Constitution.

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Call Al Gore he was right! It has been proven that time and time again, the main thing that effects the weather is the Sun.
then explain for me, if you will, why we are at a lull in the solar irradiance cycle yet still experiencing the hottest years on record?

Liberals (Marxists)
supporting the right of gays to marry and women to choose does not entail belief in state-owned means of production. and somehow, YOU are the enlightened one.

SNARK!

...are just using Global Warming as a scam to redistribute wealth. It's like saying the sky is falling...unless you can tax individuals and businesses at a higher rate to pay for entitlements.
hmmmm, i must have missed that line for 'global warming redistribution tax' on my last 1040.

i guess for decades now, thousands of scientists and climatologists in hundreds of countries have covertly been working in unison to produce this hoax with the intent of funding entitlements they had no idea about when the whole scam started, and their decades in the making hoax was only recently uncovered by 'enlightened' people like you and alex jones.

makes perfect fucking sense.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Noun: A person of liberal views.
Adjective: Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values

liberalism:a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution .

marx·ism/ˈmärkˌsizəm/Noun: The political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed as the basis for communism.

com·mu·nism/ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Noun: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

American liberals are not communists. I dont need a book to prove that(you wouldn't read anything that I recommend anyway)... I guess I could rephrase to "you should educate yourself" and my point would have been much clearer?

I believe that generally the invisible hand of the market has mostly desirable outcomes. I believe it is in the interests of the people for government to set fair regulations to prevent recession and I believe it is in the interest of the people that government actively fights recession. I do not believe in central planning. Basically, I believe in markets that are mostly free - with government to ensure stability.
 

huffy420

Well-Known Member
They basically did hire a hand. They still paid for that help. That hand just didn't get the money.


This isnt communist ussr that has pubilc transport for everywhere you want to go, fucking genius! How about you put you novel fucking concept into fruition and setup accessible bus stops for people who live out in the country. Public transport will barley take you out to suburbia USA. Sounds good, but not everyone can take public trans buddy. You must live in or near a big city

I never said everyone owned slaves. But nice try though. Our economy was still driven by those cash crop pickin slaves.
 

tryingtogrow89

Well-Known Member
then explain for me, if you will, why we are at a lull in the solar irradiance cycle yet still experiencing the hottest years on record?



supporting the right of gays to marry and women to choose does not entail belief in state-owned means of production. and somehow, YOU are the enlightened one.

SNARK!



hmmmm, i must have missed that line for 'global warming redistribution tax' on my last 1040.

i guess for decades now, thousands of scientists and climatologists in hundreds of countries have covertly been working in unison to produce this hoax with the intent of funding entitlements they had no idea about when the whole scam started, and their decades in the making hoax was only recently uncovered by 'enlightened' people like you and alex jones.

makes perfect fucking sense.
Clearly you have wrong info. at a lull in the solar irradiance cycle? wrong! false! thousands of scientists and climatologists in hundreds of countries have covertly been working in unison to produce this hoax? wrong! false! you don't even know how science works then. Any of these so called scientists that theorize we humans are warming our planet, are simply on the tail of the solar cycles we go through, which currently we are going through a "solar maximum". Shall i stop, or shall i educate you further?.
.


You sir are a gluten for punishment, your going into territory you have no place in. All you have are words, not facts, or data.
1. Have you looked at your own outside thermometer? Record lows and snow storms abound.
2. Seventh grade physics shows that CO2's molecular weight makes it very heavy. It can't rise high enough to cause the greenhouse effect.
Yes, there is a greenhouse effect, but it's mostly caused by water vapor! H2O is much lighter than CO2.
3. College freshman statistics will show you that the error rate in temperature samples used is greater than the claimed temperature rise.
4. Glaciers in Greenland have recently been shown to be getting thcker, not thinner. Same with antarctic ice, which is never mentioned by warming alarmists.
5. Stories of polar bears declining are lies, according to our government's own figures.
6. CO2 is plant food! When the earth was young, there was very little free oxygen. It was poisonous to the few life forms here (primitive bacteria and plants). It increased to today's levels partly as exhaust from plants and partly from a few comets "visiting."
7. Clearing of forests happens only where governments own the forest. Private ownership of forests results in cyclical growing and cutting. They don't waste the economic value of their own land! Take a look at the huge forests in Georgia and Florida, owned by Weyerhauser & other lumber companies.
8. Sunspot activity is in a cycle in which it reduces warming radiation from the sun. This is actually causing a cooling cycle.
9. What about recent record cold temperatures and snow storms?
10. Why is it that the big scares always mean big profits for companies connected to governments. E.g. GE owns NBC, which is scaring us. But GE makes big dollars from sales of generators, nuclear, windmills, and solar to governments.
11. Those who want US to completely change our lives are immune. How about Al Gore making his millions - driving his SUVs, owning several energy inefficient HOMES, plura. He tells us to stop using gas, while he is private-jetting around to give big money speeches?
12. We're supposed to forget similar false fears. Many of the same companies made big money off the "ozone layer" scam. Remember that one? It has also proven false. But, the media which scared us about it has remained silent. Instead, they come up with a new scary theory.
13. About 7 years ago, the same government-connected scientists and insiders were trying to scare us with the coming ice age. Remember that?
14. Volcanoes and the ocean are by FAR larger sources of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases. Many, many, many multiples of the amounts we exhaust.
15. NASA was actually caught faking "warming" data. They simply copied September temperatures and submitted the same figures for October. They then claimed October was the hottest it's been in decades.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
http://www.revolutionaryzeal.co.uk/2008/01/21/fuck-the-media-ive-got-your-definitive-us-presidential-candidate-rundown-right-here/

Ron Paul stands for anything but change. A libertarian pretending to be a Republican (Paul ran for president as the Libertarian candidate in ‘88, polling an amazing 1% of the popular vote), Paul appears to be a man pining for the political sensibilities of the 18th century. With a strong aversion to anything that isn’t explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, he is a favourite of gun nuts, amateur conspiracy theorists, the politically naïve and mental patients. The general rule is that if you feel a need to hoard gold, buy a machine gun or live in a bunker, then Ron Paul’s your man.


Ron Paul’s policies are… interesting. From withdrawing from the UN to dismantling the IRS, Ron Paul’s stances hark back to the good ol’ days when governments around the world were totally devoted to not meddling in the lives of their citizens, no matter what the reason. Even if that reason was famine, if my knowledge of history is correct. Nothing says ‘liberty’ like emaciation, after all!


Perhaps the most important aspect of Dr. Paul’s presidential candidacy campaign is that he is proof that the internet—despite massive growth over the past decade—is still nowhere near being a serious political platform. If you’ve ever read so called ’social bookmarking’ sites such as Digg or reddit (fuck, it’s annoying when names are deliberately left not capitalised), then the chances are you will have learnt absolutely everything about the man more or less by osmosis, because the small cliques that dominate these poor excuses of news sites have nothing short of a lust for old Ron and his craaaazy brand of anachronistic politics. Such was the artificial hype around this candidate that if you were deprived of every proper news source, you’d actually think this guy would win hands-down. Especially since these groups regularly hijacked internet polls and came up with hilariously dramatic phrases like ‘Ron Paul revolution’ to somehow try to show that the will of a few politically naïve nerds was having an impact on the greater world.


As you’d probably expect, these claims of an RP landslide have all but vanished now, after his inevitable trouncing in every single primary so far. Being a complete sucker for schadenfreude, there’s something I find wholly satisfying about these nerds going from all but announcing his inauguration into the Whitehouse to whining over 30 missing votes in some random voting precinct in a backwater state nobody cares about.

Most likely to bomb: the IRS, soup kitchens.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Clearly you have wrong info. at a lull in the solar irradiance cycle? wrong! false!
solar-cycle-data.png

hmmm, we seem to be at a low in the solar cycle, yet still experiencing the hottest years on record.

google: 2010 hottest year on record, despite minimum in solar irradiance. go read nasa's report. or just browse it. or masturbate to it. i don't really care.

thousands of scientists and climatologists in hundreds of countries have covertly been working in unison to produce this hoax? wrong! false!
then who else produced this "hoax"? hockey players? underwater basket weavers? fishermen?

you don't even know how science works then. Any of these so called scientists that theorize we humans are warming our planet are simply on the tail of the solar cycles we go through, which currently we are going through a "solar maximum". Shall i stop or shall i educate you further?.
you should probably stop, because you are making yourself look foolish. go find me the chart that says we are at a solar maximum. i think i'll have to trust nasa on this one.

even if we were at a solar maximum, it is cyclical. yet, each of the last 10 years have been among the 11 hottest ever recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

so whether we are at a maximum or minimum, it doesn't matter. it's getting hotter.

and where is this wealth redistribution due to climate change you were telling me about?
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
Uncle Buck likes his Government to take care of him. He also likes to not pay attention to any recent "global warming" news. Including the recent headlines exposing the doctored data collected about "CO2 levels". Wikileaks also has great e-mails from"leading climatologist" basically admitting to accepting bribes. George Soros and Al Gore are sitting pretty though, selling carbon credits became big business. Everything is a scam man, become a sceptic not a close minded loon. You can post insulting Ron Paul stuff all day long too, maybe if you actually took the chance to listen to him you would understand he is only appealing to basic human dignaty. He is constantly insulted and attacked because he tells the truth without apology. How many politicians do you know with such exceptional character?
The real problem I see in this country is that liberty requires you to take care of yourself and most people would sell everything and their neighbor to feel 'secure'. Histoically and statistically governments murder more people than any person and history. It only seems logical, fear government not people; or stay in denial and prepare for extermination . . .
 

tryingtogrow89

Well-Known Member
View attachment 1637795

hmmm, we seem to be at a low in the solar cycle, yet still experiencing the hottest years on record.

google: 2010 hottest year on record, despite minimum in solar irradiance. go read nasa's report. or just browse it. or masturbate to it. i don't really care.



then who else produced this "hoax"? hockey players? underwater basket weavers? fishermen?



you should probably stop, because you are making yourself look foolish. go find me the chart that says we are at a solar maximum. i think i'll have to trust nasa on this one.

even if we were at a solar maximum, it is cyclical. yet, each of the last 10 years have been among the 11 hottest ever recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

so whether we are at a maximum or minimum, it doesn't matter. it's getting hotter.

and where is this wealth redistribution due to climate change you were telling me about?
Never A Straight Answer (NASA) themselves said it, not me.
News flash: YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE GRAPH AND STOP IGNORING FACTS.
Well for starters Al Gore is a good warming alarmists.(hoaxer)
You refuse yo look at the facts, don't be a fool.
Here i will play like you play.
What about all the hundreds of scientists that are on record stating there is no man made global warming?.
Last eleven years hottest ever recorded? ok good. This is what i already outlined for you, the graph should speak a thousand words.
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
:lol: or just read Drudge Report guess you missed the story JUST TODAY about the MASSIVE solar explosion. Pretty cool pictures if facts and stuff like that interst you :lol:
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Never A Straight Answer (NASA) themselves said it, not me.
News flash: YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE GRAPH AND STOP IGNORING FACTS.
Well for starters Al Gore is a good warming alarmists.(hoaxer)
You refuse yo look at the facts, don't be a fool.
Here i will play like you play.
What about all the hundreds of scientists that are on record stating there is no man made global warming.
Last eleven years hottest ever recorded? ok good. This is what i already outlined for you, the graph should speak a thousand words.
back in the day there was an ongoing discussion about whether or not tobacco was harmful. despite the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that smoking is indeed harmful, there were hundreds of "scientists" who claimed the opposite. turns out they were bought and paid for by....wait for it...the tobacco companies!

fuck me running, who would have guessed?

nowadays, despite the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree that the activities of man have some effect in contributing to climate change, there are a few hundred that claim the opposite. guess who they are bought and paid for by? big oil, perhaps?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

if climate change is such a hoax, why are ocean levels rising? why is the temperature rising? why are scientists devoted to mitigating the effects of climate change? are they just that committed to the lie?
 

tryingtogrow89

Well-Known Member
back in the day there was an ongoing discussion about whether or not tobacco was harmful. despite the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that smoking is indeed harmful, there were hundreds of "scientists" who claimed the opposite. turns out they were bought and paid for by....wait for it...the tobacco companies!

fuck me running, who would have guessed?

nowadays, despite the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree that the activities of man have some effect in contributing to climate change, there are a few hundred that claim the opposite. guess who they are bought and paid for by? big oil, perhaps?

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

if climate change is such a hoax, why are ocean levels rising? why is the temperature rising? why are scientists devoted to mitigating the effects of climate change? are they just that committed to the lie?
We are not capable of warming our planet no matter how you dice it.
Further more, who are the scientists you so passionately follow working for? globalists? absolutely!
My facts are from data that is main line data that totally conflicts with your fairy tale.
Facts and truth will always prevail. always.
You have the tendency to take each thing i post rather than read it and weep you take a bit here and a bit there and reword and spin off into fairy tale land.
This inst a conversation, its more like an illustration of the behavior/psychosis you have.
"Conspiracy Theorists"
A name to label someone, or something who, "points out the tens of thousands of lies, cover ups and denials of both government, and media, also points to the inconsistencies, contradictions, and all out blatant lies ".
The name is typically given by someone, who, is generally a spectator, or are part of a mass population with the same lower frequency brainwave, who, to them these matters go unnoticed, and unrecognized, no matter how obvious, and or relevant the case, or specific situation, even with government documentation and proof. Denial, and pre-implemented thought (i.e.brainwashing,influencing,manipulated,deceived ,corrupted,conned,fooled,trickery,bribery,racketee ring,obstruction,extortion) , is generally the thesis for this behavior pattern and psychological psychosis.
These behavior patterns and psychological psychosis, can also be tied to the way ,one will deny all facts if it does not fit into ones own world view, which increasingly, becomes a stronger, more dominant behavior/psychosis, the more this ritual is participated in by the participant.
(Example: Consider how, when the jet hit the twin towers, in the disaster of 9/11. Government claims they found the passport to one of the hijackers in the street below. When one with common since, and logic, would know, it is impossible for a piece paper to somehow fly out a burning, exploding, fire ball of a plane as it collides with the building, which in turn reduced the skyscraper to mere filth. Ones who would point at someone and plead, "Conspiracy Theory" at the common since aspect of this example, would beg to differ that somehow, it is indeed possible for a piece of paper, to fly through the fuselage of an exploding plane, through the fiery jet fuel explosion, then through the building and all the debris, to perfectly land down on the street below, unharmed in any way. Even though there is staggering evidence supporting that cannot, and will not happen, they continue to believe that it actually and factually did.)
"Conspiracy Theorists" or so they are labeled, just as anyone who gets labeled to try and discredit their reputation. When in fact it is just a stereotype, to rationalize ones ignorance. Or ones need to just feel important. Only to, in turn to look idiotic, and absolutely foolish as they go on spatting words like "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy theory".
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
This inst a conversation, its more like an illustration of the behavior/psychosis you have.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/361897-inside-conspiracism.html

The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy. - H.L. Mencken

Conspiracy theories are popular because no matter what they posit, they are all actually comforting, because they all are models of radical simplicity. - William Gibson

For some individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.

Psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief.

Conspiratorial accounts can be emotionally satisfying when they place events in a readily-understandable, moral context. The subscriber to the theory is able to assign moral responsibility for an emotionally troubling event or situation to a clearly-conceived group of individuals. Crucially, that group does not include the believer. The believer may then feel excused of any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance.

Humanistic psychologists argue that even if the cabal behind the conspiracy is almost always perceived as hostile there is, often, still an element of reassurance in it, for conspiracy theorists, in part because it is more consoling to think that complications and upheavals in human affairs, at least, are created by human beings rather than factors beyond human control. Belief in such a cabal is a device for reassuring oneself that certain occurrences are not random, but ordered by a human intelligence. This renders such occurrences comprehensible and potentially controllable. If a cabal can be implicated in a sequence of events, there is always the hope, however tenuous, of being able to break the cabal's power - or joining it and exercising some of that power oneself. Finally, belief in the power of such a cabal is an implicit assertion of human dignity - an often unconscious but necessary affirmation that man is not totally helpless, but is responsible, at least in some measure, for his own destiny.

According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause. The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events' — in which the president died — than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal. Connected with pareidolia, the genetic tendency of human beings to find patterns in coincidence, this allows the "discovery" of conspiracy in any significant event.

The furtive fallacy is an informal fallacy of emphasis. Historian David Hackett Fischer identified it as the belief that significant facts of history are necessarily sinister, and that "history itself is a story of causes mostly insidious and results mostly invidious." It is more than a conspiracy theory in that it does not merely consider the possibility of hidden motives and deeds, but insists on them. In its extreme form, the fallacy represents general paranoia.

Michael Kelly, a Washington Post journalist and critic of anti-war movements on both the left and right, coined the term "fusion paranoia" to refer to a political convergence of left-wing and right-wing activists around anti-war issues and civil liberties, which he claimed were motivated by a shared belief in conspiracism or anti-government views.

Social critics have adopted this term to refer to how the synthesis of paranoid conspiracy theories, which were once limited to American fringe audiences, has given them mass appeal and enabled them to become commonplace in mass media, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They warn that this development may not only fuel lone wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as the rise of a revolutionary right-wing populist movement capable of subverting the established political powers.
and you say i'm at a loss for reality?

finding a conspiracy in everything is a disease of the mind.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You have no grasp on facts, your in your own world.
funny, that is what i would say about a guy who says the government will put us all into fema camps and knows more about climatology than the vast majority of climatologists.

the same guy, by the way, who thinks that supporting a equal rights entails marxism and that slaves and slave owners were equal.

there is no way you read that all in the 3 minutes between 5:43 and 5:46 PST. you probably didn't read it because, well, you are in your own little world.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause. The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events' — in which the president died — than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal. Connected with pareidolia, the genetic tendency of human beings to find patterns in coincidence, this allows the "discovery" of conspiracy in any significant event.

if you read nothing else, read this.
 

tryingtogrow89

Well-Known Member
funny, that is what i would say about a guy who says the government will put us all into fema camps and knows more about climatology than the vast majority of climatologists.

the same guy, by the way, who thinks that supporting a equal rights entails marxism and that slaves and slave owners were equal.

there is no way you read that all in the 3 minutes between 5:43 and 5:46 PST. you probably didn't read it because, well, you are in your own little world.
WTF?! Barry is that you? Man, i don't know how long it takes you to read something. To say you couldnt have read something in three minutes is just plane stupid! Is this what you do all day long is gauge others competence off of your incompetence?
Please, you make stuff up as you go, its quite evident. Oh yeah but you don't know what evidence is, i forgot.
 
Top