MarkusT123

Registered bored user

markust123 wrote:
5cats Your dishonesty is like a magnet that pulls me in. I don’t know why I can’t resist calling your misinformation and disinformation out. But every time I do, you just twist and turn and slither yourself in deeper. Our interactions definitely aren’t healthy. Everything else in my life is so good right now. It’s time to cut your toxic nature out of the picture. Take care, IAB.
markust123 wrote:
5cats Again you are confusing me calling out your misinformation as abuse. I’ve asked and you’ve never been able to show an example of me attacking you. If you don’t like people “attacking” you, all you have to do is start being a better person.
markust123 wrote:
What I have found is most people who start out a statement with "I'm not racist" are about to say something ignorantly racist.
markust123 wrote:
5cats Why are you counting regulations in the page count? The Republicans didn't do that with their tax bill.

I'm getting varying page numbers for the actual bill from 904 to 1900 to 2700 when it was introduced. We'll have to agree to disagree.

From what I can find they had weeks to read the bill. The House Bill was introduced on 9/17/2009. It was voted on by the House on 10/8/2009. That is 3 weeks the House had to read the bill. The text was updated and presented to the Senate on 11/19/2009. Senate vote was 12/24/2009. That is 5 weeks to read it after the House Version was passed and updated. The bill was published with the updated texts that same day. Then sent back to the House where it passed on 3/21/2010. I was in DC when it passed and was signed.
markust123 wrote:
5cats Daegog did not attack you first. Not one comment of his in this post was directed at you until YOU attacked him.
markust123 wrote:
johncourage I am so sorry to hear that. And I can see why the partisan world of politics would draw you in - it's an outlet for anger. But we have such little time on this planet. Wouldn't it be healthier to get away from the negative influences that are making you say the bigoted things above? Wouldn't it be better to go out and learn the good in people? A positive environment brings positive results.
markust123 wrote:
5cats As usual, you're arguing against something neither holygod or I is saying. There is only one God. The way man wrote the holy books is what is different. The rules man wrote for God is what is different. It is God who is infallible not man. The vast differences in religions shows how wrong man can be. We won't know which religion got what parts, if any, right until we die.
markust123 wrote:
holygod I don’t understand all the uproar over your comment. All three religions believe in one God. The people claiming the three religions are not worshiping the same deity are pretty much saying one of the religions is right and two are wrong. Also your Batman analogy was brilliant in its simplicity. It showed how it’s the same God, just written differently. I think the core of the resistance is a bigotry against Muslims and their faith. I bet if in a few days you say the Jewish God and the Christian God are the same, there won’t be an issue.
markust123 wrote:
monkwarrior Nothing I have heard you say leads me to believe you have the intellect or factual reasoning needed to be a scientist.
markust123 wrote:
5cats, "The "final Bill" was not presented until the evening before the vote. iirc 15000 pages? Could be off a bit."

A bit? The ACA was 906 pages when passed. You are off by 14,094. Also your statement that the final bill was "not presented until the evening before the vote" is not true. They had 72 hours to read the final bill. Which is still damn short but doable. The estimate of the amount of time needed to read the bill was 13 hours so there was time for congress or their staffers to read it before voting. A speed reader could do it in 2 - 3 hours. So yeah "O M G the lies" are yours.
markust123 wrote:
It was actually Trump's lawyer that wrote the tweet, which is worse - that is a man who should know better. Link
markust123 wrote:
5cats, "My source? You mean the Salon article itself? You know, the original source?"

The original source is not the 2001 Salon article. The original source is a 1988 interview with Bob Reiss. The Salon interview you are using is one where Bob Reiss accidentally misrepresented the timeline from his own interview with Hansen. You are using this misinformation from the Salon article as a straw man. Here's Jim Hansen explaining how the information is being misrepresented (First page, second to last paragraph). Don't just read the part in bold. Read the whole paragraph. If you still think you are right after reading it, read it again slower:

"Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book."
markust123 wrote:
5cats I’m not going to debate against you and your source’s straw man any more. Just re-read the comments. You thoroughly lost this one. Your inability to admit you are wrong is what you are fighting against. 
markust123 wrote:
5cats, “That's just so trivial.”

Of course you think it’s trivial that your source is arguing against a straw man, you do it all the time. You’re doing it right here in your comment saying it was Jim who has changed the date when it is your source that cut the timeline in half and left out the main part of the assumption Jim was asked, IF CO2 was doubled. Your whole post was a straw man argument. People don’t get upset with you because you are conservative. They get upset with you because you don’t debate honestly.
markust123 wrote:
5cats, "He was trying to 'prove' that I had done something wrong by posting something that was LATER recanted by the publisher. That doesn't 'disprove' what was said (although it is likely) and it doesn't 'make me a liar' for posting it before the correction."

As usual you are mixing all sorts of things up. This other AGW post of yours was the one that was not just recanted by the publisher, it was so inaccurate the Daily Mail had to add a government retraction. And this was not done "LATER", the retraction was already in when the post was approved. That is what everyone was bitching about in the comments of the post. The reason so many people were frustrated with you is your refusal to add a retraction to the post after it was found to be so blatantly wrong. How you are turning that into "it doesn't make me a liar" I don't know. What it makes you is ridiculously stubborn and void of morals. The levels you go to in your deception is fascinating.

The post here, that you are commenting in, has the timeline of an assumption cut down from the stated 40 years to 20 and it left out the assumption that CO2 will have doubled. The very guy you are bitching about me to (holygod) is the one that called you out on this.
markust123 wrote:
I'm listening to "Never Mind the Bollocks" on YouTube. This is one album that doesn't sound worse coming out of laptop speakers. The Sex Pistols rule! What I love best is they are such punks they would hate most of the people who listen to them.
markust123 wrote:
It's terrifying that the President of the United States starts every day with 2 1/2 hours of us-against-them partisan propaganda. He is being keep in a constant state of anger and hatred against half of the very citizens he is supposed to be protecting.
markust123 wrote:
monkwarrior It also entails getting rid of all personal possessions - like computers. But modern "monks" like yourself ignore this part and spend massive amounts of senseless hours on the internet, making obvious troll statements like the one that started this thread, that everyone ignored because it was so trolly. Wouldn't this energy be better spent devoting yourself more to God? I can imagine the conversation you're going to have when you die and you have to explain your blatant hypocrisy.
markust123 wrote:
johncourage So the self-proclaimed nazi's marching in Charlotte were liberals who supported Trump? And the counter protesters against these liberals were also liberals?
markust123 wrote:
The FCC will just use this to falsely say all the angry emails are fake. Net Neutrality needs to stay. Just as our planet would come together during an alien invasion, conservatives, liberals, and independents need to come together to fight the alien views of the FCC. If not, then prepare to welcome our new Comcast overlords.
markust123 wrote:
138 Reagan administration officials were investigated, indicted, or convicted, the largest for any US president. Trump always needs to win. He is well on his way.
markust123 wrote:
boredhuman, “What did you think about electric cars? I thought the post was relatively well researched.”

It made me think we should build the batteries here in Washington state where we have hydroelectricity.

boredhuman “I've asked 5cats what would help make it a fruitful discussion on complicated/contested topics.”

My answer is pretty simple - everyone just needs to keep their emotions in check. Although that’s a little hypocritical for me to say as I let 5cats get to me in this thread and swore at him.

markust123 wrote:
waldo863 I thought of my grandfather as Superman but it sounds like yours really was.
markust123 wrote:
The us-against-them political side of the internet is seeping in bullshit. Whether you are a liberal or a conservative, if you watch partisan cable news, read partisan blogs, visit partisan "news" sites, etc, you are allowing yourself to be lied to. They call it spin but spinning something so much that it no longer represents the whole truth is a lie. No matter how smart you are a human brain is defenseless against repetition, especially when a trusted source is repeating the spin. I had a liberal friend spouting off on Facebook how Ted Nugent had verbally attacked all Indians, when in fact he was attacking an individual. Ted adopted native American attire for his shows. He loves native Americans. But no matter how many fact checking sites I showed this guy and no matter how much I tried, I could not get him to change his mind because the lie had taken hold. I hated using Ted Nugent as an example because he is one of the biggest spreaders of misinformation out there, but I did it because I wanted to see if I could get someone who is on my side to change their mind when presented with facts and the truth. Sadly, I could not. And I really really, tried. The cold hard fact is if you are in the world of partisan politics you are allowing yourself to be lied to and you yourself start spreading the lies further. By being in that world a person is literally making themselves dishonest. There's no other way to put it. It is a horrible, negative place to be. Within days of giving it up you will see your mood increase tenfold.
markust123 wrote:
All I'm saying is if you have to wear a shirt that shouts, NOT GAY...