REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Objective analysis of partisan arguments & talking points (hopefully)

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 19:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4257
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:11 AM

CHRISISALL


This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.


R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.


How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?

I'm actually lookin' to see where left & right can come to some simple, calm agreement on seperatin' fact from opinion.







The experimental Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:25 AM

CHRISISALL


An Ahh yes, no one here likes agreement bump

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:31 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


How about:

L) A national socialized medical system is needed now to provide all citizens with equal care, and to insure citizens against insurance abuses rendered on a daily basis.

R) A national socialized medical system is economically impossible, could never be implemented effeciently, and will make things worse.


Data: The debt of the US cannot be sustained, and another program would only hasten eventual collapse. Additionally, data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. In some rare cases, un-wealthy terminal patients have died standing in line waiting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 11:34 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I hope to post later, but it will take a long response, which I don't have time for right now.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:01 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:



Data: The debt of the US cannot be sustained, and another program would only hasten eventual collapse. Additionally, data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. In some rare cases, un-wealthy terminal patients have died standing in line waiting.

Emmmm. I detect opinion there...I'd go with:
Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. In some rare cases, un-wealthy terminal patients have died standing in line waiting. This indicates flaws in their supposedly excellent system; we need to be clear on our goals before considering any such overhaul.

IMHO...


The trying to get along Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:29 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Yours seems even more biased. For the record I was trying to be neutral. I could add a third statement to bring it back to center, but my inital intent was 2 neutral sentences presented without passion or predjudice.

Guess I missed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:46 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.


R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.


How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?

I'm actually lookin' to see where left & right can come to some simple, calm agreement on seperatin' fact from opinion.







The experimental Chrisisall

Now that the Democrats rule the Whitehouse, House & Senate you want to come up with a "calm agreement"? SOON I WILL LAUGH AT YOU'RE PAIN!!

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:56 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Yours seems even more biased.

LOL, which way?
Quote:

For the record I was trying to be neutral. I could add a third statement to bring it back to center, but my inital intent was 2 neutral sentences presented without passion or predjudice.

Guess I missed.

I just felt that the comment about a new healthcare system speeding up our possible economic demise to be a bit more opinion than fact, you know, predictive without hard data to back it up- who knows- done correctly, it might actually SAVE money, just, like, will it be done CORRECTLY...?


The details Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:56 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Yours seems even more biased. For the record I was trying to be neutral. I could add a third statement to bring it back to center, but my inital intent was 2 neutral sentences presented without passion or predjudice.

Guess I missed.



Since yours was solely negative, and Chriss' offered both positive and negative, I'd say yes, you missed.

Unless offering pro's and con's is now officially "more biased" than just presenting one side.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 12:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, to start to dabble:

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq. But historically, the search for WMD wasn't started until after int'l pressure built for Bush to pursue his WMD claims. He may have thought they would be abundant enough that US troops would stumble across them. However, given that the UN inspectors did not find WMDs and were close to concluding their search, it's more likely that he knew there would be none, and was hoping he wouldn't be called on to address the issue.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush either evil or stupid.
A person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would check to see if the results of his good intentions - 2 wars, curtailing freedoms, disaster response, national economy and other policies - were producing good results over time. Given that the results have not been as expected, a person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would try to determine what went wrong, and either try to mitigate the problems, or at least not repeat them.
Given that these didn't occur, the choices are that Bush's intentions weren't good, or he is incapable of learning from his mistakes.


R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today. Available studies indicate that scaring people doesn't create productive attitudes towards finding and implementing solutions.

***************************************************************
R) Socialized medicine is evil
L) Socialized medicine is good


Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs sometimes travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. However, generally, the treatment they are seeking is elective, and they are avoiding wait-times rather than trying to get treatment at all.
There are some countries that have policies in place that limit expensive treatment for patients who are terminally ill. ("How much would you pay for 6 more months of life?")
However, given that a higher standard of care is available through socialized medicine ("France best, U.S. worst in preventable death ranking"), the burden for-profit healthcare puts on the economy and individuals ("Retiree couple needs $225K for medical"), the incentive of for-profit medicine for cuttign corners ("Reports Allege Merck Misrepresented Vioxx Research"), the inherent conflict of interest between for-profit medicine and providing care ("Supreme Court case: Do health plans have conflicts of interest?"), the lack of coverage, overall poorer health, higher infant mortality and earlier deaths of US citizens compared to countries with socilaiized medicine,

data indicates that a capitalistic economic agneda does not fit with health care delivery.


This indicates flaws in their supposedly excellent system; we need to be clear on our goals before considering any such overhaul.
***************************************************************



Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:06 PM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Would everyone please take a break from the political stuff for a moment. I'm trying to make a fan film and need canon help.

Go to my thread in Firefly--Immediate Assistance and answer my canon questions gorramit!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:08 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush either evil or stupid.

Well, what I wrote never precluded him being stupid, but I was trying to stay simple, and there's a cornucopia of opinion to weed through before you get to the conclusion based on available data that he's stupid (a conclusion I agree with, BTW).
But you did lay it out pretty succinctly, I must say.

Also, if he were truly evil, there's a LOT more damage all around that he could have caused, therefore, I must default to 'stupid'.


The sherlocks Holm-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:14 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Well, to start to dabble:

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq. But historically, the search for WMD wasn't started until after int'l pressure built for Bush to pursue his WMD claims. He may have thought they would be abundant enough that US troops would stumble across them. However, given that the UN inspectors did not find WMDs and were close to concluding their search, it's more likely that he knew there would be none, and was hoping he wouldn't be called on to address the issue.

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush either evil or stupid.
A person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would check to see if the results of his good intentions - 2 wars, curtailing freedoms, disaster response, national economy and other policies - were producing good results over time. Given that the results have not been as expected, a person of reasonable intelligence and average ethics would try to determine what went wrong, and either try to mitigate the problems, or at least not repeat them.
Given that these didn't occur, the choices are that Bush's intentions weren't good, or he is incapable of learning from his mistakes.


R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today. Available studies indicate that scaring people doesn't create productive attitudes towards finding and implementing solutions.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WHAT! RUE take a side! You running for office?

I'm going to micowave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:18 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey ChrisIsAll

I added this later, I thought you might be interested in commenting.

R) Socialized medicine is evil
L) Socialized medicine is good


Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs sometimes travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. However, generally, the treatment they are seeking is elective, and they are avoiding wait-times rather than trying to get treatment at all.
There are some countries that have policies in place that limit expensive treatment for patients who are terminally ill. ("How much would you pay for 6 more months of life?")
However, given that a higher standard of care is available through socialized medicine ("France best, U.S. worst in preventable death ranking"), the burden for-profit healthcare puts on the economy and individuals ("Retiree couple needs $225K for medical"), the incentive of for-profit medicine for cutting corners ("Reports Allege Merck Misrepresented Vioxx Research"), the inherent conflict of interest between for-profit medicine and providing care ("Supreme Court case: Do health plans have conflicts of interest?"), the lack of coverage, overall poorer health, higher infant mortality and earlier deaths of US citizens compared to countries with socialized medicine,

data indicates that a capitalistic economic agenda does not fit with effective health care delivery.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:20 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone. In fact, there's every bit of evidence to suggest the exact opposite. ( See 9/11 Commission , '04 and '06 Congressional Hearings on WMD )

CIA Release of NIE, October 2002: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade. http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

i wouldn't go as far as to call Bush a GREAT leader. Hell, he's subverting the will of his own party by bailing out the UAW and the BIG 3 Auto makers, simply to save his legacy. Bravo.

Too early to tell about Obama. We elected a complete unknown.

650 Scientist come out against manmade global warming. Somebody better tell AlGore ! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conte
ntRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6








It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:21 PM

CHRISISALL


Rue- Not bad! Fact-based, non-confrontational...I can deal!


The non-partisan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:22 PM

SWISH


The bias comes in stressing one side aspect of the US health care system as if that defines it entirely. Wealthy foreigners who come here for health care are not having the same experience as the average American, ie they are wealthy and not at the mercy of their HMO.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:27 PM

SWISH


Hey - I have a novel idea. Since Rap always shows up spouting this same blind madness, how about we don't let this thread devolve into a pointless "No he didn't!" "Yes he did!" spat with him? It seem that every thread I check into here turns into a Rap name-calling argument. It does derail more interesting conversations.

Just a suggestion.

ETA: I'm referring to this: "There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone." This horse corpse has been beaten folks. Nothing but bone. She ain't gonna run again!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:28 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hey ChrisIsAll

I added this later, I thought you might be interested in commenting.

R) Socialized medicine is evil
L) Socialized medicine is good


Data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs sometimes travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. However, generally, the treatment they are seeking is elective, and they are avoiding wait-times rather than trying to get treatment at all.
There are some countries that have policies in place that limit expensive treatment for patients who are terminally ill. ("How much would you pay for 6 more months of life?")
However, given that a higher standard of care is available through socialized medicine ("France best, U.S. worst in preventable death ranking"), the burden for-profit healthcare puts on the economy and individuals ("Retiree couple needs $225K for medical"), the incentive of for-profit medicine for cutting corners ("Reports Allege Merck Misrepresented Vioxx Research"), the inherent conflict of interest between for-profit medicine and providing care ("Supreme Court case: Do health plans have conflicts of interest?"), the lack of coverage, overall poorer health, higher infant mortality and earlier deaths of US citizens compared to countries with socialized medicine,

data indicates that a capitalistic economic agenda does not fit with health care delivery.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hi RUE (pick a fucking side) how ya been? (Bush bad or good?) I'm fine (Barry lying or not?) nothing much happening here.

I'm going to micowave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:28 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone.

Sorry, this was supposed to leave pure, unsubstantiated opinion out of it; citing facts that are not, and were not ever facts at all is for other threads. Making extrapolations based on actual facts could be okay, but they have to be FACTS, and data supports no missiles, & no WMD, all you have are statements by officials that turned out to be incorrect.


The hardline Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:32 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
how about we don't let this thread devolve into a pointless "No he didn't!" "Yes he did!" spat with him?

Sounds good to me. I shall not be spattish here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:34 PM

SWISH


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Hi RUE (pick a fucking side) how ya been?

See, the point of an "unbiased" statement is that you don't pick a side. But the bagel down and think, son.

BTW Chris, I was thinking of doing a similar thing as this thread back before the election, mostly regarding Palin. I was challenging myself to argue both sides with her, just to see if I could handle it. I wanted to start a thread seeing if other folks could manage similar things, but I'm just not online enough to follow through with such a venture.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:38 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


ChrisIsAll

The global warming report Rap linked is a political report drafted by US Senate republicans.

Out of curiosity, I checked the list of supposed scientists. Many are TV weathermen, doctors, or scientists in unrelated fields. To me, that attempt to inflate numbers is ethically challenged. And that it was drafted by politicians of one party makes it partisan in the extreme. It look more like a propaganda attempt.

I estimate the number of genuine experts to be 20 - 30.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:41 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


swish,

what you and others fail to acknowledge, either by intent or sheer ignorance, is that I always bring evidence to back up a specific claim. Like above, where I post , w/ link , a line from declassified CIA papers, per the NIE findings in '02. This, in conjunction with qutoes by George Tenet and William Cohen, along w/ quote from Dem leaders from as far back as '98 ,that I've often posted, show a clear sign of acceptance by generally everyone in our Gov. that Saddam wasn't living up to his UN agreements, and that we weren't going to allow this to continue.

But of course, you're right about 1 thing, that the pile of bones which use to be the whipping horse isn't going to rise again.

I too am for putting it all to rest.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:42 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
Hi RUE (pick a fucking side) how ya been?

See, the point of an "unbiased" statement is that you don't pick a side. But the bagel down and think, son.

BTW Chris, I was thinking of doing a similar thing as this thread back before the election, mostly regarding Palin. I was challenging myself to argue both sides with her, just to see if I could handle it. I wanted to start a thread seeing if other folks could manage similar things, but I'm just not online enough to follow through with such a venture.


Now you want "unbiased"?! Have a bagel!!!!

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:42 PM

SWISH


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
swish,

what you and others fail to acknowledge, either by intent or sheer ignorance, is that I always bring evidence to back up a specific claim.

You can invite all you want, but I ain't dancing Rap. Done this step too many times.

Have a nice day.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
ChrisIsAll

The global warming report Rap linked is a political report drafted by US Senate republicans.

Out of curiosity, I checked the list of supposed scientists. Many are TV weathermen, doctors, or scientists in unrelated fields. To me, that attempt to inflate numbers is ethically challenged. And that it was drafted by politicians of one party makes it partisan in the extreme. It look more like a propaganda attempt.

I estimate the number of genuine experts to be 20 - 30.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.




Rue, I'd bet there are more real scientist, in real related fields against man made Global warming than for it.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever

One of Rue's " weathermen" ? ?



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


swish,

Of course you won't dance, because dancing would force exposure of fraud on your part.

I understand.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 1:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


BTW - thinking about global warming per se -
it is a fact that CO2 and methane are a greenhouse gases, and it is a fact that atmospheric CO2 and methane levels have been rising over the decades. It's also a fact that Antarctic ice cores reveal that CO2 and methane levels are at the highest they've been in 800,000 years ("Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases" - "The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm," Brook said in the report. "The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand."). There is also an increase in soot levels (which deposit on snow and ice and cause it to melt, decreasing the earth's albedo).

However, there is an increase in SO2 levels from fuel combustion which decreases the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. SO2 released from China is thought to be a temporary mitigating factor in global warming. SO2 has two opposing effects - if it's high up enough in the atmosphere (stratosphere) it can cause cooling, but at any elevation in the atmosphere, by decreasing sunlight it causes plants to take up less CO2.

Overall, however, global warming is expected to be the dominant factor. The decrease of sunlight reaching the earth is thought to ultimately reduce the ability of plants to absorb CO2, as well as reduce food production.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:01 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
BTW - thinking about global warming per se -
it is a fact that CO2 and methane are a greenhouse gases, and it is a fact that atmospheric CO2 and methane levels have been rising over the decades. It's also a fact that Antarctic ice cores reveal that CO2 and methane levels are at the highest they've been in 800,000 years ("Ice Cores Reveal Fluctuations In Earth's Greenhouse Gases" - "The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm," Brook said in the report. "The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand."). There is also an increase in soot levels (which deposit on snow and ice and cause it to melt, decreasing the earth's albedo).

However, there is an increase in SO2 levels from fuel combustion which decreases the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. SO2 released from China is thought to be a mitigating factor in global warming.

Overall, however, global warming is expected to be the dominant factor. The decrease of sunlight reaching the earth is thought to ultimately reduce the ability of plants to absorb CO2, as well as reduce food production.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Methane = Cow Farts. Ban Cows!.......moo

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:12 PM

SWISH


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
swish,

Of course you won't dance, because dancing would force exposure of fraud on your part.

I understand.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Ahhhh, don't be bitter, sweetheart. Just sit in the corner and try and look pretty. I'm sure someone will take up your invite eventually.


***jumps onto dancefloor and shakes ass***

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'd bet there are more real scientist, in real related fields against man made Global warming than for it.
Mmmm?? Really? How much? Please PM me to settle on an amount and payment terms. Thanks!


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:33 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

I'd bet there are more real scientist, in real related fields against man made Global warming than for it.
Mmmm?? Really? How much?


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

It's snowing down south, much of New England has no power because of an ice storm, time for YOU to prove you're point!

I'm going microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:35 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:

***jumps onto dancefloor and shakes ass***




* points and laughs *

Ha - ha! Made ya dance!



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 2:44 PM

SWISH


Choosing dance partner pointedly...

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?



R: Sarah Palin is the End of the Democratic party.
L: Sarah Palin is the Devil in high heels.

Sarah Palin provided much needed energy to a party on the outs. Though many of her views were controversial and her political history invited criticism, she had the personality and strength of character to win the respect and admiration of many of her own party.

[Edited a bit because it was too Palin positive. I'm still not satisfied.]

(Don't be too sad, Rap. I'm sure some hard-up desparado will come along some and take your offer up. How bout you post more of those rightwingnews articles? That seems to entice them well...)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA


He doesn't want a reasoned debate, folks - he never really did.

All he wants is to howl his pathetic fantasies to a bunch of nameless nobodies on an internet forum since no actual person will put up with him or his nastiness without the very real threat of a boot up the ass, and I *been* tellin you that from get-go.

As such, there's really no point in talking to him, if there ever was - and y'all should quit feeding his desperate need for attention since all it does is validate his precious little persecution complex and spawn more verbal filth from him.

Nastiness, I can take, actual and direct attempts to threadwreck or smash reasoned debate, I find unacceptable.

Consider yourself killfiled, Rap, I gave you every single possible chance, but enough is enough, you wanna be a goddamned troll, you can fall into the killfile buffer with the rest of em.

Good Bye, and Good Riddance.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 3:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA


A - Politicians: They're all bad.

B - Climate: Don't crap where you live.

C - Healthcare: Crummy is better than none.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 5:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


A - Politicians: They're all bad. (Except the good ones - like YOU ! )

B - Climate: Don't crap where you live. (I agree.)

C - Healthcare: Crummy is better than none. (But good is better than crummy.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 12, 2008 7:17 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:


Objective analysis of partisan arguments & talking points (hopefully)
CHRISISALL



Thanks, a step in the right direction


Quote:


R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.



Don't confuse G.W.Bush with the right overall. Talking points in defense of the administration in power are often parrotted by the side that supported the bastard, like Bush, like Clinton, because they are afraid of losing power.

That said, I think they sincerely believed in the WMDs. Here's why
a) Rummy had been there to deliver them
b) More importantly, it's a terrible excuse for war. If they were making it up, they would have thought of something better.


Quote:


R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.

Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.



Bush is a man of no power. His advisors deeply believe they are doing what is best for the world, if not the country. Their machiavellian faith in an unshakeable greater good makes them as close to evil as my religion will allow. Since I don't believe in good and evil, I will just say that they are karmically very off balance and far from the path.

Quote:


R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.



Obama plays the game. He's clean enough to be selected as a candidate. They didn't run Blagojevich.

Quote:


R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.



This moderation is good, I would go much further on this. The cause of global warming is the increase in co2, but almost none of that is coming from people driving cars. Statistically, the Taiga arctic forest, by itself, consumes more co2 each year than the entire production of human-related emissions. This is a very definitive indicator that something is happening, someplace that's else. The real cause of the co2 spike is deforestation

The runaway scenario is nonsense. The move from 300ish to 600ish ppm is nothing compared to historical spikes as high as 7700 ppm which failed to end life on earth, or even hinder it. It would, however, create total chaos. A spike half this size is sufficient to cause massive human relocations and spark wars more than adequate to completely destroy civilization. It's a little known detail that the stone age 10,000 years ago was not a starting point, but a low point. Civilization, evidence continually indicates, is far older, but the end of the last ice age cause such an upheaval, and that destroyed almost all trace of civilization. So, it is an issue for concern, but not one for panic.

Quote:

How are we doing so far? Wanna throw some in? Wanna challenge the ones I put up?

I'm actually lookin' to see where left & right can come to some simple, calm agreement on seperatin' fact from opinion.



Abortion: No one supports it, except in the case of life of the mother, so, health children being a burden is the real reason for most abortions.
L: Abortion is a right
R: Abortion is murder

Compromise: Legislation is probably not the answer, the right should discourage the practice by creating a more effective adoption system, one that perhaps compensates the mother for the inconvenience, as is often done in the developing, particularly catholic, world. The nation is full of childless wealthy stable couples who just waited too late, and poor people who have children they neither want nor can take care of. Not suggesting a govt. intervention, or population redistribution, simply stop fighting the legal battle against roe v. wade and do something about the problem. My guess is that you can reduce the number of abortions more by actually doing something constructive than you would by making it illegal (afterall, govt. bans on drugs, assault rifles etc. have been sooo effective.)



Quote:

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN
L) A national socialized medical system is needed now to provide all citizens with equal care, and to insure citizens against insurance abuses rendered on a daily basis.

R) A national socialized medical system is economically impossible, could never be implemented effeciently, and will make things worse.


Data: The debt of the US cannot be sustained, and another program would only hasten eventual collapse. Additionally, data shows that wealthy citizens in countries with socialized medical programs travel here for treatment rather than stand in line for care at home. In some rare cases, un-wealthy terminal patients have died standing in line waiting.



Blue Sun, IMHO, that wasn't a compromise, that was the right position. While I basically agree, I want to do it Chris' way:

I think that I represent the right here when I say it's not that it can't work, it's that world wide it doesn't. But I have no objection to having both systems: Simple: Expand the VA to include the poor. Have both systems side by side: one cheap, govt. run, and subsidized with the money saved by negotiating with drug companies for prices, and the other, private sector.

This is not a truly radical idea, this is exactly how it is done in the UK: The effect, socialized medicine in the UK still sucks, but it is a lot better than it is other places, because competition with the private sector demands quality improvements. Meanwhile, the private sector medicine has to keep costs low, because it has to compete with the public health for prices.

Here's some data, which doesn't support any of these positions: Statistically, the best healthcare system in the world is Indian Ayurvedic traditional medicine, and the worst is the former soviet union system, according to a recent UN/WHO study.

Quote:


Would everyone please take a break from the political stuff for a moment. I'm trying to make a fan film and need canon help.
Go to my thread in Firefly--Immediate Assistance and answer my canon questions gorramit!



Awesome! An excuse to rewatch the series!

Quote:


AURAPTOR
Three point,...four hour,...should do it.

Friday, December 12, 2008 - 13:20

There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone. In fact, there's every bit of evidence to suggest the exact opposite. ( See 9/11 Commission , '04 and '06 Congressional Hearings on WMD )

CIA Release of NIE, October 2002: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions. If left unchecked it probably will have a nuclear weapon within this decade. http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html

i wouldn't go as far as to call Bush a GREAT leader. Hell, he's subverting the will of his own party by bailing out the UAW and the BIG 3 Auto makers, simply to save his legacy. Bravo.

Too early to tell about Obama. We elected a complete unknown.

650 Scientist come out against manmade global warming. Somebody better tell AlGore ! http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conte
ntRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6





Here's a misfact. Auraptor. I will not argue this misfact, it's a waste of time. You wasted more time composing it.
You're probably right, Bush probably believed, but as I said, it was a stupid reason for war.
The administration misled the public countless times because it wanted the war. My guess is it was the money, the war spending.
But arguing this is like arguing that Wiley Coyote had no intention of killing Road Runner because he failed. The intend was obvious.
Enough said. We can disagree, but lets try to move forward.

Quote:


Rue- Not bad! Fact-based, non-confrontational...I can deal!



My apologies to Rue, I'll have to go back and re-read. It was long and I expected it to be overly left, and skipped it (oops) But, admit it, that's honesty for you, I'll read it on the next pass.

Quote:


The bias comes in stressing one side aspect of the US health care system as if that defines it entirely. Wealthy foreigners who come here for health care are not having the same experience as the average American, ie they are wealthy and not at the mercy of their HMO.



Another fact: The US medical system has a rating of zero, meaning that seeking medical care has no statistical advantage over not doing so.
Socialized medicine worldwide has a net negative effect, up to -10% chance of survival. Canada and Sweden are +3% or so, but so are free market systems like Korea.

Quote:


SWISH

Hey - I have a novel idea. Since Rap always shows up spouting this same blind madness, how about we don't let this thread devolve into a pointless "No he didn't!" "Yes he did!" spat with him? It seem that every thread I check into here turns into a Rap name-calling argument. It does derail more interesting conversations.

Just a suggestion.

ETA: I'm referring to this: "There is no data which objectively suggest that Bush intentionally mislead anyone." This horse corpse has been beaten folks. Nothing but bone. She ain't gonna run again!



Or, we could just suggest that Auraptor attempt to be more objective and self analytical, as we all should.

Quote:


Originally posted by whozit:
Hi RUE (pick a fucking side) how ya been?

See, the point of an "unbiased" statement is that you don't pick a side. But the bagel down and think, son.

BTW Chris, I was thinking of doing a similar thing as this thread back before the election, mostly regarding Palin. I was challenging myself to argue both sides with her, just to see if I could handle it. I wanted to start a thread seeing if other folks could manage similar things, but I'm just not online enough to follow through with such a venture.



Lol. Palin. The Palin girls should be available as "companions"

Ok, I'm going to sleep at this point. There seems to be a lot of back and forth on the same points. let's try to be succinct.

Here are some ideas.

1. Let the left define itself and and define the positions of the left, and then let the right do the same for the right. I think that having the left and right define each other has led already to some radical misrepresentation.

Here's another fact: When the co2 level has spiked in the distant past, even to 7700, it failed to melt the polar ice caps. Any event like this should take other events into consideration, like desertification and the effect that has on wind currents, pressure zones and possibly ocean currents.

I'll read Rue's stuff later

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:34 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


I think they sincerely believed in the WMDs. Here's why
a) Rummy had been there to deliver them
b) More importantly, it's a terrible excuse for war. If they were making it up, they would have thought of something better.



That's the best argument for it not being an actual *lie* that I've seen- I must downgrade my take as being "Available data indicates he unintentionally misled the people concerning WMD, believing the flimsy & uncompelling evidence to be factual, with the confidence that some would be actually found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq."


The reconsidering Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:31 PM

DREAMTROVE


Thanks. I still oppose his decision to go to war, I oppose a lot of the stuff the neo crowd does, but it's startling the degree to which they actually believe in what they're doing.

Sure, they lie, but most of it is cya.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:58 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.



Bullshit

Quote:

R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.



Sure... if you live in a vacuum of black and white.

Quote:

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.


Available data, meaning the media outlets none of us really trust 100%, right?

I do believe that it was known that there were no WMD's and a game of Wag the Dog was played on all of us, but I'm not convinced that Bush even knew about how he was being used, let alone my complete inability to wrap my head around the concept that he masterminded anything of that scale.

Quote:

R) Bush is a great man & leader.
L) Bush is evil.



It's really not a partisan decision unless you let it be....

Quote:

Available data indicates that Bush is doing what he truly believes is best for his country in the long run.


I think that is a subjective analysis of it, but I tend to agree with this. I don't agree with his idea of what is good for the country, but I do believe that he really does have that in mind even though he's been lead so far astray...

Quote:

R) Obama is dirty.
L) Obama is clean.



I have many reasons that I don't trust him, at least anymore than I trust Bush, or McCain, or Big Brother, or Peter Francis Geracie. Nothing that has happend in the last week gives any weight in that decision. I'm still stuck on why the Governer really got called out now. I just don't buy that it was the Republicans that did it to make Obama look bad. We've all seen enough M Knight Shamalamadingdong's movies to know that the evil Republicans exploiting the people with an obvious lie at this point is highly suspect, if not completely trite and unoriginal.

No.... I think Obama will be a martyr here.

Quote:

Available data indicates that while Obama has had intimate contact with many questionable peeps, this is by no means uncommon, and actually a necessary part of a politician's daily life. No data concerning corrupt acts perped by the President elect himself exists at this point.


They're all dirty man. Some people we dig a lot further to prove are dirty though.

Quote:

R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.



I do hope you're joking now, or just pointing out what "they" want us to think, cause if you really paint it this black and white I'm starting to find this post very condesending.

Quote:

Available data suggests a pro-active attitude concerning the world's dwindling food supply, as climate change is having severe effects already, however, end-of-the-world scenarios are a bit premature as well as counter-productive to attending to the problem as it exists today.


I thought about stuff like that when I was a kid and even remember asking adults questions about what would happen in the future when there is no more room to throw away garbage and what if oil ran out, but they all basically shrugged it off with a "don't worry about it" answer. When I was a kid, I thought that they meant that I was being silly and that would never happen. Now I realize that they were just talking to me like a kid and trying not to think to hard about the question I was asking.

We are messing it up, although I don't need any article or video by the "experts" telling me what is happening based on "theory". I know I throw too much crap away. I know I don't preserve water like I should. I know I don't recycle as thouroughly as I should do.

Bottom line, an end of the world scenario, as scary as it sounds, might be the only catalyst to get everyone on board and fast. How much alternative energy talk have you heard in the last week or two at 1.70 a gallon for gas? Don't we have an Auto bailout to think about now?





I am 6. I am neither Rethug nor Demon. Step outside of the lines.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA


*hands Jack his own neon green crayon*

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 3:27 AM

SWISH


R) The President did not lie concerning WMD.
L) The president lied about WMD.

Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD with the possible hope that some would be found eventually during/after the invasion of Iraq.


Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD because he believed that the real dangers he perceived in the US's future - increased reliance on the whims of OPEC and economic upheaval due to high oil prices - could be prevented by winning control of Iraq's oil. And if he happened to find WMDs in Iraq along the way - hey, bonus.


R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.


The danger isn't the destruction of the entire earth, but the "small" changes in climate which could cause great upheavals. The Dark Ages were largely due to the Little Ice Age - a drop of about 1 degree C. It didn't kill off the earth in any way, just destroyed the food supply in Europe and led to centuries of plague and famine, as people could not adapt to changing conditions.

My point: I disagree with the statement of the left's opinion, that climate change will destroy us. I don't hear any actual lefty saying that, just the righties using strawmen.

On the other hand, I have hear many righties say the there is NO climate change. So that I don't think is a strawman.

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Abortion: No one supports it, except in the case of life of the mother, so, health children being a burden is the real reason for most abortions.
L: Abortion is a right
R: Abortion is murder

Compromise: Legislation is probably not the answer, the right should discourage the practice by...

I agree with what you're saying, but would work in one fact: Data shows that abortions will happen whether legal or not.


Quote:

Here's a misfact. Auraptor. I will not argue this misfact, it's a waste of time. You wasted more time composing it.
Unless he manages to make this thread spire into the abyss of useless bickering focused all on his glorious self. I think he considers his time well spent if he can make that happen.


Quote:

Another fact: The US medical system has a rating of zero, meaning that seeking medical care has no statistical advantage over not doing so.
Socialized medicine worldwide has a net negative effect, up to -10% chance of survival. Canada and Sweden are +3% or so, but so are free market systems like Korea.

Interesting. Almost laughable, if it wasn't so terrible. Where'd these numbers come from?

Quote:

Or, we could just suggest that Auraptor attempt to be more objective and self analytical, as we all should.
It's been tried. Again and again. No point. Hence my advice: don't even try. It ruins each thread. They all become Rap-vitriol focused.

Rapvitriol. Sounds like a new drug LOL!


Quote:

1. Let the left define itself and and define the positions of the left, and then let the right do the same for the right. I think that having the left and right define each other has led already to some radical misrepresentation.
I disagree. The internet is full of the left defining the left and the right defining the right. The world is full of it, and it goes no where because one doesn't listen to the other. It's much more enlightening to try to walk in the other side's shoes.

I feel like many of the debates I've lurked through here are stuck in misrepresentations of each side. Seems useful to bring these assumptions to light. Like in debate - you have to be able to argue both sides to truly understand an issue, right?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:11 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Here's some data, which doesn't support any of these positions: Statistically, the best healthcare system in the world is Indian Ayurvedic traditional medicine, and the worst is the former soviet union system, according to a recent UN/WHO study.



Is Ayurvedic traditional medicine a healthcare system of the kind we are talking about, as in who pays for its cost? I always thought it was a particular kind of medical care/philosophy.


Quote:


Another fact: The US medical system has a rating of zero, meaning that seeking medical care has no statistical advantage over not doing so.
Socialized medicine worldwide has a net negative effect, up to -10% chance of survival. Canada and Sweden are +3% or so, but so are free market systems like Korea.



That's very interesting! Where are these numbers coming from? :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:45 AM

SWISH


R) No such a thing as Global Warming.
L) Global climate change threatens to destroy us.


I forgot... my factual statement would be:

Given the complex and chaotic (as in, not mathematically predictable) nature of the climate, it is currently impossible to conclusively prove or disprove climate change. However, observations of atmospheric pollutants and global temperature trends suggest that human activity could be having an effect on the climate. As even a small change could do such great damage to world economies and societies, the concensus of those setting environmental policies is shifting toward taking action.

It's wordy. Oh well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 5:23 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by swish:


Available data indicates he intentionally misled the people concerning WMD because he believed that the real dangers he perceived in the US's future - increased reliance on the whims of OPEC and economic upheaval due to high oil prices - could be prevented by winning control of Iraq's oil. And if he happened to find WMDs in Iraq along the way - hey, bonus.



See, I happen to believe this in part, but I can't call it *fact*...I don't see any hard data that nails this down, just a lot of circumstantial stuff, and so I'd call this 'opinion'.


The technical Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 5:25 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is not to debate morality or to judge actions, but to establish simple fact as well as available data will permit.



Bullshit


SHUT UP, 6IX!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:13 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:


SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Abortion: No one supports it, except in the case of life of the mother, so, health children being a burden is the real reason for most abortions.
L: Abortion is a right
R: Abortion is murder

Compromise: Legislation is probably not the answer, the right should discourage the practice by...

I agree with what you're saying, but would work in one fact: Data shows that abortions will happen whether legal or not.



"a) not at the same rate, and b) that's not the point. My point is that the legal battle is probably the wrong one for everyone except for those who want to divide, those being the people in power.

Quote:


Quote:
Another fact: The US medical system has a rating of zero, meaning that seeking medical care has no statistical advantage over not doing so.
Socialized medicine worldwide has a net negative effect, up to -10% chance of survival. Canada and Sweden are +3% or so, but so are free market systems like Korea.

Interesting. Almost laughable, if it wasn't so terrible. Where'd these numbers come from?



The UN/WHO report on international healthcare systems. Ayurvedics ranked first, and Russia ranked last.

Quote:


Quote:
1. Let the left define itself and and define the positions of the left, and then let the right do the same for the right. I think that having the left and right define each other has led already to some radical misrepresentation.

I disagree. The internet is full of the left defining the left and the right defining the right. The world is full of it, and it goes no where because one doesn't listen to the other. It's much more enlightening to try to walk in the other side's shoes.



The alternative is just manipulative partisan BS 95% of the time. Almost no one is objective, but worse, most people don't even understand the opposition position. This thread is littered with misinterpretations.

Quote:


I feel like many of the debates I've lurked through here are stuck in misrepresentations of each side. Seems useful to bring these assumptions to light. Like in debate - you have to be able to argue both sides to truly understand an issue, right?



A debate starts when two different parties define their positions. If one party defines both sides, then it's a farce.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:23 AM

DREAMTROVE


The UN does fascinating reports each year on statistics for each nation, such as life expectancy, quality of life, real purchasing power of take home income, etc. The healthcare rating is based on a basic "no treatment" statistic which is "80% of all people who have a life threatening condition recover if they receive no care" and so, if in Russia, those who do seek treatment have a 70% recovery rate, then that's a -10%. The US used to be at 82%, or +2%, but it has slipped.

The death totals are roughly the same now as well. In the US, about 1 million people are estimated to survive because they sought treatment, and around 900,000 die who wouldn't have, because they sought treatment.

Still, this can't be applied blanketly: Not all conditions are equal. Appendicitis, you should probably go to the hospital. There are a lot of things that we think of as "definites," which probably are to be avoided.

Roughly 300,000 unnecessary deaths are attributed to "clerical error" wrong surgery, wrong medication, etc. Drug reactions to intentionally perscribed medications are a big part of the 900k, and on-site infections gotten in the hospital are a large part. The single largest statistical killed in the hospital is anaesthetic overdose or reaction in the surgery.

If you must have surgery, you should probably skip the anaesthesia. If you can't handle the pain, sorry, evolution might have just selected you out :)

I personally have had a lot of major surgery, and I'm very conscious of the need of people to maintain the right over treatment options. If I didn't have that right, and had taken the recommended course, I wouldn't be sending this message. I would be dead three times over. Possibly four, but definitely at least three.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL