[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RTPdAAdw30]The South Is Gonna Change Scene - O Brother, Where Art Thou? Movie (2000) - HD - YouTube[/ame] Damn liberals. Where has change gotten us? “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” Winston Churchill
I don't expect everyone to agree on everything and I understand many here have differing views due to their situation and experience. Diversity is a good thing and often leads to solutions so it's great to debate and even sometimes argue. Red is a non-conformist. He believes his "opinion" is fact and superior to others. In such he refuses to align himself with any party affiliation as that would suggest weakness or dependency which his ego won't tolerate. It doesn't matter what position he supports...he'll always consider his opinion to be in the middle and claim his comments are pragmatic. This is the only way he can avoid being considered a follower. In his mind he must be the authority. It's like driving a car on the interstate. Everyone you have to pass is driving too damn slow. Everyone passing you is driving too damn fast. In the end you're the only one driving correctly. That's Red and politics. He considers his opinion to be the middle ground. He'll say I don't know him...and he's correct but he has shared his views enough times to the point we know his tendencies more than he would like to believe. He has often stated we should believe in manmade global warming (I'm sure I'll be asked to cite the exact date & time ) because there are numerous scientists who believe this and we should respect the fact there are so many. If we're going to use that theory...he should respect the fact that most here say he leans left therefore it must be the truth. :thumb: Using this formula to only represent your opinions would be hypocritical and that wouldn't be pragmatic. Therefore by using his own methodolgy...I believe he has proven himself to be a liberal. :hihi: I'm still trying to figure him out completely. We agree on much in sports...both share our love of country...and I don't believe he's a fan of all the social programs and undeserved government handouts. I don't think he's a bleeding hear liberal but seems to have some jealousy for those who have achieved financial success and seems to take out frustration on conservatives. I'll at least credit him for taking a stand. Some of our liberals here are just "woe is me" whiners who claim discrimination and social justice BS. I don't put Red in that group. So what's the story Red?...Too many late night parties or bongs in the 70's? :yelwink2:
"(Red) has often stated we should believe in manmade global warming" The word "believe" is the problem. In "real" science, a hypothesis evolves as scientific research produces new data. Back in the late '90s, it appeared that observed warming of the Earth was correlated to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As a result, computer models were built to show what would happen if that correlation was correct. Well, although the last 10 years have been warm on Earth, the warming did not follow any of the projections of those models. Instead, those years were warm but the Earth's temperature did not increase from that observation from the late 90's. Now, significant new evidence suggests that solar cycles and fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity are the primary drivers of the Earth's temperature. And, these sources of heating appear to be diminishing over the last couple of years. However, the AGW scientists totally ignore this new data. As such, their agenda appears to not be real science, but rather a political and financial agenda. For, you see, science is NEVER settled. That is not how scientific advancement works. And, to say that you believe a scientific hypothesis is the most unscientific statement one could ever make.
You are completely full of chit, amigo. Listen, why don't you tell us what YOU believe instead of imagining what I believe. Misleading generalization of my position. Don't try to speak for me if you are going to get it wrong. A logical fallacy. Fallacious comparison: comparing things which are not comparable and then building an argument around the results of the comparison. Another logical fallacy Argumentum Verbosium: AKA Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details. Dude, I have achieved financial success myself and I have no jealousy for anybody. I find it hard to accept your ENVY of the super rich. I advocate policies that benefit the middle class, you abandon the middle class and advocate policies that benefit those few that don't need it. This nation was built on having a large prosperous middle class, a small group of the very poor and a small group of the very rich. That remains the best formula for success in a democracy. The Conservative clamor for the top 1% of citizens to get almost all the cheese is slavish pandering to the wealthy, who care nothing about you or the rest of the middle class at all. I've told you before . . . from your position way out there on the right wing, all you see are liberals to the right of you even though all of the moderates are there, too. That is the problem with an extreme position -- poor perspective. You can't tell the liberals from the moderates. Like martin, you live in a black and white world and simply can't perceive the shades of gray in between the extreme positions. I have reasons for everything that I believe and I post them here a lot and it annoys the conservatives. They are used to believing phony facts from Limbaugh and his ilk and I shoot those down all of the time. Right-wing Ranters can't stand that another opinion exists, worse that it makes more sense than theirs and the facts seem to back it up. I reduces them to posts like this where they try to tell me what I believe or to discredit me personally instead of arguing their case. I realize that you aren't completely serious, but I get tired of it. There are only about two people who have figured me out, Purp. But I'll just spell it out for you. 50% of what I post here has to do with my distaste for lies and liars. People post outright nonsense as fact all of the time and I feel obligated to point those out and shoot them down if necessary. In fact I enjoy this immensely, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not particularly political when I do this. 25% of what I post here is my political opinions. I'm very clear where I stand on most issues. Those positions fall on the left and right of center. These days most of them are on the left of center, but not on the left extreme. It has not always been this way nor will it always remain so. I have voted for many a republican in 36 years. The GOP has pushed me to the left in the last 10 years. 25% of what I post here is just being a Devil's Advocate or to piss off SabanFan. Sometimes a liberal argument doesn't have an articulate spokesman on this forum, so I'll take that side even if I don't really feel strongly about it. It's a debate forum and you can't have an argument without two opposing viewpoints. When I debate with my very liberal colleagues at the university, most of this is reversed and I'm defending right-wing points that I don't have any strong feelings for just to keep a discussion alive. You guys sometimes give me good stuff for this. The profs think I'm a right-leaning moderate.
That's not Red you are quoting. I advocate that you should accept valid scientific conclusions that indicate AGW exists. This is untrue. I have addressed this in one of the numerous global warming threads, so I won't derail this thread with it. Please go read one of the existing AGW threads and make your case, if you have one. Or start a new one, what the hell. Be ready to support your arguments with facts. They do not. These data have been published and in some cases models have been revised based on them. Start a new thread. Make your case. I challenge you to back up this absurd statement You are sooooo confused, Doctor. Are you seriously suggesting that valid scientific hypotheses are not to be believed?
"This is untrue. I have addressed this in one of the numerous global warming threads, so I won't derail this thread with it. Please go read one of the existing AGW threads and make your case, if you have one. Or start a new one, what the hell. Be ready to support your arguments with facts." Red, now the monkey is on your back. I know of plenty of data that supports my statements. However, it would be too easy for you to brush it aside. YOU provide the DATA and we will both look at it TO SEE WHAT IT REALLY SAYS.
Wow!...they need to lay off the crack! Thanks!...I believe you just proved many of my points. Enough for today...time for football. GEAUX SAINTS!
