Page 7 of 37 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
17
... LastLast
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    To be fair, If Obama lost the Dems would be out there trying to save face too. The people you see on TV, it's their jobs to spin whatever happens in a positive way.

    I am sure you would and in the past we have. What I have seen is different they the past though. It is like many are in shell shock, think they should have won and it was just taken from them. It is like a deer in the headlights version of the Dems after Gore had the popular vote and lost.
    Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before... He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. -Kurt Vonnegut, "Cat's Cradle"
    "Not everything on the internet is true." -- Abraham Lincoln
    Good is the enemy of great.
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Also, its Birmingham. The place has more guns than teeth. What do you expect?

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    To be fair, If Obama lost the Dems would be out there trying to save face too. The people you see on TV, it's their jobs to spin whatever happens in a positive way.
    I don't really buy that. After Obama performed badly in the first debate everyone on the left knew it and acknowledged it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Anti-racism protests are racist against whites.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Riddler View Post
    I am The Riddler. I never 'make stuff up'.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  3. #123
    LOAD"*",8,1 Fuzzzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Legion of Doom Headquarters
    Posts
    20,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Letmesleep View Post
    Quite honestly, I think it's pathetic when people's lives revolve around politics or political discussion. I see a lot of people on here go on and on about the morality of various policies, but seem to care very little about people on an individual level. People show up on this site every day looking for advice, support, or just someone to listen to them, and yet very few people who visit this site will take a few seconds to give any of that. Politics matter, but they aren't all that matter. Vote the way you please and move on with your life.
    If people were asking for personal responses I'm sure they would get them. I haven't seen a lot of that here outside of relationship threads. Politics is a personal thing however. That's why you see it discussed so passionately.

  4. #124
    Some alarm bells have to be going off. When they can't win the home states of the 2 people running there is a serious breakdown. If it is policy the canidates or a mix of the two something miss fired majorly. If you cannot convince the people that know them best and where they are from they are the correct choice how can the GoP expect strangers to back them.
    Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before... He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. -Kurt Vonnegut, "Cat's Cradle"
    "Not everything on the internet is true." -- Abraham Lincoln
    Good is the enemy of great.
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Also, its Birmingham. The place has more guns than teeth. What do you expect?

  5. #125
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    If people were asking for personal responses I'm sure they would get them. I haven't seen a lot of that here outside of relationship threads. Politics is a personal thing however. That's why you see it discussed so passionately.
    I think there's room for political discussion, but I think it's disproportionately discussed. Many people will make the exact same choices as people who discuss it night and day and yet spend a fraction of the time thinking about it. I don't think political discussion is worthless, it's good to be informed, but there's so much more to life than this. I don't know, maybe I'm just suffering political fatigue. I'd just like to see people care about other people as much as they claim to.
    Last edited by Letmesleep; 2012-11-10 at 09:47 AM.

  6. #126
    While this has nothing to do with the republican modifying (adapting, etc which I believe they will partially), I cannot stand by and watch genetics argued in terms that are so inaccurate.

    For starters, evolution is the act of multitudes of adaptations to an organism that eventually result in the inability of an organism to procreate with the original species or genus. It is at that point is has evolved into a new species/genus. So in that regards, yes, it has been documented in the lab many many times.

    Secondly, if you talk to any geneticist (yes, I am speaking as a trained molecular geneticist in eukaryotic biomes), the evolution of humans has been stupified to many individuals to an obscene degree. No one will tell you with a straight face we evolved from primates. We didn't. They are no more human then a dog is. However, we do have proof through rRNA that we share a common ancestor at some point. At which point that is, we do not know. The only definable proof we have of our own adaptations (again, can't call it an evolution as interbreeding issues are still be assessed) would be the neanderthal and such associated groups.

    Global warming is another issue grossly misinterpreted in your precious news stories. No one debates that temperatures are climbing. The actual debate lies in the cause. "Global warming" is the supposed act of chemical and carbon interaction in the atmosphere. Climate change is the actual term used to describe what we are seeing.

    Finally, the theory/law/hypothesis/observations. Any scientist observes and proceeds to model. From that model you conclude a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested. Should it prove results matching the model, you publish for independent testing and replication. If the model proves replicable, you may claim it a theory. Theory generally states that you are fairly certain this is the cause of a function and so forth. However, theories do not have interlinkables. Otherwise stated as you cannot prove it within a complete system. Once that is accomplished, it becomes a law. A perfect example is the theory of gravity. We are fairly certain we have the functions solved. We can replicate results mathematically. However, we cannot interlink these with other functions. As such, gravity itself is a widely debated topic.

    So any scientist will generally know what the theory is, but upon encountering a scenario disproving the theory in a repeatable manner, the theory is 'debunked' and once again back to hypothesis to be re-modeled.
    Last edited by Rosse88; 2012-11-10 at 09:34 AM. Reason: holy hell typos

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Herecius View Post
    The essence of conservatism is careful change. If the GOP cannot adapt and change in some way, then it won't survive.

    And that scares me. Either we have a 2-party system or a no-party system, but a system where the GOP dissolves into factions would, as things are now, leave us with one huge party and tons of smaller ones, and that is bad. That is awful.
    GOP needs to call out the extremism they have inside the party, and quite frankly i am sure the business wing will get really pissed of at the teabaggers soon enough, they dont fork out hundreds of millions to be derailed by the rapist evangelicals extremists. the business wing sure will take the votes of the crazies but they will start calling the shoots soon enough and quite frankly they will probably bribe democrats if they cant get rid of the teabaggers on the ballots.

    There is no question about it teaparty have cost them 5 seats in the senate in just 2 years. The solution is as obvious as it is easy kick the teaparty out of GOP and they might have a chance to regroup. But the problem is they and the teaparty have become the same and until that changes tehre is zero hope for the GOP for the future, They will go the way of the whigs if they dont solve this teaparty problem they have.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 09:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosse88 View Post
    While this has nothing to do with the republican modifying (adapting, etc which I believe they will partially), I cannot stand by and watch genetics argued in terms that are so inaccurate.

    For starters, evolution is the act of multitudes of adaptations to an organism that eventually result in the inability of an organism to procreate with the original species or genus. It is at that point is has evolved into a new species/genus. So in that regards, yes, it has been documented in the lab many many times.

    Secondly, if you talk to any geneticist (yes, I am speaking as a trained molecular geneticist in eukaryotic biomes), the evolution of humans has been stupified to many individuals to an obscene degree. No one will tell you with a straight face we evolved from primates. We didn't. They are no more human then a dog is. However, we do have proof through rRNA that we share a common ancestor at some point. At which point that is, we do not know. The only definable proof we have of our own adaptations (again, can't call it an evolution as interbreeding issues are still be assessed) would be the neanderthal and such associated groups.

    Global warming is another issue grossly misinterpreted in your precious news stories. No one debates that temperatures are climbing. The actual debate lies in the cause. "Global warming" is the supposed act of chemical and carbon interaction in the atmosphere. Climate change is the actual term used to describe what we are seeing.

    Finally, the theory/law/hypothesis/observations. Any scientist observes and proceeds to model. From that model you conclude a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested. Should it prove results matching the model, you publish for independent testing and replication. If the model proves replicable, you may claim it a theory. Theory generally states that you are fairly certain this is the cause of a function and so forth. However, theories do not have interlinkables. Otherwise stated as you cannot prove it within a complete system. Once that is accomplished, it becomes a law. A perfect example is the theory of gravity. We are fairly certain we have the functions solved. We can replicate results mathematically. However, we cannot interlink these with other functions. As such, gravity itself is a widely debated topic.

    So any scientist will generally know what the theory is, but upon encountering a scenario disproving the theory in a repeatable manner, the theory is 'debunked' and once again back to hypothesis to be re-modeled.
    debating in the cause is useless, It is like you putting your hand into a pot of boiling water that is getting hotter and hotter and your debate is about was the extra heat in the water caused by fire wood, electric or a gas flame? really it doesnt matter the effect of the warming is alarming and painful and you really dont care where the source was all you need is to fix the problem and not worry about the source.

    Even if there is no global warming of any kind we still need to go forward with eco friendly renewable energy sources, Oil well will dry up soon enough the faster you get of the drug use of oil consumption and on to eco friendly energy the better the planet and the people on it will be.

  8. #128
    LOAD"*",8,1 Fuzzzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Legion of Doom Headquarters
    Posts
    20,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Letmesleep View Post
    I think there's room for political discussion, but I think it's disproportionately discussed. Many people will make the exact same choices as people who discuss it night and day and yet spend a fraction of the time thinking about it. I don't think political discussion is worthless, it's good to be informed, but there's so much more to life than this. I don't know, maybe I'm just suffering political fatigue. I'd just like to see people care about other people as much as they claim to.
    Maybe so, but this being a message board, people are going to drone on and on about whatever interests them. They're not doing this to win over one side or another but they do it for entertainment.

  9. #129
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    Maybe so, but this being a message board, people are going to drone on and on about whatever interests them. They're not doing this to win over one side or another but they do it for entertainment.
    I wasn't intending to be disruptive and I apologize for that. People have the right to talk about whatever they want. I can see how my statement could be really offensive, but my motive was for people to take a step back and realize that humanity's problems don't all boil down to GOP vs Democrats. I'll bow out.

  10. #130
    LOAD"*",8,1 Fuzzzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Legion of Doom Headquarters
    Posts
    20,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Letmesleep View Post
    I wasn't intending to be disruptive and I apologize for that. People have the right to talk about whatever they want. I can see how my statement could be really offensive, but my motive was for people to take a step back and realize that humanity's problems don't all boil down to GOP vs Democrats. I'll bow out.
    Not saying you're being disruptive man!

    My only point was that a forum discussion here is a long way away from the reality of just about any topic. It's easy to be anonymous and post whatever.

  11. #131
    The cause of something is always vastly important. Just imagine if your doctor was only interested in what was happening. Bad things would occur. In fact, its generally called bad medicine (i.e. treating the symptoms). Also, you cannot point the effects as a logical argument unless you know the cause. Doing that is just the same as saying a person started a fire because they wore a yellow jacket instead of using a lighter.

    Also, the cause in global climate changes is important because if it is cyclical as suggested in the 70s (oceanic temperature change and the storms such as Sandy are backing up the model) then you don't change it. You prepare for it. Should the cause be man-made, you seek to correct the issues specifically. Take for instance the mass deaths of toads in the world (no one seems to talk about it) being traced to numerous beauty products that tested safe. Turned out that the binding agents remained post evaporation and will basically be permanently present now. Some scientists think we can introduce a counter measure but want to know what the effect is on other systems. Also, the damnable approach is seen in medicine. The reason you see more health warning is due to increased specificity. The linked systems cannot be ignored.

    You also find that no one is arguing in the scientific community about renewable energy. You will however hear about doing it responsibly which you aren't seeing occur now. What you see most at this time is zealotry. It simply isn't intelligent to depend on systems that cannot justify the costs in comparison to half-life. We would be better using the money to power fund the research into responsible renewable energy (again not what you are seeing now which is the production of faulty methodology regardless of warnings).

    What I was half eluding to was the fact many people take what they want to see and hear out of science without actually caring about what is being stated. At which point its simply an insult to those pursuing truth.

  12. #132
    While the electoral college was a landslide, the popular vote was in fact pretty close. This illustrates that the Republican party isn't really *that* far off on the issues and that Obama did just enough to win votes in the swing states.

    Romney lost Ohio because of the auto-bailout. There's really no disputing that.
    Not sure about the other states.

    None of the things the OP brought up had anything to do with the results of this election. If the whole "America is a Christian nation" thing is why the Republicans lost, that'd be because Obama claims to be a Christian while Romney was a Mormon, but that wasn't the case. Again, this election had nothing to do with religion.

    The only social issue that was a factor was abortion. All the other issues were economic. Exit polling showed the majority of people blame Bush for the problems with our economy, not Obama. Thus, Obama won. It's not rocket science. It's political science and political science tells us "it's the economy, stupid."
    Last edited by Abysal; 2012-11-10 at 10:32 AM.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by araine View Post
    debating in the cause is useless, It is like you putting your hand into a pot of boiling water that is getting hotter and hotter and your debate is about was the extra heat in the water caused by fire wood, electric or a gas flame? really it doesnt matter the effect of the warming is alarming and painful and you really dont care where the source was all you need is to fix the problem and not worry about the source.

    Even if there is no global warming of any kind we still need to go forward with eco friendly renewable energy sources, Oil well will dry up soon enough the faster you get of the drug use of oil consumption and on to eco friendly energy the better the planet and the people on it will be.
    It isn't useless to debate the cause. First of all, it's unscientific to just say "BUT IT'S HAPPENING!" and randomly start trying to change it (not to mention it's dangerous, potentially).

    Second of all, to use your example, imagine you're asthmatic and you're in the midst of a serious attack, you might die (this represents the energy needs of an organized society). Your asthma medicine is in the bottom of the boiling pot, so you _must_ reach in and grab it, but every time you try, you get burned (this represents the fact that all viable methods of sufficient energy production have pollutive dangers that appear to be contributing to climate change). You know that when you reach in, you get burned, but you aren't sure that the reaching itself is the cause of the burning.

    In order to proceed, you must eliminate or mitigate the burning. Details help you here. Is it a gas stove? Can you turn off the gas, if so? Is it an electric stove? Can the pot be removed from the burner? Let's assume it's welded to the burner for some reason (representing the fact that it's unreasonable for us to just "take the pot off the stove and pour the water out" -- that would be the instant solution that represents "stop using energy altogether").

    So, can we turn the heat (source of climate change) off? Can we get rid of the water? Can we wear a rubber glove to keep from getting burned? Is there another way to get asthma medicine (power), and if so, will it work in time? Even if we remove the source of the heat (potentially fossil fuels) will the water cool down in time? Will reducing the source of the heat actually reduce the temperature of the water? Is the pot also being heated by something else?

    For example, we could see the boiling pot, see a flame under it, and assume that getting rid of the flame will cool off the water. But, the flame is just a grease-fire under the burner, and the fire extinguisher won't stop the boiling at all. We'd have wasted resources and time on that plan. The more sure we can be that we understand the underlying cause of the boiling, the less likely that we'll try a solution, assume it worked, and burn ourselves even worse than we already are. What if the stove works with some mechanism we haven't even seen before? What if it's hooked up to some kind of geothermal generator, for instance (representing natural climate change causes we may not necessarily know about), and we can't disconnect it? Then we'll know that we need to stop worrying about turning the stove (fossil fuel burning) off, and start figuring out how to mitigate the boiling (climate change).

    This may sound foolish to some, but it's necessary, for a number of reasons. Much of our climate change science is idiotic at best. An excellent example is "antarctic ice core samples show that CO2 has never been higher!" coupled with "If the CO2 gets any higher, the polar ice will melt!" So I guess, if the CO2 levels were higher in the past, the antarctic ice wouldn't show that, would it? Because all that ice would have melted because the CO2 levels were so high, and certainly more ice wouldn't be forming to show those CO2 levels if the CO2 levels are high enough to melt the antarctic ice. Unless we study it to be sure, we're just assuming based on a non-corollary logic.

    So, no. Debating the causal effects of climate change is both morally necessary and necessary to make any safe adjustments or mitigations.

  14. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I don't really buy that. After Obama performed badly in the first debate everyone on the left knew it and acknowledged it.

    I'm not sure how you couldn't buy that. Might want to walk back that everyone statement. There were plenty of people who tried to spin that horrid performance into something good. It was only the sheer magnitude of how terrible he did in that first debate that made even the most of the staunchest supporters admit he flopped.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ama-s-lethargy


    My favorite was Al Gore trying to excuse it because of the altitude. I think Fuzzie was quite a bit more right than you gave him credit for. It's not really any different than Romney's 47% comment. A monumental fuck up and folks still tried to excuse and pretty it up.
    “Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.”
    "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others."
    Ambrose Bierce
    The Bird of Hermes Is My Name, Eating My Wings To Make Me Tame.

  15. #135
    The Lightbringer Collegeguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    3,261
    I voted for Obama this election because his plan on spending and taxes is better than the Republicans.

    But there is no way I want to be in the same room with those who evolve to nothing but stereotypes and distortions. That is all that is littered on the front page of this thread. The fanatical left is just as bad as the right it seems.

  16. #136
    Mechagnome Boogieknight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by smelltheglove View Post
    they will either adapt or double down. i dont know which yet
    The republican party will most likely do both. They will adapt what they say, but double down on what they do. If you look at their primaries they always shoot for as extreme a conservative as they can be because that's what will win you the primary. But they'll attempt to pull themselves toward the middle once they've been chosen as the nominee. If you're running against a republican for republicans then you can never be too conservative. If you're running against a democrat in a general election for the entire country then saying things like so many of them said during the primaries will not get you elected. The party itself really isn't what needs to adapt though, their constituents are what need to adapt. The world is changing and we can't continue to seal off the borders and try to get rid of the coloreds and freeloaders like they seem to always want to do. I also think at some point they need to have their own internal civil war and do something about Grover Norquist and the whole never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER raise taxes under any circumstance point of view. I think this is a wake-up call they needed, but they hit the snooze button.
    Last edited by Boogieknight; 2012-11-10 at 10:54 AM. Reason: tired and made stupid mistake
    Anyone else think Jaime Lannister only has the Kingslayer title because he was just too lazy to kill the king on heroic mode?

  17. #137
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkedblade View Post
    On the topic of education I have no idea what you are talking about. What is "denial of education?" If you mean they don't believe in the public education system, that would make sense. Public schools are entirely a waste. They undereducate the youth and they suck too much money out of already high taxes. Which leads to a contradiction because the Bush administration DOUBLED the size of the Department of Education.

    We still are the greatest coutry on Earth. Granted there may be some dust and grime on this diamond.

    There's a big difference between the Republican Party and the Christian beliefs of those in the party. If you knew some recent history of the party you would know that there was an influx of Christian conservatives in the '70's and '80's. That would lead to the disbelief in certain scientific fields.

    Romney was a weak candidate. So was Gingrich and Santorum. Early in this election year all the pundits were saying that the Republican Party could run Mickey Mouse against Obama and win. So what do they do? They find a handful of the silliest people they could find. Romney is a serial flip-flopper. He also AGREED with a lot of Obama's policies. (Re: Obamney) Santorum thought he was the perfect the conservative, and when asked what a conservative is he gives the exact definition of socialism. Gingrich thought he was perfect and was actually a moron. John Huntsman? Herman Cain? Tim Pawlenty? McCotter? Does anyone even know those names?

    The only person that is an actual conservative is Ron Paul. He was the only one that polled better than Obama, and he had the independents on his side. If he had won the RNC candidacy, we would have a Republican in the white house come January.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 01:19 AM ----------



    Conservative Northern Republicans was what freed the slaves. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Oh, hey look at that he was old and white. Learn history and poltics before trying to make a point.
    Your point about conservative northern republicans has any relevance to my comment about how their base of old, white people dying... how?

    Oh, how'd Ron Paul do? Oh wait. I called that one now, didn't I?

  18. #138
    The GOP is going to have to accept amnesty as a reality for illegal immigrants. Latinos want it, and they represent a large enough part of the electorate now to demand it. Estimates vary on the size of the illegal immigrant population. It could be 8 million-20 million, or perhaps 5% of the current population of the US.

    Basically, to prevent 5% of the population from getting a path to citizenship, the GOP has damaged its reputation with latinos. An unwise move.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 03:06 AM ----------

    If Romney just captures 40% of the latino vote as Bush did in 2004, Romney wins the popular vote.

  19. #139
    Epic! Mnevis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Buckeye State
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogieknight View Post
    The republican party will most likely do both. They will adapt what they say, but double down on what they do.
    If the policy part of that plays out in the states like it has the last couple of years, I don't think grooming a kinder, gentler (maybe more Hispanic) Presidential candidate will make much of a difference. Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, these states know what the GOP's agenda is when their transvaginal ultrasounds, election hijinks, and union fights are making national news.

    The margin wasn't huge, but it's becoming structural. The best shot for the Republicans is if the economy goes back into recession...and can't be convincingly linked to the House Republicans. Should that happen, they're close enough, and Bush will be far enough in the rear view mirror, that the swing voters could put them back in the White House with the same exact campaign as this year's.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukh View Post
    If they had that sort of insight they wouldn't have lost so terribly this time around. Does that answer your question? ; )
    People are capable of using retrospective analysis to determine things that they didn't see in advance. I actually hope that the Republican Party does do this, at least as it pertains to social issues. I have a feeling they'll be doubling down rather than recognizing that their over the top religiosity is being rejected.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •