RSS

Bring It On

22 May

Well it didn’t take long for the moderator at B4V to grow tired of the collective progressive noise machine and the pathological need to attack false conservative constructs, so I thought I would give you a thread here at the famous AllPolytics to let it all hang out here. Mersault will be happy knowing that there is no skirt here for me to hide behind, although I do love skirts, no question there.

So what are you hating on today? Who is the person or issue du jour that’s on your radar screen to attack? Is it Ann Coulter today? Clay Aiken of American Idol is vying to represent you fine progressives in Congress tweeted today that he wanted to punch Ann Coulter in face. Would that be considered a “war on women”?

Advertisements
 
116 Comments

Posted by on May 22, 2014 in Open Thread

 

116 responses to “Bring It On

  1. meursault1942

    May 22, 2014 at 8:49 pm

    Hey, great, here’s the latest post Amazona had to protect you from. perhaps you can step up and answer it? Now’s your chance!

    You’ve taken a baby step toward admitting that you are lying and debating strawmen based on delusion instead of being honest and debating actual people–that’s progress, Cluster, and all it took to make it happen was for you to be shamed with your own psuedo-logic. You’re finally figuring out that it’s better to just come clean than it is to keep on lying, your ongoing excuses for why the current rhetoric of your ideology somehow isn’t the current rhetoric for your ideology notwithstanding. In fact, let’s just go ahead and take care of your latest series of lies, shall we?

    Earth is 6000 years old

    Remember Paul Broun declaring that “evolution is a lie from the pit of hell”? I’m sure you’ll pretend that you don’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that his statement accurately captures the sentiment of conservative “thought.” And again, all you have to do is look at the myriad conservative efforts to force creationism into science class.

    Science is a scam

    The people who abide by science are the ones who think it’s a scam? Didn’t think that one through, did you? And again, you don’t even have to leave this blog to find plenty of examples of the conservative belief that science is a scam–ask Noonan and Spook about how science is just a “back door to socialism” sometime. It’ll be a hoot.

    Poor people shouldn’t be allowed vote

    Do you really think crying “Cloward-Piven!” eliminates the fact that conservatives are working as hard as they can to prevent poor people from voting? Do you really think an article entitled “Registering the Poor to Vote Is Un-American” somehow isn’t about how poor people shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Again, you clearly didn’t think this one through. Please try to do so.

    Gay people are subhuman

    Well, at least you grudgingly admit that I’m right about this, though you try to deflect it with “liberals demonize Christians, so it doesn’t matter!” Which is an excellent point–liberals have made massive pushes to prevent Christians from being allowed to marry each other, to adopt children, to be considered deviant and less-than-equal, and so forth. Oh, wait…except none of that has happened. Good try, though.

    Black people should go back to being slaves because they were better off that way

    Ah, yes, the old “people who notice racism are the real racists!” A conservative classic. But unfortunately, you’re still left with the reams of conservative rhetoric about how blacks should be thankful for slavery because it brought them to this country, how the plantation they were on then is better than the “plantation” they’re on now, and so on. I know conservatives don’t want to talk about racism, considering they’ve been on the wrong side of that issue from slavery (which they fought a treasonous war against this country to protect) to Jim Crow to the Civil Rights movement (which conservatives are working hard to roll back) all the way to today, but when they do talk about it, it sure is embarrassing!

    You’ve made some small progress here, and hopefully your next round of excuses will continue the trend. And hey, maybe at some point you’ll stop lying and creating strawmen and just be honest–wouldn’t that be something?

     
    • Cluster

      May 23, 2014 at 4:52 am

      And here was my response:

      instead of being honest and debating actual people

      So are you admitting that you’re not an actual person?? The level of your brain damage exceeds that of most other hyper sensitive progressives and that says a lot. You create bizarre and completely unfounded realities in your own head that are childish beyond belief, but that is a common pathology progressives suffer from, and anyone with half a brain realizes that you do not have a serious mind. I actually feel a little empathy for you. I will also mention one last thing and that is that the racist charge routinely leveled by progressives is so over done now that it actually carries no weight, other than to construct a disturbing sense of self superiority on behalf of the accuser.

      The other voices in your head will have to be addressed between you and your doctor. Good luck with that.

       
      • meursault1942

        May 23, 2014 at 2:39 pm

        “So are you admitting that you’re not an actual person?”

        Oh dear, it looks like lousy reading comprehension skills is another affliction you and Amazona share.

        No, I’m the real person you don’t want to have to debate. That’s why you offered up that funny little strawman and tried to debate that instead of debating me. You were insisting that I believe certain things because they’re the “rhetoric of the ideology [I] support.” Do I actually believe them? Immaterial, according to you, as it’s the rhetoric of the ideology I support, therefore it’s what I support.

        Yet when faced with the rhetoric of the ideology you support, you suddenly don’t like that calculus anymore. You suddenly find it unfair and don’t want to have to answer for the rhetoric of the ideology you support if your personal beliefs don’t match up with that rhetoric. You want to squirm out from under your own logic.

        Thus, all your efforts at evasiveness only go toward proving me right. Of course, I proved that you were lying and using strawmen right away, but I knew that wouldn’t stick (basic logic and facts seldom do stick with conservatives, it seems), and besides, it was too easy. I thought it would be a bit more challenging–and a bit more effectual–to get you to prove yourself wrong. And I’ve done that. You are now arguing against yourself. You know that I’m right, you’re just trying to find a way to avoid having to admit it, which is why you keep offering up these facile excuses. You can’t really claim that the rhetoric of your ideology somehow isn’t the rhetoric of your ideology. You just want to claim that it isn’t your rhetoric. Which, again, was my initial point. I’m glad I could get you to see that and argue it for me.

        So, if you want to continue with your gambit, I do hope you’ll explain what’s so appealing to you about an ideology that believes black people should go back to being slaves. Or you could admit that I’m right and you’re wrong. Which option is less embarrassing for you?

         
      • Cluster

        May 23, 2014 at 4:21 pm

        I will tell you what there all high and mighty moron. If you can present to me one serious conservative thinker, who believes that black people should return to slavery, then I will address you. Absent that, I really don’t find it necessary to respond to the voices in your head. It’s kind of like discussing issues with some child who rides the short bus.

         
      • Cluster

        May 23, 2014 at 4:29 pm

        And you know you do use a lot of words to say really nothing, you repeat yourself quite a bit, and your still on the basic premise that I originated. This is exemplary of someone who is unoriginal, and very defensive. Just thought I would point that out.

         
      • Cluster

        May 23, 2014 at 6:46 pm

        I am beginning to think that you and Watson are the same person. Your use of phrases is very similar, then again progressives do use a collective mind, right?

         
      • watsonthethird

        May 23, 2014 at 8:28 pm

        I am beginning to think that you and Watson are the same person. Your use of phrases is very similar, then again progressives do use a collective mind, right?

        Talk about being in your head rent-free. This is one of Cluster’s good days. It’s only a matter of time before he becomes angry Cluster. lol

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 6:41 am

        I am reminded of how children can only play so long by themselves before they are compelled to run into the living room where the adults are. Your actions are reminiscent of that.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 6:52 am

        Good article here for you Watson. It should tell you a lot about yourself.

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-had-dream_793497.html

         
      • watsonthethird

        May 24, 2014 at 8:23 am

        I am reminded of how children can only play so long by themselves before they are compelled to run into the living room where the adults are.

        I am reminded of the adolescent who hurls insults, then hides behind his mommy when he gets called out on it.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 9:18 am

        Don’t talk about Rusty that way

         
      • meursault1942

        May 24, 2014 at 4:42 pm

        “If you can present to me one serious conservative thinker, who believes that black people should return to slavery, then I will address you.”

        Here ya go. Understand, I don’t expect you accede to these examples–or any examples, for that matter. After all, you’re the guy who claims that an article called “Registering the Poor to Vote Is Un-American” somehow isn’t about thinking the poor shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Honesty isn’t really your thing; you’d rather defend loyalty to an ideology that thinks black people were better off as slaves than admit you’re being dishonest. Hell, this entire conversation is about your dishonesty.

        Speaking of which, you are right about one thing: I am sticking with this topic. More accurately, I’m rubbing your nose in it. But it’s really your choice; I’d stop if you’d just admit what I’ve not only proven, but also gotten you to prove for me: Your dishonesty. But you seem to want to continue the charade. So, working our way down the list, perhaps you can explain what you find so appealing about an ideology that believes gay people are subhuman. Unless, that is, you want to stop arguing my point for me and go ahead and admit your dishonesty. Your call.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm

        Star Parker, EW Jackson, and Walter Williams are all black conservatives and are speaking out against the progressive plantation that people like you support and endorse through policies that encourage children out of wedlock, endless expansion of welfare, poorly run schools, lack of good jobs, and deteriorating neighborhoods. Have you ever been to Chicago? Chicago is a good example of a progressive plantation.

        Thank you for mentioning great black conservatives like Parker and Williams. I wish you would listen to them. You could learn a lot.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 7:36 pm

        That is unless you believe that Parker and Williams themselves would prefer to return to slavery. Is that what you are implying.

        In reality Mersault, people like you who support the aforementioned policies create a just new form of slavery. Chicago is really just a modern day plantation, and a dangerous one at that. Black on black crime is through the roof and unfortunately those people have little hope of anything ever getting any better. Drugs, divorce, crime, corruption, poorly run schools, deteriorating neighborhoods – all of these are brought to the folks of Chicago by the Democratic Party which has had a stranglehold on Chicago politics for decades.

         
      • meursault1942

        May 25, 2014 at 11:04 pm

        I have to admit, I didn’t see that one coming. After all your denials and dodges, having you jump right on board with the conservative notion that black people were better off under slavery is surprising indeed. So…touche, I guess? And does this mean you’re on board with the rest of the list of examples?

         
      • Cluster

        May 26, 2014 at 6:55 am

        I don’t think you realized that Parker, Williams and Jackson were black, did ya? Unless of course you actually think that black conservatives advocate the return to slavery, which would be a level of delusion that I can’t even wrap my head around.

         
      • meursault1942

        May 26, 2014 at 9:50 am

        Uh, yes, I’m well aware of who they are and that they are black–conservatives love to trot them out to prove how not-racist they are. Got it.

        But I’m more interested in your agreement with the conservative thought that the current “plantation” that black people are on as “slaves” is worse than the actual plantations they worked on as actual slaves (which, if you’re keeping score at home, would mean that actual slavery was better, in conservatives’ estimation). You kept denying you agreed with it until finally joining the chorus. So is that pattern going to repeat vis a vis creationism, science, poor people, gays, etc.?

         
      • Cluster

        May 26, 2014 at 10:35 am

        You were the one who injected Parker and Williams into the argument, and now you don’t even want to acknowledge what they have to say? There are none so blind as those who will not see. I can’t help you Mersault. You are too deeply entrenched in emotional filled ignorance.

         
      • meursault1942

        May 27, 2014 at 2:45 pm

        “You were the one who injected Parker and Williams into the argument, and now you don’t even want to acknowledge what they have to say?”

        I injected them into the conversation by not acknowledging what they have to say? How does that even work? Didn’t think that little dodge through, did you?

        No, I injected them into the conversation by acknowledging what they have to say about how the “plantation” that blacks are “slaves” on now are worse than the actual plantations the actual slaves were on. Then you asked me if I was aware that they’re black, to which I responded that yes, I am aware that they’re black. Which somehow drove you to that amusingly dumb quip quoted above.

        “There are none so blind as those who will not see”

        You’ve done an excellent job of demonstrating this. Almost as excellent a job, in fact, as you’ve done proving my original contention–that one that got you so pissed off by being so accurate–that conservatives spend their days mired in anger, fear, and paranoia. You’ve made grudging acquiescence to the truth, but only because of your calculation that saying that you believe black people were better off under slavery is preferable to admitting that you’re lying. Having established that, I’m waiting for you to address the next point on the list and am even willing to let you choose which point to address. Yet you can’t seem to bring yourself to do that, preferring to toss out sad little non sequiturs. Funny, that.

        So don’t worry about helping me. As this conversation has demonstrated, I’m doing just fine, but you really need to help yourself. So perhaps you should get to work on that.

         
      • Cluster

        May 27, 2014 at 4:27 pm

        Let’s try a little exercise. Here are comments from Star Parker:

        “Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What You Can Do About It” traces the benign origins of the welfare state and its evolution into a $400 billion plus monstrosity of programs that effectively enslave America’s poor. Parker, a former welfare mother, has seen first hand the damage that a life of dependency renders. Years of massive government spending have left America’s inner cities in shambles, black families destroyed, and youth uneducated and directionless.

        Now prove these comments wrong. Show me where families on welfare have decreased. Show me welfare programs have declined. Show me where black families have strengthened. Show me where single parent black families have declined. Show me where inner cities have improved.

        Instead if being hyper sensitive about the problem, show me where Ms Parker is wrong. That’s where the rubber meets the road. Show me where progressive policies in Chicago have resulted in improved communities, better education, better paying jobs and a decline in welfare dependency. Then I will admit you have a point.

         
      • Cluster

        May 27, 2014 at 4:45 pm

        In fact Mersault, show me where science proves the origin of the universe. Show me where science has made a direct correlation between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures. Show me that the Arctic ice cap is gone as predicted by Al Gore ten years ago. Show me where the 2009 stimulus has increased the labor participation rate as predicted by Obama. Show me where our respect in the world has strengthened since 2009 as predicted by Obama. Show me where the income equality gap has decreased since 2009.

        I don’t live in a hyper sensitive world like you do, where political correctness and allegiance to group think are mandatory. I know that science can not prove our origin, therefore keep an open mind on those matters. I know temps have flattened in the last 15 years while CO2 emissions have risen. I know that Arctic ice cap is still there and that the Antartica ice shelf has grown. I know the labor participation rate is at a 40 year low. I see that other countries are running rough shod over a weak and tepid Obama. And I know that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have grown more poor under Obama. I also know that black children born out of wedlock is at an all time high as is welfare and disability dependency.

        And funny enough, I have known very well that your ideology and policies would fail from the beginning so I have no anger or frustration at all. I am simply watching it unfold. Sadly though the stupidity of your ideology is starting to negatively impact my finances, so I have sent more money into the GOP today hoping to wipe you off the electoral map soon. And I sense that day is coming and I also sense you know deep down that you are living a lie, so maybe it is you that is angry. I wouldn’t blame you.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 5:30 pm

        I know that science can not prove our origin, therefore keep an open mind on those matters.

        I thought you believed in a God. If you do, that’s reaching a conclusion without proper evidence, the exact opposite of an open mind. Atheists are the ones who assume nothing and are open to all possibilities.

         
      • Cluster

        May 27, 2014 at 5:40 pm

        It’s called Faith. And your belief that there is no God, is also Faith based. Otherwise you would be Agnostic.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 5:37 pm

        Show me where science has made a direct correlation between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures.

        Glad you asked:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 5:43 pm

        I know that Arctic ice cap is still there and that the Antartica (sic) ice shelf has grown.

        Not quite what it seems:

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/130401-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-science-environment/

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 5:50 pm

        I know temps have flattened in the last 15 years while CO2 emissions have risen.

        Wrong:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

         
      • Cluster

        May 27, 2014 at 6:12 pm

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 6:20 pm

        And your belief that there is no God, is also Faith based. Otherwise you would be Agnostic.

        Wrong again. My disbelief in God is evidence based, a lack of evidence to be exact, not faith based. Atheism is merely the disbelief in God. You don’t have to actively assert “there is no God” in order to be an atheist, merely that you don’t believe there is one. That is a distinction with a difference. When confronted with the unanswered questions of existence, atheists are comfortable admitting they don’t know; like I said, open minds.

         
      • Cluster

        May 27, 2014 at 7:03 pm

        a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
        noun
        a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

        ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
        noun
        1.
        a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 6:24 pm

        That Forbes article fails to take into account rising sea temps; kind of a huge omission, don’t you think?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 7:24 pm

        That’s right, an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God, like I said. You could call most modern atheists like myself “agnostic atheists”, but it’s really not necessary. Outright denial of a deity is not required to be an atheist and is a very rare and outdated concept to the modern atheist, who tend to view atheism exclusively as a question of belief, not knowledge Our most famous atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins subscribe to this view, as do I.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 27, 2014 at 8:27 pm

        Thanks for the string of conservative opinion pieces on climate change but I prefer to get my science from…scientists.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 8:00 am

        Oh, well stop the presses then. A single, bitter scientist with strong ties to a climate change denial advocacy group has his paper rejected by a respected scientific journal and cries “Bias!” Yeah, I guess that should invalidate what the rest of the world’s scientists think, huh?

        Bengtsson (the scientist who originally cried foul) clarified that he did not think that there was any purposeful “suppression” or “cover-up” of dissenting climate science views. Other scientists commented that most papers submitted to top journals get rejected, and that this paper specifically had limited scientific merit. Dr. Simon Lewis even suggested, “I suspect that the rejection of a scientific paper hitting the news is simply because Professor Bengtsson has strong links to campaigners at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.”

        http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/05/22/lomborg-hypes-already-debunked-bengtsson-story-in-new-forbes-column/

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 9:39 am

        Whew. Good thing that was debunked. It could have been embarrassing. Interesting though they challenged the peer review process, but not the findings. That’s odd isn’t it? Here is Bengtsson’s quote:

        “I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

        I agree with his comment that the science is being influenced by political views, which was the genesis of his original comments. But more importantly, let’s take a look at the hysteria that rational people like Bengtsson have to put up with. This were global warming “scientists” predictions back in 2007:

        Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

        Usually when you’re this wrong on your assessments, people stop taking you seriously. Oh wait, they already have.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

         
      • meursault1942

        May 28, 2014 at 8:16 am

        “I don’t live in a hyper sensitive world like you do, where political correctness and allegiance to group think are mandatory.”

        You’re kidding, right? This entire discussion has been a display of your hypersensitivity. I merely pointed out that conservatives’ lives are full of anger, fear, and paranoia–which they are, and your ongoing meltdown has ably demonstrated this to be true–and your response was a freakout that’s been going on for a week. You got so het up about it that you threw out a litany of lies and, when called out on them, decided it was less painful for you to say that you think black people were better off as slaves than it was to just admit you’re lying.

        Allegiance to group think is absolutely mandatory for conservatives, or else you’re a hated “RINO” and dismissed for not being wingnutty enough. Look at the little Tea Party purity purges that the GOP is dealing with. Everybody’s being primaried from the right. If you don’t stick to strict orthodoxy, you are cast out.

        Anyway, it comes as a surprise to nobody who pays attention and is, you know, in touch with reality that conservatives are egregiously wrong about food stamps, which do not provoke the “culture of dependency” that conservatives rail on about.

        However, if conservatives really do worry about the “culture of dependency” like they say they do, they should be addressing their comments to their own constituents, not those “urban young bucks eating T-bone steaks and inner-city welfare queens driving Cadillacs” (wink wink). After all, conservatives dominate the welfare rolls. No surprise there, as the poorest states consistently vote Republican. The solidly conservative South perpetually leads the nation in things like poverty, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, lack of education, lowest economic mobility, and just about every other negative social indicator you can think of.

        So why has the grand solution of conservatism failed these extremely conservative states so consistently? And why do you think we need to expand the grand failed solution of conservatism to the entire country? Is failure the goal, or is it just a byproduct?

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 9:46 am

        I merely pointed out that conservatives’ lives are full of anger, fear, and paranoia–which they are, and your ongoing meltdown has ably demonstrated this to be true

        How is this a melt down? Explain that to me, because this is very common tactic used by the left. It is really juvenile tactic of the left, but firmly grounded in progressivism.

        And instead of deflecting the welfare issue to “constituencies” – how about if you just own up to the fact that welfare is a perpetual increasing entitlement, and dependency thereof is undeniable. No need for you to single out recipients. I want to turn the program around regardless of who receives it. You on the other hand are more interested in using the program as a club. Again, another tactic firmly grounded in progressivism.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 12:31 pm

        Interesting though they challenged the peer review process, but not the findings. That’s odd isn’t it?

        No, that’s not odd at all. This whole kerfuffle was about his paper being rejected, not the contents; they were deemed unworthy of publication, remember? Here’s a partial explanation for why the paper was rejected by the publisher:

        “(the paper) was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria. As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.”

        And it’s no wonder. From the Gaurdian:

        As an illustrative example of just how isolated Prof Bengtsson and his ilk are, consider the fact reported earlier this year by Scientific American that out of more than 2,000 peer-reviewed climate science publications put out over the last year from November 2012 to December 2013, the number of scientists who denied the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change “is exactly one.”

        That’s right. One.

        Compare that to the number of scientific authors of those 2,000 plus papers – 9,136. So over nine thousand scientists over the last year agree that our fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change, and just one disagrees.

        Some conspiracy, eh Cluster?

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 1:31 pm

        No, there’s no conspiracy. Bengtsonn even admitted that. But it sure does smack of politics. You probably don’t see that.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm

        This were(sic) global warming “scientists” predictions back in 2007:

        Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

        Usually when you’re this wrong on your assessments, people stop taking you seriously.

        But they weren’t wrong! You simply have an infantile view of the scientific process. For one thing, your quote contains the modifier “could”. Look it up. Further, arctic sea ice is melting as predicted:

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/arctic-sea-ice-fall-lowest-levels

        Is it really your contention that for a scientific consensus to be valid absolutely all scientists must be correct 100% of the time in every one of their predictions? Scientific predictions are always provisional; that’s true for every field of science. The point here is that they predicted the sea ice would be melting, and it’s melting. “Well, looks like all the arctic sea ice has melted as we predicted; whoa Nelly, there’s an iceberg – looks like we were completely wrong, boys!” That’s insane.

        I’ll try to put this in terms that even someone as ignorant as you can understand: a team of oncologists agree that a patient has cancer, and even after removing the cancerous tumors to the best of their ability gives him only two years to live. If the patient is alive after three years it doesn’t mean he never had cancer in the first place.

        An arborist detects an invasive beetle in a grove of fruit trees and says “left unchecked, this grove could be wiped out in a year.” It takes two years for the beetles to decimate the grove. That doesn’t mean there were no beetles, or that the arborist’s assessment wasn’t essentially correct. Would you care for more examples of how science can be correct while not being absolutely perfect? Christ, I can’t believe I have to explain this to a grown man.

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 1:38 pm

        Oh so now you’re hedging the predictions? You are hilariously delusional. Here’s another quote from the “scientists”

        “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

        “removal of ice in the summer” and “2013 is already too conservative”. Their “models” could not be more wrong, but I am glad to know you have an “open mind” about this and other issues.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 2:26 pm

        No, there’s no conspiracy. Bengtsonn even admitted that. But it sure does smack of politics. You probably don’t see that.

        No, I don’t see that. Maybe if you could provide one scintilla of evidence, I would. Similar to my position on God/disbelief/lack of evidence.

        And here’s what you’re same scientists were also saying back then, from your article:

        “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”

        “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.
        “My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”

        And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years.

        Sounds pretty accurate to me. But, according to you, since the most severe assessments from some scientists of the time have not happened in the exact timeline predicted, they must all be full of shit, even though the main prediction that they all agreed on, that arctic sea ice is rapidly meting, is indeed happening as predicted. That’s some world you live in, Cluster.

        Look, if you don’t get it after I explained it to you as I would to a five year old, you’re beyond help. You’re simply too stupid and/or dishonest to grasp simple concepts if they happen to challenge your world view. What do you have to say about my examples explaining how science can often be correct while not meeting the ridiculously high standards you set for it? And how about the study I pointed to that had over 9,000 peer reviewed published scientists over a recent period of time agree that fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change as opposed to, ahem, just ONE who disagreed? You asked for a scientific correlation between CO2 and climate change; I delivered. Slam dunk. Not that you would ever admit it. Talk about your character flaws…

         
      • meursault1942

        May 28, 2014 at 7:57 pm

        Well, it’s a week after the original post that set you off, and you’re still angrily peddling lies. Granted, it’s not as big a meltdown as when you decreed that because of Obama, you were going to move to New Zealand (where they have the same single-payer health care system that conservatives really, really hate), but they can’t all be that great.

        At any rate, it’s amusing that you suddenly don’t want to focus on constituencies. You were just railing on about Chicago. Now that you’ve been educated on the fact that the bulk of welfare goes to conservatives in solidly red states, you suddenly don’t want to talk about constituencies anymore. Gee, I wonder why that could be? And Star Parker’s quote that you provided focuses on that same constituency you were just talking about but suddenly want to stop talking about. Are Star Parker’s views no longer welcome in this debate? You were just insisting that they should be. Please make up your mind.

        “dependency thereof is undeniable.”

        Oh dear. You clearly didn’t read the article. Not surprising.

        You know how I keep pointing out that it is practically impossible to find a conservative position that isn’t based on lies? This is a perfect example: The conservative lie that welfare fosters “dependency.” In fact, it does the opposite. But the entire conservative outlook of welfare programs is based on the lie that they create dependency. If your entire outlook on an issue is based on a lie, it’s hardly surprising that you don’t fare well in discussions about that issue.

        After all, if welfare fosters dependency and conservatism is the solution to that problem, why are red-state conservatives perpetually the biggest welfare users? Perhaps you can explain that one, although doing so will require an acknowledgement of facts on your part, which is something you have thus far demonstrated you are loath to do.

         
      • Cluster

        May 29, 2014 at 5:21 am

        Well now you’re just rambling, and embarrasingly so. Attributing opinions to me that I didn’t even know I had. Just making shit up as you go along is that it?

        If welfare did not create a level of dependency, then welfare programs would be targeted, measurable, and financially consistent if not in slight decline. People would be moving in and out of welfare, and a truly effective program would be moving more people out than those who enter. As it is, welfare programs are broad, generalized, unmeasurable, and expanding.

        Now, carry on with your over emotional, nonsensical diatribe about constituencies, red states, blah, blah, blah.

         
      • meursault1942

        May 29, 2014 at 8:07 am

        “Attributing opinions to me that I didn’t even know I had. Just making shit up as you go along is that it?”

        Wonderful, you’ve finally come around to learning the lesson–and it only took a week of getting you to argue against your own tactic of attributing opinions to people that they have never stated to say that attributing opinions to people that they have never stated is wrong. Success!

        But, see, here’s the problem you’re still facing: I didn’t make up the stuff you’re claiming I made up. You’re just using that as an excuse to avoid having to face the facts. You really did want to talk about Chicago, then, after you had been educated on the reality of welfare and who uses most of it (red-state conservatives), suddenly thought it was wrong to discuss individual constituencies. Why the sudden change of heart?

        You really did (and, sadly, continue to) base your opinions of welfare on the lie that welfare fosters dependency. Facts clearly have not swayed your belief, and I certainly didn’t “make up” your outlook on the matter, yet you’re suddenly very defensive about it.

        And you really are stuck in a corner here. If welfare truly does foster dependency and conservatism offers the uplifting alternative to said dependency, then why are conservatives by far the biggest consumers of welfare? Why have the wonders that conservatism promises the poor failed to materialize for decades now? I didn’t make any of that up, either, but I am still waiting to hear why you think conservatism has failed on this matter and why you think we should stick with it anyway.

         
      • Cluster

        May 29, 2014 at 8:32 am

        The only problem I am facing is a completely unintelligent opponent who is mired in false constructs and delusion. You really do have a disturbed and garbage riddled mind, but I have found that to be the case with many progressives. You should see the embarrassing post your friend Watson posted over at B4V yesterday.

        It’s sad knowing that people with your level of intellect actually have a vote.

         
      • meursault1942

        May 29, 2014 at 7:41 pm

        Ahhh, the final retreat of the conservative. You can’t answer these simple questions, you’ve lost this debate badly–you can’t even deny anything that I’ve said because it’s all been true–and you’re embarrassed by the whole thing, as well you should be. So you decree that your victorious opponent is “unintelligent”–even though I was able to handily top you and even got you to argue against yourself–and stomp off in a huff. (Oh, and according to you, “personal attacks” are a “progressive tactic,” yet here you are resorting to them in lieu of making a successful argument. What gives with that?) Maybe I handed you a bucket and brush, but you’re the one who promptly painted yourself into a corner. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but if you continue to refuse to think about these things, you’ll just keep painting yourself into that corner.

        The delusions are all yours. The false constructions are all yours. I’ve proven both of those things simply by quoting you. Now you can’t even answer basic questions about your own statements. Ouch. Are you gonna revive that idea of moving to New Zealand now?

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 5:35 am

        Retreat from what?? Look I am just trying to point out to you the facts that disability, welfare and food stamp participation rates are currently at all time highs and fostering an unhealthy dependency that is a result of the Obama economy and progressive policies. I also pointed out Chicago as a good example of the blight and decay that these policies bring about. You then were the one that jumped on your hyper sensitive soapbox and started blathering on about red state constituencies and other nonsense which is completely immaterial to the issue.

        I mentioned real world facts. You bleated on about propagandized bull shit. Your head is full of garbage Mersault and I can’t do anything about that. But what I can do, is donate more money to the RNC, which I did this week, to see that people like you are electorally marginalized and defeated. Have a great weekend.

         
      • meursault1942

        May 30, 2014 at 11:57 am

        “Retreat from what??”

        The argument, but with the latest post of yours, it’s looking more like you’re chasing your tail. To wit:

        “I also pointed out Chicago as a good example of the blight and decay that these policies bring about.”

        Now you’re back to wanting to talk about Chicago when before, you had declared that talking about constituencies was a deflection. It wasn’t surprising that you quickly lost interest in talking about constituencies, seeing as how I not only educated you on the fact that the bulk of welfare, including the most chronic users of welfare, are red-state conservatives, but pressed you on your logic. And that’s something else you’re retreating from: If welfare fosters dependency and conservatism is the solution to that alleged dependency, then why is it that conservatives in conservative-run states are the biggest and most chronic users of welfare? And why are you so afraid of answering that simple question?

        “I mentioned real world facts.”

        Nah, I’m the one who has introduced all the facts to this discussion. Go ahead and read over the thread; it’s all right there in black and white.

        “You bleated on about propagandized bull shit.”

        Nah, you’re the one who has bleated on–and continues to bleat on–about propagandized bullshit, such as the “lazy urban people living high on the hog on welfare” lie that conservatives are absolutely in love with even though (or perhaps because) it’s unsupported by facts. I even introduced the facts that prove it wrong, and you’re still repeating that lie. Honesty doesn’t come easy to you, does it?

        And here’s the other question you’re retreating from: According to you, personal attacks and insults are a “progressive tactic,” yet you seem quite fond of them, especially when you can use them in lieu of addressing the facts or forming an argument. Why is that, Cluster?

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 2:13 pm

        Well you certainly are insistent on proving yourself an idiot, and far be to from me to take your garbage riddled thought process and jam it down your fucking throat – but I will.

        Re: the growing dependency

        “The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” Tanner and Hughes write in their new paper. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” which offers extra subsidies to low-income workers who take work. “In 13 states [welfare] pays more than $15 per hour.” …..The welfare system, at its best, is a system that gives people a way to live when they can’t find work for themselves, when they’re down on their luck. At its worst, the welfare system rewards people for not working, and incentivizes people to develop habits that make it harder for them to find work in the future, miring them in permanent poverty.

        Re: welfare distribution:

        Tanner and Hughes award the national welfare championship to Hawaii, which offers $60,590 in annual welfare benefits, once you account for the fact that welfare benefits are tax-free to the recipient, compared to work-related wages. That’s the equivalent of $29.13 an hour. Rounding out the top five were D.C. ($50,820 per year and $24.43 an hour), Massachusetts ($50,540 and $24.30), Connecticut ($44,370 and $21.33), and New York ($43,700 and $21.01).

        States with the lowest welfare benefits were Idaho ($11,150 and $5.36), Mississippi ($11,830 and $5.69), Tennessee ($12.120 and $5.83), Arkansas ($12,230 and $5.88), and Texas ($12,550 and $6.03).

        The biggest jump in welfare payments between 1995 and 2013 was enjoyed by Vermont, where annual pre-tax-equivalent benefits jumped from $31,580 to $42,350 in 2013 dollars: an increase of $10,770. Other big gainers were D.C. ($6,850), Hawaii ($5,589), New Hampshire ($5,299), and Oregon ($5,288).

        The biggest decrease was in Alaska, where benefits dropped from $48,655 to $26,400, a difference of $22,255. The other major belt-tighteners were Virginia (-$20,035), Maine (-$18,718), Colorado (-$16,830), and Idaho (-$16,048).

        Now it seems to me that the top five states with largest disbursements are blue states – Hawaii, DC (actually not a state), Mass., CT, and NY. And the states with the lowest disbursements are red states – ID, MS, TN, AR, & TX.

        So what were you saying again about red state conservatives? As I said before Mersault, you don’t think clearly at all and your mind is mush.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/02/on-labor-day-2013-welfare-pays-more-than-minimum-wage-work-in-35-states/

         
      • meursault1942

        May 30, 2014 at 3:17 pm

        The widely and thoroughly discredited Cato Institute paper for 2013? That’s what you’re hanging your hat on here? Good lord. You may as well unskew a few polls while you’re at it.

        As is the case with the vast majority of conservative positions, the Cato paper is a lie. 10 seconds of Googling could’ve shown you that, but I guess that’s too much mental exertion to ask of you. Well, there are plenty of good pieces explaining just how horrendously dishonest Tanner and Hughes are (dishonesty at a right-wing think thank? Say it ain’t so!), but I’ll let Forbes do the honors here:

        The problem is, based on the shocking bogus methodology utilized by the study—a methodology that could only have been chosen to achieve a desired result—the claim turns out to be complete, unadulterated nonsense easily disproven through a modicum of effort and understanding no more than the basics of how welfare works and who receives the benefits.

        As is so often the case when being presented with studies designed from their inception to prove a pre-determined result, the twist that gives rise to the exciting headlines comes in how the data is crafted, massaged and mangled to serve the objective of the authors.

        The Cato Institute claim is no exception as this latest document of deceit stands as a shining monument to how think tanks are willing to pay good money to produce a certain skew—no matter how false the methodology required to achieve an intended result may be.

        So they start with a lie, and then use that lie to support their position, which is also a lie. Conservatism!

        But I’m guessing to you, this is like one of those situations where if you can find one scientist who doesn’t believe in climate change, that equals or outweighs thousands upon thousands of scientists whose research shows it to be happening. Conservatism demands that the truth be balanced by talking points, as though they’re the same thing.

        The Forbes piece also has a bit of advice you should heed:

        As for those who insist of spreading this type of false data and conclusions without being bothered to research the obvious, serious and clearly intentional flaws in this study—and you know who you are—you do your cause no favors.

        When an organization like Cato is forced to offer up one of the most bogus studies I can recall as the means in which to make a point, rest assured that reasonable, thinking Americans will be left to conclude that the conservative side of this argument offers no real solutions—only false propaganda—and that will benefit exactly nobody.

        Sadly, conservatives like you do in fact offer no real solutions, only false propaganda. Just like I said.

        You really need to gain control of your emotions and start thinking, Cluster. Until you do, your lies will just keep going down in flames.

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 5:31 pm

        This was the premise of the study:

        …the federal government currently funds 126 separate programs targeted toward low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals. …no individual or family receives benefits from all 72 programs, but many recipients do receive aid from a number of the programs at any given time. …this study seeks to determine the approximate level of benefits that a typical welfare family, consisting of a single mother with two children, might receive, and to compare those benefits with the wages that a recipient would need to earn in order to take home an equivalent income.

        And nothing in the article of “opinions” that you posted refute that. They certainly attack the study, but have no hard data to refute the findings. Secondly, you asserted that red state “constituents” receive the majority of welfare disbursements and you have not proven that either. You have yet to offer the hard data on your assertions. So you have failed yet again.

        Here’s another factoid for you:

        People claiming disability in the United States shot up by over 10,000 people in April, setting an all-time record for beneficiaries.

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634707/Total-number-U-S-citizens-receiving-disability-reaches-record-high-nearly-11-MILLION-drawing-benefits.html#ixzz33FTe1TS4

        And one more from the Senate Budget Committee:

        Welfare becoming more attractive than work. Total welfare spending in the U.S. (if converted into cash payments) equals approximately ‘$168 per day for every household in poverty,’ higher than the $137 median income per-day.” (Senate Budget Committee)

         
      • meursault1942

        May 31, 2014 at 9:43 am

        I understand perfectly well what the premise of the study is. The problem is that the premise is a lie, and the resulting findings are lies as well. The “typical family” Cato uses isn’t typical at all. The study assumes that its “typical family” uses all welfare programs simultaneously and that its minimum-wage family uses none–a situation that is practically impossible to find. And it straight-up lies about the numbers. This piece delves deeper into the numbers and the lies behind them. It’s not pretty for your argument:

        In short – too late – there appears to be NO state where a family in the same situation as the family Cato used for their welfare calculations will be worse off if employed at a minimum wage job. Zero. None. Nada.

        To put it another way, Cato’s statement that, “The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” is not just a lie in general, it’s a lie in all 50 states, and in the District of Columbia.

        But none of that will stop this from becoming a Tea Party meme.

        And here we are, dealing with the Tea Party meme based on lies.

        But your issue here isn’t the number of facts. I could sit here and cite facts all day and it won’t matter to you because your narrative is an emotionally held truth, not a factually held one. It’s not based on facts–instead, it’s based on this feeling that it “must” be right–so facts are inconsequential. Hell, the Cato study claimed that Hawaii gives welfare recipients more than $60,000 a year, and that didn’t trip your bullshit detector at all. Even worse than not tripping your bullshit detector, it convinced you that it was correct! Critical analysis is evidently not your strong point.

        Out here in the real world, facts matter. And until you can get on the right side of them and address the issue honestly, you’ll always be ignorantly pushing propaganda.

         
    • Cluster

      May 23, 2014 at 5:40 am

      What’s funny is that current rhetoric like this from progressives is a glaring admission that your ideology and policies have failed. And miserably. You have not only let your constituents down, you have let the country and the world down, so you’re left to accuse your opponents of hating gays and poor people, and of course playing the race card at every opportunity. Signs of desperation. It would be funny if weren’t so sadly pathetic.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        May 23, 2014 at 6:14 pm

        Regarding the race card, I did indeed criticize Dr. Carson but never said nor implied anything about his race. Who was it that brought up his race in that bfv thread about him? Wait, I know! It was Ama, with Spook close behind to add his two cents about skin color and politics. Who is it that plays the race card again?

         
    • rustybrown2012

      May 28, 2014 at 2:25 pm

      No, there’s no conspiracy. Bengtsonn even admitted that. But it sure does smack of politics. You probably don’t see that.

      No, I don’t see that. Maybe if you could provide one scintilla of evidence, I would. Similar to my position on God/disbelief/lack of evidence.

      And here’s what you’re same scientists were also saying back then, from your article:

      “In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”

      “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.
      “My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”

      And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years.

      Sounds pretty accurate to me. But, according to you, since the most severe assessments from some scientists of the time have not happened in the exact timeline predicted, they must all be full of shit, even though the main prediction that they all agreed on, that arctic sea ice is rapidly meting, is indeed happening as predicted. That’s some world you live in, Cluster.

      Look, if you don’t get it after I explained it to you as I would to a five year old, you’re beyond help. You’re simply too stupid and/or dishonest to grasp simple concepts if they happen to challenge your world view. What do you have to say about my examples explaining how science can often be correct while not meeting the ridiculously high standards you set for it? And how about the study I pointed to that had over 9,000 peer reviewed published scientists over a recent period of time agree that fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change as opposed to, ahem, just ONE who disagreed? You asked for a scientific correlation between CO2 and climate change; I delivered. Slam dunk. Not that you would ever admit it. Talk about your character flaws…

       
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 2:31 pm

        “Sounds pretty accurate to you”?? The ice cap will be gone by 2030. Well if that sounds accurate to you then why go any further? I mean when you have a “moving model”, why not just keep making predictions? One just might be accurate. And there are a lot more scientists who disagree with CO2 correlation, but it’s a waste of time with you. You have already made up your mind. I appreciate your “open mind”.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 2:55 pm

        You’re just ranting and obfuscating like a child. You’re damn right I have an open mind, as well as being confident and mature enough to address your specific points. Why don’t you answer any of my questions? Here’s another one for you: Where are all the, presumably, peer reviewed, published scientific papers discounting the role of CO2 in climate change that you allude to? You won’t answer this one either, because you can’t. You’re an embarrassment to our species.

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 3:03 pm

        Wow. Sounds like I hit a sore spot. Carry on

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 3:26 pm

        Nope, just incredulity that people like you exist. But you hang yourself with your own rope; as usual, this thread clearly shows I respond directly to your comments and provide plenty of solid evidence which you then ignore along with the queries which uncomfortable. Life is good, same as always. To recap, here’s a few of the inconvenient questions you choose to pretend I never asked. Cue the chirping crickets:

        What do you have to say about my examples explaining how science can often be correct while not meeting the ridiculously high standards you set for it?

        How about the study I pointed to that had over 9,000 peer reviewed published scientists over a recent period of time agree that fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change as opposed to, ahem, just ONE who disagreed?

        Is it really your contention that for a scientific consensus to be valid absolutely all scientists must be correct 100% of the time in every one of their predictions?

        Where are all the, presumably, peer reviewed, published scientific papers discounting the role of CO2 in climate change that you allude to?

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 4:16 pm

        No worries. I will just check back with you in 2030 to find out what the new prediction is. Of course you may have read that the French are saying we only have 500 days left to avoid “climate chaos”, so you might want to stop driving your car and shut down your electricity. After all, you are part of the problem.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 4:44 pm

        Cluster, here’s a clue: when someone who’s in a debate refuses to answer any questions while throwing out meaningless tidbits that don’t make any sense, they’ve lost the debate. You should try to find a better way to back out gracefully to avoid embarrassment.

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 4:53 pm

        You and your “scientists” continue to move the goal posts, so I must now wait to pick the debate back up. 500 days by my calendar will be in late 2015, so I will check back with you then. And unless your ice cap prediction hasn’t changed by them, I guess I will have to wait until 2030 to revisit that. Let me know if anything else changes.

         
      • Cluster

        May 28, 2014 at 5:04 pm

        Here’s a couple more predictions. If you would so kind, can you give me the new timetables for these events?

        “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” – David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

        “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” – Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss. Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 28, 2014 at 5:23 pm

        Until you address the points I made concerning the utter meaninglessness of pointing to a few select predictions that happen to be wrong and answer my questions concerning that dynamic we can’t further this dialog. I’ve already properly addressed this and you pretend that I haven’t; you lose. Here, I’ll paste them again (this is the type of patience I normally reserve for slow children):

        Is it really your contention that for a scientific consensus to be valid absolutely all scientists must be correct 100% of the time in every one of their predictions? Scientific predictions are always provisional; that’s true for every field of science. The point here is that they predicted the sea ice would be melting, and it’s melting.

        I’ll try to put this in terms that even someone as ignorant as you can understand: a team of oncologists agree that a patient has cancer, and even after removing the cancerous tumors to the best of their ability gives him only two years to live. If the patient is alive after three years it doesn’t mean he never had cancer in the first place.

        An arborist detects an invasive beetle in a grove of fruit trees and says “left unchecked, this grove could be wiped out in a year.” It takes two years for the beetles to decimate the grove. That doesn’t mean there were no beetles, or that the arborist’s assessment wasn’t essentially correct. Would you care for more examples of how science can be correct while not being absolutely perfect? Christ, I can’t believe I have to explain this to a grown man.

        according to you, since the most severe assessments from some scientists of the time have not happened in the exact timeline predicted, they must all be full of shit, even though the main prediction that they all agreed on, that arctic sea ice is rapidly meting, is indeed happening as predicted.

        What do you have to say about my examples explaining how science can often be correct while not meeting the ridiculously high standards you set for it? And how about the study I pointed to that had over 9,000 peer reviewed published scientists over a recent period of time agree that fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change as opposed to, ahem, just ONE who disagreed? You asked for a scientific correlation between CO2 and climate change; I delivered. Slam dunk.

        Where are all the, presumably, peer reviewed, published scientific papers discounting the role of CO2 in climate change that you allude to?

         
      • Cluster

        May 29, 2014 at 5:24 am

        Like I said, I will just check back with you next year, and see what has changed. You’re too emotionally invested in the issue to have any objectivity. I will say that I liked your new definition of being an agnostic atheist. Was that it?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 29, 2014 at 7:43 am

        You said you would ‘check back with me in a year’ last year. Since then, the arctic ice continues to melt, glaciers continue to recede and other signs of man made climate change accrue. I see you still refuse to answer simple, straightforward questions which expose your arguments as juvenile. Thanks for that and just as well; your omission clearly demonstrates the paucity of your assertions.

        Nothing new about being an agnostic atheist; I’ve been one for years as have most people who identify themselves as “atheist”. Glad I could clear that one up for you, too.

         
      • Cluster

        May 29, 2014 at 8:26 am

        Right. No conflict or muddled thinking in being an agnostic atheist. Good luck with that. And since the sensational predictions, and climate models that emanate from the “consensus” have been so woefully wrong, I will just continue to consider people like you the equivalent of the man on the corner holding up a sign that says the world will end soon. Just smile and nod as I walk by.

        But if your actually paying attention, the US has cut their carbon emissions, while China and India ramp up theirs. So maybe yours, and the IPCC’s outrage is best directed at them. You think???

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 29, 2014 at 9:36 am

        And since the sensational predictions, and climate models that emanate from the “consensus” have been so woefully wrong, I will just continue to consider people like you the equivalent of the man on the corner holding up a sign that says the world will end soon. Just smile and nod as I walk by.

        Gee Cluster, I guess that would be a devastating zinger if you had proved that the majority of climate predictions have been fatally wrong and you were capable of answering the questions I posed which destroy your arguments. You can do neither. But you are rather good at pretending, I’ll give you that.

        Right. No conflict or muddled thinking in being an agnostic atheist.

        Contemporary atheism is best understood as a spectrum and has been for some time. You should really try reading more; the dynamic fields of philosophy, humanities, religion – well, not religion! – have grown in their sophistication, changed which the changing world, and generally come a long way from the quaint notions you were exposed to as a child. Here’s what Richard Dawkins has to say about the compatibility of an atheist disbelieving in God but ultimately being agnostic as to God’s existence. Emphasis mine:

        “Dawkins posits that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.” He goes on to propose a continuous “spectrum of probabilities” between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven “milestones”. Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one’s place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These “milestones” are:

        1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”

        2.De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

        3.Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

        4.Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

        5.Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”

        6.De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

        7.Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

        Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as “1” due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves “7” because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person’s mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a ‘6’, though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested ‘6.9’ to be more accurate.”

        Well there you have it. Perhaps the most famous contemporary atheist philosopher on the planet not only confirming my definition of atheism but supporting my contention that it is the most open-minded way to think, as opposed to religious dogmatists such as yourself. Good luck with that.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm

        Hey Cluster, where’s your knee-jerk contrarian response? I’m disappointed in you. You’ve already made an ass of yourself by stating that if 1 scientist out of over 9,000 has a dissenting view that should negate what the other 9,000 think. I was really looking forward to you making a cumulatively bigger ass of yourself by claiming you know more about what defines an atheist than the most preeminent published atheists in the world, who happen to agree with my stated definition 100%. One more question you probably won’t answer: does it physically hurt being wrong all the time?

         
      • Cluster

        May 29, 2014 at 5:28 pm

        I live in the real world, not the politically correct, consensus world. And in the real world, when your models and predictions are wrong over a 15 year period, people stop heeding your advice and stop listening. Al Gore is a charlatan and “climate change” is an over exaggerated, minor issue. That being said, we do need to stay on the path to find greener, more sustainable energy.

        And your Faith as an “agnostic atheist” is tantamount to the denial of a Higher Power, yet being unsure about it. Rather unimpressive, wouldn’t you say?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 29, 2014 at 7:21 pm

        The real world, eh? Well, in my world I trust in scientists to inform us on matters of science. In your world you trust in conservative, right wing pundits connected to the oil industry to inform us on matters of science. Certainly are different worlds, but only the later one is idiotic.

        As I’ve already clearly explained, there’s absolutely no faith involved in my atheism. I don’t know what exactly you mean by my “denial of a higher power”, but if you mean disbelief in God you are correct; If you mean denying the remote possibility that some kind of God exists with absolute certainty, you are wrong. Nobody is absolutely sure if there’s a higher power or not, even the pope. Sure, he and other religious fanatics may be convinced of a supreme being, but let’s face it, they don’t know. Nobody knows. Atheists are just honest and open minded about it.

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 5:41 am

        You contradict yourself in the same paragraph. You state that you have a “disbelief in God” and then go on to say that “nobody is absolutely sure”. So which is it? Do you not believe in God? Or are you unsure of His existence?

        Man up.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 29, 2014 at 7:28 pm

        And BTW, you’re slavish devotion to a sky daddy who will make you real happy after you die and reunite you with dear old Ma and Pa without a single trace of evidence is what I find unimpressive.

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 5:37 am

        Sky daddy? Is that what the atheist agnostic community is calling God these days? Impressive.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 30, 2014 at 7:50 am

        There is absolutely no contradiction in my atheistic beliefs. One does not have to be absolutely sure about something in order to not believe in it; these are simply not mutually exclusive propositions.

        Try to grasp this hypothetical: If I ask you if you believe there is a package wrapped in red paper on your doorstep right now, you would likely say, “no”. If I ask you is it anywhere within the range of possibility that there is a red wrapped package outside your door, you would be obliged to answer, “yes”. In the first question, I asked about your belief, or faith. In the second, I asked about your knowledge. These are two completely different questions, hence no contradiction in answering them differently. Do you understand now, or do I have to send you some cartoons?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 30, 2014 at 11:08 am

        You could prove all of this to yourself if you were so inclined. Take a poll of everybody you know. Ask them two questions:

        a) Do you believe in God? The religious will say “yes”, the atheists, “no”.

        b) Are you absolutely certain beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a God (or, for the atheist, there is no God)? Now here you will get a substantial portion of religious folk replying “yes” even though they in fact have zero evidence for such misguided certainty. On the other hand, almost ALL atheists will reply “no”, because they are rational, honest and open minded.

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 2:22 pm

        Now you’re making up conversations in your head?? Ease up Rusty. It’s called Faith for a reason, and if you deny the existence of God, that too is based on the “faith” that you are correct in that.

        I, first of all, don’t care what other people think, it has no bearing on my life. And I obviously have no concrete proof of anything, but my experiences, my soul, and my intelligence tell me that there is a Higher Power beyond our comprehension and I am much happier living with that belief than I am living with the assumption that we are just a bunch of randomly placed particles that accidentally came about.

        Good luck to you with your beliefs.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 30, 2014 at 3:00 pm

        So now you’re equating relevant hypotheticals with “conversations in my head”? Philosophy isn’t your strong suite, huh?

        As to your willful or ignorant misunderstanding of the term “faith”, if you want to be pedantic about the term, parse definitions, and squint your eyes then fine, go ahead and characterize my disbelief in God as “faith” that he doesn’t exist. That would be the exact equivalent to the type of “faith” that you have when you deny the Easter Bunny’s existence. Now, assuming you don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, do you normally think of your disbelief in him as a matter of “faith”? No, neither do I. Get the picture?

        So, we see that this watered down, practically meaningless type of “faith” that you seem determined to ascribe to me is worlds apart from the traditional understanding of the term. The “faith” of not believing in the Easter Bunny is worlds apart from the “faith” in talking snakes, miracles, resurrection, heaven and hell, etc.

        Good to see you appear to understand that there is no contradiction in my beliefs, or lack of them, and you’re no longer quibbling with my near universally accepted definition of what it is to be an atheist. You might be making progress. Concerning your personal religious beliefs, bully for you! I’m glad they make you happy. Religious beliefs have been known to do that. Just don’t impose it on other people, OK? Hint: that’s another universal conviction of atheists in the 21st century.

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 3:26 pm

        You seem to have a personal aversion to the word “faith”, which is kind of strange considering the word simply means a “confidence” in something, and you certainly do have a confidence in your beliefs, hence “faith”.

        And I am glad that you take comfort in other people validating your beliefs, but to me, there is a contradiction in “denying the existence of God” but then again being unsure of that denial.

        That’s all I have to say on the matter – hasta luego.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 30, 2014 at 4:37 pm

        Good Christ, you’re dense. I’ve spelled it out to you as I would to a five year old, and you still don’t get it. You’re still having mighty trouble with the fact that there are two distinct questions being asked, one of belief, and one of knowledge, and it’s only the question of belief that defines atheism. Incredible. You’re like a medical study in obtuseness. It’s all there up in the thread; a bright grade schooler could understand it. Here, I’ll re-paste my concise, easy to comprehend explanations for what atheism means (I’ve heard repetition is often effective in teaching slow children) ; if you continue to have trouble understanding, try sounding out the words, or perhaps have someone read it and explain it to you. If that doesn’t work, then I guess you’re just not bright enough to grasp the concepts I’m laying out to you. To wit:

        “My disbelief in God is evidence based, a lack of evidence to be exact, not faith based. Atheism is merely the disbelief in God. You don’t have to actively assert “there is no God” in order to be an atheist, merely that you don’t believe there is one. That is a distinction with a difference. When confronted with the unanswered questions of existence, atheists are comfortable admitting they don’t know; like I said, open minds.”

        “an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God, like I said. You could call most modern atheists like myself “agnostic atheists”, but it’s really not necessary. Outright denial of a deity is not required to be an atheist and is a very rare and outdated concept to the modern atheist, who tend to view atheism exclusively as a question of belief, not knowledge Our most famous atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins subscribe to this view, as do I.”

        “Here’s what Richard Dawkins has to say about the compatibility of an atheist disbelieving in God but ultimately being agnostic as to God’s existence. Emphasis mine:

        (from Wiki) “Dawkins posits that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.” He goes on to propose a continuous “spectrum of probabilities” between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven “milestones”. Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one’s place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These “milestones” are:

        1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”

        2.De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

        3.Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

        4.Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

        5.Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”

        6.De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

        7.Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

        Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as “1″ due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves “7″ because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person’s mind.

        …crack a book dude, knowledge is power!

         
      • Cluster

        May 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm

        It’s kind of funny watching you twist and turn like this. Try as you might, the definitions are straight forward. Athiests deny the existence. Agnostics admit they don’t know. And honestly, you seem very confused about whether you believe or not. A little hint for you – there never will be concrete evidence, so you should just make up your mind.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm

        I try to engage you in a meaningful dialog and you revert to the same pattern of obfuscation, deflection, and ignorance you excel in when proven wrong. Like you think your pathetic dodges will mask how thoroughly your ass has been kicked. Whether you’re pretending to not understand basic philosophy and core reasoning or actually too dimwitted to understand it makes no difference to me (I’m on record for thinking you’re both dumb AND dishonest). It’s quite clear you’re unwilling/unable to have a fair exchange. And you actually seem to enjoy the role as the fuckwit. Well, If anyone of any intelligence is following this, that discerning reader will decide who’s full of shit or not, and I’m more than comfortable with leaving it at that.

        What do you call a person who owns a blog only to play the role of a troll? Fool? Gimp? Douchebag? Maggot? Maybe you should start a new thread to decide…

         
    • meursault1942

      May 30, 2014 at 3:21 pm

      Incidentally, Cluster, I highly recommend you start reading the Slacktivist blog, written by evangelical Christian Fred Clark. It’s a great read, full of thoughtfulness and insight on matters both scriptural and secular. In particular, you should read his “Scenes from the Class War” posts, which are compendiums of data, analysis, and thought-provoking stories. The most recent one was posted yesterday, and it has a bunch of really great links. Check them all out, but in particular, check out the one that says:

      “This notion that temporary unemployment benefits provide people a reason not to return to work really needs to end because it is not supported by the data.”

      Don’t be afraid of the facts.

       
  2. rustybrown2012

    May 23, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Cluster, can you explain what exactly I said about Dr. Carson’s beliefs constitute a “personal attack on religious grounds”?

     
    • Cluster

      May 23, 2014 at 6:48 pm

      Well you seem to have intimate knowledge of his personal religious beliefs, which were never referenced by the way and of which you mocked, but yet didn’t even know his last name. I found that odd.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        May 23, 2014 at 7:46 pm

        I can use Google. The only “intimate knowledge” I have of his religious beliefs is from reading his freely expressed opinions on the internet. You still have not quoted my alleged “personal attack” on his religious beliefs. Why not?

        As for changing “Carson” to “Carlson”, are you really going to sit there and pretend you’ve never made a similar mistake with the name of a stranger you were barely aware of? Stop embarrassing yourself. Any fair reader would see that as a completely unremarkable mistake, far less stupid than your calling Ama’s list of four Obama excuses a “trifecta”.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 6:38 am

        So give me an example of his “freely expressed opinions on the internet”. Shouldn’t be hard to do.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 24, 2014 at 9:01 am

        No, it’s not hard to do, especially since I already have. Here’s what I wrote: “(he) is a Seventh Day Adventist, a literal six day creationist who doesn’t believe in evolution. He’s also on record displaying both his ignorance and his religious bigotry by claiming that people who believe in evolution have no basis for their moral codes and can “dismiss ethics”.

        Now, how is that an attack? Is it your contention that people on political blogs should not be criticizing public figures or examining their beliefs?

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 9:30 am

        Here’s what you wrote:

        He’s also on record displaying both his ignorance and his religious bigotry by claiming that people who believe in evolution have no basis for their moral codes and can “dismiss ethics”.

        And here’s a quote relating to that from Dr.Carson:

        “It would have been extremely courteous if they had asked me whether it was true that I said people who are evolutionist are unethical, which I never did. Those of us who believe in God and derive our sense of right and wrong and ethics from God’s word really have no difficulty whatsoever defining where our ethics come from. People who believe in survival of the fittest might have more difficulty deriving where their ethics come from. A lot of evolutionists are very ethical people.”

        And just FYI, when you call someone ignorant for their religious views, no matter what they are – that’s pretty much a personal attack.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 24, 2014 at 10:32 am

        Cluster, the quote you provide is Carson trying to weasel out of what he said, a tactic you’re very familiar with. The quotes of his I was referring to in my criticisms are as follows:

        “Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don’t have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning.”

        By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there’s no reason for any of our higher values.”

        These are ignorant and bigoted ideas. I called Carson ignorant precisely for his stated views, religious or otherwise. Grow a pair. This was not a “personal attack”, it was a righteous criticism of his ideas. And FYI, ignorance and bigotry are not mitigated by hiding behind your religion. Hope that clears things up for you.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm

        Righteous criticism!! OMG. That has progressivism with a capital P written all over it. That is absolutely hilarious and one that I will keep and share often. Hope you don’t mind.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 2:50 pm

        You know since you brought up Faith in the context of leadership Rusty, let me remind you of the Church that Barack Obama professed to go to for twenty years, and the comments from the Pastor that Obama referred to as his mentor:

        “The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

        Could this be considered ignorance and bigotry?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 24, 2014 at 4:03 pm

        Righteous criticism!! OMG. That has progressivism with a capital P written all over it. That is absolutely hilarious and one that I will keep and share often. Hope you don’t mind.

        Hey, whatever raises your drawbridge. Man, you sure are easily amused. And strangely committed to projecting simplistic labels on people. You should try having a conversation where you don’t do that sometime; you might learn something.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm

        Could this be considered ignorance and bigotry?

        I personally don’t see what I would describe as bigotry there. Ignorance? Perhaps, but I would characterize it more as overly simplistic hyperbole. I certainly don’t endorse his sentiments, although in the context of a heated sermon in a black church (which are known to be prone to theatrics and often address the very real oppression that blacks have faced in this country), I never saw this as a big deal.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 24, 2014 at 8:45 pm

        So I guess at this point we can all agree that you were misspeaking when you said I was personally attacking the good Dr. Carson, as I was merely criticizing his public opinions, which are fair game. Glad we cleared that one up. I presume I won that argument, as usual, for anyone paying attention.

         
      • Cluster

        May 25, 2014 at 5:49 am

        Um …. no Rusty. When you label someones religious beliefs bigoted and ignorant and mischaracterize their statements, that is considered by most people to be a personal attack. However, I have now learned that amongst progressive circles, this is considered “righteous criticism”.

        You also have a strange need to proclaim victory in what amounts to a casual conversation, and for whatever it’s worth – no one is paying attention.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 25, 2014 at 8:13 am

        How exactly did I “mischaracterize his statements”? By directly quoting his exact words? In order to have your position you have only two choices: Your contention can be that as long as you qualify a statement as your religious beliefs nothing you say can be considered ignorant or bigoted. That’s clearly idiotic. Or your contention can be that what Carson said was not ignorant and bigoted. And you would be wrong because his statement was clearly disparaging to nonbelievers and completely wrong on the origins of ethics and morality. So which is it, Cluster?

        And I’ve already explained this to you but I’ll say it one more time, ignorance and bigotry are not mitigated by hiding behind your religion. You’re paying attention, but you sure don’t seem to be learning anything.

         
      • Cluster

        May 25, 2014 at 8:27 am

        I laid out your mischaracterization specifically in this post from yesterday at 9:30am.

        Here’s what you wrote:

        He’s also on record displaying both his ignorance and his religious bigotry by claiming that people who believe in evolution have no basis for their moral codes and can “dismiss ethics”.

        And here’s a quote relating to that from Dr.Carson:

        “It would have been extremely courteous if they had asked me whether it was true that I said people who are evolutionist are unethical, which I never did. Those of us who believe in God and derive our sense of right and wrong and ethics from God’s word really have no difficulty whatsoever defining where our ethics come from. People who believe in survival of the fittest might have more difficulty deriving where their ethics come from. A lot of evolutionists are very ethical people.”

        And just FYI, when you call someone ignorant for their religious views, no matter what they are – that’s pretty much a personal attack.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 25, 2014 at 9:09 am

        Well, you might have a point if that was the quote I was referring to, but it’s not. The quote of Dr. Carson I was justifiably characterizing as ignorant and bigoted is:

        “Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don’t have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning.”

        By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there’s no reason for any of our higher values.”

        Any fair reader will clearly recognize ignorance and bigotry in that statement. You’re welcome.

        when you call someone ignorant for their religious views, no matter what they are – that’s pretty much a personal attack.

        That’s absurd. Strange to see you so respectful of the radical Muslims’ stated agenda and opinions on female circumcision, complete subjugation of women, death or mutilation for seemingly minor religious infractions, death to America and all infidels who are not Muslim, etc. Personally, I call those beliefs ignorant (among other things), but in Cluster’s world, they’re worthy of respect and not to be criticized because, ya know, they’re religious. Real deep thinking there, Cluster.

         
      • Cluster

        May 25, 2014 at 9:18 am

        So now you’re conflating 7th Day Adventism with radical Mulsims? And just for the record, radical Muslims do not represent the Islam religion. Even the majority of Muslims will tell you that so I think you owe a whole lot of people an apology.

        I will ask you this since you are a self proclaimed atheist, where do you derive your moral beliefs?

         
      • Cluster

        May 25, 2014 at 9:43 am

        And to be honest Rusty, as evidenced by your many comments over the last couple of years, you harbor a complete disdain for any religion or anyone that believes in a Higher Power. Or as you have on occasion defined it – “the man in the sky”

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 25, 2014 at 10:03 am

        I’m not conflating anything. We’re talking about your opinion that religious beliefs should never be called ignorant and are apparently beyond critique. The odious beliefs I mentioned are undeniably religious ones, therefore by your logic should be immune from criticism. Good job, Cluster. My point stands that there are all kinds of fundamental religious beliefs that are deserving of criticism and sometimes scorn. Shall I list some more for you, perhaps from Christianity this time?

        Where do I derive my moral beliefs? Many sources. Primarily from my parents, but also from teachers, wise associates and mentors, history, literature, philosophy, cultural and societal mores and traditions, experience, common sense, my innate sense of right and wrong, among others. Where do you derive yours?

        For the record, you are correct in stating I have a complete disdain for religion but not for everyone who, in your words, believes in a higher power. I understand and empathize that people are fallible and disposed to leaning on superstition for comfort and answers for the troubling questions of existence. I certainly disdain fundamentalists and people who try to impose their religious beliefs on others. I also disdain religious folk who disparage science and atheists, Like Dr. Carson.

         
      • Cluster

        May 25, 2014 at 10:51 am

        Where do I derive my moral beliefs? Many sources. Primarily from my parents, but also from teachers, wise associates and mentors, history, literature, philosophy, cultural and societal mores and traditions, experience, common sense, my innate sense of right and wrong, among others. Where do you derive yours?

        And where did they derive theirs? In other words, where did civilized society derive the moral code that has become the glue to an existence of peaceful cohesion and the departure from barbarianism? And there you go again, attacking Dr. Carson. You just can’t help yourself can you? Your smug sense of self superiority is a real character flaw and a personality disorder on some level. I have never seen anything quite like it.

         
      • Cluster

        May 25, 2014 at 10:57 am

        And I will mention that the only people who are imposing their beliefs on other people, at least here in the States, are progressives like you.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 25, 2014 at 5:00 pm

        And where did they derive theirs?

        What’s your point? Are you trying to get me to admit some kind of divine origin for morality? Fat chance, as there is absolutely zero proof of that. The Ten Commandments perhaps? No way. The only commandments that are of benefit to society are ideas that already existed long before they were written into Christianity. Thou shall not kill? Really? Do you really think people hadn’t considered that before Moses strolled down from the mount?

        You appear to be sticking to your harebrained opinion that religious ideas are beyond criticism. I never would have imagined you respect Islam’s ideas concerning female circumcision, the subjugation of women, death or mutilation for seemingly minor religious infractions, death to America and all infidels who are not Muslim, etc., but by your own admission all of those things are beyond criticism. Well, guess we’ll just have to disagree on that one, chum.

         
  3. rustybrown2012

    May 23, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    “Clay Aiken of American Idol is vying to represent you fine progressives in Congress tweeted today that he wanted to punch Ann Coulter in face. Would that be considered a “war on women”?”

    No. I think that would be a war on a transvestite, but I can’t be sure.

     
    • Cluster

      May 23, 2014 at 6:49 pm

      And now you’re calling Ann Coulter a transvestite?? Wow.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        May 23, 2014 at 7:47 pm

        Yeah, it’s called a “joke”. Christ, how did your skin get so thin? Have you undergone trauma lately?

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 6:36 am

        Oh ok. Well where I come from jokes are funny so I was just thrown off a bit. I will let you know though that as a member of the progressive movement, this might get you in trouble with the LGBT crowd.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 24, 2014 at 8:49 am

        Well that shows how wrong your thinking is. I’m not a member or anything, don’t consider myself a blanket progressive, am very anti-PC and not afraid to get in trouble with any crowd. As I’ve always said to you, you should try arguing with the real people actually engaging with you rather than the distorted stereotypes in your head. If you’ll notice, that’s what I generally do. As much as you and other conservatives have falsely claimed that my posts to you disrupt conversation and contain no content, I usually am directly responding to your stated ideas. Your problem seems to be that my responses are not what you want to hear and you find them hard to argue with.

         
      • Cluster

        May 24, 2014 at 9:25 am

        Oh don’t kid yourself Rusty. You are a dyed in the wool progressive. You may not think you are a member, but every thought, post and comment suggests that you are firmly in that camp.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        May 24, 2014 at 9:57 am

        every thought, post and comment suggests that you are firmly in that camp.

        Is that so? Like making a transvestite joke about Coulter? Like stating that people should lay off Sterling because I believe that people should be allowed to have any private views that they want, including racist ones? That Blacks get a pass for saying much worse things about whites than Sterling ever said about blacks? That the gender pay gap is a bogus issue driven by identity politics?

        I’m a free thinker. But hey, If you prefer to argue with a cartoon fantasy rather than a real person, go bananas. But I think that’s at least partly responsible for your stunted intellect.

         
  4. rustybrown2012

    May 27, 2014 at 10:16 am

    Not only was Iraq supported by Democrats at the time, the country was on the verge of becoming a beacon of light in the ME until the Democrats found that withdrawing their support and calling it a failure could win them an election.

    “Beacon of light”! That’s rich! Yeah, you guys turned Iraq into a regular Garden of Eden – and it only took tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars! Quite a nice fantasy you’ve got going on; are there cuddly puppies as well? Keep sticking to the Republican line: “We know our policies have been monstrous failures up to this point, but just let us continue with them a little bit longer and everything will turn out fine!” Nobody’s buying it. And BTW, the withdrawal was in accordance to a bilateral mandate agreed to and signed by President Bush.

    And although many Democrats were pressured into supporting the war, the only opposition to it came from the Democrats, and the most liberal ones at that. Get that? The only opposition to the Iraq war came from liberal Democrats like myself. We were right. As the GOP, in it’s entirety, was figuring out new ways to lie the American people into their bloody fiasco, it was only people like me who were the voices of reason. We never would have invaded Iraq if Gore was President. The Iraq war was the GOP’s war through and through. You broke it, you own it. Everybody knows this to be true.

    Regarding the great recession, there was plenty of blame to go around, but the fact remains it happened on Bush’s watch. You know, the whole ‘buck stops here’ thing. Clinton left this country far better off than when he took office. Obama’s on track to do the same. Your guy Bush, not so much. He is correctly regarded as one of the absolute worst Presidents in history. And he’s a shitty painter, too.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: