3rdnlng Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 baskin just did. do you need more? Benghazi was a concern only because of Obama? Two wars on fabricated evidence? I'm surprised either one of you missed the governments involvement in blowing up the Twin Towers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) how bout we start a code for every extremist post from here on out? a prospective study rather than a retrospective one. i'd propose the code words "ayn rand". "milton friedman"? got it: "glenn beck" Benghazi was a concern only because of Obama? Two wars on fabricated evidence? I'm surprised either one of you missed the governments involvement in blowing up the Twin Towers. while that would be the extreme left take, it's clearly not mine. see the distinction? Edited May 23, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 how bout we start a code for every extremist post from here on out? a prospective study rather than a retrospective one. i'd propose the code words "ayn rand". "milton friedman"? Milton Friedman was an extremist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Milton Friedman was an extremist? he shares a good measure of responsibilty for the current depressing financial state where wealth is so dangerously distributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 how bout we start a code for every extremist post from here on out? a prospective study rather than a retrospective one. i'd propose the code words "ayn rand". "milton friedman"? got it: "glenn beck" while that would be the extreme left take, it's clearly not mine. see the distinction? Let's get rid of my sarcasm about the Twin Towers and just deal with Baskin's claims regarding Benghazi and the two wars. Do you want to explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 he shares a good measure of responsibilty for the current depressing financial state where wealth is so dangerously distributed. Explain, please, in technical terms, which would demonstrate a functional understanding of the work, Friedman's economics, and how they work (or don't). Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Explain, please, in technical terms, which would demonstrate a functional understanding of the work, Friedman's economics, and how they work (or don't). Thank you. to be honest, I'd be satisfied to see it explained in non-technical terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 to be honest, I'd be satisfied to see it explained in non-technical terms. he espoused income inequality as necessary and even desirable. while i agree to a degree, i feel that his sense of proportion in this regard was extreme just sa is the current level of inequality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 he espoused income inequality as necessary and even desirable. while i agree to a degree, i feel that his sense of proportion in this regard was extreme just sa is the current level of inequality. I don't believe he ever actually espoused income inequality. I believe his position was always that in a free market economy, income inequality was always going to be present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) I don't believe he ever actually espoused income inequality. I believe his position was always that in a free market economy, income inequality was always going to be present. Edited May 23, 2014 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 thank you. that made my point better than I could have ever worded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 thank you. that made my point better than I could have ever worded it. I don't necessary agree with everything friedman has said but his thoughtful brand of debating is something i miss. Now the talking heads rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I don't necessary agree with everything friedman has said but his thoughtful brand of debating is something i miss. Now the talking heads rule. agree on both points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) I do agree with you, you do realize the wiki link, while discussing the much greater picture in this debate, has it's own slant? Of course birdog doesn't realize this. WRT the perks in the field, it's not a tiny minority. I'm sorry, you really don't understand the world of academic research. We can add this the very long list of things birdog doesn't understand. Birdog doesn't even understand his own field(the business part or the regulatory part). There's not a lot of money in science and any funded PI being able to go out and give talks (beyond presenting at scientific meetings) is an important component to getting their name out there, collaborative efforts, and extra income. But you do realize his "wins" mean there is still a temperature rise, though not as great as he originally published, the guy replaced tree ring temperature data with satellite temperature data conveniently at the exact point where the tree ring data diverged (stayed static or showed cooling) from the satellite data and never mentioned it in his publication? This is shady science at it's best. There were assumptions and parameters that either sides in this debate can manipulate to their convenience. Who's right? Well, why discuss because everything's "settled"? That polarizes mentalities and only inflames things. When I have time I'll dig more into the wiki links. You don't say. Money and self-interest in science? Heresy! Hmm....but remember: you aren't capable of perceiving your own field properly... And, how dare you point out an inconsistency(read: flat out distortion) in the "settled science"? Don't you know that they are merely seeking truth? No worries, sarcasm is difficult to pick up over the internet but you're probably the best at it I've seen. I read this thread because there can be some great references here but I really don't have the time or desire to engage in pissing matches. That's why...so many years ago....I was literally orderd to use emoticons. Now, we have tools who cry about me using them. But, that's only because I have conditioned them. And, you are in the wrong place if you don't want to engage in pissing matches. Once again: welcome to PPP! all those words and not a single one of meaningful rebuttal. you link shows that one of the world leaders in the field stands to make "hundreds of thousands of dollars". probably enough to cover legal expenses defending himself from his attackers. and what of his colleagues? how much do they get for speaking? most get nothing. how do his speaker fees compare to those at the pinnacle of other professions? you know, like bankers and athletes and lobbyists and retired politician and hedge fund guru's... this is where science is different. people rarely go into it for the money cuz it isn't there for most. when you think of einstein or watson or crick, do you think of wealthy men? Read the words again then. Do you even know that the word "rebuttal" means? You specifically said these guys don't get $, and/or $ is not in their interest. I rebut that by providing direct evidence that not only do they get $, they get a lot of it.....and now? You admit to my rebuttal, but tell me that it's all used for legal defense? How about legal offense, you unmitigated moron: http://www.realclear...ry__121528.html Michael Mann isn't defending, he's attacking. So, yeah, before you post again: understand, I just rebutted you a 2nd time. Dude - the ONLY place you have credibility with your fellow tin foil hat circle jerkers is here - you have become incredibly well versed in propping each other up in your little world of cognitive dissonance. Right, and that is evidenced by the FACTS that: 1. Hardly anyone cares about this issue. Every poll says that. Here's one(that is cited all over the damn internet): http://www.gallup.co...op-worry.aspx And what a surprise: it's always the same ~20%. This group is otherwise known as: The Far Left. Yeah, 80% of the country, doesn't see this as a major concern. But that's wrong, according to you. No, it's only the people in this thread. Unmitigated moron. 2. Congress won't touch this issue with 10' pole. But, that's because...dissonance. 3. We are talking about WHEN the Keystone pipeline gets approved, not whether. The TEA party has moved the entire debate to the right, where in 2008 this wouldn't even be considered. And of course, this has nothing to do with FACTS 1 and 2, or the fact that we aren't see thing catastrophies that were predicted 10 years ago. Do you know what "cognitive dissonance" means? It is the global warming alarmists that are currently exhibiting its symptoms, not I. As the global temperature observations do not match the predictions, as the evidence mounts that the predictions were wildly overstated: Who is refusing to adjust their world view accordingly? Who is clinging to their beliefs, and comiserating/seeking comfort with the like-minded, rather than conducting some long overdue instrospection(the definition of cognitive dissonance)? Hint: Not I. I'm just doing what I have been doing since 2005. Calling this a political scam...because it has always walked like a political scam, talked like a political scam, and quacked like a political scam. I would feel frightened if I had credibility with people who don't follow science but rather conspiracies, can't admit Cliven Bundy was a complete whiff of a subject, latch on the Benghazi with great temerity because Obama - while giving the complete conspiracy of waging two wars on fabricated evidence a free pass..... "Clean up your own house" - what a hypocritical joke you guys are..... Works for you! This is absurd. What does any of this have to do with the political scam, I have correctly identified as a scam, from day 1? You want to do history? Here's history: The Democratic party needed a new issue, after getting beaten in 2002, and 2004. Even with Bush bleeding out on Iraq, they STILL couldn't win. And, if they don't get that issue, the biggest real issue(which they have been doing everything to avoid), entitlement reform, would have crushed them if they didn't distract from it. That, and the political scam that is Global Warming was the vehicle, that allowed them to declare socialism-->investing in Solyndra, as a necessary "lesser of 2 evils". Now? It's all falling apart. And, entitlement reform is still here, waiting to pound their dicks into the dirt. I will dumb it down for you: Entitlements are wholly owned by the Democratic party, and they are failing. The spectacle of that failure will call all Democratic ideology into serious doubt, and kill the "progressive" agenda dead. Demographics is the lie they tell themselves, but a latino/black mixed race, poor, lesbian single mother....knows failure when she sees it. ALL of us do. But you don't understand any of this, do you? Edited May 23, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Of course birdog doesn't realize this. We can add this the very long list of things birdog doesn't understand. Birdog doesn't even understand his own field(the business part or the regulatory part). You don't say. Money and self-interest in science? Heresy! Hmm....but remember: you aren't capable of perceiving your own field properly... And, how dare you point out an inconsistency(read: flat out distortion) in the "settled science"? Don't you know that they are merely seeking truth? That's why...so many years ago....I was literally orderd to use emoticons. Now, we have tools who cry about me using them. But, that's only because I have conditioned them. And, you are in the wrong place if you don't want to engage in pissing matches. Once again: welcome to PPP! Read the words again then. Do you even know that the word "rebuttal" means? You specifically said these guys don't get $, and/or $ is not in their interest. I rebut that by providing direct evidence that not only do they get $, they get a lot of it.....and now? You admit to my rebuttal, but tell me that it's all used for legal defense? How about legal offense, you unmitigated moron: http://www.realclear...ry__121528.html Michael Mann isn't defending, he's attacking. So, yeah, before you post again: understand, I just rebutted you a 2nd time. Right, and that is evidenced by the FACTS that: 1. Hardly anyone cares about this issue. Every poll says that. Here's one(that is cited all over the damn internet): http://www.gallup.co...op-worry.aspx And what a surprise: it's always the same ~20%. This group is otherwise known as: The Far Left. Yeah, 80% of the country, doesn't see this as a major concern. But that's wrong, according to you. No, it's only the people in this thread. Unmitigated moron. 2. Congress won't touch this issue with 10' pole. But, that's because...dissonance. 3. We are talking about WHEN the Keystone pipeline gets approved, not whether. The TEA party has moved the entire debate to the right, where in 2008 this wouldn't even be considered. And of course, this has nothing to do with FACTS 1 and 2, or the fact that we aren't see thing catastrophies that were predicted 10 years ago. Do you know what "cognitive dissonance" means? It is the global warming alarmists that are currently exhibiting its symptoms, not I. As the global temperature observations do not match the predictions, as the evidence mounts that the predictions were wildly overstated: Who is refusing to adjust their world view accordingly? Who is clinging to their beliefs, and comiserating/seeking comfort with the like-minded, rather than conducting some long overdue instrospection(the definition of cognitive dissonance)? Hint: Not I. I'm just doing what I have been doing since 2005. Calling this a political scam...because it has always walked like a political scam, talked like a political scam, and quacked like a political scam. This is absurd. What does any of this have to do with the political scam, I have correctly identified as a scam, from day 1? You want to do history? Here's history: The Democratic party needed a new issue, after getting beaten in 2002, and 2004. Even with Bush bleeding out on Iraq, they STILL couldn't win. And, if they don't get that issue, the biggest real issue(which they have been doing everything to avoid), entitlement reform, would have crushed them if they didn't distract from it. That, and the political scam that is Global Warming was the vehicle, that allowed them to declare socialism-->investing in Solyndra, as a necessary "lesser of 2 evils". Now? It's all falling apart. And, entitlement reform is still here, waiting to pound their dicks into the dirt. I will dumb it down for you: Entitlements are wholly owned by the Democratic party, and they are failing. The spectacle of that failure will call all Democratic ideology into serious doubt, and kill the "progressive" agenda dead. Demographics is the lie they tell themselves, but a latino/black mixed race, poor, lesbian single mother....knows failure when she sees it. ALL of us do. But you don't understand any of this, do you? Quick question: How man cans of Coca Cola do you drink before 9:00 AM each day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Quick question: How man cans of Coca Cola do you drink before 9:00 AM each day? I'm thinking whiskey, cocaine and cigarettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 Quick question: How man cans of Coca Cola do you drink before 9:00 AM each day? 9 am? Try 3am. Or, this week? 12pm. In all cases, when one can't argue with the content, they go to the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 9 am? Try 3am. Or, this week? 12pm. In all cases, when one can't argue with the content, they go to the process. Yes that's it. It's not that your post is so long that we lose patience and go on youtube to watch the sheep that yell like humans, it's because we can't debate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 In all cases, when one can't argue with the content, they go to the process. Yes that's it. It's not that your post is so long that we lose patience and go on youtube to watch the sheep that yell like humans, it's because we can't debate you. I think my reply was more to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 23, 2014 Author Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) I'm thinking whiskey, cocaine and cigarettes. See? Speaking of content: I'm Still waiting for Chef's assessment of how well his Valley pals did getting Healthcare.gov up by "deadline". NDAs! :lol: I wonder: is me doing a few rails required to get these answers? If so, I do know a guy. I don't have any whiskey, I only have Sapphire. But that's easy. As for cigarettes: forget it. I'd rather never get the answers from Chef, than start smoking regularly again. Yes that's it. It's not that your post is so long that we lose patience and go on youtube to watch the sheep that yell like humans, it's because we can't debate you. Well, here we have a choice: Would you rather have one long post, or, 10 pages of point by point? See, I've been doing this long enough to know that birdog et al are intellectually dishonest. So, if I leave one thing untouched....they will use that one thing. Your problem actually isn't with me: it's with the tools, and what they do when they realize they are losing the argument. My current "long post" approach simply removes their "yeah, but" tactic. (Although, that's not the only thing I use it for) Edited May 23, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts