Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

"Stand Down" During Benghazi Attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    He speaks like a European.
    I'll take that as a compliment, but I'm all American. My wife was even born on the fourth of July!
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
      ....

      More directly, those billions are the product of an over-ripe imagination, unlike the actual trillions in fossil fuel resources controlled by the folks who promote those imaginings.

      Just by the way, trillions are bigger than billions. By quite a bit. Logic wins again.
      That is not "logic", lao tzu ― far from it.

      To say that "trillions" are "controlled" by the folks who promote these "imaginings" is a grossly misleading statement, because the implication is that "trillions" are devoted to funding the research of scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW ― in comparison to documented billions devoted to funding research promoting catastrophic AGW.

      Yes, trillions are controlled by fossil fuel companies; however, almost all of that money is used to provide fuel for public and private transportation, and electricity for public utilities.

      I would bet that the fossil fuel companies give more money to environmental organizations than to scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW ― much much more.

      From Forbes:
      As the Wall Street Journal observed on Feb. 21, while Heartland’s budget for the NIPCC this year totals $388,000, that compares to $6.5 million for the UN’s IPCC, and $2.5 billion that President Obama’s budget commits for research into “the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.” That demonstrates how an ounce of truth can overcome a tidal wave of falsehood.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
        I've never listened to him other than what was necessary to follow back on a story he's hyped. He's not just wrong. It's too calculated for that.
        PROJECTION ALERT!!!

        Just for example, no non-independent journalist could have said a word against Sandra Fluke or free birth control without being immediately fired and blacklisted from further employment by the HR gynocracy.
        Fixed.

        There's a long list of similar stories where little more than the names were accurate.
        Versus your Benghazi story, which purports to be the air-clearing 'just the facts' postmortem except for the fact that all of the people they interview on the ground still give them conflicting accounts, and their terrorist forensics are laughable.

        Never trust the honesty of the opinions of someone who makes $70 million a year to have opinions people want to listen to.
        Backwards liberal Satanic statement spotted. Wouldn't it be more likely that a guy who makes 70 million a year from advertising to his listeners might indeed have opinions people want to listen to?

        That's too much money to just let go with your feelings.
        I have you, JimL, and Tassman all making posts with at least one completely logically inverted statement today. Are you trying to embarrass yourself, or is this like Satan's secret handshake or something?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by John Reece View Post
          That is not "logic", lao tzu ― far from it.

          To say that "trillions" are "controlled" by the folks who promote these "imaginings" is a grossly misleading statement, because the implication is that "trillions" are devoted to funding the research of scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW ― in comparison to documented billions devoted to funding research promoting catastrophic AGW.

          Yes, trillions are controlled by fossil fuel companies; however, almost all of that money is used to provide fuel for public and private transportation, and electricity for public utilities.

          I would bet that the fossil fuel companies give more money to environmental organizations than to scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic AGW ― much much more.

          From Forbes:
          As the Wall Street Journal observed on Feb. 21, while Heartland’s budget for the NIPCC this year totals $388,000, that compares to $6.5 million for the UN’s IPCC, and $2.5 billion that President Obama’s budget commits for research into “the global changes that have resulted primarily from global over-dependence on fossil fuels.” That demonstrates how an ounce of truth can overcome a tidal wave of falsehood.
          After only two or three hours of sleep, I just woke up in the middle of the night with the thought that I may have misunderstood lao tzu's "logic"; I was thinking of the multiple billions of dollars spent annually as being spent to fund research re global warming / climate change ― as funding to accurately understand the scientific realities of global climate.

          However, it occurs to me that what was really meant by lao tzu's "logic" may have been that, whereas fossil fuel companies spend trillions of dollars to provide economical transportation and electrical power, on the one hand; on the other hand, international and national governments only spend billions of dollars ― not to better understand the truth of science re climate, but rather ― to wage a political war against economical transportation and electrical power, without which nations will either remain in a state of poverty (in the case of poor, undeveloped countries); or, will be plunged into poverty (in the case of heretofore prosperous countries).

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            You and your conspiracy theories! That's just whack!
            Nah, that's just you. It's entirely possible Rush believes every word he says. But I like to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
              After only two or three hours of sleep ...
              Dear John,

              I made myself a promise to stop engaging with you on climate science. It upsets you, and provides no benefit. Forgive me for backsliding.

              As ever, Jesse

              Comment


              • #52

                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                Nah, that's just you. It's entirely possible Rush believes every word he says. But I like to give folks the benefit of the doubt.


                Wow, after slamming him and accusing him of... you're giving him the benefit of the doubt?
                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                Never trust the honesty of the opinions of someone who makes $70 million a year to have opinions people want to listen to. That's too much money to just let go with your feelings.
                What a perverted sense of humor you have, Jesse! Benefit of the doubt, indeed!
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post


                  Wow, after slamming him and accusing him of... you're giving him the benefit of the doubt?
                  Absolutely.

                  What a perverted sense of humor you have, Jesse! Benefit of the doubt, indeed!
                  He's a performer. As part of his performance, he says things that aren't true. So does every actor on stage or screen. Some of the characters played by those actors aren't the kind you'd like to have dating your daughter. Rush's character isn't the kind you'd like to have knowing the name of your daughter. And his performances include audience participation.

                  Enter Sandra Fluke.

                  Rush's character told some lies about her.

                  Rush's character wanted to see her naked, doing the dirty.

                  That's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

                  The alternative would be that he really is that character.

                  The alternative would be that he really does run after random women with a mix of vicious lies and misogyny. But that's a tale best left to his four ex-wives. Even then, sometimes actors bring their characters home with them, which rarely bodes well for domestic tranquility. That's what you get when you marry an actor.

                  I take a pretty consistent line that we are all responsible for checking the facts. Rush doesn't do that for you.

                  That's not his role.

                  As ever, Jesse

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post




                    Absolutely.



                    He's a performer.
                    I agree. Limbaugh's primary job is to entertain. That is why the advice that a local radio talk show host (who was later syndicated) always comes to mind. He would constantly tell his audience to never believe anything he said until they had verified it for themselves.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Just look at this poor woman shoveling out happy crap.



                      It looks like a parody of a bad State Department briefing.
                      Looks like they threw this young lady under the bus so that they could stonewall us

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        He's a performer. As part of his performance, he says things that aren't true.
                        Lao tzu must have loved my referring to him as an actor, since it looks like he's ineptly trying to echo it.

                        So does every actor on stage or screen. Some of the characters played by those actors aren't the kind you'd like to have dating your daughter. Rush's character isn't the kind you'd like to have knowing the name of your daughter. And his performances include audience participation.
                        When you're done blowing that smoke and setting up those mirrors, think you could actually engage the discussion directly rather than going "ME TOO" on the actor metaphor?

                        Enter a distraction from the main post to cover the fact that I lost so badly on that main post
                        Fixed.

                        Rush's character told some lies about her.
                        Lao tzu conveniently fails to elaborate on those lies in his opener, because they don't actually exist except as vague feelings in his increasingly degenerating mind.

                        Rush's character wanted to see her naked, doing the dirty.
                        Because projection of his own desires onto basically decent public figures works so much better!

                        That's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

                        The alternative would be that he really is that character.
                        Ah, the false choice, something I expect to see in advertising and elementary political editorials. Maybe you can get a job as a DNC staffer in the mailroom.

                        The alternative would be that he really does run after random women with a mix of vicious lies and misogyny. But that's a tale best left to his four ex-wives. Even then, sometimes actors bring their characters home with them, which rarely bodes well for domestic tranquility. That's what you get when you marry an actor.
                        Is a liberal who lives in Chicago and voted for Bill Clinton really attempting to lecture us on morality in a parody of the Church Lady format?

                        I take a pretty consistent line that we are all responsible for checking the facts. Rush doesn't do that for you.
                        You haven't cited a single fact about Sandra Fluke and Rush's response to her yet, it's just been vague accusations and creepy moralizing from an utterly amoral individual, then an unfunny attempt to play for my sympathy with allusions to performers, whose effect is very much like a robot trying to imitate human speech.

                        That's not his role.
                        Your role is to show that no matter how far somebody rises in the liberal order, they still have to maintain that combination of moral insanity and petty opportunism that is so often the mark of the Devil.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                          Looks like they threw this young lady under the bus so that they could stonewall us
                          If one didn't know any better, one might think this was a Saturday Night Live skit --- especially the very beginning.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by seer, Today, 01:13 PM
                          17 responses
                          78 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post seanD
                          by seanD
                           
                          Started by whag, Today, 10:42 AM
                          48 responses
                          198 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Bill the Cat  
                          Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 08:45 AM
                          12 responses
                          55 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Cow Poke  
                          Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 09:29 PM
                          11 responses
                          77 views
                          1 like
                          Last Post rogue06
                          by rogue06
                           
                          Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 04:14 PM
                          39 responses
                          208 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post myth
                          by myth
                           
                          Working...
                          X