tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post3059330637385986154..comments2024-03-28T14:14:11.551-06:00Comments on Unabashedly American: Dennis Prager on the Differences Between Leftism and LiberalismDarrell Michaelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-75610403300738543902017-09-18T11:23:43.439-06:002017-09-18T11:23:43.439-06:00I appreciate you support those kind of measures, b...I appreciate you support those kind of measures, but the Republican party does not and has not for decades. Doing nothing and denying reality is making the problem worse.<br /><br />"What I don't support is draconian restrictions that would literally decimate our economy and hurt all of us, particularly the poorest among us, for a nearly insignificant and negligible return." - Mr. Paine<br /><br />I have heard this talking point from Republicans for years. I have not seen the facts that prove that kind of statement. Restrictions and regulations apply to all, unless it is shown that one party is solely responsible for a particular problem. The US has been the biggest polluter of the world for over 100 years. It's in our best interest that China, India, and other larger populations do have pollution regulations. <br /><br />The Paris agreement regulations apply to all. What are the ends of scientists? They propose these regulations because a real problem exist. They are not some evil power looking to dominate the world.<br /><br />The reality is the rest of the world will be making trade deals according to the regulations in the Paris agreement and the US will be left out of those worldwide trade deals, because we will not meet those regulations. We will also be left out of being the leader of the new technology needed to achieve those regulations. American capitalists and corporations understand this and have said they will gear their companies policies to meet the Paris agreement regulations, because they don't want to be left out of that growth, or the profits that will result. The Trump administration offered no alternative, or were even willing to negotiate, they simply pulled out. Trump's inaction will hurt America even if he doesn't believe as you have said you don't. The world will move on without America and we will spend decades as 10th place finishers again. Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11597062711930899788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-54330482027616130042017-09-18T08:49:51.781-06:002017-09-18T08:49:51.781-06:00"JG, in your comment you got to the heart of ..."JG, in your comment you got to the heart of this whole issue, we are truth seekers and you, I and Dave want to spread the truth to those who are lost in the the very effective war on the Truth. I have tried the confrontational route on the Rant with Chuck and it got me nowhere. I might have even played a part in Tom changing the forum into the mess that it is today. My comment to Dave was that he was losing the ability to communicate with Mr Paine because of his tactics. If he gets banned from this site he will not be spreading anything. This is a very frustrating mission we are on and it requires a lot of patience but looking at Mr Paine as an equal is the first step." ~ Woodenman<br /><br />Woodenman, I greatly appreciate your sentiments here, sir. It is far easier for us people to tear something down than it is for us to build something good and useful. Dave Dubya, in the past in my opinion has chosen to tear things down. That said, I greatly respect and admire his recent comment in realizing this tone of his. I am hopeful that we can again return to vigorous and civil discussions going forward.<br /><br />Majormajor, while we agree on many issues, I would greatly appreciate it if you too would stop with your antagonistic tone. It does nothing to further rational debate. It simply creates a trench warfare environment. I try to approach things like this: If someone whom you are debating chooses to be nasty and hyper-confrontational, it is best to remember who you are and not lower yourself to that same least common denominator. While we do seek common ground in finding the truth, we don't want to find common ground by both being at the bottom of a cesspool. And yes, I have been guilty of this in the past and will work even harder not to fall into that trap again going forward. I think that you have many great things to contribute, it just needs to be done without that assumption that "the other side" is the enemy. If that is what you think, why waste your time? They won't be able to hear a thing you say. That attitude just chases others away or makes them entrench further into their own positions, as Woodenman said. Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-3951997276002177502017-09-18T08:36:34.903-06:002017-09-18T08:36:34.903-06:00"95% is overwhelming enough to convince me. I..."95% is overwhelming enough to convince me. I would be convinced if it were only 75%. Our past experience with air and water pollution shows that simple regulations can change and fix the damage done. I don't need to be a scientist to know what humans spew into the Eco-system would not be something the Earth would naturally produce. I have read the opposing scientific view points, but I am not convinced. I have learned over the decades to have confidence in science. Even if you do not believe, what could it hurt to stop putting pollutants into the air, earth, and water? The Bible commands us to be good stewards of the Earth. I am also convinced that renewable energy is the future of good paying jobs that will not be exported to other countries." ~ Paul<br /><br />Paul, there is much that you said here with which I do agree. While I am still quite agnostic on AGW, regardless of whether it is human caused or not, we absolutely do have an obligation to protect our environment. Scrubbers on factory smoke stacks, preventing factories from dumping pollutants into our water, making more emission-friendly cars and other such environmental protections are not only vital, but they have helped clean up many of our cities like Los Angeles where you could not breath outside on some days in the 1980's. Or places in the rust belt where acidic rain would fall because of pollutants pumped into the air. All of these measures are very good and necessary, and I fully support them. <br /><br />What I don't support is draconian restrictions that would literally decimate our economy and hurt all of us, particularly the poorest among us, for a nearly insignificant and negligible return. I know that there are many good and sincere scientists that believe in AGW and only want to protect our earth. Unfortunately, I also know that there are those that are simply not allowing a "good crisis to go to waste" and wish to leverage this for their own ends and control of populations. <br /><br />In the meantime, we must all strive to protect our air, water, and soil. After all, conservatives need to breath, drink, and live on the land too.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-9706232407763116172017-09-17T16:18:51.767-06:002017-09-17T16:18:51.767-06:00So much "courage" he removes posts he do...So much "courage" he removes posts he doesn't agree with.<br /><br />Dumb the Dubya.Majormajorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05475952962470772705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-85889918966130850072017-09-16T01:50:08.896-06:002017-09-16T01:50:08.896-06:00These are words of warning, not to be ignored or r...These are words of warning, not to be ignored or ridiculed or denied. To do so, is to our own peril. Read the words of a very wise and learned man. The framework he proposes is what must be done. We have no other recourse. Link through and read "<i>Laudato si' - On Care For Our Common Home</i>". An excerpt: <br /><br />"<i><a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html" rel="nofollow">The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. As these gases build up in the atmosphere, they hamper the escape of heat produced by sunlight at the earth’s surface. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes.</a></i>"<br /><br />Mr. Paine, I was remiss when I mentioned earlier that we have no commonality. I stand corrected. We share a planet; we have a common home. Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-49517947180658202712017-09-15T22:19:46.347-06:002017-09-15T22:19:46.347-06:00Dave, I am very impressed with you, courage is not...Dave, I am very impressed with you, courage is not something you lack.woodenmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161511512931615910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-77963534159827116802017-09-15T22:01:56.922-06:002017-09-15T22:01:56.922-06:00Chuck, it take a big man to apologize, something y...Chuck, it take a big man to apologize, something you never did and you said a lot of extremely offensive things in the past on the Rant. Should I compile a collection of your sickest comments and post them here? We can all take a trip down memory lane! woodenmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161511512931615910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-32264613009031751062017-09-15T21:11:10.126-06:002017-09-15T21:11:10.126-06:00Dubya admits to being out of control, and promses ...Dubya admits to being out of control, and promses to be a good "boy".<br /><br />Dump the Dubya!Just the Facts!https://www.blogger.com/profile/04046021100837080313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-67040572817236115342017-09-15T19:52:58.272-06:002017-09-15T19:52:58.272-06:00Looking back, I suppose my outrage was still firin...Looking back, I suppose my outrage was still firing over a recent highly contentious issue; one that we needn't revisit. <br /><br />I have to confess I made some harsh remarks. I apologize to those effected. I also blustered crude words to no one in particular. <br /><br />Woody, you are right. That was a stupid way to convey information, wasn't it?<br /><br />For his kind hosting, I owe Mr. Paine due respect to dial that tone down. And I owe respect to the readers, such as is their due, as well.<br /><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-30280280331350715882017-09-15T19:06:09.698-06:002017-09-15T19:06:09.698-06:00JG, in your comment you got to the heart of this w...JG, in your comment you got to the heart of this whole issue, we are truth seekers and you, I and Dave want to spread the truth to those who are lost in the the very effective war on the Truth.<br /><br />I have tried the confrontational route on the Rant with Chuck and it got me nowhere. I might have even played a part in Tom changing the forum into the mess that it is today.<br /><br />My comment to Dave was that he was losing the ability to communicate with Mr Paine because of his tactics. If he gets banned from this site he will not be spreading anything.<br /><br />This is a very frustrating mission we are on and it requires a lot of patience but looking at Mr Paine as an equal is the first step. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> woodenmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161511512931615910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-86213890298999899812017-09-15T18:19:54.034-06:002017-09-15T18:19:54.034-06:00Mr. Paine,
The Constitution sets term limits on f...Mr. Paine,<br /><br />The Constitution sets term limits on federally elected offices. I'm sure the founders considered that one person could be continuously reelected and remain in office for decades. Elections are a term limit. The freedom of the people's choice. This would be an example of a rewrite of the Constitution to better fit contemporary culture and behavior. I would support term limit changes to the Constitution as happened with the presidency. We would lose the possibility that it might be best for the country to have a strong leader in an office for a long period of time.<br /><br />95% is overwhelming enough to convince me. I would be convinced if it were only 75%. Our past experience with air and water pollution shows that simple regulations can change and fix the damage done. I don't need to be a scientist to know what humans spew into the Eco-system would not be something the Earth would naturally produce. I have read the opposing scientific view points, but I am not convinced. I have learned over the decades to have confidence in science. Even if you do not believe, what could it hurt to stop putting pollutants into the air, earth, and water? The Bible commands us to be good stewards of the Earth. I am also convinced that renewable energy is the future of good paying jobs that will not be exported to other countries. I have to add that the same 95% of scientists that declared the Earth's climate is changing also told us the symptoms to look for - warmer global temperatures, melting polar ice, stronger and more extreme storms, global weather extremes, and rising ocean levels globally - all of which have happened and have been measured factually. <br /><br />In order for Reagan to achieve a balanced budget with the tax cuts he got out of Congress the spending cuts needed would have totaled 35% of the total budget of the time. That would be impossible. Claiming Reagan did not get spending cuts promised (I don't remember any promise just political BS) does not salvage Reagan's reputation for leaving an over one trillion dollar debt and setting the irresponsible fiscal policies for Republicans for the next 40 years. You might remember that after Reagan got those tax cuts the economy went sluggish. He got a tax increase in the next budget and the economy sprang back up. <br /><br />I don't see how Reagan could be given the nomination for president by today's Republican party. Today's Republican party disagrees with Reagan's position on to many issues, no matter how often today's Republican party wants to invoke his name. One glaring example would be gun control. Reagan passed gun control in California when he was Gov. Reagan supported the AWB for federal law. The AWB passed with Republican votes, but years later when it came up for renewal today's Republican party just let it lapse, and if it had come up for a vote, would have failed according to a poll of Republicans taken by the Republican leaders office. There are many other examples. <br /><br />My two cents worth Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11597062711930899788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-16221341211783896992017-09-15T17:40:15.938-06:002017-09-15T17:40:15.938-06:00Woodenman1954: "When one party gets so pissed...<b>Woodenman1954</b>: "<i>When one party gets so pissed off they walk away then the whole endeavor was a failure.</i>"<br /><br />Walking away, pissed off, means a person either cannot justify their stance, or they've been caught in an overt lie. <br /><br />As an example, one shouldn't feel entitled to hide behind their religious views, which they themselves have openly proclaimed and made public, and yet cower and feign outrage when criticism is made of their viewpoints when juxtaposed against their political and economic leanings. <br /><br /><br />"<i>Even though Mr Paine and I disagree on many issues, he is an intelligent fellow and his views are as valid to him as mine are to me.</i>"<br /><br />Whether or not viewpoints are self-valued is not the issue here. Isn't it whether or not those viewpoints are factual and truthful? I believe most here are searchers of truth -- otherwise, why the hell are we wasting our time? If so -- that most are truth-seekers -- doesn't it seem reasonable to confront the non-truth makers (the "liars") and stop them in their tracks? <br /><br /><br />"<i>A little respect goes a long way.</i>"<br /><br />Goes a long way toward...<i>what</i>? Respect is earned, Woodenman1954. I hope you agree that the clown-ass who frequents this blog and Tom Degan's (and Dave's, until he added access-control) and goes by several monikers, is the most disrespectful liar on <i>either</i> blog. His only intention is creating disruption, deceit, deception and mayhem, yet Mr. Paine panders to his trivialities and nonsense -- and outright lies. Dave Dubya was making this quite clear, yet gets condemned. <br /><br /><br /><b>Dave Dubya</b>: "<i>You are right about my being confrontational. I do confront lies. And I confront those who repeat them or stand by them in the face of contradicting evidence and the truth.</i>"<br /><br />And there's nothing wrong with this -- contrary to what our host believes, and apparently Woodenman1954. As a matter of fact, it's admirable. We live in very dangerous and perilous times, and dangerous and perilous times call for very direct confrontation against the non-truth makers. Since the election of Donald Trump, my motto has been "resist, and keep fighting". <br /><br /><br />"<i>By their long history of blaming, accusing and demonizing liberals, cons have been inviting confrontation.</i>"<br /><br />I agree with you, Dave. As I mentioned to Mr. Paine not too long ago on Tom's blog, our differences are so pronounced and the divide so wide, it's virtually impossible to find common ground with modern-day Republicans and conservatives. They've turned <i>even more</i> to the right over the last few decades, while "corporate-liberals" (Democrats) have followed them.<br /><br /><br />"<i>Then the accusations follow, deflecting from the lies they promote. (Note how I am the subject now, not my case against Prager.) Deflection accomplished.</i>"<br /><br />Recognized this, and noted. <br /><br /><br /><b>T. Paine</b>: "<i>Some folks are more invested in their side 'winning' than in trying to do what is best for our country, especially if they have to give in a little to do it.</i>"<br /><br />Mr. Paine, we've gone around-and-around on this subject. Until <i><b>you</b></i> realize, that <i><b>we</b></i> realize, that nothing "best" for this country <i><b>will ever</b></i> come to fruition under a plutocratic corporatocracy, we have no commonality. <br /><br />Once you recognize this fact -- and reject what's happening to this nation, due to it -- <i><b>then</b></i> you'll be "saving common sense".Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-13591714157977018452017-09-15T16:51:12.611-06:002017-09-15T16:51:12.611-06:00Dump Dubya!!!
Dump Dubya!!! <br />Just the Facts!https://www.blogger.com/profile/04046021100837080313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-50089280924260978402017-09-15T14:07:47.428-06:002017-09-15T14:07:47.428-06:00"A little respect goes a long way." ~ Wo..."A little respect goes a long way." ~ Woodenman<br /><br />And that is why you are both a gentleman and a scholar, sir, and why your voice is always welcome here at Saving Common Sense.<br /><br />When one takes snarky and uncalled-for swipes at those with whom one disagrees, even pleasant moderates, simply because they have the temerity to not tow the same ideological line you do, then something is truly amiss.<br /><br />I have many loved ones that voted for Trump. They are good and decent people and not worthy of being so maligned as being morally inferior. I have many loved ones that voted for Hillary. They similarly are good and decent people unworthy of the venom spit at them for disagreeing with others. <br /><br />The bottom line is that for the vast majority of Americans, both conservative and liberal, we only want what we think is best for our nation. We don't always agree on what that may be, but if we can at least come together and work on areas where we can find common ground, perhaps we will be able to one day work on those really controversial issues and find reasonable compromises. Such are my hopes towards people of good will, regardless of their political affiliations or ideologies.<br /><br />Some folks are more invested in their side "winning" than in trying to do what is best for our country, especially if they have to give in a little to do it.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-32938512160348966032017-09-15T13:30:54.010-06:002017-09-15T13:30:54.010-06:00Woody,
You are right about my being confrontation...Woody,<br /><br />You are right about my being confrontational. I do confront lies. And I confront those who repeat them or stand by them in the face of contradicting evidence and the truth.<br /><br />By their long history of blaming, accusing and demonizing liberals, cons have been inviting confrontation.<br /> <br />By their long history of falsehoods, cons have been inviting confrontation.<br /><br />Lies, falsehoods, ignorance and hate must be confronted and never accepted. I responded with truth, not ideology. <br /><br />Majormajor’s lie still stands as his lie, because it has not been renounced, nor the truth acknowledged. Neither Mr. Paine nor Majormajor would retract or renounce the lie. As I see it, they both own it.<br /><br />You saw the dialogue that followed. Mr. Paine defended the liar and quaintly referred to the lie with quotation marks. That is when Mr. Paine walked away...with the lie he still shares with Majormajor’s loyal support.<br /><br />Lies piss me off, and I don’t walk away in a huff. When I am falsely accused, I still don’t walk away in a huff. I confront them. Then the accusations follow, deflecting from the lies they promote. (Note how I am the subject now, not my case against Prager.) Deflection accomplished.<br /><br />So, yes, I stand guilty of confrontation, but I do not stand guilty of the uncounted false accusations leveled at me. <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-85018141669642863232017-09-15T11:20:37.843-06:002017-09-15T11:20:37.843-06:00I think this place is like the bar in Cheers and M...I think this place is like the bar in Cheers and Mr Paine is the barkeep. This is all for entertainment and maybe learning a few things but Dave took this too seriously and only had one gear, full confrontational. Even though Dave and I share the same views politically, I felt his approach was wrong. When one party gets so pissed off they walk away then the whole endeavor was a failure.<br /><br />Even though Mr Paine and I disagree on many issues, he is an intelligent fellow and his views are as valid to him as mine are to me. A little respect goes a long way. woodenmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161511512931615910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-18896764665768247332017-09-15T10:08:05.870-06:002017-09-15T10:08:05.870-06:00Just to clarify:
Accusations are not as one sided...Just to clarify:<br /><br />Accusations are not as one sided as Mr. Paine would want you to believe. See the list above. He was also quite liberal in his evidence-free accusations at my blog as well. That’s fine with me. I’m used to it. This has always been a tactic of the Right.<br /><br /><i>He and I shared common views, albeit always on the left of the political spectrum.</i><br /><br />“Always”? Not on the Second Amendment. I am a firearm owner. I have also agreed with his condemnations of vandalism by Antifa. There are more cases, but my point is made.<br /><br /><i>The final straw that was the impetus for my leaving his blog was when you and Mr. Dubya started questioning Majormajor's salvation.</i><br /><br />I questioned how one’s Christianity is compatible with deliberate lies and refusal to acknowledge the falsehoods. Salvation was not the issue. <br /><br />The specific lie was accusing Democrats of not standing in respect to a war widow during Trump’s speech. That was a false and vicious slime. I proved it to be false and asked him to retract the lie. Major held to his hateful lie, of course. My question was basically , “How Christian is that”? Mr. Paine defended the liar. If anyone is interested, it’s all there for anyone to go see.<br /><br />Specifically it came down to this:<br /> <br /><i>Majormajor wrote, “And when President Trump honored the widow of a fallen American SEAL the Democrats sat stone-faced and silent.”<br /><br />Mr. Paine wrote, “What did it for me was when Mr. Dubya and another commenter then started questioning the soul and salvation of Majormajor for telling a “lie” on the site.”<br /><br />DD:<br />I have to wonder though, why my response to an obvious lie from Major elicited your condemnation for me, and support for him.<br /><br />And why does that lie need to be referred to as a “lie”?<br /><br />It is either true or it is not. If you reject the truth, refuse to disavow the lie, and support the liar, then you are being Trumpist in that regard. Not voting for him was commendable, but emulating him is not.<br /><br />Don’t take it personally. Just ask yourself why you would choose to do such a thing.</i><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-35320385300047345092017-09-15T09:25:46.837-06:002017-09-15T09:25:46.837-06:00"I would guess that's alright with Mr. Du..."I would guess that's alright with Mr. Dubya. A less bias opinion may be welcomed by many of your readers." ~ JG<br /><br />A less biased opinion? Can't ... stop... laughing... Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Dubya is more objective in his opinions, sir? If so, I think you are suffering from confirmation bias, JG. <br /><br />I explained previously why I was done with Mr. Dubya. The fact of the matter is that even when I post on other blogs things that you would assume he would agree with, such as a criticism of President Trump, he still felt the need to rhetorically vomit all over the place in accusation. I could say "black" and he would reflexively shout "white". That is all fine and dandy, but I am not interested in school yard shouting matches and juvenile name calling. "You don't agree with me and the Pope, then you are stupid and immoral." Yes, that is a paraphrase, but accurate nonetheless. <br /><br />I am not afraid of differing opinion. Indeed, I seek it out on other left-of-center blogs, as you well know. I can and have taken the ridicule and scorn for many years and sleep just fine at night. What I won't put up with is when someone wishes to come over to my blog and not debate but simply crap all over the place.<br /><br />The final straw that was the impetus for my leaving his blog was when you and Mr. Dubya started questioning Majormajor's salvation. Now maybe that is just another school yard insult to people that aren't Christian, or don't believe in a Divine Creator, (and I fully support your right to believe or not as you choose, btw) but that is something that is really beyond the pale to me. I simply choose not to debate any longer with people willing to go that route.<br /><br />That said, I have always tried to be respectful towards you, JG, and I think that has largely been reciprocated by you towards me. For a long time, I had hoped that Mr. Dubya and I could likewise remain civil, if not friendly, in our disagreements. Indeed there are some areas in which he and I shared common views, albeit always on the left of the political spectrum. Anyway, I wish Mr. Dubya well, truly. Whether he continues to comment here or not is up to him; however, my tolerance for any continued sophomoric comments has grown very thin indeed.<br />Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-27327090148294892542017-09-15T09:09:53.751-06:002017-09-15T09:09:53.751-06:00"I would say if 90% of scientist and 195 coun..."I would say if 90% of scientist and 195 countries believe in man made global warming then you do not have a strong position Mr. Paine." ~ Woodenman<br /><br />I understand that, sir; however, the original assertion was that all scientists (100%) agreed in AGW. They reported it as 97% as a "margin of error." The truth is that they are being a bit fast and loose with what they consider as "agreement" with their AGW position. In actuality, depending on the methodology and whom you look to for reporting, the truth of the matter is that there is 10 to 20% of those scientists that do not agree with the concepts of AGW. 97% sure sounds better for an AGW marketing perspective though.<br /><br />The bottom line is that if 1 in 5 scientists find credible reasons to dispute anthropogenic global warming, then it really is not "settled science", particularly when you start to look at the motivations of many of the folks that are often times the loudest proponents of the AGW theory, sir.Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-38366144798425129922017-09-15T09:01:49.301-06:002017-09-15T09:01:49.301-06:00"Just remove Dave's posts like he does on..."Just remove Dave's posts like he does on his blog, give him dose he his own medicine! You have taken enough of his liberal hate filled group speech. Dump the Dubya." ~ JTF<br /><br />JTF, while I have been tempted to do so in the past, I am very hesitant to start removing posted comments and curtailing free speech on my blog. That is the reason why I have made several appeals to Mr. Dubya in the past to quit with his name-calling and demonization when he responds, all of which have been fruitless. I stopped commenting on Mr. Dubya's blog awhile back because of the way he treated others so when he started commenting on my blog again, I was hopeful he would do so with some sense of decorum. In the end, I figure it is better to leave the writings of those that are hateful and foolish up so that objective readers can see and discern the truth. Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-5565138898757672682017-09-15T01:50:42.655-06:002017-09-15T01:50:42.655-06:00T. Paine: "I am done responding to [Dave Dub...<b>T. Paine</b>: "<i>I am done responding to [Dave Dubya's] hate, projection, demonization, and ignorance. I will no longer waste my time and effort on such a trolling bully.</i>"<br /><br />I would guess that's alright with Mr. Dubya. A less bias opinion may be welcomed by many of your readers. But, I have to ask you...why? He was critiquing and responding to the idiotic nonsense of Prager, and for this you call him out for "hate, projection, demonization and ignorance"?<br /><br />Tsk tsk, Mr. Paine. I think your perceived impenetrable comfort zone is starting to show cracks and fissures. Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-32168885328893606962017-09-15T01:30:41.960-06:002017-09-15T01:30:41.960-06:00T. Paine: "Most studies including specialties...<b>T. Paine</b>: "<i>Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%.</i>"<br /><br />Mr. Paine, when the 90th percentile of <i>anything</i> is approached, it means it's pretty close to a foregone conclusion that <i>whatever it is</i> being measured is just about a certainty.<br /><br />You're splitting hairs.<br /><br />Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-31886318313089481812017-09-14T22:10:17.345-06:002017-09-14T22:10:17.345-06:00I would say if 90% of scientist and 195 countries ...I would say if 90% of scientist and 195 countries believe in man made global warming then you do not have a strong position Mr. Paine.<br /><br />I wrote about this in the last topic. woodenmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161511512931615910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-56337072315437436652017-09-14T20:14:39.791-06:002017-09-14T20:14:39.791-06:00Mr. Paine,
Just remove Dave's posts like he d...Mr. Paine,<br /><br />Just remove Dave's posts like he does on his blog, give him dose he his own medicine! You have taken enough of his liberal hate filled group speech. Dump the Dubya.Just the Facts!https://www.blogger.com/profile/04046021100837080313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-87658880373904755042017-09-14T16:25:58.174-06:002017-09-14T16:25:58.174-06:00Paul, respectfully, I think the "97% of scien...Paul, respectfully, I think the "97% of scientist agree with anthropogenic global warming" is a fallacy sir. Here is a recent article that articulates pretty well of why I think that is:<br /><br /> https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/3/#6b12a7844081 From the article:<br /><br />"Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.<br />Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false."<br /><br />As for trickle down economics, if executed properly, it does indeed bring more revenue to the federal coffers. The problem is with our politicians in the House and Senate that refuse to cut spending in order to shrink our national debt. (And yes, the GOP is probably even more culpable than the Democrats on this because they supposedly are the ones that are touting their "fiscal responsibility.")<br /><br /><br />"Prager correctly points out the misuse and misunderstanding of the terms leftist and liberal, but that is not the cause of the crisis we are in today." ~ Paul<br /><br />I would agree with that sentiment. That is indeed NOT the cause of today's crisis. My interest in the article, was not that hyperbolic statement, but rather the defining of the terms leftist and liberal. <br /><br />"He uses the same lie many Republicans use, that only Democrats are responsible for our problems. That is a lie and always has been." ~ Paul<br /><br />Of course that is not true. Anyone that is even remotely objective and not a stalwart partisan can easily see that blame lies squarely on the policies of both parties. I agree far more often with most of the Republican policies in theory, but somehow even the best intentions are usually perverted when it comes to the execution of those policies.<br /><br />As for Prager not taking to task the Republicans for similar blurring of political terms, well... I suspect that Prager is a Republican. :)Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.com