JerrySeinfeld

I'd say a 1,000-soldiers-per-year is worth creating the toilet that is currently flushing most of the Iran and Syrian military power which would certainly be otherwise employed. Let's keep it going boys! As for civilian deaths, we'll balance that against the average number per year under Saddam and call it a wash. No it wouldn't. All it requires is a herd mentality among reporters. BTW "vast left wing conspiracy" is again a straw man argument: nobody ever called it that. Which brings me back to messaging: perhaps if your side was able to articulate its ends in something other than banalities about "staying the course" and "long wars" or outright nonsense like "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" then people would clue in. But when the PUSA himself is incapable of defining just what the hell they are doing there, how do you think people will react? Yes - because negotiation / "diplomacy" have worked soooooo well for decades A nuclear weapon might be a good solution for Iran. This topic isn't ONLY about Iraq. It's about global warming. It's about gay marriage. It's about abortion. I don't even agree with "conservatives" on all of these issues - such as abortion. However it's completely obvious that the left OWNS the media turf on these issues to the point where many people see the left position as "mainstream". For example: if someone made a movie about some realities of gay lifestyle which are not very flattering, perhaps painting in a negative light, as opposed to the "fashion shows, home decorating and sensitive" drivel we're fed right now, it CERTANILY wouldn't be viewed as mainstream. To the contrary it would be viewed as hate speech - even though it might be a completely accurate depiction of many gays' lives.

This is total strawman. No one is saying that. But certainly this is a long term struggle not fit for ADD electorate and media. Why does there have to be something it it for them? Most reporters are gut instinct left wingers. Maybe en masse media members are just plain dumb like hollywood? Perhaps it has something to do with the dumbing-down effect: Mainstream reporters often have to boil stories down to "whats happening today and how is it affecting your mood TODAY." Certainly that's not condusive to long-term visionary thinking. As well, media does well to feed the public appetite for simplistic solutions and things that "feel good". Short term, "feel good" ideas are the left's specialty. But really, you should be telling me what's in it for the media. Your side is the one manipulating the situation.

ahh - so typical of the short-sighted lefty. Stay tuned - the war is only about 1/5 toward it's completion point and we're already talking "exit strategy". The true job woouldn't be complete for another 10-15 years. As Bush once called it the "long war" - not a great name for ADD lefties without vision. The problem with a democracy with a liberal bias in the media is that the war story gets old after about 2 years. Then we start talking "exit strategy". SO in terms of actualt "policy", you're getting your ADD lefty media wish: "War while it's a good news story - exit strategy when the ratings drop"

You make a VERY interesting point, Betsy. The answer is in yuor question though: the Mullahs, Imams and other zealots are very educated about our overtolerant self-hating society and they're COUNTING on our ultimate acquiescence.

Even if he is replaced that won't get people their money back. Probably not. Sure it will.

Uh...Jerry? This is a discussion forum. You know: for discussion? There's no logical correlation between the amount of discussion a topic generates and the veracity of the premises. (Shit, by that logic 9-11 was totally an inside job!!!) Indeed, the durability of the topic stands at odds with your premise: if people were trying to silence you, then no one would have responded to your whining in the first place, instead of trying-futilely-to engage you in an discussion of ideas. Again: disagreement with =/= "silencing". A child can tell the difference. Which reminds me: what are you doing back here so soon? Is it recess time already? Again: discussion forum. Talking about, responding to and disagreeing with your opinions is not the same as "kyboshing," "oppressing," or whatever other term you want to use to describe your fantasy conspiracy that must be at the heart of your opinions' unpopularity. Indeed, the fact you've been posting as long as you have is a testament to the enduring power of free speech. Let me put in this way: I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in the past and will say in the future, but I will vigorously defend you're right to be constantly wrong. After all, if you weren't here, I'd have to find some other chucklehead to wind up and PolyNewbie isn't nearly as entertaining. I presume for you, "discussion forum" means "calling people names like idiot" or "showing funny pictures with your adversary's nickname pointing to the picture"? I love the left

Wow. I know if I must be doing something right if this many hillarys start wetting their beds over my topic. Not to mention the namecalling and temper tantrums are obvious irony that they're proving my point about the kyboshing of others' opinions.

A secular progressive is the same thing as a cultural Marxist. Cultural Marxism is economic Marxism translated into cultural terms. A secular progressive is someone with no religion (secular) who champions and accepts any lifestyle without regard for accountability or social traditions or norms. They love the gay community, the pot smoking community, the NAMBLA community, the porn community....basically any subvert wierdo group that chooses to call itself a community. Secular progressive embrace change for the sake of change. In a strange and unintentional contradiction, secular progressives also love embrace other, non-western societies (ie. Muslims) which make western conservatism look like a gay pride parade.

(sigh) I've addressed this before. Your arguments are one sided and incorrect, pure and simple. The problem I have is that, unlike lefty bedwetters sitting in their pyjamas in their mother's basement, I don't have the time to sit, cut, paste all day long to squash your every pissy attempt at credibility. Your last post was almost an entire page, and as I have said before, your argument style is very difficult to attack due to the immense amount of time it takes to cut and paste each little one-line rant and respond to it while still maintaining some degree of comprehensiveness for the other readers on this forum. Suffice it to say the amount of time and energy you have spent in trying to kybosh every idea that someone else posits is evidence enough of my premise. I look forward to seeing the fruits of your next cut--paste-and-contradict project sometime in the afternoon. Sincerely, The oppressed opinions on the right

That's like poopooing blacks for avoiding KKK meetings.

But I should take YOU seriously? Just today in the front page of the Vancouver Sun I saw a great headline about the impending "climate refugee" crisis. I don't even have to read the article to know how laugh-out-loud funny it's going to be. Al Gore shows clips of glaciers tumbling into the ocean, as if to imply doom and gloom and that it isn't a common and long-known-about phenomenon with many glaciers on a seasonal basis - not to mention that glaciers thousands of years ago have receded far further back than they currently have. Are you telling me, BD, that HUMAN CAUSED climate change is an indisputable fact? That the only solution to Iraq is withdrawal? That WITHOUT A DOUBT radical Islam is not a major threat to the west? If you are, YOU are the one not to be taken seriously, because NONE of the above can be discernably proven with evidence. They are all a matter of opinion. Now stop trying to silence other opinions you lefty TYRANT OUCH But, as with your predecessors throwing rocks on the streets of Seattle...me thinks thou doth protesteth too much HA! If you think EVERY muslim trouble story isn't IMMEDIATELY followed with the obligatory "but most muslims are moderate - no jihad to see here" routine the lefty media dreams up - you're living in a dreamworld, doggy. You're missing the point: The media has spun the situation so far to the left, that most everyone thinks the basic truism is that we have to leave Iraq soon. Now tell me: wouldn't leaving Iraq now result in even MORE civil strife and violence than we are already experiencing? If things suck there now with the limited number of troops...how much worse will they suck when we LEAVE? SEE? Alternative viewpoints. Try it. Your evidence is weak - in particular on the point about Chapters not stocking his book. To be frank, the Post articla edoesn't really adress that issue AT ALL. But it's good to see you're consistent wih your ad hominem fallacies

Many times on this forum I have put forth the idea that the left is the new Tyranny of Ideas, jamming their partisan viewpoints down our throats as "conventional wisdom". This is largely helped by the fact that Hollywood types make Jack Layton look like Fidel Castro. But it goes deeper into our "news" media as well. While lefties adore the idea that they're "fighting the power", that they are "on the outside" "alternative thinkers" (another Hollywood trait), in reality nowadays it appears it is truly right wing thinkers who provide new, alternative viewpoints and challenge convenational thinking. Think about it: What kind of film would truly put the director's life in danger: a film about gay cowboys? (it was made) or a film about gay Muslims? (would NEVER get made by hollywood) A film about McCarthyism? (was made) or a film questioning global warming? (never would be made by hollywood). Now, Mark Steyn has done a good job of articluating this concept in a column. Here is the article. And here is a good excerpt: Try to avoid your ad hom personal thoughts about the author, and make your responses relevant to the points at hand.

and now I'm going to really shear you (it must be a slow day - I can't believe I'm actually engaging in this conversation): From Popular Mechanics: FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage. Also: FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" Link with pictures

Your claim certainly wouldn't resonate with the family member of the dead passengers.

I can't begin to describe the beautiful irony of that statement, with regards to "stupidity".

They're both left wing ninnies as far as I'm concerned. Seriously. We need a real right wing party in this country.

I have a question: If Hillary becomes President, will the "women are oppressed" crowd finally shut up?

I beg to differ. Think of it form another point of view for a minute - and this is actually the crux of why I started this thread: It's the mainstream's rush to climate change as a human caused phenomenon that is irration and nutty, not those who step back and listen to sober second thought. All the "skeptics" are doing is questioning the validity of a theory and presenting alternative viewpoints. That is good, healthy and scientific - as posited by the Scientific Method under the category of "falsifiability". Some climate change fanatics, like Guthrie, like to call the realists "Flat Earthers". But, using his own analogy, isn't today's climate change "believer" more like the flat earther?: The flat earthers were in the majority convinced of something so strongly that they refused to listen to any other scientific theories! And what did they do to Galileo when he presented an alternate theory, where he was clearly in the minority? Well, to quote BLACK DOG, they found his alternate viewpoints "wanting".

Great - and thank you. All I wanted to hear is that the octagonal earthers acknowledge that their theory is not the correct and proven one, but rather simply the one they've chosen to believe.

The onus isn't on me to prove anything. If you read the original post, I simply outline the scientific process and point out the simple facts that: 1. Global Warming, or Climate Change is a THEORY which lacks provable evidence and 2. Those who set their minds on one and ONLY one explanation for theories are close minded and compromising the integrity of the scientific process and are bordering more on "belief and religion" than on science. Now, for those of the "religious" - your arguments about who gets fnuding from where belong on another thread. For anyone else, please explain which one of the above two do you disagree with and why. Otherwise I'm finished taking your ad hom bait. Look up. Ahhh - DOGGY the great see-er of all factors climatological has spoken. All other scienntists must now bow down

Well, pumpkin, you weren't talking about political parties. You were making it sound like climate change skeptics are getting hearded into cattle cars and shipped off to camps. Have you considered that the climate change side has simply done a better job of selling their story in the marketplace of ideas? Probably not. To people like you, the only way you lose is if the other side is involved in some conspiracy. You an PolyNewbie should get together and have a "Noone understands us!" party. Right: because the government is in on it too. Meanwhile Exxon only has the truth at heart. Duh. It's called "marketing." You're just sad that no one's buying your snake oil despite the millions of bucks getting thrown at your pet cause by oil companies and right wing think tanks. Newsflash: you are not entitled to have your ideas accepted. Ah, see, you jump back and forth between climate change in particular and this nebulous concept of "all things left". Find an argument and stick to it. None of what you just said has any pertanance to the discussion - it's just willy nilly poopooing. This discusion is about SCIENCE and those who want to shut up the other side. You are so adamant to do so. Just open you mind to alternatives, and life will be better for all of us.

Given the absolute religion with which this THEORY has been adopted by ALL patries of the political spectrum I have to wonder what planet you're living on. But you're right, some minority oppressed people like me do question the CAUSE of climate change. "big business" is a vague airy scary term used by lefties that doesn't mean anything - unless you mean the few scientists in the world who don't get gov't gravy to perpetuate climate myths: As an old PJ O'Rourke quote goes: People with a missino to save the arth want the earth to seem much worse off than it is so their mission will seem more important" my addition: "and get the requisite funding to keep going" If you're trying to shovel more bullshit my stating that the MEDIA en masse is skeptical of global warming????!!!! you really have lost all credibility DOGGY. As for government, all I see is governments scrambling to adress the "climate change crisis" - so again, you appear out of touch with reality. Oh well - 0.01 out of thre ain't bad for a lefty self-pitier.

You need to read and understand my previous post: trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints. This is not only an ad hominem fallacy (something doggy is good at), BUT it also reeks of the left wing bullshit attitude that all things left are "alternative" and "oppressed" views of the world when, in reality, you're fighting battles you've already won long ago. You self-pitying mooks have been the oppressors of war against Terror, Islamic militants, and climate change skeptiks for years. It's funy that you don't even seem to grasp that is the point of this thread - the religion that is the left which can never be questioned. Don't you get it? It's now the right wing that is on the outside fighting the power, not you. Wake up already - it's not 1980 anymore.

I'm not the one MAKING the claim: you are.

is indefensible. where any of that first applies to Global warming is just here: "As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases." Thus we see, the body of knowledge on Global warming has begun bringing predictability and confidence --- it is at that same place that science was at after the return of Columbus --- the evidence for a round earth was there and all but incontravertable --- all that's left is clearing out the last of the flat earthers --- and of course, over 500 years later, there are still flat earthers, just as there are Global Warming deniers Given that there is plenty of SCIENCE and evidence that the earth has continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years IN THE ABSENCE of any help from humans, I'd say your comparison to "flat earthers" is, at best, a big stretch, and at worst, another obvious attempt to demonize anyone who presents an alternative viewpoint - a technique commonly used in dictatorships and cults. how does evidence that the earth has, "continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years," help the GW denials? whereas this - CNN Tech argues strongly that the flat earthers are already joined by the GW apologists You're not addressing my point. This is one group of scientists with one hypothesis. Alternative points of view are credible and factual. Besides, this reports seems to "confirm" that global warming is occuring - which is entirely possible. And it - and I quote - "suggests" there may be some human influence. This is far FAR from conclusive. Nice try, though. You still need to adress why you feel the need to silence the legitimate science on the other side of the discussion. By poopooing - you don't sound very SCIENTIFIC at all. My other question is this: Isn't this a vague problem with distant concequences that may or may not be controllable? Aren't terrorists killing people TODAY? Where do you stand on this very complex, and very REAL issue?