I never said that opposition to war was anti-military and vilifying soldiers, I said that John Kerry vilified soldiers and was anti-military.
So your complaint is that you were castigated for engaging in right wing BS that you didn't repeat, instead of the right wing sophistry you actually peddled?
With respect, neither wind nor solar are credible additions to the traditional power grid.
Repeating tired winger deflection doesn't make it true. Wind and solar are alreadycost competitive with fossil fuels, and that's ignoring the trillion a year the U.S. spends on subsidizing the oil industry.
As to the urban environment, it is too dense to credibly use renewable energy in that way.
Because power lines that transport coal power hundreds of miles couldn't work for wind or solar farms. Or something.
Here you might say "but nuclear power is bad because some power plants built in the 50s and 60s had issues after being poorly maintained and continuously running for 50 years." Think about it.
Now that's just putting on your clown shoes. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man. No power company on the planet has rolled the future costs of plant decommission and the storing of nuclear waste for thousands of years, even if they've incorporated all the costs of plant construction, maintenance, security, ore mining and refinement.
As usual, you arguments are entirely based on ideology, not science.
Got a little butthurt about getting called out on our anti-vaxxer bullshit wrt climate change, did we? Now let's talk about the laziness downthread:
I could probably find evidence to support your argument if I wanted. I could also probably find evidence to help make a counterargument to it if I wanted to. But I don't care to do either of those things.
That's good, I'm glad to see you're not an idiot, you're merely lazy.
Oooo, projection. If I assert that you like to have sex with goats and set kittens on fire, is it my job to prove that assertion, or your job to disprove it? Cuz, you know, if you merely insist that you have never touched a goat or laid hands on a kitten, it means you're "merely lazy" because you didn't prove your innocence.
FTFY. Let us know when you denialist trolls are ready to provide superior science, and not the same warmed over rhetorical bullshit you've been serving up by hand for a couple of decades.
Bill Clinton engaged in systematic sexual harassment
Baseless tautology.
Any corporate CEO can get a blow job from an intern and it's no problem
When it's freely offered? Someone's jealous.
Yeah. Right. Just a blow job.
No, not just a blow job. It was a pathetic witch hunt that settled on a sex scandal after years and tens of millions investigating and re-investigating Whitewater and Vince Foster. Then Scooter Libby came along and showed us just how much wingers actually care about perjury.
Linking to media matters and using it as a factual source, isn't any different then linking to world nightly news and making the same claim.
If it's Lazy Tautology Day, I'll just casually assert that you like to have sex with goats. Cuz we can just casually throw out claims without having to back them up, right?
Got anything more than a tautology, like those who insist that Michael Moore is as full of it as Rush Limbaugh without anything to back it up? Media Matters always backs up their claims with references, just like Snopes. Their failing is that they only call out right wing bullshit when it's coming from Republicans, not Democrats. But that's not to say they go around making shit up - which is what you seem to be doing.
Denier is entirely accurate as these people aren't arguing science, but ideology. They're no different than young earth creationists who deny all evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years, or anti-vaxxers that keep jabbering on autism, or lunar conspiracy theorists who continue insisting that the moon landings were faked on a sound stage. Denyalism is denyalism.
Most of them will admit that the climate has changed.
Just like the people running around denying any link between cigarettes and cancer would "admit" they weren't healthy products. Denialism is denialism.
I'm not speaking as a "denier" here. I trust the scientific method to eventually come to a fact-driven conclusion, whichever that may be, on carbon warming. My objection is to the way the left has clutched warming to its heart by demanding, that science confirm the most apocalyptic possible scenario on climate.
You might want to get your left and right hands to talk to each other before typing, so one doesn't make a very bad liar out of the other in the same breath. That, and try not leading with stuff like "Church of Warminetics", and it wont be so obvious that you're engaging in willful anti-vaxxer like dumbfuckery.
Why is it that the uber-rich on the Left are never mentioned?
Because being an uber-rich leftist is a contradiction in terms, that's why.
Most of the richest people in the US Congress are Democrats.
You say that as if it means something. Protip: when those Democrats are to the right of Reagan on most issues, it doesn't.
Why don't we hear more about George Soros
Not a leftist.
Tides Foundation
Not lefists.
How about Bloomberg?
How about making it obvious that you're as dumb as Fox?
Or if you want to get to the real money in political contributions, look at public & private sector unions.
Or you could quit being a moran for five seconds. If unions had that much money or power, the GM bailout wouldn't have put a slow bleed on the UAW by forcing new hires to work for half as much money as experienced workers. Obama's RTT is going to put more unionized teachers out of their jobs than Bush's NCLB.
Self-declared Socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (D) Vermont.
Not even close. Cheney could call himself a Socialist, but it wouldn't make him one. Not that Bernie is like Cheney - he's like a middle of the road, 1970's era Republican on most issues.
I don't care how serious it is... whenever I hear talk of "how serious a threat *Item X* is to man kind" I can't help but think of the Communist-threat style debate that went on in the Stargate episode, Politics.
Maybe you should put aside Stargate as a reference and look at past mass extinction events, which generally involved.......rapid climate change. Asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs? Climate change. Methane release that wiped out most of the life on the planet? Climate change.
And it's not like AGW has to be that dire for it to be worth avoiding. Forest fire season starting months in advance, higher summer utility bills so people don't suffer from heat stroke, more hurricanes that cause billions in property damage at a pop, etc. None of that will result in hundreds of millions of deaths, much less extinction - but they're still a bunch of easily avoided financial catastrophes.
I think it's good for the public to see these kinds of things, so they can fully appreciate the reality of the threat posed to our society.
Your couch is more likely to kill you than a terrorist, bedwetter. Your threat assessment is about as good as a biker who insists on riding without a helmet but refuses to fly on a plane "because it might crash."
.....that just ordered the mass execution of a couple hundred protestors? The one propped up by the USG? The same USG that overthrew Gaddafi and is trying to overthrow Assad for "killing their own people"?
He called for a deep revolution in thought about the tenets of Islam.
Is that before or after Christianist Americans have a revolution in thought conducting world wide kidnapping and torture programs, continuing to hold prisoners in gulags that have been cleared for release? It takes a few supertankers of willful dumfuckery to throw stones from that glass house.
Watching a Christianist American whine about violence committed by a few Muslims is like watching Jack the Ripper whine about how Chris Brown treats women.
Might wanna check that racist mass murdering beam in your eye before throwing stones at someone's mote.
And Bill and Barack are diametrically opposed Democrats. Barack had an African father and beat Bill's wife for the presidency. Therefore, people who compare their free trade deals are just craaaaazy.
The most comprehensive recount was a $1 million effort sponsored by the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which owns papers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun. That press recount, the big one, found that Bush still won, even without the military votes.
Hoist on your own snobby petard. The very study you mention is the one showing Gore winning a statewide recount under any scenario. Of course the chickenshit press buried that behind two pages of talking about how Bush would have still won if Gore's legal team had gotten their way in the recount, which again is irrelevant as he wasn't the one recounting the votes.
So are you going to move on from your fools mate and deal with the fact that Gore won Florida, or just retreat deeper into your anti-vaxxer denial?
There is no consistent set of rules which result in a Gore win. His camp acknowledged that by insisting on strict rules in conservative precincts and liberal rules in precincts that leaned Democrat. Additionally, you have to ALSO exclude votes from the men and women serving overseas.
More winger urban legends with no basis in reality. No to mention the projection, given the fact that illegally cast overseas ballots were counted, which favored Bush.
If you think you can come up with ANY set of procedures that result in a Gore win when applied consistently
Which part of "Gore won a statewide recount under any scenario" did you have a hard time understanding?
Gore won Florida. You can either deal with that fact, or be as willfully pathetic as the morons who keep blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge after they've been told that happened when George H.W. Bush was still president.
Do you also demand to know why the US of A continues to spend billions on roads every year, after Eisenhower spend all that money in the 50's building the interstate highway system, because you've never heard of the term "ongoing expense"? Or why you should keep getting your teeth cleaned by a dentist cuz after the first time you saw one when you were four? Or why you should have to keep spending money on gas after you drive a car out of a dealership?
Just wondering if your willful stupidity is general, or specific. Either way, it's a non sequtiur as it's. a. simple. fact. that Clinton gutted welfare in the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
A miner and an free-market economist. I'm sure they're very trustworthy scientists and not at all projecting on the issue of bias. Cuz reasons.
Debunking debunked. Repeating right wing bullshit over and over again doesn't make it more true and less bullshit.
Sorry.
So your complaint is that you were castigated for engaging in right wing BS that you didn't repeat, instead of the right wing sophistry you actually peddled?
Okay. Noted.
Repeating tired winger deflection doesn't make it true. Wind and solar are already cost competitive with fossil fuels, and that's ignoring the trillion a year the U.S. spends on subsidizing the oil industry.
Because power lines that transport coal power hundreds of miles couldn't work for wind or solar farms. Or something.
Now that's just putting on your clown shoes. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive power source ever invented by man. No power company on the planet has rolled the future costs of plant decommission and the storing of nuclear waste for thousands of years, even if they've incorporated all the costs of plant construction, maintenance, security, ore mining and refinement.
As usual, you arguments are entirely based on ideology, not science.
Got a little butthurt about getting called out on our anti-vaxxer bullshit wrt climate change, did we? Now let's talk about the laziness downthread:
Oooo, projection. If I assert that you like to have sex with goats and set kittens on fire, is it my job to prove that assertion, or your job to disprove it? Cuz, you know, if you merely insist that you have never touched a goat or laid hands on a kitten, it means you're "merely lazy" because you didn't prove your innocence.
He's suing people that libeled him.
FTFY. Let us know when you denialist trolls are ready to provide superior science, and not the same warmed over rhetorical bullshit you've been serving up by hand for a couple of decades.
Not only is it basic, your disingenuousness is visible from space.
Baseless tautology.
When it's freely offered? Someone's jealous.
No, not just a blow job. It was a pathetic witch hunt that settled on a sex scandal after years and tens of millions investigating and re-investigating Whitewater and Vince Foster. Then Scooter Libby came along and showed us just how much wingers actually care about perjury.
But dumb enough to pretend that an obviously visual play on words is an auditory one, and think no one will notice.
If it's Lazy Tautology Day, I'll just casually assert that you like to have sex with goats. Cuz we can just casually throw out claims without having to back them up, right?
Got anything more than a tautology, like those who insist that Michael Moore is as full of it as Rush Limbaugh without anything to back it up? Media Matters always backs up their claims with references, just like Snopes. Their failing is that they only call out right wing bullshit when it's coming from Republicans, not Democrats. But that's not to say they go around making shit up - which is what you seem to be doing.
Denier is entirely accurate as these people aren't arguing science, but ideology. They're no different than young earth creationists who deny all evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years, or anti-vaxxers that keep jabbering on autism, or lunar conspiracy theorists who continue insisting that the moon landings were faked on a sound stage. Denyalism is denyalism.
Just like the people running around denying any link between cigarettes and cancer would "admit" they weren't healthy products. Denialism is denialism.
You might want to get your left and right hands to talk to each other before typing, so one doesn't make a very bad liar out of the other in the same breath. That, and try not leading with stuff like "Church of Warminetics", and it wont be so obvious that you're engaging in willful anti-vaxxer like dumbfuckery.
Because being an uber-rich leftist is a contradiction in terms, that's why.
You say that as if it means something. Protip: when those Democrats are to the right of Reagan on most issues, it doesn't.
Not a leftist.
Not lefists.
How about making it obvious that you're as dumb as Fox?
Or you could quit being a moran for five seconds. If unions had that much money or power, the GM bailout wouldn't have put a slow bleed on the UAW by forcing new hires to work for half as much money as experienced workers. Obama's RTT is going to put more unionized teachers out of their jobs than Bush's NCLB.
Not even close. Cheney could call himself a Socialist, but it wouldn't make him one. Not that Bernie is like Cheney - he's like a middle of the road, 1970's era Republican on most issues.
even if you're a winger. You aren't arguing science, you're arguing ideology as much as an anti-vaxxer.
Maybe you should put aside Stargate as a reference and look at past mass extinction events, which generally involved.......rapid climate change. Asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs? Climate change. Methane release that wiped out most of the life on the planet? Climate change.
And it's not like AGW has to be that dire for it to be worth avoiding. Forest fire season starting months in advance, higher summer utility bills so people don't suffer from heat stroke, more hurricanes that cause billions in property damage at a pop, etc. None of that will result in hundreds of millions of deaths, much less extinction - but they're still a bunch of easily avoided financial catastrophes.
Your couch is more likely to kill you than a terrorist, bedwetter. Your threat assessment is about as good as a biker who insists on riding without a helmet but refuses to fly on a plane "because it might crash."
.....that just ordered the mass execution of a couple hundred protestors? The one propped up by the USG? The same USG that overthrew Gaddafi and is trying to overthrow Assad for "killing their own people"?
Is that before or after Christianist Americans have a revolution in thought conducting world wide kidnapping and torture programs, continuing to hold prisoners in gulags that have been cleared for release? It takes a few supertankers of willful dumfuckery to throw stones from that glass house.
Watching a Christianist American whine about violence committed by a few Muslims is like watching Jack the Ripper whine about how Chris Brown treats women.
Might wanna check that racist mass murdering beam in your eye before throwing stones at someone's mote.
And Bill and Barack are diametrically opposed Democrats. Barack had an African father and beat Bill's wife for the presidency. Therefore, people who compare their free trade deals are just craaaaazy.
/willfullymissingthepoint
Hoist on your own snobby petard. The very study you mention is the one showing Gore winning a statewide recount under any scenario. Of course the chickenshit press buried that behind two pages of talking about how Bush would have still won if Gore's legal team had gotten their way in the recount, which again is irrelevant as he wasn't the one recounting the votes.
So are you going to move on from your fools mate and deal with the fact that Gore won Florida, or just retreat deeper into your anti-vaxxer denial?
More winger urban legends with no basis in reality. No to mention the projection, given the fact that illegally cast overseas ballots were counted, which favored Bush.
Which part of "Gore won a statewide recount under any scenario" did you have a hard time understanding?
Gore won Florida. You can either deal with that fact, or be as willfully pathetic as the morons who keep blaming Clinton for Ruby Ridge after they've been told that happened when George H.W. Bush was still president.
Do you also demand to know why the US of A continues to spend billions on roads every year, after Eisenhower spend all that money in the 50's building the interstate highway system, because you've never heard of the term "ongoing expense"? Or why you should keep getting your teeth cleaned by a dentist cuz after the first time you saw one when you were four? Or why you should have to keep spending money on gas after you drive a car out of a dealership?
Just wondering if your willful stupidity is general, or specific. Either way, it's a non sequtiur as it's. a. simple. fact. that Clinton gutted welfare in the United States.