tkhayes

+1

I have no problem with Ron Paul taking a position on abortion as long as he is using medical or scientific facts to back it up. you have COMPLETELY missed my point. The difference is, the science on climate change is pretty much settled, not completely, but overwhelmingly. The right wing is DENYING that science, and then basing public policy on it. Which is different from saying "Hey we understand the science, but we are going to ignore it and base public policy on what we WANT to do instead." that is the difference. Everything you quoted is valid as DATA. basing public policy on DATA is valid and basing public policy on WHATEVER OTHER CRITERIA you decide is also valid. As long as you do not DENY the data while basing your policy on those other factors. governments do this all the time. The data says mining is mostly safe, but has problems and can be improved, and people still die in mines. No one passes new laws to make the mines safer. But no one stands up and says "people are not dying in mines" - that would be denying the data and then basing policy on it. Everyone agrees that annoying soliciting phone calls are bad for society and most people want them to stop, the data is overwhelmingly there. So we create a Do-not-call list, but then we do not fund it. What they are saying is that the calls are still annoying, but no, we cannot afford to enforce it. They are not denying that the phone calls do not exist or that they are not annoying. back to climate change - they are denying that the science exists and then basing public policy on that. All scientists, just like all citizens, and everyone else for that matter can say whatever they want about public policy and I never said any particular group should or should not. However, politicians are lying when they say the data does not exist and then making policy about it. I would not expect them to be honest about it anyway. Does not mean that I cannot voice my concerns over it. The science on climate change is overwhelmingly settled. By scientists. Whether or not we actually do anything about it is a separate matter.

not an issue to me at all, especially when they develop new vaccines, or find chemicals that we put into the environment that cause damage, or find a better more fuel efficient car, or whatever it is that they do. Not an issue to me at all. Issue to me: when politicians completely ignore science and do it their way based on how much money they are getting paid to help get reelected, they lose a degree of credibility.

no struggle at all. allow the science to speak, which it has, soundly, without dissent other than the sparse 2-3% and then as a politician, you should be making sound political decisions based on that science, not denying the science even exists. TO do anything else is purely political negligence and a disservice to your country and your constituents. these people state that the science is faulty, that there is solid dissent, that the science is not in agreement. which is complete bullshit. They are scorned because they are full of shit, not because they say things like 'I am not a scientist.' the least they could do is listen to the science. ABSOLUTELY NONE of the them have. they have listened only to the money that comes their way.

while that seems like an easy thing to do - it is not and is the most obvious simple answer to most people, however is a gross underestimation of a rather complex problem. unless of course you want to separate children from their parents, probably hundreds of thousands of them, that are all citizens of the USA and would then become wards of the state. good luck with funding that project.

or do nothing and you will have the same victories and failures....

I think it is more of a reflection of the current political climate. It is not just women that will vote against their own interests. poor people do it all the time, so do business owners, and many other demographic groups. There are really only two choices in the country most times. So if you want to see 'change', then your choice is often 'the other party'. And the billions spent on media to convince you that things are so bad that they 'must change', then many people are so disconnected that they simply vote for the change. I really do not believe your average American is up on the issues at all. This is not going to change any time soon, given that the people in power more and more get to decide who gets to vote for the people in power.

my 'weak description of science' does not in any way determine whether or not science is valid, nor does it determine whether or not mathematics is a science. You cannot say that since I do not adequately explain science and math that science and math are not the same, not obviously so intertwined that one cannot exist without the other, nor can you say that my original arguments are not valid. It's like arguing that because I cannot explain the molecular structure of water at an atomic level that water therefore does not exist. You stated that Mathematics is not a science. I found evidence to the contrary. You posted no such rebuttal other than your own opinion that mathematics is not a science, without any reference to support that claim. At least I used a reference. done with the nitpicking. Back to the original original original point. If god created ebola, then he's a dick. I refuse to worship 'him'. And I fail to understand why people see anything in such 'worship' other than their own feeling of self-righteousness, which could also be achieved by any other number of things, like meditation or simply taking a walk in the woods. No one in the history of the world has successfully 'prayed away' disease.

my example is one of possibly tens of thousands of simple scientific statements that would be given as fact that never change. I chose 2+2=4. Just because you disagree with that one particular example does not in any way demise the basis of the argument I made. My argument stands, and you know EXACTLY what I meant by it and you chose to nit-pick basically. religion has millions of interpretations. There are no such interpretations when it comes to 2+2....

math·e·mat·ics maTH(ə)ˈmadiks/ noun noun: mathematics; noun: applied mathematics; noun: pure mathematics the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ). the mathematical aspects of something. plural noun: mathematics "the mathematics of general relativity"

...in your interpretation, which is only one of millions and millions of interpretations of the exact same religion made over centuries. I was raised a Christian, studied for years, but your particular interpretation stated here was never taught to me. again, YOUR thoughts, YOUR interpretation, YOUR salvation, YOUR whatever...not based in any reality except YOURS.

which does not make it true...just makes it 'true' for you. Good for you, but just because you believe does not make it reality....it only possibly makes it YOUR reality. 2+2 is still 4, regardless of what you believe. And if the Bible truth is measured by actions and effects, then history clearly demonstrates what an evil piece it can be. So good for you, again, happy you can find solace or whatever in it. Keep it to yourself/your family and every time someone comes to my govt/school/political/social whatever and tries to say "This is the way...", I will be there to tell them to knock it off, not happening on my watch.

And this is where it starts to derail.....and no one in particular to blame. Instead of addressing the issue- which is making it more difficult to feed homeless people, we begin to talk about what the definition of a city versus a town is. bravo everyone.

yes Al jezeera....really. One of the more reliable and independent news sources available today. Given the structure of media INSIDE the USA, looking to outside might actually get you an objective view. But you do not need to look only to Al Jezeera, CBC, BBC, ARD, there is lots of news out there, all reporting pretty similar stuff.

what Kallend said above.... Science is 'always right'....once it has been tested and becomes established. (i.e. 2+2=4. DNA molecules exist and can be mapped) And when they find the occasional time that it is wrong, or new information arises, they actually correct it, re-examine it, re-issue it and continue on with the 'right stuff'. (i.e. the world was flat, but is no longer flat) The first persons figured out calculus, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, and while not complete, remains today the factual basis for thousands of things we do every day, just like algebra, and DNA molecular biology. We build on it, continuously with new real evidence that supports the basis of knowledge that we know today. And we will know far more in 100 years than we know today. Your smartphone would not exist if it were not for these things. You ask me to 're-examine the Bible? I did. It is still bullshit. taking another look at it comes to that same conclusion again and again. Its like saying "I believe in algebra but I am going to ignore that nasty calculus stuff." The bible in no way contributed to the development of your smartphone. Back to my original point. the omnipotent, omniscient, all-empowering god who created everything, also created the evil I guess, and the disease and the scourge on the earth and the destruction of humanity and the cancer and the earth that allows natural disasters that kill hundreds of thousands of people in a tsunami. He is far from perfect. If reading your book offers you comfort amongst all this - well maybe I get that in some way, but I will be fucked if I am going to use that book to run the world or government or try and develop a social system based on it.

that's one interpretation, but here's another: Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen. And I still say he is a prick for creating that stuff....even if his mission is to deliver us 'through it'. Sounds like a drill sergeant.....treating us like string puppets...pretty sociopathic

from the article itself, the last line. God created Ebola.....since the Christian claim is that god created everything. well screw him...what a prick for creating a disease that kills so many people. For that matter screw him for creating any and all disease. Do people that die from horrible diseases go to heaven to suffer in eternity? Or are they cured there......? And if they can be cured there, then why would god put them through all the suffering here before rewarding them there? sure, because even good comes out of suffering according to the bible [/bat-shit-crazy] Your god is one strange dude, and not actually worthy of my time, nor my respect. Much like you. "My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the lord" - Hebrews that 'guy' has a complex and some serious ego problems. He needs counseling. perhaps you could help Ron.

a bunch of the same questions is somehow proof that something is wrong? All these questions asked and answered in the previous 9 or so investigations......yawn. My disappointment is how much money this is costing the taxpayer and when can i expect to see a refund....

There is little outrage, but we do take measures to further regulate cars and driving, who can drive and what they can drive. People go to jail just for making mistakes while driving that cause damage death and injury. We force manufacturers to change the cars to make them safer, we force insurance to be purchased for cars and drivers to ensure that the damage done to society is somewhat reimbursed, and we continuously expect to see these changes in the name of safety. Cars don't kill people but yes, we regulate the hell out of them to make driving safer and it works for the most part. Car safety is better than ever and these programs are proven to work. But thanks for making the point...

pretty much everybody in this country has or will receive some form of 'govt help' at some point in their lives. Yes, it must be evil.....everyone does it.

how very 'american taliban' of you. yes, people who profess their innocence always have something to hide. Sounds like you are a candidate for the Nazi party. Anyway....still failing to respond. I read the report, as did you. You quoted the sections of opinion that state there are unanswered questions. I quoted the sections that stated that there was no wrong-doing found. This along with at least a dozen other formal reports from formal agencies from all ends of the government, all stating that there was no wrong doing, and now (again) a new committee that stated in its opening that it will likely not focus on what was done wrong but what can be done better in the future. Amazing when the facts slap you right in the face, yet you continue to claim that there must be 'more facts that are missing.'

Is that the 'I know you are but what am I?' defense? ditto I guess. You still failed to respond. But go ahead....I can wait.

'judicial watch' is not a lawmaking, law-abiding, law-enforcing agency, nor an investigative body. it is yet another opinion site that has fuck all to do with anything in the end. i am reading the investigative reports from real lawmakers that represent the country that as of yet, have found no wrongdoing. And now there is a new one that has already claimed that is limitations will be 'what can we do better in the future?' as opposed to your wishlist of 'who can we hang?'. continue grasping please at your leisure.....

is that all you have for a response? Really? You quoted the report and so did I. My 'invalid answer', therefore is just as valid as yours.....

Yet the conclusions says nothing about 'unanswered questions' or a 'cover-up' or 'stand-down' or the other rants contained within that section you quoted, which is basically opinion. It is easy to say "You are avoiding the questions" when the questions are stupid, not relevant and quite often do not have answers.... i.e. "Why did you plant the bombs in WT7?" Other parts of the same report specifically state that there were no cover-ups, and no evidence of cover-ups. Bottom line? The conclusion states that embassy security could have been better given the warnings that preceded the attack. Security could have been better for a lot of things before any attack, 9/11, Benghazi, or any other major event like that. no shit Sherlock....