The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Funny.....either the methodology is flawed or it isn't regardless of the source revealing it is flawed. Don't like the info? Attack the source.

[Scrooge McSam]

No... but thanks for attempting to put words in my mouth.

I'll be glad to read the science, and regularly do.

But I laugh at anyone who would put this putz up as some authority on anything.

You wanna trust him? Pray, continue.

[scaeagles]

Hmmm....I do believe you attacked the source, and used that as a way to discount what was being presented.

[wendybeth]

Surely you're not claiming to have never attacked one's source, Scaeagles? Please don't make me do a search.

I am not at all above dismissing an article based on the source. Anything from O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, I will automatically dismiss without even bothering to read. Since you didn't dispute Scrooge's description of the author, I would be inclined to do the same with this link as well. He sounds like more of the same, but if he adds to your comfort zone then have at it.

[Scrooge McSam]

OK... If that's the way things have to work for you, that's just fine with me.

What you charitably call "info", I see as propaganda funded by the oil companies, presented by an individual with fundamental "honesty" issues.

I don't generally trust paid liars. I attacked the paid liar you cited and feel confident using my distrust of this paid liar to discount what he has to say on the subject.

Better?

But I must say I commend you on your quest for the truth. Times past I've seen you discount criticism, since proved to be true, as untrustworthy because "the guy has a book to sell". Kudos to you for realizing and trying to correct the error of your ways, and special thanks for trying to help me do the same.

I am forever in your debt.

[SacTown Chronic]

Well Richard Clarke did have a book to sell, didn't he?

[Chernabog]

Without reading anything else in this thread, I just don't understand why everyone believes Obama and his "we're changing! I'm all about change!" line, when EVERY politician says crap like that when they aren't an incumbent. Why does everyone just automatically believe him? It's odd to me.

[PanTheMan]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Without reading anything else in this thread, I just don't understand why everyone believes Obama and his "we're changing! I'm all about change!" line, when EVERY politician says crap like that when they aren't an incumbent. Why does everyone just automatically believe him? It's odd to me.

Having voted for Edwards and not an Obamabot yet, I must say i am impressed with his Charisma. Why does everyone buy the "Change" line? Well right now we live under such a clusterf*ck of an administration, people are are willing to do anything for "Change" and Obama conveys that message the best. Lets "Hope" he delivers the goods. He will however have quite a mess to clean up as did Carter after Nixon/Ford.

[PanTheMan]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Funny.....either the methodology is flawed or it isn't regardless of the source revealing it is flawed. Don't like the info? Attack the source.

\

Those who dont believe man has any impact on "Global Warming" isn't paying attention. Here in the Bay Area we can trace some of our polution we are breathing all the way to China! We all live under the same sky, like it or not.

More CO2, more retention of greenhouse gasses, more changes in the climates, and so on. We cant stop it, but we can slow it so all of us will be able to adapt much easier. Especially those in areas that will be hardest hit by flooding, stronger storms, more extreme winters and hotter summers.

[sleepyjeff]

First it was the coming Ice Age...

Then it was Global Warming...

Now it's Climate Change....

Funny thing is, I thought "Change" was supposed to be good