The Official Debate Championship Shit Talking Thread!

Damn Yankee said:
Actually its a medical definition not mine. Folks who can't reproduce by physical condition have a physical condition, not a mental illness. Folks who decide not to simply made a choice.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to respond to that untill after USF has answered your question and completed his end of the debate.
 
Yurt said:
again, you're basing that on your personal views...usf's debate is hard to follow, sm's flows easily, makes sense and slammed usf's opening statement

all you keep saying is....SM is "wrong" somewhere....debates are not always about being right, hence why we have judges from both sides, because you need to distance yourself from your political beliefs...
Click to expand...
No, I'm not basing that on my personal views. I'm basing it on logic. I'll say more after USF has finished.

If I was judging right now I'd give the first round to SM and the second round to USF.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Make up your mind 15ppMoot, either its a international standard like you claim or its a congressional law. But you conveniently ignore the third possibility that is the actual case here: regulation. Regulation is not the same as law; it is adopted by the agency after public debate. And regulations that are not law can be overruled by an elected official who has oversight of that agency: The Obama.

Why is it the The Obama insisted on this ridiculous standard? Wouldn't it make sense to have ships skim oil and discharge 97-99% clean water directly back into the spill area? Wouldn't most of the 1-3% discharged oil simply float back to the surface to perhaps get collected by a second skimming operation?

Why don't you take your political-liberal gotcha wantin', Obama worshipin', granola eatin', Subaru drivin' hat off for a minute and put your common sense scientist hat back on an answer the question, solve the problem instead of being a pussy?
Click to expand...

Dude, do you have any clue how treaties work?
 
Damn Yankee said:
Yes, political-liberal gotcha wantin', Obama worshipin', granola eatin', Subaru drivin' 15ppMoot.
Click to expand...

Do you really have to add the extra bullshit? I think you have proven beyond all doubt that you are an asshole.

Stick to the subject at hand, and try to focus on the topic. Leez.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Yes, political-liberal gotcha wantin', Obama worshipin', granola eatin', Subaru drivin' 15ppMoot.
Click to expand...
No apparently you don't. Obama didn't sign the treaty, Bush 1 did and Congress ratified it giving it the force of law. The President, wether he agrees with a law or not, has the repsonsibility to administer and enforce the law. He has no choice in the matter.

Bush II, for example, had strong oppostion to sections of the CAA but even when his proposed rule changes to the CAA were rejected by congress for the new source review and his so called "Clean Sky's" initiative, Bush II continued to enfoce the CAA act, via EPA, as he was required to do. So your attack on Obama for respecting the rule of law is just more of your reich wingnut hackery.

and btw, get it right, I eat raisin bran and I drive a Ford! :p
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
No apparently you don't. Obama didn't sign the treaty, Bush 1 did and Congress ratified it giving it the force of law. The President, wether he agrees with a law or not, has the repsonsibility to administer and enforce the law. He has no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...
Cite.

...and BTW Presidents ignore laws all the time.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Cite.

...and BTW Presidents ignore laws all the time.
Click to expand...
Now wait a second. You are the same extermist wingnuts who wanted to precipitate a constitutional crises cause the President lied about getting a blow job and you thought he should be impeached because the President is the chief law enforcement officer and now you're trying to tell me Presidents ignore the law all the time? Ahhh no. They do not. You're sadly misinformed there. Presidents are subject to the rule of law just as any citizen or member of government is. That's one of the silliest things you've ever said.
 
MARPOL 73/78

http://www.imo.org/conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678&topic_id=258

I was incorrect about Bush I. It was signed into affect in 1973 by the Nixon administration and ratified by congress, it was further revised into the 1978 protocol but did not enter into force until 1983 under the Reagan administration.

161 nations are party to the agreement including the USA.

Now since you don't seem to be very good at siting regulatory references do you know what the regulations are for US Coastal Waters? Do you know what the rational is for not allowing ships with water oil seperators to discharge water with greater then 15 ppm oil is? Do you know who the actual enforcment agencies in coastal waters are and what the actual Federal Regulations that apply are?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
MARPOL 73/78

http://www.imo.org/conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678&topic_id=258

I was incorrect about Bush I. It was signed into affect in 1973 by the Nixon administration and ratified by congress, it was further revised into the 1978 protocol but did not enter into force until 1983 under the Reagan administration.

161 nations are party to the agreement including the USA.

Now since you don't seem to be very good at siting regulatory references do you know what the regulations are for US Coastal Waters? Do you know what the rational is for not allowing ships with water oil seperators to discharge water with greater then 15 ppm oil is? Do you know who the actual enforcment agencies in coastal waters are and what the actual Federal Regulations that apply are?
Click to expand...

1. You failed to cite when it was ratified and which portions.
2. Its not up to me to prove your case for you. So 'you suck at siting [sic] regulatory references' applies to you, not me.
3. The title of this proposed treaty (and I'll use the qualifier until you prove that the US is a party to it) is "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships". It does not appear to apply to this situation, where pollution is being cleaned up by ships.
4. The rationale for not allowing the discharge of 97% clean water appears to be either a) Obama stupidity, b) bureaucratic arrogance or c) to create a crisis so The Obama can further destroy the economy.
 
Damn Yankee said:
1. You failed to cite when it was ratified and which portions.
2. Its not up to me to prove your case for you. So 'you suck at siting [sic] regulatory references' applies to you, not me.
3. The title of this proposed treaty (and I'll use the qualifier until you prove that the US is a party to it) is "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships". It does not appear to apply to this situation, where pollution is being cleaned up by ships.
4. The rationale for not allowing the discharge of 97% clean water appears to be either a) Obama stupidity, b) bureaucratic arrogance or c) to create a crisis so The Obama can further destroy the economy.
Click to expand...

Yea, yea yea, play move the goal post with someone else. We've proven that you don't know what you're talking about on this issue.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
But SM's rebuttal was weak and boiled down to, essentially, GOTCHA, on USF's references.
Click to expand...

Mott, that is all that needs to be said. USF did not reference wikipedia, he stole from it and did not give them credit. That's plagiarism. Even if it's not in the rules the judges would be fully within their rights to reward all of their points to SM because of USF's actions.
 
Yurt said:
again, you're basing that on your personal views...usf's debate is hard to follow, sm's flows easily, makes sense and slammed usf's opening statement

all you keep saying is....SM is "wrong" somewhere....debates are not always about being right, hence why we have judges from both sides, because you need to distance yourself from your political beliefs...
Click to expand...

Where USF did not directly plagiarize wikipedia he took the statements and patched them up with different words so that it didn't make any sense.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yea, yea yea, play move the goal post with someone else. We've proven that you don't know what you're talking about on this issue.
Click to expand...
Actually 15ppMoot, you've failed to prove your assertion. Once again The Southern Man, er, Damn Yankee, rises in triumph while you writhe away like a snake. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top