330 comments posted · 8 followers · following 7
So it's okay to engage in behavior that increases the odds of being affected by a natural disaster? You're going to tell everyone to live for the day, don't worry about tomorrow? Would you use this argument for drunk driving or other high-risk behaviors?
They have cooked the books on the computer models as not one has ever accurately predicted what has actually ocurred with the weather. I have read the studies, have you?
Obviously, you haven't. Or perhaps you didn't understand them. Or perhaps you only read the studies which you are sure will validate your views. The argument which you rely on seem to indicate a gaping hole in your basic knowledge of the concept of risk (hint: it's more than a board game) . How can we depend on your judgment regarding a very important matter if you think that you can say that "since things have changed before, it's okay if we act recklessly because all that will happen is more change,"? You're ignoring a very important word, and that word is consequences. Perhaps you feel that you are immune from those consequences. The ancient Greeks had a word for that: hubris.
And the correct modifier is Democratic.
Republican and Conservative weren't always synonyms.
Or it could be the Southern Strategy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
At any rate, following about half a lifetime later, the Republican Party has lost the support of a nearly everyone to whom Civil Rights mattered in a first-person sense. Whether perception became reality or vice versa, it's real, and the perception has been getting worse, to the point where the recent trend in right-wing mass demonstrations appears to be, "leave your signs at home, you're embara ssing us." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&a... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&a...
Your own words, PT, in your first response to me on this thread:
Thanks for proving that it matters to the Left that he's not a Muslim
Your last response:
Like I said, you care that people believe BO is a muslim.
Notice the change there? For the record, your second version is the correct one. I wouldn't care if he were a Muslim- there is no religious test to hold office in the US. I care about those people who believe that President Obama is a Muslim, because they are willing to participate in that particular delusion because it justifies their belief that he is, "a foreign-born, terrorist-sympathizing, Muslim." (loosely quoted from Chris Matthews' description of what I've called the idiot brigade, a characterization I stand by.) These are people I don't care to give any credence or respect to, as they are working their way toward sedition against the USA.
However, did you mean to imply that the ones to whom the truth matters are what you call "the left," with all of the disapproval that the label implies coming from you? What does that say about your attitude toward the truth?
By any means necessary, eh comrade?