kimmy Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 Short version: he doesn't call it a "conspiracy", and he doesn't think it's just golf-courses either. Ted's a smart guy, and he knows what Agenda 21 is, but that's not going to stop him from using it to try and rile up the clueless mooks who believe this stuff. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) Ted's a smart guy, and he knows what Agenda 21 is, but that's not going to stop him from using it to try and rile up the clueless mooks who believe this stuff.Is he really any different from the democrats who spew all kinds of economic nonsense to rile up the clueless mooks which vote democrat? Edited December 25, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted December 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) I believe Rubio is the forth strength runner of all candidates. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ On my reasons of poll numbers plus potential, the top 5 runners are: Cruz, Clinton, Trump, Rubio, and Sander. Edited December 25, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 Is he really any different from the democrats who spew all kinds of economic nonsense to rile up the clueless mooks which vote democrat? Yes, I do think so. Cruz is willing to go the extra mile to coddle conspiritards. Revisit his response to the Jade Helm kooks in Texas last summer if you don't agree. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 Yes, I do think so. Cruz is willing to go the extra mile to coddle conspiritards. Revisit his response to the Jade Helm kooks in Texas last summer if you don't agree.I don't see the nonsense over Jade Helm materially different from nonsense like 'oil companies funding climate change denial'. The difference is the conspiracy theories peddled by the left are given credence by many in the mainstream media where you have to go to Fox if you want to see the conspiracy nonsense from the right taken seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 I don't see the nonsense over Jade Helm materially different from nonsense like 'oil companies funding climate change denial'. The difference is the conspiracy theories peddled by the left are given credence by many in the mainstream media where you have to go to Fox if you want to see the conspiracy nonsense from the right taken seriously. I don't recall any presidential candidates claiming that oil companies are funding climate change denial. Or mainstream media outlets, for that matter. As for whether it's true or not, that's for another thread. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) I don't recall any presidential candidates claiming that oil companies are funding climate change denial. Or mainstream media outlets, for that matter. As for whether it's true or not, that's for another thread. https://news.vice.com/article/hillary-clinton-says-theres-a-lot-of-evidence-exxonmobil-misled-the-public-on-climate-change Clinton's claims are no less ridiculous than overheated claims about Agenda 21 and "truth" is not so much as issue but spin that turns a small piece of truth into a lie. For example, while it is true that Agenda 21 sets out an agenda to end 'unsustainable' development it is lie to suggest that it gives the UN the direct power to decide what local governments do. Similarly, Exxon may not toe the church of AGW line on many issues however, it is a lie to suggest there is something wrong with having a different opinion on these questions. Edited December 25, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 I can't believe that Americans really want Hillary for President but as the alternatives on the other side are so lousy they may end up electing her. The only reason I can think of for Hillary's success is that a great deal of people have very nostalgic feelings for the era of Bill's presidency. He was a very good president, I don't think anyone really disagrees with that. By electing Hillary people reflect to their nostalgic feelings as well as the absence of an electable alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 Similarly, Exxon may not toe the church of AGW line on many issues however, it is a lie to suggest there is something wrong with having a different opinion on these questions. Kinda like the tobacco companies back in the day denying a link between smoking and cancer..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 Americans will elect their next president, just as they always have regardless of any nostalgia outside the USA. Trump or Cruz or Clinton don't have any advantages because of prior presidents, and Bill Clinton was a good politician with many faults before and after his presidency. He was only the second U.S. president to ever be impeached. Hillary won't be talking about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted December 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ Trump still seems unbeatable on poll numbers in GOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Kinda like the tobacco companies back in the day denying a link between smoking and cancer.....You are just like the Tea Party followers who believe the UN is plotting to take over the US because there is no difference between the conspiracy you just spouted than the people worried about "Agenda 21". In your case you falsely claim there is a valid comparison between the real risk of cancer from smoking and the completely unknown future risks associated with CO2 induced warming. No one knows if problems created by CO2 induced warming will be mild, moderate or severe because it has never happened before. As a result, the people making claims have no real evidence to point to. To contrast the people making claims about smoking had thousands of people who were actually dying from lung cancer and smoking was strongly correlated. The level of certainty on the risk of smoking was orders of magnitude larger. On top of that with smoking there is an obvious and simple solution: stop smoking. No such option exists for fossil fuels which means one can agree with the alarmists on the diagnosis but disagree on the remedy because no one really knows the best way to deal with the issue. It is not wrong to propose different remedies to the deal with the hypothetical risks from CO2 induced warming. In any case, your response illustrates the bias in the public discourse. Conspiracy theories that confirm left wing preconceptions are accepted as fact while those that confirm right wing preconceptions are mocked. Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 You are just like the Tea Party followers who believe the UN is plotting to take over the US because there is no difference between the conspiracy you just spouted than the people worried about "Agenda 21". In your case you falsely claim there is a valid comparison between the real risk of cancer from smoking and the completely unknown future risks associated with CO2 induced warming. No one knows if problems created by CO2 induced warming will be mild, moderate or severe because it has never happened before. As a result, the people making claims have no real evidence to point to. To contrast the people making claims about smoking had thousands of people who were actually dying from lung cancer and smoking was strongly correlated. The level of certainty on the risk of smoking was orders of magnitude larger. On top of that with smoking there is an obvious and simple solution: stop smoking. No such option exists for fossil fuels which means one can agree with the alarmists on the diagnosis but disagree on the remedy because no one really knows the best way to deal with the issue. It is not wrong to propose different remedies to the deal with the hypothetical risks from CO2 induced warming. In any case, your response illustrates the bias in the public discourse. Conspiracy theories that confirm left wing preconceptions are accepted as fact while those that confirm right wing preconceptions are mocked. Yes there is an option, stop using fossil fuels, just like stopping smoking. Unles you want to continue flogging the same old style propaganda of "winston tastes good like a cigarette should" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Yes there is an option, stop using fossil fuels, just like stopping smoking.Except no one with credible expertise on how the energy system works believes that this can be achieved with the technology we have today. The result is will need to continue to use fossil fuels until economically viable replacements appear and we have no way to know when that may occur. This means arguing that adaptation is only real policy option available is a perfectly legitimate POV. Attempting to claim that someone expressing this view is 'like tobacco companies claiming smoking is harmless' is pathetically dishonest. People who believe that are believing a lie - just like the Tea Party crowd that thinks that the UN is trying to take over the US. Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Is he really any different from the democrats who spew all kinds of economic nonsense to rile up the clueless mooks which vote democrat? Economic nonsense like cutting programs that help ordinary people in order to cut taxes for the wealthy is a boon to the economy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) I don't see the nonsense over Jade Helm materially different from nonsense like 'oil companies funding climate change denial' Seriously? A bunch of wack jobs believe that a routine US military exercise is a cover for the US government looking to put martial law in place in Texas to steal people's guns and you equate that with people talking about how oil companies fund some of the scientists arguing against climate change? The fact Cruz sided with the conspiracy nuts all by itself marks him as unfit for any kind of political office. Edited December 26, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Economic nonsense like cutting programs that help ordinary people in order to cut taxes for the wealthy is a boon to the economy?Economic nonsense like raising the minimum wage to 15$ to help "relieve poverty"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Seriously? A bunch of wack jobs believe that a routine US military exercise is a cover for the US government looking to put martial law in place in Texas to steal people's guns and you equate that with people talking about how oil companies fund some of the scientists arguing against climate change?Both are lies designed to rile up partisans who are not known for critical thinking. Why do you think they are different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Both are lies designed to rile up partisans who are not known for critical thinking. Why do you think they are different? One of them is nonsense and the other isn't. Why would you expect an oil company to not do its best to downplay any environmental damage caused by oil? Or a coal company, for that matter? Why would you not think they would hire scientists to craft reports friendly to their particular fuel type and denying harm, or support lobby groups or politicians which are on their side? This is perfectly normal behaviour. You can't possibly equate that to lunatics who think the US army is going to invade Texas. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding Edited December 26, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) One of them is nonsense and the other isn't.The Guardian link is nothing but alarmist propaganda which mixes facts with outright falsehoods and unsubstantiated innuendo. There is more truth in this report from Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/15/volunteer-watchdog-group-prepares-for-counter-jade-helm-campaign.html because the Fox report actually reports multiple opinions on the facts instead of only reporting the spin from the conspiracy theorists. In the case of Guardian is a falsehood because it treats everyone who disagrees with any part of the alarmist agenda as 'spreaders of lies.' For example, if someone argues that renewable subsidies don't makes sense because we need base load power then they are a 'denier'. If someone argues that the peer reviewed literature suggests that the costs of adapting climate change will be less than the costs of reducing CO2 emissions they are a 'denier'. None of these assertion are true. People and companies are entitled to lobby for policies that they think are best no matter what the alarmist idiots at the Guardian think. It is wrong to suggest that there is anything nefarious about it. Just like it is wrong to suggest a training exercise in Texas had nefarious objectives. Edited December 26, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) The Guardian link is nothing but alarmist propaganda which mixes facts with outright falsehoods and unsubstantiated innuendo. There is more truth in this report from Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/15/volunteer-watchdog-group-prepares-for-counter-jade-helm-campaign.html because the Fox report actually reports multiple opinions on the facts instead of only reporting the spin from the conspiracy theorists. I really don't get why you feel you're required to defend every moron who calls himself a conservative. Cruz is not a conservative anyway. He's more of an anarchist, and he pays no attention to traditional conservative values, which is one of the reasons the Republican mainstream caucus loathes him. You're trying to suggest that a politician trying to fearmonger against the oil industry is identical to a politician trying to fearmonger against his own country's military and government. Do you not even understand that the latter is virtually treasonous from a politician who seeks to actually run the country? Edited December 27, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 (edited) I really don't get why you feel you're required to defend every moron who calls himself a conservative.I am not defending him because I think his position on the question is stupid. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of singling him out for doing exactly what politicians on left do but with targets that considered to be 'fair game' for conspiracy theories. It is part of pattern where every right wing politician is branded as a crazy zealot no matter what the facts are in order to undermine their appeal to centrist voters. If Cruz was not doing well they would be doing the same thing to Rubio or Bush. You're trying to suggest that a politician trying to fearmonger against the oil industry is identical to a politician trying to fearmonger against his own country's military and government.Fear-mongering is fear-mongering. I don't see the need to make such fine distinctions. How many left wing politicians claimed or implied that the Iraq war was a conspiracy by Cheney to steal Iraq's oil supplies? Are they traitors? Edited December 27, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 Is he really any different from the democrats who spew all kinds of economic nonsense to rile up the clueless mooks which vote democrat?Nope, it's no different at all. In fact it's not on the same level. Democrats have actually run ads with Republicans literally pushing an elderly woman in a wheel chair off of a cliff. Their current Vice President actually told black audiences that if Republicans win they'll literally be put back in chains. Ted Cruz doesn't compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted December 27, 2015 Report Share Posted December 27, 2015 How many left wing politicians claimed or implied that the Iraq war was a conspiracy by Cheney to steal Iraq's oil supplies? Are they traitors?Are you saying it was a conspiracy to get ISIS in power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exegesisme Posted December 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2015 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/cartoons_of_the_week/ Could Cruz separate them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.