Whither Hillary? - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-27-2007, 01:23 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Good to see you agree with the twin military geniuses, Bush & Clinton.

Your basic premise was true during the Cold War but ceased being important with the collpase of the USSR. At that time NATO and Europe's endless tribal conflicts were no longer of importance to use except for sentimental reasons. The Pacific Rim to the Arabian Peninsula are far more important than any number of squabbling European states.
So Turkey is not part of that equation? I mean, logically speaking, they are the most powerful Muslim state, are they not?
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-27-2007, 03:37 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
So Turkey is not part of that equation? I mean, logically speaking, they are the most powerful Muslim state, are they not?
Have they attacked us? Is there a strategically important resource in Turkey?

Let France and Belgium deal the wild Turks a mortal blow.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #23 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-27-2007, 05:42 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
I would say Putin is an improvement over communism, and that in time Russia will liberalize into a decent democracy. Chavez has been elected twice by wide margins, so his people seem to think things are not unraveling, and is no threat to his neighbors. Jung Elvis is now a Bush pal, is he not? Darfur, who cares, I certainly don't. Kashmir has been very quite since the Indians and Pakis started negotiations. Israel and Palestine, well, they have been troube since the reign of Claudius, the Roman Emperor circa 80 AD. The Iranians? Lots of mouth, no action. I certainly don't see any global meltdown, I see a bunch of fear-mongering power mad fascists trying to create that impression.
It is somewhat telling that many of the people scoffing at global warming as a hyped up bit of fabricated psuedo science seem to be unable to resist hyped up psuedo cases of global terror. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #24 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-27-2007, 05:55 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
It is somewhat telling that many of the people scoffing at global warming as a hyped up bit of fabricated psuedo science seem to be unable to resist hyped up psuedo cases of global terror. Jim
It's telling that you think humans can affect (in any appreciable manner) the cycles of the earth's climate, mindless of goings-on elsewhere in our solar system, yet concurrently find it absurd that people who chant for our collective death on television might actually be threats worth managing.
Qubes is offline  
post #25 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-27-2007, 09:16 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
From what I've seen, its when you people chant for their deaths is when the trouble starts. You fools kill the wrong people, for a bunch of fucking lies.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #26 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-28-2007, 05:16 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
It's telling that you think humans can affect (in any appreciable manner) the cycles of the earth's climate, mindless of goings-on elsewhere in our solar system, yet concurrently find it absurd that people who chant for our collective death on television might actually be threats worth managing.
Good points. Clear rebuttal.
Botnst is offline  
post #27 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-28-2007, 09:46 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Have they attacked us? Is there a strategically important resource in Turkey?

Let France and Belgium deal the wild Turks a mortal blow.

B
Who said anything about attacking them?
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #28 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-28-2007, 10:12 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
It's telling that you think humans can affect (in any appreciable manner) the cycles of the earth's climate, mindless of goings-on elsewhere in our solar system, yet concurrently find it absurd that people who chant for our collective death on television might actually be threats worth managing.
It is a presumption that has not been validated that those who believe the evidence for humans affecting the earth's climate are disregarding any evidence of events elsewhere in our solar system.

We have been down this path already, and it is tiresome to hear nothing but a chant of "humans can't cause climate change" as a response, even if Bot finds it a good rebuttal. Once the climate change process has started on a path to warm the planet, for whatever reasons, it seems more logical that adding industrial and other man made discharges to the environment that have been shown to change the Earth's albedo in the direction of retaining more of the Sun's energy and reflecting less, will add to the problem. There is no scientific evidence being brought forward to suggest that these emissions from human activities will change the albedo to make more of the Sun's energy reflect from the Earth, and less of it stay. Just as there is no evidence that we can continue to increase the rate of our emissions as populations grow, and there will be no change in the albedo.

But, I guess you guys have a lot invested in your personal lives in the continued acceleration of fossil fuel consumption, worldwide. I agree the issue at hand is money, and there is a lot more money behind "your side" of this argument than there is behind the side that says we need to react before we can no longer affect the outcome. Just like the tobacco industry told us all smoking was not hazardous to human health. It took decades of evidence to sway Congress to allow warnings to be put on cigarette packs by the Surgeon General. Decades of unnecessary human sacrifices for tobacco company profits. In this case the stakes are much higher if the consensus of climate scientists is correct. But we all understand, you won't live long enough to actually see the chaos that will ensue, and, you would much rather be allowed to continue on your present path, unperturbed. In fact, you believe it is your right, and when the shit hits the fan, somehow the free market will fix the problem for us.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #29 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-28-2007, 10:15 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
It's telling that you think humans can affect (in any appreciable manner) the cycles of the earth's climate, mindless of goings-on elsewhere in our solar system, yet concurrently find it absurd that people who chant for our collective death on television might actually be threats worth managing.
Oh yeah, when the shitbirds chanting mount a real threat, nuke the fuckers. Until you are willing to nuke them, they are not a genuine threat to your survival. Nuking them now would be absurd, and therefore so is the notion that they are a genuine threat to our survival. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #30 of 31 (permalink) Old 03-28-2007, 12:12 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
It is a presumption that has not been validated that those who believe the evidence for humans affecting the earth's climate are disregarding any evidence of events elsewhere in our solar system.

We have been down this path already, and it is tiresome to hear nothing but a chant of "humans can't cause climate change" as a response, even if Bot finds it a good rebuttal. Once the climate change process has started on a path to warm the planet, for whatever reasons, it seems more logical that adding industrial and other man made discharges to the environment that have been shown to change the Earth's albedo in the direction of retaining more of the Sun's energy and reflecting less, will add to the problem. There is no scientific evidence being brought forward to suggest that these emissions from human activities will change the albedo to make more of the Sun's energy reflect from the Earth, and less of it stay. Just as there is no evidence that we can continue to increase the rate of our emissions as populations grow, and there will be no change in the albedo.

But, I guess you guys have a lot invested in your personal lives in the continued acceleration of fossil fuel consumption, worldwide. I agree the issue at hand is money, and there is a lot more money behind "your side" of this argument than there is behind the side that says we need to react before we can no longer affect the outcome. Just like the tobacco industry told us all smoking was not hazardous to human health. It took decades of evidence to sway Congress to allow warnings to be put on cigarette packs by the Surgeon General. Decades of unnecessary human sacrifices for tobacco company profits. In this case the stakes are much higher if the consensus of climate scientists is correct. But we all understand, you won't live long enough to actually see the chaos that will ensue, and, you would much rather be allowed to continue on your present path, unperturbed. In fact, you believe it is your right, and when the shit hits the fan, somehow the free market will fix the problem for us.

Jim
My skepticism of the outcomes being predicted by the alarmist faction and the media are based on the knowledge that observation alone has NEVER produced so much as a theory that could withstand scrutiny.

I think the following text from the Abiogenesis article on Wikipedia sums it up very well for me.
Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat.

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth. In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." His conclusions were not widely accepted, e.g. his contemporary, Alexander Ross wrote: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."

However, experimental scientists continued to decrease the conditions within which the spontaneous generation of complex organisms could be observed. The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the seventeenth century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (literally, from an egg).

Then in 1683 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria, and it was soon found that however carefully organic matter might be protected by screens, or by being placed in stoppered receptacles, putrefaction set in, and was always accompanied by the appearance of myriad bacteria and other low organisms. As knowledge of microscopic forms of life increased, so the apparent realm of abiogenesis increased, and it became tempting to hypothesize that while abiogenesis might not take place for creatures visible to the naked eye, at the microscopic level, living organisms continually arose from inorganic matter.

In 1768 Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes came from the air, and could be killed by boiling. Yet it was not until 1862 that Louis Pasteur performed a series of careful experiments which proved that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not appear in nutrient rich media of their own accord in non-living material, and which supported cell theory.
Science takes a very, very long time to understand something - even today. Relying on observation alone - no matter how sophisticated the tools for observation - never results in a valid precept. It results in the starting point for tests that can be conducted in an effort to disprove the precept. Some of those tests are being (and have been) carried out, others are overwhelmingly difficult to perform. And so here we are, the irresistable force vs. the immovable object. Questions that cannot be answered, observations that cannot be ignored.

The answer is ultimately very simple. Should mankind endeavor to live a cleaner life? Yes, absolutely. Does that mean we all need to drive hybrids? No, absolutely not. There's PLENTY of fruit on this tree, in far easier reach - that's what we should be harvesting. It's idiotic to take sides. It's idiotic to assume we have as much influence over something we don't begin to fully grasp as it's said we do. It's idiotic to argue against making companies take cost-effective measures to operate cleanly. It's idiotic to clamor for renewable energy and oppose nuclear power plants. We're all on the same frickin' side here. It's time to drop the guilt, drop the argumentation, and put that energy into finding solutions with which we can all live...because it's the right thing to do, not because Al Gore says so.
Qubes is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    New Anti-Hillary Clinton YouTube Ad Jayhawk Off-Topic 0 03-19-2007 12:54 PM
    Obama's 1984 Hillary Ad ! BNZ Off-Topic 0 03-18-2007 07:31 PM
    Hillary saved . . . edfreeman Off-Topic 0 03-18-2007 07:25 PM
    Kentucky Fried Hillary Jayhawk Off-Topic 49 03-14-2007 04:01 AM
    Hillary then... DaveN007 Off-Topic 45 01-30-2007 04:05 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome