So that's it for the election.

[Alarti0001]

It's rare that I need to look up a word. Historicity is a new one for me.

But it's boring. Much more interesting to discuss Jesus in terms of his story.

This discussion is ironic go gooo!

[Alawen]

This discussion is ironic go gooo!

Trolling poor HBB!

Here's an interesting rant from Daldolma's hero, Bart Ehrman: . What makes it so interesting to me is that Ehrman is similarly pissed than anyone challenge the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (y so mad bro?). Can you spot the rampant logical fallacies?

Ehrman's PhD is in theology.

I have issues with crackers. Also, I'm kind of drunk.

[Alawen]

EZ board not so EZ. Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html.

[Hasbinlulz]

This discussion is ironic go gooo!
In that you are attempting to troll me for using words incorrectly, this is true.

[Daldolma]

Nice. Here's what I think.

I think when I used the word historicity, you had to look it up. I think you went to Wikipedia, read the first paragraph and said, "Aha, I've got him!" I think you blindly copy and pasted it without looking at the primary sources.

I think you exaggerated the evidence supporting the historicity of Christ because you know that two short and obviously modified passages are very scarce. I think you throw around random shit like Shakespeare in order to look more knowledgeable than you actually are.

I think you ignored my analysis of Josephus and Tacitus because you're not capable of original thought or responding to original thought. The majority of the scholars you choose to quote without actually researching agree with me that the Testimonium Flavianum was modified by Christians. Instead, you decided to repeat yourself repeating someone else, a mark of originality if ever there was one. I think you have a fairly limited intellect and that you think intelligence is limited to memorizing and repeating the thoughts of others. I think you know very little about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I think you were not even curious enough to examine my reference to Santa Claus.

I think you tried to infer the meaning of argumentum ad ignorantium and you still don't know what it means. I think when you feel outwitted that you resort to personal attacks and name calling.

I think you're boring. If I want to read Wikipedia, I'm quite capable of typing subjects into the search box for myself.

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.

[hatelore]

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.


/profound

[hatelore]

I would rather have a knife fight with Daldolma then to attempt to argue with him, haha! That was an amazing read I must admit.

[Hailto]

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.

Ad hominem galore.

[Hasbinlulz]

Cool story bro.

I didn't need to run to Wikipedia. It's common knowledge among the educated that Jesus lived. Catch up. There is an overwhelming consensus amongst scholars. I've now posted repeated references to that consensus from published scholars from a variety of backgrounds -- twice. You continue to ignore them and attack me for daring to actually cite experts.

I didn't exaggerate the evidence because I don't need to exaggerate the evidence. I don't need to interpret it at all. I've let scholars and experts speak to the subject.

And I ignored your analysis because I don't give a shit what Alawen of P99 has to say about the historical existence of Jesus.

You're not qualified to read Josephus or Tacitus and make a statement of any kind as to the accuracy or context of their words. You likely can't even read Josephus or Tacitus. You're being fed translations and context by the very scholars that you then dismiss and ignore. They don't "agree with you" re: the Testimonium Flavianum. They don't know or care that you exist. They have conducted extensive research on the subject and concluded that there were historical edits. You've piggy backed off of their work and cherry picked the data points that fit your agenda, while discounting and dismissing their conclusions. You're not engaging in original thought -- you're engaging in neckbeardery. "Sorry Mr. Hawking, while I value your opinion, string theory just doesn't stand up to my inspection."

I don't respect the opinion of scholars because I'm incapable of original thought -- I respect the opinion of scholars because I'm capable of acknowledging when someone is more equipped to grapple with a subject than I am. You can't even recognize your own ignorance. PhDs and professors at some of the top universities in the world, authors of NYT bestsellers, and leading scholars are speaking on the subject of their expertise, and you brush them aside. Apparently you feel that your opinion on Jesus' existence is equal to -- or greater than -- the opinion of a magna cum laude PhD currently tenured as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, a Litt. D from Cambridge, a PhD that is now the Dean of King's College London, and a PhD from Cambridge that was the president of Cambridge's New Testament research journal and is a tenured professor at University of Durham. All leading scholars on biblical history. And yes, you are correct -- I was not curious about your reference to Santa Claus.

I know exactly what argumentum ad ignorantium is, and I know that you misapplied it. You may post as vociferously as you want -- it won't change the fact that you used it incorrectly. I see that you at least have the good sense to be ashamed, hence the angry retort.

Anyway, you're beginning to irritate me. Pseudo intellectuals are unbearable, and you're more transparent than most. List your credentials re: biblical study. You were oh-so-eager to let everyone know that you can quote the New Testament at will. Follow through -- let's see what's on the resume. Give a single reason why your "analysis" should be appraised in the same light as the analyses of some of the foremost experts in the world.
That's a lot of words from someone who apparently doesn't understand what common knowledge means in an academic sense.

[Hasbinlulz]

/profound
I would rather have a knife fight with Daldolma then to attempt to argue with him, haha! That was an amazing read I must admit.
You're an idiot.

[Hasbinlulz]

ITT: Stephen Hawking is compared to "jesus scholars."

Laughing.

My.

Fucking.

Ass.

Off.

[Hailto]

I actually agree with hbb, what is the world coming to?

[Reiker000]

Can't wait for Obama to win I'm gonna be all like http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw13l5QLKs1qdlh1io1_400.gif

[Daldolma]

That's a lot of words from someone who apparently doesn't understand what common knowledge means in an academic sense.

Sigh. The intent was to reference the "academic sense". I stated that I didn't need Wikipedia because the matter is common knowledge amongst those educated on the subject. I provided an excess of sources in order to establish the general consensus required. I exercised a bit of hyperbole, but having seen your post history, I don't think you can begrudge me a bit of that.

[Alawen]

I will no longer be quoting Dulldrama's long-winded fallacies.

Anyone who clicked through to the Bart Ehrman's post I linked from the Huffington Post would have noticed three things:

1) Ehrman gleefully threatens the careers of anyone who dares to raise the questions of mythicism,
2) Ehrman's writing, much like Daldolma's, is rife with logical fallacies and falsehoods, and
3) Ehrman is plugging his book confirming, yes, you guessed it, Jesus definitely for sure no doubt about it existed. This, despite the fact that Ehrman concedes that the Testimonium Flavianum is an insertion.

Here is Richard Carrier shredding Ehrman: Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism (http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667). Carrier's PhD in ancient history is from Columbia University. Ehrman responded to Carrier, then deleted his post.

Here is a link to one of Thomas L. Thompson's book on Amazon: The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-Myth-Eastern-Roots-Jesus/dp/022406200X). His PhD in Old Testament Studies is from Temple University. He was blacklisted in the United States for daring to write his dissertation on
"The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham." He moved to Denmark and taught at the University of Copenhagen. Investigation of evidence for biblical figures is taboo within American academia.

Robert Price, first inadvertently cited by Daldolma without actually reading, you know, what he was copying and pasting from Wikipedia, and then casually discredited, holds two PhDs from Drew University: one in theology and one in new Testament Studies. His most relevant work is probably Deconstructing Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Jesus-Robert-M-Price/dp/1573927589/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350825082&sr=1-4&keywords=robert+m.+price).

The two factions in the debate over the historical existence of Christ have names. Dulldrama's position is firmly within the historicists. My position is with mythicists. There are many academics with impressive credentials on both sides of the dispute. Evidence boils down to the Bible, especially the writings of the theorized Biblical scribe labeled Q, the Testimonium Flavianum, the passing reference in Tacitus, and the lack of mention and missing books of the otherwise extremely thorough Philo. Everyone depends on copied and translated versions of these works BECAUSE THE ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

Disagreement over the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been going on since the sixteenth century. The only copies of Antiquities of the Jews derive from Christian sources and the oldest manuscript dates from the eleventh century, a millenium after Jospehus wrote.

Contemporary versions of the Annals of Tacitus are based on what are called the Medicean manuscripts and they also date to the eleventh century. The authenticity of the Annals has been questioned by many great minds including Voltaire.

The Bible's revisions, insertions and interpolations are well-known and, for the sake of brevity, I will not even summarize them here.

My interest in this topic is not casual. I've read Carrier, Thompson and Price as well as Ehrman. The volume of material on the issue, despite the very real penalties academics face for daring to address historicity of any biblical figures, is daunting. The dispute is not new; it dates back to the Renaissance. No archaeological evidence exists to confirm the historicity of anything in the Bible. Yes, nothing. No tablets, no temple of Solomon, not even a potsherd that says Abraham.

Daldolma apparently first explored this topic two days ago with a 30-second glance at Wikipedia. He has, perhaps inadvertently, taken the stance of a Christian apologist, specifically a presuppositional apologetic. This is to say that no one who doesn't agree with his axioms is qualified to discuss the topic at hand. Despite his calls for reason, this is just a word for him. He is openly disdainful of my references to symbolic logic in analyzing arguments.

No, bro, I was not mad. Just thoroughly bored with your repeats of one-sided, out-of-context pull quotes from the first page of Google. If you want to discuss this with any credibility, you're going to have to read more than the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry. It's a very complex topic and you're stepping on your own dick when you infer that anyone can read original versions of writings that have not existed for centuries. You are a disaster of a thinker, apparently unable to analyze arguments, including your own. Your last post was over 500 words of ad hominem attack, which you conclude by begging me for more personal information to continue your nonsensical rant. For real?

tl;dr: Daldolma quotes from Wikipedia, gets mad, calls names.

[Alarti0001]

I would rather have a knife fight with Daldolma then to attempt to argue with him, haha!

this doesn't surprise me at all

[Alarti0001]

In that you are attempting to troll me for using words incorrectly, this is true.

Come back when you learn how to use negative prefix modifiers

[Daldolma]

"You are a disaster of a thinker... ad hominem attack". Sweet intellectual consistency. At least you cut and ran from the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Anyway, like I said, I'm sick of the pseudo intellect. Your interest is irrelevant to me and your expertise in the subject is non-existent. You've painted the image of a two-sided and equally weighted debate even as you acknowledge that your viewpoint is taboo within American academia. Particularly interesting is the fact that three of the academics I cited as referencing an overwhelming consensus re: Jesus' existence hail from British academia. I guess it's an English language thing.

Still no credentials, still no reason to acknowledge your research as anything other than neckbeardery. And you still don't understand that EVEN ONE OF YOUR SOURCES -- Price -- has acknowledged that he is in the extreme minority and that the general consensus is that Jesus did live.

[Ravager]

An unprovable hypothesis is a challenge, not an end.

Your mind is closed, not questioning. THAT is how I know you don't understand that of which you speak.

An untestable hypothesis is a worthless one. I do question it, which is why I ask for facts, or a means to gather facts through testing. Closed-mindedness is the ignoring facts, not asking for them.

[Alawen]

(Repeats himself some more and doesn't respond to anything I wrote, but manages to deny the antecedent just to highlight his inability to form coherent arguments.)

Yes, yes, we all get it. Only the academics you agree with count. You read a couple paragraphs on Wikipedia and now you're an expert. No further effort is required on your part because you're a genius. You're the only one who gets to make conclusions about someone's intellect because yours is so astoundingly lofty.

I didn't "cut and run" from your accusation of argument from ignorance. I never claimed that Christ didn't exist. I claimed that there's no evidence for his existence. The fallacy doesn't apply. I suspect that distinction is lost on you.

What's YOUR PhD in, big boy? It had better be philosophy, or else your own standards exclude everything you've posted here.

[hatelore]

You're an idiot.

^ This coming from the mental midget who usually makes at least 1 idiotic thread a day. Lol...

And Alarti, the guy who has been to 98 countries but is still to stupid to see his own country falling apart around him. Good laughs on a Sunday morning I must say!

[Alawen]

^ This coming from the mental midget who usually makes at least 1 idiotic thread a day. Lol...

And Alarti, the guy who has been to 98 countries but is still to stupid to see his own country falling apart around him. Good laughs on a Sunday morning I must say!

Alarti and Hasbinbad are both #1 guild members. You lack the credentials to address them. Please refrain from posting until you are qualified to do so.

[hatelore]

Says he who cried and left a guild over a heiro cloak lol.

[Alawen]

Says he who cried and left a guild over a heiro cloak lol.

You don't know why I quit BDA. You have chosen to rely on hearsay evidence instead of talking to me about it. You seem to maintain willful ignorance about a variety of things. Here is what you do know about me and loot:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Alawen/HateloreRBG.jpg

[hatelore]

Yup, that was good memories. Its sad you changed so much since then. Now link the screenshots of what happened when skarry won a heiro cloak. Or do you only screenshot the happy fuzzy bunny times?

[hatelore]

when skarry won a heiro cloak over you that is. No edit sucks sometimes.

[Alawen]

You weren't there and you have no idea why I quit BDA.

[hatelore]

Okay, well I'm sorry that dude bloodied your nose in his last post. Have a tissue man, I'm sure you'll do better next time. We are all rooting for you.

[Lexical]

How does a thread about the upcoming presidential election become a discussion about the existence of Christ?

[Hasbinlulz]

Sigh. The intent was to reference the "academic sense". I stated that I didn't need Wikipedia because the matter is common knowledge amongst those educated on the subject. I provided an excess of sources in order to establish the general consensus required. I exercised a bit of hyperbole, but having seen your post history, I don't think you can begrudge me a bit of that.
It's only common knowledge if those sources are representative of valid data.

Five authors writing a book about St. George & the Dragon doesn't make that story factual.

[Hasbinlulz]

"You are a disaster of a thinker... ad hominem attack". Sweet intellectual consistency. At least you cut and ran from the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Anyway, like I said, I'm sick of the pseudo intellect. Your interest is irrelevant to me and your expertise in the subject is non-existent. You've painted the image of a two-sided and equally weighted debate even as you acknowledge that your viewpoint is taboo within American academia. Particularly interesting is the fact that three of the academics I cited as referencing an overwhelming consensus re: Jesus' existence hail from British academia. I guess it's an English language thing.

Still no credentials, still no reason to acknowledge your research as anything other than neckbeardery. And you still don't understand that EVEN ONE OF YOUR SOURCES -- Price -- has acknowledged that he is in the extreme minority and that the general consensus is that Jesus did live.
You say all this yet you compare Stephen Hawking to "jesus scholars."

My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.

[Alawen]

Okay, well I'm sorry that dude bloodied your nose in his last post. Have a tissue man, I'm sure you'll do better next time. We are all rooting for you.

You don't even understand what's being discussed, do you? Your borderline literacy and sad attempts at taunts just make me think you're tremendously ignorant.

[hatelore]

You sound upset... I'm sorry :(

[Alawen]

How does a thread about the upcoming presidential election become a discussion about the existence of Christ?

It's because of the magic underwear, the teleporting Jesus, and God turning Indians non-white to punish them.

[Alawen]

You sound upset... I'm sorry :(

No, bro, I'm not mad at you. I just don't think very highly of you. That's not because you're not very smart. Not everyone can have above average intelligence; that's impossible. It's because you trot out ignorant remarks repeatedly in a desperate attempt to get under my skin. They fail, but that doesn't mean they don't reflect badly on you.

You probably think of yourself as a Christian and cognitive dissonance allows you to think you're being a decent person when your goals here are purely malicious.

[hatelore]

Alarti and Hasbinbad are both #1 guild members. You lack the credentials to address them. Please refrain from posting until you are qualified to do so.

No sir, you see you sort of have things mixed up. I was not responding to this topic to be malicious or mean. I actually admired his post and felt he put a good bit of thought into what he wrote.. I was not attempting to put you down or even make you feel bad, but you chose to take it that way and lead it down the road it is currently on.

But you see the problem here lies in your quote above. That quote is what I would call malicious and wrong. For one, putting Alarti in the same sentence with #1 of anything is just absurd. And then for you to try to tell me to stfu when your character in game (crying and leaving a guild and continuing to be butthurt over something as small as a piece of loot in a 13 year old game) sort of speaks volumes on your character.

But yeah, keep trying to psychoanalyze me, your doing such a good job.

[hatelore]

And I would disagree completely with the remark that my trolling you after you decided to open up your piehole about me is failing, it seems to be working out quite nicely imo.

[radditsu]

No, bro, I'm not mad at you. I just don't think very highly of you. That's not because you're not very smart. Not everyone can have above average intelligence; that's impossible. It's because you trot out ignorant remarks repeatedly in a desperate attempt to get under my skin. They fail, but that doesn't mean they don't reflect badly on you.

You probably think of yourself as a Christian and cognitive dissonance allows you to think you're being a decent person when your goals here are purely malicious.

Why are you so upset all the time? High blood pressure will cause physical problems. Im sure the young doctors here will agree. Some red wine will do you wonders.

[Alawen]

No sir, you see you sort of have things mixed up. I was not responding to this topic to be malicious or mean. I actually admired his post and felt he put a good bit of thought into what he wrote.. I was not attempting to put you down or even make you feel bad, but you chose to take it that way and lead it down the road it is currently on.

But you see the problem here lies in your quote above. That quote is what I would call malicious and wrong. For one, putting Alarti in the same sentence with #1 of anything is just absurd. And then for you to try to tell me to stfu when your character in game (crying and leaving a guild and continuing to be butthurt over something as small as a piece of loot in a 13 year old game) sort of speaks volumes on your character.

But yeah, keep trying to psychoanalyze me, your doing such a good job.

I'm going to break this down for you. I'll try to use small words. That's hard for me.

The entirety of Daldolma's argument is that I am not qualified to discuss ancient texts because I lack credentials. I was making a joke about the qualifications necessary for posting on an EverQuest emulator forum.

Daldolma's demands are ridiculous. No threads about anything could exist on this forum if people are restricted to discussing topics in which they hold advanced degrees. This thread, for example, would be restricted to members who hold a PhD in political science. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that is a group of... no one.

You found Daldolma's requirements of those requirements to be "profound." That's why I made that little joke at your expense. The proposition is absurd. This is America. We can bloviate on most any topic we wish with few limits. Furthermore, this is the rants and flames section of a game forum. Requirements to post are limited to the ability to figuring out how to type in the box and press Submit Reply.

When I was a kid, we used to play a drinking game called Borderline Mongoloid. I'm a lot like you after I have about twenty drinks.

[hatelore]

As a young doctor, I would agree that a glass of red wine daily would surely do wonders for alawen's stress levels :p if he would have drank a glass before venturing into such a dangerous loot infested place as the crypt then who knows? He might still be bda. Lol

[hatelore]

And I don't need to use big words on a blowhard like you alawen, I'm sure a sixth grader could troll you. Lol

[Alarti0001]

^ This coming from the mental midget who usually makes at least 1 idiotic thread a day. Lol...

And Alarti, the guy who has been to 98 countries but is still to stupid to see his own country falling apart around him. Good laughs on a Sunday morning I must say!

58 countries, your reading comprehension is terrible. Our country isn't falling apart, the end of the world isn't in december, bush didn't burn down the towers, the kennedy's didnt kill marilyn. Take a look at the recoveries from the recession and see which countries camp back strongest, you might be surprised.

[Daldolma]

You say all this yet you compare Stephen Hawking to "jesus scholars."

My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.

Why do you put quotations around "Jesus scholars"? You're the only one who's used the term -- are you quoting yourself?

They're not Jesus scholars. They're historians and biblical scholars. You scoff at them as though they confirm the biblical accounts. On the contrary, many of the scholars that have confirmed the existence of historical Jesus have engaged in significant textual criticism and noted occasions of contradiction and downright historical inaccuracies within the New Testament.

I don't understand the crux of your issue with biblical scholars. Do you reject history as a suitable field for expertise? Do you deny the necessity for historians to investigate arguably the most influential literature in the history of our species? You don't have to believe a single word of the New Testament in order to still appreciate the efforts to contextualize the work and determine what, if anything, is supported by other, non-religious accounts of the period.

Regardless, if you can agree that history is a suitable field for expertise and the Bible is worthy of historical inspection, you shouldn't have any aversion to biblical scholarship.

[Alawen]

I'm an asshole to a guy who was nice to me, then I PM him apologies, then I'm an asshole again.

FTFY

[Alarti0001]

No sir, you see you sort of have things mixed up. I was not responding to this topic to be malicious or mean. I actually admired his post and felt he put a good bit of thought into what he wrote.. I was not attempting to put you down or even make you feel bad, but you chose to take it that way and lead it down the road it is currently on.

But you see the problem here lies in your quote above. That quote is what I would call malicious and wrong. For one, putting Alarti in the same sentence with #1 of anything is just absurd. And then for you to try to tell me to stfu when your character in game (crying and leaving a guild and continuing to be butthurt over something as small as a piece of loot in a 13 year old game) sort of speaks volumes on your character.

But yeah, keep trying to psychoanalyze me, your doing such a good job.

I'm the number 1 wizard on the server! Other people nominated me. I'm the number 1 logic-user on these forums(but there isn't much competition). That is about it though!

[hatelore]

Haha, I knew that would bring alarti flying out of the woodwork, ready to do battle with his rusty sword(brain) and dented shield(character). Hi alarti! On guard!

[Hasbinlulz]

And I don't need to use big words on a blowhard like you alawen, I'm sure a sixth grader could troll you. Lol
So why don't you try? I'd like to see your abilities fully unleashed.

[Alarti0001]

Haha, I knew that would bring alarti flying out of the woodwork, ready to do battle with his rusty sword(brain) and dented shield(character). Hi alarti! On guard!

Hey i was busy raiding all morning. I don't stay logged in on these forums on the weekend, only when I am at work.

Plus, with your weak attacks I don't even need to borrow parrying.

Stop being dumb, go eat some fish, maybe you can stimulate a neuron into firing up.

[Alawen]

Haha, I knew that would bring alarti flying out of the woodwork, ready to do battle with his rusty sword(brain) and dented shield(character). Hi alarti! On guard!

It's "en garde." If you want to translate the French to English, then it's "on your guard."

On guard is what you do for a living.

[Alarti0001]

It's "en garde." If you want to translate the French to English, then it's "on your guard."

On guard is what you do for a living.

Lol its too easy!

[Hasbinlulz]

Blah blah blah.
I find it actually offensive that you would compare some historians studying the arab version of an ancient cult of Horus to one of the world's leading scientists studying and breaking down the nature of the universe.

Don't get me wrong, I think history (including that of Mr. Christ) is important, but Hawking embodies the collected body of knowledge of humanity in a way that relatively few people do. Your comparison is false equivalency at best, but I would label it blatantly and egregiously hyperbolic trash.

[Daldolma]

I'm going to break this down for you. I'll try to use small words. That's hard for me.

The entirety of Daldolma's argument is that I am not qualified to discuss ancient texts because I lack credentials. I was making a joke about the qualifications necessary for posting on an EverQuest emulator forum.

Daldolma's demands are ridiculous. No threads about anything could exist on this forum if people are restricted to discussing topics in which they hold advanced degrees. This thread, for example, would be restricted to members who hold a PhD in political science. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that is a group of... no one.

You found Daldolma's requirements of those requirements to be "profound." That's why I made that little joke at your expense. The proposition is absurd. This is America. We can bloviate on most any topic we wish with few limits. Furthermore, this is the rants and flames section of a game forum. Requirements to post are limited to the ability to figuring out how to type in the box and press Submit Reply.

When I was a kid, we used to play a drinking game called Borderline Mongoloid. I'm a lot like you after I have about twenty drinks.

Excuse me, that's a mischaracterization. You're entitled to whatever ignorant opinion you choose to align with. You're entitled to discuss that opinion at length in RnF with your utter lack of credentials. But you're not entitled to overrule credentialed scholars. Alawen says there's no evidence of historical Jesus. The general consensus of biblical scholars say there is. They're not equivalent viewpoints, no matter how enthusiastic your irrelevant analysis may be.

But Borderline Mongoloid, what a charming game. You seem like a real sweetheart.

[fishingme]

I find it actually offensive that you would compare some historians studying the arab version of an ancient cult of Horus to one of the world's leading scientists studying and breaking down the nature of the universe.

Don't get me wrong, I think history (including that of Mr. Christ) is important, but Hawking embodies the collected body of knowledge of humanity in a way that relatively few people do. Your comparison is false equivalency at best, but I would label it blatantly and egregiously hyperbolic trash.

Unsure how you think it's such a stretch that there's leaders in other fields. It's not hard to make a comparison between hawking being a leader in astrophysics to some historian being a leader in his.

[Daldolma]

I find it actually offensive that you would compare some historians studying the arab version of an ancient cult of Horus to one of the world's leading scientists studying and breaking down the nature of the universe.

Don't get me wrong, I think history (including that of Mr. Christ) is important, but Hawking embodies the collected body of knowledge of humanity in a way that relatively few people do. Your comparison is false equivalency at best, but I would label it blatantly and egregiously hyperbolic trash.

Easy bro, you're getting a little too heated about this. It was an obvious, caricatured example of neckbeardery, not a legitimate parallel. Lighten up. We agree: mere PhDs, published authors, and tenured professors at reputable universities are not comparable to arguably the greatest scientific mind alive at present.

If you agree that the history of Jesus (agree to disagree re: Christ) is worthy of scholarship and expertise, then we don't disagree.

[Alawen]

More bullshit.

Yeah, thanks for your input. If any of us need help looking things up on Wikipedia, we'll give you a yell.

[Alawen]

If you agree that the history of Jesus (agree to disagree re: Christ) is worthy of scholarship and expertise but not actually reading anything about it past the first paragraph on Wikipedia or trying to understand it for ourselves, then we don't disagree.

[Daldolma]

You're unraveling. You seem unhappy in life.

[Alawen]

You're unraveling. You seem unhappy in life.

So PhD in psych then?

[Alarti0001]

You're unraveling. You seem unhappy in life.

LOLOLOLOLOL Guy without any logical response attacks happiness?

[Alawen]

LOLOLOLOLOL Guy without any logical response attacks happiness?

He's about three posts away from "U MAD BRO???????"

[Daldolma]

He's about three posts away from "U MAD BRO???????"

Nah, you're not mad. Not self aware enough. Just pathetic.

[Splorf22]

Just to chime in, because I love a good flamewar (and I do have a PhD) appeal to scientific consensus is still appeal to authority. I don't know how familiar you are with the peer review process Daldoma, but it often ends up with highly . . . well, for lack of a better word, highly inbred ideas. Big Gun Professor X has some theories, his graduate students do work in those areas. Eventually they graduate and do their own research, and they will have similar theories and publish in similar conferences and journals. Worse, they will go into government funding agencies like the NSF and only fund research they think is promising which will usually be somewhat in line with their ideas (newsflash: all great ideas seem dumb to the current community. Of course, so do all dumb ideas).

Scientific consensus is frequently wrong. At one point 'all of the experts' believed that:

* the sun revolved around the earth
* the earth moved through a mysterious aether
* fat makes you fat
* humans are causing global warming

In other words if you want to prove Jesus was a historical figure, you can't just quote the experts. Its not as worthless as Alawen is making it out of course, but in the end you have to cite facts.

[Splorf22]

err what i wanted to say was 'eating fat makes you fat'. damn no edits in rnf

[Daldolma]

Just to chime in, because I love a good flamewar (and I do have a PhD) appeal to scientific consensus is still appeal to authority. I don't know how familiar you are with the peer review process Daldoma, but it often ends up with highly . . . well, for lack of a better word, highly inbred ideas. Big Gun Professor X has some theories, his graduate students do work in those areas. Eventually they graduate and do their own research, and they will have similar theories and publish in similar conferences and journals. Worse, they will go into government funding agencies like the NSF and only fund research they think is promising which will usually be somewhat in line with their ideas (newsflash: all great ideas seem dumb to the current community. Of course, so do all dumb ideas).

Scientific consensus is frequently wrong. At one point 'all of the experts' believed that:

* the sun revolved around the earth
* the earth moved through a mysterious aether
* fat makes you fat
* humans are causing global warming

In other words if you want to prove Jesus was a historical figure, you can't just quote the experts. Its not as worthless as Alawen is making it out of course, but in the end you have to cite facts.

Right, that's fair. I'm not setting out to prove Jesus' historical existence, though. I'm chatting in RnF -- not developing a dissertation. I'm content to cite the general consensus of scholars and dismiss the ramblings of a P99 poster not only rejecting that general consensus, but rejecting that there is any evidence to support that consensus.

But I agree that if my goal were to formally establish the historicity, the scholarly consensus wouldn't be particularly relevant. But I am not qualified to do that, and neither is Alawen. I don't pretend to be.

[Ryba]

Thread summary thus far:

Lucky had a bad 4 years, can now barely restrain his racism. Trolls everyone from his subterranean hovel in a flyover state.

Alawen kills Jesus; confirmed major depressive.

Unanimous agreement that atheism is obnoxious.

People mad.

Consensus?!: 21st century religion is more like a cheat code than a lived philosophy.

[Nirgon]

* fat makes you fat


Actually, this is exactly it

[Alarti0001]

Thread summary thus far:

Lucky had a bad 4 years, can now barely restrain his racism. Trolls everyone from his subterranean hovel in a flyover state.

Alawen kills Jesus; confirmed major depressive.

Unanimous agreement that atheism is obnoxious.

People mad.

Consensus?!: 21st century religion is more like a cheat code than a lived philosophy.

Your summarizing skills are lacking.

[Lucky]

Global warming fraud exposed

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

[Hasbinlulz]

Easy bro, you're getting a little too heated about this. It was an obvious, caricatured example of neckbeardery, not a legitimate parallel. Lighten up. We agree: mere PhDs, published authors, and tenured professors at reputable universities are not comparable to arguably the greatest scientific mind alive at present.

If you agree that the history of Jesus (agree to disagree re: Christ) is worthy of scholarship and expertise, then we don't disagree.
I think it is worthy of scholarship, but with a complete lack of any evidence other than eyewitness, if ancient writings can even be trusted as eyewitness testimony, and with eyewitness testimony being the absolute WORST kind of evidence possible, I think it is supremely irresponsible to call it "expertise."

[Hasbinlulz]

Just to chime in, because I love a good flamewar (and I do have a PhD) appeal to scientific consensus is still appeal to authority. I don't know how familiar you are with the peer review process Daldoma, but it often ends up with highly . . . well, for lack of a better word, highly inbred ideas. Big Gun Professor X has some theories, his graduate students do work in those areas. Eventually they graduate and do their own research, and they will have similar theories and publish in similar conferences and journals. Worse, they will go into government funding agencies like the NSF and only fund research they think is promising which will usually be somewhat in line with their ideas (newsflash: all great ideas seem dumb to the current community. Of course, so do all dumb ideas).

Scientific consensus is frequently wrong. At one point 'all of the experts' believed that:

* the sun revolved around the earth
* the earth moved through a mysterious aether
* fat makes you fat
* humans are causing global warming

In other words if you want to prove Jesus was a historical figure, you can't just quote the experts. Its not as worthless as Alawen is making it out of course, but in the end you have to cite facts.
You seem smart, please comment on what I said about eyewitness "evidence."

[Hasbinlulz]

Global warming fraud exposed

http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
That graph is misleading.

[Splorf22]

Actually that graph is pretty reasonable. If you look up the 10k graph from ice core data you will find it impossible to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

If you think about it a bit, while global warming itself is science, anthropogenic global warming is basically a religion, because it is also unfalsifiable.

[Hasbinlulz]

I find that it's misleading in two ways.

Firstly, the lay person (the audience of this board) is not going to understand that it represents variations from the normal up/down cycle rather than the up/down cycle itself or even base temperature. And how you would have to read that to make any sense is to compare it to the base up/down temp cycle.

Secondly, it appears to show that the last 300 years of "up up up" end within "normal levels," but in fact, the last bit represents a huge spike up with no down cycles to balance it out that conveniently ends when the spike hits the upper limit of the "normal levels." Project a few decades onto that graph and it becomes a different story altogether.

[Hasbinlulz]

It's really simple to design a valid graph to impart information that is not part of the graph nor valid.

[Lucky]

No it proves we were 'warming' far before carbon based fuels were even dreamed of and therefore there is no correlation between co2 levels and the alarmism by the hippie fucks.

[Hasbinlulz]

Actually that graph is pretty reasonable. If you look up the 10k graph from ice core data you will find it impossible to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

If you think about it a bit, while global warming itself is science, anthropogenic global warming is basically a religion, because it is also unfalsifiable.
I've had it explained to me in a way that would lead me to different conclusions, but I don't really understand the data very well. Could you explain this? It appears you know what you're talking about but I'm not just going to accept your word on it. :D

[Hasbinlulz]

Actually it "proves" nothing since nobody can ever "prove" anything besides a mathematical equation.

:D

[Lucky]

I can prove earth has 004/100 of 1% (390ppm) of co2 in the atmosphere, and venus has 96%, and is only 8x hotter while being 6/10 the distance from the sun. QUITE AN EXPONENTIAL LEAP TO CLAIM CO2 IS A MAJOR ISSUE

[Hasbinlulz]

I can prove earth has 004/100 of 1% (390ppm) of co2 in the atmosphere, and venus has 96%, and is only 8x hotter while being 6/10 the distance from the sun. QUITE AN EXPONENTIAL LEAP TO CLAIM CO2 IS A MAJOR ISSUE
i lol'd irl

[Splorf22]

Well seeing as how we are already hitting all the controversial topics we might as well hit global warming.

Most people know the general theory of global warming: carbon dioxide (the result of burning gasoline) and methane (from cow poo) and such are 'green house gases'. They are transparent to visual light (emitted by the sun) but not infrared light (emitted by the earth). This is basically a good thing; without the atmosphere the earth would be -40 or something.

What most people do not know is that that carbon dioxide has a very small effect on temperature. Its like 1C tops or something; I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head. The theory is this: that 1C will warm the planet, causing more water to evaporate from the oceans. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (I guess it isn't as politically convenient to demonize water though). And it is this 'forcing' that creates the 5-10C increases you read about. There are tons of computer models which generate very different answers depending on their initial parameters.

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

My personal belief is that most of the environmental moment is really about people who hate the fact that corporations can bribe our government to do anything and therefore want to try and fuck them in return, somehow, anyhow. This is moronic at best, but I understand the frustration (this is also why I always laugh at Democrats. The government is *always* on the side of the rich. The more you try and enlarge the government to redistribute wealth, the more the rich win.)

Anyway Hasbin, go look up the data of the earth's temperature for the past 10000 years from the Greenland ice cores. It has gone through huge variations with no influence from man at all. I'm not saying that global warming theory is wrong, only that there are a lot of people with a lot to gain if it is right and the evidence is not (and cannot) ever be there.

[Hasbinlulz]

737 degrees Kelvin y'all, NBD.

[Hasbinlulz]

Well seeing as how we are already hitting all the controversial topics we might as well hit global warming.

Most people know the general theory of global warming: carbon dioxide (the result of burning gasoline) and methane (from cow poo) and such are 'green house gases'. They are transparent to visual light (emitted by the sun) but not infrared light (emitted by the earth). This is basically a good thing; without the atmosphere the earth would be -40 or something.

What most people do not know is that that carbon dioxide has a very small effect on temperature. Its like 1C tops or something; I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head. The theory is this: that 1C will warm the planet, causing more water to evaporate from the oceans. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (I guess it isn't as politically convenient to demonize water though). And it is this 'forcing' that creates the 5-10C increases you read about. There are tons of computer models which generate very different answers depending on their initial parameters.

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

My personal belief is that most of the environmental moment is really about people who hate the fact that corporations can bribe our government to do anything and therefore want to try and fuck them in return, somehow, anyhow. This is moronic at best, but I understand the frustration (this is also why I always laugh at Democrats. The government is *always* on the side of the rich. The more you try and enlarge the government to redistribute wealth, the more the rich win.)

Anyway Hasbin, go look up the data of the earth's temperature for the past 10000 years from the Greenland ice cores. It has gone through huge variations with no influence from man at all. I'm not saying that global warming theory is wrong, only that there are a lot of people with a lot to gain if it is right and the evidence is not (and cannot) ever be there.
Warmer and warmer gets the water around the frog, and yet he doesn't notice until he's soup.

[Hasbinlulz]

Well seeing as how we are already hitting all the controversial topics we might as well hit global warming.

Most people know the general theory of global warming: carbon dioxide (the result of burning gasoline) and methane (from cow poo) and such are 'green house gases'. They are transparent to visual light (emitted by the sun) but not infrared light (emitted by the earth). This is basically a good thing; without the atmosphere the earth would be -40 or something.

What most people do not know is that that carbon dioxide has a very small effect on temperature. Its like 1C tops or something; I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head. The theory is this: that 1C will warm the planet, causing more water to evaporate from the oceans. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (I guess it isn't as politically convenient to demonize water though). And it is this 'forcing' that creates the 5-10C increases you read about. There are tons of computer models which generate very different answers depending on their initial parameters.

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

My personal belief is that most of the environmental moment is really about people who hate the fact that corporations can bribe our government to do anything and therefore want to try and fuck them in return, somehow, anyhow. This is moronic at best, but I understand the frustration (this is also why I always laugh at Democrats. The government is *always* on the side of the rich. The more you try and enlarge the government to redistribute wealth, the more the rich win.)

Anyway Hasbin, go look up the data of the earth's temperature for the past 10000 years from the Greenland ice cores. It has gone through huge variations with no influence from man at all. I'm not saying that global warming theory is wrong, only that there are a lot of people with a lot to gain if it is right and the evidence is not (and cannot) ever be there.
That wasn't a very good explanation from a doctor bro.

[Hasbinlulz]

How come every time I try and get someone who doesn't think mankinds shit stinks to explain why they tell me "it's complex bro, go look it up lol" ?

But then whenever I ask some environmentalist hippie to explain why shit is wrong, they are able to easily cite a laundry list of facts and studies that support what they are saying?

[Hasbinlulz]

INTERESTING, ISN'T IT BROS?

[Splorf22]

You must also believe that hurricanes come from God when people sin. Is it really so hard to believe that we just don't understand the weather well enough to justify fucking with the lives of billions of people?

I was about to congratulate you on successfully trolling me out of 10 minutes of my time, but then I realized you had just trolled yourself 4 times in a row.

[Hasbinlulz]

I'm just asking for some backup on your statement dude. I asked you once and you diverted with a very opinionated and unsubstantiated editorial on your feelings.

I ask you again doc, please explain this position of "mankind doesn't affect the environment" a bit better. Maybe a couple links to useful analysis published in a peer reviewed journal?

Oh wait..

They don't exist??

ERMEHGERD

[Splorf22]

I am not saying that mankind doesn't impact the environment. In fact I think that global warming detracts from real environmental issues like preserving the rainforest and endangered species and such.

You think that my previous post represents my feelings because you are just as religious about global warming as Daldoma is about jesus, and you are demanding the same appeal to authority he is.

The reality is: the earth's atmosphere is a very complicated and chaotic system which is extremely difficult to model with mathematics and computers. We know it changes substantially on its own anyway, so the burden of proof is on the nuts (you) who want to fuck with the lives of millions of people. Anyway, since it appears you like links, how about:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0707/full/climate.2007.22.html Go to figure 2 and note the width of the pink bar - its almost 50% of the size of the change! OK, you say, the pink bar is still going up. The reality is that the models are predicting the data on which they were trained (a huge no-no in classification) and they still have this kind of error. In other words: we don't know. Since its in Nature I'm sure you'll accept everything they say without questioning.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf And here we have a discussion about troposphere warming and how the IPCC is lying through its teeth.

[Alarti0001]

Well seeing as how we are already hitting all the controversial topics we might as well hit global warming.

Most people know the general theory of global warming: carbon dioxide (the result of burning gasoline) and methane (from cow poo) and such are 'green house gases'. They are transparent to visual light (emitted by the sun) but not infrared light (emitted by the earth). This is basically a good thing; without the atmosphere the earth would be -40 or something.

What most people do not know is that that carbon dioxide has a very small effect on temperature. Its like 1C tops or something; I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head. The theory is this: that 1C will warm the planet, causing more water to evaporate from the oceans. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (I guess it isn't as politically convenient to demonize water though). And it is this 'forcing' that creates the 5-10C increases you read about. There are tons of computer models which generate very different answers depending on their initial parameters.

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

My personal belief is that most of the environmental moment is really about people who hate the fact that corporations can bribe our government to do anything and therefore want to try and fuck them in return, somehow, anyhow. This is moronic at best, but I understand the frustration (this is also why I always laugh at Democrats. The government is *always* on the side of the rich. The more you try and enlarge the government to redistribute wealth, the more the rich win.)

Anyway Hasbin, go look up the data of the earth's temperature for the past 10000 years from the Greenland ice cores. It has gone through huge variations with no influence from man at all. I'm not saying that global warming theory is wrong, only that there are a lot of people with a lot to gain if it is right and the evidence is not (and cannot) ever be there.

CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses. Not to mention minimal changes cause more ice to melt, and less snow to fall in the polar regions the effect adds up exponentially over the years. Do some research unless you only want to look at the very very short term effects of an exponential curve.

[Alawen]

I have way too much to do to get into this one. Plus, I can't even say things like North Atlantic Oscillation without a PhD in meteorology.

[Splorf22]

CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses. Not to mention minimal changes cause more ice to melt, and less snow to fall in the polar regions the effect adds up exponentially over the years. Do some research unless you only want to look at the very very short term effects of an exponential curve.

Considering that's precisely what I said, I'd say you're embarrassing yourself in RnF again . . .

[Lucky]

global warming doesnt exist, just left-wing retardism since liberalism is a mental disorder.

you cant take these people seriously. they want to overtax an already suffocating economy to give to people who don't deserve it all while the country is already bankrupt.

[Lucky]

I'm talking about carbon taxes, that'll be $4.20 everytime u wanna fart

[Hasbinlulz]

First of all, here is a more recent (recency isn't important tho right? What could we have learned in only five years?? lol) study published in Nature (one source you cite) entitled "At Least Three Quarters Of Climate Change Is Man Made."
http://www.nature.com/news/at-least-three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538

Secondly, when you do a simple google search on Richard S. Lindzen (a generally well respected professor at MIT), after the wikipedia about him and his own page, the third result is literally titled: "Is Richard S. Lindzen deliberately lying, or just deluded?" Yes it is an opinion piece, but it is indicative of the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists, from the little I've studied about it. He is basically the most credible scientist of the "opposition" to the idea that recent global climate changes have humans to blame. That being said, the ratio of scientists who agree with him, as this article cites, is 97 against, 3 for:
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change. Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html.

Fuck off with your bullshit, "doc."

http://i.imgur.com/lQ4wo.jpg

[Hasbinlulz]

somehow the other link (from which the second link above is referenced) didn't come through: http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_de luded

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, like that article says, do a ctrl+F on this document and tell me how many times "wall street," "economics," and "energy" come up, and tell me if that tells you something or not.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html

[Hasbinlulz]

Fucking noobs should know better by now.

[Hasbinlulz]

Good point about global warming distracting people from other issues tho. That is true, and should be addressed. A lot of things currently threaten -the entire world- that aren't being talked about (rain forest bioDiversity and the chitridomycosis/amphibian situation, mainly).

[Lucky]

who gives a fuk about the animals unless theyre in the ovens

[pasi]

How come every time I try and get someone who doesn't think mankinds shit stinks to explain why they tell me "it's complex bro, go look it up lol" ?

But then whenever I ask some environmentalist hippie to explain why shit is wrong, they are able to easily cite a laundry list of facts and studies that support what they are saying?

For the most part, people are (usually) knowledgeable about what they care about. The knowledge pool combined with our life expectancy sort of rules out the notion of being a renaissance man.

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

There are many fields like this where it is beneficial to connect the dots before something is scientifically proven. As you mentioned - this is not a case where we can run traditional controlled experiments on. In fact, very few fields are so raw that we have the mathematical capabilities to create an isolated model. Other fields must rely on a steady accumulation of results that support a hypothesis. HBB mentioned you're in medicine, I believe?

I think you can draw a parallel to drug development (and medicine in general) here in the sense that we are observing the effect on a system with more variables than we know how to properly model in vivo. We are also acting against a clock that does not always allow us to wait. The idea is weighing the pros of acting now versus the cons of acting without complete knowledge. For the most part, I think the consensus (I say consensus because you will always have people willing to champion an opposing viewpoint for the spotlight) among scientists in the field means that our knowledge base (although incomplete) is sufficient to act on this matter. I think people underestimate the effects a 1-3 degree difference has on the environment. Even in this thread, you had some idiot try to prove his point by saying that Venus is only 8x hotter than the Earth.

Then again, this isn't my field so grain of salt and all.

[Splorf22]

I just continue to find it so funny that you attack Daldoma for citing sources and then proceed with a massive appeal to authority with *gasp* blog citations from a . . . software developer. http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/who Meanwhile your entire attack on Richard Lindzen is a giant ad hominem against someone who has done a lot more research than you ever will. Do you really not understand that the 'scientific consensus' means nothing compared to the reality of things?

Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!

Well, I've utterly destroyed all your links, so how about you say something about mine? I mean, other from your usual ad hominems. Flame away, just know that a good post has many ingredients, not just trolling.

[Splorf22]

For the most part, people are (usually) knowledgeable about what they care about. The knowledge pool combined with our life expectancy sort of rules out the notion of being a renaissance man. For the most part, I think the consensus (I say consensus because you will always have people willing to champion an opposing viewpoint for the spotlight) among scientists in the field means that our knowledge base (although incomplete) is sufficient to act on this matter.

Oh I agree. An expert's opinion is a very useful thing, and a consensus of a group of experts is even more valuable. Unfortunately the science part of climate science has been corrupted by the government in the same way as economics as a way to justify their continued expansion of state power.

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works. And like economics, they are trying to make math and statistics do things that you just can't do. Is it better than rule of thumb estimation? Sure it is. But its not nearly accurate to spend trillions of dollars on.

[Alarti0001]

Considering that's precisely what I said, I'd say you're embarrassing yourself in RnF again . . .

Actually its not. Did you read what you wrote?

You put out conjecture, and claimed sources without linking and then talked about what you "believe". Poor kid

[Daldolma]

I am not saying that mankind doesn't impact the environment. In fact I think that global warming detracts from real environmental issues like preserving the rainforest and endangered species and such.

You think that my previous post represents my feelings because you are just as religious about global warming as Daldoma is about jesus, and you are demanding the same appeal to authority he is.

The reality is: the earth's atmosphere is a very complicated and chaotic system which is extremely difficult to model with mathematics and computers. We know it changes substantially on its own anyway, so the burden of proof is on the nuts (you) who want to fuck with the lives of millions of people. Anyway, since it appears you like links, how about:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0707/full/climate.2007.22.html Go to figure 2 and note the width of the pink bar - its almost 50% of the size of the change! OK, you say, the pink bar is still going up. The reality is that the models are predicting the data on which they were trained (a huge no-no in classification) and they still have this kind of error. In other words: we don't know. Since its in Nature I'm sure you'll accept everything they say without questioning.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf And here we have a discussion about troposphere warming and how the IPCC is lying through its teeth.

Geez, you were quick to throw me under the bus the second the same people started fucking with you. I'm not religious re: Jesus, I'm not even a Christian. I think Jesus was born to a mother that was exactly 0% virgin and impregnated by a man that was exactly 100% human. I simply trust the opinions of the vast majority of scholars when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and I'm not interested in getting into the details with someone less qualified and less informed than those scholars -- especially seeing as how I am less informed than those scholars. Neither my nor Alawen's opinion on the matter is more valuable than the scholarly consensus, so him trying to convince me is utterly worthless. It's also ridiculous to entirely disregard scholarly consensus and make a statement like "there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus" like it's fact.

Anyway, you'll learn soon enough that you're not quite being trolled but the result is the same.

[Hasbinlulz]

As I just posted I know basically how climate "science" works.
Yet you quote businesspeople fronting as scientists and think CO2 is the only harmful greenhouse gas (apparently).

[Hasbinlulz]

Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!
Yeah, except that a simulation only needs to be as complex as will produce consistent and predictive results, you fucking tool.

Read the last paragraph, and see if your fancy letters can help you ferret out the reason why this study is valid rather than invalidated by lack of infinite complexity, as you seem to desire:

Here we have shown that for global temperature the fundamental principle of conservation of energy, combined with knowledge about the evolution of radiative forcing, provides a complementary approach to attribution. Our results are strongly constrained by global observations and are robust when considering uncertainties in radiative forcing, the observed warming and in climate feedbacks. Each of the thousands of model simulations is a consistent realization of the ocean atmosphere energy balance. The resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7–6.5 °C, 5–95%, mean 3.6 °C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from palaeoclimate archives11. Using a more informative prior assumption does not significantly alter the conclusions (see Supplementary Information). Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing. The discrepancy between the total and the sum of the two contributions (14% on average) arises because the total ocean heat uptake is different from the sum of the responses to the individual forcings. Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07 °C (0.03–0.13 °C) to the warming since 1950 (see Fig. 3c). The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times.

[huggies]

you are underestimating the power of really really stupid people.

hi i have a celebrity as my avatar , im a fucking wannabe and i love cock

thanks for the cock folks ill be here all week

[Loke]

HBB, we've always gotten along so don't take this the wrong way, but I just wanted to point out that 80% the posts on page 59 were from you with 5 of them being consecutive. Two of them quoted the same post followed by a one sentence reply. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect better than that from you in the future.

[Orruar]

It's kinda funny how this thread has covered pretty much every major topic of discussion and Altari has managed to be wrong on every single one.

[Orruar]

It would be pretty awesome if anthropogenic global warming is true. First, it would mean man is powerful enough to effect the climate. This is very good news in a world where a very serious volcanic event or meteor strike can cool the globe for decades. Second, it would likely increase the carrying capacity of earth, as it would open up vast areas of Canada and Russia for agriculture. Warmer periods in Earth's history were characterized by much more abundant life, with plants reaping many benefits from increased CO2 levels. We should hope we could move the Earth back in that direction again.

Any notion that Earth would turn into Venus or otherwise completely uninhabitable are not too serious. The vast difference in solar insolation and atmospheric density makes this highly unlikely. And if the warming began to threaten humanity, we already know many ways to cool the climate that would actually cost less than the pointless carbon taxes being proposed.

[Splorf22]

Yeah, except that a simulation only needs to be as complex as will produce consistent and predictive results, you fucking tool.

Read the last paragraph, and see if your fancy letters can help you ferret out the reason why this study is valid rather than invalidated by lack of infinite complexity, as you seem to desire:

Congratulations, you managed to download the article, find the copy and paste tool, and even minimize the font. If you work hard over the next 10 years, you might achieve the vocabulary of Koko the gorilla.

Now let me try to explain something very simple to you. Statistical models predict based on correlation. CO2 and global temperature have both increased over the past 150 years. Hence you can build a nice statistical model that predicts the global temperature will zoom off to infinity if the CO2 level continues to go up. However, if you were paying attention in stat 101 you would know that correlation does not imply causation. I can build the exact same statistical model for obesity causing global warming (both have increased in the past 150 years). The mathematics is the same. The problem with both climate scientists and economists is that they are putting too much trust in the ability of simple mathematics to model very complex systems and not engaging their brains.

I'm not religious re: Jesus, I'm not even a Christian. I think Jesus was born to a mother that was exactly 0% virgin and impregnated by a man that was exactly 100% human. I simply trust the opinions of the vast majority of scholars when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and I'm not interested in getting into the details with someone less qualified and less informed than those scholars.

This is a reasonable position and I don't think I've stated otherwise. I'm not against expert opinions per se, just those of climate "scientists". The only reason I brought you up was because the same people who were skewering you for trusting expert opinion are blathering on about the scientific consensus and how thats the second best thing to God's word.

What most people do not know is that that carbon dioxide has a very small effect on temperature. Its like 1C tops or something; I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head. The theory is this: that 1C will warm the planet, causing more water to evaporate from the oceans. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (I guess it isn't as politically convenient to demonize water though). And it is this 'forcing' that creates the 5-10C increases you read about. There are tons of computer models which generate very different answers depending on their initial parameters.

You might want to read that again Alarti - I even mentioned methane too. Sure some of my post was opinion but hey its RnF. Anyway I think I am getting tired of playing in this mudhole, good day gentlemen and you too Hasbinbad.

[azeth]

Hasbinbad, just a tip to improve your future: don't ever finish a sentence with, "you fucking tool"

[Orruar]

Yeah, except that a simulation only needs to be as complex as will produce consistent and predictive results, you fucking tool.

Read the last paragraph, and see if your fancy letters can help you ferret out the reason why this study is valid rather than invalidated by lack of infinite complexity, as you seem to desire:

It's not difficult for a neural network to fit training data. It's a much different beast for it to actually be predictive. In fact, the low error they have achieved in training would make me suspect of overfitting the data, which is a common problem with such systems. They didn't even mention the training method they used for the neural networks. They should require all papers that model the environment to give some testable predictions of the future. At least then we'd be able to tell which ones are possibly valid after a few years.

[Alawen]

Geez, you were quick to throw me under the bus the second the same people started fucking with you. I'm not religious re: Jesus, I'm not even a Christian. I think Jesus was born to a mother that was exactly 0% virgin and impregnated by a man that was exactly 100% human. I simply trust the opinions of the vast majority of scholars when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and I'm not interested in getting into the details with someone less qualified and less informed than those scholars -- especially seeing as how I am less informed than those scholars. Neither my nor Alawen's opinion on the matter is more valuable than the scholarly consensus, so him trying to convince me is utterly worthless. It's also ridiculous to entirely disregard scholarly consensus and make a statement like "there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus" like it's fact.

Anyway, you'll learn soon enough that you're not quite being trolled but the result is the same.

Holy shit, are you always this butthurt when someone knows more about something than you do? Give it a fucking rest man.

[Daldolma]

He's about three posts away from "U MAD BRO???????"

Holy shit, are you always this butthurt

At least you've got all your bases covered.

[Saskrotch]

global warming doesnt exist, just left-wing retardism since liberalism is a mental disorder.

you cant take these people seriously. they want to overtax an already suffocating economy to give to people who don't deserve it all while the country is already bankrupt.

True story.

[Alawen]

And you're absolutely correct.

You are, indeed, less informed.

[hatelore]

I will say this, what al gore did was really a stroke of genius. He created a new industry pretty much(green movement). Some things that have to do with global warming are infact true, but I wouldn't say it's all doom and gloom like al gorlioni tries to make it out to be.

But you have to admit, all of the concrete we are laying on this planet doesn't really help the planet. Think of it like a brick oven. The Italians used brick ovens forever to cook with, and other cultures of people of course. The reason they use them even to this day is because they retain heat. Now think about all the concrete we have layed on earth. At nightime, naturally the earth should cool off some since the sun is not beaming on that particular part of the earth. But since the concrete retains heat throughout the night, the earth doesn't cool off as much as it would have a thousand years ago. Now compound that with all of the factories and cars and such, and of course the planet will be warmer then it was a thousand years ago.

What al gore did was basically go to big business and say " what if I told you there was a way that I can make it to where you can charge more for a product, and do nothing other then label the product green etc". Al gore may sound stupid, but he's pretty damn good at business. Not to mention what he did has changed laws and regulations all over the world, plus created a plethora of new products for his green movement.

[hatelore]

But I would definitely say that it isn't all doom and gloom. When mother nature has had enough of us and our ways, she will turn things right again. She has an entire arsenal of hurricanes,tornadoes,earthquakes and tsunamis to work with :)

[azeth]

fyi mitt's economic plan is as follows:

Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by 2016.

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.

Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.

Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.

Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

Reform Entitlement Programs To Ensure Their Viability.

Gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluentseniors. Give more choice in Medicare to improve value in health care spending.

Block grant the Medicaid program to states, enabling experimentation to better fit localsituations.

Make Growth And Cost-Benefit Analysis Important Features Of Regulation.

Remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs toconsumers and limit job creation.

Repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform

Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.

Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.

Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.

Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

Reform Entitlement Programs To Ensure Their Viability.

Gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluentseniors. Give more choice in Medicare to improve value in health care spending.

Block grant the Medicaid program to states, enabling experimentation to better fit localsituations.

Make Growth And Cost-Benefit Analysis Important Features Of Regulation.

Remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs toconsumers and limit job creation.

Repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform

[Alarti0001]

[QUOTE=Splorf22;752323



You might want to read that again Alarti - I even mentioned methane too. Sure some of my post was opinion but hey its RnF. Anyway I think I am getting tired of playing in this mudhole, good day gentlemen and you too Hasbinbad.[/QUOTE]

ITT I'm clueless - Loraen

[Alawen]

Gosh, that's an awesome 5 x 2 point plan.

Do you know the difference between desired outcomes and policy? I'd like everyone to live to the age of 100 in good health. Will you vote for me if I say I'll give you that but I don't tell you how I'm going to do it?

[hatelore]

I think anyone with half a brain would agree that Romney is not the best thing since sliced bread Alawen hehe. But what Obama has done in the last four years has proven to be a failure.

The writing is all over the wall , our foreign policies have failed with him in office , our economy has failed further with him in office, our racial relations in this country are at an all time low, I can go on and on but I will just be re-hashing what I said before in earlier posts. Did you see Obama tonight in this debate? He looked old,haggard,tired and pissed, and for good reason! His policies have failed and he has no credible defense to explain to the American people why we are in the mess we are in.

The clear choice is Romney, whether you love him or hate him, At least he has a decent plan to run with and he seems a lot more honest about his agenda then Obama. With Obama we now have a executive order passed by him that allows our government to hold an American citizen for the rest of his honest life without any due process. That is not lawful or right, in any country, especially America.

Just my 2 cents, I know this will get picked apart, shit on and I will be told I am illiterate and simian. But hey that's okay. :)

[hatelore]

I correct myself, he did not have the balls to pass that executive order, he had it go through the department of Homeland Security so that when there was an outcry it wouldn't be directed at him fully.

[Alawen]

It's just not a plan. It's a bunch of talking points. Having a plan involves having a... plan. An explanation of how to get from point A to point B.

It sounds like you're voting against Obama rather than for Romney and you're trying to convince yourself that Romney isn't as full of shit as he obviously is.

[hatelore]

I would say you are correct. I'd vote for your friend's brother's cousin over Obama at this point. His policies are a failure. And this will not change, the choosing of the lesser of two evils, until the country wakes up and starts forcing our government to change and end this corruptness.

[Alarti0001]

It's just not a plan. It's a bunch of talking points. Having a plan involves having a... plan. An explanation of how to get from point A to point B.

It sounds like you're voting against Obama rather than for Romney and you're trying to convince yourself that Romney isn't as full of shit as he obviously is.

All Romney has shown me is that he can count to 5.

[hatelore]

So yeah, on that I do agree with you Alawen. This is nothing new what you see happening.

It happened with Bush/Clinton,Gore/Bush,forgot his name he was horse-faced/Bush,Mcain/Obama and now with Romney/Obama. The only difference now is I think what Obama is doing to weaken us as a nation is intentional. Which is why its vital for me as a conservative to bite my tongue and vote for Romney even though I don't fully agree with his conservative or lack-thereof philosophies.

[Alarti0001]

The only difference now is I think what Obama is doing to weaken us as a nation is intentional. Which is why its vital for me as a conservative to bite my tongue and vote for Romney even though I don't fully agree with his conservative or lack-thereof philosophies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH MY FUCKING GOD
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Lucky]

Their substantive policies are nearly identical. However Romney would definitely be the lesser of 2 evils at this point.

[Lexical]

Okay, so I hear a lot of conservatives talk about Mitt's plan. Heck, he event mentioned it during the debates saying it is on his website. I am currently there and I can't find it. I had hopes under the "full plan" key, but that just leads to a broken flash frame. All I know is that he wants to cut taxes and increase spending by several trillion dollars and all he can come up with to fund it all is cutting Obama care. The math doesn't add up and I am waiting for him to publish all his math like Obama has done. Until he does, I can not even consider his plan as a viable option. Can anyone link me Romney's math? Because I feel left out.

But on the debate, I felt both parties did well. I felt Obama was a little too aggressive and talked too much about the short comings of Romney's rather than his own plans which is his campaign strategy I hear (to undermine Romney). I felt Obama dodged the China question way too easily and we kept going back to the same bickering we have seen in every debate e.g. the automotive bailout. I did not like Romney's plan for Syria since giving oppositions guns is what got us al-Qaeda in the first place(there is something the Ron Paul supporters and I can agree on ;)). It honestly seems like they both have the same agenda, but Obama wants to approach it more tactfully and methodically and Romney wants to flex the American muscle. I worry about Iran getting a nuclear missile, but I honestly have full faith in Obama not to let that happen as he said "military involvement should be a last resort."

On the subject of Iran, has anyone heard of that conspiracy theory that Israel will start invasion of Iran to force Obama to back them? Any legitimacy or is it all just random ramblings on the Internet like I assume?

[Hasbinlulz]

Congratulations, you managed to download the article, find the copy and paste tool, and even minimize the font. If you work hard over the next 10 years, you might achieve the vocabulary of Koko the gorilla.

Now let me try to explain something very simple to you. Statistical models predict based on correlation. CO2 and global temperature have both increased over the past 150 years. Hence you can build a nice statistical model that predicts the global temperature will zoom off to infinity if the CO2 level continues to go up. However, if you were paying attention in stat 101 you would know that correlation does not imply causation. I can build the exact same statistical model for obesity causing global warming (both have increased in the past 150 years). The mathematics is the same. The problem with both climate scientists and economists is that they are putting too much trust in the ability of simple mathematics to model very complex systems and not engaging their brains.
Way to ignore what I said and restate your original statement. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but a preponderance of evidence leads a reasoning person to certain conclusions. Probably you came to yours before the data was obtained, and will cling to it long after you're proven an idiot. I just hope you're not proven wrong in my lifetime.

Anyway I think I am getting tired of playing in this mudhole, good day gentlemen and you too Hasbinbad.[/QUOTE]

[Hasbinlulz]

Which is why its vital for me as a conservative to bite my tongue and vote for Romney even though I don't fully agree with his conservative or lack-thereof philosophies.
This is why I hate America. Death to America.

[hatelore]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH MY FUCKING GOD
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man... If I'm that funny maybe I should become a comedian right Alarti. That is just how I see it. I'm sorry you find it funny. I didn't rig the system so that it's the way it is. Lesser of two evils, so I'm casting my vote for the least evil of the two. But go on, I'm glad I added a little bit of comedy to your life tonight.

[hatelore]

What country do you live in has been?

[Alarti0001]

The only difference now is I think what Obama is doing to weaken us as a nation is INTENTIONAL .


HAHAHA

Confirmed irrational, crazy, conspiracy theorist.
OMG you are fucking stupid. This is awesome!

[hatelore]

Man, when you enter the conversation alarti its like.... Its kind of like when a 13 year old kid walks in on a group of adults talking and tries to fit in. Are you this immature in real life too?

[Lexical]

Man, when you enter the conversation alarti its like.... Its kind of like when a 13 year old kid walks in on a group of adults talking and tries to fit in. Are you this immature in real life too?

Hate to break it to you Hatelore, but it is kind of hard to do anything but mock you incessantly. If you want to be taken seriously, post sources, use logical reasoning, and not rely on random sensationalist news headlines as your credibility. It will go a long way :)

[Hasbinlulz]

What country do you live in has been?
America, duh.

[Hasbinlulz]

inb4 IM A REDNECK LUV IT OR LEAVE IT YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW!!!!

[Hasbinlulz]

Fuck you, patriot. You're what's wrong with this country, and Jefferson would be pissed as fuck that you are the end result of his labors.

[Reiker000]

hatelore: why America is fucked.

[Alawen]

I'm going to have to agree with Alarti here; America is not fucked or going to economically implode or anything like that. Fiat currencies are not the devil, they're just a social convention. Obama or Romney, we'll muddle our way through and go all through this hyperbole and antics again four years from now.

America is a 250 year experiment. Democracy has a ton of problems, but every alternative I can think of is worse. We're very selfish and aggressive, we throw way too much shit into landfills, and we seem to be okay with slave labor as long as we don't see it. Our heterogeneous population causes all manner of conflict and tension. I'd still rather live here than anywhere else. If I didn't, I would indeed leave.

[Alarti0001]

Man, when you enter the conversation alarti its like.... Its kind of like when a 13 year old kid walks in on a group of adults talking and tries to fit in. Are you this immature in real life too?

Dude, you have no room to comment when you have a brain that leads you down conspiracy corners.

Reason is what separates us from other animals (and our awesome thumbs) and right now you are waiving your ability to reason.

[Kraftwerk]

America is not fucked.

Whoa I wouldn't go that far. Not when PBS is being threatened with extinction while shows called Here Comes Honey Boo Boo are wildly popular.

[Lucky]

I'm going to have to agree with Alarti here; America is not fucked or going to economically implode or anything like that. Fiat currencies are not the devil, they're just a social convention. Obama or Romney, we'll muddle our way through and go all through this hyperbole and antics again four years from now.

America is a 250 year experiment. Democracy has a ton of problems, but every alternative I can think of is worse. We're very selfish and aggressive, we throw way too much shit into landfills, and we seem to be okay with slave labor as long as we don't see it. Our heterogeneous population causes all manner of conflict and tension. I'd still rather live here than anywhere else. If I didn't, I would indeed leave.

9 out of 10 founding fathers agree that Democracy is the worst form of government

[Hurley]

Alarti is very mature.

[Daldolma]

hatelore: why America is fucked.

Nay. America is extraordinarily unfucked.

We have 8% unemployment and ordinary citizens in service jobs being forced to rent instead of buy, and people act like shit's going south and the end times are near.

America is doing fine and will continue to do fine regardless of which candidate is elected. Presidential platforms are advertisements. Unless you believe Coors Light is going to get you all the hot chicks at the bar, you shouldn't believe a candidate is going to follow through on the majority of his rhetoric. The majority of the time, you're better off just voting for the guy that seems more competent.

[Alarti0001]

9 out of 10 founding fathers agree that Democracy is the worst form of government

The founding fathers hardly matter. They also agreed only white, male land-owners could vote.

[Kraftwerk]

Nay. America is extraordinarily unfucked.

We have 8% unemployment.

Lol 8% UE, such a massaged number.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05/LFP%20Rate.jpg

[Alawen]

Lol 8% UE, such a massaged number.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05/LFP%20Rate.jpg

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

[Daldolma]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

:eek: Agreed.

It's the only number that makes sense to use. First of all, labor force participation rate is highly misunderstood. Tanzania and Rwanda are among the global leaders in labor force participation -- it's not always a good thing when LFP is up. Second of all, you can't start guessing who are and aren't discouraged workers, and you certainly can't fault the economy for failing to integrate citizens that have stopped searching for employment in order to retire early, return to education, or brush up on the historicity of Jesus (I kid). It is only natural that following a major economic downturn, labor participation will decline -- and it's not always a bad thing.

Anyway, our labor participation rate is still higher than the UK's was in 2007, pre-crisis, and they've managed to avoid mass hysteria and barter systems -- so I think we should be cool.

[Kraftwerk]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

Actually it's not the same number unless you were born after 1994. Are you only 18 years old? Under Bill Clinton long term discouraged workers were removed from U3, the big flashy number you see every month on headlines. Dig deeper:

http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1349444413

[Orruar]

The founding fathers hardly matter. They also agreed only white, male land-owners could vote.

Yes, because allowing welfare queens who pop out 1.3 babies per year are clearly the kind of people we want selecting our leaders.

[Orruar]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

You think the official unemployment numbers are accurate at all? Someone drops off the unemployment rolls due to being unemployed for too long, and suddenly they don't count. Doesn't seem like an accurate statistic to me.

[Kraftwerk]

We've been using the same number during my entire lifetime; this is the fourth major recession I've lived through. Suddenly it's not good enough anymore and using it is a giant conspiracy of misdirection?

:eek: Agreed.

It's the only number that makes sense to use. First of all, labor force participation rate is highly misunderstood. Tanzania and Rwanda are among the global leaders in labor force participation -- it's not always a good thing when LFP is up. Second of all, you can't start guessing who are and aren't discouraged workers, and you certainly can't fault the economy for failing to integrate citizens that have stopped searching for employment in order to retire early, return to education, or brush up on the historicity of Jesus (I kid). It is only natural that following a major economic downturn, labor participation will decline -- and it's not always a bad thing.

Anyway, our labor participation rate is still higher than the UK's was in 2007, pre-crisis, and they've managed to avoid mass hysteria and barter systems -- so I think we should be cool.

So to be clear, you're supporting argument is to compare the economy of Tanzania (23.333B USD nominal GDP) and Rwanda (6.179B USD nominal GDP) to the United States of America (15.094T USD nominal GDP)? And you can do that with a straight face? It's like comparing GE to Suzie's lemonade stand down the street.

[hatelore]

this is alawen your dealing with, he doesn't understand reason. And be careful, if you make him feel too bad his buttbuddy alarti is going to come in here and give you a firm talking to!

It will probably go something like "OMG LOL You suck better yourself pls you are the problem LOL hahahah. Alarti to the rescue! ;)

[Daldolma]

So to be clear, you're supporting argument is to compare the economy of Tanzania (23.333B USD nominal GDP) and Rwanda (6.179B USD nominal GDP) to the United States of America (15.094T USD nominal GDP)? And you can do that with a straight face? It's like comparing GE to Suzie's lemonade stand down the street.

No, the point is to demonstrate that labor force participation isn't necessarily demonstrative of a thriving economy. There are a wide variety of factors that impact LFP -- it's not a linear relationship.

You ignored the comparison to the UK, for example.

[Alawen]

I'm afraid I don't get your point. Do you want to use U6? Do you want to use John Williams' comparisons when a much smaller percentage of women participated in the workforce? More to the point of this article, do you want to compare U3 numbers under Bush with SGS numbers under Obama?

[Kraftwerk]

No, the point is to demonstrate that labor force participation isn't necessarily demonstrative of a thriving economy. There are a wide variety of factors that impact LFP -- it's not a linear relationship.

You ignored the comparison to the UK, for example.

Sure I'll address the UK whose UE jumped to a new normal 8% in 2008. Also could you tell me what the UK GDP was for the last two quarters. You said they're doing fine so I'm going to guess Q1 GDP around 1-1.5% and Q2 GDP of 1.25-1.75%. Good muddle through numbers not a double dip for sure.

Let me know when you pull UK 2012Q1 and 2012Q2 GDP and post it here to support your everything is fine across the pond theory.

[Kraftwerk]

I'm afraid I don't get your point. Do you want to use U6? Do you want to use John Williams' comparisons when a much smaller percentage of women participated in the workforce? More to the point of this article, do you want to compare U3 numbers under Bush with SGS numbers under Obama?

Yes U6 should be used.
Yes the UE flashy number was altered for political gain under Clinton.
I thought I was clear in stating BLS massages numbers and the real economy and employment are in more dire situation. I must've been opaque or you are being dense.

[Daldolma]

Sure I'll address the UK whose UE jumped to a new normal 8% in 2008. Also could you tell me what the UK GDP was for the last two quarters. You said they're doing fine so I'm going to guess Q1 GDP around 1-1.5% and Q2 GDP of 1.25-1.75%. Good muddle through numbers not a double dip for sure.

Let me know when you pull UK 2012Q1 and 2012Q2 GDP and post it here to support your everything is fine across the pond theory.

Where are you getting an 'everything is fine across the pond' theory? I didn't cite their current LFP rate -- I cited their 2007 LFP rate.

Our current LFP is higher than Britain's 2007, pre-crisis LFP -- when they logged 3 straight quarters of > 1% GDP growth.

It's also extremely disingenuous to act like 1.75% GDP growth is the high range of "doing fine". The UK hasn't had a quarter of > 1.7% GDP growth since the 80s. 1.75% quarter GDP growth is absolutely, once-in-a-decade (if that) superlative for the UK. Anything 0.8-1.2 has historically been a quality quarter.

[Ferok]

Whoa I wouldn't go that far. Not when PBS is being threatened with extinction while shows called Here Comes Honey Boo Boo are wildly popular.

If PBS has value, the free market will support it. There's lots of room on the television spectrum for quality IP.

[Alarti0001]

Hahathis is alawen your dealing with, he doesn't understand reason. And be careful, if you make him feel too bad his buttbuddy alarti is going to come in here and give you a firm talking to!

It will probably go something like "OMG LOL You suck better yourself pls you are the problem LOL hahahah. Alarti to the rescue! ;)

Haha this guy commenting on reason. I love you hatelores, you are endlessly amusing.

[Reiker000]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c24.0.403.403/p403x403/580833_111488962341794_1478104238_n.jpg

[cyryllis]

republicans want to murder your grandparents, force your kids into slavery, deep fry big bird, rape your dog, and they might even punch a dolphin in the face while they are at it- just cause they can.

trust big brother, keep our country in the prime state that its in- vote obama

he will make sure to send the nicest postcards while hes taking his entourage on vacation

[Ephirith]

Fuck your democracy (or consitutional republic).

1. Make citizenship (voting) a privilege earned either through 2 or more years military service or civil service (government work paid at a rate similar to enlisted military). Service guarantees citizenship, bitch. Would you like to know more?

2. Eliminate and reverse suburban sprawl through zoning and building codes. City infrastructure should be efficiently planned and decentralized to facilitate travel either by walking, bicycle, or short, uncongested car rides. The cost of gas siphons an inordinately high amount of disposable income from the average citizen, in addition to logistical effects (shipping). Most of this money is removed from our economy and goes overseas to OPEC.

3. Remove barriers to the further proliferation of nuclear energy. This is the most efficient power source known to mankind, and among the safest. Compare the remote, marginal risk of nuclear accidents to the certainty of damage to public health wrought by coal power. Tens of thousands of cases of lung cancer every year if you include coal mining. The more we use nuclear power the more we will understand and innovate the technology, and it will become even more efficient.

4. Strict population control. One-child or two-child policy for several generations. Forced abortions for violators. Think about how much better life would be if our country had 30 million people instead of 300 million. Each life means so much more-- organization is so much easier, and ~all~ resources would go 10x further.

5. Cut the fuck out of the military. This isn't the cold war, there is no monolithic superpower to challenge us. China is a fucking joke. Of the next 10 largest economies and largest militaries, most of them are our close allies-- and they simply choose to rely on the US military without funding one of their own.

Germany, one of the greatest martial states in human history, is our close ally and largely unarmed. Same with Japan. Counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism can be accomplished with lightweight, intelligent contingents of special forces with excellent logistics and equipment-- NOT an ineffective, expensive occupation. If we do need a huge conventional military again, it is not difficult to re-arm and re-mobilize in a pinch. Huge standing armies and military-industrial complex are a fairly recent development (ww2) for us, and a massive economic burden. This money needs to be going to education and infrastructure.

That's my 5-point plan, lick my ballsack.

[Kraftwerk]

Where are you getting an 'everything is fine across the pond' theory? I didn't cite their current LFP rate -- I cited their 2007 LFP rate.

Our current LFP is higher than Britain's 2007, pre-crisis LFP -- when they logged 3 straight quarters of > 1% GDP growth.

It's also extremely disingenuous to act like 1.75% GDP growth is the high range of "doing fine". The UK hasn't had a quarter of > 1.7% GDP growth since the 80s. 1.75% quarter GDP growth is absolutely, once-in-a-decade (if that) superlative for the UK. Anything 0.8-1.2 has historically been a quality quarter.

What on earth are you talking about? Q32011 UK GDP growth rate 2.4%, Q22011 2.1%, hell it was 4.6% in Q32007 it was 4.6%.

Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

[Kraftwerk]

I see it now, I'm talking about YoY annual GDP growth rate not just GDP growth rate. We were discussing different statistical measures.

[Alawen]

Yes U6 should be used.
Yes the UE flashy number was altered for political gain under Clinton.
I thought I was clear in stating BLS massages numbers and the real economy and employment are in more dire situation. I must've been opaque or you are being dense.

Yeah, I'm done with you. The everyone else is stupid approach to discussion has gotten really boring, especially when you ignore the question actually relevant to the current thread. Fuck off.

[Alawen]

Fuck your democracy (or consitutional republic).

1. Make citizenship (voting) a privilege earned either through 2 or more years military service or civil service (government work paid at a rate similar to enlisted military). Service guarantees citizenship, bitch. Would you like to know more?

2. Eliminate and reverse suburban sprawl through zoning and building codes. City infrastructure should be efficiently planned and decentralized to facilitate travel either by walking, bicycle, or short, uncongested car rides. The cost of gas siphons an inordinately high amount of disposable income from the average citizen, in addition to logistical effects (shipping). Most of this money is removed from our economy and goes overseas to OPEC.

3. Remove barriers to the further proliferation of nuclear energy. This is the most efficient power source known to mankind, and among the safest. Compare the remote, marginal risk of nuclear accidents to the certainty of damage to public health wrought by coal power. Tens of thousands of cases of lung cancer every year if you include coal mining. The more we use nuclear power the more we will understand and innovate the technology, and it will become even more efficient.

4. Strict population control. One-child or two-child policy for several generations. Forced abortions for violators. Think about how much better life would be if our country had 30 million people instead of 300 million. Each life means so much more-- organization is so much easier, and ~all~ resources would go 10x further.

5. Cut the fuck out of the military. This isn't the cold war, there is no monolithic superpower to challenge us. China is a fucking joke. Of the next 10 largest economies and largest militaries, most of them are our close allies-- and they simply choose to rely on the US military without funding one of their own.

Germany, one of the greatest martial states in human history, is our close ally and largely unarmed. Same with Japan. Counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism can be accomplished with lightweight, intelligent contingents of special forces with excellent logistics and equipment-- NOT an ineffective, expensive occupation. If we do need a huge conventional military again, it is not difficult to re-arm and re-mobilize in a pinch. Huge standing armies and military-industrial complex are a fairly recent development (ww2) for us, and a massive economic burden. This money needs to be going to education and infrastructure.

That's my 5-point plan, lick my ballsack.

I'd vote for you, although I'm not too worked up about #4--most Western countries already have natality below replacement levels. There are demographic impacts to an aging population that will become more obvious as the boomers all retire.

[Lucky]

new study oct 14, 2012

proves global warming = hoax

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs% 3D%26authornamef%3DDavid%2BRose0

its not easy being right all the time

takes its toll on u

[Anger]

Bipartisan system is tearing this country apart and very obviously gets little done, as presented by the bickering here.

/thread

[Kraftwerk]

Yeah, I'm done with you. The everyone else is stupid approach to discussion has gotten really boring, especially when you ignore the question actually relevant to the current thread. Fuck off.

Good to see you couldn't hack it so you decided to cry like a baby and see slights that weren't there and just quit instead of refuting current BLS stat measurement techniques.

I answered your question by the way, I said we should use U6 and incorporate longer term discouraged workers and that the decision to stop using that measurement in 1994 was politically motivated. Sorry you chose to ignore that.

[Alawen]

I'm afraid I don't get your point. Do you want to use U6? Do you want to use John Williams' comparisons when a much smaller percentage of women participated in the workforce? More to the point of this article, do you want to compare U3 numbers under Bush with SGS numbers under Obama?

You've obviously got some random fucking ax that you want to grind with the BLS, but it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Looking at U3 versus U6 changes exactly nothing. Including SGS in your post just makes you into a weirdo crank who wants to compare things with a different era when women didn't work.

No one is afraid of your Seeking Alpha bullshit. You're just not interesting.

[Hurley]

"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a steady wagon."

[Hasbinlulz]

Lol 8% UE, such a massaged number.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/05/LFP%20Rate.jpg
I hate mitt personally and with a passion, but this is 100% true. the 8% is obomber rhetoric at its finest.

[Hasbinlulz]

Fuck your democracy (or consitutional republic).

1. Make citizenship (voting) a privilege earned either through 2 or more years military service or civil service (government work paid at a rate similar to enlisted military). Service guarantees citizenship, bitch. Would you like to know more?

2. Eliminate and reverse suburban sprawl through zoning and building codes. City infrastructure should be efficiently planned and decentralized to facilitate travel either by walking, bicycle, or short, uncongested car rides. The cost of gas siphons an inordinately high amount of disposable income from the average citizen, in addition to logistical effects (shipping). Most of this money is removed from our economy and goes overseas to OPEC.

3. Remove barriers to the further proliferation of nuclear energy. This is the most efficient power source known to mankind, and among the safest. Compare the remote, marginal risk of nuclear accidents to the certainty of damage to public health wrought by coal power. Tens of thousands of cases of lung cancer every year if you include coal mining. The more we use nuclear power the more we will understand and innovate the technology, and it will become even more efficient.

4. Strict population control. One-child or two-child policy for several generations. Forced abortions for violators. Think about how much better life would be if our country had 30 million people instead of 300 million. Each life means so much more-- organization is so much easier, and ~all~ resources would go 10x further.

5. Cut the fuck out of the military. This isn't the cold war, there is no monolithic superpower to challenge us. China is a fucking joke. Of the next 10 largest economies and largest militaries, most of them are our close allies-- and they simply choose to rely on the US military without funding one of their own.

Germany, one of the greatest martial states in human history, is our close ally and largely unarmed. Same with Japan. Counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism can be accomplished with lightweight, intelligent contingents of special forces with excellent logistics and equipment-- NOT an ineffective, expensive occupation. If we do need a huge conventional military again, it is not difficult to re-arm and re-mobilize in a pinch. Huge standing armies and military-industrial complex are a fairly recent development (ww2) for us, and a massive economic burden. This money needs to be going to education and infrastructure.

That's my 5-point plan, lick my ballsack.
So, fascism, basically?

[Alarti0001]

new study oct 14, 2012

proves global warming = hoax

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs% 3D%26authornamef%3DDavid%2BRose0

its not easy being right all the time

takes its toll on u

Wrong again.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/

[Hurley]

Hold on let me quote a blog.

[Alarti0001]

If you want I can find the leader of the study who denounced David Rose>?

[Alarti0001]

Here you go

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

[LizardNecro]

Okay, so I hear a lot of conservatives talk about Mitt's plan. Heck, he event mentioned it during the debates saying it is on his website. I am currently there and I can't find it. I had hopes under the "full plan" key, but that just leads to a broken flash frame. All I know is that he wants to cut taxes and increase spending by several trillion dollars and all he can come up with to fund it all is cutting Obama care. The math doesn't add up and I am waiting for him to publish all his math like Obama has done. Until he does, I can not even consider his plan as a viable option. Can anyone link me Romney's math? Because I feel left out.

The "full plan" link works for me in IE (it's a frame with a scribd document of eight pagefs), but I don't see any specific cuts. The closest I see is on page 5:


Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.

I haven't been able to find a specific list of what would actually be cut.

The scribd link is here:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/102687937?access_key=key-tvcla8fht0g06taehfj

If I'm missing something, please let me know.

[Ephirith]

So, fascism, basically?

Fascism exactly. Note that Nazi germany is to fascism as square is to rectangle. I don't believe in racial purity, genocide, or any of that shit. A fascist state can still be a representative democracy/republic, and it needn't be corrupt or brutal. It's a synthesis between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. I think it's the system with the greatest compromise between individual potential and collective potential.

Plus Starship Troopers was a really good movie.

[Orruar]

Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.

I haven't been able to find a specific list of what would actually be cut.

The scribd link is here:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/102687937?access_key=key-tvcla8fht0g06taehfj

If I'm missing something, please let me know.

That's because he isn't going to cut anything. His grand plan is to grow the economy while keeping spending roughly the same, thus reducing the total cost of government relative to GDP. Basically the same bullshit all politicians say, since cutting a program means lost votes. The only reason I'd possibly vote for Romney is if I thought he was lying and he'd actually cut the hell out of spending once in office. But I don't believe this to be likely.

[Orruar]

Fascism exactly. Note that Nazi germany is to fascism as square is to rectangle. I don't believe in racial purity, genocide, or any of that shit. A fascist state can still be a representative democracy/republic, and it needn't be corrupt or brutal. It's a synthesis between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. I think it's the system with the greatest compromise between individual potential and collective potential.

Plus Starship Troopers was a really good movie.

Facism and other forms of centralized government will always lead to totalitarianism. It's the dream of many socialist that if they just had the right people in power, things would work out. But they never do.

[Pringles]

Democrats: Due to the anticipated long voting lines on Tuesday November 6th, you will be voting Wednesday November 7th. Sorry for any inconvenience.

[Ephirith]

Facism and other forms of centralized government will always lead to totalitarianism. It's the dream of many socialist that if they just had the right people in power, things would work out. But they never do.

People have the government they deserve. Liberty is just as likely to appear spontaneously in an enlightened society as tyranny is in an ignorant one.

[Lucky]

Wrong again.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/

You are a fucking moran, that did nothing to disprove the past 16 years have remain unchanged. It just supported it.

[Alarti0001]

You are a fucking moran, that did nothing to disprove the past 16 years have remain unchanged. It just supported it.

Maybe you should re-read that. Basically, he did the scientific equivalent of "cooking the books"
Stop derpin'

[Lexical]

The "full plan" link works for me in IE (it's a frame with a scribd document of eight pagefs), but I don't see any specific cuts. The closest I see is on page 5:


Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.

I haven't been able to find a specific list of what would actually be cut.

The scribd link is here:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/102687937?access_key=key-tvcla8fht0g06taehfj

If I'm missing something, please let me know.

The link worked for me! Thanks!

That's because he isn't going to cut anything. His grand plan is to grow the economy while keeping spending roughly the same, thus reducing the total cost of government relative to GDP. Basically the same bullshit all politicians say, since cutting a program means lost votes. The only reason I'd possibly vote for Romney is if I thought he was lying and he'd actually cut the hell out of spending once in office. But I don't believe this to be likely.

At first, I really didn't want to believe this, but I have looked over Paul Ryan's proposal as well as anything Romney could have possibly posted and I am afraid you are right. The stance is "Without Obamacare, the budget will balance itself!" Kind of silly really.

[Hasbinlulz]

Fascism exactly. Note that Nazi germany is to fascism as square is to rectangle. I don't believe in racial purity, genocide, or any of that shit. A fascist state can still be a representative democracy/republic, and it needn't be corrupt or brutal. It's a synthesis between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. I think it's the system with the greatest compromise between individual potential and collective potential.

Plus Starship Troopers was a really good movie.
Nazi Germany was a nationalist socialism. Fascism (specifically Mussolini's Italy) is basically a nationalist capitalism.

[kenzar]

Plus Starship Troopers was a really good movie.

Heinlein is rolling in his grave; Read the book.

[Orruar]

People have the government they deserve. Liberty is just as likely to appear spontaneously in an enlightened society as tyranny is in an ignorant one.

I see. So collectivism always devolves into murderous totalitarianism because it has always been implemented in ignorant societies. And this is an argument for trying it here in America? Because our society is so enlightened, right?

[Ephirith]

I see. So collectivism always devolves into murderous totalitarianism because it has always been implemented in ignorant societies. And this is an argument for trying it here in America? Because our society is so enlightened, right?

Liberty also devolves into murderous totalitarianism in ignorant societies, anything does. I'm convinced an Ayn-Randian libertarian redneck-survival-fantasy paradise would work here too, but I disagree with that philosophy.

My point is, here in the United States (and to a similar extent in the UK and some other European countries), there has been a political culture of civility and respect for the rule of law. You might think this is a nasty, toxic election, but put it in perspective historically and internationally. And still, we're ultimately following the rules (as much as some of us may think they are silly).

[Orruar]

Liberty also devolves into murderous totalitarianism in ignorant societies, anything does.

Totalitarianism is anathema to liberty. Totalitarianism is a vital tool for collectivist societies. Huge difference.

[Fame]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ethos/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/orwell-rolls-in-his-grave/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/manufacturing-consent-noam-chomsky-and-the-media/

Easy reading.

[Orruar]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ethos/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/orwell-rolls-in-his-grave/

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/manufacturing-consent-noam-chomsky-and-the-media/

Easy reading.

I had watched the first one on Netflix a few weeks back. Not impressed. They continually conflated democracy with liberty. It has this strange notion of democracy, and an infantile view of corporations.

The other two sound interesting.

[Ephirith]

Wait, wut?

[Triangle]

...Obama is guaranteed to be re-elected unless he somehow dies before the election takes place. Its safer than playing the stock market.

Somebody quote this because I personally guarantee it. I will give away 150k plat in EC if he is on the ballot in november and does not get re-elected, that is how confident i am.

Just wanted to bump this post. Call me lucky, but I did guarantee it and risked lots of plat on it for no gain.

[Daldolma]

Just wanted to bump this post. Call me lucky, but I did guarantee it and risked lots of plat on it for no gain.

Whether or not you were lucky depends on your level of political understanding. By October, it was already extremely clear that Obama was going to win this election, quite likely by a large margin. Assuming you understood the electoral math, no luck (or skill) was required.

The closeness of the race was played up in order to maximize ratings. Romney had no shot in PA, Michigan, New Hampshire, or Minnesota.

Given that fact, he absolutely could not win without Florida -- which was 50/50, at best. To win without Ohio (where he was behind in the polls), he'd absolutely have to carry Florida, Virginia (behind), North Carolina, and Wisconsin (behind), and he'd have to carry all but one of: Iowa (behind), Colorado (behind), and Nevada (behind).

People got caught up in the fact that Romney was fairly close in a lot of the traditional swing states, but he was still behind, and he needed to take almost all of them to win. Look at the map. He could've swept Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and he still would've lost. He would've been the first person to do that and lose since Nixon ran against JFK. And in reality, Romney's going to lose all 3 (Florida isn't done yet, but based on the districts, the likelihood is that Obama took it).

[Splorf22]

Well I think there were some reasonable reasons to suspect the polls (e.g. the Bradley effect) but as it happens they were extremely accurate.

[Daldolma]

Well I think there were some reasonable reasons to suspect the polls (e.g. the Bradley effect) but as it happens they were extremely accurate.

Eh, after 2008 I think the Bradley effect was essentially out of play. Republicans had done a good enough job of rebranding racism as Obama demonism, to the point that those unlikely to vote for Obama would have had a comfortable enough excuse to admit selecting Romney. That's not to say voting for Romney was necessarily based on racism -- just that Republicans clearly courted that voter market.

Romney also was polling at a higher share of the white vote than any Republican candidate since 1988, so it's not like there was much room for the Bradley effect to kick in. He was polled at 59-60% of the white vote to Obama's 38%, which is a massive lead. It just seems unlikely that those numbers had room to be significantly fudged based on the Bradley effect.