Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Slashdot's three-dollar-bill 7
While some people delete their journal entries, I do not. Go back to a classic of mine to see the original argument. You can't comment on it any more - on account of it being more than 4 years old - but feel free to comment here if you'd like.
'Climate change' (Score:1)
The conversation is about how much additional power to grant a government that can't even roll out a website cleanly.
Also, theories that don't incorporate solar activity and vulcanism are kind of like Rush without Alex and Geddy; sure Neil is a drummer for the ages, but something seems kinda missing.
Tell your climate buddies to walk back the hyste
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, no one, EVER, has argued constant climate. The discussion is not 'does climate vary', or even 'is there evidence that climate alters over time'.
First of all, I think that statement is far to grand to be able to support it. Considering how many people honestly say stupid things like "it's cold in Texas, so global warming can't be real", I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever argued that climate is not changing.
That said, the JE in question has been deleted so it is my word against yours on what he said as - so far as I know - there is no way to retrieve the deleted JE and see what he said. From my recollection though he was indeed tryin
Re: (Score:1)
For the record, no one, EVER, has argued constant climate. The discussion is not 'does climate vary', or even 'is there evidence that climate alters over time'.
First of all, I think that statement is far too grand to be able to support it. Considering how many people honestly say stupid things like "it's cold in Texas, so global warming can't be real", I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever argued that climate is not changing.
That said, the JE in question has been deleted so it is my word against yours on what he said as - so far as I know - there is no way to retrieve the deleted JE and see what he said. From my recollection though he was indeed trying to argue that there was no change happening at all.
For a quick Google, you can find links on "constant climate chambers", and "climate change being constant", but the notion that global climate, itself, is constant is the über-strawman.
The conversation is about how much additional power to grant a government that can't even roll out a website cleanly.
My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.
Healthcare.gov is a disaster in keeping with every other aspect of ObamaCare, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation. Your chronological point, while factual, is but a clean square of toilet paper in the middle of a settling pond: SO, WHAT?
Tell your climate buddies to walk back the hysteria
The majority of the hysteria is manufactured by people with various agendas, including those whose agendas involve preventing any kind of climate change action from happening.
In the context of a government that cannot budget pro
Re: (Score:2)
For a quick Google, you can find links on "constant climate chambers", and "climate change being constant", but the notion that global climate, itself, is constant is the über-strawman.
Then if my recollection is correct, he was indeed reaching for that "uber-strawman". He was attempting to deny that any climate change was occurring. This would, it seems, support my argument that indeed he is a fake conservative, who comes here posting extreme arguments that he does not actually believe in, to make the conservative message look bad.
My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.
Healthcare.gov is a disaster in keeping with every other aspect of ObamaCare, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation. Your chronological point, while factual, is but a clean square of toilet paper in the middle of a settling pond: SO, WHAT?
Well, being as the administration itself was barely 6 months old at that time, it is quite difficult to rationally make an argument for them to be epically
Re: (Score:1)
Then if my recollection is correct, he was indeed reaching for that "uber-strawman". He was attempting to deny that any climate change was occurring. This would, it seems, support my argument that indeed he is a fake conservative, who comes here posting extreme arguments that he does not actually believe in, to make the conservative message look bad.
That moves the discussion to the size of the delta.
My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.
Healthcare.gov is a disaster in keeping with every other aspect of ObamaCare, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation. Your chronological point, while factual, is but a clean square of toilet paper in the middle of a settling pond: SO, WHAT?
Well, being as the administration itself was barely 6 months old at that time, it is quite difficult to rationally make an argument for them to be epically terrible at that point in time. If, on the other hand, one is interested in just making those who would so quickly try to such an aim look silly, that is more than enough time.
Hey, if you want to isolate every decision to a point call, blowing away the full context of the subject under discussion, you can rationalize anything. This is, ironically, akin to arguing that 8" of snow in my neighborhood yesterday refutes the notion that the planet is warming. Go ahead; argue that way.
The majority of the hysteria is manufactured by people with various agendas, including those whose agendas involve preventing any kind of climate change action from happening.
In the context of a government that cannot budget properly, and regularly passes unread, multi-ream legislation, your seeming surprise and the non-confidence on display is, itself, surprising.
I can't tell if this means you have started to actually read what I write again (which would be a nice step in the right direction) or what you might be trying to indicate here. I have never held confidence in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. I have consistently argued that it is the wrong way to address the problem.
It would be irresponsible to give even more power to a proven pack of incompetents.
"everyone's backside"? Really? Do you know anyone personally who has had their daily existence altered directly by anything that the EPA has done differently in the past 10 years?
So your definition of standing is that I have to know personally, as opposed to merely being a Virginia resident, for any opinion about EPA over-reach to matter?
No. My point is first that EPA policies have hardly changed at all in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Living in Virginia, I'm personally acquainted with Mary Boneta [fauquier.com] and the avaricious rich who use banners like "Climate Change", "Agenda 21", and "Common Core" in their efforts to unwind the Enlightenment and make serfs of us all.
I'm falling short of claiming an explicit conspiracy here, merely pointing out that the tendency to boss pe