Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » And So it Begins (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: And So it Begins
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My news feed opened up to the news that Cruz will be announcing his bid for the White House tomorrow. Since we will shortly be starting the next run for the White House I figured we could start "Meet the Candidate" threads as each major contender joins the race. What do you like, dislike, love or hate about Cruz? Lets try and keep it simple and factual. I don't know much about Cruz yet. Currently I have one concern and one question.

My concern is associated with the fact that he is currently under indictment for abuse of power. I would really like the courts to either move forward and clear or convict him or dismiss the case. I'm not sure we need a trial in the middle of the Presidential run.

My question is for those who claimed Obama was not a citizen because he was "born in Kenya." In Cruz's case there isn't even a question he was born outside the US. I personally never thought it was an issue but there were many including some regular posters here who made a big issue about it.

What are your thoughts on Cruz?

Who will be next? I am guessing Walker.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion, I don't know much about Cruz either but a quick google didn't provide much on any pending indictment. Do you have a source?
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should be happy someone as extreme and divisive as Cruz would be running. I don't think he would stand a chance in hell of winning the general, and it would be sown up for the Dems.

I should be happy, but I'm not, simply because this is the first year where I'm sincerely interested in a Republican candidate for the first time in recent memory. And it's not him.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A reasonable Republican candidate?

One of the things that appeals to me about the American system is the ability to vote for the executive without endorsing the legislature. The ongoing schism in the Republican party is actually an advantage from this viewpoint. I expect a GOP president would have almost as much difficulty with Congress as a Democrat.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott- You're correct. My brain was frozen earlier. It is Perry with the indictment not Cruz.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
whether someone is born in the country or not may or may not be a constitutional factor for presidential office, depending on what rules were in place when the candidate was born. there are times in which only having one American parents would suffice to make you a citizen at birth, even if you were born outside the United States. There are other times in which having two parents with US citizenship with the price to make you a citizen if you were born outside the United States.
Congress has the power, if it wished, to say that living in the United States or rather being born in the usa does not make you a citizen unless you have citizen parents.in short, Congress's article one hour to write the rules that dictate who is born a citizen, effects who can become president under Article 2 as natural born citizen

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Josh, I'm curious: which Republican candidate interests you? I'm actually looking for a decent one, since I'm not thrilled by the Democratic field at the moment, but I can't find any that aren't poseurs or sleazebags.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm hoping for Huntsman to give it another try, but he seems to have been disgusted enough by the process that he won't be back.

JEB! would be the strongest candidate if he had a different last name.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Josh, I'm curious: which Republican candidate interests you? I'm actually looking for a decent one, since I'm not thrilled by the Democratic field at the moment, but I can't find any that aren't poseurs or sleazebags.

I am intrigued by Rand Paul. Yes, I know, in many arenas his positions are deeply in opposition to my own. But I am ambivalent about Hillary, and quite frankly I'd prefer a Republican whose credo is more "leave us alone" to the collection of neo-cons, "Christian(tm)", anti-intellectuals and other social conservatives on parade.

Rand is deeply flawed, but at least he's not the kind of flawed that would easily start wars or rely on blustering. Since Clinton is rather uninspiring to me, I might actually consider supporting Rand if it came down to the two of them. Might.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hm. Yeah, I'm not that enthusiastic about Paul, I have to admit. But he's certainly the most likely Republican candidate to advance a sensible foreign policy.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Too bad Jerry Brown is too old to run, and yet it lets him be a bit more blunt:

quote:
On the tape from last Monday’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Cruz tells Meyers: “I just came back from New Hampshire where there’s snow and ice everywhere. And my view actually is simple. Debates on this should follow science and should follow data. And many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up.”

Brown responded: “I say what he said is absolutely false... That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It’s shocking and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office”


Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, Politifact took Cruz to task for cherry-picking and misrepresentation.

[ March 22, 2015, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Back on the subject of Cruz, I just read this short opinion piece on CNN that I think sums up the problems Cruz presents to the GOP.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Too bad Jerry Brown is too old to run, and yet it lets him be a bit more blunt:

quote:
On the tape from last Monday’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Cruz tells Meyers: “I just came back from New Hampshire where there’s snow and ice everywhere. And my view actually is simple. Debates on this should follow science and should follow data. And many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up.”

Brown responded: “I say what he said is absolutely false... That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of the existing scientific data. It’s shocking and I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office”


And yet Brown is on record spouting the false Cook study and false consensus figure even after Cook was outed as having lied.

Show me a liberal politician that ISN'T doubling down on the known Cook lie.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hm. Yeah, I'm not that enthusiastic about Paul, I have to admit. But he's certainly the most likely Republican candidate to advance a sensible foreign policy.

One thing worth noting is that lacking devil's pacts and having ideas you disagree with may be far superior to someone with all the right answers and all the wrong masters.

The question being whether Paul is what he says he is. I think he may be, even if that means being for some things that are idealistic and perhaps not practical.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

(1) what is the Cook study?
(2) do you believe that the science and current data do not support the hypothesis of climate change as per the IPCC?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
97% of rational people agree the 97% number was fabricated.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

This is veryold news. It shouldn't even be debatable. Lets take a page from Reddit and the LATimes and censor anyone who even tries to bring it up, right? [Razz]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a reminder: Forbes "contributors" are not journalists and their pieces are neither reviewed by Forbes staff for accuracy nor represent the position of that publication. It should also be noted that the site which is Taylor's only citation is "populartechnology.net", which should be confused with neither Popular Mechanics nor Popular Science and is actually -- despite claims of being an "impartial", general-interest technology blog -- a site dedicated to rebutting AGW theory (and occasionally taking random digs at the left, as seen here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/10/the-truth-about-jon-stewart.html)
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Instead of attempting to go after the source, will anyone go on record and state that Cook was right and didn't fabricate the 97% number? The Forbes article is one of hundreds online pointing out Cook's lie.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Among the hundreds that point out that it isn't a lie. [Smile]

If Cook's study was so far from the truth, then why did Naomi Oreskes' review of peer-reviewed articles (which was a different methodology) come to a similar percentage? Isn't that an odd coindicence?

And if both those estimates of the consensus are wrong, then what is the correct percentage, approximately? 80%? 70%? 65%? And how did you determine it that is so much better than Cook and Oreskes?

The bottom line it that you and Ted don't have a leg to stand on. You can criticize these studies and everything else about AGW, but you don't have a better explanation. Just one that doesn't require anyone to do anything, even though it doesn't fit the facts as well.

A person who believes in things because they are convenient rather than indicated by the facts should never be President.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, since you usually point to bogus sites, and since you never accept responsibility when your evidence turns out to be fraudulent, there's little incentive to track down your data ourselves.

But I couldn't resist.

Your Forbes article is of course deceptive in their own methodology. Read the abstract of the original paper, here's what was claimed

quote:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
The authors of the Forbes article, after using a lot of childish insults and hyperbole, and getting 6 anti-global warming partisans (remember, this is out of almost 12,000 papers analyzed) to say that their papers were mis-characterized, the article includes this paragraph at the end which confesses the original paper did follow its own methodology, and did what it claimed to do

quote:
Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Seneca, since you usually point to bogus sites, and since you never accept responsibility when your evidence turns out to be fraudulent, there's little incentive to track down your data ourselves.

But I couldn't resist.

Your Forbes article is of course deceptive in their own methodology. Read the abstract of the original paper, here's what was claimed

quote:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
The authors of the Forbes article, after using a lot of childish insults and hyperbole, and getting 6 anti-global warming partisans (remember, this is out of almost 12,000 papers analyzed) to say that their papers were mis-characterized, the article includes this paragraph at the end which confesses the original paper did follow its own methodology, and did what it claimed to do

quote:
Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Incredible. Of course 97% of people who endorse AGW... endorse AGW!

quote:
tau·tol·o·gy
tôˈtäləjē/Submit
noun
the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession ).

And this is why Cook and anyone who cites him cannot be taken seriously. The vast majority expressed no opinion because they were responsible scientists and realize there wasn't enough data to support the outlandish AGW myth so they wisely refrained, yet nearly everywhere Cook and his bogus study have been cited people attempt to portray it as 97% of ALL climate scientists...

[ March 23, 2015, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To avoid confusion (since this thread seems to be about to be highjacked into a AGW thread [Smile] ), could you please define exactly what you mean by "the outlandish AGW myth," to save time.

To me, AGW means that the rising CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere and oceans are changing the climate and will result in significant changes to temperature, average rainfalls, the rate of ice melting (especially at the poles), ocean levels, and other things. Is this the "outlandish myth" you are referring to, or is it something else?

Because I have seen it argued that even AGW deniers agree on these basics.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, so your theory is that if nearly all climate scientists agreed that AGW is real, every bit of published research on climate would contain information indicating the authors' position on AGW?

It's an interesting theory! Similarly, all published research into vaccines definitely mentions the authors' position on whether vaccines cause autism.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Getting back to the actual topic, although Ted Cruz may be the first one to officially declare he's running for President, it may already be too late. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Getting back to the actual topic, although Ted Cruz may be the first one to officially declare he's running for President, it may already be too late. [Roll Eyes]

Not to worry, at least the MSM will mention him in the news, unlike Rand Paul. May the censorship begin!
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Getting back to the actual topic, although Ted Cruz may be the first one to officially declare he's running for President, it may already be too late. [Roll Eyes]

Not to worry, at least the MSM will mention him in the news, unlike Rand Paul. May the censorship begin!
As a rabid consumer of MSM, I can tell you that Rand has received plenty of coverage, including the cover of Time before anyone else (for God's sake, if Time isn't mainstream coverage I don't know what is). I think your perception of him as somehow "not getting attention" like the other candidates is false. Moreover, he's constantly winning straw polls and getting noticed for it.

[ March 23, 2015, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually it was more of a prediction than an observation, based on Ron's last run. But hopefully this will persist and I'll be proven wrong.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is he a creationist?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hannibal:
Is he a creationist?

No, that would actually make him more mainstream. He's a fiscal conservative and a libertarian. He is for civil liberties and a sound dollar, and is against aggressive foreign policy, fiat currency, big government, and oligarchy. Maybe I've missed a point or two, but that's basically it.

What I think worries some people is his economic theory and his distaste for top-down governing, which translates to him being something of a radical within the current system.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think a republican candidate who is not a creationist, and is pro women and gay rights may actually have a shot.

Is there such a person?

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hannibal:
[qb] What I think worries some people is his economic theory and his distaste for top-down governing, which translates to him being something of a radical within the current system.

Yes it does worry me when someone is serious about limiting the size of our economy by how much gold we have stashed somewhere.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
He's a fiscal conservative and a libertarian. He is for civil liberties and a sound dollar, and is against aggressive foreign policy, fiat currency, big government, and oligarchy. Maybe I've missed a point or two, but that's basically it.

Rand also support flat tax (which I oppose in favor of progressive approaches), is "100% pro-life", meaning in all cases (rape, incest) which I feel is overbearing. He opposes gay marriage. He doesn't even believe in legalizing marijuana federally (so much for liberterianism).

Frankly, it's a wonder I'm even still interested in him. I think in the GOP land of the blind, he's basically the one-eyed man, and that's good enough for me.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hannibal
Member
Member # 1339

 - posted      Profile for Hannibal   Email Hannibal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about Ted Cruz? Is he not a creationist, supports women rights and gay rights?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Seneca, so your theory is that if nearly all climate scientists agreed that AGW is real, every bit of published research on climate would contain information indicating the authors' position on AGW?

It's an interesting theory! Similarly, all published research into vaccines definitely mentions the authors' position on whether vaccines cause autism.

Nice try, but it's not a matter of "all or nothing." [Smile]

If far less than half bothered to even express an opinion that is a hugelack of consensus as well as a statement that most didn't think it was important enough for them even to weigh in on.

As for Cruz's religious values, I wouldn't worry about those, he'd have his hands so full of whittling down the government and changing the tax code that I think after 4 or 8 years he wouldn't have ever gotten around to social issues. The same goes for Paul.

The progressives have spent nearly a century altering the government in ways and with new structures that were designed to carry on their agenda regardless of whether or not they won elections. There are actually some quotes by Wilson, FDR and others about this concept and how they were searching for ways to enshrine their agenda in case they ever lost power and some other faction took office.

It won't be easy or quick to undo.

[ March 24, 2015, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If far less than half bothered to even express an opinion that is a hugelack of consensus as well as a statement that most didn't think it was important enough for them even to weigh in on.
What makes you think that the papers where no such opinion was expressed were ones that would have invited such an opinion to be expressed?

"Nice try" indeed. You've invented a completely bogus proof for lack of consensus.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, if more than half didn't bother to offer an opinion, it's probably an indication of consensus. Articles on controversial topics have to say where they stand so that readers know what will be taken as given for the purposes of the argument or study.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If far less than half bothered to even express an opinion that is a huge lack of consensus as well as a statement that most didn't think it was important enough for them even to weigh in on.
What is the percentage, Seneca? Only 90%? 85%? 70% How many climatologists believe in AGW, and how many don't? And how did you come to this number?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for Cruz's religious values, I wouldn't worry about those, he'd have his hands so full of whittling down the government and changing the tax code that I think after 4 or 8 years he wouldn't have ever gotten around to social issues. The same goes for Paul.
Considering one of the first things the Republican Congress did last January was try to restrict abortion, I wouldn't be so sure.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Actually, if more than half didn't bother to offer an opinion, it's probably an indication of consensus. Articles on controversial topics have to say where they stand so that readers know what will be taken as given for the purposes of the argument or study.

'Silence is consent?' No. Not for something as relatively new and controversial as as AGW. Science doesn't work that way. Lack of evidence and lack of statements do not grant proof to a small minority who claims something is true. If 30% of a group believes in a flying pig, just because the others don't comment on it means there is some consensus for that.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1