we have an official female candidate

Michele Bachmann enters presidential race

The first female candidate for president has entered the race. Michelle Bachman, now serving her third term as representative from Minnesota, has declared her candidacy. We note that the last time someone went from the House of Representatives to president was 1880 with the election of President Andrew Garfield.

The 6th district of Minnesota has as it's largest city, St. cloud, population 65K. However, the district has more people than the state of Alaska, and she did finish both terms to which she was elected.


Michelle Bachman is in the same political spectrum as Sarah Palin (social conservative). Her career as mother is probably unmatched by any other candidate as she has five children, and fostered 23 others.

She can't be any worse than most politicians and the state of Minnesota does tend to produce squeaky clean politicians.

Of course Garfield lasted only 200 days in office so a dark horse candidate from the House of Representatives might not have much to look forward to, historically.

I don't know what a Social Conservative is, I think it means she wants to spend money rather than dismantle the government in which case she is probably just like all the others, particularly since there is no money left for her to spend.

Social Conservative means on ethical and morality based items, she believes the state should influence and guide the nations behaviour. The sort of candidate the Social Liberals really dislike. It doesn't really say much about her economic views (small/big gubbermint, lassiez faire or guided economy). Social doesn't always mean "socialist" :)

Sounds like one of these "do gooders" to me.

''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence"
-M Bachman

Quote: Wavy70

''I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence"
-M Bachman

The really interesting part about that coincidence, was we had a Republican president at the time. Here is a photo of President Ford getting vaccinated for the swine flu.


Michelle actually has a million quotes. Late night comedians must be breathing a huge sigh of relief in anticipation of what she will say.

Quote: Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.

Carbon dioxide is recognized as the biggest culprit to global warming. That's because the molecules of carbon dioxide let the visible light from the sun pass right through the atmosphere; however, when that visible light heats up the surface of the Earth, the Earth radiates out some of this heat as infrared light (infrared radiation). Carbon dioxide (like other greenhouse gases) will absorb infrared radiation and radiate most of it back towards the Earth.

Quote: FleaStiff

She can't be any worse than most politicians and the state of Minnesota does tend to produce squeaky clean politicians.

Are you joking? How about the former wrestler and the current former jerk from SNL? Good grief.. What a pair of useless clowns.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_30-sk8zaaQM/TCOU7g6u5qI/AAAAAAAADnQ/M5T1f_jVl18/s400/stuart-smalley-posters2.jpg

How about we move all political discussions to the Free Speech area? They'd be a lot easier to ignore that way.

Quote: Nareed

How about we move all political discussions to the Free Speech area? They'd be a lot easier to ignore that way.

Free Speech was supposed to be for the completely offensive and paranoid ranters. I would hope that not all political threads need to go that way.



The field seems pretty thin right now. surprisingly only 2 out of 7 are currently in an elected office.

Three representatives or former representatives. Despite the fact that nobody has been elected president with only representative in his credentials in 130 years; back when the population of the USA at 50m was less than California plus Texas today.

No one has ever moved from business to the presidency.

It's hard to look at anyone other than Romney seriously as a candidate.

Participants were declared presidential candidates
1) Mitt Romney (former Mass Governor, single 4 year term); age 64
2) Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota Governor, 2X elected governor for 8 years in office); age 50
3) Rick Santorum (former Senator PA, 2X elected representative, 2X elected as Senator); age 53
4) Newt Gingrich ( former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives GA, 10X elected);age 68
5) Ron Paul (Representative from TX ( 8 times elected, 3 times elected in early 80's) ); age 75
6) Michelle Bachmann (Representative from Minnesota ); age 55
7) Herman Cain (businessman-turned-talk show host ); age 65

Quote: pacomartin

Free Speech was supposed to be for the completely offensive and paranoid ranters. I would hope that not all political threads need to go that way.

I know you haven't been living under a rock since 1987 ;)

Quote: pacomartin

The really interesting part about that coincidence, was we had a Republican president at the time. Here is a photo of President Ford getting vaccinated for the swine flu.


Michelle actually has a million quotes. Late night comedians must be breathing a huge sigh of relief in anticipation of what she will say.

Quote: Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.

Carbon dioxide is recognized as the biggest culprit to global warming. That's because the molecules of carbon dioxide let the visible light from the sun pass right through the atmosphere; however, when that visible light heats up the surface of the Earth, the Earth radiates out some of this heat as infrared light (infrared radiation). Carbon dioxide (like other greenhouse gases) will absorb infrared radiation and radiate most of it back towards the Earth.

CO2 isn't the most harmful greenhouse gas, water vapor is.

Anyway, you should be careful on any "science" from the last couple of decades on man-made global warming. It's pretty much been exposed to be fraudulent to the point of ridicule, and the perpetrators have not been shy about admitting their sins. Bachmann or anyone else's dismissal of it has been vindicated, even if their dismissal didn't come from a purely scientific perspective.

I can tell you that my Stanford friends (including environmental engineering phd's) grew increasingly concerned with the hijacking of the science for apparently political ends. They remain concerned that all this non-science has created skepticism about very real concerns, and that it gives politicos on the other side of the issue a better case.

I agree with them, although I don't think opposing politicos are interested in destroying the planet as they are portrayed to be. But to me, that's just the second lie piled on top of the first one.

Just to give myself some balance, where has man-made global warming science been dismissed to the point of "ridicule"?

As I understand it water vapour is the most effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere due to the fact there is more of it. Methane is 80 times better at acting as greenhouse than water vapour, but there is much much less of it.

Quote: thecesspit

Just to give myself some balance, where has man-made global warming science been dismissed to the point of "ridicule"?

Oh, mostly snide comments to the tune of ...

"record snowfall in Dallas this week, guess that's global warming" or "big traffic accident today, must be global warming.". Right up there with "it must be Bush's fault" and "everything causes cancer" jokes.

Granted, someone wouldn't hear this ridicule if they hung out with believers in the Church of Global Warming, but I don't guess you'd hear Mohammed ridiculed in a mosque, either.

As far as the academics,at least the ones I know, they are just worried that hijackers like the whole east Anglia group have caused a public skepticism and deafness to an otherwise legitimate concern. For example, not one of these guys thinks curly light bulbs will help the issue as they know it, and yet the public is forced to use curly bulbs. It's a control thing. Weirdly, they all agree that the lessons of history point to a conclusion of greatly decreased liberty and no real progress in abating the issue. Think of Snowball from Animal Farm, and you get a sense of their view of things.

As for your addendum ... I'd have to check with my buds to see if the capacity thing is correct but if there's not very much at all and it doesn't move the needle no matter how many cows are farting or it's breaking down, that's kind of the point. You didn't stop eating peanut butter just because 50 jars a week for 50 years causes cancer in some lab rats.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Oh, mostly snide comments to the tune of ...

"record snowfall in Dallas this week, guess that's global warming" or "big traffic accident today, must be global warming.". Right up there with "it must be Bush's fault" and "everything causes cancer" jokes.

Granted, someone wouldn't hear this ridicule if they hung out with believers in the Church of Global Warming, but I don't guess you'd hear Mohammed ridiculed in a mosque, either.

Right, so people are ridiculing it, but that doesn't make it true OR false. It just means people are ridiculing it. People ridicule a lot of things they may or may not understand (like Rush Limbaugh). I was more thinking there was a definitive paper/story that showed otherwise.

Quote:

As far as the academics,at least the ones I know, they are just worried that hijackers like the whole east Anglia group have caused a public skepticism and deafness to an otherwise legitimate concern. For example, not one of these guys thinks curly light bulbs will help the issue as they know it, and yet the public is forced to use curly bulbs. It's a control thing. Weirdly, they all agree that the lessons of history point to a conclusion of greatly decreased liberty and no real progress in abating the issue. Think of Snowball from Animal Farm, and you get a sense of their view of things.

Except the East Anglia group's emails were taken out of context and multiple investigations have shown there was no fraud or data misuse AND all the data they were using came for other sources that are still widely available and in use.

Quote:

As for your addendum ... I'd have to check with my buds to see if the capacity thing is correct but if there's not very much at all and it doesn't move the needle no matter how many cows are farting or it's breaking down, that's kind of the point. You didn't stop eating peanut butter just because 50 jars a week for 50 years causes cancer in some lab rats.

4-9% of the effect comes from methane, according to wiki. I was more pointing out that just because most of the effect is from one thing (water vapour) it doesn't mean that another thing (methane, CO2) can have a larger effect by smaller changes. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen over the last 100 years (as far as I am aware) there is an effect there. WHAT the effect on climate is I don't think is completely understood, but the science I've seen suggests that there is in least in part a casual link between increased CO2 levels and climate change (to boot : an overall trend of an increase in global average temperatures, aka global warming). I know I read in the early 90's concern that methane emissions from cows could increase the levels of methane in the atmosphere to the extent that it could increase the warming effect these gases have (which occur naturally, of course... C02, methane, water vapour... all sits around there whether I switch on a light bulb or not).

Now if that has been proven wrong and ridiculed, I am all ears to it, as I'm happy to see it, read it and draw my own conclusions. A multitude of news reports mocking the concept doesn't count as science.

As for the controls on light bulbs and the electric car, I'm in the most part agreement. There is no need to force "green" bulbs or "green" cars on people, as these things will either happen over time by adoption for some benefits (energy cost savings, for instance) or fall by the wayside if they aren't. AS long as the true cost to produce an item through it's complete is born by the consumer (and is clear). Which in the case of the incandscent light bulb it is, but I'm not sure it is in the case of Lithium batteries and Mercury vapour bulbs.

There was a lot of scepticism about loft insulation back in the 80's in the UK. Now you can knock the price of a house down if it's not properly lagged, double glazed and insulated, as every expects their house to be improved that way. I don't recall their being much of a push from the government to get that done (plenty from the DIY/home improvement stores though).

In short, I agree, low level government interruption in yiour life about bulbs is pointless. High level government interference in promoting resource conversation and reducing pollution (to avoid the tyrany of the commons and charge for externalities) is (in my view) good.

(anyways, I was promising myself not to get into a long debate global warming here, but am interested in contrary, science based views, so if your buds at Stanford can point me in the right direction, it's all good).

I really do hope that Michele wins the Republican party's nomination for 2012 candidate for President of the United States. I'm being sincere about that.

Quote: s2dbaker

I really do hope that Michele wins the Republican party's nomination for 2012 candidate for President of the United States. I'm being sincere about that.

Tim Pawlenty (former Minnesota Governor, 2X elected governor for 8 years in office); age 50 Time Magazine rates him at 5 to 1 odds to be candidate
Michelle Bachmann (Representative from Minnesota ); age 55 Time Magazine rates her at 1000 to 1 odds to be candidate

Tim Pawlenty lives in one suburb of St. Paul, and Michelle Bachmann lives in another. I think he lives about 10 miles outside of her district. He was governor for 8 years, and she was a congressional representative for his last term.

They are about the same age, both evangelical Christians, and nearly identical on most major issues. They can't attack each other's record since they are nearly identical. They are only different in personality types.

Representatives never make much of a difference in a presidential race. I mean she might have had a chance to try and get the republican nomination for governor for the 2010 Minnesota governor's race. Why wouldn't she try for that?

I'm one of those who thinks she is a little whack.

Quote: s2dbaker

I really do hope that Michele wins the Republican party's nomination for 2012 candidate for President of the United States. I'm being sincere about that.

You must want a 2nd Obama term, then.

Quote: pacomartin

Representatives never make much of a difference in a presidential race. I mean she might have had a chance to try and get the republican nomination for governor for the 2010 Minnesota governor's race. Why wouldn't she try for that?

Being in a presidential race could probably have some payoffs, other than actually winning.

I say "could" but I think it is "can" at least for some of these people.

I don't doubt the goal is real enough, for the drumming they will take if they become much more well known, they have to believe they're up to it to the task. But still, it can give someone national attention for awhile, and that can certainly be useful to a politician, and also painful, of course.

Quote: rxwine

Being in a presidential race could probably have some payoffs, other than actually winning.

I say "could" but I think it is "can" at least for some of these people.

I don't doubt the goal is real enough, for the drumming they will take if they become much more well known, they have to believe they're up to it to the task. But still, it can give someone national attention for awhile, and that can certainly be useful to a politician, and also painful, of course.

My very vague initial reading is that she is a stalking horse for an eventual Palin run.

According to intrade.com, she has a 6.3% chance of winning the nomination. Personally, I think it is higher. I'd be on her if I had an account there.

Quote: Wizard

..I'd be on her if I had an account there.

That missing T changes everything.

Quote: EvenBob

You must want a 2nd Obama term, then.

it's deeper than that. If Pawlenty wins then next year wouldn't be as hilarious as a race with Bachmann would be. It's really too bad that she was born in Canada and doesn't even qualify as a natural born Citizen.

I'm getting the sense that you are a believer in man-caused global warming, but whether you are or not, I don't really care insofar as the policies you advocate don't hinder individual liberty, which you mention towards the end of the post. But as far as what I think or the opinion of my smarter-than-me friends, there's just not much I can offer in the way of supporting that premise. But here goes ...

Quote: thecesspit

Right, so people are ridiculing it, but that doesn't make it true OR false. It just means people are ridiculing it. People ridicule a lot of things they may or may not understand (like Rush Limbaugh). I was more thinking there was a definitive paper/story that showed otherwise.

Ridicule was meant to convey the popular viewpoint. At the popular level, people will of course be speaking from some level of non-understanding. You and I and anyone else who chimes in is doing it as well. That shouldn't bother anybody. Maybe a better word as it relates to academic circles is "disgraced."

But whichever word applies better to academic circles, there are some things which should distress people whether or not they believe in the Church of Global Warming, and that's that whether or not you (generic-you, not thecesspit-you) ridicule the issue is probably more based on your political preconception rather than what you actually know. History is filled with examples of this - scientists deduced the world was round millenia before the common era, but preconcpetions overruled that science for 3500 or so years. I think that this whole man-caused warming debate will, in the future, follow a similar arc.

I think we can both stipulate that there are brilliant people who have written studies on the issue that come to the exact opposite conclusion. This makes citing such studies useless since you can always find one that supports your preconception. I'm sure that, if we had a time machine, we could find contemporary versions of the exact same thing about the flatness of the earth. Everything old is new again.

The violation of Science to support a political end, in itself, is the biggest casualty, and is what most worries my buds who see the legitimate aspects to man's contribution. Hitler and all other manner of very bad people did that. You're not Hitler and you're not a bad person, but you make the same mistake and it leads to comments like this ...

Quote: thecesspit

Except the East Anglia group's emails were taken out of context and multiple investigations have shown there was no fraud or data misuse AND all the data they were using came for other sources that are still widely available and in use.

Meaning, true believers will ALWAYS find a way to not believe what's in front of them. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone assigns any weight to anything associated with East Anglia. It's a thoroughly disgraced source that is widely ridiculed. I have no doubt that some emails were possibly taken out of context, but the institution still violated Science, and is still disgraced, and any reliance on them is just unfathomable. (And yes, both sides of the political aisle do it to some extent.)

The difference here is, the Scientific Method says the person making the proposal has to support it, and it has to be tested, and it has to be rejected if it fails. The people making a proposal, and asking us to change the way we live, are the ones who carry the burden of proof. If they lie, like East Anglia did, then they can be rejected.

The sad thing is, there is a point to be made and it can be supported well. But the zealots at East Anglia and elsewhere who violate Science harm the ability of Science to speak to us. Sorting through the bullshit is just not worth the effort. Love him or hate him, Limbaugh is right: science has nothing to do with consensus, and consensus is not scientific, it's political.

Quote: thecesspit

In short, I agree, low level government interruption in yiour life about bulbs is pointless. High level government interference in promoting resource conversation and reducing pollution (to avoid the tyrany of the commons and charge for externalities) is (in my view) good.

Sorry about removing the rest of the scientific part of your argument. It's not that I didn't read it or consider it, it's just that that's an example of your-guy-says-this but my-guy-says-that, and we're both going to give it the weight of Scientific Findings. One of us is wrong, one is right, but rather that get all detailed, let's just agree to disagree so long as we *can* agree that Science wouldn't be driving one of our perspectives, no matter how many science-people or science-words it contains. I would ask for the benefit of the doubt that I'm not merely trying to avoid the details. I just think that details wouldn't matter unless we can reach some agreement on what Science means and who we can trust with it. And I think we're a million miles apart on that.

But as to the comment on high-level government interference. I do think that the government can have some role. I also think that finding alternative energy resources is a national security issue, and something it should spend some time and money on. But whatever that means, it doesn't mean changing the system that gave us all the great inventions we have so far, taking away the just financial rewards to those who invent them, and controlling everyday behavior.

Quote:

Love him or hate him, Limbaugh is right: science has nothing to do with consensus, and consensus is not scientific, it's political.

While it's not science (of course!), do you think if a greater consensus of seismologists began to believe they had a method of predicting a reasonable and useful window of major earthquakes, that they would have any ethical duty, other than wait until they can eliminate all possible variables?

(as far as I know seismologist are far from this, though it certainly is of major interest to them)

How long should they wait if a smaller percentage of other seismologist disagree?

How long should they wait if Rush Limbaugh says it's leftest politics or some such?

You missed one of my points, probably in my he-said/she-said bit... I am very interested in seeing various points of view on Climate Change, and was hoping you could point me to a different source from the normal communities I read.

I have NOT read anything to suggest that the East Anglia studies are ridiculed or unsupportable, I have not read much that shows there was a lie and more importantly, I've not read anything that's unequivocal that man-made climate change is NOT happening.

This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that my current knowledge that man-made climate change is a real phenomena is actually correct. It means I have got got enough information to reassess that at present, and I was hoping that i could actually learn something to add to my knowledge, and there for my conclusions.

Quote: thecesspit

This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that my current knowledge that man-made climate change is a real phenomena is actually correct. It means I have got got enough information to reassess that at present, and I was hoping that i could actually learn something to add to my knowledge, and there for my conclusions.

Good,well thought out, statement. We should all be open to as much information as possible even if it does not support preconcieved notions.

When I was in college (early 70's) alarmists were predicting we were entering another ice age. Now, just a blip in time later in the global calendar, we are all going to melt.

We all hear about warming in the Arctic, but why don't we hear about the historic cooling in the Antarctic. People from both sides spend too much time ignoring the facts if they don't fit their views.

I have been following this for 40 years now and have not been convinced that there is man-made global warming. Is there climate change going on -- absolutely. By the way, I have degrees in Forestry and Environmental Resource Management and spent quite abit of class time studying climate change and how it impacts the environment. Not that this makes me any kind of expert, but no one can deny that climate change has always been part of earths history, sometimes becoming warmer, sometimes cooler. We all need to approach this as rationally as possible.

Quote: rxwine

While it's not science (of course!), do you think if a greater consensus of seismologists began to believe they had a method of predicting a reasonable and useful window of major earthquakes, that they would have any ethical duty, other than wait until they can eliminate all possible variables?

(as far as I know seismologist are far from this, though it certainly is of major interest to them)

How long should they wait if a smaller percentage of other seismologist disagree?

How long should they wait if Rush Limbaugh says it's leftest politics or some such?

Why are you presenting imaginary things as legitimate analogies? Is Imaginationland the only place where people who think like this live? You can't present ridiculousness and expect it to be treated with anything other than rejection. My best guess is you'll be quick to accuse me of avoiding the issue you think you're presenting, but the truth is, it's a ridiculous post. So yeah, I guess I am avoiding something ... a ridiculous conversation based on ... nothing that exists.

For what it's worth, earthquake engineering is something I know a great deal about ... one of my Stanford MSs is in structural engineering, where that's a top study topic. You don't know more about it than me. But my guess is, that won't matter to you. That's okay. It happens all the time ...

Me: Global warming due to mankind is, at most, a teensy factor.
Blowhard: You're an idiot.
Me: My Stanford degrees say otherwise.
Blowhard: Even Stanford graduates idiots.
Me: How do you tell the idiot Stanford grads from the smart ones?
Blowhard: The smart ones believe in global warming.

In other words, I don't believe in global warming because I'm smart, I'm smart because I believe in global warming. Upside-down and circular thinking. Ridiculous conversations are not worth having and should be avoided.

Quote: thecesspit

You missed one of my points, probably in my he-said/she-said bit... I am very interested in seeing various points of view on Climate Change, and was hoping you could point me to a different source from the normal communities I read.

I have NOT read anything to suggest that the East Anglia studies are ridiculed or unsupportable, I have not read much that shows there was a lie and more importantly, I've not read anything that's unequivocal that man-made climate change is NOT happening.

This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that my current knowledge that man-made climate change is a real phenomena is actually correct. It means I have got got enough information to reassess that at present, and I was hoping that i could actually learn something to add to my knowledge, and there for my conclusions.

I can't really help you with this. This issue is argued along political lines as it's a political issue. Conservative scientists argue against it; liberal scientists argue for it. One group is wrong. And Science loses its ability to instruct. That's my point. The rest is he-said-she-said, and not worth the bandwidth.

Why don't we stop at agreeing that, whatever the science actually is, it should not be used to impose restrictive public policy?

This is not the issue, but I have wondered ...

If man came about through a natural process, and is using natural resources or things he (as a natural being) fashioned from natural resources, how can "man-made" warming be considered anything other than natural? Shouldn't every tool/invention/etc. of man be thought of in the same way that a bird's nest is? It seems that any accusation or blame assigned to mankind for poor stewardship or artificial-ness implies that mankind is something other than natural.

Quote: timberjim

Good,well thought out, statement. We should all be open to as much information as possible even if it does not support preconcieved notions.

When I was in college (early 70's) alarmists were predicting we were entering another ice age. Now, just a blip in time later in the global calendar, we are all going to melt.

We all hear about warming in the Arctic, but why don't we hear about the historic cooling in the Antarctic. People from both sides spend too much time ignoring the facts if they don't fit their views.

I have been following this for 40 years now and have not been convinced that there is man-made global warming. Is there climate change going on -- absolutely. By the way, I have degrees in Forestry and Environmental Resource Management and spent quite abit of class time studying climate change and how it impacts the environment. Not that this makes me any kind of expert, but no one can deny that climate change has always been part of earths history, sometimes becoming warmer, sometimes cooler. We all need to approach this as rationally as possible.

This is the right way to think about it. Global warming folks are presenting a theory, and they're wanting to change public policy because of it. But they ask the other side to prove that what they're saying isn't true.

That's not science or the scientific method. That side made the posit, they have to convince the other side. As for us on the other side, we get to pick it apart and reject it when we find it doesn't work. That's the scientific method. But that's not the method being followed with this particular theory, is it?

At this point, whatever it is, the (ever-changing) global cooling theory (which has morphed into global warming and then again into climate change theory to account for ... um ... a lack of cooling/warming/whatever and will most certainly morph again and again) is not withstanding scrutiny, is not fitting ALL the data (Antarctic cooling), and is being shown to be "supported" with false data along the lines of Rather's Bush memos.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Why are you presenting imaginary things as legitimate analogies?

Do you make up your rules?

You mean like a cat in a box and a subatomic particle experiment?

Quote:

My best guess is you'll be quick to accuse me of avoiding the issue you think you're presenting

Yup.

Quote:

So yeah, I guess I am avoiding something ... a ridiculous conversation based on ... nothing that exists.

Weak.

Quote: rxwine

Do you make up your rules?

You mean like a cat in a box and a subatomic particle experiment?



Yup.




Weak.

When lacking a valid argument some resort to simply calling you or your point "Ridiculous". you're fighting an uphill battle rx

Quote: Wavy70

When lacking a valid argument some resort to simply calling you or your point "Ridiculous". you're fighting an uphill battle rx

Ah yes, the one who can't stray from the liberal paradigm. This one is easy ...

Truth: some people do call something ridiculous to avoid answering it, see also Anthony Weiner.
Lie: I didn't present a valid point.

Presented it. It was "answered" with an "analogy" that wasn't even internally consistent much less reflective of the point or even described a real condition. It was ridiculous.

Quote: rxwine

Yup.

Wow, I thought I was just making a guess, but I see now that you really are that simple.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Ah yes, the one who can't stray from the liberal paradigm. This one is easy ...

Truth: some people do call something ridiculous to avoid answering it, see also Anthony Weiner.
Lie: I didn't present a valid point.

Presented it. It was "answered" with an "analogy" that wasn't even internally consistent much less reflective of the point. It was ridiculous.

Soccer you are incapable of unbiased thought. You and one other here are the MKL of the conservo's. Let me strike that. At least MKL wqas amusing.
You are incapable to look at a topic from any point that does not fill your regressive thoughts. The odd thing is for a stoner you forgot to free your mind.

Regressive is the correct term for the opposite of liberal isn't it?

Quote: Wavy70

Soccer you are incapable of unbiased thought. You and one other here are the MKL of the conservo's. Let me strike that. At least MKL wqas amusing.
You are incapable to look at a topic from any point that does not fill your regressive thoughts. The odd thing is for a stoner you forgot to free your mind.

Regressive is the correct term for the opposite of liberal isn't it?

Quote: Wavy70

When lacking a valid argument [or response] some resort to simply calling you or your point "Ridiculous" [or a conservo or a stoner or regressive or MKL or Hitler, etc.]. you're fighting an uphill battle.

Guys who think like you always do this to themselves. It just usually takes longer than consecutive posts made less than an hour apart. Wow.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Quote: Wavy70

When lacking a valid argument [or response] some resort to simply calling you or your point "Ridiculous" [or a conservo or a stoner or regressive or MKL or Hitler, etc.]. you're fighting an uphill battle.

Guys who think like you always do this to themselves. It just usually takes longer than consecutive posts made less than an hour apart. Wow.

You made Stoner posts in the past so I just call them as I see them. Sorry if you don't have the short term memory anymore. Frankly you should take stoner as a complement.
Edit I was asking if regressive is the opposite of liberal.
Edit Edit. So let me get this you consider the term "Conservative" equal to the term "Ridiculous"? OK.

Well, to anyone paying attention.

Let's take the Fukushima nuclear accident.

At some point, the company, scientists, the country have to determine a risk for the population at large, or even if there is one. A panel of experts are hired. They cover a variety of disciplines of experts, from nuclear to medical people, to who knows what -- people specialized in environmental impact studies.

Now these experts will weigh in with various input on the relevant risk as the zone around the plant increases. None of them have any complaints about specifying a 10 mile radius. Some may have less or more concerns but at least at that range they will take extra precautions.

Now the proposition here is, as the zone increase in size: the disagreement among the experts will likely increase on various reasoning and their own expertise. Some may want different actions at larger zones. But ultimately, they will have to depend on consensus to give their recommendations.


Is this strictly a science process? No. But is it a process you can dismiss as worthless. I hope not.

I'm interpreting Limbaugh's position is, consensus is worthless. It may be worthless in some respects to science itself, but he is rejecting it outright as useful to public policy or to public safety. (as far as I can see).

Quote: rxwine

Well, to anyone paying attention.

Let's take the Fukushima nuclear accident.

At some point, the company, scientists, the country have to determine a risk for the population at large, or even if there is one. A panel of experts are hired. They cover a variety of disciplines of experts, from nuclear to medical people, to who knows what -- people specialized in environmental impact studies.

Now these experts will weigh in with various input on the relevant risk as the zone around the plant increases. None of them have any complaints about specifying a 10 mile radius. Some may have less or more concerns but at least at that range they will take extra precautions.

Now the proposition here is, as the zone increase in size: the disagreement among the experts will likely increase on various reasoning and their own expertise. Some may want different actions at larger zones. But ultimately, they will have to depend on consensus to give their recommendations.


Is this strictly a science process? No. But is it a process you can dismiss as worthless. I hope not.

I'm interpreting Limbaugh's position is, consensus is worthless. It may be worthless in some respects to science itself, but he is rejecting it outright as useful to public policy or to public safety. (as far as I can see).

On both Fukushima and climate change err on the side of caution.
In Fuk having a wider evacuation zone will impact many many people but in the long run it will either have no effect or a positive effect. Staying where they are will be either no effect or negative. If it was a bet which would you pick?
On climate change if it is a natural occurrence reducing carbon footprint will have no effect. If it is man made it will have a positive effect. But reducing your carbon footprint in most cases would mean you are using your resources better.
Climate aside wouldn't using your resources more efficiently be a boon?

Quote: Wavy70

You made Stoner posts in the past so I just call them as I see them. Sorry if you don't have the short term memory anymore. Frankly you should take stoner as a complement.
Edit I was asking if regressive is the opposite of liberal.
Edit Edit. So let me get this you consider the term "Conservative" equal to the term "Ridiculous"? OK.

Whatever. Cesspit and I were minding our own business, having a perfectly civil discussion (which is refreshing) on a controversial topic. As it's a free and open forum, you guys had every opportunity to add constructive points and participate in it. You also had every opportunity to just ignore us. But no. Instead, you troll the forum MKLogan-esquely with intentional obfuscation and personal attacks. In your mind, this somehow passes for civil and sane debate.

It's like you can't abide free, open, and civil discussion, or the possibility that you're wrong or that there's even another way to look at things different than your way. If that's what "regressive" represents, I would happily take the label except that the term represents another partisan obfuscation. You actually do everything you accuse me of doing.

Now, the topic is essentially dead. Nice work. Those MKLogan-esque tactics are everything that's wrong with political and internet discourse today. That's on you, and it's regressive.

At some point when the tangent overtakes the original post, someone should start a new thread.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Whatever. Cesspit and I were minding our own business, having a perfectly civil discussion (which is refreshing) on a controversial topic. As it's a free and open forum, you guys had every opportunity to add constructive points and participate in it. You also had every opportunity to just ignore us. But no. Instead, you troll the forum MKLogan-esquely with intentional obfuscation and personal attacks. In your mind, this somehow passes for civil and sane debate.

It's like you can't abide free, open, and civil discussion, or the possibility that you're wrong or that there's even another way to look at things different than your way. If that's what "regressive" represents, I would happily take the label except that the term represents another partisan obfuscation. You actually do everything you accuse me of doing.

Now, the topic is essentially dead. Nice work. Those MKLogan-esque tactics are everything that's wrong with political and internet discourse today. That's on you, and it's regressive.

yeah keep telling yourself that. I'm sure you have to put yourself on the moral pedestal since no one else will. You were the one who started talking crap. Sorry if I pointed it out. Can't take people pointing out when you spout BS? Sorry.

I doubt you have ever had a "Free, open and civil discussion" with anyone who has a different opinion.

Quote: pacomartin

At some point when the tangent overtakes the original post, someone should start a new thread.

Is this the John Huntsman thread? I was looking forward to discussing all of the interestings things about John Huntsman.

Quote: s2dbaker

Is this the John Huntsman thread? I was looking forward to discussing all of the interestings things about John Huntsman.

The thread was about Michelle Bachman. I started a different thread on Jon Huntsman as well.

Political threads seem to cause tangents. But after dozens of posts in a row off topic, it would seem that many people would be interested in posting it under a correct heading so people know what they are reading about.