Sen. Harry Reid, NV: Wildfires caused by global warming

[[email protected]]

(corrected post)



Right--the unassailable faith that infinite money fixes everything.

Europe doesn't have infinite money, and it certainly doesn't spend an
infinite amount of money on its social safety net, but it still
manages to get better results than your ramshackle schemes can
produce.

No government program was ever a bad idea. Government programs never
fail, never do harm. If they make things worse, they were just
underfunded. The more things go awry under a program, the greater is
the proof of our need for more it.

The fact that you can't do it right isn't actually proof that nobody
else can do better - and you've got a whole lot of better counter-
examples to look at across the other side of the Atlantic.

Of course, because we've been doing it better for quite some time now,
we don't have your social problems, so our example is irrelevant to
the kind of problems that real right-wing men have to solve. Our
resident clown feels free to explain our system works because
Europeans have been "bred for obedience".

Preserving the world's peace, at great cost, was at least one of them.

Quite how subsidising Saddam Husseins war on Iran was supposed to
"preserve the world's peace" is one of the many interesting questions
that one might ask a less gullible observer of US international
political activity.

You might like to consider how well the Nicaraguans think that you
preserved the peace in their part of the world.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...5A15752C0A960948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

I do see the Democrats' strategy--deliberate or not--as keeping people
riled, ignorant, divided, dependent, and thereby controlled.

If you believe that U.S. policy has ever been interested in preserving
world peace at the expense of narrow U.S. interests, somebody has
managed to keep you extremely ignorant.

The Republicans are harder to pigeon-hole; they're a more diverse
group.

The current Republican administration seems to have a certain
uniformity when it comes to telling the truth. They sold the invasion
of Irak on the basis of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and
the suggestion that Saddam was behind the attack on the World Trade
Centre, and they haven't exactly improved their credibility since
then,

Okay, you've made a bunch of claims and strange connections, your only
support being a website I've shown--by your own standards--as wrong
six ways from Sunday.

You don't like their logic - which is explicitly spelt out on the web-
site - but I don't think much of yours either.
As far as being "wrong" I don't think there's a thing to chose between
you.

And now (from snipped text above) you've written:


Personally I think it's a pretty important distinction. It's getting
hard to take you seriously. Methinks thou trollst.

Think about Reagan's undeclared war on Nicaragua, then tell me again
about the important distinction between war and peace. Someone else
funds terrorists in your country? That war. Invade Afghanistan. You
fund terrorists in someone elses country? That's peace. Ignore the
International Court of Justice.

Pull the other leg, its got bells on.

 

[JosephKK]

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:

No, as I said, I don't believe that science always works by majority
voting. Whenever something really new comes up, it takes a while for
the majority to digest the new idea, and under those circumstances a
majority vote would come to the wrong conclusion.

This isn't the case with global warming, and it has nothing to do
with the contrast between the minority page of the senate committee
in question and their majority page that I was actually referring
to.

As I've already said, the problem with the senate committe for the
environment and public works is that the ranking senator - James
Inhofe - is a right wing fundamentalist nut-case with daft ideas. He
doesn't seem to have persuaded the rest of the committee, but they
can't stop him using the minority page to spread Exxon-Mobile
propaganda. Majority and minority in this case are essentially empty
tags labelling different pages of the URL.

Such disingenuous equivocation.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] [email protected] posted to
sci.electronics.design:






Such disingenuous equivocation.

So restate the question you don't think I've answered ...