Know Your Enemies: The Green Channel' Environmentalists...

[amicus]

A brief introduction, if I may... I have a personal interest in all things scientific, from Hubble Astronomy to Fusion Reactors and all in between. I do, however, question the costs, borne by tax payers all over the world, for such things as the 'Super Collider', the attempt to create a 'star' in a laboratory, to better understand the origins and possible demise of the Universe.

I have a long time distaste for the scientific community and the trillions of dollars spent and wasted to present a 'theory' of anthropomorphic climate change, under an environmental umbrella of anti industrial, anti progress, anti humanity philosophy.

Having that interest aforementioned, I tuned into the Green Channel for a few hours and watched the 'fusion' programs; then one on Masar, the Abu Dhabi, environmentally correct construction of an entire city, using oil revenue from the rest of the world...(tax payers at the pump), and another on the Pearl River Towers, an environmentally correct building that supplies all its' own energy.

For your education, entertainment and amusement:


http://www.physorg.com/news164558159.html

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) should be fully operational in 2026, the ITER Council said in a communique after a meeting in Japan.

Launched in 2006 after years of debate, the pilot project at Cadarache, near Marseille, has seven backers: the European Union (EU), China, India, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the United States. Kazakhstan is poised to become the eighth member.

Four years ago, ITER was priced at around 10 billion euros (13.8 billion dollars today), spread among its stakeholders, led by the EU, which has a 45-percent share.
Five billion euros (6.9 billion dollars) would go to constructing the tokamak and other facilities, and five billion euros to the 20-year operations phase.
Last month, the British science journal Nature said construction costs "are likely to double" and the cost of operations "may also rise."

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/in...reactors/2010/02/uk-plans_500_mw_nuclear.html

http://www.ipp.mpg.de/~Wolfgang.Suttrop/ppcfsites.html

http://m.industry.bnet.com/energy/1...on-projects-making-progress-around-the-world/


http://www.arabianbusiness.com/582382-urban-experiment

http://www.asianinfrastructure.com/news/newspearl-river-tower/

http://www.greendiary.com/entry/pearl-river-tower-china-to-flaunt-world-s-greenest-skyscraper/

~~~

I am certainly not opposed to progress and advancement on all fronts, except when the burden of the costs falls on the working class and the industrial innovaters that are the engines of society.

Before you dismiss me as a right wing nut, I ask you to consider the following: suppose, for just a moment, that there is no 'man caused climate change', and that normative climate values will determine future climates and that solid science, concerning climate change, foresee no drastic changes in the near future.

Suppose also, that left alone, the energy industry, the free market, is perfectly capable of providing an energy supply that meets the demand of a free society and maintains the property rights of all individuals to enjoy the air, land and water in a near pristine state.

Now... if you can get your head around a fifty year long hoax that started with the, 'love' generation, that basically hates the dominance of man on the planet, hates progress, hates expansion, yearns for a zero growth population and the elimination of individual human values....if you can possibly follow my thinking and my conclusions, that the entire environmental activist movement is a hoax and a cult, brought into the public arena by sympathetic public servants...if...?

Gasoline prices are expected to reach $3.50 a gallon, US, by mid summer, because the US has not made use of petroleum resercves along all US coastal areas and Alaskan resources, along with coal resources and shale oil resources in several States.

All of this, one way or another, comes out of your pocket, increases the cost of living and reduces everyone's standard of living and it is all, as I conclude, an environmentalist hoax from day one....

An afterthought: somewhere in the dialog concerning 'fussion reactors', it was said that about 2070 was the earliest one could expect electricity to be generated by the process, if at all, as the technology is still theoretical. It may nolt be possible to harness fusion energy in a cost effective manner or at all on a commercial demand level.

Then there was the political commentary, I paraphrase, "Even if we are not successful, it is a grand thing to attempt to provide for future generations and to leave them a 'green environment'.

Super Colliders, Fusion Projects, and Environmental Correctness, employs thousands upon thousands of scientists and science professionals and gives them a very good living, paid for by the common man....for what end, I ask, if it is all a hoax?

It would be nice, for a change, if you could drop the nastiness and just address the thesis.

Thank You....

Amicus (I am off to pick up a Pepperoni, Italian Sausage, Mushroom and black olive Pizza...toodles...)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Before you dismiss me as a right wing nut, I ask you to consider the following: suppose, for just a moment, that there is no 'man caused climate change', and that normative climate values will determine future climates and that solid science, concerning climate change, foresee no drastic changes in the near future.

Suppose also, that left alone, the energy industry, the free market, is perfectly capable of providing an energy supply that meets the demand of a free society and maintains the property rights of all individuals to enjoy the air, land and water in a near pristine state.

Well, Amicus, I did suppose all of that for a moment, just for your asking. I had to put on a tinfoil hat to do it, though.

Now... if you can get your head around a fifty year long hoax that started with the, 'love' generation, that basically hates the dominance of man on the planet, hates progress, hates expansion, yearns for a zero growth population and the elimination of individual human values....if you can possibly follow my thinking and my conclusions, that the entire environmental activist movement is a hoax and a cult, brought into the public arena by sympathetic public servants...if...?

Well, I can easily understand that YOU believe all of this. And of course your conclusions are based on your thinking. Garbage in, garbage out.

And you are demonstrably a wingnut.

 

[amicus]

Even though I told the gal, I was a grouchy Old Republican with a Beard, they still charged my $16.00 for a medium Pizza, I shoulda said I was a lefty, huh?

fudge...

Ami

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Before you dismiss me as a right wing nut, I ask you to consider the following: suppose, for just a moment, that there is no 'man caused climate change', and that normative climate values will determine future climates and that solid science, concerning climate change, foresee no drastic changes in the near future.

If you'll allow me, let's take your little supposition and turn it into a little logic matrix and try out some combinations and see what our outcomes are.

We have:

THEORIES
A: There is no man-made climate change
B: Our current standard of living is doing serious damage to the climate.

ACTIONS
A: We do nothing, carry on as we are
B: We accept a drop in our current living standards and try to slow down the rate of change

So let's toss 'em together and see what the outcomes are in regard to living standards

No AGW + Do nothing = No change, everything carries on as before.

No AGW + Do something = We dropped our living standards for no reason

Yes AGW + Do nothing = Really bad shit. Millions die. Mass warfare until the global population drops to a point where the reduced food/water production capacity can support it

Yes AGW + Do something = (assuming it's not already too late) We dropped our living standards, but they're now stable at the new level.

WHICH SCORES AS APPROPRIATE:
Do Nothing = No change + Massive lowering of living standards
Do Something = Slight lowering of living standards + Slight lowering of living standard.

All things being equal, I'd argue the "Do something" strategy outscores the "Do Nothing" strategy in terms of overall standard of living for the human race.

All things are not equal though. If the probability of AGW is skewed to being very low or the drop in living standards necessary to stave off catastrophe is really high then I'll concede the "Do nothing" strategy is correct.

I don't know the probability of AGW. Most scientific evidence seems to favour it (I'm talking real science - weighing up all the evidence, not picking the one paper out of forty that fits my personal viewpoint) so treating both theories as equally valid is probably reasonable.

The big question is then how much of a drop in living standards is necessary to stave off global catastrophe. If it's a big drop then we might as well "Do nothing" and hope AGW is wrong. If it's just consume a little less and pay a little more for cleaner energy then it's probably an acceptible sacrifice.

Feel free to find flaws in my logic...or ramble incoherently about something completely irrelevant like you normally do. Your choice.

 

[amicus]

I prefer to ramble incoherently about irrelevancies, if you don't mind, my usual style.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAN HAS CAUSED ANY CHANGE IN THE GLOBAL CLIMATE!

Locusts, however, until we killed most of the bastards, would devastate entire regions.

Man does change his environment to suit his own needs...izzat what upsets you so much?

We did eliminate the Buffalo on the Purple Plains and replace them with cows and people; so what?

Man does dam rivers for both flood control and power generation. Would you rather not have electricity?

Man does cut down trees for homes and shops, ain't it strange that there are more trees now than there were 200 years ago?

Man does dig in the dirt and rocks so you can have aluminum cookware and processing aluminum does use a great deal of electricity. You would rather have clay pots?

Man does procreate and with his modern inventions, more are born and live longer; you would have it otherwise? One child per family? Move to China.

Man is born without fur or thick skin, thus he must have clothing and warmth to survive; burning wood and dung was the first option, we do a little better now with coal and oil and atomic energy, who knows where the future will go?

Ah, there's the rub...you want to control the future; you want to guide and control human decisions about energy, transportation, food production, in fact all industry....you want it the way you want it for your own purpose.

None of your fears of environmental disaster are real, you have watched way too many disaster films and dire predictions. Some idiot by the name of Malthus said the earth could not support even a few million people before we overwhelmed the available resources...that was like 150 years ago and you still believe the error.

I foresee a great future for mankind, populating the entire earth with marvelous cities and launching ourselves into the Universe to bring life and laughter where there is none.

You see an apocalypse...no wonder you are on anti depressants...



the always affable amicus...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

If you'll allow me, let's take your little supposition and turn it into a little logic matrix and try out some combinations and see what our outcomes are.

We have:

THEORIES
A: There is no man-made climate change
B: Our current standard of living is doing serious damage to the climate.

ACTIONS
A: We do nothing, carry on as we are
B: We accept a drop in our current living standards and try to slow down the rate of change

So let's toss 'em together and see what the outcomes are in regard to living standards

No AGW + Do nothing = No change, everything carries on as before.

No AGW + Do something = We dropped our living standards for no reason

Yes AGW + Do nothing = Really bad shit. Millions die. Mass warfare until the global population drops to a point where the reduced food/water production capacity can support it

Yes AGW + Do something = (assuming it's not already too late) We dropped our living standards, but they're now stable at the new level.

WHICH SCORES AS APPROPRIATE:
Do Nothing = No change + Massive lowering of living standards
Do Something = Slight lowering of living standards + Slight lowering of living standard.

All things being equal, I'd argue the "Do something" strategy outscores the "Do Nothing" strategy in terms of overall standard of living for the human race.

All things are not equal though. If the probability of AGW is skewed to being very low or the drop in living standards necessary to stave off catastrophe is really high then I'll concede the "Do nothing" strategy is correct.

I don't know the probability of AGW. Most scientific evidence seems to favour it (I'm talking real science - weighing up all the evidence, not picking the one paper out of forty that fits my personal viewpoint) so treating both theories as equally valid is probably reasonable.

The big question is then how much of a drop in living standards is necessary to stave off global catastrophe. If it's a big drop then we might as well "Do nothing" and hope AGW is wrong. If it's just consume a little less and pay a little more for cleaner energy then it's probably an acceptible sacrifice.

Feel free to find flaws in my logic...or ramble incoherently about something completely irrelevant like you normally do. Your choice.

Of course you forgot one supposition"

No AGW + GW + LSL = Hell in a handbasket anyway.

All your assumption assume that Man Made Global Warming exists. When in all likehood the man made part is hyperbola. Global Warming could happen with out man doing a damn thing either way and we are still up shit creek without a paddle.

And to slow down AGW, why would we have to lower our standard of living?
Why would any of us have to do without the fruits of our labor?
Why would the fruits of my labor be taken from me by force?

 

[Stella_Omega]

What do you tell them on those conservative boards you also troll?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

All your assumption assume that Man Made Global Warming exists.

What, you mean the combinations I clearly marked "No AGW"

I was actually kind of generous and assigned equal probability to both theories. I believe current science still leans more to "Yes AGW" even after taking away the recent science scandals

Amicus is busy scything through his favourite ranks of strawmen when I'm waiting for him in the next field, but never mind. no surprises there.

 

[TE999]

Isn't it odd that the burgeoning superpowers in the world...China, India, et al are laughing at us 'going green' while they advance in manufacturing and continue harnessing the natural resources we so zealously protect.

Solar powered bicycles and houses made of old tires don't mean diddly to the Earth...it's gonna do what it's gonna do...we're fleas on it's ass.

We could achieve energy independence in no time if we could drill and dig our existing natural resources like we should be doing. When it comes to making use of what we have, the US is like a vegetarian locked in a meat market and starving to death.

 

[Guest]

I agree that the earth will do what it will. It will continue.

But if we continue to destroy the simple things like, oh, the oceans, perhaps, it is WE who will not continue.

The earth will do just fine once we're gone.

 

[amicus]

Somewhere in the past week or so, I watched a few minutes of a program concerning Sodom & Gomorah (sp) and Lott and somebody else, and the moderator was saying that 'city people' were the one's who violated God's Commandments and were living in sin....

I smiled and thought, yeah, samo, samo...

Intense concentrations of people, like rats, causes deviant behavior, a study I read a half century ago.

I can understand the ignorance of city dwellers concerning their existence, I mean, you trust the electric company and wouldn't know how to change a fuse if it bit you. If there was no grocery store nearby, you would starve to death and probably haven't cooked anything from scratch all your life.

You shun automobiles because you can't afford the parking fees and thus, wouldn't know a sparkplug from a carburator.

You have never drank anything that didn't come from a faucet or a plastic bottle and would never stoop to scooping two handsfull of water from a stream to slake your thirst.

Your entire lifetime has been filled with other people, television and radio and music players and would be totally in the dark if you were left in the dark.

All you know about the weather, as you go from air conditioned apartment to airconditioned cab to air conditioned workplace/eatery/theatre/bar, all you know about the weather, is how to spell it, maybe.

You might get out of your cab near a McDonalds and the wafting scent makes you salivate, so you hate McDonalds, because you are forty pounds overweight already.

Get the drift?

City folks vote by a vast majority for greater control and regulation while we country folk who actually make things work and supply the city folk with all their goodies, ask to just be let alone.

See, just read my Posts and imagine the things you can learn about yourself that you never even guessed before.

Ain't it wunnerful?



Amicus

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What, you mean the combinations I clearly marked "No AGW"

I was actually kind of generous and assigned equal probability to both theories. I believe current science still leans more to "Yes AGW" even after taking away the recent science scandals

Amicus is busy scything through his favourite ranks of strawmen when I'm waiting for him in the next field, but never mind. no surprises there.

But you didn't take into account that while AGW doesn't exist GW still does. The historical record does show that the Earth does warm in fairly predictable cycles even before man existed. So an assumption would be that GW is happening yet not caused by man and whatever man tried to do to slow it's happening was fruitless and we all die anyway. Yet you may well be right and it is man who caused the world to warm and we don't do a damn thing about it and all die. Or we give up the good life, live in abject poverty, people dying of starvation left and right with us lowering our production of CO2 and we all die anyway.

I still say....on a global scale man is an ant on the face of the earth. There are more bacteria on, in, and above the earth making CO2 than all of mankind combined.

Prediction: Global Warming will happen in the next fifty years and there is nothing man can do about it. And the only ones who live a life half way decently will be those politicians who brought Tax and Trade to fruition.

But Canadians will be happy because it will be like summer there all year long.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Factoring in assumption it's GW rather than AGW for Zeb

THEORIES
A: No GW of any kind
B: GW we can't do anything about
C: AGW we can do something about

COMBINATIONS
Do nothing + no GW = No change
Do nothing + GW = Bad shit, etc, etc
Do nothing + AGW = Bad shit, etc, etc

Do something + no GW = Slight lowering for no reason
Do something + GW = God's to blame not us. Bad shit, etc, etc
Do something + AGW = Slight lowering and stability

You should see from this that plain old GW cancels out as it's the same outcome for both strategies. Which means that, assuming roughly equal (yes, I do mean only a 50% chance of AGW being true and not a big hoax etc) and the lowering of living standards is not too punishing the strategy that will give you, yes YOU, a better standard of living over the next 30-40 years time is to "Do something."

 

[xssve]

Even though I told the gal, I was a grouchy Old Republican with a Beard, they still charged my $16.00 for a medium Pizza, I shoulda said I was a lefty, huh?

fudge...

Ami

No, they assume lefties have jobs, it's the righties think everything is free.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Factoring in assumption it's GW rather than AGW for Zeb

THEORIES
A: No GW of any kind
B: GW we can't do anything about
C: AGW we can do something about

COMBINATIONS
Do nothing + no GW = No change
Do nothing + GW = Bad shit, etc, etc
Do nothing + AGW = Bad shit, etc, etc

Do something + no GW = Slight lowering for no reason
Do something + GW = God's to blame not us. Bad shit, etc, etc
Do something + AGW = Slight lowering and stability

You should see from this that plain old GW cancels out as it's the same outcome for both strategies. Which means that, assuming roughly equal (yes, I do mean only a 50% chance of AGW being true and not a big hoax etc) and the lowering of living standards is not too punishing the strategy that will give you, yes YOU, a better standard of living overall in 30-40 years time is to "Do something."

But I believe, IMHO, that even if man were by some awful luck responsible for GW and it was AGW, that no matter how much we cut our productions of Co2 and any other greenhouse gases starting now we would have no effect on the cycle. It will happen no matter what we do, try to do. Man has a real bad habit of trying to change nature and fucking the whole thing up. As of this date, we (man) are not smart enough to even begin to comprehend what questions to ask, let alone what the answers to the questions are.

 

[Guest]

Somewhere in the past week or so, I watched a few minutes of a program concerning Sodom & Gomorah (sp) and Lott and somebody else, and the moderator was saying that 'city people' were the one's who violated God's Commandments and were living in sin....

I smiled and thought, yeah, samo, samo...

Intense concentrations of people, like rats, causes deviant behavior, a study I read a half century ago.

I can understand the ignorance of city dwellers concerning their existence, I mean, you trust the electric company and wouldn't know how to change a fuse if it bit you. If there was no grocery store nearby, you would starve to death and probably haven't cooked anything from scratch all your life.

You shun automobiles because you can't afford the parking fees and thus, wouldn't know a sparkplug from a carburator.

You have never drank anything that didn't come from a faucet or a plastic bottle and would never stoop to scooping two handsfull of water from a stream to slake your thirst.

Your entire lifetime has been filled with other people, television and radio and music players and would be totally in the dark if you were left in the dark.

All you know about the weather, as you go from air conditioned apartment to airconditioned cab to air conditioned workplace/eatery/theatre/bar, all you know about the weather, is how to spell it, maybe.

You might get out of your cab near a McDonalds and the wafting scent makes you salivate, so you hate McDonalds, because you are forty pounds overweight already.

Get the drift?

City folks vote by a vast majority for greater control and regulation while we country folk who actually make things work and supply the city folk with all their goodies, ask to just be let alone.

See, just read my Posts and imagine the things you can learn about yourself that you never even guessed before.

Ain't it wunnerful?



Amicus

Welllll, not yet.

I need to fact check every fucking thing you post by snopes.

Yannow.

Because some of us prefer truth over truthiness.

 

[amicus]

TE999:

"...the US is like a vegetarian locked in a meat market and starving to death..."

That be just too, too precious Tom, so I be gonna steal it!

~~~

Manyeyedhydra...giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe what you write, I offer the following...which you may confirm at your leisure.

The last Ice Age ended somewhere around 13,000 years ago. New York City was buried under more than a mile of glacier ice.

I have researched long and hard for scientific predictions of when the next Ice Age will occur, and it will, as it has many of times before, and the results I have found are in conflict. The best of the best scientific minds simply do not know precisely what causes a warming or a cooling period on earth, whether a new Ice Age is approaching or whether we have another 15,000 years of a moderate climate.

There are theories by the dozens and believe me, in research for books or my own curiosity, or to confront a believer, I have read them all.

A proper avenue of cogitation might be, that if another normal ice age were approaching, just what would we, you and I do?

If, over a span of years, insert your guess, everyone does, the climate were to gradually cool, how would citizens of the USA survive? Canadians would all move down here to begin with and love it. I would guess that the American population would begin to migrate South, whether the Mexicans liked it or not. The same with the Brits and Northern Europeans.

The climate will change, that is a certainty. But objective science, still in its' infancy, cannot even offer a solid theory whether the earth is warmng or cooling; thirty years ago, the best science in the world said an Ice Age was just around the corner. So what happened to that prediction?

But think on this as I know you will not answer, if you became convinced that the entire global warming prediction was in error, that there was no need to conserve the environment and that life was free and open to all opportunities, would it change the way you think about everything?

If, instead of investing your thoughts and energies to save the whole human race, you could sigh and just live your own life as you chose?

Would you?

Amicus

 

[manyeyedhydra]

City folks vote by a vast majority for greater control and regulation while we country folk who actually make things work and supply the city folk with all their goodies, ask to just be let alone.

See, just read my Posts and imagine the things you can learn about yourself that you never even guessed before.

Ain't it wunnerful?



Amicus

That's nice. I was born and bred in the country too and quite like it.

But how does the above square up with your previous comment?

.
I foresee a great future for mankind, populating the entire earth with marvelous cities

I'd like there to be some country left, if you know what I mean.

I'm still waiting in the next field for you to take my argument on BTW. I've even given you a 50% chance that AGW is a big load of codswallop.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

But think on this as I know you will not answer, if you became convinced that the entire global warming prediction was in error, that there was no need to conserve the environment and that life was free and open to all opportunities, would it change the way you think about everything?

You're thinking in absolutes and trying to assign hindsight bias to events that have not occurred yet.

All I'm doing is scoring two strategies to determine which is the better across all the different combinations.

If scientific evidence against AGW starts to mount up so that the chance of AGW becomes less and less then then the stretegies would score differently. If the science changed tomorrow to say there was a 99.9% chance of AGW theory being wrong I'd be the first to tell you we should do nothing.

As

Do nothing = (no change) * 99.9 + (catastrophe) * 00.1

is better than

Do Something = (slight lowering)*99.9 + (slight lowering)*00.1

But I think like a scientist and I'm capable of changing my views depending on the current evidence (tilted towards AGW) whereas you appear not.

 

[amicus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
City folks vote by a vast majority for greater control and regulation while we country folk who actually make things work and supply the city folk with all their goodies, ask to just be let alone.

See, just read my Posts and imagine the things you can learn about yourself that you never even guessed before.

Ain't it wunnerful?



Amicus

That's nice. I was born and bred in the country too and quite like it.

But how does the above square up with your previous comment?


Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
.
I foresee a great future for mankind, populating the entire earth with marvelous cities

I'd like there to be some country left, if you know what I mean.

I'm still waiting in the next field for you to take my argument on BTW. I've even given you a 50% chance that AGW is a big load of codswallop.

~~~

Let me begin by stating that my 'city folk' parody was a generalization. Great things happen in great Cities and they can be, but are not always, centers of learning and culture.

I cannot refute your 'belief' that global warming is truth, but if you care to read for a day or so, wander through Trysail's many references to factual evidence conerning climate and climate change, you will discover what I posted in bold, there is no objective science that supports man made climate change on a global scale.

I direct you to another truism; that as societies industrialize and become modern, the birth rate declines.

You should have no concern about there being 'country left', as in the distant future when even the African Continent is modernized, the population of the earth will be far less than it is now.

Even now, in many Euro Nations, the birth rate of the indigenous citizens is less than replacement value and immigrants from third world countries are brought in to prop up the population.

I am an atheist and I learned the hard way that one cannot debate a 'true believer', their faith is too strong and their minds are closed to reason.

Your words imply that you are open to reason and you do not need me to guide you towards the path of comprehension concerning global climate matters or any other area of conflict; you have it within yourself if you choose.

My latest epiphany, (actually not), but a combination of learning and thinking, is a disagreement with the cutting edge of astronomical thought, in that they, are predicting the 'big bang' theory will end with a dying out of the Universe as energy wanes or a 'ripping apart' of the fabric of time and space.

I also have quibbles with the 'dark energy and dark matter' theories, but since there are 'star nurseries' that continually give birth to new stars and thus new solar systems and since old stars explode and die and impart great energy outwards in all directions, it is my conclusion that the Universe will expand forever.

Put that in ur pipe & smoke it!



Amicus

 

[Guest]

So what do you post on the forums where you pretend to be liberal, ami?

Do you talk about how green you are?

How you recycle?

 

[Dragonlipz]

No, they assume lefties have jobs, it's the righties think everything is free.

Righties not only want everything for free: police protection, trash collection, child care, and infrastructure but they also stiff the pizza delivery guy every time.....(and then wonder why it's never delivered: on time or hot)

 

[amicus]

So what do you post on the forums where you pretend to be liberal, ami?

Do you talk about how green you are?

How you recycle?

~~~

That is a weak and feminine response; but then, you are female, I assume?

Your are irritated that I watch and even reference the 'green' channel of pure left wing propaganda, aren't you?

I said, years ago, that a debate class functioned by assigning students debate positions in opposition to their own personal choices. I found it enlightening to be assigned a, well, whatever you respond to, left wing, socialist, liberal, feminist point of view to defend and, of course, I never lost a debate regardless of which side I took.

You should be intellectually ashamed of yourself, you can neither defend your own position by any rational means, nor do you have the knowledge to address issues I represent beyond the personal attack.

But then, that is all you have ever done, snarl and hiss from a boxed in corner of your own faith.

Amicus

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]As of this date, we (man) are not smart enough to even begin to comprehend what questions to ask, let alone what the answers to the questions are.

Speak for yourself, stupid person.

 

[xssve]

~~~

That is a weak and feminine response; but then, you are female, I assume?

Your are irritated that I watch and even reference the 'green' channel of pure left wing propaganda, aren't you?

I said, years ago, that a debate class functioned by assigning students debate positions in opposition to their own personal choices. I found it enlightening to be assigned a, well, whatever you respond to, left wing, socialist, liberal, feminist point of view to defend and, of course, I never lost a debate regardless of which side I took.

You should be intellectually ashamed of yourself, you can neither defend your own position by any rational means, nor do you have the knowledge to address issues I represent beyond the personal attack.

But then, that is all you have ever done, snarl and hiss from a boxed in corner of your own faith.

Amicus

Lol, that describes you perfectly ami.