OT: Hiking across America, red all the way

SemolinaPilchard

HeavyG said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Yep.  Interesting with respect to the original post in this thread.  There was a map showing what the country looks like if people who are under 35 were the only ones voting.  It is almost completely blue.  

What is the old quote, 

If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain

You mean the one so many folks say was a quote from Winston Churchill?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotations/135-quotes-falsely-attributed

So some people wrongly credited that quote to Churchill, I did not. So what's your point? I imagine you have (or at least you thought had) a point.

bhedges1987

SemolinaPilchard said:

HeavyG said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Yep.  Interesting with respect to the original post in this thread.  There was a map showing what the country looks like if people who are under 35 were the only ones voting.  It is almost completely blue.  

What is the old quote, 

If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain

You mean the one so many folks say was a quote from Winston Churchill?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotations/135-quotes-falsely-attributed

So some people wrongly credited that quote to Churchill, I did not. So what's your point? I imagine you have (or at least you thought had) a point.

You have appeared to stump him.

HeavyG

SemolinaPilchard said:

HeavyG said:

SemolinaPilchard said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Yep.  Interesting with respect to the original post in this thread.  There was a map showing what the country looks like if people who are under 35 were the only ones voting.  It is almost completely blue.  

What is the old quote, 

If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain

You mean the one so many folks say was a quote from Winston Churchill?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotations/135-quotes-falsely-attributed

So some people wrongly credited that quote to Churchill, I did not. So what's your point? I imagine you have (or at least you thought had) a point.

The point is that that quote, like so many others, is often attributed to someone that folks would regard as having some sort of gravitas and thus their words of "wisdom" would have some sort of important meaning revealing some sort of universal truth.

Absent that, it's just a catchy phrase that some folks trot out to reinforce their inherent biases.

But that's cool, we all do it. Here's my addition to the game:



Did Frank really say that? Beats me, and that doesn't really matter as it reinforces my inherent biases.

SemolinaPilchard

I could not care less who came up with the old quote I cited. It makes sense not because it "reinforces my inherent biases," but rather because it is proven to be true. An example would be how many young people were so happy when the yacht tax was increased. The attitude was "stick it to the rich!!" The problem was that because of that, yacht sales went down, blue collar workers were laid off, and the amount of taxes collected dropped. But it was all good because the taxes on the rich went up.
Not that this is the same, but it reminds me of a recent post on here. I can not remember who posted it, but someone said that when boarding the plane, as he passed through first class he let out some gas and later in the flight he was smiling to himself because he had crop dusted the people in first class. So they are drinking and eating the good stuff in their oversized, comfortable seats, and he is jammed in like cattle sitting next to an obese person, munching on his tiny bag of peanuts while listening to a screaming baby, but he is a winner because he farted on someone. "He stuck it to the rich."

Sardonicus

Looking ahead -

 ?   Time Mag's "Person of the Year":

Kellyanne Conway or Donald Trump?  It's gotta be one of them, IMO.
(Per Time's criteria, there's no reason con artists aren't eligible.)

If not either of them, then Joe Maddon.
- for different reasons, of course.

  

pgprescott

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

All I want to know is should I go ahead and buy an XL now before Trump puts his planned 35% tariff on Mexican made goods or should I just wait because like so many of his campaign "promises" it will never happen?

Lol. Now he's saying well maybe we won't repeal Obamacare after all, just make it great again.

The U-turns and flip-flops were inevitable. Methinks there's going to be a lot of disappointed Trumpists in the coming months. 

I mean, for a guy that was going to "drain the swamp" it's sure looking like he's going to be surrounding himself with insiders. Quelle surprise.

Oh, don't you know it! I think he should stick to his word regardless of the circumstances like the genius before him who blindly disregarded the newly discovered consequences of his proposed actions. You know, the guy right behind Carter on the list of quality Presidents. 

What are the "circumstances" that have caused Trump to fill half his administration with lobbyists and insiders, before his Presidency even begins?  Or, alternatively, to suggest that maybe Obamacare won't be repealed but rather amended?  

He said he would consider it and either amend it or repeal and replace it...

No...he repeatedly said on DAY ONE was going to call a "special session" of Congress and repeal Obamacare.

Most sober folks knew that wasn't going to be possible for a number of reasons. One of which is that there are likely not enough votes from Republican Congressman to do that because the ACA is actually working quite well for a lot of folks in a lot of red and blue districts.

Of course it was expected that Trump isn't/wasn't going to be able to jump right in and snap his fingers and achieve all the outrageous things he claimed. He is just a president after all, not a king or a dictator. He will quickly learn the power and hold that the K Street crowd has over the rank and file members of Congress.

Which is why I have said that a lot of Trump voters are going to end up being very disappointed and perhaps even angrier than they already are.

Personally, even tho I didn't vote for Trump I am increasingly excited to watch him try to pull all these rabbits out of his hat. Starting with how he is going to be bring back, in his words a couple days ago, those "big league" jobs.

Then you should be happy. 

pgprescott

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

We should be able to easily defeat his ideas in the arena of thought. They are juvenile at best.

Is this the same arena of thought that has defeated ridiculous hoaxes like climate change and evolution? Arguments that disregard science cannot be taken seriously, and both Trump and Pence have voiced their 'disbelief' in widely held scientific findings. What hope can there be for intelligent decision making when leaders disregard real information based on nothing but a preference to disregard that knowledge?

It's not science. It is a mash of science and bs and money making schemes. I'm not saying there is no climate change,  but the conclusions and solutions? Really? Fools errand at best. 

Do do me a favor, consider all the things you want implemented and done related to CC is done. Now imagine you were wrong. Pretty scary. 

The view that you are expressing is not your own assessment (how do you know it's not science?) based on any understanding of science or the scientific method; it's merely parroting a popular conspiracy theory being used as a smear campaign against some uncomfortable findings. The great thing about conspiracy theories is that they lack enough detail or coherence to be carefully examined. Internet memes are a poor substitute for science and rational thought. Ask yourself how you came to reach this conclusion that climate change and evolution are based on a mix of science, bs and money making schemes. Are your sources so strong and your knowledge of the topic so complete that you can dismiss it as a fools errand? 

I have a brain in my head. I am not a sheep. We will see who is correct and I will willingly apologize for my stupidity right after the east coast goes under water as the oceans rise to engulf the coast. Oh dear. 

HeavyG

SemolinaPilchard said:

I could not care less who came up with the old quote I cited. It makes sense not because it "reinforces my inherent biases," but rather because it is proven to be true. An example would be how many young people were so happy when the yacht tax was increased. The attitude was "stick it to the rich!!" The problem was that because of that, yacht sales went down, blue collar workers were laid off, and the amount of taxes collected dropped. But it was all good because the taxes on the rich went up.
Not that this is the same, but it reminds me of a recent post on here. I can not remember who posted it, but someone said that when boarding the plane, as he passed through first class he let out some gas and later in the flight he was smiling to himself because he had crop dusted the people in first class. So they are drinking and eating the good stuff in their oversized, comfortable seats, and he is jammed in like cattle sitting next to an obese person, munching on his tiny bag of peanuts while listening to a screaming baby, but he is a winner because he farted on someone. "He stuck it to the rich."

"It makes sense not because it "reinforces my inherent biases," but rather because it is proven to be true."

That's pretty funny!

SemolinaPilchard

@HeavyG great retort. 

Sardonicus

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

We should be able to easily defeat his ideas in the arena of thought. They are juvenile at best.

Is this the same arena of thought that has defeated ridiculous hoaxes like climate change and evolution? Arguments that disregard science cannot be taken seriously. . . 

. . .

The view that you are expressing is . . . merely parroting  . . .  

I have a brain in my head . . . Oh dear. 

There is ALREADY plenty of proof.  Today.  Right now.  
There is no need for you to wait
for catastrophic events to see the need for your 'willing apology'.

The evidence is available for any willing to see.  Has been for quite a while, now.

  

SemolinaPilchard

Sardonicus said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

We should be able to easily defeat his ideas in the arena of thought. They are juvenile at best.

Is this the same arena of thought that has defeated ridiculous hoaxes like climate change and evolution? Arguments that disregard science cannot be taken seriously. . . 

. . .

The view that you are expressing is . . . merely parroting  . . .  

I have a brain in my head . . . Oh dear. 

There is ALREADY plenty of proof.  Today.  Right now.  
There is no need for you to wait
for catastrophic events to see the need for your 'willing apology'.


  

"The evidence is available for any willing to see.  Has been for quite a while, now."
Yes, the science is settled. Well it is 2016. I guess Al Gore's 10 year prediction from 2006 is about like the predictions some whackos make every few years about the end of the world. Oh, I know, Al Gore is not a scientist. The scientists say it is settled. Well there are scientists that say it is all B.S. Whether it is real or not, it is like Hillary is now, irrelevant. According to many on the left, with Trump as president we are all going to die anyway. So why spend the little amount of time we have left driving one of those wimpy little hybrid weiniemobiles? Drive an SUV, eat a steak from those flatulating, global warming contributing cows. Go out with a bang.

Sardonicus

Okay, then.  
You and that Prescott fella win the day.  
Your mastery of the facts/science is unparalleled. 
Kudos.

  

bhedges1987

Sardonicus said:

Okay, then.  
You and that Prescott fella win the day.  
Your mastery of the facts/science is unparalleled. 
Kudos.

  

They win the day....and the next 4 years

  

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

Okay, then.  
You and that Prescott fella win the day.  
Your mastery of the facts/science is unparalleled. 
Kudos.

  

Hey, you have got to quit trying to shove bs down people's throats. Then calling them names when they can smell some crap. If you would conduct the campaign in a reasonable manner, you might get reasonable concessions. The choice of jumping off a cliff or being run over by a semi is a false choice. 

SemolinaPilchard

@pgprescott they are realizing that most adults are immune, so they are taking the long term view. They are doing a pretty good job of brainwashing the kids. Similar to the way Reynolds Tobacco used the Joe Camel ads.

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

We should be able to easily defeat his ideas in the arena of thought. They are juvenile at best.

Is this the same arena of thought that has defeated ridiculous hoaxes like climate change and evolution? Arguments that disregard science cannot be taken seriously. . . 

. . .

The view that you are expressing is . . . merely parroting  . . .  

I have a brain in my head . . . Oh dear. 

There is ALREADY plenty of proof.  Today.  Right now.  
There is no need for you to wait
for catastrophic events to see the need for your 'willing apology'.

The evidence is available for any willing to see.  Has been for quite a while, now.

  

Such as? Please give the cause and effect links too. 

SemolinaPilchard

pgprescott said:

Such as? Please give the cause and effect links too. 

pgprescott, did you not watch "Inconvenient Truth?"
How much more evidence do you need? You right wingers are so dense!!

HeavyG

SemolinaPilchard said:

@HeavyG great retort. 

That was sarcasm wasn't it? 

Eggdicted_Dawgfan

Isn't it time for the crybabies to take to the streets? It's getting dark out on the east coast. 

SkySaw

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

We should be able to easily defeat his ideas in the arena of thought. They are juvenile at best.

Is this the same arena of thought that has defeated ridiculous hoaxes like climate change and evolution? Arguments that disregard science cannot be taken seriously. . . 

. . .

The view that you are expressing is . . . merely parroting  . . .  

I have a brain in my head . . . Oh dear. 

There is ALREADY plenty of proof.  Today.  Right now.  
There is no need for you to wait
for catastrophic events to see the need for your 'willing apology'.

The evidence is available for any willing to see.  Has been for quite a while, now.

  

Such as? Please give the cause and effect links too. 

Not sure if you are being tongue-in-cheek here, or incredibly naive, but causality can never really be proven. The closest anything can come to demonstrating causality is to show the cause and effect variables in a lab setting with strict control over the experiment and the assurance that no other factors could influence the results. Obviously that is impossible to do with climate science, as with many other scientific areas, so instead scientists use theory to break the problem into smaller pieces that can be demonstrated through lab studies, and then show how these things relate in field settings. If field settings results support the theoretical and lab results, then support begins to emerge. When multiple studies using multiple analysis strategies and multiple perspectives show the same overall picture, then the field begins to coalesce around a particular theory. This is where the climate science is. Every single study suffers from some kinds of error, which is why scientists don't bet the farm of any single study or even a couple of studies.

You may choose to disbelieve in science and the process, but you cannot say that it is BS or that the field is divided.

Your arguments are much like what went on with smoking in the '50s. The smoking industry hung on for years with the claim that none of the studies could prove without doubt the causal link between smoking and death. And that was true; eventually however the evidence became overwhelming. Here is a plot of actual current data measured at the country level that shows that smoking has a positive effect on life expectancy. Each data point represents the average number of cigarettes smoked and average life expectancy per country. The green line is the regression line showing a strong positive effect. Does this mean we don't know that cigarette smoking causes cancer?

If the world waited for the kind of causal proof that you are waiting for, we would still be sending messages to each other on horseback.

SkySaw

You know, I could take my smoking study and publish it the (Philip Morris) Journal of Health and Nutrition, and then a few smoking lobbyists and media sources could pick up my study that shows that smoking is NOT bad for health, and that in fact it might even be GOOD for health. Of course, all my scientific peers would point out the problems with my research, even showing that it is full of fundamental flaws. But none of that matters; what is important is that the science is NOT done in this area, and that there are dissenting studies. So let's not panic about the effects of cigarettes, and keep smoking until we see incontrovertible proof that cigarettes lead to negative health outcomes.

Sardonicus

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

We should be able to easily defeat his ideas in the arena of thought. They are juvenile at best.

Is this the same arena of thought that has defeated ridiculous hoaxes like climate change and evolution? Arguments that disregard science cannot be taken seriously. . . 

. . .

The view that you are expressing is . . . merely parroting  . . .  

I have a brain in my head . . . Oh dear. 

There is ALREADY plenty of proof.  Today.  Right now.  
There is no need for you to wait
for catastrophic events to see the need for your 'willing apology'.

The evidence is available for any willing to see.  Has been for quite a while, now.

  

Such as? Please give the cause and effect links too. 

Here you go:
www.Google.com

Now, do your own work.
  

Sardonicus

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

Okay, then.  
You and that Prescott fella win the day.  
Your mastery of the facts/science is unparalleled. 
Kudos.

  

Hey, you have got to quit trying to shove bs down people's throats. . .

You misunderstand.  I am attempting to neither throat-do you nor convince you.
If 95+ per cent of the Scientific Community can't convince you, all that's left is the mocking.
 

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

Okay, then.  
You and that Prescott fella win the day.  
Your mastery of the facts/science is unparalleled. 
Kudos.

  

 . . . Then calling them names . . .

Which name do you object to?  
"Prescott"?  Or "fella"?
  

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

Okay, then.  
You and that Prescott fella win the day.  
Your mastery of the facts/science is unparalleled. 
Kudos.

  

Hey, you have got to quit trying to shove bs down people's throats. . .

You misunderstand.  I am attempting to neither throat-do you nor convince you.
If 95+ per cent of the Scientific Community can't convince you, all that's left is the mocking.
 

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

Okay, then.  
You and that Prescott fella win the day.  
Your mastery of the facts/science is unparalleled. 
Kudos.

  

 . . . Then calling them names . . .

Which name do you object to?  
"Prescott"?  Or "fella"?
  

Do you have a list or roll call of the 95% or is this more out your bung hole bs? Keep up the good work, like I said it's the condescending attitude that lead to the election outcome. Good job! 

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

pgprescott said:

Sardonicus said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

SkySaw said:

pgprescott said:

We should be able to easily defeat his ideas in the arena of thought. They are juvenile at best.

Is this the same arena of thought that has defeated ridiculous hoaxes like climate change and evolution? Arguments that disregard science cannot be taken seriously. . . 

. . .

The view that you are expressing is . . . merely parroting  . . .  

I have a brain in my head . . . Oh dear. 

There is ALREADY plenty of proof.  Today.  Right now.  
There is no need for you to wait
for catastrophic events to see the need for your 'willing apology'.

The evidence is available for any willing to see.  Has been for quite a while, now.

  

Such as? Please give the cause and effect links too. 

Here you go:
www.Google.com

Now, do your own work.
  

I take this as a concession. Thanks!