Global Test?

[Skull Pilot]

But my SUV usuage, consumption of food, setting of my thermostat is a personal decision not something that should require global approval....are you really that ignorant?

Don't be so sure about that,
Here is the next greatest thing to come out of the great state of CA

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200801/NAT20080111a.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/who_will_control_your_thermost.html

So take BHO's comments about what we can and can't do a little more to heart because he is not the only one who thinks more control is better than less.

PS there is no way NO FUCKING WAY the gov't will put a transmitter in my house to monitor my heat or anything else I don't care how many laws they pass.

 

[Dogger]

There's one problem with that assumption, AFP first reported it, then the Free Republic reported it.

Prove that AFP, and not Drudge or Faux or another right-wing site was the first.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Prove that AFP, and not Drudge or Faux or another right-wing site was the first.

Ohh now you are changing your story. What caught in another fabrication, big boy? You made a claim, YOU prove it. You claimed a certain source posted it first, prove it.

 

[Dogger]

Ohh now you are changing your story. What caught in another fabrication, big boy? You made a claim, YOU prove it. You claimed a certain source posted it first, prove it.

No, jreeves claims that AFP was the original source, and that Free Republic (the source he originally cited) picked it up from AFP.

I expressed my distrust of of Free Republic, so he wants to deflect by substituting AFP, but that is irrlevant because I'm relying on an unedited transcript.

Since he is alleging AFP as the original source, it's his responsibility to prove it.

 

[jreeves]

No, jreeves claims that AFP was the original source, and that Free Republic (the source he originally cited) picked it up from AFP.

I expressed my distrust of of Free Republic, so he wants to deflect by substituting AFP, but that is irrlevant because I'm relying on an unedited transcript.

Since he is alleging AFP as the original source, it's his responsibility to prove it.

Posted on 18 May 2008 931 PM by WesA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017877/posts



Obama camp spies endgame in Oregon
4 days ago

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

Today is 5/21/08 that would make the AFP article's date 5/17/08.

Is that good enough for you?

 

[Dogger]

Well you proved the facts underlying your attempted deflection. Good for you.

It's still not relevant. AFP got it wrong, and you made it worse. The transcript shows that he did not say what you suggested he said about mandates. All we have done is quibble over sources for your central thesis, but your central thesis remains wrong.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Unbelievable is right. Especially considering the source, which dishonestly edited the quote. But your streak of debating distorted straw men fallacies rather than real positions on the issues remains intact.

Obama called for leadership by example, and not the mandates suggested by the post. He said we have to deal with the problems of other developing nations and that we cannot continue our current lifestyle while expecting other nations to simply acquiesce in our demands.

Here's the full quote, for thinking people who prefer context:
We are also, though, going have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy, and pretty soon, if their carpet footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment; we've got to lead by example. If we lead by example -- if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technology that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pain. But keep in mind, you're right. We can't tell them, don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going say OK. You guys go ahead and keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy. Even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not -- that's not leadership. That's not going to happen.

Even looking at your full quote…..this dumbass BO pretends to become President??

Let's just start with the expression "we're goners"….. wow, his oratory skills are really shining here!....so very Presidential...so positive and forward thinking…..so pro-American...

Obviously Obama's solution to our problems is to basically curl up and die…..oh, and talk to people…..so they don't think bad of us....yeah, that's a prime goal of America...

Liberals would have NO compunction whatsoever in controlling our cars, our thermostats, our eating habits, etc., etc. in order to attain their goal of global socialism.

 

[Paulie]

I have to admit, I'm not seeing anything in that transcript that implies Obama wants to "regulate" our SUV usage, our heat, and what we eat.

If that's how some are perceiving it, then you are of course entitled to your opinion. When I read it, even knowing how far left Obama is, I see him saying that the fact that we DO live our lives like that, is going to be seen negatively by the global community.

I can't say I disagree with him.

We probably SHOULD be cutting down on all of that stuff. I'll never agree with the government MANDATING it, but I certainly advocate the general notion of living more within our means and making a more concious effot to conserve.

I wish more of our leadership would take that kind of stand, and at least SUGGEST that we do a better job of conserving as a NATION.

 

[Gunny]

Unbelievable is right. Especially considering the source, which dishonestly edited the quote. But your streak of debating distorted straw men fallacies rather than real positions on the issues remains intact.

Obama called for leadership by example, and not the mandates suggested by the post. He said we have to deal with the problems of other developing nations and that we cannot continue our current lifestyle while expecting other nations to simply acquiesce in our demands.

Here's the full quote, for thinking people who prefer context:

So after all your accusations, what you posted pretty-much backs up the allegation made. What's the natural progression of "calling for" something? Madating it via legislation, of course. He, you and I know you aren't going to talk people into doing shit. When you want to usurp their rights and freedoms, you have to steal them via legislation.

If anyone's doing any twisting here, it would be you trying to say Obama didn't say what he obviously did, according to YOUR link.

 

[Paulie]

So after all your accusations, what you posted pretty-much backs up the allegation made. What's the natural progression of "calling for" something? Madating it via legislation, of course. He, you and I know you aren't going to talk people into doing shit. When you want to usurp their rights and freedoms, you have to steal them via legislation.

If anyone's doing any twisting here, it would be you trying to say Obama didn't say what he obviously did, according to YOUR link.

You know, maybe Obama WAS implying legislating it, and maybe he WASN'T.

But why should a leader not make responsible suggestions to the nation about living a more conservative lifestyle? I mean, if we're already defeated in the notion that you can still talk sense into this country, then what's the point of even carrying on? If we're that fucking stubborn, that our leaders felt they would be better off not even bothering to make suggestions to us, then what does that say about us as a nation?

You can't tell me that you disagree that we should cut down on our personal consumption habits in this country. We're consuming ourselves into slow oblivion.

 

[MsWikia]

WOW, so now people are trying to say Obama wants to control how much you drive, eat and use your heat? The source seems bogus anyhow.

But from what I read, I do not feel Obama was saying he wants to control those things, IMO he was saying if we want to attack this Global Warming issue, we ALL have to chip in and start making sacrifices; He doesnt want to mandate a law, he just wants to inspire you to do stuff for the good of this world.

 

[Dogger]

If anyone's doing any twisting here, it would be you trying to say Obama didn't say what he obviously did, according to YOUR link.

Once again: the original post said Obama was calling for mandates such as "outlaw Suv's, ration our food to us and install thermostat's in our homes that maintains a global "acceptable" temperature". That isn't a fair reading of the AFP story, although it was consistent with the tenor and content of the comments at the Free Republic site which jreeves originally cited, and then tried to distance himself from.

The series of posts about sources were a distraction; the real point is that Obama said one thing and the right wing (once again) tries to make it sound like something else because they know they cannot sell their policies by telling the truth.

I posted the transcript (which was readily available on CNN) so everyone could see that Obama said no such thing, and that makes me the one twisting Obama's quote? I provided full and complete context exposing jreeves flagrant lie, and I'm the one twisting the quote?

Sorry, gunny, if you want respect, you'll have to do better than that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

WOW, so now people are trying to say Obama wants to control how much you drive, eat and use your heat? The source seems bogus anyhow.

But from what I read, I do not feel Obama was saying he wants to control those things, IMO he was saying if we want to attack this Global Warming issue, we ALL have to chip in and start making sacrifices; He doesnt want to mandate a law, he just wants to inspire you to do stuff for the good of this world.

Bullshit, when a liberal wants us all to " just chip in" they want LAWS to force us for our own good. And generally they get exempted from or think they are exempt from those laws.

California has already forced its citizens to "chip in" by ordering that the power companies can reset your temperature to anything they please. YOU pay them for service and they can get the right to remotely control your use of what YOU pay for.

 

[jreeves]

Well you proved the facts underlying your attempted deflection. Good for you.

It's still not relevant. AFP got it wrong, and you made it worse. The transcript shows that he did not say what you suggested he said about mandates. All we have done is quibble over sources for your central thesis, but your central thesis remains wrong.

No I understand now what you generally do in an attempt to deflect, discredit the source.

 

[jreeves]

WOW, so now people are trying to say Obama wants to control how much you drive, eat and use your heat? The source seems bogus anyhow.

But from what I read, I do not feel Obama was saying he wants to control those things, IMO he was saying if we want to attack this Global Warming issue, we ALL have to chip in and start making sacrifices; He doesnt want to mandate a law, he just wants to inspire you to do stuff for the good of this world.

The source seems bogus, the oldest news agency, oh ok. Inspiring, saying that we should deter our eating habits and our energy consumption because of global acceptability?? Obama is clueless, we should cut our energy consumption and eating habits because it is good for us and our country. We shouldn't do it because someone in the Middle East, Europe or Asia will think more favorable on us.

 

[Dogger]

The source seems bogus, the oldest news agency, oh ok.

We are not arguing over the respective reputations of the two sources. We have one source with a complete transcript and one with selective quotes.

The selective quotes imply something that no rational politician would say out loud in public. The entire transcript established that he did not say or mean to say that.

I understand why you want to belabor this. You can only beat the straw man phantom argument that does not actually exist. If you had intellectual honesty, and debated Obama's actual positions, you would lose. An intelligent person would change his mind at that point. The fact that you don't says all we need to know about you.

The only here is you.

 

[jreeves]

We are not arguing over the respective reputations of the two sources. We have one source with a complete transcript and one with selective quotes.

The selective quotes imply something that no rational politician would say out loud in public. The entire transcript established that he did not say or mean to say that.

I understand why you want to belabor this. You can only beat the straw man phantom argument that does not actually exist. If you had intellectual honesty, and debated Obama's actual positions, you would lose. An intelligent person would change his mind at that point. The fact that you don't says all we need to know about you.

The only here is you.

Oh, the intellectual one....mighty is thou mighty pea sized brain.....

Nothing in the full transcript changes Obama's error of concluding that American's should curtail their energy consumption and eating habits to fit a global acceptability standard.

 

[Dogger]

Just because you are too dumb to see it does not mean it isn't true.

 

[Yurt]

Unbelievable is right. Especially considering the source, which dishonestly edited the quote. But your streak of debating distorted straw men fallacies rather than real positions on the issues remains intact.

Obama called for leadership by example, and not the mandates suggested by the post. He said we have to deal with the problems of other developing nations and that we cannot continue our current lifestyle while expecting other nations to simply acquiesce in our demands.

Here's the full quote, for thinking people who prefer context:

Here's the full quote, for thinking people who prefer context:

Quote:
We are also, though, going have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy, and pretty soon, if their carpet footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment; we've got to lead by example. If we lead by example -- if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technology that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pain. But keep in mind, you're right. We can't tell them, don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going say OK. You guys go ahead and keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy. Even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not -- that's not leadership. That's not going to happen.

CNN.com

what is a carpet footprint?

he says we can't tell them what to do, but he somehow naively thinks if we monitor the thermostat in our homes that the rest of the world will simply follow us? this guy is smoking a major bong pipe.

edit: thats doggers above, the quote function is screwing up lately

 

[jreeves]

Just because you are too dumb to see it does not mean it isn't true.

I prefer to actually decide what someone's positions are by what they actually say. He stated we have to cut our energy consumption and food consumption in order to gain global acceptability. If you want to show me where this is false, then go ahead.