What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler said:
And I hear global warming isn't real, either. We can play the outlier game all day, you asked for links, and right now we're at about 100 studies to 1.
Click to expand...
Keep up with the times. It's now called climate change, so there's more fudge room when things don't happen the way all the models predict they will. Like how after Rita and Katrina, we were supposed to get disastrous hurricanes pummeling the U.S. every year. But, surprise, we've now gone 5 years without a major hurricane hitting the U.S., tying the record for most consecutive years without one. One more, and a record is set for most consecutive quiet hurricane seasons.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler said:
And I hear global warming isn't real, either. We can play the outlier game all day, you asked for links, and right now we're at about 100 studies to 1.
Click to expand...

I missed the talk about Head Start. Is someone making an argument that Head Start offers an advantage to being home with a dedicated parent in full time duty? Or is someone making an argument that Head Start is worse than a kid being left alone to conduct their own experiments with gasoline and kittens? Either way, face it: Without passing judgement on its value, Head Start is simply subsidized day care for people who can't or won't be active parents. No more or less.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Keep up with the times. It's now called climate change, so there's more fudge room when things don't happen the way all the models predict they will. Like how after Rita and Katrina, we were supposed to get disastrous hurricanes pummeling the U.S. every year. But, surprise, we've now gone 5 years without a major hurricane hitting the U.S., tying the record for most consecutive years without one. One more, and a record is set for most consecutive quiet hurricane seasons.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is that you actually think this is evidence against climate change.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

blockski said:
The funny thing is that you actually think this is evidence against climate change.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, people like you take evidence, no matter what direction it points, and say it is evidence for global warming or climate change, or whatever it is you types wish to call it. You know full well that the climate change crowd was yammering to high heaven how Rita and Katrina were evidence of how bad global warming was becoming, and now you don't hear a peep or retraction or anything from them. It's hypocrisy like that that makes people skeptical of these supposedly unbiased scientists. You types at least need to make up your mind once in awhile and stick to your guns. You might not always be right, but you'd gain a little more credibility.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
It's funny to joke about. And despite the benefit of making the SEC a foreign league, I don't see how anyone being serious could think such a thing.
Click to expand...

I'm largely ambivalent on the idea. On one hand, the US is a moderately stronger country due to retaining the south due to sheer magnitude. Yet, the south has frequently been an economic drain and throughout history has resulted in a more conficted country due to periodic reactionary ideals. Just because we don't talk about it on a daily basis...doesn't mean there are alot of residents of Knoxville that have ideas would be on the fringe for posters on a board like this.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

5mn_Major said:
I'm largely ambivalent on the idea. On one hand, the US is a moderately stronger country due to retaining the south due to sheer magnitude. Yet, the south has frequently been an economic drain and throughout history has resulted in a more conficted country due to periodic reactionary ideals. Just because we don't talk about it on a daily basis...doesn't mean there are alot of residents of Knoxville that have ideas would be on the fringe for posters on a board like this.
Click to expand...
Because this board is dominated by posters from hockey country in the northeast and midwest. One could say the same thing about what a lot of Vermont or Massachusetts or California residents think compared to the rest of the country. For example, for those of us in the mountain west and great plains areas, our views on average match up more closely with someone in Knoxville than someone in Vermont.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
Because this board is dominated by posters from hockey country in the northeast and midwest.
Click to expand...

And although the west is underrepresented, the board's geography is a decent barometer of what the country would look like without the south. The west largely balances itself out with the highly populous west coast vs. the fence sitters like CO, NM, IA, MO, NV vs. the rest of the interior.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

geezer said:
Or is someone making an argument that Head Start is worse than a kid being left alone to conduct their own experiments with gasoline and kittens?
Click to expand...

Unfair example. Even this hard core supporter of Head Start would not deny our nation its next generation of inventors.

I don't want to get rid of the south. I want to get rid of southern males; then we'll be able to make something of the place. Southern women can stay, although it would be nice if they could learn some morals.

figure_2.gif


I assume Alabama and South Carolina are so low because they didn't include 12-14 year olds.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

5mn_Major said:
And although the west is underrepresented, the board's geography is a decent barometer of what the country would look like without the south. The west largely balances itself out with the highly populous west coast vs. the fence sitters like CO, NM, IA, MO, NV vs. the rest of the interior.
Click to expand...
I really don't agree that this board even remotely represents what the U.S. is like, or even the U.S. without the South (however that's defined). Really, the whole idea of considering that the South shouldn't be a part of the U.S. because it doesn't match midwest, and to a greater extent, New England, views, is quite silly and potentially offensive. And when you step back and think about it, I'd say today's south is a lot more alike to the thinking of the north at the time of the civil war than the north of today is. So, by that logic, we should toss New England and maybe parts of the midwest and keep the south.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
The funny thing is, people like you take evidence, no matter what direction it points, and say it is evidence for global warming or climate change, or whatever it is you types wish to call it. You know full well that the climate change crowd was yammering to high heaven how Rita and Katrina were evidence of how bad global warming was becoming, and now you don't hear a peep or retraction or anything from them. It's hypocrisy like that that makes people skeptical of these supposedly unbiased scientists. You types at least need to make up your mind once in awhile and stick to your guns. You might not always be right, but you'd gain a little more credibility.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but my sympathies are still with the blockskis of the world.

The denialists have created a (pardon) atmosphere in which no level of stupidity or mendacity is too extreme. In response, some people have resorted to (pardon, again) overheated rhetoric. It's like the tobacco lobby wars, all over again.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

amherstblackbear said:
I see your point, but my sympathies are still with the blockskis of the world.

The denialists have created a (pardon) atmosphere in which no level of stupidity or mendacity is too extreme. In response, some people have resorted to (pardon, again) overheated rhetoric. It's like the tobacco lobby wars, all over again.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that the atmosphere we currently have is created primarily by those who have dominated the debate, those who will broker little or no questioning or discussion other than that it is fact and people should blindly accept whatever their latest tweek of their global warming model says as gospel truth. The way scientists hold themselves as above questioning or reproach reminds me of how the media claim with a straight face that they don't let their personal biases influence how they report things. To question global warming in today's hyperheated atmosphere is to become an instant pariah and to very possibly lose your job and many prospects of future employment. I instinctively react against people who won't broker questioning of their conclusions, and there are few cases where this has been as prevalent as in the global warming arena. My experience in life is that when there is such a mad rush to suddenly claim something is beyond question, it almost certainly will later be found to be overhyped and badly misrepresented. And I will note that there are some reasonable voices out there that will admit that there is much to learn and that are much more measured in their claims. But sadly, those are the exception, not the rule.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Bob Gray said:
I'd argue that the atmosphere we currently have is created primarily by those who have dominated the debate, those who will broker little or no questioning or discussion other than that it is fact and people should blindly accept whatever their latest tweek of their global warming model says as gospel truth. The way scientists hold themselves as above questioning or reproach reminds me of how the media claim with a straight face that they don't let their personal biases influence how they report things. To question global warming in today's hyperheated atmosphere is to become an instant pariah and to very possibly lose your job and many prospects of future employment. I instinctively react against people who won't broker questioning of their conclusions, and there are few cases where this has been as prevalent as in the global warming arena. My experience in life is that when there is such a mad rush to suddenly claim something is beyond question, it almost certainly will later be found to be overhyped and badly misrepresented. And I will note that there are some reasonable voices out there that will admit that there is much to learn and that are much more measured in their claims. But sadly, those are the exception, not the rule.
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem. The public debate is pretty much a wasteland. Sure, there is overheated rhetoric on the "pro" side of the debate. But the hard core deniers (not the skeptics or the intellectually curious, but the people who know, going in, that climate change shouldn't be true because policy reform hurts their interests) make such vacuous claims and such stupid arguments that it's really difficult NOT to associate genuine skepticism with self-interested denial. The result is that both deniers and skeptics get painted with the same brush by proponents. If anything, this pushes fence-sitters closer to the deniers' position.

But you have to ask: who actually benefits from this screwed-up state of affairs? The only people who benefit are those who have concrete interests in opposing any changes to the status quo. Who don't want any part of a genuine debate. That's why, to me, this isn't a Jon Stewart-esque case of "a pox on both their houses." One 'side' of the debate most definitely benefits from the current state of discourse - and it isn't science.
 
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Kepler said:
7%, eh? Yeah, I'm sure that's a real number and not just talk radio blather. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hannity only gives his listeners quality talking points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top