ScottSA

Ok, let's pretend there are millions of people who want "death to America"...how many millions of Americans would support a war against Iran? I don't know, but that's irrelevant. More appropo to ask how many Christians would support "a few Christian extremists" if they flew an airliner into lrge buildings in Riyadh or Tehran. Let's try to keep the apples seperate from the oranges. And I'd guess not many. I'd guess that no hockey rinks or football stadiums in the west would be full of chanting Christians shouting "Death to Muslims". What do you think?

You're quite obviously confused withing three (no two) step logical sequence. 1) You should not fight in a war unless you have to (and if and when you have to, you'll know it - there would be no need to suck non existing justifications out of a thumb). 2) If you do fight in such a war, you should not be complaining about the other party not respecting your rules. You had a choice to not be there, and chose otherwise. All bets are off. I think you're confused as to which debate you're bumbling around in, never mind the points of logic. You're the one who has been arguing that the US should be restrained in its actions so as not to emulate the enemy, but you seem to have lost the thread of the argument and are now arguing the opposite. I'm not the one complaining about not following the rules. You are. Look at the title and it may jog your memory.

Even if every single rumour WERE true, it makes no difference whatsoever. This kind of ad hominem is what conspiracy theorists and political assasins thrive on...one might as profitably argue that transatlantic flights are racist because Charles Lindburgh was a Nazi symp.

Woody, as usual you are spinning your wheels in deeper. First you simply make up the positions of your opponents, and then you label them erroneously. The Luddites were a group of folks who trashed machinery because it promised to destroy their livelyhood. Modern day Luddites are still trying to destroy the machines of the industrial revolution, just for different reasons. I mean really...you have some silly notion in your head that all we need to do is prop up a few windmills and then get rid of fossil fuels, and it shows both an abyssmal ignorance and a Luddite tendency.

We have scientific experts saying the collapse is impossible. You have nothing. The Zelikow Keane report doesn't go near it and the FEMA report says the official version has a "low probability of occurance". You in essence, have Bill O'Reilly and a variety of other presstitutes. Thats it. This is as far as Polly gets. I don't know why anyone bothers trying to educate him...reams of official documentation have been put in front of him debunking every single point he has come up with, and he reduces it all to "Bill O'reilly" and "presstitutes". Amazing.

Canadians were about as easy to control as a herd of cats, but as dangerous as a pride of lions.

The Canadian Paris Hilton.

...but one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. Sorry, I don't know how to dl it here, since it's not a link, so I have to direct you to a different forum. Well worth the time to dl. http://24.69.78.93/forum/index.php?topic=3458.0

We can produce some power with with wind, however, wind power is unreliable and can never replace capacity generated from conventional sources. The supply of hydropower is limited and not sufficient to replace our current needs (nevermind the huge additional capacity that would be required to support electric cars).The bottom line is we cannot create enough electricity to meet our needs without creating pollution. So which do you prefer: GHGs from coal and gas, radioactive waste from nuclear plants or toxi waste from spent solar cells? Neither solar nor wind generation can come close to supplying even a significant fraction of current demand under current technology, and my understanding is that it will take a quantum breakthrough before it becomes possible. My further understanding is that nuclear is the best bet to capably replace fossil fuels and cut back on emmissions in electrical generation, and that doesn't start to address transportation. Woody thinks all we have to do is make a few laws and throw some corporate welfare out there and everything will get like Star Trek. You have to realize the intellectual level at which Woody operates...

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs. We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term. Flat out wrong, top to bottom. We are currently producing a percentage of electricity without pollution. Denials of it are not just false but show a real ignorance of what is going on in the world. Woody, you're about to step in a hole well over your head. Why do you never learn? Any idea which forms of energy generation don't produce pollution? Before you answer, think about the tech tail that goes into making and maintaining them. Then think about the capabilities of those forms of electrical generation. Speaking of ignorance...

A technical impossibility. All forms of energy generation produce pollution which means we have to choose our poison: toxic waste or GHGs. We are running out of natural gas in north america (the cleanest fuel used to create electricity). We can import what we need from Russia but that is politically dangerous. That means coal is the only practical option for electricity generation in the long term. I'm going to open a combination windfarm and birdburger factory.

Good grief, don't you thruthies realize that the burden of proof is in your court? Otherwise, it's like me claiming there's a radar resistant flying elephant circling overhead, and demanding that you prove it's not true. If you're going to attack the blatantly obvious, YOU have to show how the blatantly obvious is a big plot. And trotting out a B 24 with no fuel hitting the Empire state building doesn't even start to address the WTC

Are you talking about the "Marxist one world government" conspiracy I hear so much of these days? No. What about this? How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers? Canadian Blue are you curious? look on the document -- but, no, it doesn't matter It doesn't matter?

My sentiments exactly...just like those right-wingers who think that Muslims should be judged by the action of a few extremists... Oh I think there's a tad difference between an internet discussion and the immediacy of mass murder. Your "few extremists" number in the tens of thousands, and are bolstered by hundreds of thousands who support them, and millions who tacitly look the other way. The true "few" are the ones who actively work against the "extremists".

Oy vey...throw in a rhetorical and half the forum leaps on it. Fortunately it's the less intellectually endowed half of the forum...proven by the point that I have to feed them their rebuttals...

You don't suppose Mohammed could have walked there, or ridden a horse or something? Are you calling Mohammed a liar? I've never met the man, nor read his books. Yet you certainly have no hesitation in holding forth as an expert on Islam. Tell me again how Islam is a religion of peace?

Was that before or after the US fleet sank all the bey's ships?

Y'know Figgy, you probably don't even realize that you instinctively look to government as the solutioon to all problems, but you do, of course, like any self-identified leftist. It's no intellectual shame, and in fact it's a correlary necessity for a leftist to lean on government; how else would you solve the social ills you abhor? You prove it in this thread where you call for protection against "social and economic coercion". You may not even put two and two together to figure out that indeed this IS calling for government intervention...of COURSE it is...who else is going to "prevent" it? Of course in a later post you seem to realize your stumble and mumble something about "political difference", but that makes not an iota of difference really...someone has to do all this protecting, and guess who that will be? Anyway, I'm sorry you can't keep track of the implications of your political philosophy, but don't take it out on me. Well fine...report me...the government oops I mean the leadership of the board may protect you from imagined abuse.

I like Ann. I fell in love the first time I saw her (in her early babehood) cutting some poor man-bashing feminist to shreds. Since then I enjoy her as I enjoy Rush Limbaugh...a light comedic thorn in the side of the political left. I don't know of anyone on the right who treats either she or Rush as the intellectual vanguard of the right, but I see from this thread that many on the left take her very seriously indeed! For some reason, and I have yet to figure this out, the left likes to use folks like Coulter to strawmanize the right. I've never seen anyone on the right prop up the corpse of Abby Hoffman and point to it as the personification of the left, or use the old strawman tactic to anywhere near the same degree as do those on the left...one of those mysteries, I guess, like the left's love of reductionist slogans, bumper stickers and "root causes".

So you don't mind them torching their relatives down the street? And how is describing what happens in Delhi at the burning ghats "ethnocentric"?

Surely you are not trying to pretend that fundamentalist Christians are a figment of the collective imagination!?!! It takes a truly weak intellect to hinge an argument on using the absolute fringe of a position to represent the mainstream of the position.

Quite likely it never occurred to you to question, if and why they really have to fight (and win - or lose) that war there, x thousand miles from their mainland. That omission on your part can be either plain dumb, or, really twisted. But a minute ago you were arguing about the WAY the war is fought, with an eye to the morality of the methods. Now you're arguing an entirely different point; that the war shouldn't be fought at all. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Unless of course you're arguing that it would be ok to win the war if the war was just, but it should be lost because in your view it's not just. This is not an ommission, it's a commission on your part, and it's so dumb you'd be laughed out of a debate if you used it. Oh, you DID use it.

Because to protect it in that way is to curb the freedom of the other folks. I know your first inclination is to get the government involved, but why not just keep the government out of it?

You don't suppose Mohammed could have walked there, or ridden a horse or something? Are you calling Mohammed a liar? If so, you'd better start wearing a neck guard. I know Islam is a religion of peace, but an awful lot of people seem to lose their heads, no doubt by accident, when they insult the Prophet.

From "The Spoof"? Do you read your links? Yeah, ya got me there - though I did read it quickly and outside of a few name changes it complies with all of the other pieces I have seen. One of the things about satire darling is that it's based on truths - otherwise it doesn't work now does it. Anyways - it is certainly a problem - or are you denying that? To be frank I posted quickly and hit ctrl v without noticing that it was the spoof piece I put up, this is the article I had wanted to post: http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/sto...1443004,00.html That all said and done, do you think that it's all well and good that bees are dying off in such vast numbers? Do you think that this will effect pollination rates? What was it that Einstein said? If the bees go, so do we? Pardon my early morning mis-paste - still the message is clear - something is happening to our bees, and that something can be correlated to the introduction of GM crops (another topic altogether!) Do you like eating protiens never intended for consumption? That's what you are doing when you eat GM foods btw. Cheers I don't know. The pterodactyl died off too, and the world managed to survive. I somehow seriously doubt this has anything to do with GM foods, but what do I know?