SilentSnow

So an organization that is incredibly biased against any effort to prevent global warming claims we only spend 4 billion a year on global warming issues? Thanks for proving my case.

Well good thing us liberals already all sold our souls to Satan. Otherwise we might be concerned that she is running for president. As it is you're just throwing us into the briar patch.

Do you have any written links? I'm not going to waste 45 minutes listening to the same "the free market will save us all with absolutely zero effort on our part" BS that I've heard a hundred times before.

1. This question doesn't even make sense. There are countless scientifically proven things we can do to make our society more energy efficient with very little cost to well-being. The basic steps to ameliorate global warming are absolutely guaranteed to help. 2.Your number is completely absurd, and implies that your opinion on the matter is inherently biased. Currently we spend close to nothing to stop global warming. Keep in mind that most of what also would prevent global warming is renewable energy infrastructure that is required to keep our society running. So the actual spending on global

1.Sorry to break it to you, but the tea party hates libertarians(not quite as much as they do liberals, of course). As of right now the tea party controls the Republican party since the pathetic Republican moderates are too afraid to stand up to them. http://myteaparty.org/results/5.Evidence? As far as I know that picture is not photoshopped. Bachmann really does look that crazy.

As a right wing troll, you should know as well as anyone that there are 50 states in the union.

I'm not retracting anything and your summary of what I said is pathetically wrong. First of all, I was originally talking about Perry. It was a douchebag move to talk about secession. He made it worse by then begging for Federal aid. It was worse still because he was lying about the lack of federal aid. I never mentioned anything about Texas being a welfare queen. You then made a weak excuse for him, and I made the additional point that the red states were welfare leeches. If Perry wants to redeem himself by trying to eliminate federal aid to states then I guess I could forgive his douche-bag

Texas actually pays their fair share, but most red states do not. Conservative states on average take far more than their fair share of federal spending. http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.htmlThis blatant hypocrisy and stealing is exactly what I would expect from Neocons.

Also, lets not forget his blatant hypocrisy. On the one hand, he constantly bashes the federal government and has spoken in favor of secession. Then, he complains about not getting enough federal aid and lies when he says Texas did not receive any. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...-for-wildfires/I can see why you guys think Perry is so great. The GOP couldn't pick a candidate that better represents its values if it tried.

Have you ever done a fact check in your life? http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-sta...12-2011-11?op=1The projections for Texas were completely wrong. They turned out to be 27 billion, which would put them #1 on that list. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/0...nting-gimmicks/Also, don't forget his secession idiocy. Although I guess traitorous talk is a plus for the Tea Party.

His management of the budget is a reason not to vote for him. Texas traditionally has some of the worst budget problems in the country due to a refusal to accept reality on taxes. It seems unlikely that they actually balanced the budget for next year. Also, Texas' has an extremely regressive tax structure. If you think this country has gone in the wrong direction in the last 30 years then Perry is the last candidate you should vote for. http://www.economist.com/node/18744627

1.If you want to throw a childish fit and refuse to respond rationally I certainly can't stop you. And for the record, I gave a simple answer because you asked an idiotic question. 2.Actually it is quite a reasonable guess. Here's a link to multiple studies indicating that the effect of the sun on warming is likely to be less than 10%. Natural warming is usually a very slow process, and is usually triggered by sun cycles anyways. That pretty much leaves us only human causes to explain over 90% of the observed warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-acti...ntermediate.htm3. Lol. This wh

1.How many of these companies are making a profit while researching? You'll have to forgive me if I don't want to trust the fate of the world entirely to shortsighted corporations that will go out of business if they don't make enough immediate profits. Also, the purpose of the tax is not just to fund research, but to encourage people to make changes that they will have to make anyways. 2.Completely absurd. You are arguing against yourself here. Environmentalists think that oil used in SUVs is an extreme waste and oppose using plastic bags. 3.Do that if you want. But the fairest way to pay for

This post seems to be mostly irrelevant. I don't think the math was as wrong as you act like, but let's concede it wasn't 100% correct. This makes no practical difference. The hockey stick is still correct. "purposefully exaggerated the effects of global warming" No it didn't. After extensive review it was concluded that the original hockey stick pattern was almost entirely correct. Also, it refutes another denialist talking point that climate change scientists won't respond to criticism. They did respond and changed the model slightly to be more accurate.

Well what I am saying is not very confusing. First of all, many people still completely deny any warming, so it's relevant to keep talking about it. Of course each response should be tailored to the particular level of denial being encountered. What do we do? We stop emitting as much carbon and start building a society that doesn't depend so heavily on carbon emissions.How much are we causing it? Can't give an exact percent, but 90+% of warming caused by humans would be a good guess. Actually, I wouldn't agree. The idea that preventing warming is just some cute proposal environmentalists drea

Of course you don't. You don't trust anyone that disagrees with your opinion. Your complete dismissal of any counterarguments without even learning what they are ensures you will never learn the truth. Also, you are being illogical. Why would you trust those 16% of much less informed scientists back in the 70s, and now not trust the 97% of vastly better informed scientists now?

The nice thing about global warming deniers is that they are extremely lazy- using the same refuted myths again and again and again. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-pr...ns-in-1970s.htm

I think the numbers are 24.0% spending(or less with the recent cuts), 14.8% revenue. So you're saying that a 3.7% gap is a disaster, while a 3.2% gap is perfectly acceptable. Interesting. I've already pointed out enough objective problems with your posts. I'll leave this "subjective" interpretation alone.Also, the deficit reduction plan I proposed was 63% spending cuts, 37% tax increases, so don't try to falsely claim that all I'm trying to do is raise taxes. What percent of tax increases would be acceptable to you, and how specifically would you balance the budget if that percent is zero?

Well there are multiple ironies about the Republican party, but I guess the singular irony would be more accurate here. Nice practical demonstration of irony though. I make a post that refutes much of what you believe about government and society, and all that you manage to get out of it is noticing a small grammatical error.

How do you know a conservative is lying? They use the phrase "individual federal income tax"Why don't you now tell us how much they pay of the other 60% of federal taxes, state and local taxes?I'll give you a hint- it's a hell of a lot less than that. But even if it weren't, the idea that taxes on yacht money are the same as taxes on rent money is simply absurd.

Without tax increases to reasonable levels, our country is f#&%**#d. Totally. Tea Partiers who would hold the country hostage by opposing that are borderline treasonous (or possibly financially illiterate -- either way, they should not be in office). Of course destroying the modern US is their goal. Never, ever allowing a tax increase of any kind is their main weapon. Their ideal decade to return to is the 90s- the 1890s. More complete lies about who is to blame for the deficit. It's pretty clear that Republicans are 70-80% to blame. Tax decreases significantly decrease revenue, and almost

I'm actually embarrassed for you that you could make such an incredibly stupid error. A valid deductive argument with false premises is false. This is possibly the first thing they teach you in logic 101. But don't worry, this error shouldn't hurt your credibility around here since the credibility formula is ( humor x agreeing with opinion), and has nothing whatsoever to do with actually being correct.

At no point have I ever claimed that my logic was unimpeachable or iron-clad. I even went out of my way to find errors that others couldn't and admit I was wrong in that instance. Statements I've made in this thread- No one has correctly pointed out a logical or factual error in one of my posts. Several times I admitted that I could possibly be wrong. I identified a small error that I made and admitted I was wrong about that- no one else pointed out the error though, making the first statement still correct. "It's possible that I have made some small errors sometimes- although you guys have do

1.It is completely irrelevant where the supposed false dilemma is. You have failed to reasonably demonstrate that I have committed a false dilemma. You have also failed to demonstrate that I originally made a deductive error. You have also failed to show that I changed the meaning of the argument when I rewrote it. It's as simple as that. 2.You are showing a complete ignorance of logic here. I guess I assumed incorrectly that you might have some idea what you were talking about. It is well known that there is a sharp distinction between the internal validity of an argument and its external val

Most of his facts seem reasonable. However, he couldn't resist starting off with a complete lie. He claims the government grew by 667%. This is wildly wrong. In his own document he gives us the historical spending average of 19.6% of GDP and currently 24%- for 22% government growth. The hugely expanding government is just a myth. It's been fairly stable for decades. He also talks about the crowding out effect to make things seem worse than they are. In practice, the crowding out effect is essentially nonexistent. He's talking about private investment being crowded out by government borrowing.