Phil, your letter is all about Pit Bulls. An aggressive pit bull charging toward me? Yes, I'd fight it off/kill it if I could. Same with a Rottweiler and German Shepard, I suppose. Maybe Cujo too, if he was foaming at the mouth. But some of the shootings were little doggies, not charging, not being aggressive and the shooter just took off.
more denier non-science dribble! yes it still snows in the winter and gets colder... the ice caps get larger in the winter and melt in the summer... droughts happen and persist and then end...
the rate of change of these events over longer periods of time is what is being measured by SCIENTIST! real scientist, not some bought and paid for petroleum company hack. stop listening to clueless fake news sources and lets start believing facts... yes facts proven by 97% of REAL SCIENTIST.
"Greg" falls into that category of blind subservients; willingly led by manipulated data and the likes of quasi-scientists like the hypocritical carbon-squandering "Algore"
"California facing the worst drought in history" - In history? Hardly; ask anyone that survived and/or was misplaced by the "Dustbowl".
Ice caps ebb and flow--always have, always will--making Mr. Wark and "bv" correct, and you, uneducated at best.
If blind subservience and patently obvious ignorance foster regurgitative episodes, good luck keeping lunch down, LOL!
John Wark's "common sense" thinking to an issue for which it does not apply because it is dynamically complex. His "thinking" and obfuscation is a threat to life on earth. Similarly, bv is confused and doesn't understand the issue.
I explain why in detail at "Global Warming Denial" http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/…
I have to wonder what other obstacles Ms Mullen resents having to stop for on Cresta Rd, Elementary school picnics, preschoolers crossing at Argus for nature walks, the lights at Argus and Rio Grande? I would expect if horses are crossing Cresta they would be using the lights as any other person crossing Cresta would be doing. Bear Creek park has multiuse trails which include horses and has homes and property surrounding it which has historically been horse property.
I for one am quite happy to see a small stable rather than another housing development on unstable ground, which puts all of us as taxpayers at risk of another law suit fo permitting such developments, Certainly that would be a much higher traffic hazard on Cresta than a few horses
California's drought is nothing new: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/dr…
Polar ice caps dwindle and grow - global sea ice is unalarmingly above normal.
Your 97% figure is debunked as thoroughly as the hockey stick.
Ironically, you are making Mr Warks point for him.
Climate food fight!
Mr. Wark falls in to that category of climate deniers, a title which he is evidently rather proud. I got a kick out of his line that said "This disaster rhetoric is so contrived it should throw up flags for any thinker."
I wouldn't want to confuse him with any facts about California facing the worst drought in history, or polar ice caps dwindling away an alarming rates. Facts, obviously, don't matter when you, yourself are much smarter than 97% of climate scientists who do agree with them.
It makes me want to throw up knowing that he calls himself a thinker.
"My work here is done..."
Up, up, and away!
Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...
Just for the record, I am not a liberal. Also for the record, you accused me of supporting the president's policies, and of being too vain to repudiate those policies because it would involve admitting I had been wrong. When I demonstrated that I do not support those policies and never have, you quietly let the whole matter drop. Apparently, you are the one who is too vain to admit when you make a mistake or take back a false accusation. And to top it all off you still believe that you have damaged my credibility.
"I won't even try to back up my assertion because it is already a generally accepted proposition"
Of course you won't--because you can't--and generally accepted by whom; your fellow liberals?, LOL!
So, just for the record, you've floated a rather serious accusation that you're unable to elaborate upon or definitively substantiate; thanks for yet another example of leftist double-standards (i.e. I'll expect conservatives to prove anything proposed, but won;t hold myself to that standard).
The rest of this thread is yours, as my work here is done...
There is one tie-in between Iraq and your arguments against Iran. The same advisers and experts who were convinced that Iraq would transform itself into a democratic paradise once Saddam was toppled, are the same people who are now trying to torpedo the talks with Iran, so they can push a plan to start bombing there, because--you guessed it!--Iran will transform itself into a democratic paradise once the leadership is toppled!
By the way, you are aware that ISIS was driven out of Tikrit recently by Iranian forces under Iranian leadership, who celebrated their victory by slaughtering native Sunni non-combatants.
I won't even try to back up my assertion because it is already a generally accepted proposition, but I will resurrect an old charge of treason I once made against John Boehner, since no one else has ever heard anything like it.
Early in the president's first term, John Boehner was asked in a television interview if he believed the president is not an American citizen and has no American birth certificate. To his credit, Boehner said in no uncertain terms that he thought the "birther" controversy was nonsense. He was then asked if he would help set the record straight before the American people. His response was that it was not his problem. In other words, "Am I my brother's keeper?" That was an act of treason.
As an elected official and member of Congress, Boehner has a positive duty to support and defend our form of government. Yet, when the stability of our Republic was seriously threatened by lies and ignorance, Boehner chose to stand aside, hoping to gain some slight political advantage from the chaos, instead of speaking out what he knew in his heart to be the truth.
"You are trying to spin and dodge (when was Iraq even mentioned in this thread), yet I'M 'desperate to change the subject'?"
Yes, indeed! You changed the subject from the treasonous letter to the evil nature of Iran, as if that justifies the conduct of the American traitors. I never claimed my views on Iraq were in any way related to that question.
On the other hand, you accuse me of supporting the president's policies in the Middle East, so my bringing up Iraq is completely justified as a response to that charge.
I expect that this distinction is probably too subtle for you to understand, but I would not want anyone else to think you have a point or that I could not easily dismiss it. Speaking of "anyone else," I don't think anyone else, besides you, needs for me to explain why signing and sending the notorious letter is an act of treason, and I don't care a fig for your opinion, so I will not waste my time.
Mr. K, until you provide compelling, factual evidence of suggested "treason", (utter, absolute nonsense), including why Pelosi and Kennedy's actions weren't equivalent, you're effectively redered mute--and moot--here.
Again, once you level such an accusation, you're the one commonly expected to substantiate it, but since you won't (can't?) do so, perhaps next time you'll think twice before floaing such an assertion?
You are trying to spin and dodge (when was Iraq even mentioned in this thread), yet I'M "desperate to change the subject"? LOL!
"And are we actually talking about the same Iran?" Actually, I have not written a single, solitary word about Iran, but I understand how desperate you are to change the subject. Regardless of how brilliant or how lame the current administration's approach to Iran turns out to be, signing and sending the letter was an overt act of treason.
Since you opened the door, however, let me clarify my position regarding Middle East policy. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has the slightest idea what they are doing in the Middle East.
The invasion of Afghanistan initially was a great success, but it needed to be followed up by a division of the country into three parts along existing ethnic lines. This would promote nationalism and keep the local population absorbed in local politics.
We should never have invaded Iraq. Adventuristic politicians managed to convince themselves that Iraq would collapse like the Soviet Union once the top leadership was neutralized. The reality was that Saddam Hussein's power was supported by the Sunni population and his ruthlessness justified by trying to hold together a nation of Shia and Sunni who traditionally are constantly at war with each other.
We never should have invaded, but once we did, the only possible way out would have been again to divide Iraq into three separate nations: one Sunni, one Shia, and one Kurdish. Furthermore, now that we are at war with ISIS, we should be doing everything in our power to unite Syrian and Iraqi and Iranian Kurds and support them in their fight for independence.
So, until the president decides to support an independent Kurdish state, don't tell me I support his Middle East policy.
"The letter in question simply points out..." Apparently, Mr. Faltz, you have a problem with your reading comprehension. I already told you we know what the simple-minded letter says. All of your simplistic ranting serves to prove is that you cannot recognize treason at best, and at worst that you condone it.
Oh' Mr. K, still stumping for the ineffective, underqualified POTUS and defending his policies.
But why wouldn't you; your allegiance to him and his odious, failed agendas and initiatives is well-known, and to acknowledge that he's a patent failure would be akin to admiting you've supported a lost cause (tip: when you find yourself in a hole, the first/best thing is to quit digging; if only liberal legislators would embrace the concept).
The letter in question simply points out that any agreement BO enters into without Congressional approval wouldn't necessarily be binding in a future administration, so since happyfew won't explain why the letter amounts to treason, perhaps you'll elaborate?
You see, I'm not obligated to prove anything; YOU made the accusation, thus, the onue is upon YOU to definitively prove it with irrefutable evidence, or does a double-standard exist depending upon one's political inclinations?
And would the the same accusation pertain to Pelosi when she met with Assad in 2007 behind Dubya's back, or when Kennedy covertly suggested to Soviet brass how to circumvent Regan's policies, or do they get a pass because a "D" trails their names?
And are we actually talking about the same Iran? Have they had an ideological/theological change-of-heart, and are ready to embrace peace and prosperity for all, including Israel?
Last Saturday, good ol' Ali Khameni called for "Death to America", so we should trust this guy and his supporters to consider our--and Israel's--best interests?
Iran denies a weapons program even exists, so what are we negotiating about again?
It's embarassing for liberals, but the 47 Senators only pointed out what this nationa and much of the world already knows; that if/when Obama and his flunkies are bamboozled and boxed-in, the adults in charge will take the reins and reconsider the terms of the agreement(s) reached.
"...please provide an example of a foreign policy accomplishment." I have a better idea. Why don't you provide a single, solitary example of a foreign policy initiative that the Republican Party did not try it's damnedest to sabotage and undermine.
Mr. Faltz, no need to describe the offensive letter. We all know what it said. That is how we know the signers are traitors.
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation