The point was that her statement was full of untruths, half-truths, and misleading comments that make it essentially false. Obviously, it was a made-up term. If she understood the Carbon-Oxygen cycle she would have used the proper term. Of course it is false, furthermore it was deliberately misleading. No one is advocating getting rid of natural carbon, but reducing man-made carbon pollution. Who is being obtuse? Double obtuse on you! The point that was false is her comment that addressing carbon pollution constituted "reducing the American standard of living" which is untrue. Nobody has ever suggesting such a thing, she can't prove this and you can't prove this. It is a scare tactic, pure and simple. She made clueless comments and I pointed them out, because YOU asked what was wrong with her comments. Don't ask questions if you don't wan't to hear them answered, chief. No, you made a post and asked what was wrong with her statement, so I told you. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. :lol: Listen to yourself! Since when do politicians get to lie and just call it politics. Well, this scientist doesn't. Cite a scientist who does if you like. Dear Michelle is not one. What a shock! It's a political debate forum, grow a pair. I hardly think so. You want to debate me on climate change, bring it on. You certainly ain't scaring me away. Look, I have a thing against people spreading lies as facts and I shoot them down when I see them. It's no secret that I do this and I back up what I say. If you don't like my posts, then stop reading them.
odd, you never say this about obama. All politicians talk that way. They sensationalize things without lying. I thought you knew that. Exactly, thanks for agreeing with my point. Wow, you libs are pretty impressive. You can distinguish between man made carbon and natural carbon when you're trying to eliminate it. You. I already covered this in an earlier post. Let me lay this out in a way you can understand it. Use the transitive property of mathematics. If Cap and Trade is Bad economic Policy and Bad economic policy leads to lower standard of living, then cap and trade would equal lower standard of living. Pretty sad that you're greatest weapon is to make people spell things out to you that you clearly understand in hopes that they will just not mess with it. Comments were not clueless. They make sense. You just don't agree. And I didn't ask you. I directly asked Lasalle. I can handle the truth, just not the spin. You know what the funny thing is, I don't even have an opinion about the issues we are discussing. My point was very clear from the beginning. Lasalle made a point of saying she was unelectable because of idiot statements when really, he meant she was unelectable to him because of statements he disagrees with. I simply pointed that out. You have now come in and tried to prove global warming again, which has not been proven, and are trying to change the subject. I honestly have no idea who this Bachman lady is. Maybe a governor, not sure. And my position on global warming is that it doesn't phuking matter. We should change our energy sources for a hundred million different reasons so what's the point in having another one. Blah blah blah. I don't want to debate you on climate change because it doesn't matter. That was not the point before you interjected yourself and started attacking me. There were no lies. and I only have a problem with you taking something I said, acting as if I agreed with you when I clearly didn't, and declaring victory. It's akin to the "nanny nanny booboo" method and the "I'm rubber you're glue defense." Grow up. (by the way, I snuck one in on you this post. Isn't it annoying?)
All of you do, that's your job. I don't agree with your point, I shot it down. She didn't have a clue. A child can do it! Stop pretending to be stupid. if it is coming out of a smokestack, it is man-made carbon. We stop it at the smokestack, see? We don't hire unicorns and fairies to retrieve particles of natural carbon from the atmosphere. An erroneous conclusion based on unestablished facts. It pre-assumes that cap-and-trade is bad economic policy. Furthermore it has not been established that there is any correlation between bad economic policy and lower standard of living. Your explanation is a logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Correlation is not causation. But I answered anyway. I know you were not counting on it, but that's the way the forum works. Don't ask if you don't want to hear the answer. No you asked the qestion what was wrong with her statement. So I pointed out what was wrong with it. It is very simple. I don't care if you disagree, why do you care if I do? I attacked Bachmanns statement! Don't take things personal in FSA or you will get ulcers. Your posts are not immune from being responded to.. Dude, turning ones words against them happens all the time in FSA. Stop crying "no fair" like a 3rd grader.
If it was offered with no supporting evidence, that would be true. In this case, that evidence has been presented time and time again. One can demonstrate causation, one cannot simply imply causation.
