Obama supports killing missile defense, slowing future combat systems...

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The Chinese just shot a Satellite out of space

That was us WRL.

 

[Socrtease]

sorry this is accurate. It includes federal discretionary and non-discretionary spending. The supplements are another issue, and an easier way to keep track of war spending. Barrack is talking about stripping the part of the budget, I listed. And of course sabotaging our efforts in Iraq, but he might return 'if' Al Qaeda establishes a base their, whatever that means.

Oh look everyone! It is Mr fucking Context. You ass sucking hack!

 

[Epicurus]

Watching this video hearing him talk about eliminating nuclear weapons made me 10x more likely to vote for him.

Thanks, WRL.

 

[Bonestorm]

That was us WRL.

The Chinese did it first. We did it second, and it was "necessary" for public safety, not to show the Chinese that we could do it too.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The Chinese just shot a Satellite out of space, they bet us in a technological race, and now Barrack wants to handicap our people further by walking away. This poses the greatest risk to US national security is quite some time, they have the ability to cripple our defense networks and we need to get ahead of the curve, not just walk away, why is that Barracks answer for everything.

You guys talk about all this wasteful spending of defense, I've posted the numbers, only around 20% is spent on Defense, a tiny fraction of what is spent on entitlements, and lets not forget, who do you think developed today's modern world?

Where do the Democrats find these people?

I remember hearing on the radio yesterday, shock that the Chinese reported that they spent 70 billion on defense, and the defense department yammering on about how they REALLy spend 150 billion a year.

Cool it, guys. We spend 500 billion a year. That's enough to feed every starving child in the world. We'll be fine. Even if we chopped it in half we'd be fine.

 

[Blackflag]

Watching this video hearing him talk about eliminating nuclear weapons made me 10x more likely to vote for him.

Thanks, WRL.

With every post WRL drives more people to Obama. It is almost like he is really a dem plant spouting retard nonsense in order to trick voters into thinking all (R) are that dumb.

 

[Socrtease]

With every post WRL drives more people to Obama. It is almost like he is really a dem plant spouting retard nonsense in order to trick voters into thinking all (R) are that dumb.

But he's not so....

 

[Cypress]

With every post WRL drives more people to Obama. It is almost like he is really a dem plant spouting retard nonsense in order to trick voters into thinking all (R) are that dumb.

To be fair, assuming WRL trolls the wingnut sites like freerepublic, I’m sure he thought – OMG! – this video is going to sink Obama. In fact, this Obama video went viral on the wingnut sites this weekend. Which gives you an indication of where WRL hangs out on the” internets”.

Because in wingnuttotopia, it’s taken as gospel that any cuts to defense is a sign of treason. Its simply unfathomable to them, that a president would want to curtail weapons systems that are in the pipeline, and that were designed to do battle on the plains of central Europe against an enemy that disappeared twenty years ago.

 

[Chapdog]

I always had this question.

It costs money to feed, train, house troops regardless of there location of iraq or elsewhere. I wonder if the 2-3T figure they use on iraq includes expense we would have anyways if they were somewhere else.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

To be fair, assuming WRL trolls the wingnut sites like freerepublic, I’m sure he thought – OMG! – this video is going to sink Obama. In fact, this Obama video went viral on the wingnut sites this weekend. Which gives you an indication of where WRL hangs out on the” internets”.

Because in wingnuttotopia, it’s taken as gospel that any cuts to defense is a sign of treason. Its simply unfathomable to them, that a president would want to curtail weapons systems that are in the pipeline, and that were designed to do battle on the plains of central Europe against an enemy that disappeared twenty years ago.

Kind of like some wingnut taking as gospel that anyone who talks about reducing pollution and emissions without first subscribing to the kool aid induced chanting of CO2 and Consensus, must be burned at the stake.

Because in Gumby land, only CO2 is a problem. MAN DID IT, MAN DID IT....

CONSENSUS!!!!!!

 

[Onceler]

Kind of like some wingnut taking as gospel that anyone who talks about reducing pollution and emissions without first subscribing to the kool aid induced chanting of CO2 and Consensus, must be burned at the stake.

Because in Gumby land, only CO2 is a problem. MAN DID IT, MAN DID IT....

CONSENSUS!!!!!!

Ah.....the ol' "you do it too!" defense.

Has anyone really been burned at the stake? Or is that typical SF hyperbole?

And what do you have against consensus? Do you think that it is meaningless in the scientific field, and would your take be that scientists should avoid seeking it for their conclusions?

 

[Cypress]

Wow. That was quite a thread hijacking. Totally random.

Calm down supertool. I understand you are an armchair scientist, who substitutes your vast scientific education and knowledge, for that of every government and major scientific organization on the planet.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ah.....the ol' "you do it too!" defense.

Has anyone really been burned at the stake? Or is that typical SF hyperbole?

And what do you have against consensus? Do you think that it is meaningless in the scientific field, and would your take be that scientists should avoid seeking it for their conclusions?

Oh lorax, do try to learn what irony is. It is quite ironical for Gumby to be calling someone a wingnut that follows a religious doctrine.

I don't have anything against "consensus" other than the use of the "consensus" to attempt to drown out any discussion that does not follow the "consensus's" religious doctrine..... which is exactly what Gumby does.

As for scientists seeking consensus... of course I do not have a problem with it... so long as they do not attempt to silence any who don't fall in line once the "consensus" is reached.... ESPECIALLY when the consensus is so unbelievably vague.

"very likely to be the primary cause" does not equate to IS the primary cause.... yet idiots like Gumby seem to think that the two are the same. The "very likely" portion means there is at least one other factor that "could be" the primary cause.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Wow. That was quite a thread hijacking. Totally random.

Calm down supertool. I understand you are an armchair scientist, who substitutes your vast scientific education and knowledge, for that of every government and major scientific organization on the planet.

Ahhh Gumby.... again with your religious doctrine. Maybe someday you will learn to think for yourself instead of being spoonfed your beliefs. Then maybe you will understand that I have never said they are wrong.... just that their comments are not the absolutes (or anything close to that) that you seem to believe they are.

But thank you for providing us such a fine example of your wingnut religious beliefs.

 

[Blackflag]

I always had this question.

It costs money to feed, train, house troops regardless of there location of iraq or elsewhere. I wonder if the 2-3T figure they use on iraq includes expense we would have anyways if they were somewhere else.

Well think of it this way. They are still housing the families back home while the troops are gone and also most likely paying more for their food. Not to mention the cost of supporting an entire base.

 

[Onceler]

Oh lorax, do try to learn what irony is. It is quite ironical for Gumby to be calling someone a wingnut that follows a religious doctrine.

I don't have anything against "consensus" other than the use of the "consensus" to attempt to drown out any discussion that does not follow the "consensus's" religious doctrine..... which is exactly what Gumby does.

As for scientists seeking consensus... of course I do not have a problem with it... so long as they do not attempt to silence any who don't fall in line once the "consensus" is reached.... ESPECIALLY when the consensus is so unbelievably vague.

"very likely to be the primary cause" does not equate to IS the primary cause.... yet idiots like Gumby seem to think that the two are the same. The "very likely" portion means there is at least one other factor that "could be" the primary cause.

Honestly, that's not at all how you present it. You have ridiculed the idea of "consensus" over & over again. Frankly, it makes you look uninformed, because consensus is a pretty important thing within the scientific community.

I haven't really seen Cypress "drown out" discussion when he posts links to consensus on this topic. Consensus, to me, is a powerful point that can be made on the side of environmentalism. It really isn't something to be ridiculed, and when someone merely brings it up as a counterpoint, I fail to see how that is 'drowning out' other comments. Should we tip-toe around that one, and leave it out of any discussion on the topic? If you're uncomfortable with the fact that your opinion differs from scientific consensus, just let us know, and we'll try not to mention it.

I am also aware that there have been isolated incidents of people on this side of things trying to silence critics by threatening their jobs or other means, and I do not condone those attempts. I don't see it as widespread, unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[Cypress]

Ahhh Gumby.... again with your religious doctrine. Maybe someday you will learn to think for yourself instead of being spoonfed your beliefs. Then maybe you will understand that I have never said they are wrong.... just that their comments are not the absolutes (or anything close to that) that you seem to believe they are.

snip

Unfortunately, search tools on the political forums prove that you have unequivocally previously stated that you do NOT believe man has any significant impact on climate change

Supertool: "Yes, I am one that does NOT believe that man is causing significant changes in the climate. Not to say I don't thing the climate is changing... just that I do not think man is the primary cause.”

Supertool, every government on the planet, and every major scientific body on the planet, with expertise in climate science, has signed off and agreed to these conclusions:

-It’s 90% certain that the observed temperature increases this last half century, is mostly due to human greenhouse emissions.

-It’s 95% certain that anthropogenic activities have exerted a significant net warming influence on the climate since 1750.

Compare and contrast, the following statements between an armchair scientist, and the world's actual trained and educated climate scientists:

Supertool:

”Yes, I am one that does NOT believe that man is causing significant changes in the climate. Not to say I don't thing the climate is changing... just that I do not think man is the primary cause.”

http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=27007#pid588117

The world’s Governments and Scientific community conclusions:

IPCC

-"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (aka, 90% certainty) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

-From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely (aka, 95% certainty) that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."

The panel, which represents consensus in the scientific community, defines "very likely," "extremely likely," and "virtually certain" as indicating probabilities greater than 90%, and 95%,respectively

 

[Onceler]

Anyone remember the ol' Gumby show?

Superfreak would make a perfect "Blockhead".....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Honestly, that's not at all how you present it. You have ridiculed the idea of "consensus" over & over again. Frankly, it makes you look uninformed, because consensus is a pretty important thing within the scientific community.

I haven't really seen Cypress "drown out" discussion when he posts links to consensus on this topic. Consensus, to me, is a powerful point that can be made on the side of environmentalism. It really isn't something to be ridiculed, and when someone merely brings it up as a counterpoint, I fail to see how that is 'drowning out' other comments. Should we tip-toe around that one, and leave it out of any discussion on the topic? If you're uncomfortable with the fact that your opinion differs from scientific consensus, just let us know, and we'll try not to mention it.

I am also aware that there have been isolated incidents of people on this side of things trying to silence critics by threatening their jobs or other means, and I do not condone those attempts. I don't see it as widespread, unless you can prove otherwise.

Go take a look at Gumby's responses on the last discussion we had with regards to global warming and what should be done. He damn near had a heart attack trying to proclaim consensus.... blah blah blah.

I have ridiculed those who shout consensus and try to drown out discussion that doesn't conform to the religious doctrine their consensus states. Which is what Gumby does.

My position is that we should do everything in our power to eliminate pollution and emissions. My position that sends Gumby into a fit is that I do not care what percent man is responsible for global warming. Because it is irrelevant to discussing solutions. Eliminating pollution/emissions is good for our health. Eliminating dependence on foreign energy is good for our national security. It is a waste of time, energy and resources to try to find out who to blame, when we can instead be working on solutions.

Gumby also goes into convulsions when I point to a statement that says..."very likely to be the primary cause" and say that I am skeptical of the consensus that man is the primary cause. It is not as clear cut as Gumby thinks it is... no matter how many people use the same type of phrases.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Unfortunately, search tools on the political forums prove that you have unequivocally previously stated that you do NOT believe man has any significant impact on climate change




Supertool, every government on the planet, and every major scientific body on the planet, with expertise in climate science, has signed off and agreed to these conclusions:

-It’s 90% certain that the observed temperature increases this last half century, is mostly due to human greenhouse emissions.

-It’s 95% certain that anthropogenic activities have exerted a significant net warming influence on the climate since 1750.

Compare and contrast, the following statements between an armchair scientist, and the world's actual trained and educated climate scientists:

Supertool:




The world’s Governments and Scientific community conclusions:

Yes Gumby... you were able to cut and paste their quotes again. Good job.

Now again Gumby... look at their wording. They are almost certain that it is very likely to be the primary cause. Great. So if it is "very likely" to be the primary cause, that means there is at least one other factor that is "somewhat likely" to be the primary cause.

But bottom line Gumby.... it doesn't matter. This is the point your religious doctrine of consensus doesn't seem to allow you to even consider, let alone comprehend.

IF we work to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels... will it or will it not reduce whatever effect man is having on the temperature?