What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[SirJosephPorter]

But you were corrected and you still keep repeating it, which makes it into a lie.

Corrected by whom, Extrafire? By you. And that correction is not based upon fact, but only your opinion. So I am free to repeat my opinion. There is no lie here.

The second one is a lie of your own invention.

If by that you mean whether it was a big story in the press, it most certainly was. After Carville said that Limbaugh is the leader of the Party, the press talked about it for days. They talked to Democrats, they talked to Republicans. It indeed was a big story.

When anybody who says anything even remotely contradictory to Limbaugh has to profusely apologize to the Republican base the very next day, when supposed leader of the Republican Party, Steele, has to grovel before Limbaugh and beg for forgiveness, offers his abject apology for saying something contradictory to the great guru, it is clear that Limbaugh is the real, de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Back that up.

Most certainly. One was Steele himself. The day after he criticized Limbaugh he had to grovel at Limbaugh’s feet and profusely apologize for saying it. And Steele is supposedly the leader of the Republican Party. Who is the real power here, Limbaugh or Steele?

Then there was a House member (his name escapes me, he was before Steele) who criticized Limbaugh and next day had to show contrition and apologize to him.

I think there also was a politician at the local level to whom the same thing happened. There have been several instances.

 

[Cannuck]

Don't want this to disappear...

Indeed, show me even one instance where religious right supported any environmental initiative. Didn’t happen.

The Greening of Evangelicals (washingtonpost.com)

Somebody needs to quote this so the silly twit can see how wrong he is.

 

[ironsides]

The religious right and environmentalists are teaming up to protect women and their babies from the dangers of exposure to pollution and toxic waste.

Environmental Action from the Right

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The religious right and environmentalists are teaming up to protect women and their babies from the dangers of exposure to pollution and toxic waste.

Environmental Action from the Right

You are right, ironsides; some of the younger evangelicals are becoming environmentally aware. They justify their environmentalism on Biblical basis (as I said before, almost anything can be justified based upon Bible).

That is a welcome development indeed. However, the green evangelists are very much in the minority. A great majority of them still tend to be viciously anti-environment. Especially the religious right leadership, the ‘establishment’ very much remains opposed to doing anything to improve the environment.

Incidentally, environment is not the only issue where the younger generation disagrees with the leadership. There are many in the younger generation who feel that religious right should deemphasize the red meat issues such as abortion, gay rights etc., and should get more involved in environmentalism, poverty, helping the poor etc. the issues which have been traditionally considered left wing issues.

But as I said, they are still very much in the minority. It is a welcome development, nonetheless.

 

[TenPenny]

You are right, ironsides; some of the younger evangelicals are becoming environmentally aware. They justify their environmentalism on Biblical basis (as I said before, almost anything can be justified based upon Bible).

That is a welcome development indeed. However, the green evangelists are very much in the minority. A great majority of them still tend to be viciously anti-environment. Especially the religious right leadership, the ‘establishment’ very much remains opposed to doing anything to improve the environment.

Incidentally, environment is not the only issue where the younger generation disagrees with the leadership. There are many in the younger generation who feel that religious right should deemphasize the red meat issues such as abortion, gay rights etc., and should get more involved in environmentalism, poverty, helping the poor etc. the issues which have been traditionally considered left wing issues.

But as I said, they are still very much I the minority. It is a welcome development, nonetheless.

The old, "yes, but..." response.

I wonder if it's possible for you to admit that you make an idiotic statement that is demonstrably false? Even when shown to be absolutely out to lunch, you respond with a 'yes, but...'

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The old, "yes, but..." response.

I wonder if it's possible for you to admit that you make an idiotic statement that is demonstrably false? Even when shown to be absolutely out to lunch, you respond with a 'yes, but...'

And just what is wrong with ‘yes, but’ response? It is a very valid response; I don’t see anything wrong with it.

Suppose you tell me that you know a Nazi who is a very good, very generous human being (it is certainly possible). I reply to you, ‘yes, but’ most Nazis are not that way. Would that be an idiotic response? According to you, perhaps, but not according to me.



Besides, my statement was not 'demonstrably false', it applies to a great majority of evangelists (just not to almost all of them, as would have been the case say 20 years ago).

 

[lone wolf]

It's is valid in that it feeds you a false illusion of "right" (cuz God knows a narcissist is always that way) no matter how wrong you are ... but if it was anyone else, you'd Foghorn all over them.

 

[TenPenny]

Besides, my statement was not 'demonstrably false', it applies to a great majority of evangelists (just not to almost all of them, as would have been the case say 20 years ago).

See, even now you're trying to pretend that you didn't say

Indeed, show me even one instance where religious right supported any environmental initiative. Didn’t happen.

But it did happen. And now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to weasel around. You claimed an absolute 'didn't happen'. You didn't claim 'almost all', or any other qualifying words.

And you do this time and time again - you make sweeping, absolute generalizations, and then when someone shows that you're wrong, you start to pretend you didn't mean an absolute.

And yet you claim that your posts always say exactly what you want them to say.

You do this over and over and over again.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But it did happen. And now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to weasel around. You claimed an absolute 'didn't happen'. You didn't claim 'almost all', or any other qualifying words.

Where did it happen, TenPenny? Did you read the link posted by ironsides? It does not identify even one initiative which is supported by any religious right group. All the report says is that some evangelists are beginning to support environmentalism. That much has been common knowledge.

However, I was right in my original assertion; religious right has not supported even a single environmental cause. That does not mean that some religious right individuals have not supported some environmental initiatives, they may well have. However, religious right as a group has yet to support any environmental initiative.

And indeed, that is the only reasonable meaning of saying that religious right has not supported any environmental initiative. Suppose I say that Republican Party does not support gay marriage. Does that mean that there may not be individual Republicans who support gay marriage? Of course it doesn’t. Dick Cheney himself supports gay marriage. But Republican Party as a group has never supported any gay marriage initiative.

Same way when I say that religious right has not supported any environmental initiative, it refers to religious right as a group, and not to some individuals.

The link ironsides has given is nothing new, I had seen it before (indeed, it is dated March 12, 2007). But the link in no way contradicts my statement that there has not been even a single instance of religious right supporting any environmental initiative.

No doubt there are individual members of religious right who may be members of Sierra Club, WWF etc. But not religious right as a group.

So at least I don’t see any inconsistency in what I have written (you are free to disagree of course).

 

[EagleSmack]

Let's face it folks...this is who JP is. This is what gets him off. Being "that" guy is what gives him purpose. He has been proven wrong over and over and will never admit to it. He has no integrity at all.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Let's face it folks...this is who JP is. This is what gets him off. Being "that" guy is what gives him purpose. He has been proven wrong over and over and will never admit to it. He has no integrity at all.

I am rarely proven wrong, EagleSmack. On the rare occasion that I have been proven wrong, I do not hesitate to apologize. But it happens rarely (and it certainly hasn’t happened in this case).

 

[Cannuck]

But it happens rarely (and it certainly hasn’t happened in this case).

Of course it has. Only a fool would not acknowledge that.

The Greening of Evangelicals (washingtonpost.com)

 

[CDNBear]

(and it certainly hasn’t happened in this case).

The Greening of Evangelicals (washingtonpost.com)

 

[Tonington]

Calling CO a pollutant is a bit of a stretch. Might as well say freshwater is polluting the seawater.

In some cases it is, as is the converse. Sea water intrusion into fresh water aquifers is pollution. If the carbon dioxide we emit, goes into the ocean as carbonic acid, and shifts the bicarbonate equilibrium so that calcifying organisms are strained to lay down new shell, then that meets the definition, from Pielke's own article (taken from the AMS):

air pollution - The presence of substances in the atmosphere, particularly those that do not occur naturally. These substances are generally contaminants that substantially alter or degrade the quality of the atmosphere. The term is often used to identify undesirable substances produced by human activity, that is, anthropogenic air pollution. Air pollution usually designates the collection of substances that adversely affects human health, animals, and plants; deteriorates structures; interferes with commerce; or interferes with the enjoyment of life. Compare airborne particulates, designated pollutant, particulates, criteria pollutants.

It's worth noting that when one talks of pollution, it doesn't mean all of the substance. Nitrates aren't a bad thing in and of themselves, until they overwhelm an ecosystem. Carbon dioxide isn't either, until...

So if we weren't proliferating our geologic stores of carbon as CO2 as quickly as economically possible, it wouldn't be a problem. The biosphere can increase it's store of carbon, but it's currently overwhelmed.

 

[Extrafire]

So if we weren't proliferating our geologic stores of carbon as CO2 as quickly as economically possible, it wouldn't be a problem. The biosphere can increase it's store of carbon, but it's currently overwhelmed.

Indeed, what makes a poison (or pollutant) is merely the dosage. Anything in sufficient quantity can be either.

However, the current emissions into the biosphere are nowhere near that state, in fact the only effect of increased concentrations thus far has been benificial, and it is virtually impossible that human activity could emit enough to ever be detrimental.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well, he's predicting the future, and it's rather impossible to back up something that hasn't happened yet. He may be right though, in fact that's kinda what I'm expecting.

I agree. But I had to joke. Many experts on economics predicted all kinds of stuff except this economic mess. lol

 

[Extrafire]

But you were corrected and you still keep repeating it, which makes it into a lie.

Corrected by whom, Extrafire? By you. And that correction is not based upon fact, but only your opinion. So I am free to repeat my opinion. There is no lie here.

The second one is a lie of your own invention.

If by that you mean whether it was a big story in the press, it most certainly was. After Carville said that Limbaugh is the leader of the Party, the press talked about it for days. They talked to Democrats, they talked to Republicans. It indeed was a big story.

When anybody who says anything even remotely contradictory to Limbaugh has to profusely apologize to the Republican base the very next day, when supposed leader of the Republican Party, Steele, has to grovel before Limbaugh and beg for forgiveness, offers his abject apology for saying something contradictory to the great guru, it is clear that Limbaugh is the real, de facto leader of the Republican Party.

Back that up.

Most certainly. One was Steele himself. The day after he criticized Limbaugh he had to grovel at Limbaugh’s feet and profusely apologize for saying it. And Steele is supposedly the leader of the Republican Party. Who is the real power here, Limbaugh or Steele?

Then there was a House member (his name escapes me, he was before Steele) who criticized Limbaugh and next day had to show contrition and apologize to him.

I think there also was a politician at the local level to whom the same thing happened. There have been several instances.

I tell you to back it up and you just repeat what you said before. Don't you know what those words mean? Link to the articles, back it up.

 

[L Gilbert]

You are right, ironsides; some of the younger evangelicals are becoming environmentally aware. They justify their environmentalism on Biblical basis (as I said before, almost anything can be justified based upon Bible).

That is a welcome development indeed. However, the green evangelists are very much in the minority. A great majority of them still tend to be viciously anti-environment. Especially the religious right leadership, the ‘establishment’ very much remains opposed to doing anything to improve the environment.

Incidentally, environment is not the only issue where the younger generation disagrees with the leadership. There are many in the younger generation who feel that religious right should deemphasize the red meat issues such as abortion, gay rights etc., and should get more involved in environmentalism, poverty, helping the poor etc. the issues which have been traditionally considered left wing issues.

But as I said, they are still very much in the minority. It is a welcome development, nonetheless.

Indeed, show me even one instance where religious right supported any environmental initiative. Didn’t happen.

roflmao

 

[Extrafire]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
As I said, de facto leader means that nobody elected him in an official election; he forcibly took on the mantle of leadership.

Oh, now he "forcibly" took on the leadership!:lol: He staged a coup, did he?
...

Now I'm really curious. How did he go about that? Did he have his troops invade Republican headquarters and kill the real leader and his followers? Can't wait to hear how that was done.

Still waiting for you to explain this one....

 

[L Gilbert]

And just what is wrong with ‘yes, but’ response? It is a very valid response; I don’t see anything wrong with it.

Suppose you tell me that you know a Nazi who is a very good, very generous human being (it is certainly possible). I reply to you, ‘yes, but’ most Nazis are not that way. Would that be an idiotic response? According to you, perhaps, but not according to me.



Besides, my statement was not 'demonstrably false', it applies to a great majority of evangelists (just not to almost all of them, as would have been the case say 20 years ago).

Quote: Indeed, show me even one instance where religious right supported any environmental initiative. Didn’t happen.

Yes, but nothing. Joey's claim was demonstrable false:
The Greening of Evangelicals (washingtonpost.com)