@danamal said:

Originally I had set out to purchase an inexpensive used truck but the interest rates and the banks willingness to give loans doesnt make any sense right now.

They would much rather have me buy a new vehicle which they are giving away { I cant even begin to tell you how good of a deal I got}than buy a used one.

Kind of silly but I did purchase a flex fuel truck that may never get to be used because the fuel isnt in mass production but I enjoy doing work around my home and building things with my hands and you cant haul that many sheets of plywood home in a Prius!

And I have a Subaru Outback.

Just the right size to haul my gear.

Ten yeats old awd and gets around 25.

At the time there wasm't a similar US car.

But if there was I'd gotten one asn I assume theyre as good as any car as long as you tend the fluids.

And it was built in Indiana.

I like the "rebate" plan better than the bailout.

Give car buyers 5 or 10 K to buy a US car and wait for the union snafu to ease.

It's probably too late to just screw the guys with the bloated contracts but for God's sake don't re up.

But now we're wayyyyy off the subect

WSS

@danamal said:

The thing about global warming that gets me the most is this isnt nor should ever have been a political agenda by either side.

Its a worldwide problem that has no real solution experts or scientists be damned.

Completely agree.

Wasnt all that long ago we couldnt enjoy living near lake erie or the river which will remain nameless ,so in that respect we have changed for the better so there is hope that dealing with it can make a difference.

Hey I'm pretty much on board there too.

I don't want to be forced into something the politicians want but sure, common sense is a good thing.

Why waste stuff?

Making companys comply with stricter regulations for emitting pollutants and forcing them to adopt different policys that will help give us a cleaner enviroment isnt a bad thing.

No different than forcing detroit to come to grips that building better more efficient cars is the only thing that will save the industry and millions of jobs ,not to mention golden parachutes and private jets!

Well I think executive salaries are a drop in the bucket.

Two the US makes great small efficient cars now.

The drawbacks are these.

They make a lit more profit of a luxury monster truck than a Focus.

And hybrids are little better gas wise than four bangers.

Anyway people arent buying them anyway.

Best selling car is what a Camry? Not a hybrid.

We make cars that good.

I don't blame GM and I don't want Obama OR Mitch McConnell running it..

WSS

@danamal said:

As far as my view on global warming it has been consistent in that I believe that it is real and man has alot to do with it and there really is no solution currently based on the fact that our population is is doubling every twenty years and people are living longer and there is no solution to that so in that regard I dont think it can be slowed to a point that will fall in line with what experts see as a tipping point.

That is almost exactly my view.

I also think whatever problem it may poresent has been exaggerated by some "experts."

That doesnt excuse any of us to ignore the implications and we should contribute in whatever small ways we as individuals can.

And I don't.

But I think a carbon tax will create more hardship than it brinbgs relief but certainly I think we're logically moving toward differen types of energy.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

How could you possibly have come to this conclusion?

@danamal said:

WSS

Actually Steve im not trying to pile on im just frustrated that you continue to answer questions with questions and dont really care to have a real conversation and I know you could if you cared to but you like to be confrontational and discredit anyones view right or left.

What you should do then is tell me where I'm wrong.

We've lost sight of the original argument.

For instance if I say I just don't think Global Warmiong is a huge problem but even if I did I stiill don't think plan X will help and here's why.

You can certainly say you think it really is that important and you do think plan X will be successful. Here's why.

We can do all that without mentions of me being an imbecile or XXXX's bootlicking..

Just you and me.

This GW shit seems to take over every thread and I'd rather it were seperate.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

No, I'm trying to be consistent. You present me with two stupid choices I don't agree with and couldn't agree with without a lobotomy, and then you ask me to choose which one is correct. Then when I try to explain myself in a more intelligent way, you say I'm dodging ...your false choices. Sorry, but it's not in my nature to envision the world like a crank does. I can't be the guy listening to the partially employed lounge singer call the Barack Obama an "empty suit" and think, "Hey, you know that guy's got a point there!" It just sounds like an asshole on a message board.

What a surprise. A silly personal attack.

I'm crushed.

If the question is why did Obama join that church, again, the church itself doesn't bother me, it's fairly typical of those types of churches, so I don't feel that it's a knock on his character to have sat there while a Christian pastor said "God damn America." The priests I grew up with said some version of that practically every week - we're a country that supports evil in the form of legalized abortion, and that God was watching. That didn't make me question the motives of every single person in the church.

Only the motives of the man you elected president. That's fair since Bush's faith has been under attack for all these years.

Nor do I think Reverend Wright is some sort of crazy person, and I've read some of his other sermons that were perfectly acceptable and well-reasoned. So it doesn't bother me that this man was his pastor, and baptized his children.

Good for you.

The man who baptized some of my friends ended up in court on child molestation charges, part of a massive cover-up run out of the Boston archdiocese. I think this church is a bit more embarrassing than Trinity Baptist. And yet I still think very highly of many people who I used to attend that church with, and the many who still do attend that church. One does not preclude the other.

So I assume they preached the positives of child molestation from the pulpit as your friends sat and watched for 20 years. OK. That's rough.

And by "think highly" of course I mean "I hate them because they're Christian."

Just tell me you were wrong to characterize Christianity as foolish superstition. You can say you misspoke.

I also suspect that Obama, being new to the neighborhood, felt he could do his job better if he knew the people he was working with/representing, and most of them worshipped there. I have no way of knowing this, but there was a story about how he didn't fare so well originally, and was asked by an old neighborhood type, "Well, where do you worship?" and then began attending services there. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Great. So my description of a politically inspired ruse is accurate. I ralise it happens, but the "other side" is attacked for it.

If you prefer to see a power-hungry liar who used his own race to get ahead, that's your business. And crankery.

As for this: "Since you've stated that belief in Christianity is silly superstition at best AND that you believe Obama was at least somewhat disingenuous in his anti gay rights statement explain to me the conversion to a strongly afro-centric Christian organization." What the first part has to do with the second part, or what the first or second parts have to do with the third part is beyond me. One is a crude approximation of my feelings about Christianity; the next is about my sense of Obama's true feelings on gay marriage; and the third is a question about why he "converted" to an Afro-centric church.

Maybe you can follow this logic, but I sure can't. (And you envision this to be you making this easy for me. Funny.) Honestly, the only way this would make sense is if you informed me you'd been drinking since 10:00 AM. And then I could make sense of it: "Oh, he's impaired. That explains it."

See above. Just apply the same standards if you can.

Look, you're one of those people who think the real problem with racism isn't racism against minorities, but reverse discrimination against whites. I think this is silly, and provincial, not to mention a few other things. I think your resentment toward blacks as a group comes through over and over again, and I think it's pretty unseemly.

No I don't. I don't think reverse racism is good for society but I think the problems of racism are much more due to Blacks poor attitude about Whites.

I mean, when recently discussing the Supreme Court, your first impulse was to complain that the next pick might be a woman, or a minority, or both, and that it was evidence of some sort of quota system against whites.

When we discussed Obama at the Harvard Law Review, you simply couldn't imagine a scenario where Obama earned his spot with his talents, and even though you couldn't substantiate your opinion with a single piece of evidence - and in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary - you insisted on keeping your view that Obama got the spot because he was black. (Yes, the man rose from obscurity five years ago to become the president of the United States and the most powerful man on the planet, but somehow you can't imagine how that man could have been the president of the Harvard Law Review.)

I did provide evidence. You didn't like it and you also admitted it might actually have played a part.

So did he.

I admitted he may well have earned that position without any help in that regard. What's the beef?

When we discussed the Democratic Party during the election, you continually mentioned the "illiterate criminals on welfare" who make up the urban core of the Democratic Party.

Yes. I believe that those of the lowest economic and educational and financial rungs of societys ladder tend Democrat.

You teem with white resentment.

Teem? Wow.

You're nuts. What I do think is that too much of what passes for "Black Cuture" in todays world is ugly and couterproductive. Don't you?

And while you turn over with rage at this "Afro-centric" church, you do so while being completely unaware that your posts are clearly "white-centric". From what I can tell, it's not siding with a particular race that bothers you; it's simply that you believe Obama sided with the wrong one.

No. As I've said over and over that if any white politician was so involved with a similar white church there'd be hell to pay.

And rightly so.

I simply don't agree with much of anything you say about the man or his motives, and I think what you do say says far more about who you are than it does about who he is.

Actually I suspect you do but are just unable to pass up adversarial rhetoric and persona, attack.

And I'm not hurt or offended if that's what your tirades are meant for.

WSS

@danamal said:

He reminds me of Ernest Borgnines character in the "Poseidon Adventure", he pisses and moans constantly at Gene Hackman but never really has an original thought,but he can damn sure tell you when YOUR wrong.

And still Dan plays the part of that littls mut that scampered after the bulldogs heels yapping "Ya wanna chase some cats???"

Actually if you do some research Borgnine had a different plan, just not Hackmans.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Steve, the light that comes on when my respect for you is close to running out is now on.

Damn. That would be tough to live without.

"It underscores thge fact that you, and most others here don't really take Global warming serioulsly enough to do anything simple but drastic."

Here's where you're wrong, and deadly so: being serious about global warming doesn't require doing something silly, drastic and draconian. It requires that we do something that is well-considered, effective, and both politically and economically feasible. It requires a policy that will work.

However as I've stated over and over I do NOT think that policy would help much.

So your admittedly vague plan is ALSO too inconvenient.

It's simply a false choice to say that if you aren't for doing something draconian and stupid you're not serious about global warming.

It's not really stupid. It is extremely inconvenient and would require sacrifiice that nobody wants to make.

Hell if the tax doesn't work who cares? We got us another tax. Hot damn.

Here's another example of your "logic": if you're not for nuking Iraq, you're not serious about addressing the problem of terrorism.

True though you've phrased it poorly, as usual. Better is "if you're serious about fighting terrorism you probably need to do more than tax Nuslims here in the USA."

(Since that's a joke I assume you'll make it the heart of your argument}

Here's a better one.

If you're really serious about the dangers of cigarettes you'd outlaw them right now.

But we really aren't and boy are those tax dollars handy.

I think that is a much better example.

It's logic for 3rd graders, and even you should know that. It's an imbecilic point.

That's where you're wrong. And not even wrong, but not even in the game.

YOu cut me to the quick.

WSS

"It underscores thge fact that you, and most others here don't really take Global warming serioulsly enough to do anything simple but drastic."

Here's where you're wrong, and deadly so: being serious about global warming doesn't require doing something silly, drastic and draconian. It requires that we do something that is well-considered, effective, and both politically and economically feasible. It requires a policy that will work.

It's simply a false choice to say that if you aren't for doing something draconian and stupid you're not serious about global warming.

Here's another example of your "logic": if you're not for nuking Iraq, you're not serious about addressing the problem of terrorism.

It's logic for 3rd graders, and even you should know that. It's an imbecilic point.

That's where you're wrong. And not even wrong, but not even in the game.

If the question is why did Obama join that church, again, the church itself doesn't bother me, it's fairly typical of those types of churches, so I don't feel that it's a knock on his character to have sat there while a Christian pastor said "God damn America." The priests I grew up with said some version of that practically every week - we're a country that supports evil in the form of legalized abortion, and that God was watching. That didn't make me question the motives of every single person in the church.

Nor do I think Reverend Wright is some sort of crazy person, and I've read some of his other sermons that were perfectly acceptable and well-reasoned. So it doesn't bother me that this man was his pastor, and baptized his children.

The man who baptized some of my friends ended up in court on child molestation charges, part of a massive cover-up run out of the Boston archdiocese. I think this church is a bit more embarrassing than Trinity Baptist. And yet I still think very highly of many people who I used to attend that church with, and the many who still do attend that church. One does not preclude the other.

And by "think highly" of course I mean "I hate them because they're Christian."

I also suspect that Obama, being new to the neighborhood, felt he could do his job better if he knew the people he was working with/representing, and most of them worshipped there. I have no way of knowing this, but there was a story about how he didn't fare so well originally, and was asked by an old neighborhood type, "Well, where do you worship?" and then began attending services there. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If you prefer to see a power-hungry liar who used his own race to get ahead, that's your business. And crankery.

As for this: "Since you've stated that belief in Christianity is silly superstition at best AND that you believe Obama was at least somewhat disingenuous in his anti gay rights statement explain to me the conversion to a strongly afro-centric Christian organization." What the first part has to do with the second part, or what the first or second parts have to do with the third part is beyond me. One is a crude approximation of my feelings about Christianity; the next is about my sense of Obama's true feelings on gay marriage; and the third is a question about why he "converted" to an Afro-centric church.

Maybe you can follow this logic, but I sure can't. (And you envision this to be you making this easy for me. Funny.) Honestly, the only way this would make sense is if you informed me you'd been drinking since 10:00 AM. And then I could make sense of it: "Oh, he's impaired. That explains it."

Look, you're one of those people who think the real problem with racism isn't racism against minorities, but reverse discrimination against whites. I think this is silly, and provincial, not to mention a few other things. I think your resentment toward blacks as a group comes through over and over again, and I think it's pretty unseemly.

I mean, when recently discussing the Supreme Court, your first impulse was to complain that the next pick might be a woman, or a minority, or both, and that it was evidence of some sort of quota system against whites.

When we discussed Obama at the Harvard Law Review, you simply couldn't imagine a scenario where Obama earned his spot with his talents, and even though you couldn't substantiate your opinion with a single piece of evidence - and in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary - you insisted on keeping your view that Obama got the spot because he was black. (Yes, the man rose from obscurity five years ago to become the president of the United States and the most powerful man on the planet, but somehow you can't imagine how that man could have been the president of the Harvard Law Review.)

When we discussed the Democratic Party during the election, you continually mentioned the "illiterate criminals on welfare" who make up the urban core of the Democratic Party.

You teem with white resentment.

And while you turn over with rage at this "Afro-centric" church, you do so while being completely unaware that your posts are clearly "white-centric". From what I can tell, it's not siding with a particular race that bothers you; it's simply that you believe Obama sided with the wrong one.

I simply don't agree with much of anything you say about the man or his motives, and I think what you do say says far more about who you are than it does about who he is.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

"Fact is banning leisure travel would do a lot for the environment.

But

It would be extemely inconvenient annd bad for the economy in many ways.

So we must assume global warming is not enough of a threat to bother with it.

Tell me which part is wrong Heck."

So what do you want me to say?

It underscores thge fact that you, and most others here don't really take Global warming serioulsly enough to do anything simple but drastic.

Again can you tell me where I'm wrong?

This could have been over long ago.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Steve, will you at least acknowledge the logical fallacy(ies) you've been employing since the board started? Will you ever say, "Okay, my bad?"

Or will you pull another "I know you are but what am I?" like a child, and instead insist that I'm the one who is embarrassing himself?

I'm telling you - you're providing textbook examples of this stuff. I just cut and pasted one. Do you still think that's a valid line of reasoning?

List them and we'll see.

But I try to make things easy and still you refuse to answer honestly.

You say it need not be A or B. Fine. Give me a reasonable C.

You're discussling in the manner of a lawyer or debater who isn't interested in an idea but to confuse the jury.

WSS

Or will you pull another "I know you are but what am I?" like a child, and instead insist that I'm the one who is embarrassing himself?

I'm telling you - you're providing textbook examples of this stuff. I just cut and pasted one. Do you still think that's a valid line of reasoning?

************************

*** FIXED ***

Or will you pull another "I know you are but what am I?" like a child, and instead insist that I'm the one who is embarrassing himself?

I'm telling you - you're providing textbook examples of this stuff. I just cut and pasted one. Do you still think that's a valid line of reasoning?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

No, it's not my opinion that Obama joined that church to pander to a particular racial group. Or that he's a superstitious idiot.

So to avoid embarrassment tell me.

Since you've stated that belief in Christianity is silly superstition at best AND that you believe Obama was at least somewhat disingenuous in his anti gay rights statement explain to me the conversion to a strongly afro-centric Christian organization.

He's either faking for political position or he believes it AFAIK.

If you have another reasonable explaination I'm glad to hear it.

And I'mm make iteasy on you.

If anyone else can explain to me why my statements that doubt the projected benefits of a carbon tax can tell me where I'm wrong I'll be glad to listen.

And I'd be happy with a "well we're really not shure but we hope that's how it will shake out."

Then you can hop up and down and yell "You see??!!"

(ps as you know the extreme measures I gave were just to force you to admit you don't care that much about GW. You can pretend otherwise but...)

WSS

"Fact is banning leisure travel would do a lot for the environment.

But

It would be extemely inconvenient annd bad for the economy in many ways.

So we must assume global warming is not enough of a threat to bother with it.

Tell me which part is wrong Heck."

Once again, you present two choices, neither of which makes sense to me, and ask me to pick one. It's another example of a logical fallacy. This one is called "False dilemma" and you might even use it more often than you use "ad hominem."

Here's an example for you:

"Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.

It is not the case that 1+1=4.

Therefore 1+1=12."

You should stop doing that. It embarrasses you.

You have bizarre opinions, usually based firmly in your resentment of liberals and blacks. I don't share those opinions, nor do I share your resentments. And picking which two of your poorly reasoned ideas is true is a waste of my time.

As for laughing at your suggestion that we deal with global warming by banning leisure travel, I laugh at it because it's laughable. What do you want me to do, take it seriously?

Because it was another example of a false dilemma: either you're willing to ban leisure travel or you're not serious about global warming.

Stop embarrassing yourself. You're like a logical fallacy clinic for undergrads.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Uh, this is so tiresome.

Well, congratulations.

And then we pretend that you've somehow poked all sorts of holes in the arguments for a cap and trade system by presenting bizarre scenarios that have no real world application and make no point.

You're kidding about that right?

All you've done is

A mischaracterize

and

B Refuse to refute em.

Then you suggest it's some big offense that I admitted that I don't know what the particulars of the administration's plan will turn out to be. Maybe that's because the plan is still being drawn up and considered, and no one knows what shape it will take. Maybe that's because we're arguing the broad strokes. Maybe if you'd read any of the reports in the thread that Tupa started, or the one I started a few weeks ago, you'd see me disagreeing with one approach that the Obama administration is currently considering, which I think will be a disaster. But you don't, because those reports are long and involved and seemingly over your head.

But as you admit, you're still free of clue.

The ones most recently admit you were blindsided by some news today.

Yeah Heck.

You know what's what.

So congrats again on showing me up on cap and trade. I really hope this is doing wonders for your ego.

And still........?

Then come the slurs: I hate Christians (I should inform my wife and family), Obama's camp is racist. And I'm not aware of one political hack appointment, or evidence of cronyism, in the Obama administration. It doesn't seem like you know what the terms mean. Much like "quota." And I don't know who these appointments are who are supposedly dismantling the Constitution. Where are you getting this, from T? Rush?

Heck you've given your opinion of those who believe the basics of Christianity as being superstitious idiots.

You're free to amend that now. Go ahead.

And are you now saying Obama did NOT join Trinity United to pander to a particular racial group?

Hey hge might just a superstitious idiot.

Just pick one.

Or keep up the tiresome denials.

Why is is so hard for you?

You're a genius right?

WSS

Then you post something like this.

xxxxing idiot

Well said ahh dumb.

Let's say I've yet to be surprised by any of your posts.

WSS

I just asked the question. He didn't answer, then he did.

What is it about liberals acting like a bunch of

attack pack animals?

But Heck totally was wrong about his disagreement with Obama.

He agreed with Obama's lie to get elected.

So, he does't really disagree with Obama.

It proves my point - he doesn't/won't/can't really find fault with Obama's posturing.

So, Adimwit, do you have anything intelligent to add to this board?

I've yet to see you have any intelligent opinion on anything.

Heck has you beat by 20 light years.

@calfoxwc said:

As far as putting me down for wasting time "discussing" with me -

I don't think Al and I were "wasting our time" talking about the Mideast.

Perhaps you should try being legitimately responsive more often.

You know... communication is a two way street.

And, you divert to "ad hominem" complaints in avoiding legit questions.

That is what I said. What I meant.

But, you once again ignore the truth - you don't disagree with Obama on

anything. You give an example of disagreeing with his saying what he believes about

"gay marriage", but you agree that he said it because it's good to lie to get

elected if your favorite politician lies.

So, in affect, you agree with Obama again, regardless.

Trying to get you to stop skirting around pointed questions that

you just change the subject in avoiding... is a waste of time.

But, a challenge none the less.

BTW, ad hominem whining doesn't make you look like you answered the

posts by others. Just so ya know (my helpful hint for the day)

Cal, do you realize that every one of your posts starts out with getting your ass handed to you, and instead of admitting it.... you "don't remember"

How the hell do you people even survive day to day

@calfoxwc said:

Reading this over and over used to make me chuckle. Then it made me angry. Now it just makes me sad.

CAL - as heck said and as I've been saying for awhile now, there is a reason nobody actually "converses about real substance" with you.

Also, they have the same positions of gay rights. Got that too.

Sorry. What gay rights are being denied?

Thanks for clearing that up. Where would we all be without this insight?

And thanks again for mischaracterizing a comment when you are unable to respond.

And thanks for proving once again you're nothing more than a flack.

And where would the conversation be without me?

It'd be you shilling for the empty suit ad infinitum.

Glad to help.

WSS

Everyone once in a while you say something intelligent and I begin to think, maybe Steve's not just a blubbering vagina moron.

Then you post something like this.

xxxxing idiot