Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
sometimes i think ace is a fiction invented by a trotskyist as a performance art piece.
|
Absolutely no one here has been lectured to by Roach more than me. No one will ever come close to my record. Know what I call that:
---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
Ace,
You keep sidetracking this discussion by demonizing the EPA.
|
I am not demonizing the EPA, I believe they have too much power. It is not their fault.
Quote:
|
We are talking about whether the GOP are smearing, misrepresenting and attacking science in this thread; not the reasons behind these actions. I'm participating in this discussion because I believe that such actions lead to poor, shortsighted and dangerous policies. I'm here with the pretense that ignorance of US government officials has ramifications for the entire world.
|
The problem to me seems to be in the mis-characterization of the legislation. I made that point, it is o.k. for the rest of you to go back to the GOP not accepting science narrative if you want.
Quote:
|
Ace, even though we disagree, I want to thank you for continuing to respond because our discussion has brought me tremendous insight and knowledge due to the amount of research I had to do in order to continue participating in this thread. I hope it has been a similar experience for you. Cheers!
|
I enjoy participating here, I enjoy reading the points of views held by others. I also, enjoy the challenge in doing additional work to support or defend my position. I have learned to take the responses directed at me with a sense of humor - I don't take it personal.
---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by urville
I speak only for myself here...
Your opinion/beliefs are not facts.
|
I pretty much know that. I try to seperate my opinions/beliefs from facts, if I have fail(ed) to do that, let me know.
Quote:
|
You are asking people a question, people have told you their opinion in a way i think everyone else agrees is understandable, your not agreeing with the answer and posing arguments at the same time you claim they dont address the actual question with a simple answer... I see an error there... and that you would move on if they did.
|
Why not give direct responses to direct questions, I don't understand the issue?
Quote:
You are in an argument claiming beliefs as your facts asking people not to argue with "you" but instead your "facts", even after your saying they arent answering your question. In a belief based argument you are as relevant as your facts since they are yours, and in this case, yours alone.
As I see it, you claim your beliefs as facts and as separate from you and yet acting like you cant understand why others dont acknowledge them as facts, all the WHILE you argue their facts as not being facts because they dont mesh with your beliefs(facts) and discarding them because its obvious they have "no real response to the substance of the argument". You have created a matrix of discussion and argument that it is impossible to be anything but you or someone who agrees with you in, so of course that supports your belief even further. "They must be scared to address my belief with any concrete proof (which i can easily dispel as untrue via my belief when they do, which they do) so this means I am certainly right." I call this the republican ring of truth. It can be whatever, change at any time, and morph at will and always be right because it can even dispel hard evidence, data, etc with beliefs and vague interpretations.
Again... thats how people argue it. Like that is what it is, because it is. You are your beliefs because your the sole believer. To argue your "facts" is to argue your "belief" and thusly "you".
|
In this thread I presented the summery of the legislation in question (fact), I gave my interpretation (opinion) and I laid out the premise that there was a mis-characterization of the legislation. All anyone had to do was explain their interpretation and/or explain how my interpretation is incorrect. It seems to me that anyone making the jump from reading the legislation to concluding the GOP does not accept science has taken much broader leaps in logic and reason than I have, yet no support has been provided and the point is argued as fact.
---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace....you refuse to acknowledge the facts and persist with the same old fallacious arguments and "what ifs".
The EPA has the sole authority and obligation to implement the intent of the Clean Air Act by developing and implementing regulations, including as the Supreme Court made clear, regulating CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
If you or the Republicans in Congress or the Koch brothers or any interested party believe that EPA has exceeded its legal authority, the proper remedy is through the federal judiciary, not through bogus legislation to nullify the Court's '07 decision by rejecting any science with which you disagree.
In much the same manner as interested parties successfully took the Bush EPA to court for willfully ignoring the intent of the Clean Air Act by not developing regulations.
Its called checks and balances, ace, through the judiciary, just as the framers of the Constitution intended. That is how you address the excessive use of power if it exists.
And that is how the system works, not by saying "Fuck You" to the EPA and the US Supreme Court with bogus legislation if you disagree with their actions.
---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------
It is a growing tactic of Republicans to attempt to circumvent or nullify court rulings they don't like though any means necessary rather than through the proper means to address an "alleged" excessive use of power by the executive branch.
In extreme cases, we are seeing Republicans calling for impeachment of judges, not for malfeasance, but simply because they disagree with a court's decision.
An appalling and willful ignorance of the rule of law.
|
The above is non-responsive.
For clarity, I never suggested the EPA is exceeding its legal authority. What I have stated, clearly, several times is that the EPA has too much power. In addition I fear abuse.
I understand the desire held by most here to want to go back to the - they don't accept science - narrative. It must be a wonder how conservatives make a cup of coffee. We are all the same, we all get the same talking points, we all think the same way, we are all extremist, etc., etc., That as a given, my response would be to encourage all conservatives to not take any critique or input from liberals seriously. You may think conservatives are being isolated more and more by the tactic on display here - to the contrary, if you step outside of your usual circles you will find the conservative message is gaining traction. Expect the non-science believers to be in the full position of setting the political agenda in 2012.