Babs Boxer: End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill..

[petegz28]

WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090711/sc_mcclatchy/3269899


Someone should tell her the head of Greenpeace is already on record saying this Climate Bill is actually WORSE than doing nothing....ROFL

[HonestChieffan]

Old loon.

[petegz28]

Talk about scare tactics.......

When Greenpeace says this bill is worse than doing nothing then I'd say Babs is banking on the ignornace of the public and the sneakiness of the Senate to pass this.

[Stewie]

All I have to say is that congress is the oddest group of people with the strangest perceptions of reality that I've ever seen.

Oh, and that old biddy can ride her bike back and forth to DC if she's so concerned.

[petegz28]

Boxer has plenty of support from most environmental groups, but she's bound to feel the heat as she begins compromising to win votes. Greenpeace , for example, and others opposed the House bill, saying that it had been weakened too much to appease farm-state interests.



This bill does nothing to make any change for the environment

[wild1]

how many years left of Gore's 10-year countdown do we have remaining?

[BucEyedPea]

Terrorize us about the weather to require massive govt intervention on a global scale with World govt.

Terrorize us with a financial meltdown that requires massive govt intervention including globally.

Terrorize us about Islamic fundamentalists to require massive govt intervention that also needs to be global in scope.

All three are hate crimes on our American way of life.

[Bowser]

Wait, I heard it all ends December 22, 2012, anyway. So what's the big deal?

[stevieray]

yes ma'am.

[irishjayhawk]

She's approaching Michelle Bachmann territory.

[mlyonsd]

I thought fear mongering was only a republican thing.

[irishjayhawk]

I thought fear mongering was only a republican thing.

It's an only politician thing. :)

[HonestChieffan]

She's approaching Michelle Bachmann territory.

Go back to your storybooks.

[headsnap]

She's approaching Michelle Bachmann territory.

Is this a joke?

[irishjayhawk]

Go back to your storybooks.

Is this a joke?

No joke.

Michelle Bachmann has continually exposed that she quite possibly lacks a brain. I can provide video confirmations of these if you please.

[Guru]

Talk about scare tactics.......

When Greenpeace says this bill is worse than doing nothing then I'd say Babs is banking on the ignornace of the public and the sneakiness of the Senate to pass this.How do you think she gets elected?

[petegz28]

No joke.

Michelle Bachmann has continually exposed that she quite possibly lacks a brain. I can provide video confirmations of these if you please.

I know you have vast amounts more experience than everyone else concerning politics...but Babs Boxer is about as out there as one can get.

[HonestChieffan]

How do you think she gets elected?

Her stunning good looks. West Coast people are horribly shallow. They vote for good looking people not ugly ones.

[petegz28]

How do you think she gets elected?

It's SoCal...what else can you say?

[HonestChieffan]

Bachmann. Has a brain. She kicks ass in this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=thR-lVuztIY

[HonestChieffan]

Government Run Health Care Inevitably Leads to Rationing
Posted by: Michele Bachmann at 10:49 AM
Bachmann wrote this as well. Seems rather on target. Certainly not brainless as described by our resident student and master of the overstatement....

Today, the House of Representatives returns to work after a week of district work – outside of the beltway – and the next challenge facing the body will be making crucial reforms to our health care system. As the American people struggle to make ends meet, too many also live with the challenge of affording basic health care for themselves and their families. Any time a child or a parent goes without the care they need, it is a personal crisis for that family. However, there are two very different views emerging from the Democrats and Republicans as to the appropriate and most effective course to take in making these essential reforms.

Democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that sounds nice but would have devastating consequences for families and small businesses. A government takeover of health care will raise taxes, ration care, and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors.

Republicans want to make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, and let those who like their current health care coverage keep it. Republicans support health care reform that puts patients and their health first, and protects the important doctor-patient relationship.

The Democrats' government-takeover of health care will deny access to medical care and life-saving treatments. An estimated 100-million-plus Americans would lose their current health care under the Democrats' government-run plan. Government mandates in health care already encourage waste, fraud and abuse that result in higher costs and more families without care. We cannot allow politicians and special interests to stand between patients and the care they need. The American people deserve the freedom to choose the health care that is best for their families.

Last month when speaking to the American Medical Association, President Obama praised countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. For instance, the British system is often touted as spending half as much per capita on health care as here in the U.S. But as the Wall Street Journal explained today, you get what you pay for. The very real consequence in the U.K. is the rationing of specific drugs, tests, and treatments dictated by a government-regulatory body known as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

As the WSJ notes:


"Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for."


Clearly, this isn't the path to effective reform we should be choosing.

[stevieray]

I know you have vast amounts more experience than everyone else concerning women...but Babs Boxer is about as out there as one can get.

FYP

[irishjayhawk]

Let's see.

There's the "let's investigate congress for Pro-american and anti-American representatives" comment:
<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27243547#27243547" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>

Then there's the swine flu comment:
"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence."
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OdjRFJQuoiI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OdjRFJQuoiI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Unfortunately the facts don't seem to line up for her:
A quick look at the swine flu scare in the 1970s brings up some interesting facts Bachmann seems to have missed that discredits even this "interesting coincidence". The first cases that spurred the swine flu vaccinations actually happened in 1976 (http://www.thestar.com/living/article/625225) under Republican President Gerald Ford when some Fort Dix soldiers became ill (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20090428_U_S___concerned__as_swine_flu_rages.html). Carter continued the vaccinations when he took office.

On the same day she said this:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jc1kvcf4w-M&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jc1kvcf4w-M&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Unfortunately, history doesn't align once again:
When Franklin Roosevelt took office, unemployment was already about 25%. And the tariff referred to here was actually the Smoot-Hawley bill, co-authored by Republicans Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover.

In fact, this video uncovers even more revisionist history in that speech:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqeV-D2-LEQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oqeV-D2-LEQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Then there's the whole Census debacle:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/25/bachmann-fox-census/
There are many things wrong with Bachmann and host Megyn Kelly’s so-called analysis: First, both women were shocked that the Census would ask for people’s telephone numbers. However, that information is not required by law, and is used only to contact recipients who have incomplete forms.

Second, Bachmann is confusing the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS), a long-form survey sent out to one in 40 households (0.0028 percent of the American public) each year. The Census, sent out once every ten years, asks only about one’s age, race, and the type of home one lives in. The ACS, started in 1996, collects more detailed data used to distribute more than $300 billion in federal funds to local communities.

Most importantly, the questions that Bachmann is so concerned about — questions she suggests might somehow lead to internment — are not new questions (not to mention they frequently overlap with information given to the IRS every year). Census questions on race have been asked since 1790; home language since 1890; rent since 1880; and income since 1940. The Census has asked what kind of heating fuel heats Americans’ homes since 1940.

Finally, it’s a federal crime for any Census worker to violate the confidentiality of the Census form, punishable by a federal prison sentence of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

UPDATEA Census official contacted ThinkProgress to clarify that, contrary to what some media outlets report, ACORN will not have any role in collecting Census responses. ACORN is simply one of thousands of partners who have agreed to help promote the fact that the Census bureau will soon have many job openings.

Or when she completely makes up facts about the ACS survey (or confusing it with the Census entirely):
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/30/bachmann-acs-citizenship/

And speaking of fear mongering with "The US is like the Titanic":
http://minnesotaindependent.com/36631/bachmann-titanic-gm-gangster-klobuchar-walser

Or the fear mongering with:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BRQmRy0jJTA&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BRQmRy0jJTA&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this weekend that she wants residents of her state "armed and dangerous" over President Barack Obama's plan to reduce global warming "because we need to fight back."

Or her anti-gay comments:
http://hapbt.info/2009/05/michele-bachmann-is-dangerously-stupid.html
On what will happen if her same-sex marriage ban amendment fails to pass in 2004: “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” -- Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

Then there's the science debacle:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IAaDVOd2sRQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IAaDVOd2sRQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Facts don't line up with that either. CO2 takes up .03% of the atmosphere. Moreover, water is natural but it is also dangerous as people can drown. Likewise, if I was to stand in a chamber of CO2 (which is natural as well), I would suffocate.




So I guess, in sum, it is actually a joke. Boxer isn't even close.

[irishjayhawk]

I know you have vast amounts more experience than everyone else concerning politics...but Babs Boxer is about as out there as one can get.

I dare you to rival what I've posted about Bachmann with that of Boxer. I will willingly concede if there's more.

[Hydrae]

Can we maybe agree they both suck and go from there?

[irishjayhawk]

Can we maybe agree they both suck and go from there?

I said that earlier and people disagreed. :D

[petegz28]

About 1:07, Babs accuses Graham of being "theatrical"...LMAO....read the OP before you watch this....

This is her defense to the 800 mil bill....theatrics..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4vO3cXBkbg

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P4vO3cXBkbg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P4vO3cXBkbg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[petegz28]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xqg3ldlbb00&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xqg3ldlbb00&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


This was funny...

[jAZ]

Can we maybe agree they both suck and go from there?

Honestly, how can you compare Boxer and Bachman? Bachman is a Limbaugh esque nut who's rants and raves aren't not just crazy but provably wrong.

She makes things up to rant and rave about.

Boxer, whether you agree with her politics or not, is speaking about pretty reasonable (if not universerally accepted) conclusions. They certainly aren't factually wrong. At worst they are undetermined in the minds of some.

[petegz28]

I know I am digressing a touch but this was good....

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HTg4HvpSdr0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HTg4HvpSdr0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[petegz28]

Honestly, how can you compare Boxer and Bachman? Bachman is a Limbaugh esque nut who's rants and raves aren't not just crazy but provably wrong.

She makes things up to rant and rave about.

Boxer, whether you agree with her politics or not, is speaking about pretty reasonable (if not universerally accepted) conclusions. They certainly aren't factually wrong. At worst they are undetermined in the minds of some.

LMAO.....jAZ to the rescue for Babsy.......you are shilling for a "win a date with Babs" contest, aren't ya?

[jAZ]

LMAO.....jAZ to the rescue for Babsy.......you are shilling for a "win a date with Babs" contest, aren't ya?

I know you like to substitute emotional please for factual statements, and you prefer languishing in broad insults that avoid making and thus supporting specific claims... but come on.

IJ just posted 20 minutes worth of work documenting how MB is borderline insane. I don't know that it's possible to assemble similarly crazy remarks from BB if you had 100 years.

But I'll give you 20 minutes to match IJ's work. Go.

[petegz28]

I know you like to substitute emotional please for factual statements, and you prefer languishing in broad insults that avoid making and thus supporting specific claims... but come on.

IJ just posted 20 minutes worth of work documenting how MB is borderline insane. I don't know that it's possible to assemble similarly crazy remarks from BB if you had 100 years.

But I'll give you 20 minutes to match IJ's work. Go.

Screaming the world will end if we don't pass a climate bill that even Greepeance says "is worse than doing nothing" isn't emotional?


ROFL....k

And is all you can do is say "well this person is as bad or worse"? Is that all you can do, jAZ? Point the finger at someone else? And I didn't watch most of the MB stuff cause she isn't screaming this is the end of the world.

[jAZ]

Screaming the world will end if we don't pass a climate bill that even Greepeance says "is worse than doing nothing" isn't emotional?
Thanks for that. Where did she "scream the world will end". Video or at least actual quotes please.

[petegz28]

Thanks for that. Where did she "scream the world will end". Video or at least actual quotes please.


I guess the OP eluded you?

She might as well be on the mountaintop screaming about hellfire and damnation headed our way....

[HonestChieffan]

Boxer reasonable.

you poor boy. the landing you have some day will be hell.

[petegz28]

Boxer reasonable.

you poor boy. the landing you have some day will be hell.

jAZ is pushing for a job as a Dem strategist, I am convinced of this.

[jAZ]

I guess the OP eluded you?

She might as well be on the mountaintop screaming about hellfire and damnation headed our way....

I am responding to the fact that the opening post doesn't quote her and even in paraphrase doesn't say the world is ending.

In fact, you are the one substituting your hyperbole for her insufficently objectionable direct quotes.

Like I said, it shouldn't be hard to find the direct quotes that support your overzelous outrage at her fictionalized quotes that you've authored here.

Have at it.

[HonestChieffan]

I think he was dropped on his head as a lad.

[jAZ]

Boxer reasonable.

you poor boy. the landing you have some day will be hell.

jAZ is pushing for a job as a Dem strategist, I am convinced of this.

Every post you make without supporting your "out there" or "loon" type claims goes to support my point that you don't appear able to critize her own words ala IJ. Instead you have to make up words and claim she "screamed" them to have something worthy of criticism.

But I'm patient. You are surely hard at work getting her quotes.

[petegz28]

I got bored with Matthews at about 9:00 or so...but up to that pointm when I quit watching, I thought everything she said was fair. Maybe when I finish it I will something to complaing about but up until then I saw nothing wrong

[petegz28]

Every post you make without supporting your "out there" or "loon" type claims goes to support my point that you don't appear able to critize her own words ala IJ. Instead you have to make up words and claim she "screamed" them to have something worthy of criticism.

But I'm patient. You are surely hard at work getting her quotes.

You're really reaching for some straws now.....how about you aknowledge what she said?

[petegz28]

MB's Swine Flu comment may rank up there with Babs' claim the world will be fried, our drowened, species will go extinct......though 1,000's if not 1,000,000's of species have done that since life began on this planet....

[jAZ]

You're really reaching for some straws now.....how about you aknowledge what she said?

How about post what she actually said and then I will have a basis to acknowlege it.

For the record, I have asked you to post it repeatedly. So far you flat out refuse. I did read the article you linked, and I didn't see her exact quote. But the article's paraphrase definately doesn't match the paraphrase you are screaming about.

[jAZ]

MB's Swine Flu comment may rank up there with Babs' claim the world will be fried, our drowened, species will go extinct......though 1,000's if not 1,000,000's of species have done that since life began on this planet....

By "up there" do you mean factually wrong (MB) vs. admittedly right (BB)?

[petegz28]

on MB's comment of 3% she obviously misspoke as she did go on to say Co2 is a "fraction of a fraction of a percent of the atmopshere"....thus .03%

A gaffe, yes...not as bad as some want to make it out

[petegz28]

By "up there" do you mean factually wrong (MB) vs. admittedly right (BB)?

no....JFC ....


you know you're right jAZ...we have never had fires, floods, droughts, damaged agriculture and species going extinct.

[petegz28]

In fact, jAZ, I will go onto say that you and Babs are so right that the dinosaurs never existed, the continents were never 1 large land mass, there was never really a land connection between Alaska and Russia and all the floods and fires and droughts in history's past are just mythical tales.

[HonestChieffan]

fires never went out, floods never receeded, droughts never end, starving people all over the area here. Its just awful.

[stevieray]

no....JFC ....


you know you're right jAZ...we have never had fires, floods, droughts, damaged agriculture and species going extinct.

dude don't fall for it...the more they can talk about MB, the more they can ignore BB...they constantly use other negatives to validate a negative

[jAZ]

And is all you can do is say "well this person is as bad or worse"? Is that all you can do, jAZ? Point the finger at someone else? And I didn't watch most of the MB stuff cause she isn't screaming this is the end of the world.

Funny that a person who so values judging the person's remarks on their own merits, and not by saying "well this person is as bad or worse" and "point(ing) the finger at someone else"... is willing to spend so much time and energy reviewing video of that "someone else" ...

I got bored with Matthews at about 9:00 or so...but up to that pointm when I quit watching, I thought everything she said was fair. Maybe when I finish it I will something to complaing about but up until then I saw nothing wrong

MB's Swine Flu comment may rank up there with Babs' claim the world will be fried, our drowened, species will go extinct......though 1,000's if not 1,000,000's of species have done that since life began on this planet....

on MB's comment of 3% she obviously misspoke as she did go on to say Co2 is a "fraction of a fraction of a percent of the atmopshere"....thus .03%

A gaffe, yes...not as bad as some want to make it out

...but continues to refuse to put on the table any video or quotes of the Barbara Boxer "screaming" that the "End of world is coming"!!!

[petegz28]

Here let me give a shot at Boxer\jAZ politics....

"If we pass the climate bill there will be fires and floods and droughts. Agriculture will still be damaged at times and some species in animal\plant\insect life will go extinct".

[petegz28]

Funny that a person who so values judging the person's remarks on their own merits, and not by saying "well this person is as bad or worse" and "point(ing) the finger at someone else"... is willing to spend so much time and energy reviewing video of that "someone else" ...







...but continues to refuse to put on the table any video or quotes of the Barbara Boxer "screaming" that the "End of world is coming"!!!



Dude you need help. If you can't understand I used to word "screaming" to inject some context to the overall debate on the climate bill you need help.

Secondly, you ask me to watch the videos then slam be for doing so. You are a fucking tool.

[jAZ]

dude don't fall for it...the more they can talk about MB, the more they can ignore BB...they constantly use other negatives to validate a negative

We agree. Maybe you can get him to put up the quotes that show her "screaming" that the "end of the world is coming".

[jAZ]

Here let me give a shot at Boxer\jAZ politics....

"If we pass the climate bill there will be fires and floods and droughts. Agriculture will still be damaged at times and some species in animal\plant\insect life will go extinct".

How about a real quote from BB.

[petegz28]

We agree. Maybe you can get him to put up the quotes that show her "screaming" that the "end of the world is coming".

JFC you fucking idiot, it was a figure of speech. Is this all you got? Is this all you can point too? Nevermind what the bitch said, lets focus on how Pete .....

[jAZ]

Dude you need help. If you can't understand I used to word "screaming" to inject some context to the overall debate on the climate bill you need help.

Secondly, you ask me to watch the videos then slam be for doing so. You are a ****ing tool.

No, I didn't. I asked you to provide video or quotes from BB that you were (falsely) paraphrasing.

So far, you haven't even tried to defend your claims. Don't say I didn't give you a fair shot to explain yourself and support your accusations. Until you provide something remotely approaching Boxer "screaming" about the "end of the world", I think we can all agree that you are lying when you say such things.

[jAZ]

JFC you ****ing idiot, it was a figure of speech. Is this all you got? Is this all you can point too? Nevermind what the bitch said, lets focus on how Pete .....

It was obviously not BB's figure of speech. You attributing it to her was a lie on your part. Change my mind by putting up her quotes.

[petegz28]

How about a real quote from BB.

How about you take it up with yahoo and the other multiple sites reporting this?

I know, jAZ...they all made it up....

You're right...it was all a giant lie

I conspired with yahoo to fabricate this story....

[jAZ]

How about you take it up with yahoo and the other multiple sites reporting this?

I know, jAZ...they all made it up....

You're right...it was all a giant lie

Before you get caught up in yet another lie, why don't you provide the article that reports that BB said the "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill."

I'll give you a free get-out-of-hyperbole card if you correct it now.

[irishjayhawk]

on MB's comment of 3% she obviously misspoke as she did go on to say Co2 is a "fraction of a fraction of a percent of the atmopshere"....thus .03%

A gaffe, yes...not as bad as some want to make it out

I would buy that as a gaffe if she didn't have such heavy anti-intellectualism going for her already.

She just flat out doesn't know science. Also, "CO2 is natural" is not an argument against Global Warming.

Plus, if you can't even watch a segment with her own words (chalk it up to whatever you want, Matthews etc), it says a lot. Calling congressmen anti-American is akin to calling for full blown McCarthy-ism. Are we going to ignore the fact that McCarthy's crusade is now looked down upon?

[petegz28]

Oh yea, and I signed a secret deal with the Sacramento Bee to report my fabricated story as well...

[petegz28]

Before you get caught up in yet another lie, why don't you provide the article that reports that BB said the "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill."

I'll give you a free get-out-of-hyperbole card if you correct it now.

I already said it was a figure of speech you no-reading tool.

[jAZ]

Oh yea, and I signed a secret deal with the Sacramento Bee to report my fabricated story as well...

Your story is that BB said the "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill". I bet there isn't an AP outlet reporting that. Just you replacing what they did report with something that sounded objectionable enough to make hay out of.

[irishjayhawk]

I already said it was a figure of speech you no-reading tool.

A figure of speech as in a hyperbole meant to scare? Ironically, scaring tactics used to reveal scare tactics?

[HonestChieffan]

Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D, Calif.)

[jAZ]

I already said it was a figure of speech you no-reading tool.

You have yet to admit that you made it up entirely.

[irishjayhawk]

Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D, Calif.)

:spock:

Point?

[petegz28]

I would buy that as a gaffe if she didn't have such heavy anti-intellectualism going for her already.

She just flat out doesn't know science. Also, "CO2 is natural" is not an argument against Global Warming.

Plus, if you can't even watch a segment with her own words (chalk it up to whatever you want, Matthews etc), it says a lot. Calling congressmen anti-American is akin to calling for full blown McCarthy-ism. Are we going to ignore the fact that McCarthy's crusade is now looked down upon?

Neither do most in Congress.

And as far as calling an Congressman "anti-American" you are seeing a class example of our 1st Amendment. I don't care whether you agree with her or not. I may or may not agree with her. But the fact is she has the Right to say what she said. And for anyone to slam her on it I would say is doing so out of political bias. I heard her say she was not going to call anyone in Congress Anti-America. Maybe she did after I quit watching. But I do believe Matthews pieced it out to make it sound that way. Call me shocked on that.

I don't see it any worse than calling the President a "criminal".

[petegz28]

:spock:

Point?

I think it just flew right over your head....go back and read that like just a touch slower.

Let me help...

Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D, Calif.)

[jAZ]

:spock:

Point?

Barbara Boxer is claiming to be able to stop earthquackes with the stroke of a pen. But that's just a figure of speech. I'm not clear on what the non-lie part of this rhetoric is exactly.

[irishjayhawk]

Pete, with respect to jAZ's argument, let's dissect the opening paragraph, as it's the closest to your title:

If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

Note that it says "a" bill, not the Cap & Tax or any other climate bill in particular. Note that if the consequences are true when it comes to global warming.

Of course, the implication that man can seriously impact Global Warming is there but it isn't necessarily an incorrect position.

[petegz28]

You have yet to admit that you made it up entirely.

You really are about the most anal person on here. It must be a real shin-ding in the jAZ household.

[petegz28]

Pete, with respect to jAZ's argument, let's dissect the opening paragraph, as it's the closest to your title:



Note that it says "a" bill, not the Cap & Tax or any other climate bill in particular. Note that if the consequences are true when it comes to global warming.

Of course, the implication that man can seriously impact Global Warming is there but it isn't necessarily an incorrect position.

From the article:

With a House bill already approved, all eyes are on Boxer, who must overcome plenty of skepticism on Capitol Hill among her fellow Democrats.

It's going to be a tough slog, but I'm excited about it. … I know that my Republican colleagues are going to try to do everything to stop it and distort it," Boxer said in an interview Friday.


You're right though...she wasn't talking about this particular Cap and Trade Bill......LMAO

I wonder what "it" she was referring too?????? :hmmm:

[petegz28]

Barbara Boxer is claiming to be able to stop earthquackes with the stroke of a pen. But that's just a figure of speech. I'm not clear on what the non-lie part of this rhetoric is exactly.

Wow...it flew right over your head as well.....JFC!

"Those who died, their lives will never be the same again".....


No shit, Senator? Ya think? Wow, next she will say if you stand in the rain without an umbrella you might get wet.

[irishjayhawk]

Neither do most in Congress.

Agreed, which is part of the problem.


And as far as calling an Congressman "anti-American" you are seeing a class example of our 1st Amendment. I don't care whether you agree with her or not.

Have I said she shouldn't be able to say it? No.

But many people can claim anything. Society usually deems what is and isn't acceptable. For example, Holocaust denying is a big no-no. But it is protected under the First Amendment. Likewise, this view should be ostracized. It isn't that she shouldn't be able to say it, it's that she actually thinks its a legitimate claim. She represents people's views. Do you think her constituents actually think fellow congressmen are actually/actively anti-American?

Putting forth a defense for 1st Amendment is a pretty big cop out.

I may or may not agree with her.

Do you or do you not? Regardless, why?


But the fact is she has the Right to say what she said. And for anyone to slam her on it I would say is doing so out of political bias. I heard her say she was not going to call anyone in Congress Anti-America. Maybe she did after I quit watching. But I do believe Matthews pieced it out to make it sound that way. Call me shocked on that.

First, watch the damn segment. Matthews didn't say shit. He tried to call her on it.

Second, no one has argued about her right to say it. Ever.

Third, slamming someone for a retarded/insane/dangerous belief isn't partisan, it's honest and dutiful.


I don't see it any worse than calling the President a "criminal".
:spock:

Criminals can still be pro-American. Anti-American means you hate America. Or you want to destroy America (if taken to an extreme).

[irishjayhawk]

From the article:



You're right though...she wasn't talking about this particular Cap and Trade Bill......LMAO

I wonder what "it" she was referring too?????? :hmmm:

You missed the point.

[petegz28]

Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D, Calif.)

This flew right over their heads......no surprise of course...

[petegz28]

You missed the point.

Sure I did....you were wrong so I missed the point

[irishjayhawk]

I think it just flew right over your head....go back and read that like just a touch slower.

Let me help...

Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D, Calif.)

Still lost at what your point is. Is it the perceived retardedness of the statement?

Because I read it in a different light. That being that why didn't God save those who died.

Regardless, this is clearly a gaffe, if anything. This is much more of a gaffe than getting a scientific FACT wrong by a magnitude of 100.

[irishjayhawk]

Sure I did....you were wrong so I missed the point

You don't think I knew you'd attack that point? ROFL

My point is that even with the closest segment in the article it falls well short of your "end of the world is coming if we don't pass Climate bill".

Moreover, the "consequences" part has a specific context. You know, consequences if we don't pass A climate change bill.

Context is everything, pete.

[petegz28]

Still lost at what your point is. Is it the perceived retardedness of the statement?

Because I read it in a different light. That being that why didn't God save those who died.

Regardless, this is clearly a gaffe, if anything. This is much more of a gaffe than getting a scientific FACT wrong by a magnitude of 100.

How do you get "why didn't God save them?" out of that?


WOW man......smoke another one

[petegz28]

You don't think I knew you'd attack that point? ROFL

My point is that even with the closest segment in the article it falls well short of your "end of the world is coming if we don't pass Climate bill".

Moreover, the "consequences" part has a specific context. You know, consequences if we don't pass A climate change bill.

Context is everything, pete.

Yea, and the context is this bill and even Greenpeace says it does nothing. Go figure.

[irishjayhawk]

How do you get "why didn't God save them?" out of that?


WOW man......smoke another one

Umm, those that are alive say "Thank God" (he's the reason) and those that are dead can't (obviously) but it begs the question, why didn't God save those people?

Pretty simple.

[irishjayhawk]

Yea, and the context is this bill and even Greenpeace says it does nothing. Go figure.

Thanks for that non-sequitur.

You are adept at evading questions, answers, responses, challenges, and pretty much anything.

[petegz28]

Umm, those that are alive say "Thank God" (he's the reason) and those that are dead can't (obviously) but it begs the question, why didn't God save those people?

Pretty simple.

Wow....I guess if you totally ignore what she said and insert what you wanted her to say.....

nope still don't get that from her....


Could she have been saying "thank God I'm alive" as a figure of speech like most people do? More than likely. But beleive what you wish.....


And you fuckers are running me about what I said??? LMAO

No where at all did she imply "why didn't God save them", and you know it. You are reaching badly on that one.

[petegz28]

Thanks for that non-sequitur.

You are adept at evading questions, answers, responses, challenges, and pretty much anything.

Yea, ok...maybe you should ask God why? ROFL

[irishjayhawk]

Wow....I guess if you totally ignore what she said and insert what you wanted her to say.....

nope still don't get that from her....


Could she have been saying "thank God I'm alive" as a figure of speech like most people do? More than likely. But beleive what you wish.....


And you ****ers are running me about what I said??? LMAO

No where at all did she imply "why didn't God save them", and you know it. You are reaching badly on that one.

Well, I have to reach in order to grasp your, umm, point since you won't actually say what your point IS...

[jAZ]

You really are about the most anal person on here. It must be a real shin-ding in the jAZ household.

You claim that BB made a universally indefenible statement so that you and others can attack her for being a crazy loon. You just made the statement up entirely. You did so because the statement she reportedly made is not sufficiently indefensible or outrageous to suit your purpose.

[irishjayhawk]

Also, two people have challenged you to back up Boxer being more loony than Bachmann.

You haven't accepted.

One person has asked you admit to using a hyperbole - I'd contend scare tactics - to convey something that someone didn't actually say.

But you didn't.

[petegz28]

Well, I have to reach in order to grasp your, umm, point since you won't actually say what your point IS...

JFC, are you really this dense? Seriously?


the point is she said something about as stupid as it gets. "...those who died, their lives will never be the same again" ????? NO SHIT!!!

Now, apply the "context" of HCF's post to your statements about MB.


WOW......I am going to eat dinner...toke some for me, buddy :thumb:

[petegz28]

Also, two people have challenged you to back up Boxer being more loony than Bachmann.

You haven't accepted.

One person has asked you admit to using a hyperbole - I'd contend scare tactics - to convey something that someone didn't actually say.

But you didn't.

Yes, I did....you guys are on a roll tonight.

And in fact, I got slammed by jAZ for watching the videos he asked me to watch. You both are on crack.


I get the implication she says the world is ending...which is an easy implication to get, though exagerated...


and you get the implication she was asking God "why" which is not even close.

But yours is ok, mine isn't....cool

[irishjayhawk]

Yes, I did....you guys are on a roll tonight.

Where?


And in fact, I got slammed by jAZ for watching the videos he asked me to watch. You both are on crack.

What? You admitted to me that you didn't watch the Bachmann-Matthews video.

[irishjayhawk]

Yes, I did....you guys are on a roll tonight.

And in fact, I got slammed by jAZ for watching the videos he asked me to watch. You both are on crack.


I get the implication she says the world is ending...which is an easy implication to get, though exagerated...


and you get the implication she was asking God "why" which is not even close.

But yours is ok, mine isn't....cool


You still haven't posted what your point or HCF's point was. I supplied what I thought the point was.

[petegz28]

Where?



What? You admitted to me that you didn't watch the Bachmann-Matthews video.

Funny that a person who so values judging the person's remarks on their own merits, and not by saying "well this person is as bad or worse" and "point(ing) the finger at someone else"... is willing to spend so much time and energy reviewing video of that "someone else" ...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5895940&postcount=51


:spock:

[petegz28]

You still haven't posted what your point or HCF's point was. I supplied what I thought the point was.

Dude, not only have I pointed it out, I have multiple times. You either don't, won't or can't get it.



Just think in terms of you accusing MB of saying stupid things

[irishjayhawk]

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5895940&postcount=51


:spock:

Now I'm just confused seeing as that's a jAZ post.

[irishjayhawk]

Dude, not only have I pointed it out, I have multiple times. You either don't, won't or can't get it.



Just think in terms of you accusing MB of saying stupid things

ROFL

Which I already covered. Like my second post regarding that quote.

Regardless, this is clearly a gaffe, if anything. This is much more of a gaffe than getting a scientific FACT wrong by a magnitude of 100.

[petegz28]

ROFL

Which I already covered. Like my second post regarding that quote.

So then you got the point and don't even realize it.......nice...nice..ROFL


Or you were so desperate to make somthing out of it that wasn't there to try to playoff the fact you didn't get the point initially. Probably more likely.

[irishjayhawk]

So then you got the point and don't even realize it.......nice...nice..ROFL

:spock:



Or you were so desperate to make somthing out of it that wasn't there to try to playoff the fact you didn't get the point initially. Probably more likely.

:spock:

ROFL

[jAZ]

And in fact, I got slammed by jAZ for watching the videos he asked me to watch.

I don't know whether to assume that you are outright lying here or if you are (as you have demonstrate endlessly here in DC and very visibly here in this thread) just more concerned about making emotional pleas than getting straight with the facts.

IJ just posted 20 minutes worth of work documenting how MB is borderline insane. I don't know that it's possible to assemble similarly crazy remarks from BB if you had 100 years.

But I'll give you 20 minutes to match IJ's work. Go.
And...

Secondly, you ask me to watch the videos then slam be for doing so. You are a ****ing tool.
No, I didn't. I asked you to provide video or quotes from BB that you were (falsely) paraphrasing.

[Saul Good]

This cluster**** of a thread is exactly what BB's defenders want. Obfuscate the issue, derail the discussion, and divert attention away from the fact that BB is an absolutely irrational person.

[jAZ]

This cluster**** of a thread is exactly what BB's defenders want. Obfuscate the issue, derail the discussion, and divert attention away from the fact that BB is an absolutely irrational person.

Hardly. I've been begging for pete to support his effectively identical claim with quotes. He's failed or refused.

Let's hope you don't repeat the same.

Please provide quotes or video that show BB to be "absolutely irrational".

[donkhater]

jAZ, do you ever get tired of this merry-go-round you get on day after day? Saul's claim that BB is absolutely irrational is an OPINION.

YOU have the opinion that she isn't. So how in the hell is he suppose to find you quotes or video to persuade you? He can't!!!

Of course that doesn't stop you from claiming that you have debunked the OPINION that Boxer is irrational merely because Saul couldn't provide the blunt instrument it would take to get you to find fault in ANY liberal politician.

Granted, you aren't the only one who does this on these boards, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone has time to get on 3-4 of these merry-go-rounds a day.

[petegz28]

jAZ, do you ever get tired of this merry-go-round you get on day after day? Saul's claim that BB is absolutely irrational is an OPINION.

YOU have the opinion that she isn't. So how in the hell is he suppose to find you quotes or video to persuade you? He can't!!!

Of course that doesn't stop you from claiming that you have debunked the OPINION that Boxer is irrational merely because Saul couldn't provide the blunt instrument it would take to get you to find fault in ANY liberal politician.

Granted, you aren't the only one who does this on these boards, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone has time to get on 3-4 of these merry-go-rounds a day.

Actualyl it was me and not Saul he was playing the game with

[Saul Good]

Hardly. I've been begging for pete to support his effectively identical claim with quotes. He's failed or refused.

Let's hope you don't repeat the same.

Please provide quotes or video that show BB to be "absolutely irrational".
From Barbara Boxer's Democratic Radio Address on Global Warming

"The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don't act now. They've told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God's creatures could face extinction if we don't act now. They've told us of more intense weather events if we don't act now. Health experts have told us that infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters. And military leaders have told us that unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees."

[jAZ]

jAZ, do you ever get tired of this merry-go-round you get on day after day? Saul's claim that BB is absolutely irrational is an OPINION.

YOU have the opinion that she isn't. So how in the hell is he suppose to find you quotes or video to persuade you? He can't!!!

Of course that doesn't stop you from claiming that you have debunked the OPINION that Boxer is irrational merely because Saul couldn't provide the blunt instrument it would take to get you to find fault in ANY liberal politician.

Granted, you aren't the only one who does this on these boards, but for the life of me I can't see how anyone has time to get on 3-4 of these merry-go-rounds a day.
Not all opinions are the same.

Those that are based on sound reasoning and documented evidene are solid opinions.

Those that are pulled from your ass and contradicted by available facts... those are lies.

Opinions based on laziness and ideological assumptions rather than available facts should be dismissed in favor of opinions (ideoloigical or not) based on those facts.

[Saul Good]

Not all opinions are the same.

Those that are based on sound reasoning and documented evidene are solid opinions.

Those that are pulled from your ass and contradicted by available facts... those are lies.

Opinions based on laziness and ideological assumptions rather than available facts should be dismissed in favor of opinions (ideoloigical or not) based on those facts.

Thanks for clearing that up. Based on post 106, I guess you place this opinion squarely in the "available facts" column.

[petegz28]

Not all opinions are the same.

Those that are based on sound reasoning and documented evidene are solid opinions.

Those that are pulled from your ass and contradicted by available facts... those are lies.

Opinions based on laziness and ideological assumptions rather than available facts should be dismissed in favor of opinions (ideoloigical or not) based on those facts.


Well if by fact you mean we will have fires, floods, etc, etc then yes that is a fact. Though, those things have been happening long before man ever evolved, but lets not let that fact get in the way of Babbling-Babs

[jAZ]

From Barbara Boxer's Democratic Radio Address on Global Warming

"The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don't act now. They've told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God's creatures could face extinction if we don't act now. They've told us of more intense weather events if we don't act now. Health experts have told us that infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters. And military leaders have told us that unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees."

Thank you.

This is the basis for an actual discussion. Pete's garbage was only worth the effrot to throw out because some many people at the start of this thread were willing to throw out rational thought and act as if pete wasn't lying.

[petegz28]

Thank you.

This is the basis for an actual discussion. Pete's garbage was only worth the effrot to throw out because some many people at the start of this thread were willing to throw out rational thought and act as if pete wasn't lying.

Once again, you seem to confuse me with the person who wrote the article....so she said what the articles says she said...WOW!

[Saul Good]

Thank you.

This is the basis for an actual discussion. Pete's garbage was only worth the effrot to throw out because some many people at the start of this thread were willing to throw out rational thought and act as if pete wasn't lying.

Pete didn't lie about anything. If anything, he is guilty of hyperbole, but I think that the "end of the world" comment was tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to falsely attribute a quote to her.

[irishjayhawk]

Not all opinions are the same.

Those that are based on sound reasoning and documented evidene are solid opinions.

Those that are pulled from your ass and contradicted by available facts... those are lies.

Opinions based on laziness and ideological assumptions rather than available facts should be dismissed in favor of opinions (ideoloigical or not) based on those facts.

For example: holocaust denying is a vastly different opinion than, say, Barack Obama's tax policies are excessive.

[jAZ]

Well if by fact you mean we will have fires, floods, etc, etc then yes that is a fact. Though, those things have been happening long before man ever evolved, but lets not let that fact get in the way of Babbling-Babs

No, in your case, the opinion was that BB believes the "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill".

The fact is she actually said "(scientists have) told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God's creatures could face extinction ... more intense weather events ... infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters (and) ... unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees."

[irishjayhawk]

Pete didn't lie about anything. If anything, he is guilty of hyperbole, but I think that the "end of the world" comment was tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to falsely attribute a quote to her.

Agree to disagree. As he's even tried to defend such a statement in this very thread.

[petegz28]

Pete didn't lie about anything. If anything, he is guilty of hyperbole, but I think that the "end of the world" comment was tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to falsely attribute a quote to her.

Ironic only 2 people can't quite get that, isn't it?

[petegz28]

Agree to disagree. As he's even tried to defend such a statement in this very thread.

Sure, I have..I said BB was quoted saying the end of the world was coming.....right....

[jAZ]

Pete didn't lie about anything. If anything, he is guilty of hyperbole, but I think that the "end of the world" comment was tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to falsely attribute a quote to her.

He didn't use quotes, so he wasn't falsely attributing a quote to her. He was falsely attributing a belief to her.

And I don't think it was TIC at all. I have said, I believe it was deliberate hyperbole designed to be easily attacked by those who want to attack her and don't care what the facts of the matter are.

As such, it's both hyperbole and a lie.

[JohnnyV13]

Irish, Michele Bachman is a transcendant genius compared to Maxine Waters.

[Saul Good]

For example: holocaust denying is a vastly different opinion than, say, Barack Obama's tax policies are excessive.

Agree to disagree. As he's even tried to defend such a statement in this very thread.

Why do I get the feeling that your liberal brethren cringe every time you post in much the same way that white people cringe when another white guy tries to freestyle rap in front of black people?

[petegz28]

He didn't use quotes, so he wasn't falsely attributing a quote to her. He was falsely attributing a belief to her.

And I don't think it was TIC at all. I have said, I believe it was deliberate hyperbole designed to be easily attacked by those who want to attack her and don't care what the facts of the matter are.

As such, it's both hyperbole and a lie.

Sure it was to attack her....you are a reg-a-lar Sherlock

And the facts are, she said what the articles claims she said and in reference to getting the Climate Bill passed.

Yea, I was way off there, wasn't I? LMAO

[BucEyedPea]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_eyFiClAzq8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_eyFiClAzq8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Saul Good]

He didn't use quotes, so he wasn't falsely attributing a quote to her. He was falsely attributing a belief to her.

And I don't think it was TIC at all. I have said, I believe it was deliberate hyperbole designed to be easily attacked by those who want to attack her and don't care what the facts of the matter are.

As such, it's both hyperbole and a lie.

If 40% of the species on the planet were to go extinct, the world as we know it would cease to exist. It's an extrapolation of her comments possibly to the point of hyperbole. It's not a lie, and he didn't disregard the facts.

[jAZ]

Why do I get the feeling that your liberal brethren cringe every time you post in much the same way that white people cringe when another white guy tries to freestyle rap in front of black people?
In this thread, you look like a complete hack when you direct a comment like that at IJ rather than pete.

My god.

[irishjayhawk]

I guess the OP eluded you?

She might as well be on the mountaintop screaming about hellfire and damnation headed our way....

You're really reaching for some straws now.....how about you aknowledge what she said?

How about post what she actually said and then I will have a basis to acknowlege it.

For the record, I have asked you to post it repeatedly. So far you flat out refuse. I did read the article you linked, and I didn't see her exact quote. But the article's paraphrase definately doesn't match the paraphrase you are screaming about.

How about you take it up with yahoo and the other multiple sites reporting this?

I know, jAZ...they all made it up....

You're right...it was all a giant lie

I conspired with yahoo to fabricate this story....

I already said it was a figure of speech you no-reading tool.

The last quote is untrue still because you didn't "already say" it. Moreover, I think it's clear you defended the use of that hyperbole.

[petegz28]

In this thread, you look like a complete hack when you direct a comment like that at IJ rather than pete.

My god.

I have Liberal bretheren?????/ :eek:

[irishjayhawk]

Why do I get the feeling that your liberal brethren cringe every time you post in much the same way that white people cringe when another white guy tries to freestyle rap in front of black people?

See my post above.

[petegz28]

The last quote is untrue still because you didn't "already say" it. Moreover, I think it's clear you defended the use of that hyperbole.

I think it's clear you need to learn how to read...

[irishjayhawk]

I think it's clear you need to learn how to read...

Quote it. Back that shit up, bitch. I want to see what I misread or missed.

[jAZ]

If 40% of the species on the planet were to go extinct, the world as we know it would cease to exist. It's an extrapolation of her comments possibly to the point of hyperbole. It's not a lie, and he didn't disregard the facts.

BS, the entire premise of the military element of that quote is that life would continue but lead to war. You can't conduct wars if life ceases to exist.

pete is attributing an indefensible position to BB so that he can attack her. That's not merely hyperbole. It's a lie.

[BucEyedPea]

If 40% of the species on the planet were to go extinct, the world as we know it would cease to exist.

...and I feel fine.

[petegz28]

Quote it. Back that shit up, bitch. I want to see what I misread or missed.

You either are a liar or can't read...


JFC you ****ing idiot, it was a figure of speech. Is this all you got? Is this all you can point too? Nevermind what the bitch said, lets focus on how Pete .....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5895952&postcount=56

[Saul Good]

The last quote is untrue still because you didn't "already say" it. Moreover, I think it's clear you defended the use of that hyperbole.

Why shouldn't he defend it? She did state that "the earth is in peril." His comment about the end of the world wasn't a quote. It was a legitimate paraphrase of what she said.

[jAZ]

I have Liberal bretheren?????/ :eek:

You have failed logic and integrity.

[Saul Good]

BS, the entire premise of the military element of that quote is that life would continue but lead to war. You can't conduct wars if life ceases to exist.

pete is attributing an indefensible position to BB so that he can attack her. That's not merely hyperbole. It's a lie.

What position is he unfairly attributing to her?

[irishjayhawk]

Why shouldn't he defend it? She did state that "the earth is in peril." His comment about the end of the world wasn't a quote. It was a legitimate paraphrase of what she said.

The earth is in peril. The sun will expire. But that won't happen for years. What's your point?

You're going to contend his title is a legitimate paraphrase? Wow.

[BucEyedPea]

T
You're going to contend his title is a legitimate paraphrase? Wow.

I can see that. In fact most of the GW believers are doomsdayers about it.

[petegz28]

The earth is in peril. The sun will expire. But that won't happen for years. What's your point?

You're going to contend his title is a legitimate paraphrase? Wow.

Wow..for someone who keeps talking about context you sure do ignore it when it is convenient.

[irishjayhawk]

You either are a liar or can't read...




http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5895952&postcount=56

Mea culpa, I missed it.

[irishjayhawk]

Wow..for someone who keeps talking about context you sure do ignore it when it is convenient.

I just put it in context, you idiot.

"The earth is in peril" hardly equates to your title.

[irishjayhawk]

I can see that. In fact most of the GW believers are doomsdayers about it.

Link to your stats for that?

[petegz28]

Where?



What? You admitted to me that you didn't watch the Bachmann-Matthews video.

Another lie by IJ....I said I didn't watch it all. I said I stopped at the 9:00 mark.


OOOPSS....that's twice now you have lied

[Saul Good]

The earth is in peril. The sun will expire. But that won't happen for years. What's your point?

You're going to contend his title is a legitimate paraphrase? Wow.

The sun will expire in billions of years but, according to Boxer, "the earth is in peril if we don't act now."

[petegz28]

I just put it in context, you idiot.

"The earth is in peril" hardly equates to your title.

Yea, you put it in YOUR context, not the context Babs used.


ROFL

[irishjayhawk]

Where?



What? You admitted to me that you didn't watch the Bachmann-Matthews video.

Another lie by IJ....I said I didn't watch it all. I said I stopped at the 9:00 mark.


OOOPSS....that's twice now you have lied

I stand by that statement. You didn't watch it.

I don't think anyone will claim that if they went to the theatre and sat through 15 minutes of the movie that they "watched it".

[Saul Good]

I just put it in context, you idiot.

"The earth is in peril" hardly equates to your title.

Actual quote: "the earth is in peril if we don't act now."

Thread title: "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill"


What were you saying about context?

[petegz28]

The sun will expire in billions of years but, according to Boxer, "the earth is in peril if we don't act now."

but, but, but.....


I already had to point out to him that her comments were directly related to the Climate Change Bill....but he insists to pretend otherwise

[irishjayhawk]

The sun will expire in billions of years but, according to Boxer, "the earth is in peril if we don't act now."

At least you got the context I was putting it in, unlike pete.

However, I still disagree. Acting now could be true. No one actually knows. If anything, I'd call her on the "Most scientists believe" part of her statement.

By the way, the quote you took isn't even in the article nor did pete ever reference. FYI.

[petegz28]

[QUOTE=petegz28;5896339]

I stand by that statement. You didn't watch it.

I don't think anyone will claim that if they went to the theatre and sat through 15 minutes of the movie that they "watched it".

So you admit you are a liar, is that it? How does wathing 9 minutes of it with an admission that in the remaining minutes she may or may not have said something stupid=I didn't watch it?

[Saul Good]

[QUOTE=petegz28;5896339]

I stand by that statement. You didn't watch it.

I don't think anyone will claim that if they went to the theatre and sat through 15 minutes of the movie that they "watched it".

...and if they told you that they watched 15 minutes of it, you would call them a liar.

[petegz28]

At least you got the context I was putting it in, unlike pete.

However, I still disagree. Acting now could be true. No one actually knows. If anything, I'd call her on the "Most scientists believe" part of her statement.

By the way, the quote you took isn't even in the article nor did pete ever reference. FYI.

Oh I got your irrelevant context just fine.

[irishjayhawk]

Actual quote: "the earth is in peril if we don't act now."

Thread title: "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill"


What were you saying about context?

Peril is ambiguous.

Someone could argue the earth is in peril if we continue deforestation. So I don't see peril as meaning "end of world".

[irishjayhawk]

[QUOTE=irishjayhawk;5896342]

...and if they told you that they watched 15 minutes of it, you would call them a liar.

:spock:

I didn't call him a liar. He couldn't take the time to watch the video. He even commented on said video without getting to that part in the video and speculating on what his reaction would be if she actually said it.

That's about as dishonest as you can get.

[jAZ]

Mea culpa, I missed it.
Don't jump the gun. I just went back to look, because I swore as that played out he was talking about the "screaming" claim specfically. And...



Funny that a person who so values judging the person's remarks on their own merits, and not by saying "well this person is as bad or worse" and "point(ing) the finger at someone else"... is willing to spend so much time and energy reviewing video of that "someone else" ...


...but continues to refuse to put on the table any video or quotes of the Barbara Boxer "screaming" that the "End of world is coming"!!!
Dude you need help. If you can't understand I used to (sic) word "screaming" to inject some context to the overall debate on the climate bill you need help.

Secondly, you ask me to watch the videos then slam be for doing so. You are a ****ing tool.
We agree. Maybe you can get him to put up the quotes that show her "screaming" that the "end of the world is coming".

JFC you ****ing idiot, it was a figure of speech. Is this all you got? Is this all you can point too? Nevermind what the bitch said, lets focus on how Pete .....

[Saul Good]

At least you got the context I was putting it in, unlike pete.

However, I still disagree. Acting now could be true. No one actually knows. If anything, I'd call her on the "Most scientists believe" part of her statement.

By the way, the quote you took isn't even in the article nor did pete ever reference. FYI.

No shit, Sherlock. You and jAZ were bitching about the lack of quotes in the article and asking for some. I posted them for you. What more do you want? We didn't write the article.

[irishjayhawk]

[QUOTE=irishjayhawk;5896342]

So you admit you are a liar, is that it? How does wathing 9 minutes of it with an admission that in the remaining minutes she may or may not have said something stupid=I didn't watch it?

Yes, you admitted you didn't watch it (ie. entire thing). Sorry, I didn't include ALL of it since I implied it.

[petegz28]

[QUOTE=Saul Good;5896349]

:spock:

I didn't call him a liar. He couldn't take the time to watch the video. He even commented on said video without getting to that part in the video and speculating on what his reaction would be if she actually said it.

That's about as dishonest as you can get.

I got bored with Matthews at about 9:00 or so...but up to that pointm when I quit watching, I thought everything she said was fair. Maybe when I finish it I will something to complaing about but up until then I saw nothing wrong

Again.....reading has failed you....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5895906&postcount=41


you are a liar, IJ

[Saul Good]

Peril is ambiguous.

Someone could argue the earth is in peril if we continue deforestation. So I don't see peril as meaning "end of world".

If only there were some sort of resource that could help remove the ambiguity.

per⋅il
  /ˈpɛrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -iled, -il⋅ing or (especially British) -illed, -il⋅ling.
Use peril in a Sentence
–noun
1. exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.
2. something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

[irishjayhawk]

No shit, Sherlock. You and jAZ were bitching about the lack of quotes in the article and asking for some. I posted them for you. What more do you want? We didn't write the article.

Well, there's a distinction. Pete wrote that title based on the ARTICLE. The article doesn't even contain the quote. Therefore, based on that much, his title is a hyperbole and borderline scare tactic.

Even when pushed to back it up by jAZ he failed to get your quote.


Context applies here too.

[irishjayhawk]

If only there were some sort of resource that could help remove the ambiguity.

per⋅il
  /ˈpɛrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -iled, -il⋅ing or (especially British) -illed, -il⋅ling.
Use peril in a Sentence
–noun
1. exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.
2. something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

Removing a tree would cause injury and loss to the earth. Or so one could argue.

[petegz28]

[QUOTE=petegz28;5896348]

Yes, you admitted you didn't watch it (ie. entire thing). Sorry, I didn't include ALL of it since I implied it.

You didn't imply anything other than I didn't watch it

[Saul Good]

Don't jump the gun. I just went back to look, because I swore as that played out he was talking about the "screaming" claim specfically. And...

Are you really trying to make the case that Pete meant that she was literally screaming these words at the top of her lungs? Is that what you are trying do devolve this discussion to?

Pete was on the money, and my quotes vindicated him. Now you are simply trying to run interference.

[petegz28]

Well, there's a distinction. Pete wrote that title based on the ARTICLE. The article doesn't even contain the quote. Therefore, based on that much, his title is a hyperbole and borderline scare tactic.

Even when pushed to back it up by jAZ he failed to get your quote.


Context applies here too.

Amazing how a little experience with politicians gave me the insight to make such a spot-on remark you called hyperbole

[Saul Good]

Well, there's a distinction. Pete wrote that title based on the ARTICLE. The article doesn't even contain the quote. Therefore, based on that much, his title is a hyperbole and borderline scare tactic.

Even when pushed to back it up by jAZ he failed to get your quote.


Context applies here too.

What do you think the article was about? You are pretty damned dense. The article didn't have quotes, so I found quotes that she has made on the topic. I didn't conduct the interview, and neither did Pete. If that's the best you've got, I suggest you quit.

[petegz28]

Are you really trying to make the case that Pete meant that she was literally screaming these words at the top of her lungs? Is that what you are trying do devolve this discussion to?

Pete was on the money, and my quotes vindicated him. Now you are simply trying to run interference.

Yes, that is exactly what he has been reduced too

[irishjayhawk]

[QUOTE=irishjayhawk;5896352]



Again.....reading has failed you....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5895906&postcount=41


you are a liar, IJ

First of all, I never called you a liar. Second, I'm still standing by my statement.

Common sense says that saying you only watched 9 of 14 minutes of a video isn't "watching it". Moreover, you even admit you didn't get to the part where she says what we were discussing.

I think it's fair to say you didn't watch it.

[Saul Good]

Removing a tree would cause injury and loss to the earth. Or so one could argue.

You are a joke.

[jAZ]

Are you really trying to make the case that Pete meant that she was literally screaming these words at the top of her lungs? Is that what you are trying do devolve this discussion to?

Pete was on the money, and my quotes vindicated him. Now you are simply trying to run interference.

No, the opposite.

That Pete admitted that the she wasn't literally screaming, but he was deliberately trying to frame Boxers POV around the indefensible claim that the "end of the world is coming" because the reality of what she believes (insert her recitation of the general summary of a large number of scientists) is not nearly as indefensible.

[petegz28]

First of all, I never called you a liar. Second, I'm still standing by my statement.

Common sense says that saying you only watched 9 of 14 minutes of a video isn't "watching it". Moreover, you even admit you didn't get to the part where she says what we were discussing.

I think it's fair to say you didn't watch it.

Yes, you did call me a liar, more than once. Common sense should tell you I even said I didn't watch it all. Then again, the post where I said, I didn't watch it all should have been a clue as well.

You act like I claimed I watched it all. I claimed jAZ was slamming me for viewing videos he asked me to view. And I was right about that as well. That's 0-3 for you, buddy

[petegz28]

No, the opposite.

That Pete admitted that the she wasn't literally screaming, but he was deliberately trying to frame Boxers POV around the indefensible claim that the "end of the world is coming" because the reality of what she believes (insert her recitation of the general summary of a large number of scientists) is not nearly as indefensible.

But I was pretty much on the mark with that opinion....

[irishjayhawk]

What do you think the article was about? You are pretty damned dense. The article didn't have quotes, so I found quotes that she has made on the topic. I didn't conduct the interview, and neither did Pete. If that's the best you've got, I suggest you quit.

I still disagree on the whole peril aspect of her quote and how it ties to pete's characterization.

I also think it's telling you are willing to ignore the fact that the article doesn't mention that quote. He titled the thread BASED ON THE ARTICLE, when the article doesn't mention that quote. Nor does pete bring it up when asked to back up his assertion.

I'm glad you came to aid pete in his epic failings. Hell, I even agreed earlier that Boxer is slightly loony. Of course, he then ran away from jAZ and I's challenge to find Boxer's quotes to challenge Bachmann's stupidity.

[Saul Good]

Removing a tree would cause injury and loss to the earth. Or so one could argue.

“The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now."

Maybe she meant removing a tree.


"They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now."

Maybe she meant angels and fairies.



They’ve told us of more intense weather events if we don’t act now.

Maybe she meant a single raindrop.



Health experts have told us that infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters.

Maybe she meant some skank would get the clap.



And military leaders have told us that unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees.

Ummmmmmmmmmm...She's approaching Michelle Bachmann territory.

[irishjayhawk]

You are a joke.

I'm sorry, that's what your definition said. I took it to a conclusion.

While that one is probably extreme, deforestation is not. So I'd say that is an injury or loss as well. Which is what your definition says.

I didn't write the definition.

[jAZ]

Pete was on the money, and my quotes vindicated him. Now you are simply trying to run interference.

Pete was "right on"? Your quotes showed she repeated the concerns of the GW scientific community. That's not remotely "end of world".

[Saul Good]

No, the opposite.

That Pete admitted that the she wasn't literally screaming, but he was deliberately trying to frame Boxers POV around the indefensible claim that the "end of the world is coming" because the reality of what she believes (insert her recitation of the general summary of a large number of scientists) is not nearly as indefensible.

How so given this quote: "The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now"?

[Saul Good]

I still disagree on the whole peril aspect of her quote and how it ties to pete's characterization.

I also think it's telling you are willing to ignore the fact that the article doesn't mention that quote. He titled the thread BASED ON THE ARTICLE, when the article doesn't mention that quote.

The article was BASED ON QUOTES FROM BARBARA BOXER.

[irishjayhawk]

Yes, you did call me a liar, more than once. Common sense should tell you I even said I didn't watch it all. Then again, the post where I said, I didn't watch it all should have been a clue as well.

Please, quote where I called you a liar. The closest I came was saying something was untrue.


You act like I claimed I watched it all. I claimed jAZ was slamming me for viewing videos he asked me to view. And I was right about that as well. That's 0-3 for you, buddy

I'm 0-1. And I apologized.

[Saul Good]

I'm sorry, that's what your definition said. I took it to a conclusion.

While that one is probably extreme, deforestation is not. So I'd say that is an injury or loss as well. Which is what your definition says.

I didn't write the definition.

I didn't write the definition, either. You'll have to take it up with Merriam Webster.

[petegz28]

Please, quote where I called you a liar. The closest I came was saying something was untrue.



I'm 0-1. And I apologized.

I think I have done enough of that. I would do you no favors to continue repeating myself. Especially when you know you did.

[irishjayhawk]

“The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now."

Maybe she meant removing a tree.


"They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now."

Maybe she meant angels and fairies.



They’ve told us of more intense weather events if we don’t act now.

Maybe she meant a single raindrop.



Health experts have told us that infectious diseases will increase due to warmer waters.

Maybe she meant some skank would get the clap.



And military leaders have told us that unchecked global warming will lead to severe conflict and war as droughts, floods and rising sea levels create huge numbers of desperate refugees.

Ummmmmmmmmmm...She's approaching Michelle Bachmann territory.

She has a long way to go before Michelle Bachmann. One quote doesn't really match my post re Bachmann.

Secondly, my post was in deliberate response to your definition semantics. Clearly, there is gray area with respect to peril and if it means "end of the world".

[petegz28]

The article was BASED ON QUOTES FROM BARBARA BOXER.

I don't think he has made it to those classes in school yet.

[irishjayhawk]

The article was BASED ON QUOTES FROM BARBARA BOXER.

And the article apparently didn't translate it to end of the world....

That should be a big hint.

[Saul Good]

Please, quote where I called you a liar.

jAZ called him a liar. You did nothing to correct jAZ. That's not the same thing as calling him a liar, but you were complicit in not setting the record straight.

[jAZ]

Actual quote: "the earth is in peril if we don't act now."

Thread title: "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill"


What were you saying about context?

"earth is in peril" is not "End of world". Not remotely.

[irishjayhawk]

I think I have done enough of that. I would do you no favors to continue repeating myself. Especially when you know you did.

Actually, with one exception (my denying calling you a liar), you and Saul are the only ones who use liar in the whole thread.

[irishjayhawk]

jAZ called him a liar. You did nothing to correct jAZ. That's not the same thing as calling him a liar, but you were complicit in not setting the record straight.

If there are two tangents going on at the same time (which there was until I came and sided with jAZ), one can be separated from that.

But, as expected, something someone else says can always be traced to someone else. With you, anyway.

[petegz28]

And the article apparently didn't translate it to end of the world....

That should be a big hint.

No, what should be a learning experience for you is some of us have been around long enough to understand particular politicans and the way they operate. Thus my "hyperbole" being spot on.

[Saul Good]

She has a long way to go before Michelle Bachmann. One quote doesn't really match my post re Bachmann.

Secondly, my post was in deliberate response to your definition semantics. Clearly, there is gray area with respect to peril and if it means "end of the world".

Brilliant point. Maybe Pete was referring to lawn bowling in the title of the thread.


end
1  /ɛnd/ Spelled Pronunciation [end]
–noun
a unit of a game, as in curling or lawn bowling.

[Saul Good]

"earth is in peril" is not "End of world". Not remotely.

If your boss tells you that your job is in peril, what do you think that means?

[Saul Good]

Actually, with one exception (my denying calling you a liar), you and Saul are the only ones who use liar in the whole thread.

Are you sure about that?

[BucEyedPea]

If your boss tells you that your job is in peril, what do you think that means?

Such a statement is an implication that the job will end.

Did I get it right? :)

[jAZ]

"The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now"

This is a measured citation of the work of a large group of scientists who provide their best estimates of a possible grave risk (peril) without action.

The other is an indefensible, unsubstantiated, pulled from your ass, absolute certainty.

One is the summary of an undeniably large portion of the science community. The other is almost certainly false.

[petegz28]

Brilliant point. Maybe Pete was referring to lawn bowling in the title of the thread.


end
1  /ɛnd/ Spelled Pronunciation [end]
–noun
a unit of a game, as in curling or lawn bowling.

No hiding from you man, you got me figured out!!!! :thumb:

[irishjayhawk]

No, what should be a learning experience for you is some of us have been around long enough to understand particular politicans and the way they operate. Thus my "hyperbole" being spot on.

Your defense is that the article toned down her hyperbole and therefore you just brought it up again?

If so, LMAO.

I still disagree that peril = end of the world.



Brilliant point. Maybe Pete was referring to lawn bowling in the title of the thread.


end
1  /ɛnd/ Spelled Pronunciation [end]
–noun
a unit of a game, as in curling or lawn bowling.

:spock:

I'm sorry that you think peril = end of the world. You posted the definition and I posted that people could make the case that deforestation is causing the earth peril.

[jAZ]

If your boss tells you that your job is in peril, what do you think that means?

I'm not fired.

[Saul Good]

Before you get caught up in yet another lie, why don't you provide the article that reports that BB said the "End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill."

I'll give you a free get-out-of-hyperbole card if you correct it now.

1

[petegz28]

This is a measured citation of the work of a large group of scientists who provide their best estimates of a possible grave risk (peril) without action.

The other is an indefensible, unsubstantiated, pulled from your ass, absolute certainty.

One is the summary of an undeniably large portion of the science community. The other is almost certainly false.

bla bla bla........you were wrong, I was right, na-na-na-na-na-na

[Saul Good]

No, I didn't. I asked you to provide video or quotes from BB that you were (falsely) paraphrasing.

So far, you haven't even tried to defend your claims. Don't say I didn't give you a fair shot to explain yourself and support your accusations. Until you provide something remotely approaching Boxer "screaming" about the "end of the world", I think we can all agree that you are lying when you say such things.

2

[petegz28]

I'll be the first to admit I didn't post the quotes of her saying it. I didn't look into her Radio Address. That was my fault. But the fact remains that I didn't need too as I was right. You call that hyperbole. I call it political wisdom, in this case.

[irishjayhawk]

Are you sure about that?

Yep, pretty confident. Did a search for liar.

Interestingly, jAZ says he's lying but doesn't say he's a liar.

I stand by my statement.

[irishjayhawk]

I'll be the first to admit I didn't post the quotes of her saying it. I didn't look into her Radio Address. That was my fault. But the fact remains that I didn't need too as I was right. You call that hyperbole. I call it political wisdom, in this case.

If you think peril = end of the world, yes. If not, no.

[Saul Good]

Barbara Boxer is claiming to be able to stop earthquackes with the stroke of a pen. But that's just a figure of speech. I'm not clear on what the non-lie part of this rhetoric is exactly.


This is the basis for an actual discussion. Pete's garbage was only worth the effrot to throw out because some many people at the start of this thread were willing to throw out rational thought and act as if pete wasn't lying.

He didn't use quotes, so he wasn't falsely attributing a quote to her. He was falsely attributing a belief to her.

And I don't think it was TIC at all. I have said, I believe it was deliberate hyperbole designed to be easily attacked by those who want to attack her and don't care what the facts of the matter are.

As such, it's both hyperbole and a lie.





3,4,5...I could keep going, but I won't.

[petegz28]

If you think peril = end of the world, yes. If not, no.

per⋅il  /ˈpɛrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -iled, -il⋅ing or (especially British) -illed, -il⋅ling.
Use peril in a Sentence
–noun 1. exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.
2. something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

[jAZ]

Such a statement is an implication that the job will end.

Did I get it right? :)

No, you didn't. But it's a good analogy.

My wife is a manager in a state agency. The state was a mess and as the leg and the gov were negotiating a final budget, she had to tell everyone that their jobs were in peril. They were told that they needed to work from the office, keep on top of their individual work, etc... because... wait for it...

their job was in peril.

When the budget comes maybe a few of those people warned that their jobs are in peril, will lose their job. The vast majority of the people in the agecy will keep their job.

Peril doesn't = end.

[irishjayhawk]

Saul - If you want to play semantics like you insist on doing, I said "liar". IF you do a search for it, you'll see I was accurate.

[jAZ]

1

What are you doing?

[petegz28]

No, you didn't. But it's a good analogy.

My wife is a manager in a state agency. The state was a mess and as the leg and the gov were negotiating a final budget, she had to tell everyone that their jobs were in peril. They were told that they needed to work from the office, keep on top of their individual work, etc... because... wait for it...

their job was in peril.

When the budget comes maybe a few of those people warned that their jobs are in peril, will lose their job. The vast majority of the people in the agecy will keep their job.

Peril doesn't = end.

per⋅il  /ˈpɛrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -iled, -il⋅ing or (especially British) -illed, -il⋅ling.
Use peril in a Sentence
–noun 1. exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.
2. something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

[Saul Good]

Yep, pretty confident. Did a search for liar.

Interestingly, jAZ says he's lying but doesn't say he's a liar.

I stand by my statement.

You are really smart. It is very interesting to discuss things with you. You are enlightening, and I learn from you.

[irishjayhawk]

What are you doing?

I said that only he and pete used liar in the whole thread (excluding my one time denying I call pete a liar). Which was true.

But he insists on pointing out that you said pete was lying. Therefore you should have been included.

[jAZ]

Are you sure about that?

Oh, got it.

[irishjayhawk]

You are really smart. It is very interesting to discuss things with you. You are enlightening, and I learn from you.

I'm sorry you can't read.

[Saul Good]

What are you doing?

Refuting this comment from IJ:

Actually, with one exception (my denying calling you a liar), you and Saul are the only ones who use liar in the whole thread.

[irishjayhawk]

per⋅il  /ˈpɛrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -iled, -il⋅ing or (especially British) -illed, -il⋅ling.
Use peril in a Sentence
–noun 1. exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.
2. something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

See how we can both have that definition and our differing opinions too. I don't see peril as destruction. I see it as loss. Like the loss of species or parts of land. Etc.

[irishjayhawk]

Refuting this comment from IJ:

Actually, with one exception (my denying calling you a liar), you and Saul are the only ones who use liar in the whole thread.

That's actually true. (Well, not now, since I've used it more than once since then.)

Do a search for liar.

[jAZ]

per⋅il  /ˈpɛrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -iled, -il⋅ing or (especially British) -illed, -il⋅ling.
Use peril in a Sentence
–noun 1. exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.
2. something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

You need to pay attention. Seriously.

[petegz28]

See how we can both have that definition and our differing opinions too. I don't see peril as destruction. I see it as loss. Like the loss of species or parts of land. Etc.

So the loss of a species via Global Warming isn't the destruction of that species?

If we lost a species due to GW one would say, "Global Warming destroyed that species"

I think you might want to try again...

[petegz28]

You need to pay attention. Seriously.

And you need a dictionary

[jAZ]

See how we can both have that definition and our differing opinions too. I don't see peril as destruction. I see it as loss. Like the loss of species or parts of land. Etc.

Peril = risk.
End = certain.

[Saul Good]

No, you didn't. But it's a good analogy.

My wife is a manager in a state agency. The state was a mess and as the leg and the gov were negotiating a final budget, she had to tell everyone that their jobs were in peril. They were told that they needed to work from the office, keep on top of their individual work, etc... because... wait for it...

their job was in peril.

When the budget comes maybe a few of those people warned that their jobs are in peril, will lose their job. The vast majority of the people in the agecy will keep their job.

Peril doesn't = end.
It doesn't = end. It means that there is a chance that it will end. In this case, "The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now."

Let's use this scenario: You are told that your job is in peril if you don't show up on time tomorrow.

Either
A: Your employment ends.
B: You show up on time and your job is saved.

In her scenario, either:

A: The world ends
B: We act now

[irishjayhawk]

Peril = risk.
End = certain.

Precisely.

[jAZ]

And you need a dictionary

No, you seem unable to comprehend that the risk of losing a job is "may cause loss". But it does not mean certainty.

[petegz28]

Peril = risk.
End = certain.

Once again....unless now you are saying Websters is wrong


per⋅il  /ˈpɛrəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [per-uhl] Show IPA noun, verb, -iled, -il⋅ing or (especially British) -illed, -il⋅ling.
Use peril in a Sentence
–noun 1. exposure to injury, loss, or destruction; grave risk; jeopardy; danger: They faced the peril of falling rocks.
2. something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peril



What do you think the peril is, jAZ?

[petegz28]

No, you seem unable to comprehend that the risk of losing a job is "may cause loss". But it does not mean certainty.

Thus my statement that Babs is saying the world will end, i.e. is in peril if we don't passs the climate bill..



keep talking in your circles...

[Saul Good]

Such a statement is an implication that the job will end.

Did I get it right? :)

It's an implication that it will end unless something unspecified takes place. In BB's statement, it was an implication that the earth would end IF "we don't act now."

[petegz28]

It's an implication that it will end unless something unspecified takes place. In BB's statement, it was an implication that the earth would end IF "we don't act now."

Thus the thread title...

Babs Boxer: End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill.. :clap:


Dramatic? A bit. Spot-on? Pretty much!

[petegz28]

No, you seem unable to comprehend that the risk of losing a job is "may cause loss". But it does not mean certainty.

Go back and read the thread title and tell me what about the word "if" you don't get there?


I know a certain element of the Left struggles with 2-letter words, "is", "Al"...but "if"?

Are we going to get a what is "if" argument next?

[Saul Good]

That's actually true. (Well, not now, since I've used it more than once since then.)

Do a search for liar.

I'm done with your attempts to devolve the thread about Boxer's ridiculous rantings into a dissection of how words are conjugated.

[Saul Good]

Go bakc and read the thread title and tell me what about the word "if" you don't get there?

Paraphrased title: End of world is coming if we don't pass Climate Bill

Actual quote: the earth is in peril if we don’t act* now


*act is referring to an earlier quote in her statement, "Senators have come together across party lines to write a law that will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs and put us on the path to energy independence."

[petegz28]

I'm done with your attempts to devolve the thread about Boxer's ridiculous rantings into a dissection of how words are conjugated.

I think I will join you in that sentiment. Thaks for getting my back on this! :clap:

[jAZ]

It doesn't = end. It means that there is a chance that it will end. In this case, "The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now."

Let's use this scenario: You are told that your job is in peril if you don't show up on time tomorrow.

Either
A: Your employment ends.
B: You show up on time and your job is saved.

In her scenario, either:

A: The world ends
B: We act now

This doesn't make any sense. It apparently is misworded and missing options.

My example:

A: You show up on time, you keep your job
B: You show up late, you keep your job anyway
C: You show up late, you lose your job

BB example:
In her scenario, either:

A: Do nothing, the world ends
B: Do nothing, the world doesn't end
C: Act now, the world doesn't end


pete's claim was that BB didn't allow for option B:.

Peril allows for option B:.

You drag yourself into the lie when you present only two choices (A&C) and ignore B, when B absolutely exists with the use of the word "peril".

[Saul Good]

This doesn't make any sense. It apparently is misworded and missing options.

My example:

A: You show up on time, you keep your job
B: You show up late, you keep your job anyway
C: You show up late, you lose your job

BB example:
In her scenario, either:

A: Do nothing, the world ends
B: Do nothing, the world doesn't end
C: Act now, the world doesn't end


pete's claim was that BB didn't allow for option B:.

Peril allows for option B:.

You drag yourself into the lie when you present only two choices (A&C) and ignore B, when B absolutely exists with the use of the word "peril".

You've lost, jAZ. Either way, she is implying that the existence of the earth may hinge on the passage of this climate bill. It's a ridiculous assertion. To repeat my earlier defense of Pete, he is guilty of nothing other than possible hyperbole.

[jAZ]

Go back and read the thread title and tell me what about the word "if" you don't get there?


I know a certain element of the Left struggles with 2-letter words, "is", "Al"...but "if"?

Are we going to get a what is "if" argument next?

Your title says BB believes it's certain that the world will end IF we don't act now. Her quote say the World is in peril (UNCertain risk of loss) if we don't act now.

It's not at all complicated.

[petegz28]

Your title says BB believes it's certain that the world will end IF we don't act now. Her quote say the World is in peril (UNCertain risk of loss) if we don't act now.

It's not at all complicated.

Floods, fires, droughts, loss of species, wars......

one can easily infer that to mean the end of the world as we know it.


But being a good little DNC member you will ignore this .....you are doing her proud, trust me...she likes her jAZ.

[Saul Good]

Floods, fires, droughts, loss of species, wars......

one can easily infer that to mean the end of the world as we know it.


But being a good little DNC member you will ignore this .....you are doing her proud, trust me...she likes her jAZ.

This thread is done, Pete. You have been vindicated. Boxer's own words show that she is a nutjob and believes that the existence of our planet may hinge on the passing of the climate bill.

Just be glad we've moved on from the politics of fear.

[jAZ]

existence of the earth may hinge on the passage of this climate bill. It's a ridiculous assertion.

No one is suggesting the earth will not exist. That's utter BS and you know it.

[wild1]

Duck and cover!

[petegz28]

No one is suggesting the earth will not exist. That's utter BS and you know it.

Saul Good as King Arthur
jAZ as the Black Knight

starring in The Holy Grail..

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dhRUe-gz690&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dhRUe-gz690&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Saul Good]

Here's an interesting tidbit to analyze:

"The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now. They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now."

According to Babs, the overwhelming majority of scientists acknowledge God's existence.

[petegz28]

Here's an interesting tidbit to analyze:

"The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists say that the earth is in peril if we don’t act now. They’ve told us clearly that more than 40 percent of God’s creatures could face extinction if we don’t act now."

According to Babs, the overwhelming majority of scientists acknowledge God's existence.


The kick is up.....AND IT'S GOOD!!!!!

[jAZ]

Floods, fires, droughts, loss of species, wars......

one can easily infer that to mean the end of the world as we know it.

The end of the world as we know it is a defensible statement. That's not the end of the world (as you put it) or the existance of the earth (as Saul puts it).

[jAZ]

This thread is done, Pete. You have been vindicated. Boxer's own words show that she is a nutjob and believes that the existence of our planet may hinge on the passing of the climate bill.

It's funny to see Saul adopt pete's MO of making a demonstrably false statement and using it to assail BB... and thus delcaring that pete was right all long.

By funny, I mean pathetic and predictable.

[jAZ]

It's identical to the pattern pete used. Make a radical statement to support your vitrol towards BB because the actual facts don't support the vitrol you wish to engender.

[petegz28]

'When God created the first man, he took him around to all the trees in the Garden of Eden and said to him "see my handiwork, how beautiful and choice they are. Be careful not to ruin and destroy my world, for if you do ruin it, there is no one to repair it after you."'

She also said this...

I wonder what God says about killing unborns, Babs???? :hmmm: That is for another thread though

[jAZ]

Saul Good as King Arthur
jAZ as the Black Knight

starring in The Holy Grail..

I stand corrected. Saul is indeed saying that the earth will not exist. He's attributing it to BB, but he's in fact saying it (twice in fact).

[stevieray]

five hours later...LMAO

"he'd grown up just like me"

[Saul Good]

It's identical to the pattern pete used. Make a radical statement to support your vitrol towards BB because the actual facts don't support the vitrol you wish to engender.

just quote and definitions from the dictionary...nothing more, nothing less

[Saul Good]

It's funny to see Saul adopt pete's MO of making a demonstrably false statement and using it to assail BB... and thus delcaring that pete was right all long.

By funny, I mean pathetic and predictable.

Don't worry. It's just a little more hyperbole in order to piss on the ashes of the smoldering crater that was your argument.

[JohnnyV13]

I, however, did watch that matthew's interview. I found it quite interesting.

Bachman did say something stupid, but Matthews enticed her into it. Basically, he wanted to get her to say something dumb, and she complied.

To recap: Bachman is defending the republican election tactic of associating Obama with Bill Ayers. They republicans said Ayers was "anti american" due to bombings that took place in the 70's. Matthews whole interveiw plan was probably to associate this tactic with McCathyism (guilt by association). Hence, he asks Bachman whether we should investigage the associates of everyone in congress to see if they are "anti american". Bachman thinks she's avoiding the trap while supporting the republican position by saying she's welcome to "the media" looking into associates of congress.

Which, of course, was a rather stupid statement. Yet Matthews asserts this reluctant admission by Bachman (who had been led into this statement by matthews when he suggested that it was a logical progression by pointing out that Barack Obama was a member of congress, and that it would follow that we should look into the associates of every congressman if we were looking into one) was a "call" to investigate congress for "anti-american" feelings.

Matthews then talks to Cutter (an Obama campaign advisor). His attitude with her is very different. He is shamelessly approving, without any pretext toward journalistic objectivity (to be fair, Fox news uses similar interview tactics. Its exactly the same way Bill O'Reilly treats his guests).

Matthews then adds that Bachman wants the media to preferentially investigate the democrats, which isn't anything Bachman said (though is a fairly reasonable presumption that Bachman would like that investigation focused on her political opponents).

Now comes the interesting part that jAZ and Irish seem to completely ignore. Cutter then asserts how the American people should be more concerned about how John McCain is "lying about health care" and how he intends to "raise taxes" by sneakily looking into taxing health benefits.

Well, 6 months into the Obama administration, Obama has refused to remove taxing employee health benefits as a means to pay for health care reform. Obama is looking for ways to pay for his intended reforms and all of them include increased taxes on people making under 250k.

Obama apparently supports Climate change legislation that Barbara Boxer deceptively asserts "does not involve a tax increase". While technically true, for all intents and purposes this Cap and Trade bill IS a tax increase.

Power companies are regulated monopolies, because the government long ago decided that building one power infrastructure in a local area would be more efficient than building multiple power delivery systems by competing companies. Hence, the government regulates power charges, and production costs are a key factor in determining acceptable costs. Thus, cost increases in such a business model are nearly passed 100% to the consumer, since power prices are not set by free market competition. ANd, since Cap and Trade imposes its penalties by forcing business to "buy" carbon emission permits from the federal government, this bill IS a tax on the American people: one that hits pretty much EVERYONE.

The Cap and Trade bill includes a government check to poor people in order to compensate for increased costs due to the bill. Consequently, the bill sponsors are completely aware of the bill's implications for the consumer. THIS BILL IS A SHAMELESS TAX.

Why do we know this fact? Because if the bill were truly concerned with carbon emissions AND if the democrats truly cared about Obama's pledge to not increase taxes on people making under 250k, then they could contruct a bill that would sell CO2 emission permits (to spur businesses to reduce emissions), while using the revenue from selling permits to increase tax income exclusions for the public.

THIS BILL IS SIMPLY ANOTHER METHOD TO STEAL FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND ENABLE POLITICIANS TO PAY OFF THEIR POLITICAL FRIENDS!!!!!

I find it interesting how jAZ and Irish ignore what that video truly reveals.

[Saul Good]

I, however, did watch that matthew's interview. I found it quite interesting.

Bachman did say something stupid, but Matthews enticed her into it. Basically, he wanted to get her to say something dumb, and she complied.

To recap: Bachman is defending the republican election tactic of associating Obama with Bill Ayers. They republicans said Ayers was "anti american" due to bombings that took place in the 70's. Matthews whole interveiw plan was probably to associate this tactic with McCathyism (guilt by association). Hence, he asks Bachman whether we should investigage the associates of everyone in congress to see if they are "anti american". Bachman thinks she's avoiding the trap while supporting the republican position by saying she's welcome to "the media" looking into associates of congress.

Which, of course, was a rather stupid statement. Yet Matthews asserts this reluctant admission by Bachman (who had been led into this statement by matthews when he suggested that it was a logical progression by pointing out that Barack Obama was a member of congress, and that it would follow that we should look into the associates of every congressman if we were looking into one) was a "call" to investigate congress for "anti-american" feelings.

Matthews then talks to Cutter (an Obama campaign advisor). His attitude with her is very different. He is shamelessly approving, without any pretext toward journalistic objectivity (to be fair, Fox news uses similar interview tactics. Its exactly the same way Bill O'Reilly treats his guests).

Matthews then adds that Bachman wants the media to preferentially investigate the democrats, which isn't anything Bachman said (though is a fairly reasonable presumption that Bachman would like that investigation focused on her political opponents).

Now comes the interesting part that jAZ and Irish seem to completely ignore. Cutter then asserts how the American people should be more concerned about how John McCain is "lying about health care" and how he intends to "raise taxes" by sneakily looking into taxing health benefits.

Well, 6 months into the Obama administration, Obama has refused to remove taxing employee health benefits as a means to pay for health care reform. Obama is looking for ways to pay for his intended reforms and all of them include increased taxes on people making under 250k.

Obama apparently supports Climate change legislation that Barbara Boxer deceptively asserts "does not involve a tax increase". While technically true, for all intents and purposes this Cap and Trade bill IS a tax increase.

Power companies are regulated monopolies, because the government long ago decided that building one power infrastructure in a local area would be more efficient than building multiple power delivery systems by competing companies. Hence, the government regulates power charges, and production costs are a key factor in determining acceptable costs. Thus, cost increases in such a business model are nearly passed 100% to the consumer, since power prices are not set by free market competition. ANd, since Cap and Trade imposes its penalties by forcing business to "buy" carbon emission permits, this bill IS a tax on the American people: one that hits pretty much EVERYONE.

The Cap and Trade bill includes a government check to poor people in order to compensate for increased costs due to the bill. Consequently, the bill sponsors are completely aware of the bill's implications for the consumer. THIS BILL IS A SHAMELESS TAX.

Why do we know this fact? Because if the bill were truly concerned with carbon emissions AND if the democrats truly cared about Obama's pledge to not increase taxes on people making under 250k, then they could contruct a bill that would sell emissions permit (to spur businesses to reduce emissions), while using the revenue from selling permits to increase tax income exlcusions for the public.

THIS BILL IS SIMPLY ANOTHER METHOD TO STEAL FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND ENABLE POLITICIANS TO PAY OFF THEIR POLITICAL FRIENDS!!!!!

I find it interesting how jAZ and Irish ignore what that video truly reveals.

You didn't watch the video.

[irishjayhawk]

I, however, did watch that matthew's interview. I found it quite interesting.

Bachman did say something stupid, but Matthews enticed her into it. Basically, he wanted to get her to say something dumb, and she complied.

To recap: Bachman is defending the republican election tactic of associating Obama with Bill Ayers. They republicans said Ayers was "anti american" due to bombings that took place in the 70's. Matthews whole interveiw plan was probably to associate this tactic with McCathyism (guilt by association). Hence, he asks Bachman whether we should investigage the associates of everyone in congress to see if they are "anti american". Bachman thinks she's avoiding the trap while supporting the republican position by saying she's welcome to "the media" looking into associates of congress.

Which, of course, was a rather stupid statement. Yet Matthews asserts this reluctant admission by Bachman (who had been led into this statement by matthews when he suggested that it was a logical progression by pointing out that Barack Obama was a member of congress, and that it would follow that we should look into the associates of every congressman if we were looking into one) was a "call" to investigate congress for "anti-american" feelings.

Matthews then talks to Cutter (an Obama campaign advisor). His attitude with her is very different. He is shamelessly approving, without any pretext toward journalistic objectivity (to be fair, Fox news uses similar interview tactics. Its exactly the same way Bill O'Reilly treats his guests).

Matthews then adds that Bachman wants the media to preferentially investigate the democrats, which isn't anything Bachman said (though is a fairly reasonable presumption that Bachman would like that investigation focused on her political opponents).

Now comes the interesting part that jAZ and Irish seem to completely ignore. Cutter then asserts how the American people should be more concerned about how John McCain is "lying about health care" and how he intends to "raise taxes" by sneakily looking into taxing health benefits.

Well, 6 months into the Obama administration, Obama has refused to remove taxing employee health benefits as a means to pay for health care reform. Obama is looking for ways to pay for his intended reforms and all of them include increased taxes on people making under 250k.

Obama apparently supports Climate change legislation that Barbara Boxer deceptively asserts "does not involve a tax increase". While technically true, for all intents and purposes this Cap and Trade bill IS a tax increase.

Power companies are regulated monopolies, because the government long ago decided that building one power infrastructure in a local area would be more efficient than building multiple power delivery systems by competing companies. Hence, the government regulates power charges, and production costs are a key factor in determining acceptable costs. Thus, cost increases in such a business model are nearly passed 100% to the consumer, since power prices are not set by free market competition. ANd, since Cap and Trade imposes its penalties by forcing business to "buy" carbon emission permits from the federal government, this bill IS a tax on the American people: one that hits pretty much EVERYONE.

The Cap and Trade bill includes a government check to poor people in order to compensate for increased costs due to the bill. Consequently, the bill sponsors are completely aware of the bill's implications for the consumer. THIS BILL IS A SHAMELESS TAX.

Why do we know this fact? Because if the bill were truly concerned with carbon emissions AND if the democrats truly cared about Obama's pledge to not increase taxes on people making under 250k, then they could contruct a bill that would sell CO2 emission permits (to spur businesses to reduce emissions), while using the revenue from selling permits to increase tax income exclusions for the public.

THIS BILL IS SIMPLY ANOTHER METHOD TO STEAL FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND ENABLE POLITICIANS TO PAY OFF THEIR POLITICAL FRIENDS!!!!!

I find it interesting how jAZ and Irish ignore what that video truly reveals.

You're free to see it that way. I don't.

And anyways, that's 1 out of how many did I post? Are you interested in defending any more of those?


Out of curiosity, what are you getting at with the latter half of the post. It seems disconnected - to me anyway - to Bachmann.