Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:26 pm    Post subject: McCain, speaker of truth. Reply with quote

http://forums.macleans.ca/adva.....0&sb=1

There is a guy who has no chance of ever being elected. Imagine, being an adult and trying to lead a nation of children. It is like telling your 2 year old to eat their broccoli. Accepting the consequences of actions taken, how last century of him.
Big Tuna





Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 368
Reputation: 15
votes: 6

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:30 pm    Post subject: Re: McCain, speaker of truth. Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=97788&tid=97788&eid=43&so=1&ps=0&sb=1

There is a guy who has no chance of ever being elected. Imagine, being an adult and trying to lead a nation of children. It is like telling your 2 year old to eat their broccoli. Accepting the consequences of actions taken, how last century of him.


I agree but we can't completely blame the nation of children. They were told by the previous adult in charge that there would be very few consequences for their action.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does that really qualify him as an adult though, telling people that there are little to no consequences to the actions the country takes? Seems to me, if you have an adult as leader, they make decisions, and accept the consequences without lying, omitting, or adding anything. There has not really been an adult leader in the West since Thatcher, and there have been no adult countries since about 1950.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Consequences for whos actions? If Bush wasnt in power the Iraq war wouldnt have happened. There are probably 100 people, MAYBE 500, that are largely directly responsible for the war, out of a nation of over 300 million.

No one wants to see America in Iraq for 100 years, the cost in terms of money, men, equipment and American ability to project hard and soft power would be seriouse.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If Bush wasnt in power the Iraq war wouldnt have happened. There are probably 100 people, MAYBE 500, that are largely directly responsible for the war, out of a nation of over 300 million.


I don't know ... 62 million people voted for Bush in the 2004 election. This was after the invasion in 2003, and an increase of 12 million from his electoral victory in 2000. In 2004, the choice WAS between withdrawal and continuing the effort - the citizens of the US chose to stay the course. And the war did recieve bilateral support in both houses.

It's one thing to say you made a mistake, quite another to pretend you didn't do what you did and try to avoid responsibility.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
Consequences for whos actions? If Bush wasnt in power the Iraq war wouldnt have happened. There are probably 100 people, MAYBE 500, that are largely directly responsible for the war, out of a nation of over 300 million.

No one wants to see America in Iraq for 100 years, the cost in terms of money, men, equipment and American ability to project hard and soft power would be seriouse.
How long has the US been in Germany, or Japan if you prefer?
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John McCain, speaker of truth... your right he acknowledges that global warming is caused by humans, and he proposes many progressive measures to solve it. He clearly isnt under any pressure from Republicans to take this position yet he has anyways. Better yet, he disagrees with Kyoto. Now heres a guy who knows what hes talking about.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Info.....b278db.htm
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
- Section 3 is devoted to the atmospheric greenhouse problem. It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.co.....07894.html

Please don't bring your Environmentology religion into this reality based forum.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must be spoiling for a fight tonight. I am just waiting for someone to tell me how this physicist has been paid off by big oil, so cannot be trusted, but Al Gore, who makes money selling carbon credits, is a paragon of virtue and honesty. I can hardly wait for this current faith based hoax to go away.
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Quote:
- Section 3 is devoted to the atmospheric greenhouse problem. It is shown that this effect neither has experimental nor theoretical foundations and must be considered as fictitious. The claim that CO2 emissions give rise to anthropogenic climate changes has no physical basis.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.co.....07894.html

Please don't bring your Environmentology religion into this reality based forum.


I thought you said McCain speaks the truth?


Is science really a religion? No, a scientific debate deserves merit and you wont even look at the whole basis of the arguement. If you want to talk about far out religions, how about climate change doubters. Grouping up, trying to create debate where there is none. Mindlesslessly following farfeatched ideas? Not what i call reality.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just because he is right about one thing, does not make him correct on every subject. It is like if you asked a racist and homophobe what 2+2 is. The answer is 4 regardless of any odious personal beliefs. Likewise, take a well respected and honest man, if he answered 3 that does not make 3 the answer.

Science is not religion, but we are not talking about science here. We are talking about the environmental movement. That most definitely is a religious movement, and a fanatical one at that.

PS. I had a good laugh when you talked about science. The experts on climate change? Al Gore, a politician, not a physicist, mathematician, climatologist, or anything else. David Suzuki? Biologist. The people who actually have applicable credentials? Why, those are the ones to ignore of course! Please, stick to talking about things you have some expertise in, and not science.


Last edited by kwlafayette on Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
winchry





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Reputation: 16.5Reputation: 16.5
Location: Sarnia, Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Just because he is right about one thing, does not make him correct on every subject. It is like if you asked a racist and homophobe what 2+2 is. The answer is 4 regardless of any odious personal beliefs. Likewise, take a well respected and honest man, if he answered 3 that does not make 3 the answer.

Science is not religion, but we are not talking about science here. We are talking about the environmental movement. That most definitely is a religious movement, and a fanatical one at that.


Just becasue you dont believe something is true it is not a fanatical religion. I really dont think the debate over GW sciencew needs to take place again so i will stop this exchange here. I do take solace, though in the fact my beliefs are with the majority(perhap not on this website but in general) and yours are not. :D
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is a wise course to take when you are on the losing side.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you. Anyone know what happens next?

PS. From what I can tell, the Environmentologists have given up entirely on ignoring the us, and are somewhere in between ridicule and fighting.
goward4u





Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 112
Reputation: 28.7Reputation: 28.7Reputation: 28.7

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Haha!

I take solace in the knowledge that my beliefs are NOT that of the majority. How's Britany Spears, by the way? I think the majority keeps up with the Enquirer news.
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:00 am    Post subject: Scientist or conservative ..do I have to choose ? Reply with quote

>The experts on climate change? Al Gore, a politician, not a physicist, mathematician, >climatologist, or anything else.

Right, he is a TV pitchman. Its the LEGIONS of physicists, mathematicians and climatologists and the mountain of evidence that back him up that is important. I amazes me how the anti-climate change crowd wants to make this a debate about Al Gore.

>I am just waiting for someone to tell me how this physicist has been paid off by big oil, >so cannot be trusted, but Al Gore, who makes money selling carbon credits, is a >paragon of virtue and honesty

Again, Gore is a TV pitchman. He does not claim to be a scientists. On the other hand, a fair number of the prominent anti-global warming crowd have been paid lots of money by oil companies. Tim Ball and the "junk science guy" on Fox come to mind. You can attack Gore, but you cannot attack the science behind him.

Yes, there are a handful of legitimate scientists who disagree with global warming. But they are few and they disagree with each other as much as they disagree with the idea of man made global warming. The vast majority of people in the field agree with the general concepts of man made global warming BTW - please don't post that list of "400 prominent scientists who disagree with global warming" without reading it. VERY few of these people are "prominent scientists".

I have been watching the debate and reading the blogs here, and I am just about to pull my hair. Much of the "evidence" against global warming posted on these blogs is downright silly. Much of it posted by people who don't really understand the theory. I am a scientist (I have a undergraduate degree in Chemistry and work in a lab) and a conservative. I am begining to think I am going to have to choose between the two.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


McCain, speaker of truth.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB