Poll: Are Far Right ideologues brilliantly deep thinkers or pathologically delusional

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Brass, Feb 29, 2012.

Are Far Right ideologues brilliantly deep thinkers or pathologically delusional?

  1. Brilliantly deep thinkers

    10 vote(s)
  2. Pathologically delusional

    9 vote(s)
  1. Who are the real pathologically delusional misfits? You and Gayfly are preaching socialism to us from Canada and neither of you knows your ass from your elbow.

    For example:

    You didn't understand how melting ice could disrupt ocean circulation and cause cooling until I schooled you here:

    And now you're again showcasing your ignorance with this nonsensical statement which you wouldn't have made if you had a clue about the lag times versus cycle lengths.

    I can only imagine how empty and pathetic your lives must be...
    #21     Feb 29, 2012
  2. Lucrum


    Well, they are cooped up indoors surrounded by a frozen wasteland most of the year.
    #22     Feb 29, 2012
  3. jem


    all these liberal slackers and not a single response with a citation or lucid fact.

    1. open you minds... read the MIT paper... The author did a survey of the top scientific minds in biology and genetics. Not a single one says they have proof we evolved by chance. Most of them say we did not have a enough time to evolve by chance.

    Why? because they have not found a plausible pathway from non life to life. And many say there was not enough time for life to evolve from non life here on earth.

    So yes I have been to a museum. The best natural history museums in the world. I loved the dinosaurs and now so do my kids. I too was indoctrinated in public schools. My jaw dropped when I found out the liberals were lying to me... and that there is no proof we evolved from primordial goo. Also if you read the paper you will see it is highly unlikely we evolved from non living goo on earth

    That is the science.... deal with it.

    2. When the response was the cuts did not pay for themselves you are citing liberal models out of context. Those were fantasy models.
    The cuts paid for themselves in the only real life way that mattered. Revenues increased.

    3. Climate change... warming and cooling preceded change in CO2.

    Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

    #23     Feb 29, 2012
  4. Brass


    There's that nuanced reasoning again, together with whatever fabrication is deemed convenient and necessary, to which I alluded in my opening post. Without willing stereotypes like you to take a stand, this poll would not be possible. Take a bow.
    #24     Feb 29, 2012
  5. Ricter


    To be honest I have not gone back to that article since. It does seem to be saying that revenues were down, overall, since the economic growth which followed wasn't a big enough "tax base" to result in greater revenue. But jem keeps arguing that revenues, in total, were up.
    #25     Feb 29, 2012
  6. I have a better idea. Instead of you preaching socialism and liberal stupidity to us from Canada and telling us how we should live, I'll tell you how things should be in Canada.

    Canada should imprison for life (with NO internet access) anyone like you who disgraces Canada in another country as you have and continually do with your posts.
    #26     Feb 29, 2012
  7. Brass


    Whereas I need not imagine how empty and pathetic your head is. You illustrate it with regularity in this forum.

    And, as a bonus, you add substance to the premise of my thread.
    #27     Feb 29, 2012
  8. Ricter


    Again, since it's a cycle, one can just as reasonably say that CO2 precedes warming.
    #28     Feb 29, 2012
  9. Ricter


    To be fair you should do this in a forum [about Canada] where the host server is physically located in Canada.
    #29     Feb 29, 2012
  10. Actually Thunderpussy-->Gayfly-->brASS, I refuted it by pointing out your buddy Ricter's 2X ignorance on climate change and you confirmed your hypocrisy by pretending to ignore that. You also confirmed yet again what a total loser you are for being obsessed with us and our business.
    #30     Feb 29, 2012