"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[MaggieMae]

^^^^

Jealous that they can google rather than pulling them out of their butts.

Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.

no offense maggie but you don't leave for yourself much wiggle room in that dept.

Where have I not backed up what I say? This thread is loaded with links I posted. You can call it bullshit if you want, but I can prove what the bull ate for dinner anyway.

Samson has a personal vendetta against me. I stripped him of his bragging rights one day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This movie will be a flop and only the true believers will go and see it.

The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.

Yeah cause that's sooooo much different than the left's circle jerk over an Inconvenient Truth or anything with Michael Moore's name on it.

Ah, so you've decided that this will be the equivalent of a Michael Moore movie?

Then the right should ridicule it mercilessly, except for the hypocrites.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The rightwing herd will dutifully go see it they way they buy the stupid rightwing books.

Yeah cause that's sooooo much different than the left's circle jerk over an Inconvenient Truth or anything with Michael Moore's name on it.

Ah, so you've decided that this will be the equivalent of a Michael Moore movie?

Then the right should ridicule it mercilessly, except for the hypocrites.

Do you really want to use that H word? Do you really want to make my day punk, well do you?
The oooooooooooooooooooooobama's.

 

[konradv]

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!

 

[Samson]

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!

How is that ironic?

Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?

 

[konradv]

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!

How is that ironic?

Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?

Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand? It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.

 

[Samson]

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!

How is that ironic?

Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?

Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand? It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.

Ah, bravo.

No, I'm not familiar with that contention, but I can see where robbery would be a fitting analogy for taxation.

 

[Big Fitz]

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!

Huh... summed up:

Atlas Shrugged, Liberals Screamed and Gibbered.

 

[konradv]

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!

Huh... summed up:

Atlas Shrugged, Liberals Screamed and Gibbered.

LOL!!! Liberals gibbered?!?! Then why are you always the one spouting gibberish?

 

[konradv]

How is that ironic?

Have they taught Irony in your 9th grade English class yet?

Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand? It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.

Ah, bravo.

No, I'm not familiar with that contention, but I can see where robbery would be a fitting analogy for taxation.

It was more the idea of "taking from the rich and giving to the poor". She considered it proto-Marxist.

 

[MaggieMae]

not much, and that word consensus, my own father signed a petition against kyoto, alond with 17,000 or so other scientists, and he was no rube i tell you. gore made it sound as if the entire scientific community was in agreement, simply not true. why would he do that?
then i think it's time to get into fear mongering and demogouguery. mick 'mo hates the states. big fat lying hypocritical capitalistic pig.

why would he keep promoting the inconvenient truth and peddling junk science that he knew wasn't true? that's pathological. unless the cap and trade intellectual/educational complex and money had something to do with it all, not to mention the shot at "world government"

Because it isn't junk science. Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting. And puleeze don't pull up all of YOUR select scientific evidence, which pales in comparison to the consensus science on the matter.

And your leap from global warming to New World Order is stunningly bizarre.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because it isn't junk science.

You didn't type that with a straight face.

AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.

Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.

WERE melting.

The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.

Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.

Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.

Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.

 

[Samson]

Not familiar with the word "irony" or just not familiar with Rand? It was her contention that the Robin Hood myth was one of the most damaging to her view of how society should be.

Ah, bravo.

No, I'm not familiar with that contention, but I can see where robbery would be a fitting analogy for taxation.

It was more the idea of "taking from the rich and giving to the poor". She considered it proto-Marxist.

"Taking" is considered "Robbery" unless the government does it.

 

[Big Fitz]

I predict that "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" had a higher gross than "Atlas Shrugged" will. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..., the irony!!!

Huh... summed up:

Atlas Shrugged, Liberals Screamed and Gibbered.

LOL!!! Liberals gibbered?!?! Then why are you always the one spouting gibberish?

Actually the technical term is "Libberish". I'm not the one prognosticating utter failure because the philosophy is alien.

 

[washamericom]

Quote: Originally Posted by MaggieMae
The founders didn't mean the Republican PARTY, a/k/a the GOP. At the time of the signing of The Constitution, there were only two parties: The Federalists and (ironically) the Democratic-Republican Party! It wasn't until early in the 20th Century that the Democrats and Republicans split into the two parties we now know. Geesh--do some homework.



let's have a quick look at the bulls supper. you speak in sweeping generalities and without accurate substance, then you admonish others for not seeing the liberal light. did you read the book? there is a parallel between the government in the novel and the type of overreaching government we have today, only we'll have none of it.
with respect to global warming and cap and trade, they are stepping stones to a "centralized world government" (ad hoc). let me ask you this, why would, by your own admission, gore need to embellish the facts to sell his theory ?. why is so much wrong about the movie. why has it spiraled into scandal. why did he let the animated polar bear die, yet he saved the frog.
the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere is a created myth, it would be like finding the average # in the new york phonebook, or the average colour. the very name greenhouse effect is a misnomer, it implies that there is a solid barrier between us and space. the average temp of 95 or so % of the earth's mass is 1000 degrees centegrade, and carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring and much needed gas is less than a third of 1 percent of the "air". the prediction models are weak.
there is no evidence that "global warming" is caused by man, and when asked, of a real scientist, a physics professor at MIT, what is the cause of global warming?? he said "the sun"....
so it all ties together magpie, scientific theory, new world order, sweeping generalities and wrongs facts, like the ones above posted by you, i think, ... and i apologise if i'm wrong.
your consensus is wrong, and lincoln really was the first republican, but not in the early 1900's. other than that mrs lincoln, how did you like the play.

 

[hipeter924]

Did you finally figure it out? If so, hopefully you'll now start backing up your bullshit.

no offense maggie but you don't leave for yourself much wiggle room in that dept.

Where have I not backed up what I say? This thread is loaded with links I posted. You can call it bullshit if you want, but I can prove what the bull ate for dinner anyway.

Samson has a personal vendetta against me. I stripped him of his bragging rights one day.

No he has a vendetta against anyone that thinks critically, doesn't believe in propaganda, and tries to learn the truth.

 

[konradv]

Because it isn't junk science.

You didn't type that with a straight face.

AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.

Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.

WERE melting.

The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.

Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.

Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.

Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.

The cycle has shifted, has it? Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down? We know they trap energy so, if there indeed has been a shift, they should be going down, right? How about showing us THAT data? I don't really believe you know much about the subject, except what's been spoon-fed to you by the talking heads. A good way of telling one's level of knowledge is by what's discussed. Those who know the subject discuss the data. Those who don't, discuss Gore.

 

[washamericom]

Because it isn't junk science.

You didn't type that with a straight face.

AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.

Maybe the ice melt isn't going to have such dramatic effects as portrayed in Inconvenient Truth, but there is no denying that the arctic ice masses are melting.

WERE melting.

The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.

Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.

Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.

Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.

The cycle has shifted, has it? Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down? We know they trap energy so, if there indeed has been a shift, they should be going down, right? How about showing us THAT data? I don't really believe you know much about the subject, except what's been spoon-fed to you by the talking heads. A good way of telling one's level of knowledge is by what's discussed. Those who know the subject discuss the data. Those who don't, discuss Gore.

have you read the book ?? we have to ask now cause people haven't been reading the book. do you really still belive in "global warming" cause by man ?

 

[konradv]

You didn't type that with a straight face.

AGW is outright fraud. A scam to bilk people.



WERE melting.

The issue is not that the climate changes, the climate has been in a state of change for 4.5 billion years on this planet. The fraud is in the claim of causation.

Gore used a fraud created by Jones and Mann to bilk billions of dollars from tax payers and consumers.

Mann observed a trend and leveraged it to defraud suckers.

Now the cycle has shifted, and the frauds are exposed.

The cycle has shifted, has it? Have levels of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere been going down? We know they trap energy so, if there indeed has been a shift, they should be going down, right? How about showing us THAT data? I don't really believe you know much about the subject, except what's been spoon-fed to you by the talking heads. A good way of telling one's level of knowledge is by what's discussed. Those who know the subject discuss the data. Those who don't, discuss Gore.

have you read the book ?? we have to ask now cause people haven't been reading the book. do you really still belive in "global warming" cause by man ?

If it's not caused by man, where's the extra CO2 coming from, given that its concentration has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution? Until you answer that question, your contention doesn't hold water scientifically. As a matter of fact the ONLY place the deniers have gained ground is in the POLITICAL arena, because neither science nor logic are on their side.

 

[washamericom]

there was never a consensus, but they said there was... why?. without getting into the physics of co2, i'm going with the m.i.t. guy.

CO2 Science

this is a little dry but worth reading. don't forget the argument is, you think it's a lock that global warming (when there is such a thing) is manmade, and i think we don't have enough evidence to verify and conclude your claim.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".

and:

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

When we consider a short period, for example an 11 years period we can argue that the intensity of the solar irradiance is decreasing; however, if we consider a longer period, for example 400 years, we can see that the intensity of solar irradiance has not decreased. Some 400 years ago the solar irradiance intensity was 1365.5946 W/m^-2, while in 2000 the total solar irradiance intensity was 1366.6620 W/m^2. This year the Sun has been mostly spotless, but the solar irradiance intensity has been 1365 W/m^-2. This constitutes evidence on the existence of other solar "pulses" that we have not understood well:

The Inconstant Sun - NASA Science

Regarding the particularity of CO2 on the global warming, I don't see why to blame the CO2 of GW when its particular thermal characteristics show that the CO2 is not capable of producing any warming. The Pp of the CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 0.00034 atm*m, wich limits the absorptivity-emissivity of the CO2 to only 0.00092 (dimensionless value), not the 0.2 given by the IPCC. The absorptivity-emissivity of CO2 is 0.00092 conduces to its total emittancy of barely 0.414 W/m^2, not the 5.35 W/m^2 given by the IPCC. If I was to blame any atmospheric gas of a GH effect, I would blame the Water Vapor, not the the coolant CO2.

finally: Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

the computer generated prediction models have always been weak. i would feel better if the scientists on the government dole were working to disprove this funky assertion. i've tried to present items that aren't too technical.

it's all in the book "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.