I don't like tyrants tyrannizing anybody and I'm not a fan of monarchies or direct democracy for that matter. Just showing an alternate view of the typical 90% red map and the fact 'Murica is far more liberal than manythink.UNI88 wrote:And if the majority tyrannizing the minority was ok nobody would have left England.kalm wrote:
I have no problem giving you credit for posting a map that shows a different and valid perspective of the country. But was it created for that purpose or to help further the attacks on the Electoral College and Senate? Those are two very important bulwarks against tyranny of the majority. My response wasn't aimed at you but to question the original purpose of the map.kalm wrote:I don't like tyrants tyrannizing anybody and I'm not a fan of monarchies or direct democracy for that matter. Just showing an alternate view of the typical 90% red map and the fact 'Murica is far more liberal than manythink.UNI88 wrote:And if the majority tyrannizing the minority was ok nobody would have left England.
Don't let it frighten and confuse you.
This is why the design of the Senate and the House is brilliant...UNI88 wrote:I have no problem giving you credit for posting a map that shows a different and valid perspective of the country. But was it created for that purpose or to help further the attacks on the Electoral College and Senate? Those are two very important bulwarks against tyranny of the majority. My response wasn't aimed at you but to question the original purpose of the map.kalm wrote:
I don't like tyrants tyrannizing anybody and I'm not a fan of monarchies or direct democracy for that matter. Just showing an alternate view of the typical 90% red map and the fact 'Murica is far more liberal than manythink.
Don't let it frighten and confuse you.
Why are JSO and other Donks so up in arms about Trump weakening the foundations/institutions of our republic (such as the Justice Department) but supportive of attacks on foundations/institutions such as the Electoral College and Senate? Why are Trumpists ok with the opposite? Is ironic, hypocritical or both?
The Founding Fathers were either geniuses or the luckiest men alive because the system they designed is absolutely brilliant and the people who want to muck around with it can't see the forest for the trees and don't understand the law of unintended consequences.Chizzang wrote:This is why the design of the Senate and the House is brilliant...UNI88 wrote:I have no problem giving you credit for posting a map that shows a different and valid perspective of the country. But was it created for that purpose or to help further the attacks on the Electoral College and Senate? Those are two very important bulwarks against tyranny of the majority. My response wasn't aimed at you but to question the original purpose of the map.
Why are JSO and other Donks so up in arms about Trump weakening the foundations/institutions of our republic (such as the Justice Department) but supportive of attacks on foundations/institutions such as the Electoral College and Senate? Why are Trumpists ok with the opposite? Is it ironic, hypocritical or both?
The population majority of liberals will get control of the house
and the right will control the Senate
glorious ! and as it should be frankly
I don't know, I didn't create it, and that's not why I posted it. I think your concerns are valid and beg for an expanded discussion.UNI88 wrote:I have no problem giving you credit for posting a map that shows a different and valid perspective of the country. But was it created for that purpose or to help further the attacks on the Electoral College and Senate? Those are two very important bulwarks against tyranny of the majority. My response wasn't aimed at you but to question the original purpose of the map.kalm wrote:
I don't like tyrants tyrannizing anybody and I'm not a fan of monarchies or direct democracy for that matter. Just showing an alternate view of the typical 90% red map and the fact 'Murica is far more liberal than manythink.
Don't let it frighten and confuse you.
Why are JSO and other Donks so up in arms about Trump weakening the foundations/institutions of our republic (such as the Justice Department) but supportive of attacks on foundations/institutions such as the Electoral College and Senate? Why are Trumpists ok with the opposite? Is ironic, hypocritical or both?
+6.93UNI88 wrote:The Founding Fathers were either geniuses or the luckiest men alive because the system they designed is absolutely brilliant and the people who want to muck around with it can't see the forest for the trees and don't understand the law of unintended consequences.Chizzang wrote:
This is why the design of the Senate and the House is brilliant...
The population majority of liberals will get control of the house
and the right will control the Senate
glorious ! and as it should be frankly
Classic!Baldy wrote:Not political, but
I know it’s a highchair, but if you look straight at it, it looks like a cartoon duck.Baldy wrote:
Yeah I bet youre a hoot on them Rorschach testsIvytalk wrote:I know it’s a highchair, but if you look straight at it, it looks like a cartoon duck.Baldy wrote:
Or Squidward.Ivytalk wrote:I know it’s a highchair, but if you look straight at it, it looks like a cartoon duck.Baldy wrote:
Why do we need a legal definition? Limited government and such...Baldy wrote:NOT the Onion.
That doesn't sound very sciency.
We absolutely do not need a legal definition. However, that isn't the point.kalm wrote:Why do we need a legal definition? Limited government and such...Baldy wrote:NOT the Onion.
That doesn't sound very sciency.
Did you read the article?Baldy wrote:NOT the Onion.
That doesn't sound very sciency.
Yes. The Tweet is still stupid.Skjellyfetti wrote:Did you read the article?Baldy wrote:NOT the Onion.
That doesn't sound very sciency.
People are trying to crimanlize Global warming skepticism?Baldy wrote:We absolutely do not need a legal definition. However, that isn't the point.kalm wrote:
Why do we need a legal definition? Limited government and such...
We have the so-called science crowd denying basic evolutionary biology. These are the same set of people (not all of course) who want to criminalize skepticism of man-made global warming.
This is the kind of shit that makes you wanna jab an ice pick through your skull...
Scientists are doing this? Yes. Disturbing, isn't it?kalm wrote:People are trying to crimanlize Global warming skepticism?Baldy wrote: We absolutely do not need a legal definition. However, that isn't the point.
We have the so-called science crowd denying basic evolutionary biology. These are the same set of people (not all of course) who want to criminalize skepticism of man-made global warming.
This is the kind of shit that makes you wanna jab an ice pick through your skull...
Now these "same" people want to deny the very basic proven science of evolutionary biology. Strange.The following is the text of a letter written by a number of scientists asking for a federal investigation of climate science denial under the RICO statute.
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
September 1, 2015
Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,
As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.
Baldy, your gonna love this...Baldy wrote:Yes. Disturbing, isn't it?kalm wrote:
People are trying to crimanlize Global warming skepticism?
Letter To President Obama: Investigate Deniers Under RICO
Now these "same" people want to deny the very basic proven science of evolutionary biology. Strange.The following is the text of a letter written by a number of scientists asking for a federal investigation of climate science denial under the RICO statute.
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
September 1, 2015
Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,
As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.
.The sheer craziness of the papers the authors concocted makes this fact all the more shocking. One of their papers reads like a straightforward riff on the Sokal Hoax. Dismissing “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, it makes a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology—or practice interpretative dance—instead:
Other means superior to the natural sciences exist to extract alternative knowledges about stars and enriching astronomy, including ethnography and other social science methodologies, careful examination of the intersection of extant astrologies from around the globe, incorporation of mythological narratives and modern feminist analysis of them, feminist interpretative dance (especially with regard to the movements of the stars and their astrological significance), and direct application of feminist and postcolonial discourses concerning alternative knowledges and cultural narratives.
The paper that was published in Gender, Place and Culture seems downright silly. “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon” claims to be based on in situ observation of canine rape culture in a Portland dog park. “Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?” the paper asks
kalm wrote:Baldy, your gonna love this...Baldy wrote: Yes. Disturbing, isn't it?
Letter To President Obama: Investigate Deniers Under RICO
Now these "same" people want to deny the very basic proven science of evolutionary biology. Strange.
.The sheer craziness of the papers the authors concocted makes this fact all the more shocking. One of their papers reads like a straightforward riff on the Sokal Hoax. Dismissing “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, it makes a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology—or practice interpretative dance—instead:
Other means superior to the natural sciences exist to extract alternative knowledges about stars and enriching astronomy, including ethnography and other social science methodologies, careful examination of the intersection of extant astrologies from around the globe, incorporation of mythological narratives and modern feminist analysis of them, feminist interpretative dance (especially with regard to the movements of the stars and their astrological significance), and direct application of feminist and postcolonial discourses concerning alternative knowledges and cultural narratives.
The paper that was published in Gender, Place and Culture seems downright silly. “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon” claims to be based on in situ observation of canine rape culture in a Portland dog park. “Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?” the paper asks
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatl ... le/572212/
No, numbnut....libs. Try and keep up.kalm wrote:People are trying to crimanlize Global warming skepticism?Baldy wrote: We absolutely do not need a legal definition. However, that isn't the point.
We have the so-called science crowd denying basic evolutionary biology. These are the same set of people (not all of course) who want to criminalize skepticism of man-made global warming.
This is the kind of shit that makes you wanna jab an ice pick through your skull...
Turn up your sarcasm detector, dork.AZGrizFan wrote:No, numbnut....libs. Try and keep up.kalm wrote:
People are trying to crimanlize Global warming skepticism?
Fixed it for you.kalm wrote:Turn up your sarcasm detector, dork.AZGrizFan wrote:
No, numbnut....libs. Try and keep up.
Besides Baldy provided some evidence that scientists are indeed doing it and so did I..ball licker.
