The Energon Pub

Jar Axel wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:I don't. Which is why I requested thay you don't either. Otherwise, as I said, you would have lost all credibility.

So if I'm listening to Mike Church and he has as his guest a scientist who actually works in the field come on and talk about his research that research is somehow incredible just because I'm listening to a right wing talk show?

I have no idea who Mike Church is. No, I wouldn't say it's incredible, not until I heard what the scientist had to say. The if he has proof of his argument, then I will believe him. But if this Mike Church, a talk show host< were to present the same argument, I would not believe him.

Thanks. As someone who's really on the fence about this, I needed some sources that were unbiased.

You haven't been trying very hard have you? I'll tell you what though... I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but Climatedepot.com supposedly has a report concerning the only experiment to prove/disprove the green house effect in a lab.

No, I have been trying, but it usually ends up in an uncontrolled argument involving people who want to prove they're right, no matter what they have to say, and try to discredit the other side, by any way they can, regardless of whether they have a valid point or not. Global warming seems to be one of these issues. Abortion is another. People are just not willing to listen to others anymore. Others who have a legitimate argument to make on either side and can back it up with facts. Not just stuff they heard and appealed to them.

Rodimus thats how a debate works; you attempt to discredit your oppents points and destroy their validity. The problem comes when you have people who ignore reality to do so eg: the repeated and unfounded attacks against former President Bush.

Jar Axel wrote:Rodimus thats how a debate works; you attempt to discredit your oppents points and destroy their validity.

Right. I was saying that attempting to discredit someone's point of view without actual facts and evidence is what leads to pointless and baseless accusations and arguing.

The problem comes when you have people who ignore reality to do so eg: the repeated and unfounded attacks against former President Bush.

What attacks are you speaking of?

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Rodimus thats how a debate works; you attempt to discredit your oppents points and destroy their validity.

Right. I was saying that attempting to discredit someone's point of view without actual facts and evidence is what leads to pointless and baseless accusations and arguing.

Than you should have been more clear in your wording. Your statement was worded that it was bad irregardless.

The problem comes when you have people who ignore reality to do so eg: the repeated and unfounded attacks against former President Bush.

What attacks are you speaking of?

The majority of them; The media (even Fox) has a way of "twisting the facts" to support their own political ideology*. Hell most of what I dislike about the man the "left" sees as good.


*A good example of this is the claim that the "water boarding" we performed on three high value detainees was a violation of international law and tantamount to the "water boarding" performed by the WWII Japanese. The claim is false on both counts.

Jar Axel wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Rodimus thats how a debate works; you attempt to discredit your oppents points and destroy their validity.

Right. I was saying that attempting to discredit someone's point of view without actual facts and evidence is what leads to pointless and baseless accusations and arguing.

Than you should have been more clear in your wording. Your statement was worded that it was bad irregardless.

Your interpretation of English text is not my concern.

The problem comes when you have people who ignore reality to do so eg: the repeated and unfounded attacks against former President Bush.

What attacks are you speaking of?

The majority of them; The media (even Fox) has a way of "twisting the facts" to support their own political ideology*. Hell most of what I dislike about the man the "left" sees as good.

Of course. It's called sensationalism. They look out for themselves alone, regardless of which side of the issue they stand on.

*A good example of this is the claim that the "water boarding" we performed on three high value detainees was a violation of international law and tantamount to the "water boarding" performed by the WWII Japanese. The claim is false on both counts.

You know this how? Were you in the room?

For the record, I really don't have a problem with waterboarding, or any other form of torture used on these scumbags. Any time I get the urge to say "hey, that's wrong" I just think of the World Trade Center.

However, George Bush has done plenty wrong here at home. Look at the economy's state right now. How much more money would this country have if he hadn't spent it on the war in Iraq? One that was completely unnecessary? The economy wouldn't be in such a bad shape either.

The war in Afghanistan is absolutely appropriate, but if it was handled right by the Bush administration, it would be over by now. But I guess Rummy and Cheney couldn't figure out who should get more credit, and George was left holding the bag.

You know this how? Were you in the room?

We know know how the water boarding was done from the guidelines set forth for the procedure.

However, George Bush has done plenty wrong here at home. Look at the economy's state right now.

You need to substantiate your claim that any Bush's doings had anything to do with the current economy. Because I can point right to the community reinvestment act which was passed under and signed by William (BJ) Jefferson Clinton.

How much more money would this country have if he hadn't spent it on the war in Iraq? One that was completely unnecessary? The economy wouldn't be in such a bad shape either.

You do know that war is good for economies right? Also It bears stating that more than half of the supposed cost of the war was spent on earmarks completely unrelated to national defence. It should also be noted that the violation of a treaty of peace is an act of war we should have by all means been back over there under Clinton.

The war in Afghanistan is absolutely appropriate, but if it was handled right by the Bush administration, it would be over by now. But I guess Rummy and Cheney couldn't figure out who should get more credit, and George was left holding the bag.

The difficulties we have encountered in Afghanistan are due in large part to the nature of the enemy which is a difficult one to combat indeed. The fact that we have been hampered by ridiculous rules of engagement has also served to make it nearly impossible to oust this enemy and until these rules are disregarded the Taliban will continue to be a thorn in the side of peace in the middle east.

Jar Axel wrote:

You know this how? Were you in the room?

We know know how the water boarding was done from the guidelines set forth for the procedure.

That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about when and if it was done, not how.

]However, George Bush has done plenty wrong here at home. Look at the economy's state right now.

You need to substantiate your claim that any Bush's doings had anything to do with the current economy. Because I can point right to the community reinvestment act which was passed under and signed by William (BJ) Jefferson Clinton.

Yes. Clinton. I guess he's as easy a target as Bush is, though not for his lack of smart thinking. Anyway, to substantiate. Bill Clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. To be kept and used wisely in a time of economic hardship. (Now.) What did the Bush administration do with it?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC ... n.surplus/

Tax revenue was high, people were working. The the Bush administration began giving away the tax money to his friends and his father's friends, and decided to make up for it by changing the laws for compnaies. Thus killing small business, driving jobs out of the country, and driving up unemployment. When Bush took office national unemploymnt was 4.2 percent. Now it's 9. More than double. War helps the economy?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

How much more money would this country have if he hadn't spent it on the war in Iraq? One that was completely unnecessary? The economy wouldn't be in such a bad shape either.

You do know that war is good for economies right?

The economy was fine before the war started. Look at it now. Bush's 8 years in office tore this country down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a Democratic side, they were no help either. But Bush was (supposedly) in charge, so it's his administration's responsibility.

Also It bears stating that more than half of the supposed cost of the war was spent on earmarks completely unrelated to national defence.

Another of George Bush's blunders. Why had he allowed that?

It should also be noted that the violation of a treaty of peace is an act of war we should have by all means been back over there under Clinton.

Agreed. So let's go nuke the North Koreans.

The war in Afghanistan is absolutely appropriate, but if it was handled right by the Bush administration, it would be over by now. But I guess Rummy and Cheney couldn't figure out who should get more credit, and George was left holding the bag.

The difficulties we have encountered in Afghanistan are due in large part to the nature of the enemy which is a difficult one to combat indeed. The fact that we have been hampered by ridiculous rules of engagement has also served to make it nearly impossible to oust this enemy and until these rules are disregarded the Taliban will continue to be a thorn in the side of peace in the middle east.

Yeah, it is true the Taliban is a different sort of combatant. Closest to them are the Viet Cong. The United States military has been in open active combat over there over 6 years now. With resources avaliable (or, available at the time of invasion) the military, if it were under proper guidance, would have defeated, if not eliminated, this threat. Rules of engagement to me are an excuse. If the USA is bound by some accord it signed, then it should abide by it, though I am in favor of stretching its allowances to the maximum. The Taliban does not fight by certain rules. Why should we? Nonetheless, the war was mishandled by the Bush administration because of greed and the need to look tough. I was under the impression everyone in the world knew the United States was tough. The Bush administration owes this country, and the world, an clear explanation of why the United States is in Iraq. Eliminating Saddam Hussein only did Iran a favor. Now they can run rampant over there. And that "they have weapons of mass destruction" garbage is not an excuse.

Yes. Clinton. I guess he's as easy a target as Bush is, though not for his lack of smart thinking. Anyway, to substantiate. Bill Clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. To be kept and used wisely in a time of economic hardship. (Now.) What did the Bush administration do with it?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC ... n.surplus/

How kind of you to post a widely discredited article full of misstatements and political propaganda from a very left wing news source with ties to the Clinton's and owned by Ted Turner; it's not referred too as the "Clinton News Network" for nothing.

The reason we had a budget surplus at that time had nothing to do with Clinton, but was instead the result of a conservative Congress which passed both budget reforms as well as welfare reforms. It is unfortunate that many of those same Congressmen and Senators later reversed course under Bush and have been responsible for much of the wasteful spending of the past eight years.

Tax revenue was high, people were working. The the Bush administration began giving away the tax money to his friends and his father's friends, and decided to make up for it by changing the laws for compnaies. Thus killing small business, driving jobs out of the country, and driving up unemployment. When Bush took office national unemploymnt was 4.2 percent. Now it's 9. More than double. War helps the economy?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Income Tax revenue was not high, property tax revenue however was. Jobs were leaving the country in droves under Clinton and his high tax rates why no word about that? The simple fact of the matter is that even with Bush's much decried tax cuts America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world; why the hell would businesses want to stay? Also you seem to ignore the fact that we were in an economic boom, a bubble if you will, for the first six years of Bush's term it wasn't until the Dem's took back control of congress that we started the slide into a recession.

Another of George Bush's blunders. Why had he allowed that?

I don't like it either, but would you have preferred he leave our troops defenceless from lack of funding?

Agreed. So let's go nuke the North Koreans.

Remove Kim Jong Ill from power yes, nuke the country no. That would make us no better than Ill, Saddam, or Achmadenijad. Something certainly needs to be done about North Korea; unfortunately thanks to the massive spending we have undergone in the last two decades we are not in a position to deal favorably with China if action must be taken against their longest standing ally. We must instead wait until the Ill simply pushes China too far and then work with China to eliminate the threat which most likely means another communist regime and a repeat of the process further down the road.

Yeah, it is true the Taliban is a different sort of combatant. Closest to them are the Viet Cong. The United States military has been in open active combat over there over 6 years now. With resources avaliable (or, available at the time of invasion) the military, if it were under proper guidance, would have defeated, if not eliminated, this threat. Rules of engagement to me are an excuse. If the USA is bound by some accord it signed, then it should abide by it, though I am in favor of stretching its allowances to the maximum. The Taliban does not fight by certain rules. Why should we? Nonetheless, the war was mishandled by the Bush administration because of greed and the need to look tough. I was under the impression everyone in the world knew the United States was tough. The Bush administration owes this country, and the world, an clear explanation of why the United States is in Iraq. Eliminating Saddam Hussein only did Iran a favor. Now they can run rampant over there. And that "they have weapons of mass destruction" garbage is not an excuse.

Apparently because the international community says we have too and since Bush didn't have the balls to tell them to **** off we have to do stupid things like stop fighting and respect their prayer time (something they don't even do for each other) and fight them with equivalent (or nonexecive) force.

We went into Iran believing that Saddam had WMDs and the capacity to make more. This was indeed the case as we found several cashes of chem weapons like sarin gas (explained away as old and Saddam just forgot to dispose of it) and yellow cake uranium (explained away as being perfectly legal except Saddam just wasn't supposed to have it). So whether or not there were any WMDs simply depends on you POV.
Also the claim that the only people we did a favor to are the Iranian elite is one that is blatantly false. The Iraqi people have had a huge benefit from Saddam's removal such as O for example FREEDOM

Jar Axel wrote:

Yes. Clinton. I guess he's as easy a target as Bush is, though not for his lack of smart thinking. Anyway, to substantiate. Bill Clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. To be kept and used wisely in a time of economic hardship. (Now.) What did the Bush administration do with it?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITIC ... n.surplus/

How kind of you to post a widely discredited article full of misstatements and political propaganda from a very left wing news source with ties to the Clinton's and owned by Ted Turner; it's not referred too as the "Clinton News Network" for nothing.

At least I am posting something to back up what I am saying. You?

The reason we had a budget surplus at that time had nothing to do with Clinton, but was instead the result of a conservative Congress which passed both budget reforms as well as welfare reforms. It is unfortunate that many of those same Congressmen and Senators later reversed course under Bush and have been responsible for much of the wasteful spending of the past eight years.

I do not agree with tax and spend it's kind of a stupid thing to do. But I do not for one second believe the Gingrich and his cronies are to be credited for the 90s. Other than wasting millions of dollars to persecute Bill Clinton for anything they could, because he made all of them look bad.

Tax revenue was high, people were working. The the Bush administration began giving away the tax money to his friends and his father's friends, and decided to make up for it by changing the laws for compnaies. Thus killing small business, driving jobs out of the country, and driving up unemployment. When Bush took office national unemploymnt was 4.2 percent. Now it's 9. More than double. War helps the economy?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Income Tax revenue was not high, property tax revenue however was. Jobs were leaving the country in droves under Clinton and his high tax rates why no word about that? The simple fact of the matter is that even with Bush's much decried tax cuts America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world; why the hell would businesses want to stay? Also you seem to ignore the fact that we were in an economic boom, a bubble if you will, for the first six years of Bush's term it wasn't until the Dem's took back control of congress that we started the slide into a recession.

I didn't specify tax revenue, I was including income, property, sales, whatever. The slide into recession started at the end of 2007, because it was set up that way by Bush economics in the previous 4 years. Driving the prices of houses higher, cutting jobs and giving breaks to huge companies. I couldn't believe the profits iol companies raked in in the last few years. All because Bush let them. Unbelievable.

Another of George Bush's blunders. Why had he allowed that?

I don't like it either, but would you have preferred he leave our troops defenceless from lack of funding?

No, but it seems they're heading that way anyway. Have you heard some of the stories about inadequate armor to go along with the inadequate military intelligence?

Agreed. So let's go nuke the North Koreans.

Remove Kim Jong Ill from power yes, nuke the country no. That would make us no better than Ill, Saddam, or Achmadenijad. Something certainly needs to be done about North Korea; unfortunately thanks to the massive spending we have undergone in the last two decades we are not in a position to deal favorably with China if action must be taken against their longest standing ally. We must instead wait until the Ill simply pushes China too far and then work with China to eliminate the threat which most likely means another communist regime and a repeat of the process further down the road.

I was being a bit sarcastic about nuking them...

Anyway, I do believe we have to work together with China on this. Or, just wait until Kim Jong Il dies. His son might take over, but it might be better. Same as with Cuba. Raul Castro is not as much of an asshole as Fidel.

Yeah, it is true the Taliban is a different sort of combatant. Closest to them are the Viet Cong. The United States military has been in open active combat over there over 6 years now. With resources avaliable (or, available at the time of invasion) the military, if it were under proper guidance, would have defeated, if not eliminated, this threat. Rules of engagement to me are an excuse. If the USA is bound by some accord it signed, then it should abide by it, though I am in favor of stretching its allowances to the maximum. The Taliban does not fight by certain rules. Why should we? Nonetheless, the war was mishandled by the Bush administration because of greed and the need to look tough. I was under the impression everyone in the world knew the United States was tough. The Bush administration owes this country, and the world, an clear explanation of why the United States is in Iraq. Eliminating Saddam Hussein only did Iran a favor. Now they can run rampant over there. And that "they have weapons of mass destruction" garbage is not an excuse.

Apparently because the international community says we have too and since Bush didn't have the balls to tell them to **** off we have to do stupid things like stop fighting and respect their prayer time (something they don't even do for each other) and fight them with equivalent (or nonexecive) force.]/quote]

Yeah. Ridiculous.

We went into Iran believing that Saddam had WMDs and the capacity to make more. This was indeed the case as we found several cashes of chem weapons like sarin gas (explained away as old and Saddam just forgot to dispose of it) and yellow cake uranium (explained away as being perfectly legal except Saddam just wasn't supposed to have it). So whether or not there were any WMDs simply depends on you POV.
Also the claim that the only people we did a favor to are the Iranian elite is one that is blatantly false. The Iraqi people have had a huge benefit from Saddam's removal such as O for example FREEDOM

[/quote]

How are their lives better now than under Saddam? I mean, don't get me wrong, Saddam had to be taken out. But the Iraqis are still running in terror of suicide bombers, and being collateral damage from American attacks. But whatever. Truly, I could care less about Iraq.

At least I am posting something to back up what I am saying. You?

Posting a link to the very kind of polictaly slanted reporting you have already decried as wrong hardly counts as "something".

Did you even look up the community reinvestment act? Or did you just ignore it because I choose not to waste my time posting a bunch of links back and forth. When you actualy want to have a discussion let me know.

I do not agree with tax and spend it's kind of a stupid thing to do. But I do not for one second believe the Gingrich and his cronies are to be credited for the 90s. Other than wasting millions of dollars to persecute Bill Clinton for anything they could, because he made all of them look bad

Just because you suffer from fixated derangement syndrone* is no reason to ignore facts and not give credit where credit is due. Don't belive me? Than perhaps you should try looking through the public records provided by the National Archive rather than turning to politicaly biased news orginazations.

I didn't specify tax revenue, I was including income, property, sales, whatever. The slide into recession started at the end of 2007, because it was set up that way by Bush economics in the previous 4 years. Driving the prices of houses higher, cutting jobs and giving breaks to huge companies. I couldn't believe the profits iol companies raked in in the last few years. All because Bush let them. Unbelievable.

Several points here

#1 The fallout from the comunity reinvestment act was what caused the decline at the end of 07 (morgage defaults remember).

#2 The reason for the housing boom is again tied to the community reinvestment act which virtualy did away with loan requirments thus creating a greater demand for housing; add to this the increased average personal wealth we experinaced at the time and allow the laws of supply and demand to take over from there.

#3 What job cuttings? Most companies were hiring during that time due to increased profit growth.

#4 Higher profit margins mean not only more jobs but more R&D as well allowing companies to not only grow but improve there products.

#6 The Government has no legal authority to limit a companies profits.

#7 What do you have against profits anyway? You haven't been listening to those Keansien econemists who litteraly ignore hundreds of years of economic history to try and tell you profits are bad have you?

Jar Axel wrote:

At least I am posting something to back up what I am saying. You?

Posting a link to the very kind of polictaly slanted reporting you have already decried as wrong hardly counts as "something".

Did you even look up the community reinvestment act? Or did you just ignore it because I choose not to waste my time posting a bunch of links back and forth.

So you don't want to have a discussion backed up by facts and proof, because you know you can't win, taking the side of the most disastrous administration since Herbert Hoover's. You are now revealed as exactly what i thought you were, a raging right-wing nutjob. Therefore, this discussion is over.

When you actualy want to have a discussion let me know.

I just did.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:

At least I am posting something to back up what I am saying. You?

Posting a link to the very kind of polictaly slanted reporting you have already decried as wrong hardly counts as "something".

Did you even look up the community reinvestment act? Or did you just ignore it because I choose not to waste my time posting a bunch of links back and forth.

So you don't want to have a discussion backed up by facts and proof, because you know you can't win, taking the side of the most disastrous administration since Herbert Hoover's. You are now revealed as exactly what i thought you were, a raging right-wing nutjob. Therefore, this discussion is over.

When you actualy want to have a discussion let me know.

I just did.

Posting a bunch of links containg unsubstantiated political claims does not a disscusion make. Plus your last statement is a certainty of your compleate and total lack of knowledge concerning historical fact. Roosavelt's administration was far worse than hovers followed clossely ny Carter's and then Johnson's; Bush's administration does not come anywhere close to any of them yet he's tagged as so much worse.