View Single Post
Old 05-29-2006, 08:52 PM   #25 (permalink)
cogy
Senior Member
 
cogy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: socal
Posts: 139
i can come back to this when i have more time. i was set to leave until i saw the bitchslap remark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky
yeah, because the republican party is about tolerence for comminities, not forcing one view on a population. even opposing religions can get together under the same party, because ideally, their beliefs would be protected.
the republican party and tolerance do not go together. saying it doesnt make it so. not for other religions, not for other races, not for gays, not for anyone but themselves. if you want to tout the right, leave the 1st amendment alone, move on to the 2nd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky
none of this is an arguement that republicans are anti science. so please stay on topic and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion, because a small segment of religious zealots attempting to get their views heard or taught is not proof or even evidence of. try again.
denying evolution and disease prevention based isnt anti science, then? small segment? if that were the case mccain would have won the primary in 2000 instead of a born again with no record but one of lighting up retards. if they were a small segment the candidates wouldnt say exactly what they want them to say year after year, whether its an intraparty primary debate or a national debate. and if you watch, listen, or are aware of the news, you know several states recently [although they were rebuffed more recently] ok'd intelligent design text books to be used as science text books. on pandas and people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky
religion is still not taught in public school, show me one example where a public school teaches evolution is not true.
when i was in hs, and im only 22, evolution got a mention, not an explanation. and the law at that time said that because evolution was "taught," we had to learn creationism to be fair. so the most i heard about evolution was the mention of the law, and then we got to hear a 3 day lecture on creationism. again, read the news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky
how is any of that evidence of a conspiracy?
my point was i didnt bring up the topic of conspiracies; you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky
one president making a judgement call is proof? is clinton a terrorist, then, because he let osama go and 'funneled' money away from intelligence. cutting funding on CSPAN is not a conspiracy, its cutting funding. instead of spending more money on the human genome project research, clinton spent it on revitalizing inner cities in a ploy to get minority votes, therefore democrats are all part of a conspiracy to hurt science and gain power? see, these arguements are ridiculous. you dont like one particular politician, and are painting all in his party with the same brush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky
conjecture. if GM goes out of business, it will be because of pension plans, not the cars they make. they will adjust what they produce according to what the market demands. you keep telling me i dont think theres global warming, i keep telling you i know whats happening. why cant you wrap your arguement around that? not included in your talking points? the temperature of the world has varied drastically over the last 50,000 years. you can tell by measuring the CO2 levels in ancient arctic ice core samples. its been alot hotter, its been alot colder, both without humans around. if humans cause one or the other(and global warming, im sure since you know so much about it, leads directly to ice ages) the world will get by just fine.
the point was gm is a smart business that knows they wont make money selling cars that run on fuel that may not exist in significant quantities in 50 years. your version of global warming so far is limited to a hole in antartica and stuff hundreds of years from now that neither of us are arguing over. simply because the earth has varied in temp over 50k years does not mean that its dandy for us to force the same changes over 100, 50, 10 years, or that any of it will bode well for our survival.

who popularized the talking point? posted it on the official party website, sent it out to fox news and all the rest, repeats it verbatim so many times satirical news shows can fill their 22 minutes just showing clips of the usual gang all saying the same 2 or 3 lines on whatever that days topic is? or do the dozen or so they pick on all happen to use the same baseball analogy on the same day, word for word?



Quote:
Originally Posted by spooky
sources? how are the republicans responsible and the democrats arent? spell it out for me. and any company you chose to burn an effigy of, please have proof that its a company owned and operated by republicans.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-war...basic_science/
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/...?o=read&id=521
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/climate.html
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

everyone is responsible. but republicans get the trophy for denying the problem and refusing evidence that contradicts them and which places a burden on big business to reform their industry. if you want proof that biz owners tend to be republican, pull your head out of your goddamn ass or look at some data, look it up yourself, its out there whether i feed it to you or not.
__________________
"let me introduce myself: i have balls. if youre lucky they might rub off on you."
(Offline)   Reply With Quote