Is Bush the worst President in recent time?

[SLCPUNK]

Here is another one from just 2 years ago.  http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html  Amazing how you claimed you couldn't find any but after 20 seconds on google I came up with hundreds of articles on thousands of pages.  I'm waiting for your doublespeak on this now. 

I read this, and want to ask you something..

What are you claiming this article is backing? What point? I'm curious.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I thought it was  clear.  This scientist is arguing that the world is getting colder while most activist argue the earth is getting warmer.  If it is so apparent that C02 is destroying the planet, why can't scientist agree in what way the earth is being destroyed?  Isn't it possible that just maybe people aren't sure what's going on?  Isn't just a tad possible that liberal joiners are being led by a few elites to spread a much wider agenda and global warming is working for them?  Conspiracy theories are a fad on this board and this is a one I buy into.  Elite socialists take advanatge of naieve joiners who march against global warming but bring 2000 other causes with them.

I'm not denying that global warming COULD be dangerous, but isn't the air we breathe cleaner now than it was 30 years ago?  Isn't it getting cleaner and as we adapt to newer fuel sources the pollution will be even more reduced.  I advocate a free market sollution to all pollution where we heavily tax companies that pollute and that money is used exclusively to repair damage associated with that pollution. ( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)  This would cause pollutive products to go up in cost and would require their producer's to find a cheaper way to make their product competitive.  Since all business desires to minimize costs and maximize profits, this system would do more for pollution than any government program or law.


It's not that I don't believe in global warming.  It's just that I don't believe that it will have the effect and outcome many of you share.  You made it a point to state that no "conservative" provided you with evidence that scientist at one time claimed global warming/pollution would lead to colder temps and an ice age.  I provided you with that link.  You're entitled to choose what data you believe, but don't deny that their is valid evidence that contradicts the outcomes you believe.

[Walk]

However, if regulations get too restrictive, the corporation will just give the government the middle finger and move the factory to China and pollute all they want.

[pilferk]

Why don't all you fucking arm-chair warriors that like Bush all sign up and get your ass sent over t o Iraq if you believe in this war and this President? Huh? Why not...No? Just content to sit back and "support" the troops and tie a yellow ribbon around your front tree and let the others do the fighting.

I'm sorry....I hadda laugh at your post.

Not because of the sentiment...

But because seeing a poster named "Richard Nixon" take Bush to task was just too amusing, and ironic, to not laugh.

Thanks for the chuckle!

[pilferk]

Who went personal first? ?Slow down when you read. ?I didn't take anything personal until you did first.

And you may not realize it, but you get beat around here like a red headed step child. ?Just because there are more liberals here than conservatives doesn't mean you win. ?

Me thinks your opinion on the matter might be a bit skewed.....OK, more than a bit.

Edit: Does SLC win every argument? No.? But I'd say he wins more than his fair share.? And not simply because I share many of his viewpoints....but because he tends to provide verifiable facts/proof/evidence during the discussion.? Many of those on the conservative side do not.? You can't win an arguement if you can't provide proof or evidence to support your side of the discussion, especially when making assertions like the ones I see made by the conservs.?

And when asked for proof, many of you seem to either ignore the request, or try to "poo poo" it.

[Charity Case]

Who went personal first? ?Slow down when you read. ?I didn't take anything personal until you did first.

And you may not realize it, but you get beat around here like a red headed step child. ?Just because there are more liberals here than conservatives doesn't mean you win. ?

Me thinks your opinion on the matter might be a bit skewed.....OK, more than a bit.

Certainly.

[Jamie]

( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)?

And it still hasn't been presented.

As for the articles, the first is rididculously dated, and refers to a period that has already passed without the incidences described happening. And even if there is opposition to the global warming theory, there is more than enough evidence to say there is truth within it. It needs to be researched none-the-less and something needs to be done. GW is doing the wrong thing ignoring it, his attitude seems to be, 'it's not 100% set in stone, it can be ignored', what if, like a huge portion of the scientific community claim, it is a realistic threat and does began to damage life on Earth in the next 100 hundred years, or however long it takes, and it's too late to be fixed? We need to do something about the threat before that time comes. Sure there is evidence backing up both sides claims, but if nothing happens, it will be fine, we can continue with our lives, but if something does happen, life on Earth ma just be wiped out

[SLCPUNK]

I thought it was  clear.  This scientist is arguing that the world is getting colder while most activist argue the earth is getting warmer.  If it is so apparent that C02 is destroying the planet, why can't scientist agree in what way the earth is being destroyed?  Isn't it possible that just maybe people aren't sure what's going on?  Isn't just a tad possible that liberal joiners are being led by a few elites to spread a much wider agenda and global warming is working for them?  Conspiracy theories are a fad on this board and this is a one I buy into.  Elite socialists take advanatge of naieve joiners who march against global warming but bring 2000 other causes with them.

I'm not denying that global warming COULD be dangerous, but isn't the air we breathe cleaner now than it was 30 years ago?  Isn't it getting cleaner and as we adapt to newer fuel sources the pollution will be even more reduced.  I advocate a free market sollution to all pollution where we heavily tax companies that pollute and that money is used exclusively to repair damage associated with that pollution. ( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)  This would cause pollutive products to go up in cost and would require their producer's to find a cheaper way to make their product competitive.  Since all business desires to minimize costs and maximize profits, this system would do more for pollution than any government program or law.


It's not that I don't believe in global warming.  It's just that I don't believe that it will have the effect and outcome many of you share.  You made it a point to state that no "conservative" provided you with evidence that scientist at one time claimed global warming/pollution would lead to colder temps and an ice age.  I provided you with that link.  You're entitled to choose what data you believe, but don't deny that their is valid evidence that contradicts the outcomes you believe.

Huh,  I thought you were still on the whole "scientists said we were headed towards an ice age in the 70's" kick....

Where is that? You seem to be twisting things around as we go.....

[Guns N RockMusic]

( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)?

And it still hasn't been presented.

As for the articles, the first is rididculously dated, and refers to a period that has already passed without the incidences described happening. And even if there is opposition to the global warming theory, there is more than enough evidence to say there is truth within it. It needs to be researched none-the-less and something needs to be done. GW is doing the wrong thing ignoring it, his attitude seems to be, 'it's not 100% set in stone, it can be ignored', what if, like a huge portion of the scientific community claim, it is a realistic threat and does began to damage life on Earth in the next 100 hundred years, or however long it takes, and it's too late to be fixed? We need to do something about the threat before that time comes. Sure there is evidence backing up both sides claims, but if nothing happens, it will be fine, we can continue with our lives, but if something does happen, life on Earth ma just be wiped out

My paper is here:  http://home.comcast.net/~gunsnrockmusic/Environment.doc    I was sending it through PMs rather than link it, but here it is.  I posted that article because SLC claimed he could not find one from that era from an earlier discussion.

[SLCPUNK]

( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see) 

And it still hasn't been presented.

As for the articles, the first is rididculously dated, and refers to a period that has already passed without the incidences described happening. And even if there is opposition to the global warming theory, there is more than enough evidence to say there is truth within it. It needs to be researched none-the-less and something needs to be done. GW is doing the wrong thing ignoring it, his attitude seems to be, 'it's not 100% set in stone, it can be ignored', what if, like a huge portion of the scientific community claim, it is a realistic threat and does began to damage life on Earth in the next 100 hundred years, or however long it takes, and it's too late to be fixed? We need to do something about the threat before that time comes. Sure there is evidence backing up both sides claims, but if nothing happens, it will be fine, we can continue with our lives, but if something does happen, life on Earth ma just be wiped out

My paper is here:  http://home.comcast.net/~gunsnrockmusic/Environment.doc    I was sending it through PMs rather than link it, but here it is.  I posted that article because SLC claimed he could not find one from that era from an earlier discussion.

I said I had yet to find at article where scientists claimed an ice age would hit us by the 80's. That is what I said.

And who cares about your paper anyway. What is that proving?

It is like the time Charity Case used his own posts as a reference......

Gimmie a break!

[Guns N RockMusic]

( I outline this in my paper that only 2 have asked to see)?

And it still hasn't been presented.

As for the articles, the first is rididculously dated, and refers to a period that has already passed without the incidences described happening. And even if there is opposition to the global warming theory, there is more than enough evidence to say there is truth within it. It needs to be researched none-the-less and something needs to be done. GW is doing the wrong thing ignoring it, his attitude seems to be, 'it's not 100% set in stone, it can be ignored', what if, like a huge portion of the scientific community claim, it is a realistic threat and does began to damage life on Earth in the next 100 hundred years, or however long it takes, and it's too late to be fixed? We need to do something about the threat before that time comes. Sure there is evidence backing up both sides claims, but if nothing happens, it will be fine, we can continue with our lives, but if something does happen, life on Earth ma just be wiped out

My paper is here:? http://home.comcast.net/~gunsnrockmusic/Environment.doc? ? I was sending it through PMs rather than link it, but here it is.? I posted that article because SLC claimed he could not find one from that era from an earlier discussion.

I said I had yet to find at article where scientists claimed an ice age would hit us by the 80's. That is what I said.

And who cares about your paper anyway. What is that proving?

It is like the time Charity Case used his own posts as a reference......

Gimmie a break!

Oh SLC, how many times can you be caught distorting what was said.? You call us liars and demand we provide proof.? I provide that proof and you change the argument.? Is this doublespeak, lying or strawman?? you tell me.

here is what I originally said:

in the 1970s Scientist were claiming we were heading to a new ice age.

? [/b]? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22920.msg400845#msg400845

here is what you replied:

I have asked for the "ice age prediction" made several times but they can not produce it. I have searched myself and can not find anything to support this. They refered to the "scientists predicted the next ice age in the 80's" in their last attempt to deny global warming (caused by man) but never backed it up. So, until then I will call this claim false.

[/b]
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22920.msg401032#msg401032

So you distorted what I originally said hoping I would miss it or not care enough to reply.? I reply with the link and another modern one just to show that some scientist still believe it and you again change the argument.? Keep it coming SLC, I'll be more than happy to keep bustin' you up.? Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I only posted my paper becuase Jamie asked to see it.  I could care less who reads it.  I provided it simply because it discusses the issue in decent length and provides an argument I'm sure none of you have heard or even considered.  You don't want to read it, that's fine.  I'm not claiming to be an expert or authority on the issue.  Keep changing the subject and making attacks to take the heat away from you.  It may have worked before, but now there are some people willing to voice their opposition to the agenda you've collectively patted each other on the back for sharing.  you're entitled to have your opinion and express it, but we're entitled to provide an opposing point of view.  Afterall, dissent is democracy.

[SLCPUNK]

No I did not distort it.

First of all you claiming it, is not a link to an article.

Second, all of you guys have been making this claim on the board (everytime global warming is brought up) that scientists predicted an ice age by the 80's. And since it did not happen, then this global warming theory (although backed by many scientists) must be those same type of nutty professors.....my post was merely stating that I could not find any articles (and I searched) backing this claim they made. Not that it means jack shit anyway.

I'm not claiming to be an expert or authority on the issue. [/b]

Then why post it like a reference? Obviously you have your own opinion. So why would any intelligent person want to read something that they already undestand to be slanted?

"Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard."

Calling them dipshits isn't going to take them to your side that is for sure.

And the only people that like you guys on this board....is you guys!!!  All six of you backslapping one another...that is about it. I think most people here would be happy to see you guys hit the road to tell you the truth.

[MCT]

I wish you would stay. people like SLCPUN are jus to meen to get along with

And you seam nice.
Anyway...

Blowhards and dipshits and all manner of misfits. That's HTGTH for ya!

Sadly though some people obtrusively push for premature removal of not only individuals, but get this, ENTIRE CASTES!

Cheap huh?

[Guns N RockMusic]

No I did not distort it.

First of all you claiming it, is not a link to an article.

Second, all of you guys have been making this claim on the board (everytime global warming is brought up) that scientists predicted an ice age by the 80's. And since it did not happen, then this global warming theory (although backed by many scientists) must be those same type of nutty professors.....my post was merely stating that I could not find any articles (and I searched) backing this claim they made. Not that it means jack shit anyway.

I'm not claiming to be an expert or authority on the issue. [/b]

Then why post it like a reference? Obviously you have your own opinion. So why would any intelligent person want to read something that they already undestand to be slanted?

"Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard."

Calling them dipshits isn't going to take them to your side that is for sure.

And the only people that like you guys on this board....is you guys!!!? All six of you backslapping one another...that is about it. I think most people here would be happy to see you guys hit the road to tell you the truth.

Of course you want us gone so you can go back to the good old days where everyone on this forum jacks off to how horrible Bush/Republicans/Americans are. ?I never said than an Ice age would be here by the 1980s nor did any other poster that I am aware of. ?I stated that I said (as shown above) that during the 1970s (and early 80s in another post) that scientist said we were heading towards a new ice age. ?I then provided you with the link to a study from that era that you denied existed. ?Change around my words and others all you want, but there's no way you can get yourself out of this one. ?My personal claim (as I can't speak for others) is that because the Earth is now "getting warmer" when scientist recently and even now debate it's getting colder, there must be some problems in the methodology used. ?My other point is that these scientist take the most extreme scenario from their computer models and become alarmists. ?I don't dispute that global warming exists, I only dispute or questions the fidnings and outcomes many scientist predict.

[SLCPUNK]

No I did not distort it.

First of all you claiming it, is not a link to an article.

Second, all of you guys have been making this claim on the board (everytime global warming is brought up) that scientists predicted an ice age by the 80's. And since it did not happen, then this global warming theory (although backed by many scientists) must be those same type of nutty professors.....my post was merely stating that I could not find any articles (and I searched) backing this claim they made. Not that it means jack shit anyway.

I'm not claiming to be an expert or authority on the issue. [/b]

Then why post it like a reference? Obviously you have your own opinion. So why would any intelligent person want to read something that they already undestand to be slanted?

"Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard."

Calling them dipshits isn't going to take them to your side that is for sure.

And the only people that like you guys on this board....is you guys!!!  All six of you backslapping one another...that is about it. I think most people here would be happy to see you guys hit the road to tell you the truth.

  I never said than an Ice age would be here by the 1980s nor did any other poster that I am aware of. 

This is what I was talking about, it was pretty clear. Don't make me dig up the posts of your buddies saying it either....

[SLCPUNK]

I wish you would stay. people like SLCPUN are jus to meen to get along with

And you seam nice.
Anyway...

Blowhards and dipshits and all manner of misfits. That's HTGTH for ya!

Sadly though some people obtrusively push for premature removal of not only individuals, but get this, ENTIRE CASTES!

Cheap huh?

Amerika part II......

Attack of the clones.....

[jarmo]

Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard.

Remember this? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22754.0



/jarmo

[Guns N RockMusic]

Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard.

Remember this? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22754.0



/jarmo

What's your point?  That was when you made it public that you were debating banning people and was when you banned Holy Way.  In our PM exchange, you said as long as I respect the views of different people, I'd be fine.  I respect that they have a different opinion, but SLC Punk altered what words I used and made an argument around that - the same thing he accuses me and popmetal of on a daily basis.  I'm sorry Jarmo, but there are many people on this message board who follow an ideology without any background or research - that is as closed minded and bigoted as someone can be; they just happen to be left of center so it's tolereated (no I don't consider SLC one of these).  Others on this board have made post celebrating SLC as an undefeatavle voice of their beliefs.  My point was and still is, that even people who are clueless are going to figure out that SLC is just as guilty of telling half truths and distortions as the people he points at.

[pilferk]

Sooner or later even the dipshits on this board are gonna realize that you're a blowhard.

Remember this? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22754.0



/jarmo

What's your point?? That was when you made it public that you were debating banning people and was when you banned Holy Way.? In our PM exchange, you said as long as I respect the views of different people, I'd be fine.? I respect that they have a different opinion, but SLC Punk altered what words I used and made an argument around that - the same thing he accuses me and popmetal of on a daily basis.? I'm sorry Jarmo, but there are many people on this message board who follow an ideology without any background or research - that is as closed minded and bigoted as someone can be; they just happen to be left of center so it's tolereated (no I don't consider SLC one of these).? Others on this board have made post celebrating SLC as an undefeatavle voice of their beliefs.? My point was and still is, that even people who are clueless are going to figure out that SLC is just as guilty of telling half truths and distortions as the people he points at.

Let me try to sum up jarmo's point (not that I want to speak for him).

1) Insulting posters is against the rules.

2) Calling people on the board dipshits (as is, in the above post, calling them clueless) is an insult to posters.

3) Breaking the rules, repeatedly, can result in banning.

Clear things up?