Ed Anecdote to liberal reverse racism

[Alferd_Packer]

Cain is either ignorant or pandering to the ignorant.

or?

 

[Upchurch]

or?

Or he's a politician, but I felt that was being redundant.

 

[Travis]

Yes it is. "Sharia Law will come to America." -- Muslim Cleric

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddA_VjIwzn4&feature=related

By your standard of whackjob on the internet = true we can also claim that Christianity is trying to institute a repressive and disgusting theocracy in the United States.

Re: Global Warming Research Fraud

The revelations that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) doctored the data supporting the global warming claims of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) means that EVERYTHING attributed to or based upon “global warming” is invalid. -- Canada Free Press
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17187

And: Weather Channel Founder John Coleman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

I take it you are ignorant of the subsequent investigation that cleared all involved of any wrongdoing? Which would have to be the case since AGW not being true would mean we'd have to throw out 400 years of established physics.

 

[Upchurch]

And just because it hasn't been addressed yet:

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but he believes some really stupid things. Namely:

• He is against legalizing same-sex marriage.
  So is Obama
• He believes Muslims are trying to implement sharia law in the United States.
  It's a fact.
• He believes that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.

Yeah, no thanks.

NOTE: Comments in italics added by Robert Prey

The idea that anyone really knows is definitely a hoax.

*sigh* It appears that a good deal of your information is out date
Obama on gay rights over time:

• Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)
• Hate crimes related to the immigration issue is unacceptable. (Feb 2008)
• Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
• Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
• Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
• Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
• Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
• We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
• Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
• Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
• Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
• Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
• Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
• Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)
• Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)
• Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
• Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
• Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
• Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
• Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

As for the sharia law thing, I don't suppose you have any credible evidence to support that claim of fact?

 

[Robert Prey]

Yep. Debunked long ago. Old news. The scientists did not fake any results and were exonerated from any wrong doing. [.

Comment: Money talks, and perps walk. Can you say "Whitewash?"

Climategate: Beyond Inquiry Panels

by Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar

This article appeared in The Economic Times (India) on July 14, 2010.

"Two British committees, one Dutch committee and a US Senate committee have investigated Climategate — the disclosure from emails that scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University sought to withhold data from and sabotage research publications of other scientists questioning the conventional wisdom on global warming.

The first three committees gave CRU scientists and collaborators — including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and Kevin Trenberth — a slap on the wrist without calling them outright frauds. The Minority Staff Report of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, however, has accused the scientists of (a) obstructing release of damaging data and information, (b) manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions, (c) colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science 'consensus', and (d) assuming activist roles to influence the political process.

Critics have lambasted the supposedly-independent inquiry by Sir Muir Russell because he himself is a climate change crusader. He interviewed the CRU scientists but not the climate sceptics whom the scientists were targeting. This has been called "a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11987

 

[Travis]

Robert, even if it was true those particular scientists manipulated data, do you believe science when it says that CO2 will produce a greenhouse effect?

 

[Upchurch]

Comment: Money talks, and perps walk. Can you say "Whitewash?"

What money? Are you claiming that all 6 independent reviews were bought off? By whom? You realize that you're talking about a conspiracy theory, right?

Can you say "Journalist != Scientist"?

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, even if it was true those particular scientists manipulated data, do you believe science when it says that CO2 will produce a greenhouse effect?

I believe that Co2 will produce green plants without which they could not live, nor produce oxygen.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I believe that Co2 will produce green plants without which they could not live, nor produce oxygen.

I heard Fox News University was offering a degree in spin games, you'd make an excellent candidate .

 

[Robert Prey]

What money? Are you claiming that all 6 independent reviews were bought off? By whom? You realize that you're talking about a conspiracy theory, right?

Can you say "Journalist != Scientist"?

"Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding." from Wall Street Journal on July 12, 2010.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11970

 

[Spindrift]

I believe that Co2 will produce green plants without which they could not live, nor produce oxygen.

Yeah, well thanks for playing. It's been pretty boring. You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[Unabogie]

Still talking about the hacked climate emails? That's as bad as dead ender birthers or guys like Frank Gaffney who think we actually DID find WMD in Iraq.

It's a completely different reality, folks. There's no point in trying to educate our friend. Facts are seriously unwelcome in Robert's world.

 

[Upchurch]

"Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding." from Wall Street Journal on July 12, 2010.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11970

Okay. First, tens of millions of dollars over what time period? Scientists have been studying global climate change since the 50's. Second, tens of millions of dollars isn't that much to hush up the large number of people involved in those two institutions. Third, what about the other four institutions?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

*sigh* It appears that a good deal of your information is out date
Obama on gay rights over time:


As for the sharia law thing, I don't suppose you have any credible evidence to support that claim of fact?

Wait, I can't exactly follow the conversation that just took place, but are you trying to say that because he is against laws banning same-sex marriage, he is not "against legalizing same-sex marriage"?

The often mocked term Obama has used is that he is "evolving" on marriage, and it is difficult to find a straight, non-dodgy answer from him on the issue. But he has always been for civil unions and opposed to same-sex marriage.

 

[Robert Prey]

Okay. First, tens of millions of dollars over what time period? Scientists have been studying global climate change since the 50's. Second, tens of millions of dollars isn't that much to hush up the large number of people involved in those two institutions. Third, what about the other four institutions?

"...leading climate scientists were “almost unanimous” (sound familiar?) in their predictions of global cooling. Time Magazine had “The Coming Ice Age” on its cover,"

Check Time Magazine, 1975

 

[tyr_13]

"...leading climate scientists were “almost unanimous” (sound familiar?) in their predictions of global cooling. Time Magazine had “The Coming Ice Age” on its cover,"

Check Time Magazine, 1975

Wow. It's like you've never talked about this before. I feel like I've taken a trip back to 2005 just to get disappointed by poor arguments against global warming. And Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.

 

[varwoche]

This is your response after you have failed to support your OP in any way?

Don't feed the troll, people.

Clearly his response was ridiculous (though no moreso that everything else he's posted here). But still, I don't think it's fair to call him a troll for various reasons, and this post would be even more off-topic if I were to expand. But either way, it's easy enough not to open threads that we think are lame. Just my .02 as a preface.

As for the .02 that's my actual point: When a debater makes outlandish claims, and is unable/unwilling to support said claims, I think it's a poor debate tactic to allow/encourage the debater to jump from topic to topic, creating layers of obfuscation. Better to refuse the bait.

 

[Travis]

I believe that Co2 will produce green plants without which they could not live, nor produce oxygen.

*slow clap*

Congratulations. You completely avoided my question about the greenhouse effect and decided to give us an unnecessary factoid on basic plant chemistry.

Yeah, well thanks for playing. It's been pretty boring. You're not very good at this, are you?

Go easy on him. He might be disadvantaged by having gone to a private school.

 

[Neally]

Many people would agree with him. Especially as many tea party members ARE racist.

Which is why they would never elect a black candidate in a straw poll in FL, oh wait...

 

[Upchurch]

Wait, I can't exactly follow the conversation that just took place, but are you trying to say that because he is against laws banning same-sex marriage, he is not "against legalizing same-sex marriage"?

I'm having trouble with those double negatives this early in the morning, but yes, I believe that's what I'm saying. Even if that is not the case, against banning same sex marriage > for banning same sex marriage.

The often mocked term Obama has used is that he is "evolving" on marriage, and it is difficult to find a straight, non-dodgy answer from him on the issue. But he has always been for civil unions and opposed to same-sex marriage.

I believe that is his personal opinion, yes. However, Obama seems to have the ability to compartmentalize his personal/religious opinions from his duties as a president, at least on this. Wouldn't you say?