No, I’m not saying they don’t exist, and I’m tired of your twisting my words, Mr. Lawyer.
What I’m saying is that you can’t even venture a ballpark guess as to what this means. But despite that, you’re using it as the foundation for drawing an equivalence between left and right in terms of ignoring or dismissing inconvenient facts.
Gotta go, will deal with the rest of your crap later.
Well, you certainly are. In an admittedly rare moment of honesty, you said so quite clearly.
It wasn’t in any doubt, of course. Kind of a shame, in a way.
It’s kind of funny - I keep telling people over and over that I am not a troll, and people keep on it. You say that you are, and it passes unremarked.
Kind of a pity, since you weren’t always one, but you apparently gave up rational thought.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, it’s weird. It’s almost like people don’t believe you, because you’re not the least bit credible.
Well, this seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I think part of the issue, from my (obviously not totally objective) perspective is that you are viewing/rating/categorizing responses based on whatever part of them is worst. So if you post one thing and get 10 responses, and post another thing and get 10 responses, as long as one response to each was assholish, you are viewing them as the same; which is fairly meaningless. That said, I can’t say I care enough to actually look up posts, rate them, count all the responses, rate THEM, graph the output, etc… at least, not without serious interest from you and a promise to take the results seriously whatever they are.
And theists? Well, that explains the never-ending parade of people pitting Polycarp.
Although note that the last 10 pages or so of this thread have, for the most part, turned into a wide ranging set of side-arguments (many of them VERY heated) about partisan issues in general… Bricker and gun control, Sam vs a bunch of people, OMG vs a bunch of people, etc. I mean, I’ve seen threads that are just pile-on hatefests, and this is a fairly weak example therein.
That said, yes, I agree, Shodan gets more shit here than he would if he were not a conservative poster. And when lots of people all agree about something they can get worked up and kind of pile on about it. But I don’t think that really addresses anything I was saying.
Sure. So? If someone is being a jerk, I will say they’re being a jerk, and I’ll wish they were stop being a jerk. I might acknowledge that they’re in an unpleasant situation which would make their being-a-jerk-dom easier than I have it, but that’s not carte blanche for jerkiness.
I certainly don’t pick some random conservative poster who bears up under the crushing weight of SDMB liberal criticism 95% of the time and every once in a while snaps and yells at someone a bit and get all on their case about it. Nor have I ever made some claim about how I would act like a paragon of Gandhi-like restraint if the roles were reversed.
You’ve been quite selective in responding to my posts, almost like you don’t care to understand the issues. So, I’ll ask again - do you see why official records and self-report of offending behaviors would identify overlapping but non-identical groups of people?
From the article
Wow, a command to elaborate from Bricker. However shall I respond to this impressive yet entirely respectful imperative?
How about this: If you’re trying to suggest that you were not using this issue to draw equivalence between liberals and conservatives in this thread, you’re being disingenuous to the point of deceit.
(Sorry, CannyDan, for persisting with this.)
Oh, no apology necessary, really. Keep at it, I’m enjoying the show.
[Anguished wail]
Oh, the hoops you conservatives make us poor libruls jump through!
And none in the interval under discussion were willing to say they were still right.
Look, you know what you have as the basis for your argument? Handwaving, and nothing more.
There were people in a thread. Some of them argued against a law. The thread died its usual death. You resurrected it a year and a half later.
How many people argued against the law in the original time period - posts 1-99?
How many of them were present in the resurrected thread, posts 101-154?
You can’t even tell me that much. For all I know, only a half-dozen people arguing against the law earlier even saw your post 100, and most of them had given up before you posed your request at post 142.
You can’t tell me otherwise.
And yet this is what you put in the balance against the climate change denial - not even willing to engage in a prickly way, but total and complete denial - of practically every GOP lawmaker from state legislature on up in this country, every conservative think tank, and practically every major conservative figure in the media, from Rush Limbaugh and the entire Fox News cocoon on down.
You put these two things in the balance. And you call it even.
[QUOTE=Deuteronomy, chapter 25]
You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. You shall have a full and just weight; you shall have a full and just measure, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the LORD your God.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t an ordered list. Adding nonsense about the positioning of my points is silly. And whether or not it can be ‘falsified’, it sure can be debated. Or you know, we could look at the results of such efforts. Liberals have praised Spain and Germany for their heavy ‘investments’ in solar power. How’s that working out? How about the Obama administration’s attempt to kick-start alternative energy? And how about all those ‘Green Jobs’? Where are they? And how much has been spent trying to create them?
And all of them based on the same underlying Keynesian theories. In the meantime, the papers that have come out since that have analyzed actual empirical data have not been finding the multipliers promised, nor have they been finding the jobs supposedly created. But you know, that’s just reality. By all means, stick with your models if they make you happy and allow you to ignore actual evidence.
Just to be clear, I do not doubt that the stimulus improved the temporary economy to some degree. That would happen if there was even a small multiplier. The real question is whether it improved it enough to pay back the 890 billion dollars spent on it, plus the interest cost. After all, at a 3% T-Bill rate, the U.S. will now be paying out more in interest every year on the stimulus than the entire cost of NASA.
And even the CBO’s original rosy model admitted that 10 years out the effect of the stimulus would be slightly negative in terms of GDP, due to interest costs. If the stimulus had only half the multiplier promised, the overall cost of it to the economy will be huge.
I’ve done that repeatedly on this board. Which brings me to another major annoyance - when I do provide a strong cite to data that contradicts the liberal narrative, what usually happens is that it’s ignored, and then I’m asked for the same data the next time the discussion comes up. When I provide it, it’s ignored again. Repeat ad nauseum.
Really? You have a cite for that, which isn’t a ‘study’ put out by an environmental group or some left-wing organization? Something opposite to this?
Aside from questions of climate sensitivity, liberals on this board have consistently refused to engage in debates I’ve tried to start over issues like the net present value of future damage and how to calculate it, what the real-world effects of non-global carbon taxes would be, etc. Their ‘solutions’ to the problem will not change a damned thing, will cost trillions of dollars, and may make the problem worse. But they’d rather debate the issue in terms of “the basic science is settled - now do what I say.”
I agree that the basic science is solid - but that’s only the first step in a very long chain of questions that have to be resolved. Your side refuses to talk about those issues, though: probably because you’re smart enough to know that you should try to keep the debate grounded in the one area where you have an advantage, because your actual plans for what to do about it are unworkable, expensive, and draconian. They do have the ‘advantage’ of giving far more power to national and international governmental bodies.
Another bizarre argument. So, because everyone should have ‘skin in the game’, carbon taxes are a good thing, even if we don’t know how to price the externality cost, and even though carbon taxes applied only in the U.S. might just have the effect of lowering the cost of energy for everyone else, stimulating the use of it? Or even worse, carbon taxes applied to efficient American manufacturers could easily have the effect of causing more off-shoring of manufacturing to countries like China that are far less energy efficient and may therefore drive up the carbon footprint of the products we use? Great idea.
Well, there sure was a lot of pressure on the Obama administration to not sign that agreement, and little to none of it came from the ‘right’. But here we have another example of bias in operation - Conservatives here are expected to defend or gainsay every nutty statement that might come out of the mouth of anyone even vaguely associated with the ‘right’. But the lefties here? They routinely hand-wave away crazy statements or positions held by even significant minorities of people on the left - when it’s convenient to do so.
For example, you guys smeared the Tea Party as racists and as violent, despite the fact that there was almost no evidence for either. If you could find a picture of some guy somewhere holding a racist sign or a sign saying, “next time, I’ll be armed”, that was all you needed to tee off on the entire movement. But when the occupy wall street people started throwing bricks through windows, beating on people, attacking cops, and doing other things typical of left-wing protestors, suddenly they weren’t representative AT ALL. Not a single true Scotsman in the bunch.
What I CAN say is that the oil in Alberta is coming out of the ground anyway. And it’s going to be transported through the U.S. anyway. Probably in Mr. Buffet’s Berkshire-Hathaway rail tanker cars. The rest will be shipped overseas - which means more oil tankers near your coastline. That will raise the energy footprint of the oil, and increase the spill risk, too. Pipelines are a safe and energy efficient way to move oil.
Exactly. So you condemn the Obama administration for vetoing it? And if it’s a marginal difference, wouldn’t you rather have had the thousands of jobs that would have been created?
You can always find people against the orthodoxy. But I do know that typical liberal conversation these days often includes ‘shoring up demand’ as an excuse for government spending. That’s true on this board as well.
Yeah? That doesn’t stop liberals from supporting all kinds of expansions of government without question.
I’m talking about a lot more than that. I’m talking about governments awash in debt, the Euro crisis, the massive under-funding of government retirement and health programs around the world, and all sorts of other things that the left rarely likes to talk about.
Their own words are, let me guess, you where pointed at that study from a denier site uh? As I noticed before, no easy pickings are left for them.
Nothing new there really, and many problems that are seen now are coming just from a slow increase of 1 degree since the start of the industrial era, the increase of temperature added to the system will accelerate if nothing is done and nothing is what the Republicans are proposing.
The reality is that 2 degrees is also in the low estimates by the IPCC, but not even the makers of this study go for what even lukewarmners are saying, even they report that it is likely to be more than 2 degrees, and that does fit within many of the most robust studies out there, another sad reality (for the Republicans that refuse science) is that the study does rely also on paleolithic reconstructions, something that has been condemned by many of the right wing think thanks and misguided prosecutors and legislators (that for “pure” coincidence are Republican) that are continuously attempting to discredits the experts of the paleo-reconstructions, like Michael Mann.
The problem is that virtually all republicans are denying that there is even a problem, for them there is nothing to do, and that is what you are demonstrating you are still willing to defend. As for Liberty, as the solution the ones you are defending is to do nothing, it is clear that even your “heroes” are just for all intentions dropping the ball.
I’d simply like to state that, as a liberal, I’m glad to see Sam Stone back here arguing his little heart out, and I hope he sticks around and returns to GD. I’ve learned a lot from threads he has been involved in.
While I’m on the subject of conservative posters I’ve missed, someone with a Brutus-like sense of humor is more than welcome to join the SDMB any time now.
Why? It was really quite stupid. And putting it first, like it or not, put that stupidity on more prominent display than if you’d buried that one in the list somewhere.
The part about putting it on more prominent display is just a fact. You can like or dislike that fact, but it doesn’t cease to be a fact because you don’t like it.
And so can the existence of God. So what?
You know, the point you were making was that there was equivalence between the idiocy that conservatives support and that which liberals support.
And here, you’re bringing up shit that I really don’t know jack shit about. So I’m not exactly impressed by this barrage of stuff I don’t know about, because it means that if I, someone who reads a number of lefty blogs each day when time permits, have no idea about it, then trying to claim this is something that liberals are marching in anything like lockstep support of is just absurd.
You haven’t produced any to ignore; you’ve just waved your arms and said there is evidence. I ignore armwaving.
Looks like you’re looking at strictly 30-year bills, and strictly the nominal rate. And if they financed solely with 10-year inflation-indexed bonds, they’d pay a negative real rate. So you’re just playing games here.
First you’d have to show me that multipliers are a big difference between Keynesian theories and its primary rivals. I thought the biggest difference was in the expectation of the effect of all that deficit spending on interest rates, which according to the non-Keynesians, were supposed to go all Wiemar on us.
Yeah, and I always seem to be around in the threads you’re in when you’re tired of providing cites.
I’m sorry you’re tired, tired of playing the game, ain’t it a crying shame, but if you’re not gonna play, Lili, then freakin’ don’t play. Don’t show up and get in the way, but moan that you’re too tired to play the game the way it’s supposed to be played.
Whiner.
No, what I’ve seen is data, not models - data that are beyond the numbers we should get so soon, according to the models.
A model that projects milder effects of climate change, such as you present, would simply have been exceeded by a greater degree.
At any rate, I’ll let you deniers keep ignoring the melting of the Arctic icecap, the northward shifts in the habitable ranges of plants and animals throughout this hemisphere, changes in sea temperatures, and so forth. It’s what you’re good at.
Depends on what you’re talking about. Sometimes a debate can get too broad (like this one). In a thread where the complexities of climate change arguments themselves are the topic, dumping in that extra layer mid-thread would be a bit too much for a lot of people.
But you’ve started a thread on the appropriate response to significant climate change, and nobody’s been interested in the debate? Please link!
Oh, bullshit: we libruls have been debating each other about this stuff for a decade. Come out of your freakin’ cocoon!
Yeah, like we’re likely to overshoot. :rolleyes: But assuming we don’t, the negative domestic effects of a carbon tax are about the same as any broad-based tax of roughly similar revenue it replaced.
More like slowing the increase, but yes. Unfortunately, the only way to get anyone else to go along with efforts to combat climate change is to take a first baby step ourselves.
You make it sound like you’ve never heard of a tariff. And a tariff between carbon-taxing and non-carbon-taxing parts of the world has been a longtime element of the discussion - at least among the libruls who you apparently believe never think of such things.
You know, it’s really dumb to talk about how libruls all believe the same bad ideas, when you clearly have no idea of the state of play of the assorted discussions on the leftward side of things.
Are you kidding? The Republicans in Congress killed that fucker dead. They wanted it dead, and they got it.
Oh, gimme a break. When’s the last time anyone made you defend or gainsay Westboro Baptist?
OTOH, when practically every Republican in Congress votes for something crazy, or when every GOP presidential candidate takes the same nutty position on an issue, it’s not exactly unreasonable to ask conservatives on this board to say where they stand. When dozens of GOP state legislatures are passing extremely similar laws, we want to know if you’ll defend it or have the guts to call it crazy.
If you’ve got a problem with that, then tough. It’s just been a few years when Dems routinely had to denounce any connection with any Al Sharpton that came along, so cry me a river.
I’m sure somebody on the left did. But again, the question is, are liberals doing this more or less across the board? Let’s see evidence.
What does that have to do with whether liberals are taking unreasonable positions en masse? Just because I’ve read somewhere that it’ll create X number of jobs, doesn’t mean I should take it on faith that it’s so. A lot to sort through, and I sure haven’t had time to do it. And the position of the Obama Administration is that they needed more time to properly review the application. I applaud them for insisting that they be allowed the time to vet the application properly. If you consider yourself a conservative, you should too.
No, that IS the Keynesian orthodoxy: that in a normally functioning economy, as DeLong says, exception #2 listed above applies, and more government spending doesn’t boost demand.
When it does boost demand, according to Keynesian theory, is when large quantities of human and other resources are sidelined. Like right now. Millions of people out of work, doing nothing useful, and trillions of dollars sitting on the sideline with nothing useful to be put towards either. Government borrows the money (at 0% real rates) which would otherwise be unused, pays people to rebuild our shaky infrastructure, they have (and spend) more money, which means that businesses can sell more of their stuff to more people, which means they can employ more people, build more plant and buy more equipment, and after awhile not very many people, or very many dollars, are sidelined, at which point it’s time to back off on the government investments in infrastructure, because at that point, government spending is going to just crowd out private investment.
But you didn’t understand this - you just claimed “liberals are now using Keynesian demand stimulus and multipliers to justify heavy government spending regardless of the conditions of the economy” but damned if I know who those liberals are. The ones I know actually understand at least as much of the theory as I’ve just described, and certainly guys like Krugman (who understands it better than anyone on this board) doesn’t use Keynesian arguments “to justify heavy government spending regardless of the conditions of the economy.” If you can find where he does, the duck will come down and give you $100.
Got a for-instance of an expansion of government we libruls supported without question, that was big enough so most of us actually considered its pros and cons, but that was really a dumb idea?
Without reaching back 40 years or something, of course.
Guys like Krugman talk about government debt and the Euro crisis all the freakin’ time. Under-funding of government retirement programs is something that certainly gets discussed in the lefty wonkosphere. You must be talking about a different left than the one I’m familiar with.
If you don’t know what the conversation is like on the lefty side of things, you’re only going to make a fool of yourself generalizing about it. And you’re succeeding.
A) No, I wasn’t.
B) Why does it matter where the study was linked?
C) Attempts to repudiate a scientific paper because it was linked to on a ‘denier’ website is a pretty weak attempt at a form of ad-hominem attack.
What’s ‘new’ there is that the paper narrows the range of realistic climate sensitivities. The median value they found was 2.4 degrees per doubling of CO2, which is within the range of the IPCC estimates. But 2.4 degrees of warming isn’t all that much, and according to the IPCC, that amount of warming might even be a net economic benefit to the planet. So if that’s the true number, we can ‘solve’ global warming by merely taking some of the wealth generated in the northern latitudes due to the additional warming, and use it to help mitigate the damage in the equatorial regions. Certainly, with 2.4 degrees of warming you’re not going to see coastal cities drowned and all the rest of the disaster scenarios.
What the study found was that the ‘high’ range of IPCC estimates, which is what the alarmists like to quote (and even amplify), are not likely at all. The range is narrower, and therefore the odds of climatological catastrophe are lower than thought.
Now, anyone approaching the problem logically and scientifically would agree that a change like this has policy implications. The range of measures that should be contemplated to avoid a potential 10 degree warming of the planet are not appropriate if all we need to avoid is a potential 4 degree warming. The price of carbon is lower if the risks are lower and the center point is near the lower range of the previous estimate.
And as I said, that’s not what’s relevant here, because most of the alarming scenarios for global warming do not involve 2.4 degrees of warming, but some sort of runaway positive feedback that leads to warming values several multiples of that. If those scenarios can be shown to be much less likely than previous high estimates, or not even plausible, that changes the whole picture.
I’ve agreed with you that the ‘deniers’ do not have the basic science on their side. But the other side is equally duplicitous: they play a little shell game where they throw out lists of climatologists who agree that the ‘science is settled’, but they don’t point out that the large consensus agreements among scientists are for a very modest claim - that the earth is warming, and that man-made CO2 is contributing to it based on the physics of how CO2 traps energy. But then the activists make much more extreme claims about what the warming will be, and claim that the ‘science is settled’ on their claims.
In fact, once you get away from those basic agreements that CO2 contributes to warming, there is no scientific consensus. Not even among the IPCC authors. Once you get into 100 year forecasts, positive feedbacks leading to much higher levels of warming than the basic atmospheric physics allow for, and all the other speculative claims of the AGW activists, the science gets very shaky.
There are new papers published all the time which call into question various assumptions about long-tern climate trends. New feedback mechanisms and climate responses are still being discovered regularly. In addition, the long-term predictions of CO2 emission require long-term predictions of economic output, and as we’ve recently learned, that’s pretty hard to do.
Then once you get past that, there’s the question of what we can do about it. The AGW crowd likes to go immediately from, “The science is settled” to “We must have carbon taxes” or other forms of energy restriction. But they’ve never explained how that’s supposed to work when China and India won’t agree, and in fact when even countries who agree to treaties break them as soon as it’s in their economic interest.
Imposing unilateral carbon taxes is not just ineffective - it’s counter-productive, because if you unilaterally impose extra costs on your own energy, you have just given all other countries a comparative advantage - so long as they don’t do the same. You’re essentially letting them reap the economic benefit of all that low-cost energy you would have used but didn’t because you opted to pay more for yours. It’s a gigantic wealth transfer, essentially. With China and India and other high-energy, high CO2-emitting countries being the prime beneficiaries.
This reminds me of the unilateral disarmament movement in the 1980’s. Their claim was that if we just laid down our arms, our rivals and enemies would see the wisdom, realize we weren’t a threat any more, and lay down their own. This was laughably naive, and would have been counterproductive for the simple reason that the marginal value of every weapon in an enemy’s arsenal goes up as your own arsenal shrinks. The same principle holds true for carbon taxes.
Or another way to look at it: Either Paleo climate reconstructions are a valid technique, in which case the science may be converging on a small range of values for likely warming, converging on the lower estimates of the IPCC, or they are not valid, in which case both sides have lost strong arguments, leaving the scientific case once again open.
But there’s a better argument for your side: This is just one paper. Science isn’t a contest where rounds are awarded based on who’s got the best paper at any given time. This paper may be invalidated in the future, or its arguments weakened by further research. That’s fine. That’s how the process is supposed to work. Science is never ‘settled’. Our models mutate and shift over time as we learn more about the world. We have to make decisions with the knowledge we have, but we also have to acknowledge what we still do not know and adjust our error bars accordingly.
In my experience, the only people who ever scream “The Science is Settled!” are religious extremists and those with a political axe to grind or with a demand to be met.
That’s exactly right. Many of them are, and it’s annoying. But understand that this isn’t really about the science. It’s about power and control, as usual. The liberals think this is an urgent issue, and therefore they are attempting to discredit and shout down the conservatives. The conservatives see global warming being used as a tool to strengthen liberal institutions that they don’t agree with, and that the science is being exaggerated and then used to justify larger government.
As I said in the other message, if it turned out that the only solution to global warming was laissez-faire capitalism, you’d see the sides reverse. Republicans would be yelling that the science is settled and it was time to dismantle the Department of Education, and you guys would be the ‘deniers’. Just part of the age old political struggle.
Define ‘dropping the ball’. Is making serious economic plans for being ready to mitigate the risk of global warming ‘dropping the ball’? How about raising trillions of dollars in taxes on the back of your own productive industry in a futile gesture that does ultimately nothing for the climate? Maybe that’s really dropping the ball. Especially if it makes you poorer and less financially capable of handling the effects of global warming when it comes.
I frankly do not know what the right solution is. However, I don’t think we should just “do something” if we haven’t got a concrete, workable plan which really solves the problem. If you can point to one, I’m all ears.
Perhaps a blue-ribbon panel of scientists and businessmen could begin a dialogue with an eye towards forming a committee to study the possibility of some sort of action that totally solves the global warming problem without discouraging our efforts to plunder our planet and turn it into loud, shiny crap. Boy, that would be great, huh?
I remind you all that Sam’s rant list was in response to a discussion about what is fact. But he can’t even get past the childishly tiresome tactic of declaring the opposite of whatever ideological/partisan screed is on his list to be “the” position of “the Left”. All that while still piously claiming to be here to try to learn.
He’s once again fooling nobody but yourself, and of course similarly simple (though less articulate) intellects such as Shodan.
I thought you said earlier that you were subject to the tendency to ignore jerkiness from your own side, because addressing it wasn’t as much fun. So a good deal of the time, no, you will not say they are being a jerk.
You seem to be saying a couple of things
[ul][li]That much of the shit I get is due to my posting style. No, if I were a liberal, my posting style would be considered just fine.[/li][li]That I should just suck it up and ignore the jerkiness and debate, because that is more fun for you. No. As you said, this is supposed to be for amusement. I am not required (and I am not gonna) shrug off the assholery all the time. It is more amusing for me to mix substance and snark. [/ul][/li]
If you are going to say “well, that’s just how it is, so don’t complain”, then how I post is under that heading as well.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Their own words are, let me guess, you where pointed at that study from a denier site uh? As I noticed before, no easy pickings are left for them.
[/QUOTE]
Because like the past unfounded accusation made by you that environmentalists caused millions of malaria deaths for banning DDT (it wasn’t) also had to came from the same disreputable sources that you use.
BTW it is not the science what was bad on the article you cited, it was the spin added to it, and clearly as the article shows, that spin of “you see, others are alarmists” and “this is new” had to come from somewhere else. As pointed before, your style is to show good evidence in an attempt to pass a very squiky or misleading item on the same post, in this case the idea that I or others that rely on the science are alarmists or that the estimate you point out in the article does not rely on an item that is consider anathema to guys like Republican prosecutor Cuccinelli in his ongoing efforts to blame Michael Mann of anything.
The record in the SDMB already shows that I do take on alarmists like Lovelock (of the Gaia hypotesys) that go just for the higher estimates and then more as they are not using science. Virtually all experts that tell you that 3 degrees is most likely coming is unacceptable and that something needs to be done also agree that guys like Lovelock are as bananas as the deniers, and once again, this includes virtually all the Republican leadership nowadays.
And then the straw-man of claiming many are saying that “the science is settled” and therefore they should trust more guys like you as others like me are like followers of a religion, sure you can talk pretty, but the results are still very insulting and misleading.
So yeah, this is just one paper, and yes the vast majority of Republicans that oppose sensible solutions are not offering anything as they assume that the experts are alarmists, that paleoclimate is rubbish, and then it does follow that even if it is as contradictory as what a real religious believer believing in several contradictory things before breakfast, most Republicans use the spin shoehorned to good science (in this case, by saying "Golly! Paleoclimate is the beesnees! Only to continue dumping on Paleoclimate on their next blog report and forget the detail that the protections mentioned are also withing the IPCC reports) reports to justify doing nothing in the end.
Under those circumstances, it is not strange but predictable that the sources you rely on do miss a scientific elephant in the room. And it is not then a stretch to realize that because of that that many conservative sources are not being straight or reliable on the reasons why things like Carbon taxation, Cap-n-trade and others solutions should not be used. One should not rely on sources that already have a record on misleading many others into the idea that nothing should be done. Nor should one carry water for the current denier Republican party.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/cap-and-trade.html
[quote=“Shodan, post:917, topic:610530”]
[list][li]That much of the shit I get is due to my posting style. No, if I were a liberal, my posting style would be considered just fine.[/li][/QUOTE]
No, you would be getting your ass kicked in all the time, every day, ceaselessly by throngs of posters lined up around the block with zero reservations about attacking the posts of such a fuckwit, only the attacks would come from a slightly different group of posters, maybe.
Personally, I would enjoy pointing out your vacuous stupidity no matter where you were on the political specturm, though I would pass up in certain threads where your position, however stupidly arrived at and rabidly argued, conformed to my own, but others from the rightward portion of the spectrum would be filling in ably for me.
Either way, moronic posts such as yours will always be under attack. You are a stupid, stupid entity (I won’t bestow the honor of “man” or even “human” on you), far too stupid to appreciate the point and degree of your own idiocy.
Shut up, you fucking troll.
Regards,
Shodan