The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
This discussion forum closed permanently on 25th February 2021.
2 Pages V   1 2 >   Reply to this topic

Why Does USA Act Like USSR When It Comes to Climate Change?

*Guest*
post 9.Mar.2007, 02:57 PM
Post #1


Washington is behaving like the defunct Soviet system when it comes to discussing anything untoward about alleged climate change, what it may be doing,and what to do about it, as this link demonstrates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/08polar.html

What is happening at the poles that it is most desious of keeping from the public? Man-made weather? Lasers in some kind of space shield? What?
Go to the top of the page
+
The Nine
post 9.Mar.2007, 03:06 PM
Post #2
Joined: 10.Aug.2006

In your camp Mr Trowbridge. Utter denail on all fronts.
However, I have a suspicion that from dispair and contempt may come some salvation.

Bush and the republicans are not going to be around after next year. Regardless of economic or political machination, the U.S soooo wants to be liked again. I think President Clinton will give a lot to claw back some credibility in the world. Moreover, I thing the whole ******* planet will help her out of pure relief.
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 9.Mar.2007, 03:45 PM
Post #3
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

Trowbridge...I will direct you to this link (which I can post...because the CIA evidently did not shut down the site... :roll: ) [Kudos to Mike for finding this]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...3b-829b1b3542ef

Please read into some of the facts associated with climate change...education can be a wonderful thing!

And The Nine...is you are going to speak about a political system, you should try understanding it first. The repuglicans will still be there after next year...just like the dummycrats never really left. You are naive if you think there is any real difference between the dummycrats and repuglicans. As for "President Clinton"...good lord...dont get me started on the concept of that bat getting in there. If there could ever be a worse selection for president - Hillary Clinton would be it.
Go to the top of the page
+
Craptastical
post 9.Mar.2007, 04:30 PM
Post #4
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 21.Feb.2007

QUOTE (.braderunner)
And The Nine...is you are going to speak about a political system, you should try understanding it first. The repuglicans will still be there after next year...just like the dummycrats never really left. You are naive if you think there is any real difference between the dummycrats and repuglicans. As for "President Clinton"...good lord...dont get me started on the concept of that bat getting in there. If there could ever be a worse selection for president - Hillary Clinton would be it.


I completely agree with this. Unfortunately the differences between Republicans and Democrats are so small that the only people who will and do notice the difference are those living in the US. IMHO this is because the differences are mostly concerning domestic issues.

Something I have been wondering though... Out of all of the candidates so far, who are the hawks and who are the doves WRT foreign policy? It's hard for me to tell because they're all posturing for soundbites at the moment.

I never thought I would say this, but it's time our country had someone like Carter.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Guest*
post 9.Mar.2007, 04:38 PM
Post #5


Again, braderunner, your response is completely irrelevant to the thread and the link posted - what showed that Washington authorities have issued a protocol to American scientists attending a conference on what is happening in the Arctic, instructing them not to say anything about alleged climate change, its effects on wildlife, especially bears, etc.

It is a completely directed delegation, with selected spokesman and statements about a most narrow agenda, reminiscent to what Moscow used to do when found in difficulty.

And none of it has anything to say about what Al Gore claims, as the protocol and my remarks indicate deliberate man-made causes of the worst problems, what The Nine has gone along with.

And, of course, you just choose to attack his solution to the problem rather than admit what we are talking about.

In short, you are just an opponent of a free flow of ideas when it comes to anything important, especially if it concerns your apparent masters.
Go to the top of the page
+
The Nine
post 9.Mar.2007, 05:06 PM
Post #6
Joined: 10.Aug.2006

QUOTE (.braderunner)
Trowbridge...I will direct you to this link (which I can post...because the CIA evidently did not shut down the site... :roll: ) [Kudos to Mike for finding this]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...3b-829b1b3542ef

Please read into some of the facts associated with climate change...education can be a wonderful thing!

And The Nine...is you are going to speak about a political system, you should try understanding it first. The repuglicans will still be there after next year...just like the dummycrats never really left. You are naive if you think there is any real difference between the dummycrats and repuglicans. As for "President Clinton"...good lord...dont get me started on the concept of that bat getting in there. If there could ever be a worse selection for president - Hillary Clinton would be it.


I am not being naive. Possibly facitious. Same in Uk, everyone moving to the centre. Tories, labour. in U.S Democrats. Reps. Not much difference in terms of policy. I agree with you.

My point was not that the politics would change much. Simply that 'A' change gives everyone {everywhere} that chance to back down with pride. That is politics!!!

Bush is the most unpopular president in history!! Hes made the rich richer, the poor more poor. Even the red recks are sick of paying for it. How much support do the republicans have? The Uk paid back their WW2 debt last month. Do you think the 'special relationship' will be the same now?... As a brit i think not.

Maybe it is not that important who succeeds. Maybe just that the world has faith that " A " change means there is room for change. Dignity is restored.

Maybe I am just a simple Brit but I travel a fair bit and Bill Clinton has a big profile even now. he is respected as the most efficient president in history.

Put it this way, if A clinton stepped into the middle ast situation, do you think they would all act like they do now?

Mark my words here, plenty of western governments, including UK will be filtering money to the Demo's right now. The U.S got one big bang! F*** Me! We are sick off the fall out from their right wing fundemental behaviour.

Right wing Christians are as bad as fundemental Muslims.
C"mon!!!
Go to the top of the page
+
Swedeofile
post 9.Mar.2007, 07:12 PM
Post #7
Joined: 16.Jan.2005

The Nine
One fact you have incorrect there. Harry truman left office much more unpopular then mr Bush has even been. Just beacuse one s may not like him it is incorrect to mis-klead on facts.
Go to the top of the page
+
Ragin Cajun
post 9.Mar.2007, 07:26 PM
Post #8
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 9.Dec.2006

Don't forget Hoover... :oops:
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 9.Mar.2007, 07:55 PM
Post #9
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
Again, braderunner, your response is completely irrelevant to the thread and the link posted...
...lest we forget that the link does not WORK. I did not even notice your presumption of space lasers and weather machines...
QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
And, of course, you just choose to attack his solution to the problem rather than admit what we are talking about.

In short, you are just an opponent of a free flow of ideas when it comes to anything important, especially if it concerns your apparent masters.
I am certainly not an opponent of a free flow of ideas...unless they are based on bad logic. As for masters...ha...when it comes to my free thought and my "agenda" - I am subject to noone. I know that is your way of dismissing my comments (i.e. he MUST be a govt agent if he opposes me)

The Nine - I might have popped you a bit hard, but I agree that change is good under most circumstances. Changing to Hillary Clinton from George Bush...well...I think a choice like that has absolutely no positives to it. Any president coming in is going to have a lot to overcome...because he/she is American...simple as that...and there is a stigma.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Guest*
post 9.Mar.2007, 08:52 PM
Post #10


The usual crap from braderunner.

He is not willing to become a free subscriber to the NYT in order to access the story I linked, read what I actually claimed about it, is only willing to censor the ideas he seriously disagrees with, and is beholdened to no one, though all his posts agree to what America's covert government is attempting all along.

It is not some philosophical question of logic but what the warmongers in Washington are actually doing.

And it is not a question of your opposing me, but the evidence, aims, and concerns about what the USA's covert operators are attempting without any real opposition to what these paranoids are doing.

And, of course, you back away from your complaints about The Nine in order to gain support for your mindless efforts.
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 9.Mar.2007, 09:19 PM
Post #11
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
The usual crap from braderunner.

He is not willing to become a free subscriber to the NYT in order to access the story I linked, read what I actually claimed about it, is only willing to censor the ideas he seriously disagrees with, and is beholdened to no one, though all his posts agree to what America's covert government is attempting all along.
Trow - will you ever learn to cut and paste a friggin link? Goodness gracious...is "click" followed by "control+c" followed by "control+v" so hard?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/us/09polar.html is the proper link I think you were looking for...but I didnt see any mention of space lasers or man-made weather (sic) so I am not sure if that was the article you were referring.

You are up in arms because scientists were "ordered" not to speak on certain subjects?
QUOTE
The NASA administrator, Michael D. Griffin, ordered a review of policies, culminating in a decision that scientists could speak on science and policy as long as they did not say they spoke for the agency.
What is the big deal here? Scientists can have opinions but they cannot address these opinions as being the opinion of the agency - that is a good thing. Its called towing the party line. I see it all the time in my buisness. *I* think something is going to happen...I discuss it with the people in my group to ensure that we are all on the same page...and we issue an opinion as a group. My personal opinion is secondary to that of the group.

No black helicopters here...its good diplomatic sense.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Guest*
post 9.Mar.2007, 09:49 PM
Post #12


So, braderunnger, why didn't you make the proper connection rather than just engage in your usual obfuscations?

I have no interest in learning all the intracacies of linking and posting. I am just a messenger, not some kind of complete agent who explains it all to an unthinking audience.

And when one sees the link, one doesn't see any mention to what you refer to since it is all government censored.

And science should not just be a matter of party lines.

You are some flunkey, like LBJ, when it comes to teaching high school students about darwinism v. creation. The former President said he could teach it either way, and so can you.

And your reference to black helicopters is just more character assassination rather than dealing with the real issues!
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 9.Mar.2007, 10:25 PM
Post #13
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
So, braderunnger, why didn't you make the proper connection rather than just engage in your usual obfuscations?
That answer is easy Trow - you linked it incorrectly. You click your link...and its a page not found. Only after your mini-trowtrantrum did I log into NYT (I have had a membership there for quite some time) and had to search for something related to global warming/arctic things.

I dont get paid to do your research.
QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
I have no interest in learning all the intracacies of linking and posting. I am just a messenger, not some kind of complete agent who explains it all to an unthinking audience.
A messenger who cant deliver a message? How cute! Not sure how you expect to deliver a message if you cant link to the proper location.
QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
And when one sees the link, one doesn't see any mention to what you refer to since it is all government censored.
When they go to your link - you are correct - because your link is a dead-end. Now when you go to the link that I posted...you see crystal clear what as written...and by who.
QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
And science should not just be a matter of party lines.
Science is not on party lines. You seem to be missing a VERY important point when it comes to people that practice real science. I know its a new concept to you...but...you will have to bear with me. When one works for a govt agency, a company, or is part of an organization, there is an inherent responsibility to that agency, company, or organization on a basis of "party lines." It is important for, when you call one of the listed organizations, you get a common answer. How upsetting would it be to you if you called tech support for help with your computer and got a bunch of different answers based on what technical person you got?

Now, science based organizations cannot quote too many "laws" - but what they should quote are organizational theories about an incident - not someone's personal theory. Personal theories are the realm of independant consultants. Scientists in these organizations are allowed to have other opinions...they are just not permitted to broadcast them as the organization's opinions.
QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
You are some flunkey, like LBJ, when it comes to teaching high school students about darwinism v. creation. The former President said he could teach it either way, and so can you.

And your reference to black helicopters is just more character assassination rather than dealing with the real issues!
You talk about character assassination as if you are a victim...but you are the largest propagator of this on this site. I understand that its the only defense you have since you cannot debate me on a logical or scientific level. I acknowledge these flaws about you trow, and love you anyway - you make me laugh with your antics and I feel a kind of pity one feels when watching a toddler trying to feed himself...but only ends up wearing the food. You giggle...say "oh its so cute"...help clean up the mess and then help him or her eat all the while trying to guide him or her to be able to do it themselves.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Guest*
post 9.Mar.2007, 10:57 PM
Post #14


I don't know what your problem is, braderunner, but when I linked this, I got the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08polar.html

Are you suggesting that I have to crawl into your computer to make sure you get any message?

And the point of making the link is to demonstrate how hollow the government's total censorship of this most important matter - climate change, natural, coincidental or deliberately man-made - really is. Why all the censorship if it is really nothing usual? And science has little to do with logic.

And, regarding character assassination, remember you started it all with your denial that I was poisoned, apparently by the CIA, just to suit your apparent employers, and without any evidence to back up your contention.

And I shall not engage in any reciprocal hypocrisy by claiming that I love you too, as I certainly don't.
Go to the top of the page
+
Braderunner Rennuredarb
post 10.Mar.2007, 02:08 AM
Post #15
Location: Not in Sweden
Joined: 24.May.2005

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
I don't know what your problem is, braderunner, but when I linked this, I got the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08polar.html

Are you suggesting that I have to crawl into your computer to make sure you get any message?
Actually Trow - the first link you posted was http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/08polar.html

That is not what you posted this second time. I am sure you will blame that on the CIA or me... :roll:

Bottom line - learn to link
QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
And the point of making the link is to demonstrate how hollow the government's total censorship of this most important matter - climate change, natural, coincidental or deliberately man-made - really is. Why all the censorship if it is really nothing usual? And science has little to do with logic.
See Trow...this is why you get so owned in these discussions. You are so self-brainwashed that the govt is doing everything in their power to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about subjects that you have absolutely ZERO authority to speak on yourself. Science has a lot to do with logic - because you are developing theories, investigating facts, testing hypothesis. You should really try this thing called the scientific method. It is quite the different process than you use with you do your investigations: see something in the news; find a way to connect the govt to the action using cereal box science and paranoia; name drop a few 'inteligence agents'; claim you were a target of the CIA; claim that supporting information is censored; rinse and repeat. That about sums it up for you. Dont try to snow anyone on this board with scientific doubletalk...you will get burned.

Coming to censorship though...I love how you university types love to spout that you are being censored. Its the same card that a lot of other people who actually enjoy being victims play...Oh I am censored...Oh I am discriminated against...its the same crap.

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford)
And, regarding character assassination, remember you started it all with your denial that I was poisoned, apparently by the CIA, just to suit your apparent employers, and without any evidence to back up your contention.

And I shall not engage in any reciprocal hypocrisy by claiming that I love you too, as I certainly don't.
You were not poisoned by anyone of any importance who really wanted the job done. That is paranoia. The only proof I need is pointing at you. You are alive...hence you are not a target. Any "govt contacts" that say you were a target are likely keeping this going as a joke. I am half expecting a call from them wanting to buy me a drink for getting you so wound up and giving them something to laugh about.

In all honesty though...I do love you trow because you do make me laugh. I know you hate me. I know you want me to disappear. But you are a masochist...you keep coming back and getting beating after beating. Myself, Mike, and others repeatedly hand you your own butt...sometimes grilled to perfection...most times charred...and you keep coming back for more.

And I will keep dishing out.
Go to the top of the page
+

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: