Do Conservatives Believe The Ends Justify The Means

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

And, here.

Now, do I agree with every word she writes? No. But she makes very good points in a very entertaining way.

Regarding that last link, I know for a fact that she is 100% lying.

There is no evidence that the hacked emails show a “gigantic academic fraud”.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth’s cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world’s voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).

Good points? Nothing in that article was truthful, down to her affirmation that she took context into account, she would not know what context is even if it would hit her in the jaw, again…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg (Video)

Now that the conspiracy theorists have blown off steam, it’s time for a more sober analysis of those e-mails and what they mean. I can’t go through all of them, there are far too many, and . So I’ve taken the two that seem to be getting conspiracy theorists most worked up – Phil Jones’s e-mail about “Mike’s Nature trick” and Kevin Trenberth’s e-mail about a “travesty.” I’m glad to see that skeptic websites that cover the science understand what these e-mails actually mean. As you’ll see, very few commentators who jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon even before reading the e-mails managed to get it right.

And she still has the chutzpa of claiming that liberals are the liars. What a sick puppy.

[Gary_Baldy]

@Euphonious_Polemic

One of my favorite Ann Coulter reason and logic moments was when she was on Canadian TV, trying to tell the news anchor that the country of Canada sent troops to Vietnam. She could not admit she was wrong, wrong, wrong. it was a hoot to watch.

Well, there were about 30,000 Canadians that volunteered to fight in Vietnam.

I know what you are thinking, what about actually Canadian troops sent by the Canadian government? Well, Canada sent troops in 1973 to monitor the ceasefire from the Paris Peace Accords. It was called Operation Gallant. There’s even a service medal for it.

@DanBlather

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Reality actually has a non-partisan bias. Mat?

[Der_Trihs]

@Gary_Baldy

Reality actually has a non-partisan bias. Mat?

The joke exists because the Left at present is more firmly grounded in reality, while the Right these days is largely delusional, and often outright openly contemptuous of reality. “We make our own reality”

[kidchameleon]

@DanBlather

What makes you think I don’t understand conservatives?

The threads you’ve started lately.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Gary_Baldy

Well, there were about 30,000 Canadians that volunteered to fight in Vietnam.

I know what you are thinking, what about actually Canadian troops sent by the Canadian government? Well, Canada sent troops in 1973 to monitor the ceasefire from the Paris Peace Accords. It was called Operation Gallant. There’s even a service medal for it.

Yes, I knew this old chestnut would pop up. Coulter was not referring to the individual Canadian volunteers. She said that Canada had joined the US in the Vietnam war. The conversation was in the context of Canada not joining the US in the Iraq war - she was critisizing the country of Canada for that, and trying to say that we’d joined with the US in the past. So your comments about individual Canadian volunteers are off-topic and meaningless in the context of what actually happened. Coulter honest to God, believed that the country of Canada sent troops to Vietnam and played a role as a country. She was wrong. She refused to acknowledge her mistake.

And the fact that Canada sent 240 troops in 1973 to monitor the ceasefire of the Paris Peace Accords? Well it’s just embarassing to you that you brought that up as evidence that Canada joined the US in the Vietnam WAR.

[Gary_Baldy]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Yes, I knew this old chestnut would pop up. Coulter was not referring to the individual Canadian volunteers. She said that Canada had joined the US in the Vietnam war. The conversation was in the context of Canada not joining the US in the Iraq war - she was critisizing the country of Canada for that, and trying to say that we’d joined with the US in the past. So your comments about individual Canadian volunteers are off-topic and meaningless in the context of what actually happened. Coulter honest to God, believed that the country of Canada sent troops to Vietnam and played a role as a country. She was wrong. She refused to acknowledge her mistake.

And the fact that Canada sent 240 troops in 1973 to monitor the ceasefire of the Paris Peace Accords? Well it’s just embarassing to you that you brought that up as evidence that Canada joined the US in the Vietnam WAR.

Here’s the full exchange between Coulter and McKeown.

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"

McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter: "I don't think that's right."

McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."

Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"

McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."

Coulter: "I think you're wrong."

McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."

Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."

McKeown: "No."

Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."

Note that no where stated by either party explicitly mentions joining in the war. Although one could say she implied that. Both stated “sending troops to Vietnam” which is a fact because of the peacekeeping operation. And if you read carefully to what I wrote, you would have noticed that I separated the Canadian volunteers from what the Canadian government did. So I’m about as embarrassed as you are on this subject.

[Voyager]

To get back to the OP, I disagree. Conservatives (excepting a few outliers in Maine to make Tom happy) operate more under the principle that the means justify the ends. Even I don’t think the end they intended after 8 yeas of Bush was 10% unemployment and an economy in ruins, but deregulation and tax cuts for the rich are more important, as shown by their unwillingness to change their tune. I’m pretty sure that none of them want the underinsured to die, but if that happens to prevent “socialist” health care, that is a price they are willing (for others) to pay.

Liberals on the other hand have certain goals around social justice, and are willing to try lots of things to make them work. It makes us seem namby-pamby compared to those who say no to anything outside of a narrow ideological range.

Communists, btw, also think the means justify the ends, since they thought Communism was correct no matter how much misery it generated.

[DanBlather]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Yes, I knew this old chestnut would pop up. Coulter was not referring to the individual Canadian volunteers. She said that Canada had joined the US in the Vietnam war. The conversation was in the context of Canada not joining the US in the Iraq war - she was critisizing the country of Canada for that, and trying to say that we’d joined with the US in the past. So your comments about individual Canadian volunteers are off-topic and meaningless in the context of what actually happened. Coulter honest to God, believed that the country of Canada sent troops to Vietnam and played a role as a country. She was wrong. She refused to acknowledge her mistake.

And the fact that Canada sent 240 troops in 1973 to monitor the ceasefire of the Paris Peace Accords? Well it’s just embarassing to you that you brought that up as evidence that Canada joined the US in the Vietnam WAR.

By that token, she was wrong about Iraq as well:

In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict. She can’t have it both ways (well maybe she’s into that).

[Beware_of_Doug]

@DanBlather

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

This is why conservatives crested the frame of The Real World, a circumscribed subset of reality governed entirely by market forces.