Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 80 of 80
  1. #71  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    if you had the audacity to so blatantly and purposefully "argue" (if one can call it that) in such bad faith within MY reach, you bet your ass i would call you a liar 'within your reach'.
    Doubtful. Your courage doesn't extend beyond your monitor.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    heh - i stand by those quotes. they express no such sentiment, that either I or science, are infallible. not even close.

    not all of science is controversial, or debatable.

    those quotes in question were over such an issue - the definition of scientific theory. sonnabend's misunderstanding of the term was as absurd and on par with such absurdities as claiming the moon is made of green cheese. one is right to point out his misunderstanding with confidence - no infallibility required (or claimed).
    More like insufferable arrogance than confidence. But wait, there's more. You claim that you expressed "nothing but skepticism" about cap and trade as a solution to global warming?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    you must not realize.

    c&t is a general regulatory strategy... not a specific policy initiative aimed at global warming. c&t policies are in effect for all kinds of pollutants around the country, and provide a nice alternative to other types of regulatory mechanisms - such as straight up fines, or creation of new crimes. they seem to work well in some cases, not so well in others.

    i expressed nothing but skepticism when it came to c&t as applied to global warming. i made it * abundantly* clear, that i wasn't endorsing the latest particular c&t bill aimed at c02, but was simply talking about the general regulatory strategy of c&t.

    you claimed i supported c&t in response to global warming. the quoted bits clearly did not show that. the thread you pulled them from clearly did not show that.
    [/QUOTE]

    Now who's lying? In fact, you expressed skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse, but you were quite happy to use it in relation to global warming. In your own words:

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Well, if you look back, I have been reluctant to support any particular C&T proposal to respond to global warming. The types of problems raised by some of the links ( the stuff about Goldman Sachs, especially) would cause problems for me. It may be that any such proposal for something as large as oil is doomed to fall to such corruption and greed, etc... but I'm not ready to write of the concept of C&T - if you have better ideas that can seriously address the issue of AGW, I'm all ears (lets get past the denial already;))
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Oh I got it, Nubs, believe me. You are right, there is no shortage of fossil fuel... but that over-abundance of fossil fuels creates a shortage of atmosphere with healthy levels of C02. The market has not adjusted to account for that shortage, for a number of reasons. So, an honest and well designed C&T policy should correct the artificial over-abundance of atmosphere with healthy levels of C02. Its that artificial abundance that drives prices lower than the should be, and kills demand for innovative, clean alternative energy sources.
    Sounds like you're endorsing cap and trade to me. Anyone else get that impression? And if you're not endorsing it, then, you don't feel that it is a good thing to make carbon more expensive, in order to promote greater efficiency in carbon reductions (the purpose of cap and trade)? Again, from your own posts in the same thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Yes, some will - but its not the government. The hope is, that carbon efficient businesses will profit the most... thats the whole idea. Prices do get raised, which then creates a demand for carbon efficiency... There is no demand for it now, because market forces don't always act rationally in response to long term threats.
    Now, in that last paragraph, you explicitly state that you want price manipulation in order to ration carbon emissions. This is exactly what you claimed you didn't want in the post above.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    as should be obvious by now, you distorted and misrepresented my position to an absurd - *absurd* - degree.

    the term liar is also commonly used when people fucking lie.
    Except that what is obvious is that everything that I said about your position on cap and trade is not only true, but based entirely on your own statements. In short, Wilbur, you're lying about something that is easily verified, namely your own words. And you've got the nerve to call me a liar?

    Game, set and match, Wilbur. You lose.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Senior Member hampshirebrit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    TehYuk
    Posts
    3,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Game, set and match, Wilbur. You lose.
    Wilbur, either you cede (you lose) or you do not, and if not, this should be made a dome thread. It's Christmas, so god knows we could use the entertainment.

    Forgive me asking, but it's starting to look a lot like a Wilbur/Ody grudge-fest, one that belongs in the dome.

    Up to both of you, obviously, but let me know.
    20010911
    nie vergessen, nie verzeihen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Senior Member Zathras's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    6,275
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Game, set and match, Wilbur. You lose.
    Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,078
    Ody rules!
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Un-fucking-believable. Notice how Ody doesnt actually link to the threads in question... nor does he include whole posts.

    Perhaps if he did, it wouldn't work out so well for his misrepresentations and false accusations. Perhaps if he did, it would be obvious that he lies.

    Here's the link, in case anyone cares to see what a dishonest hack he really is.

    http://www.conservativeunderground.c...ght=government

    And here is the major disclaimer posted on my last entry in that thread, which he carefully copied and pasted around, when selecting tid bits for this thread.

    Well, I'll readily admit I don't fully understand what a cap & trade system would to the economy - since I really only know the basics of what the policy is meant to accomplish, but have no knowledge of the details of any particular proposals out there. None of my comments were really aimed at any particular counter-measure, but were more about principle.

    I will say that I agree with the sorts of economic policies, when implemented correctly and reasonably, that require producers to bear the burden of the externalities that they generate - there's nothing wrong with making sure a business pays for its true cost of doing business.
    Game, set, match? Keep dreaming.

    I invite everyone to read the thread in question....
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-11-2010 at 10:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Here's another "gotcha" quote that Ody tried to use:

    Yes, some will - but its not the government. The hope is, that carbon efficient businesses will profit the most... thats the whole idea. Prices do get raised, which then creates a demand for carbon efficiency... There is no demand for it now, because market forces don't always act rationally in response to long term threats.
    But here is what it was responding too:

    Originally Posted by Loogie
    Cap and trade is simply a tax in disguise. The end result, no matter how cleverly the program is organized, is that the people pay more for everything...and some will profit from this "non-tax."
    Ody dishonestly tries to make it look like I'm endorsing a particular c&t policy, when in fact, I am trying to honestly present the rationale behind it - as applied to global warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,078
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Un-fucking-believable. Notice how Ody doesnt actually link to the threads in question... nor does he include whole posts.

    Perhaps if he did, it wouldn't work out so well for his misrepresentations and false accusations. Perhaps if he did, it would be obvious that he lies.

    Here's the link, in case anyone cares to see what a dishonest hack he really is.

    http://www.conservativeunderground.c...ght=government

    And here is the major disclaimer posted on my last entry in that thread, which he carefully copied and pasted around, when selecting tid bits for this thread.



    Game, set, match? Keep dreaming.

    I invite everyone to read the thread in question....
    Poor Wilbur, you feel left out so here is one for you.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Un-fucking-believable. Notice how Ody doesnt actually link to the threads in question... nor does he include whole posts.
    Un-F***ing-believable. Wilbur doesn't know that the little arrow next to the quote tag is a link to the post. I guess we know what your BS in computer science really stands for, don't we?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Perhaps if he did, it wouldn't work out so well for his misrepresentations and false accusations. Perhaps if he did, it would be obvious that he lies.

    Here's the link, in case anyone cares to see what a dishonest hack he really is.

    http://www.conservativeunderground.c...ght=government

    And here is the major disclaimer posted on my last entry in that thread, which he carefully copied and pasted around, when selecting tid bits for this thread.
    Copied and pasted around? Oh please...

    Here is what I said:
    Now who's lying? In fact, you expressed skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse, but you were quite happy to use it in relation to global warming. In your own words:
    Now, let's place the whole quote there, and see if it changes the meaning:

    Well, I'll readily admit I don't fully understand what a cap & trade system would [do] to the economy - since I really only know the basics of what the policy is meant to accomplish, but have no knowledge of the details of any particular proposals out there. None of my comments were really aimed at any particular counter-measure, but were more about principle.

    I will say that I agree with the sorts of economic policies, when implemented correctly and reasonably, that require producers to bear the burden of the externalities that they generate - there's nothing wrong with making sure a business pays for its true cost of doing business.
    Do you, as I said, express skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse? Do you, in fact, state that you agree with cap and trade in principle? Yes, and yes. Am I lying when I point this out? Only if you consider the definition of a lie to be anything that makes Wilbur look like more of a tool than anyone ought to be allowed to be.

    Game, set, match? Keep dreaming.

    I invite everyone to read the thread in question....
    Yes, by all means, please, everyone read the thread in question. Here is the link again, in case anyone has as much trouble with the little arrow thingies as Wilbur, our resident computer scientist, does: http://www.conservativeunderground.c...reply&p=344439
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Do you, as I said, express skepticism only about which version of cap and trade you'd endorse?
    and this is where you are wrong. there *may not be* any possible properly-conceived, well-functioning c&t policity initiative that can work well for global warming. the resounding message from me, in that thread, was that c&t has worked for other things - it *could* work for global warming, but with an obvious "i'm not sure" addendum.

    and EVEN SO, this is all besides the point. you tried (and failed) to make a case that i had some suspiciuosly marxist leanings. my argument for c&t was one of your cited evidences.

    well, the other take home message from me in the thread in question, is that c&t style policies are free-market preserving, when they work. can you spot the marxism in that argument? no?! didnt think so.

    so again, its absurd and unwarranted to even suggest that i have any marxist leanings, based on the issues i've posted about on this board.

    game. set. match (again) - as they say...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    and this is where you are wrong. there *may not be* any possible properly-conceived, well-functioning c&t policity initiative that can work well for global warming. the resounding message from me, in that thread, was that c&t has worked for other things - it *could* work for global warming, but with an obvious "i'm not sure" addendum.
    You are quibbling. I said that you favored cap and trade in principle. You do. Your skepticism was confined to which version would be applied. Again, in your own words:
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I see two separate issues. They are below, and here is where I stand:

    1) Are the principles of C&T, generally speaking,, sound principles?
    - Yes, absolutely they are. They aren't central planning. They are very minimally regulatory (in theory), and very much within the spirit of free market economics.

    2) Is C&T plan X as proposed by Y a good policy?
    - Not sure, maybe I'll figure it out soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    and EVEN SO, this is all besides the point. you tried (and failed) to make a case that i had some suspiciuosly marxist leanings. my argument for c&t was one of your cited evidences.
    No, I said that one could construe that you had leftist leanings because you favored a number of policies which were normally associated with, well, leftists. Your repetition of science as a mantra was evocative of arguments that Marxists routinely make, and that your support of cap and trade was, in the context of Global Warming, a position that was consistent with Marxists and socialists of every stripe. You singled out cap and trade as proof of your free market leanings, when, in this case, it is in support of a power grab that would have made Marx giggle like a schoolgirl. As I said several times, it doesn't make you a Marxist, but it does make it difficult to take your claims of being a free marketeer seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    well, the other take home message from me in the thread in question, is that c&t style policies are free-market preserving, when they work. can you spot the marxism in that argument? no?! didnt think so.

    so again, its absurd and unwarranted to even suggest that i have any marxist leanings, based on the issues i've posted about on this board.
    Once again, I didn't call you a Marxist, I said that those who read only what you wrote here could reasonably construe to you be a leftist. And, in the context of Global Warming, the cap and trade policies under discussion are specifically meant to increase government control over the economy. By allowing government to set carbon values, and to regulate its production, even picking winners and losers by allocating carbon, you are allowing government to take de facto control of whole segments of the economy, while allowing business owners to retain titular ownership, which is a halmark, not of Marxism, but of fascism. Now, I will explicitly make the point that I am not calling you, or even implying, that you are a fascist, although I am sure that you will hysterically make the claim that I am, but I digress. My original point, which you derided, was that you are on the left of many issues, and that those of us who have had the displeasure of repeated contact with you have come to the conclusion that you are a leftist, and that a simple statement of where you stand on most issues would put this to rest. However, since it's obvious that you would rather complain that we don't understand you, rather than simply come out and comprehensively explain yourself, you have no one to blame but yourself when we assume that you are what you appear to be. As you so ably put it (when you quoted me):

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    game. set. match (again) - as they say...
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •