DescentBB

"We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people..."

Do you agree?

I do not know who the author of this statement.
I just give an example. Once I saw that 20-ton truck stuck in the mud on the roadside. I saw that 15 professional drivers waving their hands and cursing each other argue how best to pull the truck out of the mud, but their dispute was not any good. I could not pass by indifferently, seeing their weakness, because I know how to get this truck out of the mud. I asked the truck driver get behind the wheel and just follow my instructions. 50 year-old truck driver listened to the 18 year old guy. Maybe he just saw that I should trust, and maybe he had no other choice.
When the truck drove on the highway, I heard applause in my address. But it does not matter, it's just an example of life.

ThunderBunny wrote:Do you agree?

Needs context.

context? In this crowd?

How exactly are we going to be terrorized by a viewpoint?

y'all are going to love Hillary for 8 years. I keep trying to tell you.....if you thought Obama was a: leftist, willing to pressure issues towards the left, with a socialist ideology..........Hillary is going to be a shock because she is the real deal. And, she is going to win, both because the GOP has nothing to offer that is any way positive, and on most issues the VAST majority of the nation is with her(partly because of the Clinton method of avoiding hot button issues until they know a critical mass is in favor). Moreover, she's going to win in a year that will add to the state gains the Dems are going to make this year, and in which any backslide in the Congress from 2014 will be wiped out....especially in the Senate where 7 GOP seats will be very much in play, and she will bring out a HUGE turnout.
So, yes, Hillary uttered the words TB cites. She was right, in a sense. In a nation where gun owners are about 50 percent, only a small faction among them(the 'minority') hold radical views about public carry, and unfettered transfer. Those were the people she referred to, and the context was of a nation that lives(daily) with far too many violent acts(shooting primarily). And, yes, many of us fear where that minority wishes to lead us.

ThunderBunny wrote:"We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people..."

Do you agree?

No. This is what the majority responds with when a vocal minority finally gets out from under the majority's oppressive thumb and that majority gets all bent out of shape about it.

Lol…nice timing…

Stop oppressing those gun nuts….

....or, we can just wait for inevitable extinction:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/18/g ... lster-gun/

Good ol' Darwin Awards...

Spidey wrote:Lol…nice timing…

Stop oppressing those gun nuts….

Well, gun nuts aren't in the majority either. The country seems split 50/50 on the issue, taking into account the partisan divide on the issue. In fact, depending on the poll and the type of questions asked, there are more Americans that want stricter guns laws than less.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/313-americ ... -guns-but/

But is TB talking about gun rights, or something else like gay rights or religious rights with his quote?

If you would stop skimming, you would have read that slick said it was Hillary that said that…and in fact was talking about gun nuts.

callmeslick wrote:y'all are going to love Hillary for 8 years.

there are too many factors that will keep her from running. Latest would be book sale numbers of her new book. Palins book sold 10x as many at this point in time:

"Between us, they are nervous at S&S [Simon & Schuster]," says the source, who gave permission for his email to be published. "Sales were well below expectations and the media was a disaster."

"According to this source, a Simon & Schuster insider, "They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks." The publishing house was "hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week."

So if people don't want her book, what makes you think they will vote for her?

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Lol…nice timing…

Stop oppressing those gun nuts….

Well, gun nuts aren't in the majority either. The country seems split 50/50 on the issue, taking into account the partisan divide on the issue. In fact, depending on the poll and the type of questions asked, there are more Americans that want stricter guns laws than less.

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/313-americ ... -guns-but/

But is TB talking about gun rights, or something else like gay rights or religious rights with his quote?

More like freedom of speech. (Or freedom to think for that matter.)

I don't like many of TC's views and may be 'terrorized' by them (actually callmeslick's 'terrorize' me more than hers) but that doesn't mean she can't hold a viewpoint I disagree with.

Mrs. Clinton held high positions of power- and probably hopes to hold the highest office in the land. Her views about others' rights are hers to hold- but does she expect to take your right to express yourself if she doesn't agree with you?

Apologists will say 'Well, this is a misspoken quote taken out of context.' In fact, I think it really betrays what the speaker's real thoughts are about other peoples' views and their rights to even THINK what they wish.

The less prepared someone is and more spontaneous a discussion is- probably brings out more genuine expression of their thoughts on a matter.

(Donald Stirling anyone? Slick?)

Spidey wrote:If you would stop skimming, you would have read that slick said it was Hillary that said that…and in fact was talking about gun nuts.

No, that wasn't IN the original statement and quote by TB. Slick said something about Hillary a few posts later. That's the only reason I asked TB because the quote was pretty general in regards to anything we've all argued about lately.

ThunderBunny wrote:More like freedom of speech. (Or freedom to think for that matter.)

I don't like many of TC's views and may be 'terrorized' by them (actually callmeslick's 'terrorize' me more than hers) but that doesn't mean she can't hold a viewpoint I disagree with.

Mrs. Clinton held high positions of power- and probably hopes to hold the highest office in the land. Her views about others' rights are hers to hold- but does she expect to take your right to express yourself if she doesn't agree with you?

Apologists will say 'Well, this is a misspoken quote taken out of context.' In fact, I think it really betrays what the speaker's real thoughts are about other peoples' views and their rights to even THINK what they wish.

The less prepared someone is and more spontaneous a discussion is- probably brings out more genuine expression of their thoughts on a matter.

(Donald Stirling anyone? Slick?)

What views of mine don't you like? I'm definitely not a lover of Hillary. In fact, I absolutely I loathe her and her husband, and I hope to God the Dems pick someone else, or a viable third party candidate comes forward.

I also own a gun and don't want it taken away or restricted by some draconian laws, so I'm not a "gun hater". But I do believe in some form of preventative measures to keep guns away from mentally ill people.

I believe in the freedom of religion for all, but not the "freedom" to use that religion as a reason to repress others who don't happen agree with that religion.

I happen to despise Islam. It's a paternalistic and repressive misogynistic religion. However, I can't stop people who want to believe in it or practice it, nor do I want to as a matter of course. People are free to worship as they please, as long as they keep me out of it or don't force me to practice it. I do draw the line at Religious Jihad. It should be put down like the plague it is.

I also agree with you that China is going to be our next big threat. Maybe not militarily, but most certainly economically.

tunnelcat wrote:What views of mine don't you like?

I don't remember specifically, but you do have some (just like any other human being.)

Maybe about the cause of global warming/climate change. (Anthropogenic vs unknown natural cause.)

But you're right. It seems that you agree with many of my points with more recent and pressing concerns (China, islam, etc.)

Let me make this clear, at an early juncture: I don't like Hillary Clinton very much. I liked Bill, respect his intellect if not his personal lifestyle choices. However, I worked and contributed to Obama's campaign precisely because I wished to deny Hillary the sure-win Presidency in 2008. My comments regarding her certainty of winning if she runs is based on sheer politics. It is quite evident from all recent polling, demographic data and recent national election cycles that:
1. Whoever the Dems run is going to win.
2. It isn't likely to be all that close(see widening gaps for Obama in 2012, despite many reasons for a closer election than 2008).
3. A woman candidate will be very strong for the Dem supporters and Independants.

so, I'm just looking at realpolitik scenarios. I don't feel that Hillary has either the intellect, the judgement, nor the temperment that Obama brings to the table. She WILL, if elected, bring a very much more aggressive political game to the table, and will surround herself with FAR more liberal/progressive types overall than Obama has(he has, despite the whining from the haters, worked to get a bit of balanced opinion on most issues).

You might be right slick, but a lot can happen in two years. The republicans could pull themselves together and field a plain better candidate, Hillary could decide not to run, etc. I say it is too early to really make any calls on it, but everything you suggest is definitely possible.

Krom wrote:You might be right slick, but a lot can happen in two years. The republicans could pull themselves together and field a plain better candidate, Hillary could decide not to run, etc. I say it is too early to really make any calls on it, but everything you suggest is definitely possible.

not 'calling' much, but simply looking at the political cards on the table right now.

ThunderBunny wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What views of mine don't you like?

I don't remember specifically, but you do have some (just like any other human being.)

Maybe about the cause of global warming/climate change. (Anthropogenic vs unknown natural cause.)

But you're right. It seems that you agree with many of my points with more recent and pressing concerns (China, islam, etc.)

Well, on the global warming thing, I don't necessarily buy into it, nor do I discount it outright. It's one of those things that's a long term wait just to figure out if man's fossil fuel burning is going to have negative effects on climate. First appearances may indicate it does, but since the planet has gone through some pretty serious climate changes in the past on it's own, we can't really differentiate what's natural and what's man-caused. Of course, if we finally discover that we're the problem, by then we've probably gone over the tipping point and we're screwed. My gripe with deniers is since we have to live on this planet for the foreseeable future, I don't know why we can't be more proactive and treat it better for our own future livability. Dumping all that CO2 in the atmosphere has got to have repercussions.

tunnelcat wrote:...but since the planet has gone through some pretty serious climate changes in the past on it's own, we can't really differentiate what's natural and what's man-caused.

Except we can, and have, and the results are in -- the man-made component it causing the rapid rise. Keep in mind, when the world has done crazy stuff on its own this resulted in mass extinctions. So really, it doesn't matter if it is man-made or not, we need to take action to prevent global catastrophe. We would rise too action if an asteroid were heading toward the planet. We wouldn't just go "well, it's natural for the Earth to get hit by asteroids, so let's see what happens..."

Not only that, but these past major swings in temperature took place over hundreds, if not thousands of years. Mankind pumping this much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is accomplishing the same feat in decades. That's where the true danger lies.

And the doomsday presentation just keeps getting holes put in it like over ripe swiss cheese:

"But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "

"Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models."

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...but since the planet has gone through some pretty serious climate changes in the past on it's own, we can't really differentiate what's natural and what's man-caused.

Except we can, and have, and the results are in -- the man-made component it causing the rapid rise. Keep in mind, when the world has done crazy stuff on its own this resulted in mass extinctions. So really, it doesn't matter if it is man-made or not, we need to take action to prevent global catastrophe. We would rise too action if an asteroid were heading toward the planet. We wouldn't just go "well, it's natural for the Earth to get hit by asteroids, so let's see what happens..."

Satellite of the Sun planet Earth not only depends on the cyclic rhythm of life of this pulsar, but the Earth also has its cyclical rhythm. Regular movement and polar magnetic poles, slow but inevitable shift of Earth's rotational axis relative to its orbit, gyroscopic unsteady Earth relative to the Sun, all this is really the cause of global climate change periodical on the planet. According to some well-known scientists, the beginning of a new Ice Age will begin in about 130 years. That is, approximately when the oil runs out in the available sources. We did not even have time to master the production of the vast oil resources of Antarctica.
Anthropogenic impact of industry on global pollution of nature and human health is only important at this particular moment. But it hardly can cause catastrophic climate change on the planet.

Top Gun wrote:... Mankind pumping this much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is accomplishing the same feat in decades. That's where the true danger lies.

The whole world to fulfill its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, and only the U.S. is not even ratified the treaty (that is not recognized its validity). Canada generally withdrawn from the treaty.

the definition of "obligations" in that context is a sick joke. lol

Australia is also backing out of the accord.

I do not understand what is causing your joy. You did not support the entire world to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Keep whining about the threat of global warming.

sigma wrote:I do not understand what is causing your joy. You did not support the entire world to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Keep whining about the threat of global warming.

There never was any agreement for the "entire world" to reduce emissions.
There was an agreement to exempt china and india for example, as well as over 100 others. And a provision for countries to give money to other countries instead of reducing emissions....extortion, bribe, payoff, etc. You pick the name it is all the same in this case.

China produces twice the emissions that the US does yet they are exempt. Obviously it isn't the level of emissions that gets them that exemption.

So try again sigma.

Yes, all the fools, except you. You do not want to limit your emissions of greenhouse gases because of quotas limit.

sigma wrote:Yes, all the fools, except you. You do not want to limit your emissions of greenhouse gases because of quotas limit.

We are limiting our emissions. We just don't want to pay a fee to the U.N. for the benefit of some country who pollutes more than we do with no guarantee that the money will be used for reducing emissions.

We don't have any need to take part in that scheme.

woodchip wrote:And the doomsday presentation just keeps getting holes put in it like over ripe swiss cheese:

I guess you already forgot about the ice sheet that recently broke free of Antarctica. You know, the one that will melt over the next 200 years and raise sea levels by a few meters? Yeah, that one. Real bad stuff is already happening, my man. All the coasts of the world will change, soon, and this is a fact. Some islands will be buried.

woodchip wrote:"But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science...

Ah yes, Goddard, who you cite every time there is a climate change post. I bet you don't even realize you are doing it.

Yea, I heard those ice sheets were breaking away and melting faster because some idiots went there and drilled a bunch of holes, letting warm water get where it wouldn’t have for many many more years….

Spidey wrote:Yea, I heard those ice sheets were breaking away and melting faster because some idiots went there and drilled a bunch of holes, letting warm water get where it wouldn’t have for many many more years….

Without a doubt, that conditions the average summer temperature in Antarctica is 30 degrees Celsius below zero, and the average winter temperature of 80 degrees Celsius below zero, warm water flowing river in artificial wells to melt the ice shell thickness of 2 kilometers

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:And the doomsday presentation just keeps getting holes put in it like over ripe swiss cheese:

I guess you already forgot about the ice sheet that recently broke free of Antarctica. You know, the one that will melt over the next 200 years and raise sea levels by a few meters? Yeah, that one. Real bad stuff is already happening, my man. All the coasts of the world will change, soon, and this is a fact.

And I guess you forgot about the volcanic activity below the Antarctic ice sheet and glaciers are the primary culprit for the melting going on...not global warming. Nice try at deflection tho

where is all this 'expertise' when the world needs it so badly?


On that note, I'm down to the beach for a week, a place I try to stay offline if at all possible. Have fun!

woodchip wrote:And I guess you forgot about the volcanic activity below the Antarctic ice sheet and glaciers are the primary culprit for the melting going on...not global warming. Nice try at deflection tho

Go read that paper again. It says the mantle heat is contributing, NOT the primary culprit. And it doesn't matter if we are causing climate change or not, we need to take action because it will save millions, possibly billions, of lives and trillions of dollars.

vision wrote:...
And it doesn't matter if we are causing climate change or not, we need to take action because it will save millions, possibly billions, of lives and trillions of dollars.

If the changes that are taking place are not of our doing what action is it that you propose will save so many lives? Are you are suggesting that even if our actions are not creating a negative effect reducing our actions will have a positive effect?

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...but since the planet has gone through some pretty serious climate changes in the past on it's own, we can't really differentiate what's natural and what's man-caused.

Except we can, and have, and the results are in -- the man-made component it causing the rapid rise. Keep in mind, when the world has done crazy stuff on its own this resulted in mass extinctions. So really, it doesn't matter if it is man-made or not, we need to take action to prevent global catastrophe. We would rise too action if an asteroid were heading toward the planet. We wouldn't just go "well, it's natural for the Earth to get hit by asteroids, so let's see what happens..."

I agree with you completely. Inaction will definitely lead to our eventual destruction. We may not be able to prevent catastrophic changes that occur naturally, but sitting on our hands and letting the status quo reign supreme is idiotic. We CAN change the way we pollute our air and water right now and make a huge difference. We can even create a viable new economy out of the whole process too.

Will Robinson wrote:Are you are suggesting that even if our actions are not creating a negative effect reducing our actions will have a positive effect?

That depends on what you mean by "actions."

Regardless, it is clear to the broad majority of experts that we are in fact causing the rapid escalation of temperature. Even if we were not, we would still have a responsibility to take some kind of action using all our knowledge and resources to head off ecological and economic disaster. It would be no different with any other type of natural disaster having global implications.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Are you are suggesting that even if our actions are not creating a negative effect reducing our actions will have a positive effect?

That depends on what you mean by "actions."

Regardless, it is clear to the broad majority of experts that we are in fact causing the rapid escalation of temperature. Even if we were not, we would still have a responsibility to take some kind of action using all our knowledge and resources to head off ecological and economic disaster. It would be no different with any other type of natural disaster having global implications.

If we are in fact not causing the problem as your hypothetical proposed we have a responsibility to abandon the course set by those who were so wrong and try to determine just how much of the alleged 'disaster' is evident and how much was a lie.
Any course of action we would take should be one based on the new evidence that excludes the false alarm and those perpetuating the meme.

Your hypothetical seems to be completely disingenuous. I don't think you have honestly questioned the meme. Perhaps you are so caught up in the 'game' being played that you can't objectively process challenges to the data used by your team.