'all being as critical as you want; but to make the automatic assumption that anything associated with Heritage is automatically too biased to be possibly true is a bit...ah...biased. :) Do I strike all of you as being the biased type?
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 11, 2012 07:27AM)
OMG
97% of the scientific community are lying to us about global warming, and those who oppose it work for the heritage foundation who will say anything they get paid to say. The deniers all believe the 3% which makes perfect sense to me.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 11, 2012 07:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 07:57, Woland wrote:

Details [url=http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html]here.[/url]
[/quote]
You are linking to a paper by Esper et alia. More recently:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/

I am not going to cut and paste that whole article, but the gist of it (see the second half or so of the article) is that other studies cast doubt on Esper's hypotheses.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 11, 2012 08:14AM)
Did you know that 100% of magicians DON'T believe in global warming??? OK, so much like the claim of 97% of scientists, my sample size was fairly small. I only sampled myself. But hey, if everyone wants to keep claiming that "97% of scientific community" BS based on the sample sized used, I should be able to continually claim 100% of magicians!

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 08:44AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 10:04, Al Angello wrote:
Woland
Wide fluctuations of the world's weather conditions is the first sign of global warming. You are rapidly running out of denial space here.
[/quote]

You mean global cooling is a sign of global warming? :) that's pretty cool, er I mean hot. :)
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 08:48AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 09:44, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-08 10:04, Al Angello wrote:
Woland
Wide fluctuations of the world's weather conditions is the first sign of global warming. You are rapidly running out of denial space here.
[/quote]

You mean global cooling is a sign of global warming? :) that's pretty cool, er I mean hot. :)
[/quote]

It's now called "Global Climate Change", to accommodate the inconsistency...
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 11, 2012 08:49AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 08:09, stoneunhinged wrote:
Y'all realize that I once had a fellowship with the Heritage Foundation, right? I mean, I don't mind y'all being as critical as you want; but to make the automatic assumption that anything associated with Heritage is automatically too biased to be possibly true is a bit...ah...biased. :) Do I strike all of you as being the biased type?
[/quote]

Well, you also admitted to once considering yourself a conservative so I'm guessing that Bob thinks you just proved his point!
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 11, 2012 09:02AM)
I'm just curious...
What's in it for the deniers to argue so vehemently?
I mean, climate change isn't the only reason to reduce emissions-so that seems like something that's a good idea whether man-made climate change is real or not.
Seriously, does anybody here, on either side, think that air pollution is a good idea?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 09:08AM)
Critter-

I think that goes to the heart of the matter. Those who are opposed to all government regulation and in favor of unfettered corporate and big oil profiteering simply seem to believe that pollution control and caring for the environment are communist plots.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (Jul 11, 2012 09:53AM)
No Bob the new republican (cop out) buzz word is "socialist plot".
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 10:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Critter-

I think that goes to the heart of the matter. Those who are opposed to all government regulation and in favor of unfettered corporate and big oil profiteering simply seem to believe that pollution control and caring for the environment are communist plots.
[/quote]

Can you "prove" that statement? :)
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 10:18AM)
My grandfather used to say "There's your story and there's my story, and somewhere in the middle is the TRUTH". This is the problem with politics today - there is no "truth in the middle" any more. There is no public respect of one "wing" for the other. Everyone feels like they have to "shout" louder than the other guy to be heard. There is only insult, cynicism, disrespect, contempt and sarcasm. Meanwhile, we throw away trillions of dollars and alienate one another because we don't want to admit that someone else's opinion might be viable. We don't want to appear weak, but would rather appear stupid.

The liberals agree with this, but only as it applies to conservatives. The conservatives also agree with this, but only as it applies to liberals. Meanwhile, as a country, we have become lazy, unproductive, under-educated, and "entitled".

One day we will discover that, somewhere between the two extremes of opinion on this and other issues, there is the truth, but it will probably be too late to do anything about it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 10:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 11:02, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Critter-

I think that goes to the heart of the matter. Those who are opposed to all government regulation and in favor of unfettered corporate and big oil profiteering simply seem to believe that pollution control and caring for the environment are communist plots.
[/quote]

Can you "prove" that statement? :)
[/quote]

I guess you haven't noticed that many on the right have called for the dissolution of the EPA.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 11, 2012 10:56AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 10:02, critter wrote:
I'm just curious...
What's in it for the deniers to argue so vehemently?
I mean, climate change isn't the only reason to reduce emissions-so that seems like something that's a good idea whether man-made climate change is real or not.
Seriously, does anybody here, on either side, think that air pollution is a good idea?
[/quote]

critter, it's about a LOT more than reducing emissions. If that's all it was about, no one would be arguing quite so vehemently.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 11, 2012 11:12AM)
Yeah we all love the environment. Yet, I don't recall ever seeing any pics, or reading anything by anyone around here, demonstrating what they are doing to improve it. Just a lot of reacting, verbally of course, to what ever the latest report that comes down the pike has to say. And of course a lot of political cheerleading and trash talking. As if that does anything.

I'd be more impressed if everyone took one day, or even one hour, from the Café to go out and pick up a single piece of trash, or drag an old tire from the side of a river, or do ANYTHING to actually improve the environmet, than by anything anyone has ever written about it here. Since everyone seems so concerned with impressing someone else, or themselves, why not go out and do something useful, take a picture or write about it here, and collect your attaboys? That way you get be a bigshot and you actually help matters along the way. It's a win/win.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 11:17AM)
Pretty presumptuous of you. I do a LOT to help preserve and protect the environment in and around the Puget Sound area.

As to the argument that it isn't about controlling emissions, see this article, "The Two Arguments Against Reducing Emissions." http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/the-two-arguments-against-reducing-emissions
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 11, 2012 11:17AM)
I think Critter has an excellent point.

It has always surprised me in particular that religious conservatives--who one would think would be in favor of trying to keep the earth in the condition God gave it to us--tend to be on the "global warming is a myth" side, and also tend to be pro-nuclear energy and heavily supportive of American military action. It's not logical, but there you have it.

I do not belong to the 3% (just for the record), but I'm absolutely certain that scientists often over-estimate the certainty of their own understanding of things. In addition, taking any sort of radical action on the basis of their certitude would be a bad idea. But as far as I know, very few people are in favor of some of the more creative suggestings for solving the problem of global warming. I don't call myself a conservative anymore, but I do think that--generally, and not always--slow decisions and minor policy changes are better than quick decisions and drastic policy changes, and that local action is usually better than state action, and that state action is usually better than federal action. If I'm right about that, what scares the 3% is that some seem to imply that not only do quick, drastic decisions need to be made, but they need to be made at the [i]global[/i] level--i.e., one step higher--and therefore a more precarious step--than the federal government.

That's my read on the situation. It's not so much about denying science as it is a concern about the questionable wisdom of creating some kind of global sovereignty on the basis of what might be the hubris of modern science.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 11, 2012 11:25AM)
I don't like the fake predictions of doom. I don't like being taxes into oblivion for one political opinion. I don't like when Bob says "unfettered regulation" when nobody has proposed such a thing. That is the real problem. Science and politics get mixed up.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 11, 2012 11:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 12:17, mastermindreader wrote:
Pretty presumptuous of you. [/quote]

Not presumptuous at all. Did I say none of you ever do anything to help the environment? No. I said I don't recall ever seeing or reading anything about what people ARE doing. And I don't. How is that presumptuous?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 11, 2012 11:27AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 12:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
Science and politics get mixed up.
[/quote]

Exactly.

Do ya'll know how many scientists used to support eugenics?

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 11:29AM)
Sorry Marlin that I took your comment personally. I shouldn't have done that.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 11:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 12:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
I don't like the fake predictions of doom. I don't like being taxes into oblivion for one political opinion. I don't like when Bob says "unfettered regulation" when nobody has proposed such a thing. That is the real problem. Science and politics get mixed up.
[/quote]

Except I said "unfettered profiteering." See the previous link I posted for a discussion of the theories advance by the right AGAINST reducing emissions.

The big energy companies don't like regulations that cut into their bottom lines. Emission controls, mining safety, etc.

The recognition that AGW is real would mean they would have to participate in a constructive solution. That would cut into their profits as well so it is far more convenient to deny there is any problem that needs to be corrected.

As to "fake predictions of doom" - do you mean things like "being taxed into oblivion?"
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 11:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 12:25, Dannydoyle wrote:
I don't like the fake predictions of doom. I don't like being taxes into oblivion for one political opinion. I don't like when Bob says "unfettered regulation" when nobody has proposed such a thing. That is the real problem. Science and politics get mixed up.
[/quote]

"Fake predictions of doom"? Do you deny that global warming exists? If so, on what basis?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 11, 2012 12:08PM)
Once again, I don't want to take sides here. I have no horse in this race. But Danny's point is not about whether global warming exists or not, but that the predictions of "doom" are fake.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 11, 2012 12:18PM)
I would suspect that "being taxed into oblivion" is meant to be a bit of hyperbole. However, many of the dire predictions of warmists are not meant to be hyperbole at all. Do you think Al Gore was using hyperbole when he predicted that the oceans would rise by 20' by the end of the century? That would be a fake prediction of doom. And there are plenty more.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 11, 2012 12:20PM)
Thanks for the responses. I guess I still fall on the side where I have more to lose than to gain if I don't do anything to keep the air clean.

Although, I'm also not going to say that all of the ideas on how to do it are good ones. Still not sold on carbon credits.

As for posting pics of clean-up: I don't like to seek publicity for doing those kinds of things. I don't want anybody patting me on the back and saying "good job." It's the same as if I do charity. I do it because I can see myself in their shoes, and someone giving me credit doesn't help them. Instead of hugging me, hug somebody who needs it- and instead of saying "good job picking up that glass from the trail," grab a bag and lend a hand.
Sorry about the tiny rant.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 11, 2012 12:26PM)
Hi Stone,

Yes, I am aware, for example, that the Cold Spring Laboratory, where James Watson works, was founded as a Eugenics institution. The history of the Eugenics movement in the United States is shall we say instructive.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 11, 2012 12:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:20, critter wrote:
I guess I still fall on the side where I have more to lose than to gain if I don't do anything to keep the air clean.
[/quote]

Exactly. That's why I have always been mystified by Carrie-Sue's position on things like pollution and nuclear energy. What do we have to lose by taking care of the planet that God entrusted to our care?

I mean, probably 99.99% of us clean our living-spaces regularly. Who wants to live in a pig-sty?

And why do I need ten plastic bags for the fifteen items I just bought at Wal*Mart when I can put it all in my backpack? And why waste gas driving to Wal*Mart if it's only an eight-minute walk away from my front door (like it is at my sister's place).

Also, if the scientists happen to be [i]right[/i], then maybe we should have payed closer attention. If they are [i]wrong[/i], we've just cleaned up things a little. It's a no lose situation.

But again, I suspect that some of the more extreme among us are in fear of a one-world-government being forced on us by a cabal of conspiring...ah...uh...[i]scientists?[/i]
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 11, 2012 12:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:26, Woland wrote:
Yes, I am aware, for example, that the Cold Spring Laboratory, where James Watson works, was founded as a Eugenics institution. The history of the Eugenics movement in the United States is shall we say instructive.
[/quote]

I just read that Michael Creighton article, and it was pretty interesting. I'm gonna read up some more on the subject. It's one of those things that we just sort of assume was a Nazi thing, but which in fact had supporters world-wide.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 12:34PM)
Fake predictions are things I do in my act. They are quite different from legitimate predictions that turn out to be incorrect or inaccurate it all of their details. You can only determine that, however, if the predicted event does not, in fact, occur. But I understand why some would label predictions of the effects of global warming to be fake because that implies that the scientists making the prediction are intentionally lying.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 11, 2012 12:34PM)
I was surprised when I found out some of the names of people who supported eugenics.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 12:38PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 12:17, stoneunhinged wrote:
I think Critter has an excellent point.

It has always surprised me in particular that religious conservatives--who one would think would be in favor of trying to keep the earth in the condition God gave it to us--tend to be on the "global warming is a myth" side, and also tend to be pro-nuclear energy and heavily supportive of American military action. It's not logical, but there you have it.

I do not belong to the 3% (just for the record), but I'm absolutely certain that scientists often over-estimate the certainty of their own understanding of things. In addition, taking any sort of radical action on the basis of their certitude would be a bad idea. But as far as I know, very few people are in favor of some of the more creative suggestings for solving the problem of global warming. I don't call myself a conservative anymore, but I do think that--generally, and not always--slow decisions and minor policy changes are better than quick decisions and drastic policy changes, and that local action is usually better than state action, and that state action is usually better than federal action. If I'm right about that, what scares the 3% is that some seem to imply that not only do quick, drastic decisions need to be made, but they need to be made at the [i]global[/i] level--i.e., one step higher--and therefore a more precarious step--than the federal government.

That's my read on the situation. It's not so much about denying science as it is a concern about the questionable wisdom of creating some kind of global sovereignty on the basis of what might be the hubris of modern science.
[/quote]

My comments:

1. As for the "global warming myth" and the "condition of the Earth" comments, see my post above. I disagree with this, but there is no longer any middle ground, politically, for discussion. It has to be one way or the other.
2. Don't confuse "supportive of American military action" with "support of a strong military".
3. "... scientists often over-estimate the certainty of their own understanding of things..." is maybe the wisest comment made here...
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 11, 2012 12:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:29, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:20, critter wrote:

I guess I still fall on the side where I have more to lose than to gain if I don't do anything to keep the air clean.
[/quote]
What do we have to lose by taking care of the planet that God entrusted to our care?
[/quote]
For some, not all, but for some ... it has to do with hastening the end times. Ditto for their policy on the mid-east. That is, only after things go to heck in a hand basket will we be saved.

Again, I said that is how some see it ... certainly not all. But, sadly, many more than I would like.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 12:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:34, mastermindreader wrote:
Fake predictions are things I do in my act. They are quite different from legitimate predictions that turn out to be incorrect or inaccurate it all of their details. You can only determine that, however, if the predicted event does not, in fact, occur. But I understand why some would label predictions of the effects of global warming to be fake because that implies that the scientists making the prediction are intentionally lying.
[/quote]

Your predictions are fake? You just shattered all the illusions I've had since I was a teenager. :( I can hear the sound of my heart breaking....
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 11, 2012 12:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:38, ClintonMagus wrote:

3. "... scientists often over-estimate the certainty of their own understanding of things..." is maybe the wisest comment made here...
[/quote]
The key word is "often". I don't know if that is true or not. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not.

But on the big, important, costly, international effort matters, like the Higgs-Boson story at CERN, no announcement came until they were pretty darn certain.

[url]http://understandinguncertainty.org/explaining-5-sigma-higgs-how-well-did-they-do#comment-1449[/url]

"To recap, the results on the Higgs are communicated in terms of the numbers of sigmas, which has been calculated by the teams from what is generally (outside the world of CERN) termed a P-value: the probability of observing such an extreme result, were there not really anything going on. 5-sigmas corresponds to around a 1 in 3,500,000 chance."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 01:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:52, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:34, mastermindreader wrote:
Fake predictions are things I do in my act. They are quite different from legitimate predictions that turn out to be incorrect or inaccurate it all of their details. You can only determine that, however, if the predicted event does not, in fact, occur. But I understand why some would label predictions of the effects of global warming to be fake because that implies that the scientists making the prediction are intentionally lying.
[/quote]


Your predictions are fake? You just shattered all the illusions I've had since I was a teenager. :( I can hear the sound of my heart breaking....
[/quote]


Don't be too upset. As a mind reader I can project thoughts as well as receive them. So when I do a "fake" prediction I'm really mentally coercing my subjects into doing exactly what I want them to.
(I learned that from my first wife.)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 11, 2012 02:11PM)
Stone and Critter. Nothing wrong with cleaning up the environment or cleaning up after yourself. I'm all for it. But how would you feel if your utility bills suddenly doubled or tripled as part of the government efforts to halt global warming. Would you be all for it then and think that, "shucks, it just makes sense to do what we can just in case they're right!"?
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 02:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:58, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 13:38, ClintonMagus wrote:

3. "... scientists often over-estimate the certainty of their own understanding of things..." is maybe the wisest comment made here...
[/quote]
The key word is "often". I don't know if that is true or not. Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not.
[/quote]

The definition of "often" depends on the discipline, I guess. If a doctor accidentally kills 5 patients a month (out of 1000), I would call that "often", while if a professional baker has 5 fallen cakes a month (out of 1000), that would be "seldom".

I remember reading about research between coffee and cancer. The published report linked the two, but further investigation showed that the vast majority of research showed otherwise. Most of the data conflicted with the hypothesis, so the one anomylous finding that supported the hypothesis was what was published. There are hundreds of similar stories about scientists who were funded to produce a particular result (or just had tunnel vision), and made the data fit what they were paid to produce.

Here is one of my favorite titles - "The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine":

http://www.jnrbm.com/
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 02:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:17, ClintonMagus wrote:
There are hundreds of similar stories about scientists who were funded to produce a particular result (or just had tunnel vision), and made the data fit what they were paid to produce.
[/quote]

Exactly. Just like the "scientists" at the Heritage Foundation who were paid to produce data showing no correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. And I've already pointed out they they are the same group that is producing climate change denial "research."
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 02:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:27, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:17, ClintonMagus wrote:
There are hundreds of similar stories about scientists who were funded to produce a particular result (or just had tunnel vision), and made the data fit what they were paid to produce.
[/quote]

Exactly. Just like the "scientists" at the Heritage Foundation who were paid to produce data showing no correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. And I've already pointed out they they are the same group that is producing climate change denial "research."
[/quote]

... and just like scientists for organizations at BOTH ENDS of the political spectrum who were paid to produce similar data for their "causes"...
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 02:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 11:19, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 11:02, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 10:08, mastermindreader wrote:
Critter-

I think that goes to the heart of the matter. Those who are opposed to all government regulation and in favor of unfettered corporate and big oil profiteering simply seem to believe that pollution control and caring for the environment are communist plots.
[/quote]

Can you "prove" that statement? :)
[/quote]

I guess you haven't noticed that many on the right have called for the dissolution of the EPA.
[/quote]

That is nice, but can you "prove" your previous statement. I assume this last statement is evidence but obviously not proof. Seems like I have heard that before. :)
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Jul 11, 2012 02:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 12:17, stoneunhinged wrote:
It has always surprised me in particular that religious conservatives--who one would think would be in favor of trying to keep the earth in the condition God gave it to us--tend to be on the "global warming is a myth" side, and also tend to be pro-nuclear energy and heavily supportive of American military action. It's not logical, but there you have it.
[/quote]
As a religious conservative I can comment on this. Those who believe that God created earth and this incredible universe have faith that God is in control. God can handle this little crisis. For all we know its God’s plan to begin to warm the earth. So, do you really think we are going to stop Him? Do you think God’s not paying attention and will wake up one day and say, “Those stupid humans ruined my plan!”

Of course we should do what we can to be good stewards and not pollute, etc. Do you really think that religious conservatives are more prone to trash mother earth just because we not alarmed by the reports of global warning? Nonsense.

PS The ocean temperature in Atlantic City is 78 degrees today. Whoohoo!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 02:56PM)
Er- why do you suppose that they have called for dissolution of the EPA and the removal of regulations?

Do you understand that evidence IS a form of proof?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jul 11, 2012 03:34PM)
"God can handle this little crisis."

Was that like when he handled the little crisis of wiping out the world's population by having everyone drown in a flood? Kind of a jerk your god, eh?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 03:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Er- why do you suppose that they have called for dissolution of the EPA and the removal of regulations?

Do you understand that evidence IS a form of proof?
[/quote]

No.

Evidence may or may not point to proof. Also evidence is in the eyes and mind of the beholder or receiver of said evidence. But in no way is evidence proof.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 03:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 16:34, Slide wrote:
"God can handle this little crisis."

Was that like when he handled the little crisis of wiping out the world's population by having everyone drown in a flood? Kind of a jerk your god, eh?
[/quote]

Why are you so intolerant of Christians?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 11, 2012 04:01PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 16:34, Slide wrote:
"God can handle this little crisis."

Was that like when he handled the little crisis of wiping out the world's population by having everyone drown in a flood? Kind of a jerk your god, eh?
[/quote]

This statement begs the question. If for the sake of discussion you wish to take the position that (the Christian) God exists, then you must also take the position that we all have eternal life, and our earthly existence is just a blip on the radar.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 04:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 16:45, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Er- why do you suppose that they have called for dissolution of the EPA and the removal of regulations?

Do you understand that evidence IS a form of proof?
[/quote]

No.

Evidence may or may not point to proof. Also evidence is in the eyes and mind of the beholder or receiver of said evidence. But in no way is evidence proof.
[/quote]

Proof is is a matter of the weight given to evidence. But I guess I must have had the rules of evidence all wrong in all those years I was a trial attorney. I defer to your obviously greater knowledge in this area.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jul 11, 2012 04:18PM)
"Why are you so intolerant of Christians?"

I'm not.

Fundamentalist christians? That is a different story.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 04:23PM)
Addendum to my previous:

A convenience store is robbed. The security camera video clearly shows that Mr. X is the robber. Mr. X is arrested and tried. The video is entered into evidence as PROOF of the State's case. The jury agrees that the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and convicts him.

Now if you want to discuss issues like the "weight of the evidence," "standards of proof, etc., those are yet other topics I'd be happy to discuss.

But in a courtroom each side supports their case with evidence - the case is usually won (ie. "proven") by the side that has the strongest evidence.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 17:18, Slide wrote:
"Why are you so intolerant of Christians?"

I'm not.

Fundamentalist christians? That is a different story.
[/quote]

"Fundamentalist" Christian as opposed to what?!?!?!

I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 11, 2012 04:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:55, Ken Northridge wrote:
Of course we should do what we can to be good stewards and not pollute, etc.
[/quote]

That's exactly my point. And I explicitly mentioned Carrie-Sue as having expressed opinions in the past that seem to contradict the position of being "good stewards".

[quote]

Do you really think that religious conservatives are more prone to trash mother earth just because we not alarmed by the reports of global warning?
[/quote]

No.

But I do think (really) that religious conservatives are more likely to have a knee-jerk reaction to doubt anything and everything that they perceive as being touted by the liberals. If the liberals hug trees, then religious conservatives think that tree-hugging is evil.

If the liberals take up the banner of combatting global warming, then global warming is good.

My accusation is this: religious conservatives tend to view the opponent's views as wrong, rather than viewing the wrongness of their opponent's views.

On a personal note: Ken, you know I'm on your side. I'm just asking you to think a bit outside the box.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 11, 2012 05:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 17:53, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:55, Ken Northridge wrote:
Of course we should do what we can to be good stewards and not pollute, etc.
[/quote]

That's exactly my point. And I explicitly mentioned Carrie-Sue as having expressed opinions in the past that seem to contradict the position of being "good stewards".

[quote]

Do you really think that religious conservatives are more prone to trash mother earth just because we not alarmed by the reports of global warning?
[/quote]

No.

But I do think (really) that religious conservatives are more likely to have a knee-jerk reaction to doubt anything and everything that they perceive as being touted by the liberals. If the liberals hug trees, then religious conservatives think that tree-hugging is evil.

If the liberals take up the banner of combatting global warming, then global warming is good.

My accusation is this: religious conservatives tend to view the opponent's views as wrong, rather than viewing the wrongness of their opponent's views.

On a personal note: Ken, you know I'm on your side. I'm just asking you to think a bit outside the box.
[/quote]

There's a flip side to this, though, Stone, which is that liberals tend to latch onto a cause, and there's no cost-benefit analysis, it's just full-speed ahead. When Obamacare was being touted, part of it was the efficiency and the low-cost, and the $940 billion pricetag that the CBO came up with (as if they had ANY idea what it would cost over a decade) was referenced as good, solid evidence showing us how cost-effective it would be. Now that it's been revised upward by more than 80% three years later ($1.76 trillion and counting), has that slowed anybody down? It's healthcare; whatever the cost, we must pay!

Similarly, one thing you're leaving out of your analysis of Global Warming (why WOULDN'T you take care of the planet?) is what, exactly, the proposed fixes are.

Only a handful of criteria matter her - likelihood of harm, magnitude of harm, and the cost and benefit of any of the potential cures. But each of those criteria DO matter.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 11, 2012 05:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 17:53, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
But I do think (really) that religious conservatives are more likely to have a knee-jerk reaction to doubt anything and everything that they perceive as being touted by the liberals. If the liberals hug trees, then religious conservatives think that tree-hugging is evil.

[/quote]

Conversely, I believe that liberals are more likely to label Christians (or religious conservatives) as "extremists" or "right-wingers". It works both ways.
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jul 11, 2012 05:21PM)
""Fundamentalist" Christian as opposed to what?!?!?! "

Non-fundamentalist christians.

That was easy.

Tell me Clinton: how do you perceive the Westboro Baptist church?

"I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about."

Well, I guess that depends on what we are talking about. I know a lot about playing guitar. :)
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 05:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:21, Slide wrote:
""Fundamentalist" Christian as opposed to what?!?!?! "

Non-fundamentalist christians.

That was easy.

Tell me Clinton: how do you perceive the Westboro Baptist church?

"I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about."

Well, I guess that depends on what we are talking about. I know a lot about playing guitar. :)
[/quote]

Let me! Let me!

Speaking as an atheist and a 25+ year former Christian, I think those horrible people (the Phelps family) are the best Christians around as far as following the Bible. All the horrible things they do are not only condoned, but demanded by the Bible. Other "so called" Christians pick and choose the warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible they like and go with it. That's not true Christianity.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 11, 2012 05:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:26, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Speaking as an atheist and a 25+ year former Christian, I think those horrible people (the Phelps family) are the best Christians around as far as following the Bible. All the horrible things they do are condoned and demanded by the Bible. Other "so called" Christians pick and choose the warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible they like and go with it. That's not true Christianity.
[/quote]

Bud, you're awesome- but I don't follow the logic on this one. The other side may pick and choose the warm fuzzy parts, but Westboro picks and chooses the doom and gloom parts. Why is one side inherently "more" than the other if they're both discarding half of the stuff?
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jul 11, 2012 05:32PM)
Old Scratch,

Have I told you lately that I love you. :)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 11, 2012 06:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:55, Ken Northridge wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 12:17, stoneunhinged wrote:
It has always surprised me in particular that religious conservatives--who one would think would be in favor of trying to keep the earth in the condition God gave it to us--tend to be on the "global warming is a myth" side, and also tend to be pro-nuclear energy and heavily supportive of American military action. It's not logical, but there you have it.
[/quote]
As a religious conservative I can comment on this. Those who believe that God created earth and this incredible universe have faith that God is in control. God can handle this little crisis. For all we know its God’s plan to begin to warm the earth. So, do you really think we are going to stop Him? Do you think God’s not paying attention and will wake up one day and say, “Those stupid humans ruined my plan!”

Of course we should do what we can to be good stewards and not pollute, etc. Do you really think that religious conservatives are more prone to trash mother earth just because we not alarmed by the reports of global warning? Nonsense.

PS The ocean temperature in Atlantic City is 78 degrees today. Whoohoo!
[/quote]

Do you really want to roll that "God is in control" dice? What if he's not?


Ron
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 06:11PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:29, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:26, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Speaking as an atheist and a 25+ year former Christian, I think those horrible people (the Phelps family) are the best Christians around as far as following the Bible. All the horrible things they do are condoned and demanded by the Bible. Other "so called" Christians pick and choose the warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible they like and go with it. That's not true Christianity.
[/quote]

Bud, you're awesome- but I don't follow the logic on this one. The other side may pick and choose the warm fuzzy parts, but Westboro picks and chooses the doom and gloom parts. Why is one side inherently "more" than the other if they're both discarding half of the stuff?
[/quote]

Actually, they don't. They preach the whole thing in their church. They just make the bad parts a little louder to get attention. They still follow the Bible, as a whole, more than most Christians. They aren't afraid to talk about the offensive parts of the Bible that many Christians would prefer to forget.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 06:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:32, Slide wrote:
Old Scratch,

Have I told you lately that I love you. :)
[/quote]

If you're trying to hit on me, it's working! If my g/f asks any questions, just say you know me from the office....
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 11, 2012 06:36PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 19:11, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:29, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:26, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Speaking as an atheist and a 25+ year former Christian, I think those horrible people (the Phelps family) are the best Christians around as far as following the Bible. All the horrible things they do are condoned and demanded by the Bible. Other "so called" Christians pick and choose the warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible they like and go with it. That's not true Christianity.
[/quote]

Bud, you're awesome- but I don't follow the logic on this one. The other side may pick and choose the warm fuzzy parts, but Westboro picks and chooses the doom and gloom parts. Why is one side inherently "more" than the other if they're both discarding half of the stuff?
[/quote]

Actually, they don't. They preach the whole thing in their church. They just make the bad parts a little louder to get attention. They still follow the Bible, as a whole, more than most Christians. They aren't afraid to talk about the offensive parts of the Bible that many Christians would prefer to forget.
[/quote]

I could say the same thing about some other Christian churches I've been to. I've been to ones where we got the Hellfire & Brimstone sermons, but most of the people still tried to practice the whole "Love thy neighbor" thing in their daily lives (not always successfully...)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 06:54PM)
Would it have been funny if the Westboro Baptist Church unknowingly picketed a Mafia funeral?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 07:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 19:36, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 19:11, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:29, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:26, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Speaking as an atheist and a 25+ year former Christian, I think those horrible people (the Phelps family) are the best Christians around as far as following the Bible. All the horrible things they do are condoned and demanded by the Bible. Other "so called" Christians pick and choose the warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible they like and go with it. That's not true Christianity.
[/quote]

Bud, you're awesome- but I don't follow the logic on this one. The other side may pick and choose the warm fuzzy parts, but Westboro picks and chooses the doom and gloom parts. Why is one side inherently "more" than the other if they're both discarding half of the stuff?
[/quote]

Actually, they don't. They preach the whole thing in their church. They just make the bad parts a little louder to get attention. They still follow the Bible, as a whole, more than most Christians. They aren't afraid to talk about the offensive parts of the Bible that many Christians would prefer to forget.
[/quote]

I could say the same thing about some other Christian churches I've been to. I've been to ones where we got the Hellfire & Brimstone sermons, but most of the people still tried to practice the whole "Love thy neighbor" thing in their daily lives (not always successfully...)
[/quote]

I've been to fire and brimstone churches. They get a bit radical, but they don't go all the way like the Phelps. They don't want to lose that sweet cash when they pass the pot around. The Phelps don't care. They just tell it as it is without holding back. I no longer believe in the Bible, other than a historical book, but if I did, I would side with the Phelps, as horrible as I feel they are.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 08:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 17:16, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 16:45, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 15:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Er- why do you suppose that they have called for dissolution of the EPA and the removal of regulations?

Do you understand that evidence IS a form of proof?
[/quote]

No.

Evidence may or may not point to proof. Also evidence is in the eyes and mind of the beholder or receiver of said evidence. But in no way is evidence proof.
[/quote]

Proof is is a matter of the weight given to evidence. But I guess I must have had the rules of evidence all wrong in all those years I was a trial attorney. I defer to your obviously greater knowledge in this area.
[/quote]

Acatually you just reinforced what I said when you said...and I quote, "Proof is is a matter of the weight given to evidence." And I said, "Evidence may or may not point to proof. Also evidence is in the eyes and mind of the beholder or receiver of said evidence. But in no way is evidence proof."

I don't see where we differ. We agree that evidence as you say is weighed and determined its value. I said, "Also evidence is in the eyes and mind of the beholder or receiver of said evidence." I do not see any difference except you used the word weight and I simply said it is in the eyes and mind of the beholder...they are definitely weighing said evidence.

However I said and I stand by it when I say evidence is not proof. If you learned that in Law School that evidence is proof, I would say one of two things. You either learned wrong or were taught wrong and I am no lawyer. It may point to proof in some cases but not in all cases and you know that.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 08:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 19:54, mastermindreader wrote:
Would it have been funny if the Westboro Baptist Church unknowingly picketed a Mafia funeral?
[/quote]

I don't think the mafia would mess with the Phelps family. They're a mean bunch. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 08:27PM)
Okay Aces. I must have learned wrong. Whatever you want to believe.

In the law, evidence and proof are essentially the same thing. Do you know what an "offer of proof" is? It's where you offer evidence in support of your claim. Actually, it's a bit more nuanced than that, so after you've graduated law school and practice trial law for ten years, I'll be happy to discuss it in more depth with you.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 09:03PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 21:27, mastermindreader wrote:
Okay Aces. I must have learned wrong. Whatever you want to believe.

In the law, evidence and proof are essentially the same thing. Do you know what an "offer of proof" is? It's where you offer evidence in support of your claim. Actually, it's a bit more nuanced than that, so after you've graduated law school and practice trial law for ten years, I'll be happy to discuss it in more depth with you.
[/quote]

Bob, you're making a mistake that many people do. You can't compare evidence in respect to the law in the same way you would require evidence in a religious argument. They are two different beasts.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 11, 2012 09:05PM)
In court or out, (relevant) evidence is that which has a tendency to make a material fact either more or less likely to true.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 09:08PM)
I thought this was a science argument! In which case "proof" is just a matter of the best research and evidence to date. Only in mathematics is there really such a thing as "proof" in an ultimate sense.

But I was responding to Aces who specifically was commenting about my definitions of proof and evidence as they apply in a common courtroom setting.

So I can't agree that I made a mistake, because I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about proof in a legal sense.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 11:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 21:27, mastermindreader wrote:
Okay Aces. I must have learned wrong. Whatever you want to believe.

In the law, evidence and proof are essentially the same thing. Do you know what an "offer of proof" is? It's where you offer evidence in support of your claim. Actually, it's a bit more nuanced than that, so after you've graduated law school and practice trial law for ten years, I'll be happy to discuss it in more depth with you.
[/quote]

I offer in evidence the Bible as Proof of God and a Supreme Being who gave His only son to save man. Is that evidence proof?

I offer in evidence this gun with the defendants fingerprints on it and ballistics show that the bullet that killed Mr. X came from this gun. Is that evidence proof.

Neither exhibit of evidence offered above is proof but both are evidence. Both point to a "POSSIBLE" conclusion but neither of them can stand by themselves as proof. And proof is what we are discussing not the prepondrence of evidence.

And yes actually I have a pretty good idea what "offer of proof" is because I have been to court a few times as you may or may not know I am a landlord with several properties both residential and commerdcial and this term has come up more than once over the years in damages and stolen property sought by me from tennants.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 11:35PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In court or out, (relevant) evidence is that which has a tendency to make a material fact either more or less likely to true.
[/quote]

So you believe the amount of evidence needed is the same in a small claims court as it is in a criminal court?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 11:38PM)
Ha, ha. I just read the original post.

What do the last few posts have to do with "Worst Ever" Summer in the UK" which was the title of the original post?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 11:42PM)
The Bible is not proof of anything except its own existence as a book. The "evidence" contained therein is hearsay.

The gun with the fingerprints is strong evidence and may well be accepted as convincing PROOF at trial.

Finally, by definition, "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are standards of PROOF. They are not standards of evidence.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 11:42PM)
Not much. :)
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 11, 2012 11:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 00:42, mastermindreader wrote:
The Bible is not proof of anything except its own existence as a book. The "evidence" contained therein is hearsay.

The gun with the fingerprints is strong evidence and may well be accepted as convincing PROOF at trial.

Finally, by definition, "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are standards of PROOF. They are not standards of evidence.
[/quote]

Bob, I'm on the fence on this one. I can't agree that the evidence critera used in a court of law has any bearing on religion, but I also can't say you're wrong.

Just admit you're wrong and we'll call it a night. (I won't tell anyone you said you were wrong.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 11, 2012 11:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 00:35, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In court or out, (relevant) evidence is that which has a tendency to make a material fact either more or less likely to true.
[/quote]

So you believe the amount of evidence needed is the same in a small claims court as it is in a criminal court?
[/quote]

Not at all. The quantum of evidence is less important than the weight given to it. Further, the burden of proof is greater in a criminal case than in a civil matter.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 11, 2012 11:58PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 00:42, mastermindreader wrote:
The Bible is not proof of anything except its own existence as a book. The "evidence" contained therein is hearsay.

The gun with the fingerprints is strong evidence and may well be accepted as convincing PROOF at trial.

Finally, by definition, "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are standards of PROOF. They are not standards of evidence.
[/quote]

Honestly I feel you erred regardless of my credentials iin law. Proof and evidence are two entirely different animals. Let me just site two cases. O.J. and Casey Anthony. Plenty of evidence in both cases yet not enough to "PROVE" them guillty.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 12:01AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 00:35, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In court or out, (relevant) evidence is that which has a tendency to make a material fact either more or less likely to true.
[/quote]

So you believe the amount of evidence needed is the same in a small claims court as it is in a criminal court?
[/quote]

Does anything in my excerpted quote remotely suggest that?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 12:05AM)
It's clear, aces, that you aren't understanding what I'm talking about. I tried to explain it in laymen's terms, but you are completely missing the point.

In the cases you cite the evidence simply didn't constitute strong enough proof in the minds of the jury. You are missing the simple fact that in court ALL evidence is offered as proof. Unlike in math, where proof is an absolute, in the law there are degrees of proof.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 00:49, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 00:35, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 22:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In court or out, (relevant) evidence is that which has a tendency to make a material fact either more or less likely to true.
[/quote]

So you believe the amount of evidence needed is the same in a small claims court as it is in a criminal court?
[/quote]

Not at all. The quantum of evidence is less important than the weight given to it. Further, the burden of proof is greater in a criminal case than in a civil matter.
[/quote]

Of course it is. My point is that regardless of the level of evidence needed in either a small claims or a criminal, those are both determined by a judge or jury. Anything related to religion isn't up to a popular decision. If 10 people are in a room and all 10 people say religion is real, that doesn't make it so. They may have "evidence" that they either don't understand or is incorrect.

You can't compare legal evidence with scientific evidence.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 12:10AM)
Sure. I totally agree with that. But that's where this discussion is falling off track. As we both have already noted, "proof" in a legal sense means something different than proof in a mathematical or scientific sense. That's the point that acesover seems to be missing.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:12AM)
It does seem we drifted off track a bit...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 12:14AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:12, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
It does seem we drifted off track a bit...
[/quote]

That's always the best part of NVMS!
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:16AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:12, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
It does seem we drifted off track a bit...
[/quote]

That's always the best part of NVMS!
[/quote]

I met this great hooker in Vegas last week.....
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:17AM)
I've noticed that not many posts stay on topic. I like that. :)
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 12:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:16, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:12, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
It does seem we drifted off track a bit...
[/quote]

That's always the best part of NVMS!
[/quote]

I met this great hooker in Vegas last week.....
[/quote]

Were her globes warm?
And we're back on topic!
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 12, 2012 12:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:

There's a flip side to this, though, Stone, which is that liberals tend to latch onto a cause, and there's no cost-benefit analysis, it's just full-speed ahead.

[/quote]

Yeah, I left that out because I'm trying not to expose myself entirely. There's a reason that I don't call myself a liberal, either. ;)

Around here we often hear arguments that fail to distinguish between legitimacy (something that is within the bounds of "government by consent") and practicality (something that cannot be done efficiently).

One might logically legitimate all sorts of regime types from anarchy (so impractical that it is literally fantastic) to communism (impractical because once a community gets larger than a few hundred people (at most), government by consent becomes ever less likely.)

Obamacare is arguably totally impractical (at least, I think so), but not illegitmate. Conversely, some (like Bob, perhaps) are so compelled by legitimacy that the impracticality is inadequately addressed.

So yes, I left out of my analysis precisely this: it would be legitimate for governments to take action against global warming, but it is unlikely to be practical for many, many reasons--not least of which would be that scientists are exceedingly unlikely to have any idea what do do about it other than say, "cut down on carbon emissions".

To the religious conservatives: I still don't get your position that God is big and powerful enough to take care of the planet all by himself. True enough, but isn't that like making a huge mess in your bedroom and saying, "mom will clean it all up"? Why turn God into our housekeeper?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:18, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:16, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:12, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
It does seem we drifted off track a bit...
[/quote]

That's always the best part of NVMS!
[/quote]

I met this great hooker in Vegas last week.....
[/quote]

Were her globes warm?
And we're back on topic!
[/quote]

Her globes spanned the Earth. What was the topic?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 12, 2012 12:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:05, mastermindreader wrote:
It's clear, aces, that you aren't understanding what I'm talking about. I tried to explain it in laymen's terms, but you are completely missing the point.

In the cases you cite the evidence simply didn't constitute strong enough proof in the minds of the jury. You are missing the simple fact that in court ALL evidence is offered as proof. Unlike in math, where proof is an absolute, in the law there are degrees of proof.
[/quote]

I will not debate this with you because no matter what I say you will not admit you may have made a mistake. I in no way can have a legal debate with you because of your knowledge of the law. But I truly believe we are talking about common sense here and I do not see how anyone can agree that evidence is proof. I will end by saying that evidence can support proof or help establish burden of proof but in of itself is not the proof.

In the above example of the gun and fingerprints and ballistics. A very reasonable explanation is that it is my gun and I found it lying on my desk and put it in the safe where the officers found it. That is how it got my fingerprints on it. Yet it is evidence but it does not prove anything. Because the cleaning lady stole it and gave it to her boyfriend who shot and killed Mr. X then gave the gun back to the cleaning lady and she put it on my desk. But it is evidence showing and pointing to a conclusion that may or may not be true and therefore cannot be considered proof, only evidence.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:34, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:05, mastermindreader wrote:
It's clear, aces, that you aren't understanding what I'm talking about. I tried to explain it in laymen's terms, but you are completely missing the point.

In the cases you cite the evidence simply didn't constitute strong enough proof in the minds of the jury. You are missing the simple fact that in court ALL evidence is offered as proof. Unlike in math, where proof is an absolute, in the law there are degrees of proof.
[/quote]

I will not debate this with you because no matter what I say you will not admit you may have made a mistake. I in no way can have a legal debate with you because of your knowledge of the law. But I truly believe we are talking about common sense here and I do not see how anyone can agree that evidence is proof. I will end by saying that evidence can support proof or help establish burden of proof but in of itself is not the proof.

In the above example of the gun and fingerprints and ballistics. A very reasonable explanation is that it is my gun and I found it lying on my desk and put it in the safe where the officers found it. That is how it got my fingerprints on it. Yet it is evidence but it does not prove anything. Because the cleaning lady stole it and gave it to her boyfriend who shot and killed Mr. X then gave the gun back to the cleaning lady and she put it on my desk. But it is evidence showing and pointing to a conclusion that may or may not be true and therefore cannot be considered proof, only evidence.
[/quote]

I went back and read the posts I missed. IMO, I believe Bob is correct. You gave a good argument though.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 12:47AM)
You cannot see how anyone can agree that evidence is proof? What do you think juries do every day?

As to the gun, once the fingerprints are established to be yours by expert testimony (another form of proof) the "proof" is that those are your fingerprints on the gun.

Here is a standard legal definition of "proof":

[quote]proof n. [b]confirmation of a fact by evidence[/b]. In a court trial proof is what the trier of the fact (jury or judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied the evidence shows by "a preponderance of the evidence" in civil (non-criminal) cases and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal prosecutions. However, each alleged fact must be proved separately, as must all the facts necessary to reach a judgment for the plaintiff (the person filing a lawsuit) or for the prosecution (the "people" or "state" represented by the prosecutor). The defendants in both civil suits and criminal trials need not provide absolute "proof" of non-responsibility (in a civil case) or innocence in a criminal case, since the burden is on the plaintiff or prosecution to prove their cases (or prove the person guilty)[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:49AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:47, mastermindreader wrote:
You cannot see how anyone can agree that evidence is proof? What do you think juries do every day?

As to the gun, once the fingerprints are established to be yours by expert testimony (another form of proof) the "proof" is that those are your fingerprints on the gun.

Here is a standard legal definition of "proof"

proof n. [b]confirmation of a fact by evidence[/b]. In a court trial proof is what the trier of the fact (jury or judge without a jury) needs to become satisfied the evidence shows by "a preponderance of the evidence" in civil (non-criminal) cases and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal prosecutions. However, each alleged fact must be proved separately, as must all the facts necessary to reach a judgment for the plaintiff (the person filing a lawsuit) or for the prosecution (the "people" or "state" represented by the prosecutor). The defendants in both civil suits and criminal trials need not provide absolute "proof" of non-responsibility (in a civil case) or innocence in a criminal case, since the burden is on the plaintiff or prosecution to prove their cases (or prove the person guilty)
[/quote]

OUCH! I was on your side. Evidence is NOT proof. When they had OJ's bloody glove, they called it evidence. When it didn't fit him, it was anything BUT proof. The two are seperate.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 12:52AM)
Scratch-

If you go back to my first post, I stated that in the law they are the same for all practical purposes. I also noted that there were nuances. Read the part of the definition I just provided that I highlighted with bold type. Evidence that provides confirmation of a fact IS proof. Whether or not the jury accepts it or not is a different story.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:55AM)
I agree in theory, but we both know that "evidence" has a measure of fallibility. I only make that point because I go back to using that legal theory as it applies to religion.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 12:57AM)
How do you see the legal theory as it applies to religion?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:59AM)
You can use that measure of evidence and/or proof to convict a case, but you can't use it to prove a scientific method. That scientific method is directly related to whether we should believe a god exists.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 01:01AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:55, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
I agree in theory, but we both know that "evidence" has a measure of fallibility. I only make that point because I go back to using that legal theory as it applies to religion.
[/quote]

And, in the law, "proof" has the same measure of fallibility. (The guy who was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the later evidence serves as proof of his innocence.)

The legal theory has nothing to do with religion or the standard of scientific or historical evidence that would be required to "prove" anything about it one way or the other.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 01:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 02:01, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:55, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
I agree in theory, but we both know that "evidence" has a measure of fallibility. I only make that point because I go back to using that legal theory as it applies to religion.
[/quote]

And, in the law, "proof" has the same measure of fallibility. (The guy who was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the later evidence serves as proof of his innocence.)

The legal theory has nothing to do with religion or the standard of scientific or historical evidence that would be required to "prove" anything about it one way or the other.
[/quote]

Ummm, that's what I just said. I think perhaps we are splitting hairs and it got confusing. I think we actually agree with each other. That would mean I spent the last 20 minutes debating something with a person who agrees with me. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 01:08AM)
Yes, I think we do.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 01:09AM)
That's just wrong. That defiles the whole concept of a debate. :)
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 01:10AM)
I still disagree with your views. You are a Deist, correct?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 12, 2012 01:11AM)
I learned many, many years ago that I couldn't win an argument with my sister. I still think that she's usually wrong. But she's a lawyer.

Vincent Bugliosi taught me not to confuse what might be legally proven with what might be factually true.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 01:15AM)
Absolutely correct!

What Scratch and I were debating wasn't the same as what I was debating with acesover, who seems to be interpreting "proof" as something that proves a proposition to be "true." In the law it rarely does that. It simply creates a greater or lesser likelihood that a proposition is true.

A simple example, I can present evidence (or proof) to a court that someone has been missing for 7 years and thus get a ruling that the person is legally dead. Of course he may not be dead at all. He could just be on the down low in Costa Rica. But for legal purposes I have proven him dead.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the scientific proof that has been advanced in the global warming debate.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 01:18AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 02:10, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
I still disagree with your views. You are a Deist, correct?
[/quote]

A Thomas Paine style Deist exactly as he described it in "The Age of Reason."

But I freely admit I could be wrong. So what's to disagree with?
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 02:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 02:18, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 02:10, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
I still disagree with your views. You are a Deist, correct?
[/quote]

A Thomas Paine style Deist exactly as he described it in "The Age of Reason."

But I freely admit I could be wrong. So what's to disagree with?
[/quote]

Not so much a disagreement as a question. If you are willing to accept there is no god now, why not take the leap and accept the possibility that there never was?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 03:26AM)
I don't accept that there is no God now. While one form of Deism holds the view that God created the Universe and then pretty much abandoned it, Paine doesn't take it that far. In fact, he readily accepts, as do I, that God could communicate directly with man if He had a desire to:

[quote]As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.[/quote]

Here are some relevant quotes from the Age of Reason that pretty much summarize what I believe. The complete text of the book can be found at http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

[quote]The circumstance that has now taken place in France of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.

As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.[/quote]

In other words, Paine was hardly an atheist. Nor am I. I believe that the evidence for God lies in his creation. Paine wrote "The Age of Reason" for the specific purpose of STOPPING the spread of atheism in France.

In his summary he wrote:

[quote]I have said, in the first part of the Age of Reason, that "I hope for happiness after this life." This hope is comfortable to me, and I presume not to go beyond the comfortable idea of hope, with respect to a future state.

I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that he will dispose of me after this life consistently with his justice and goodness. I leave all these matters to him, as my Creator and friend, and I hold it to be presumption in man to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter.

I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child, that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made, in eternal existence hereafter. It is in his power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in our power to decide which he will do.

The book called the New Testament, which I hold to be fabulous and have shown to be false, gives an account in the 25th chapter of Matthew, of what is there called the last day, or the day of judgment. The whole world, according to that account, is divided into two parts, the righteous and the unrighteous, figuratively called the sheep and the goats. They are then to receive their sentence. To the one, figuratively called the sheep, it says, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." To the other, figuratively called the goats, it says, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Now the case is, the world cannot be thus divided — the moral world, like the physical world, is composed of numerous degrees of character, running imperceptibly one into the other, in such a manner that no fixed point of division can be found in either. That point is no where, or is every where. The whole world might be divided into two parts numerically, but not as to moral character; and, therefore, the metaphor of dividing them, as sheep and goats can be divided, whose difference is marked by their external figure, is absurd. All sheep are still sheep; all goats are still goats; it is their physical nature to be so. But one part of the world are not all good alike, nor the other part all wicked alike. There are some exceedingly good; others exceedingly wicked. There is another description of men who cannot be ranked with either the one or the other — they belong neither to the sheep nor the goats.

My own opinion is, that those whose lives have been spent in doing good, and endeavouring to make their fellow-mortals happy, for this is the only way in which we can serve God, will be happy hereafter: and that the very wicked will meet with some punishment. This is my opinion. It is consistent with my idea of God's justice, and with the reason that God has given me.[/quote]



Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 04:14AM)
That would explain my confusion on some of your posts. I thought you were a Deist in the "traditional" sense. My confusion is officially over. :)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 12, 2012 05:34AM)
[quote]I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy[/quote]

A paraphrase no doubt of Micah 6:8.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 06:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 02:15, mastermindreader wrote:
Absolutely correct!

A simple example, I can present evidence (or proof) to a court that someone has been missing for 7 years and thus get a ruling that the person is legally dead. Of course he may not be dead at all. He could just be on the down low in Costa Rica. But for legal purposes I have proven him dead.

That has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the scientific proof that has been advanced in the global warming debate.
[/quote]

That example is so clear and obvious that I'm ashamed I haven't used that argument myself. Do you mind if I steal that for future reference?
Message: Posted by: Ken Northridge (Jul 12, 2012 06:44AM)
[quote]On 2012-07-11 17:53, stoneunhinged wrote:

But I do think (really) that religious conservatives are more likely to have a knee-jerk reaction to doubt anything and everything that they perceive as being touted by the liberals. If the liberals hug trees, then religious conservatives think that tree-hugging is evil.

If the liberals take up the banner of combatting global warming, then global warming is good.

My accusation is this: religious conservatives tend to view the opponent's views as wrong, rather than viewing the wrongness of their opponent's views.

On a personal note: Ken, you know I'm on your side. I'm just asking you to think a bit outside the box.
[/quote]

It is true there are many on both sides seem to go along with every position their side takes without thinking it through. I guess because they think their being good liberals, or good conservatives. This is why I especially enjoy debating with people like you, Stone. You don’t do that. And I try not to do that either. I honestly don’t think I fall into the category you’ve described, the people that just view their opponents as wrong.

Another frustration of mine with liberals is the perception that they ‘care’ more, (hence the term bleeding heart liberal) and because they care more they are smarter and better people. They care about global warming so they are better. It doesn’t matter if there is no practical solution, and when people point that out they are branded as heartless and ignorant.

[quote]
On 2012-07-12 01:22, stoneunhinged wrote:
To the religious conservatives: I still don't get your position that God is big and powerful enough to take care of the planet all by himself. True enough, but isn't that like making a huge mess in your bedroom and saying, "mom will clean it all up"? Why turn God into our housekeeper?
[/quote]

Would mom be a good mom if she continued to clean up the room? What lesson would be learned? I don’t think God works like that either. God has alternate ways to ensure his will is done. Of course, we can’t possibly understand God completely. Who could? His is the infinite intelligence. Some things we have to take on faith, all the while trying to do good, and yes, CARING about others and the earth.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 12, 2012 07:55AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-11 18:21, Slide wrote:
""Fundamentalist" Christian as opposed to what?!?!?! "

Non-fundamentalist christians.

That was easy.

Tell me Clinton: how do you perceive the Westboro Baptist church?
[/quote]

"Fundamentalist Christians" are followers of Christ who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that a "new birth" which occurs when they believe in Christ as Savior and Lord. To the world this may be viewed as radical, but is very basic to the Christian faith. Jesus said “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’" He also said that believers should regard themselves as servants of all.

As for the Westboro group, they are simply a nutjob family who are no more Christians by practice than this magnolia tree sitting outside my window. There is no love there. There is no servant attitude. To take one fringe group like them and to extrapolate them into the caricature of fundamentalist Christianity is equivalent with saying that all African Americans are gang members or all Latinos are lazy. It is wrong and hateful. Of course, the stories of the fundamentalist Christians who spend their time and money to dig village wells in Africa, or provide medical services in Central America, or provide money and time to a hurting family without any recognition, or help to rebuild a city or neighborhood following a disaster never seem to make the front page, because those stories are the wrong kind of "sensational".

You can probably nitpick and argue all sorts of situations out of context to "prove" that the majority of fundamentalist Christians are like Westboro. Heck, you can probably even find research that "proves" the Earth is flat or that all atheists will eventually end up in prison, but that doesn't make it so.

Since I am contributing to this topic being off the rails, I will bow out of this discussion.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 12, 2012 09:36AM)
Ah, don't bow out. It's not off the rails. This forum [i]has no rails[/i]. And you made your case pretty well. It has always been obvious to me that intolerance is usually only practiced in one direction--toward those we have some sympathy for. People who consider themselves free of bigotry and hatred will say the nastiest things about believers of other faiths. It's very peculiar.

I don't usually ever step in to defend Woland, because he does a fine job defending himself, but it's interesting to me that his assertion that the word "fascism" is used pejoratively rather than accurately is entirely correct. Likewise, the "right" uses "left" as pejorative, and vice versa. Then we make inaccurate connections such as "liberal" is "left", and "fascist" is "right", and we start blurring the language for political purposes rather than precise exchanges of ideas.

In the same exact way, the term "fundamentalist" is almost always used pejoratively by those who do not consider themselves fundamenalists. So regardless of what the Westboro group believes or doesn't believe, and regardless of its heritage or pedigree or history, calling the group "fundamentalist" is meant to be bad and an obvious indication of their strangeness and dangerousness.

And to Bob: I noticed that you were silent regarding my own Heritage Foundation fellowship. I was never asked to write, think, say, teach, perform any task that was not inspired by my own intellectual volition. Now, that may have been two decades ago, and the foundation itself might have lost its bearings. But intellectually dishonest it was not. And the reason I made it personal was precisely because you are doing the very same thing of making the name itself the proof of its lack of integrity rather than making any substantive argument whatsoever. I'm not particularly proud of the association with Heritage, but neither am I ashamed. Your comments imply that I should be; yet I have always gotten the impression that you respect me and my opinions. It would really be a shame to lose your respect for something on my resume (though it's not on my resume, precisely because of views such as yours). You can do better, Bob, and you know it.

We all can. We all slip now and again in this forum. But I think we keep coming back because we give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 09:49AM)
I think very well of you, Jeff, so no offense was intended. If anything my respect for you has grown immensely since I've been here at NVMS.

My point about Heritage is based solely on its current primary sources of funding and that they were, in fact, used by Big Tobacco to provide "research" that that supposedly showed no link between cigarette smoking and cancer. It is no surprise to me, therefore, that they are also being subsidized to produce similar results regarding AGW.

That they may have at one time, or even currently, been involved in legitimate and substantive studies in other areas- I'm sure that they have. But there is no denying that they also are a highly partisan political think tank.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 12, 2012 09:56AM)
It’s just like ancient Rome, isn’t it?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 09:58AM)
No, it's not.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 12, 2012 10:12AM)
Bob why do you cling to something done in the sixties as proof of your viewpoint?

This is what I find upsetting. People use the most extreme views they can find in order to demonize the other viewpoint. The right does it with the president. First they call the president Obama (Or just Bush.) which fairly disrespectful. Then they say things like he is intentionally hurting the country, AND THEREFORE PEOPLE. Come on. Not right.

I can't disagree with the man more, but I in no way feel he is intentions are to hurt people. He is not a demon, he is a ideologue. So are most politicians. But why look for the worst and pin the viewpoint on them just to win some silly point? Same with president Bush, president Clinton, heck name a president.

Can we get past the ideology Bob? Why the constant deionization? It is what you accuse Fox of doing. And they do it, but so do you and a lot. Why not talk ideas instead of accusations? That is why this crap is so boring.

Einstein was wrong. Time slows as you approach this thread not the speed of light.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 10:23AM)
The tobacco research, which was also conducted by The Heartland Institute, an affiliated conservative think tank, was done in the 1990's NOT in the 1960's.

The CRC was another player:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Capital_Research_Center
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 12, 2012 10:27AM)
Well they all party and wine and *** around like the Romans, so what's the difference?

ie
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393341/EU-Commission-expense-scandal-Private-jets-Tiffany-jewellery-parties.html
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 10:32AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 11:27, tommy wrote:
Well they all party and wine and *** around like the Romans, so what's the difference?

ie
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393341/EU-Commission-expense-scandal-Private-jets-Tiffany-jewellery-parties.html
[/quote]

Ok. I'll concede that point. But we have better bands than the Romans did. (Caesar, I'm told, only knew two chords.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 12, 2012 11:13AM)
Robert Byrd was pretty high up in the kkk but that is throat I bet?

I think we should apply the exact same standards for those we disagree with a far as what we hold them too. But obviously everything you say is right down the middle and no ideology or attacks involved.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 11:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 12:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
But obviously everything you say is right down the middle and no ideology or attacks involved.
[/quote]

No, Danny. You are the one who pretends to be in the "middle." I freely admit to my liberal/progressive views. Proud of them, in fact.

And, yes, I frequently attack what I believe to be the regressive positions of the far right.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2012 11:36AM)
I thought you had previously said that we shouldn't piegonhole you as a liberal? But I'm glad that you admit to it. Now I just wish we could get MSNBC and all the rest to do the same! Shouldn't we all at least be honest where we are coming from?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 11:48AM)
Actually, what I was objecting to was being pigeonholed into a conservative stereotype of liberals. I am sure you would object to being pigeonholed into liberal stereotypes of conservatives, wouldn't you?

Think about it- I'm a liberal who believes in God and owns a gun. I didn't dodge the draft and I actually enjoy NASCAR.

Bob

(And, yes, I think that conservatives are just as American as black folks. :eek:)
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 11:55AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 12:48, mastermindreader wrote:
I didn't dodge the draft and I actually enjoy NASCAR.
[/quote]

Whereas I dodge cars and enjoy a draught.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 12:02PM)
NASCAR drivers draft cars. Some of them even draft Dodges.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 12:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 12:55, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 12:48, mastermindreader wrote:
I didn't dodge the draft and I actually enjoy NASCAR.
[/quote]

Whereas I dodge cars and enjoy a draught.
[/quote]

How does one dodge cars?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 01:00PM)
Quickly, if he wants to do it more than once.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Jul 12, 2012 01:03PM)
Just a simple side-step.
I believe a jump can also be used among the more experienced car dodging aficionados.
Message: Posted by: Jeff J. (Jul 12, 2012 01:04PM)
So it's like running with the bulls in Spain, except the bulls have engines?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2012 02:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 12:48, mastermindreader wrote:
Actually, what I was objecting to was being pigeonholed into a conservative stereotype of liberals. I am sure you would object to being pigeonholed into liberal stereotypes of conservatives, wouldn't you?

Think about it- I'm a liberal who believes in God and owns a gun. I didn't dodge the draft and I actually enjoy NASCAR.

Bob

(And, yes, I think that conservatives are just as American as black folks. :eek:)
[/quote]

Fair enough.

I didn't dodge the draft either but that's easier for me to say. The draft ended about two years before I turned 18. (However, I am considered a Vietnam War 'Era' veteran. So, did you serve? If so, where? Just curious.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 02:26PM)
Yes I did. I had a high draft number but I didn't realize that until after I enlisted and I was already in boot camp in November of '68. (!)

I did four years in the Navy (1968 - 1972) and then 2 years in the Reserves. I served with Command Submarine Flotilla 8 in the Mediterranian, at the Naval Security Group remote ELINT gathering site in Keflavik, Iceland, and at the Naval Security Station in Washington DC. Also did sea duty on the guided missle cruiser USS Josephus Daniels, the cruiser USS Little Rock and aboard the USS America.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 02:40PM)
Aw, I've always wanted to go to Iceland...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 02:41PM)
If you ever get there, tell 'em you knew Bobby Fischer.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 02:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 15:40, critter wrote:
Aw, I've always wanted to go to Iceland...
[/quote]

Was there for a year. One of the most beautiful places I've ever seen.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 02:43PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 14:00, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quickly...
[/quote]


What I would have said if I'd been here sooner :lol:
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 12, 2012 02:54PM)
I served 2 in the Army, (at the time I enlisted, they were going through a short phase where they were allowing the short 2 year enlistments.). Most of my time was served in Monterey where I spent most of my service wearing a George Washington style uniform with a tri-corner hat and marching in a color guard in various parades to celebrate the coming bicentenial. Hey! I just realized. Maybe that's why I identify strongly with the tea party! :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 12, 2012 02:58PM)
Bob I don't think anyone would question your love of country who has read more than one of your posts.

I question the.terms you choose to use to paint the opposition is all.

I hope you know I do respect you, if not your tactics for putting forth an opinion. I know nobody asked or said directly, but ghat is where these conversations go and I just want to get out in front of it.

I really wish we would look at people as individuals. Your fun owning NASCAR example is great.

I was against the war in Iraq. Not a typical conservative position. I also own guns, like NASCAR and so forth. I have always said that the two sides need to start a moderate party. Half from each existing party and get away from the extremes. I bet it would work.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 03:12PM)
Hear me out on this,
What if... instead of a two, or even three, party system... we had a NO party system? Can you imagine if each candidate had to be judged on their individual positions?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 03:20PM)
I appreciate the ideal. But money would still rule.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 12, 2012 03:51PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 16:12, critter wrote:
Hear me out on this,
What if... instead of a two, or even three, party system... we had a NO party system? Can you imagine if each candidate had to be judged on their individual positions?
[/quote]

... and imagine if campaign spending was limited to less than the salary for the position?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 12, 2012 03:58PM)
Ever read [i]The Federalist Papers[/i]?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 16:51, ClintonMagus wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 16:12, critter wrote:
Hear me out on this,
What if... instead of a two, or even three, party system... we had a NO party system? Can you imagine if each candidate had to be judged on their individual positions?
[/quote]

... and imagine if campaign spending was limited to less than the salary for the position?
[/quote]

Or if everyone were alotted the same predetermined ad-space.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 05:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 16:58, Woland wrote:
Ever read [i]The Federalist Papers[/i]?
[/quote]

Nope. Sounds like a plan.
Free link:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 05:27AM)
Yes, critter. You will find that the authors anticipated most of the issues we have been discussing, and devised the Constitutional system to address them within the limits of the aspirations of the Declaration.

A collection of [i]anti-Federalist[/i] papers has also been published recently, I think by the "Library of America."
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 09:01AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 06:27, Woland wrote:
You will find that the authors anticipated most of the issues we have been discussing....
[/quote]

Absolutely true. But what they did not envision (for they were not prophets) is that the #1 function of the modern state would be the re-distribution of wealth. To this fact the US is no exception. All modern states--all of them--have that primary function.

That's one reason I find the terminology so amusing. There is no substantive difference between the USA and any other western democracy on this point. Call it what you want. Sure, there are different priorities on how to spend the money (with the US spending much more on the military than the others), but that's just twiddling and fiddling with budgets.

Those who say, for example, that "socialism" arrived with Obama (seeming to forget, say, LBJ or FDR, or even Reagan and Bushes) obviously weren't paying any attention to their W2's before Obama began office.

Just for curiosity's sake, how much of YOUR paychecks end up in government coffers? I lose roughly a third of mine. I *do* pay a much higher sales tax than you do: 19%. That's why when I visit my sister in PA I take an empty suitcase. I buy virtually all of my clothes there, because PA has no sales tax on clothes. But that aside, I would say that the federal, state, and local governments where YOU live (and I mean regardless of where you live, unless it's China or North Korea, maybe) has its hands in your pockets just about as far as the German government has its hands in mine.

Oh! And don't forget Americans living abroad also must pay taxes in the US! I don't, because I earn well under the $95K exemption that I can claim. But anything above that is taxable. The only way to get out of it would be to renounce my American citizenship. Since most people who renounce American citizenship do so to avoid taxes, the fee is very high--currently $5,000. Interesting, huh?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 13, 2012 09:37AM)
If you make enough money to want to renounce your American citizenship, I suspect the fee seems quite the bargain compared with paying the taxes!
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 09:45AM)
That's apparently what the IRS thinks, too!

Before they came up with the new high fee, there was actually a moratorim on renouncels (is that a word?). The idea occured to me that this presented a technicality whereby I could apply for German citizenship (I ain't German, but I would like to vote here) without renouncing my American citizenship (something I would never do under any circumstances). My argument would have been that since it was not possible to renounce my American citizenship, that such a renouncel could not be legally demanded as a requirement for German citizenship.

Oh well. I can still vote in the US....
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 13, 2012 09:57AM)
I think it's "renouncement", but I really like your word. Sounds more uppity... :P
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 10:01AM)
I just looked it up. It's "renunciation". And the fee is only $450.

So much for "facts" thrown around the Internet. :)
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (Jul 13, 2012 10:17AM)
I still like "renouncels"...
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 12:09PM)
And I still like the $5,000 fee.

After I told the story, I was thinking to myself, "Maybe I can still apply for German citizenship without renounciating my American citizenship. I'll argue that the $5,000 is an unreasonable and unreachable financial burden."
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 12:47PM)
Thanks, Stone. Of course the Founders would have thought the idea of using governmental power to transfer money from people who produced it to people who didn't produce it pure evil.

And yhu're right about the tax bite, Stone. In 1938, Federal, State, and Local government combined consumed 15% of GDP. It's now nearly 40%. When you add up the people who are either employed by government or receiving government aid, there are only 1.25 workers in the private sector for each one of them. This is not sustainable.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 13, 2012 06:24PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 11:01, stoneunhinged wrote:
I just looked it up. It's "renunciation". And the fee is only $450.

So much for "facts" thrown around the Internet. :)
[/quote]

And did you notice how quickly we were willing to accept that little 'fact'?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 13, 2012 06:26PM)
At what point would you feel that the #1 function of the modern state became the re-distribution of wealth? At least here in the USA. I assume it would be different for different countries.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 06:41PM)
Assumes facts not in evidence - i.e. begs the question. Standard fallacious argument.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 08:17PM)
Almost the only country in the world that claims the right to tax its expatriate citizens on income earned abroad is the United States. I was once told the only other was the Philippines, and that was because they essentially copied the entire US tax code.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 08:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 19:26, rockwall wrote:
At what point would you feel that the #1 function of the modern state became the re-distribution of wealth? At least here in the USA. I assume it would be different for different countries.
[/quote]

To elaborate on my previous brief answer:

If the country did, in fact, commit to "redistributing the wealth" (to the poor) at some point in time, we would expect to see tax rates for the wealty and middle class to go UP after that point in order to facilitate the redistribution.

The fact is, however, that middle class and corporate tax rates are now LOWER than they were during previous administrations.

Thus, your entire premise fails. The only "redistribution" of wealth that has occurred has been upward- i.e. the wealthy have become much wealthier, the middle class has remained static (because wages haven't kept up with inflation) and the poor have become poorer. Today, income disparity between the rich and the middle class and poor is greater than it has ever been before.

You are simply going along with the right wing meme that paints efforts to stem that increasing disparity as "redistribution of the wealth." In fact those efforts are simply attempts to restore an equitable balance.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 13, 2012 08:47PM)
Actually, it wasn't my premise. It was Stoney's. I was just asking a followup question to his statement. I found his assertion interesting and worthy of thought. I'm not sure I agree with it completly but it seems to be more compelling than your attempt to dispute it.

I see a number of flaws in your argument. Re-distribution doesn't imply 'equal' re-distribution. If someone takes money from me and gives it to you, they are re-distributing the money despite the fact that I may make more than you and continue to make more than you. Most people living on the welfare state will never see their economic situation improve terribly much but it will still be very hard to change their dependence. Hence the term, 'keeping them on the plantation.'
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 09:07PM)
Like I expected you to agree with me? LOL!

"Keeping them on the plantation." Didn't Allen West popularize that phrase with the right?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 10:14PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 22:07, mastermindreader wrote:
Didn't Allen West popularize that phrase with the right?
[/quote]

Loved him in Batman.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 13, 2012 11:50PM)
Talking campy Batman would be far more interesting than this thread that's for sure.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jul 13, 2012 11:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 22:07, mastermindreader wrote:
Like I expected you to agree with me? LOL!

"Keeping them on the plantation." Didn't Allen West popularize that phrase with the right?
[/quote]

Actually, I think it was Dr. Thomas Sowell years ago. But nice try.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 12:03AM)
And West used it -for about the tenth time - just a week or so ago. But I don't dispute that he got the idea from someone else since he really isn't capable of original thought.

[quote]If West had simply said that sometimes liberals unfairly attack black conservatives by questioning their racial authenticity, suggesting that there’s some sort of “betrayal” involved with being black and conservative, he would have had a defensible argument. Instead he flatters himself and disparages the majority of blacks who vote Democratic by suggesting that they’re somehow slaves who haven’t escaped the liberal/Dem “plantation.” GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain recently said something similar, concluding that liberals don’t like him “because I won’t stay on the Democrat plantation like I’m supposed to.”

What makes West’s response particularly odd in this instance is that Wasserman-Schultz criticized West for wanting to cut Medicare. It was West who attacked Wassserman-Schultz on the basis of idetity politics, saying she is “not a lady,” as though her gender were even relevant to the issue.

The “plantation” canard is’t particularly new, but it’s worth unpacking in detail, because it points to the real role black conservatives play in the Republican Party. It’s not just that they have conservative views. Black Republicans often play a very specific role in defending the party’s record on race, and in putting Democrats on the defensive by accusing them of racism in expecting blacks to remain with the Democratic Party. In the process, some, like Cain and West, flatter conservatives by implying that black people vote for Democrats in such huge numbers not because of the GOP’s record on race, but because blacks have been tricked by Dems into not thinking for themselves. The role black Republicans play has nothing to do with winning over black voters Rather, it’s all about reassuring white Republicans that there’s nothing wrong with the party’s approach to racial issues. [/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/allen-west-and-the-plantation-card/2011/03/04/gIQAYajqRI_blog.html

Nice attempt to divert attention away from West's hate filled rants, though.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 03:26AM)
By "redistribution of wealth" I don't mean taxing the rich to give to the poor; I mean that the primary function of government is taxing and spending, and that is actually a redistribution of wealth. That this is the federal government's primary function is obivous to anyone who spent any time working for the federal government--which I did, if only as an Intern.

Take something like the Department of Education. What does it do? It implements programs and initiatives, which essentially are money grants with some kind of concept attached. Now, one might argue that the "concept" is the point, and it may very well be the "point". But the bureaucracy is geared up to process the funds. That's what the secretaries and the civil servants (who outnumber political appointees by far) actually do.

How long has this been the case? Ever since the federal government became the primary sovereign in the United States. So I'd say it's been the case since the Civil War. Some bugs had to be worked out during the FDR years. But it was over at least by then.

Oh, and Bob: you and I probably have closer political views than any other two people on this forum. So if you think I'm just spouting off the views of some right wing commentator (forgetting that I have a PhD in political philosophy, and probably am capable of manufacturing my own political views without help) you couldn't be more wrong. Laugably wrong, in fact.

The point I am making is precisely this: all modern states--including the USA--have bureaucracies in place to tax the citizens and spend that money on public services. So the idea that Obama is somehow turning American into a "socialist" state is absurd. Obama is no more a "socialist" than Ronald Reagan was--or, as I said, LBJ or FDR. The US has had expensive federal programs to give aid and assistance to its citizens for at least a century. A federalized health care system is only a new step in the same direction, and nothing more. Whether it is wise, practically speaking, I do not know; but it certainly is legitimate, for it in no way violates the principle of government by consent.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 03:30AM)
Oh oh oh oh!

I just saw that we have a thread on the Space Program (which I love!). Now, that may be one of the most massive "redistribution of wealth" activities ever taken up by the federal government...yet conservatives also love it. Go figure.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 03:39AM)
It also occurs to me that I might make myself clearer in two ways:

1. By "function" I mean "activity". What governments actually do is tax and spend. They do so on the basis of policies. But the day-to-day activity is 99% about the federal budget.

2. The amount of taxes coming from our paycheck was to make the simple point that governments are dealing with HUGE amounts of money. I get to decide how to spend 2/3's of my paycheck. The government decides not only how to spend the other third of my paycheck, but the other third of the paychecks of everyone in Germany who get paychecks. So the main activity of the German government is deciding how to spend that money. That is, by all logic inherent in the English words, "redistribution of wealth".
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 03:39AM)
How many posts can I make in a row before the Café bans me, BTW?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 03:44AM)
Four.

So I just threw this one in so you don't cross the line.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 03:50AM)
Crud. I was just about to post something about the Space Program thread here, just to get to five. I guess maybe I [i]could[/i] say something about the Space Program thread in...ah...the Space Program thread. So the damage wasn't too great. So you're OK this time, Bob.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 03:51AM)
Actually, Jeff, I have never thought you are just spouting off ideas from the right. I generally agree with you as well (unless I'm feeling particularly ornery). And I'm glad you clarified what you meant by "redistribution of the wealth." Unfortunately, the phrase is now usually used as a pejorative to suggest that liberal ideas on fair taxation, etc., are somehow part of a socialist plot to steal from the rich.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 05:46AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 04:51, mastermindreader wrote:
Unfortunately, the phrase is now usually used as a pejorative to suggest that liberal ideas on fair taxation, etc., are somehow part of a socialist plot to steal from the rich.
[/quote]

Which is exactly why I chose to use the phrase. If there[i]is[/i] a socialist plot, it's at least as old as the term "progressivism", and a century ago the most "progressive" candidate--Woodrow Wilson--was elected to be President of the USA. He may have been the most liberal (I think he was), but Taft and Roosevelt (anyone remember the "square deal"?) were also solidly progressive.

Ain't nothing truly new happening these days. FDR would have nationalized health care in a heartbeat, and he would have been LOVED for it. Obama is really getting an undeserved bad rap when he is accused of somehow tilting the country toward socialism. That happened 100 years ago.

BTW: which thread is this, anyway? Isn't this the global warming thread? What does Obama have to do with global warming?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 06:24AM)
The primary function of government is to ensure the power of one class of people over the others. Not making a value judgment here (though I certainly have my opinions!), and it takes many forms (the political, economic, military, and judicial structures). How the wealth is distributed is only one aspect of that function.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 06:42AM)
Good one-line paraphrase of Karl Marx there, landmark.

Stone, the socialist ideal is as old as Plato, if not older. From the "Republic," through St. Thomas More's "Utopia," Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backwards," to "OWS," with asides in the Inca Empire, Bockelson's Munster, and appearances such as we find in Babeuf, Proudhon, and of course iots manifestations as Marxism-Leninism, National-Socialism, Fascism -not to mention, since you already have, the avowedly anti-Constitutional statist Woodrow Wilson, and of course FDR -- the story is always the same: put everything in society, from what work people do to what clothes they wear, under the supervision of a properly qualified elite and (as even in Bellamy's supposedly kindler, gentler version) kill anyone who resists. From Plato on, the social imperatives are the same: military enforcement of the decisions of the elite, abolition of the family and the breeding of different orders of people in an industrialized fashion, abolition of private property, and, ultimately tyranny, war, poverty, and the stifling of individual freedom and cultural expression.

The ornithologist and natural historian Alexander F. Skutch writes in one of his wide-ranging essays, that one of the most striking things about the living world, as opposed to the non-living world, is that life exists in the form of individuals. Living beings are discrete individuals, even single cell organisms are separated from their environment and from each other by their cell membranes. A vein of granite in the earth does not exist as individuals of granite, it is a seamless sheet of rock, from which individuals can't be identified.

With that in mind, it is possible to see the underlying emotional/belief current of the socialist ideal as an attempt to obliterate individual living consciousness, and merge into a mass of humanity that is, however, like the mass of granite, not alive, soulless, and mute. Since it denies individuality, and in true Darwinian fashion, exalts the survival of only a class of what once were individual people, it is no wonder that the socialist (or if you prefer, statist) totalitarian tyrannies so often decide to advance along "the shining path" towards those "tomorrows that sing" by annihilating whole classes of people.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 14, 2012 07:02AM)
According to the birds and the bees for life to go on there must be more than an individual. :)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 07:28AM)
Quite so, landmark, but still, individuals. Not a mass, a class, or "genre humain," if you know what I mean, and I think you do . . .
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 07:32AM)
That was tommy, but he expressed my thoughts well. We live only in the duality of our individual and social natures, as does all life. A liver cell is meaningless, as is a human being in isolation from all other life.

[quote]Good one-line paraphrase of Karl Marx there, landmark. [/quote]
Marx was wrong about a bunch of things. I don't think he was wrong about that--though I'm not using class in the economic Marxist sense.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 07:39AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 07:42, Woland wrote:
Good one-line paraphrase of Karl Marx there, landmark.

[/quote]

Precisely correct. And I think Marx was precisely incorrect. But I won't get into it here: it would take hours, and no one cares, anyway. I'm not anti-Marx because he was some kind of Godless Communist, but because his epistemology and ontology were wrong. In fact, he had them exactly backwards, because he was trying to be anti-Hegel and Hegel's epistemology and ontology were correct. But I sure as heck ain't gonna start giving Hegel vs. Marx lectures at the Magic Café. It suffices to say that it has nothing to do with "left" or "right" or "liberalism" or "conservativism". Marx was simply wrong. And since he was wrong, a good deal of what he wrote and thought was wrong. And reducing an analysis of political power to class conflict is one of those wrong things.

Woland, the sad thing about your list is that I interpret Plato as actually warning us AGAINST the very thing you describe. [i]The Republic[/i] is sort of philosophic theater piece in which Socrates shows how far you need to go to achieve something like political perfection. You would have to go so far, in fact, that people cease being people, exactly as you suggest. It's a powerful message that few people seem to get from the book anymore. More's [i]Utopia[/i] is the same, I think, but I've never read it so I don't really have an interpretation.

But the deeper issue is what I keep describing as "legitimacy". There is no reason that democratic socialism (i.e., socialism by consent rather than the state enforcing it against the will of the people) is automatically illegitimate. Or would you disagree with that statement?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 07:44AM)
Didn't expect you or Woland to agree. I would however, like you to point to a country that does not put one group of people's interests (okay? so I'll avoid using class which is a loaded term for y'all) above others and uses the mechanisms of the state to enforce their interests.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 07:50AM)
How to explain history, and the rise and fall of nations and civilizations, is enduringly interesting. Although I have not re-read it recently, when I was an adherent of what I understood to be Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-tung Thought, I admired the illustration of Karl Marx's historical theory presented by Peter Farb, in his book, [i]Man's Rise to Civilization As Shown by the Indians of North America from Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State[/i]. He starts from the observation, that at the time of European contact, North America was home to hundreds of varying native cultures, that varied in their apparent complexity, from small bands of impoverished hunter-gatherers who lived from day to day with nearly no technology and a social organization limited to that of small bands, on the one hand, to complex, hierarchical, empires such as that of the Aztecs, who lived in large cities and had a variety of social political institutions that included, but were not limited to, tribes, subject nations, and the ruling elites. Farb attempted to explain this variety by appealing to Marx's theories about class struggle, and the development of more complex social structures as populations grew and different classes of people emerged. Interesting, but I don't think that explains the whole story.

The theory of successive class struggles leading to increasingly complex social forms is also portrayed, as I'm sure you know, (and perhaps more entertainingly) in Bertolt Brecht's [i]Der gute Mensch von Sezuan[/i].

Marx's adaptation of the Hegelian dialectic to the purposes of historical explication makes for an appealing and engaging story. Much as Freud's literary criticism of the (hi)stories his patients told him can be adapted easily to the explication of any other narratives. But in both cases, I wonder if the evidence is really there.

I would add, that the deliberate characterization of democratic political institutions as "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" (which they are not) provided excellent cover for the establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- which it was likewise not, but it certainly was and is a dictatorship.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 07:50AM)
Wait wait wait wait, Landmark. You're conflating a couple of concepts here. What you just said I would agree with. To "use the mechanism of the state to enforce their interests" is political power, not government. I was making a specific comment about what the state actually [i]does[/i] for its citizens, which is to provide goods and services (not just education and roads and stuff, but also policing and military functions) which are paid for by the citizens. That's what the state does.

Now, sovereignty, law, power, politics...those are something else.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 07:54AM)
Hi Stone,

[quote]Woland, the sad thing about your list is that I interpret Plato as actually warning us AGAINST the very thing you describe. The Republic is sort of philosophic theater piece in which Socrates shows how far you need to go to achieve something like political perfection. You would have to go so far, in fact, that people cease being people, exactly as you suggest. It's a powerful message that few people seem to get from the book anymore. More's Utopia is the same, I think, but I've never read it so I don't really have an interpretation.[/quote]

I hope you are right about Plato, and More, but I think that there is not that satirical purpose in Bellamy.

Your comments about Marx as an anti-Hegelian are interesting. I think here the philosophical debate or struggle between the right-Hegelians and the left-Hegelians is an important aspect of XIXth and XXth century European intellectual history.

It was through a Marxist left-Hegelian, Alexandre Kojeve, that Hegel was finally introduced to French philosophy, as I am sure you know. It was through Kojheve's lectures that Merleau-Ponty and Sartre absorbed the Marxist dialectic. And Kojeve was one of the major architects of the European Union.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 07:55AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 08:50, Woland wrote:

Marx's adaptation of the Hegelian dialectic to the purposes of historical explication makes for an appealing and engaging story.
[/quote]

Or, rather, fairy tale. :)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 07:59AM)
Hi landmark,

Political power is always used by those who have it to enforce their will on those who don't have it. No less in the Soviet Union or Castro's Cuba than anywhere else. Marx thought that the advent of democratic reforms and representative government in Europe enabled the "Burgerlicheklasse," or "bourgeoisie," that is the non-noble owners of mines, factories, and farms, to constitute a ruling class and overthrow the rule of the hereditary nobility or aristocracy. I think that is however missing the point.

And it was precisely because they understood that political power is always used by those who have it, to enforce their will on those who don't, that the American founders crafted a [i]federal[/i] structure for a national government, and attempted strictly to limit the powers and abilities of the government they established, dividing its functions in executive, legislative, and judicial branches, none of which was supposed to overpower the others on its own.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 08:02AM)
Woland, yes, I've read Kojeve on Hegel. But long before I was confronted with European intellectuals first hand. And unfortunately, I lost that book.

You've probably already figured out that I think a couple of threads of European philosophy lead directly back to the rejection of Hegel. There's the Hegel-Marx-neo-Marxist-Frankfurter School-critical theory-post-structuralism thread, which begins with rejecting Hegel. Then there's the Hegel-Nietzsche-Existentialist-Heidegger-relativism thread, which begins with rejecting Hegel. Throw Freud into the mix and you get the political and philosophical (or rather, anti-philosophical) nonsense that is cancerous among European intellectuals.

Therefore I think what needs to be done is that we need to go back to assess Hegel. He's either the source of the disease or the solution. He might even be both, if you can figure that one out.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 14, 2012 08:05AM)
Stay on roof. Batman?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 08:10AM)
Thanks, Stone. Agree about Hegel and his epigones, completely. As undergraduates, my friends and I were amused that Schopenhauer felt himself driven from the university when his lectures, which he deliberately scheduled to conflict with Hegel's, went nearly totally unattended.

Tell us more about the rejection of Hegel, since at least on the left, those you identify as anti-Hegelians would have claimed to be Hegelians, no?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Jul 14, 2012 08:43AM)
Stone, Woland...

Way to ruin a perfectly good incendiary thread by devolving into polite philosophical/historical musings. Now let's get back on track and start bashing each other over global warming.


Ron
:)
Message: Posted by: wulfiesmith (Jul 14, 2012 12:26PM)
What summer?
perhaps it is the build-up to the Mayan Calendar?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 02:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 08:59, Woland wrote:
Hi landmark,

Political power is always used by those who have it to enforce their will on those who don't have it. No less in the Soviet Union or Castro's Cuba than anywhere else. Marx thought that the advent of democratic reforms and representative government in Europe enabled the "Burgerlicheklasse," or "bourgeoisie," that is the non-noble owners of mines, factories, and farms, to constitute a ruling class and overthrow the rule of the hereditary nobility or aristocracy. I think that is however missing the point.

And it was precisely because they understood that political power is always used by those who have it, to enforce their will on those who don't [the American founders]...

[/quote]Up to here we agree. The idealization of the American experiment as a distribution of power among everyone is romantic fantasy however. It's not really a matter of opinion that the founders did not give political power to anyone but Caucasian males at best. In the very creation of the country, a certain vested interest (I won't use the word class okay?) was working to preserve its own power. In that particular way, the United States was and is like every other government.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 09:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
Stay on roof. Batman?
[/quote]
Either that's an autocorrect gremlin or a brilliant absurdist reply.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 03:44PM)
Hi landmark, I think you are missing the point. Of course the United States (i.e. Federal) government is in many ways - more than just in one particular way - similar to every other government - after all, it is . . . . a government. The intention of the Founders was not "a distribution of power among everyone," but to limit the power of the Federal government, giving it the bare minimum power it would need to fulfill its functions . . . more power than the national government had under the Articles of Confederation (which served the Nation for 9 years, under 8 Presidents before Washington), but still less than any other national government before or since. The governmental power was to be equally divided among executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and the legislative branch was divided in two, with Congress granted only strictly enumerated powers -- as Madison argued time and again. The subversion of the ideal of a divided Federal governmen, as shown by the fact that since the time of FDR, SCOTUS has supported the Congress to vitiate the notion of enumerated powers, is the reason we have such a problem with a bloated, corrupt, inefficient, and imperial central (how "Federal" is it, anymore, really?) government.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 15, 2012 12:24AM)
Believe it or not, I do know about the three branches of govt, but thanks for the tour.

The question was what is the function of govt and I replied: to protect the interests of certain people.

Your reply about how the Constitution was designed to limit the Federal government's power ignores that in the creation of that document some people were awarded power and others were not. There would not be a document that did not do that. Period. This is the whole of my contention.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 15, 2012 06:58AM)
Hi landmark, the point is that the Founders thought long and hard about political power. They understood that you can't remove people or power from the equation. They understood that political power can be used to protect the interests of certain people, though that is not its only function. They also knew that they were living in the real world. So, instead of creating a utopian system, that they knew would end in tyranny as utopian systems always do, they devised a limited government. It's too bad that utopianists (including TR, Wilson, and FDR) subverted their intentions.

And the Constitution did not "award" power to some people. It limited the power of the grandees and magnates just as it limited the power hoi polloi, the proletariat, and the lumpenproletariat.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 15, 2012 09:57AM)
Of course it did. Some white males could vote, others couldn't.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 15, 2012 10:07AM)
Those limitations on suffrage were already in place. The Constitution did not "award" power to those who could vote, and in fact, it limited the extent to which they could wield the power that they already had.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 15, 2012 10:11AM)
Here's a question for you, landmark: let's say that the Declaration of Indepedence didn't exist. Do you think we would have had a Civil War?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jul 15, 2012 10:12AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 15:26, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 09:05, Dannydoyle wrote:
Stay on roof. Batman?
[/quote]
Either that's an autocorrect gremlin or a brilliant absurdist reply.
[/quote]

It started as the former, but once I actually saw it I thought why not use it as the latter?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 15, 2012 10:40AM)
Hi My Mystoffeles,

What would have happened if the South had won the Civil War, had been defeated very early on in the Civil War (i.e. before the Emancipation Proclamation), or if there had been no Civil War -- those are all explored in different historical novels, including one by Newt Gingrich. I've thought a bit about that myself. I started thinking about a young American (USA) diplomat, taking a train from Washington to Richmond, capital of the CSA, in 1914, to try to prevent both sides from getting involved in The Great War - the USA on the side of Germany (given the USA's huge German-immigrant populations in the northwest, i.e. the current upper midwest), and the CSA on the side of Britain and France (with which it had its major trading relationships.) And the after-effects of the bitter, violent slave revolt of the 1890s in the background . . .
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 15, 2012 12:21PM)
We have little bit of sun here today as it happens. My son gave me a bicycle and feel like kid again.