Obama's Socialist Agenda Exposed

cannabineer said:

Atomic weight of carbon: 12 (precisely 12.0107) grams per gram-atom
Molecular weight of oxygen: 32 (precisely 31.9988 grams per mole)
They combine to yield carbon dioxide, m.w. 44, precisely 44.01. So 44/12 is three and two/thirds. Yes; an eleven-thirds proportion factor (precisely 3.6642) needs to be applied.
Not too long ago, i had a pleasant debate with you about internal combustion. I would have been shocked to know that this fact wasn't readily at hand to you. cn

Click to expand...

this does not make sense to me at all.

one mole of carbon weighs 12 grams, and one mole of 0xygen weighs 16 grams?

thats just crazy talk. im calling bullshit on science, yes, all you motherfuckers! Rabble Rabble Rabble!!

i still dont believe the UN climate preacher's numbers. they pulled too many rabbits out of their hat from me to accept their wacky claims.

you got more science than i do obviously, so i gotta ask, do you believe their global warming theories?

i got a decent grounding in science in high school but that was more than 20 years ago, and i never bothered memorizing the periodic table and all that stuff. most of what o know comes from personal experience and being a voracious reader (but not of chemistry or physics) in my world rocks sink and gasses float, thats always been good enough for me. turns out rocks are lighter than gasses, thats kinda fucked up.

Dr Kynes said:

View attachment 2260044

this does not make sense to me at all.

one mole of carbon weighs 12 grams, and one mole of 0xygen weighs 16 grams?

thats just crazy talk. im calling bullshit on science, yes, all you motherfuckers! Rabble Rabble Rabble!!

i still dont believe the UN climate preacher's numbers. they pulled too many rabbits out of their hat from me to accept their wacky claims.

you got more science than i do obviously, so i gotta ask, do you believe their global warming theories?

Click to expand...

I consider anthropogenic global warming to be very very possible, but I don't think certainly throttling our economy in order to satisfy a maybe-disaster is the path I would choose. (Especially unilaterally. Why hand China our economic head on a platter ... again!) This is a very tough one for me, since the consequences are so serious. That said, the current projections based on modeling indict themselves with the sheer breadth of their outcomes. So i think being careful with carbon emissions is wise just on general principle, but I'm not about to buy Gore's book either. He embodies strident policy based on questionable science to me, just as "intelligent design" is the poster child for the otherwingers' pathological science. Bwdik!! cn

<edit> Technically, elements are measured in gram-atoms, not moles, but the principle is the same. Avogadro's Number is the number of atoms in a gram-atom, and molecules in a mole. Since oxygen is present as dioxygen, its atomic weight is 16 but its molecular weight is 32, if you'll forgive the .07% inaccuracy.

Classic Socialist agenda....It's that Simple.
Big Brother knows best.
What's your Liberty's and Freedom worth?

Take a look around you...Wait, try looking up sometimes. Your being watched.

cannabineer said:

I consider anthropogenic global warming to be very very possible, but I don't think certainly throttling our economy in order to satisfy a maybe-disaster is the path I would choose. (Especially unilaterally. Why hand China our economic head on a platter ... again!) This is a very tough one for me, since the consequences are so serious. That said, the current projections based on modeling indict themselves with the sheer breadth of their outcomes. So i think being careful with carbon emissions is wise just on general principle, but I'm not about to buy Gore's book either. He embodies strident policy based on questionable science to me, just as "intelligent design" is the poster child for the otherwingers' pathological science. Bwdik!! cn

<edit> Technically, elements are measured in gram-atoms, not moles, but the principle is the same. Avogadro's Number is the number of atoms in a gram-atom, and molecules in a mole. Since oxygen is present as dioxygen, its atomic weight is 16 but its molecular weight is 32, if you'll forgive the .07% inaccuracy.

Click to expand...

when i was in school it was moles for everything, 1 mole of carbon weighed this, one mole of zinc weighed that, and one mole of h20 weight somethin else.

thats why i split the o2 into just plain o, as one mole of carbon takes two moles of oxygen to make 3 moles of co2 i dont think i ever heard the term gram-atom before, even though i was in school in the 70's when metric was the order of the day. but then, rural and inner city schools rarely get the best books or teachers. or i might have been high that day.

Ringsixty said:

Classic Socialist agenda....It's that Simple.
Big Brother knows best.
What's your Liberty's and Freedom worth?

Take a look around you...Wait, try looking up sometimes. Your being watched.

Click to expand...

Democrats and Republicans have successfully changed the definitions of socialism and libertarianism . If you look at any socialist party platform, whether they be green party or democratic socialists, you'll find that none of them support invading your privacy. They want to repeal the Patriot Act. They don't support an escalation of the police state. There's really nothing classic about it.

Just like how the talking heads on the left have successfully convinced their listeners that libertarians are a bunch racists who want to sell off our public services to the highest bidder.

This way we can stick with our respective parties and bicker over conspiracy theories when in reality, each party is exercising the same brand of fascism over us all.

bedspirit said:

Democrats and Republicans have successfully changed the definitions of socialism and libertarianism . If you look at any socialist party platform, whether they be green party or democratic socialists, you'll find that none of them support invading your privacy. They want to repeal the Patriot Act. They don't support an escalation of the police state. There's really nothing classic about it.

Just like how the talking heads on the left have successfully convinced their listeners that libertarians are a bunch racists who want to sell off our public services to the highest bidder.

This way we can stick with our respective parties and bicker over conspiracy theories when in reality, each party is exercising the same brand of fascism over us all.

Click to expand...

Should I say it again? there is no symetry, there is no yin, yang mirror image between left and right.

canndo said:

Should I say it again? there is no symetry, there is no yin, yang mirror image between left and right.

Click to expand...

Your avi fits that post magnificently. cn

canndo said:

Should I say it again? there is no symetry, there is no yin, yang mirror image between left and right.

Click to expand...

Please do say it again. I skimmed through this thread and I'm not sure when you said it the first time. I say each side is misleading it's constituents. You're saying that's not the case. So are you saying that only one side misleads the public while the other only delivers the gospel truth?

I hate to screw up your analogy, but I wouldn't define one side as yin and the other as yang. They are only yang. They're on the same side. their success has been convincing you that they're not on the same side.

EDIT: Maybe that's what you were saying too. I guess that's the beauty of short cryptic comments.

bedspirit said:

Please do say it again. I skimmed through this thread and I'm not sure when you said it the first time. I say each side is misleading it's constituents. You're saying that's not the case. So are you saying that only one side misleads the public while the other only delivers the gospel truth?

I hate to screw up your analogy, but I wouldn't define one side as yin and the other as yang. They are only yang. They're on the same side. their success has been convincing you that they're not on the same side.

Click to expand...

I am not claiming that one side only delivers the gospel truth. I am claiming that due to the sociological nature of the different sides that the right is more prone to offer the public a wildly distorted perception while the left far less so. It is easy to say "oh they both do it, so why should I beleieve anyone" but that would be lazy thinking. The left consistantly presents information more in tuen with reality than does the right. For instance, I have been talking about the rightist echo chamber where opinions are injected into the public debate and then bounced around from rightist source to rightist source finally to become common wisdom or common "fact". This occurs far less often on the left. The right depends upon general agreement or consensus, they cannot tolerate thoughts that do not conform to the generaly accepted norm and so they will naturaly tend to distort.

canndo said:

I am not claiming that one side only delivers the gospel truth. I am claiming that due to the sociological nature of the different sides that the right is more prone to offer the public a wildly distorted perception while the left far less so. It is easy to say "oh they both do it, so why should I beleieve anyone" but that would be lazy thinking. The left consistantly presents information more in tuen with reality than does the right. For instance, I have been talking about the rightist echo chamber where opinions are injected into the public debate and then bounced around from rightist source to rightist source finally to become common wisdom or common "fact". This occurs far less often on the left. The right depends upon general agreement or consensus, they cannot tolerate thoughts that do not conform to the generaly accepted norm and so they will naturaly tend to distort.

Click to expand...

That seems consistent with my take on right wing media.

At the moment, I see the left behaving in a way that counters their rhetoric. We've got an SEC that won't prosecute fraud and, in fact, participates in it. We have a continuation of an aggressive foreign policy. The Patriot Act got renewed under Obama. We're still fighting a drug war that does more harm than good. Monstanto still appears to be running the FDA. We're currently hammering out a trade deal, the TPP, that makes Bush's CAFTA look liberal. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was critical of each one of these issues, but now that he's running the country he's caved on each issue.

Despite the truth you hear on the left, very few of them actually practice what they preach.

bedspirit said:

That seems consistent with my take on right wing media.

At the moment, I see the left behaving in a way that counters their rhetoric. We've got an SEC that won't prosecute fraud and, in fact, participates in it. We have a continuation of an aggressive foreign policy. The Patriot Act got renewed under Obama. We're still fighting a drug war that does more harm than good. Monstanto still appears to be running the FDA. We're currently hammering out a trade deal, the TPP, that makes Bush's CAFTA look liberal. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was critical of each one of these issues, but now that he's running the country he's caved on each issue.

Despite the truth you hear on the left, very few of them actually practice what they preach.

Click to expand...

And you heard all this ....where?

ChesusRice said:

And you heard all this ....where?

Click to expand...

LMAO What's the matter, MSNBC hiding shit from you?

bedspirit said:

That seems consistent with my take on right wing media.

At the moment, I see the left behaving in a way that counters their rhetoric. We've got an SEC that won't prosecute fraud and, in fact, participates in it. We have a continuation of an aggressive foreign policy. The Patriot Act got renewed under Obama. We're still fighting a drug war that does more harm than good. Monstanto still appears to be running the FDA. We're currently hammering out a trade deal, the TPP, that makes Bush's CAFTA look liberal. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was critical of each one of these issues, but now that he's running the country he's caved on each issue.

Despite the truth you hear on the left, very few of them actually practice what they preach.

Click to expand...

We see a near perfect execution of obstructionism from our friends on the right, even obstructing things they professed to believe in or embrace, as was stated, the affordable care law was spawned by the rightist Heritage foundation who now disavows it but won't cede the fact that they originaly proposed it. We see our country being held hostage, by way of the debt ceiling by the right and we know that it is well stated that Obama is to be rendered ineffective and a one term president - at all costs, including the costs to the economy and security of our nation. I doubt you can offer examples of this eminating from the left.

canndo said:

We see our country being held hostage, by way of the debt ceiling by the right

Click to expand...

How in the hell can you claim only the right is holding the country hostage when the left refuses to bend an inch, I say they are both guilty of using politics over the people.

beenthere said:

How in the hell can you claim only the right is holding the country hostage when the left refuses to bend an inch, I say they are both guilty of using politics over the people.

Click to expand...

Not an inch? really? They made consessions in tax breaks and unemployment benifits in order to move the rightists. The left constantly bends, the only compromise the right sees is "do it my way". Now beyond that, was it you who claims that one side doing it is not justification for the other doing the same? I noticed that you edited out my mention of obstructionism from my quote there beenthere. Can't address that now can you. I said the two sides were not equivelent and they are not, the right is ideologicaly driven, the left is not. They would rather see this country go up in flames than see Obama gain another term.

canndo said:

We see a near perfect execution of obstructionism from our friends on the right, even obstructing things they professed to believe in or embrace, as was stated, the affordable care law was spawned by the rightist Heritage foundation who now disavows it but won't cede the fact that they originaly proposed it. We see our country being held hostage, by way of the debt ceiling by the right and we know that it is well stated that Obama is to be rendered ineffective and a one term president - at all costs, including the costs to the economy and security of our nation. I doubt you can offer examples of this eminating from the left.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not overtly, but consider that brief moment in time when the Democrats actually had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. It seemed like the left would get whatever they wanted. Then a few senators came out as "blue dogs" which I guess means that they caucus with Democrats but they're really Republicans. All of the sudden the only thing stopping Obama's agenda, was his own freaking party. The blue dogs came out at the very height of Obama's popularity and it never made sense to me. It made me think that the Democrats panicked. They thought, "Oh crap, now we might have to actually do all that shit we've been promising! Hey, you five a-holes, you guys gotta take one for the team and come out in opposition of our newly elected, extremely popular president!"

I'm joking a little bit. Sure you can blame the Republicans on a lot of the gridlock we see, but even the most loyal of Democrats have to admit that the party doesn't deliver even when they have the chance.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And you heard all this... where?[/FONT]

Click to expand...

Damn, man. Which part do you need a source on? They're all pretty easy to verify if you doubt the veracity. The TPP (TransPacific Partnership) came from Public Citizen. That was Ralph Nadar's old consumer advocacy group. You can check out their page on trade and read all the details, but I warn you, it will piss you off big time. Michael Taylor was the former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto and is now the Food Safety Czar and special advisor to the FDA. This happened in Feb of this year. Obama signed the 4 year extension of the Patriot Act in March of last year....

Obama also put the Patriot Act on steroids. He added cellphones that Bushney didn't have the foresight to do.

I remember him campaigning against the Patriot Act, good times.

bedspirit said:

Perhaps not overtly, but consider that brief moment in time when the Democrats actually had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. It seemed like the left would get whatever they wanted. Then a few senators came out as "blue dogs" which I guess means that they caucus with Democrats but they're really Republicans. All of the sudden the only thing stopping Obama's agenda, was his own freaking party. The blue dogs came out at the very height of Obama's popularity and it never made sense to me. It made me think that the Democrats panicked. They thought, "Oh crap, now we might have to actually do all that shit we've been promising! Hey, you five a-holes, you guys gotta take one for the team and come out in opposition of our newly elected, extremely popular president!"

I'm joking a little bit. Sure you can blame the Republicans on a lot of the gridlock we see, but even the most loyal of Democrats have to admit that the party doesn't deliver even when they have the chance.

Click to expand...

What it tends to show is that the left does not march in lock step as the right does, that they have no obligation to their party and ideology first. We see them crossing the isles far more often then we see Repubs doing the same thing.

I marvel at Repulicans handling the health care problem - when they had control they did nothing about health care, they didn't see it as important but as soon as the other side managed to whip something up (even though they originaly proposed it), then it couldn't be a decent program, then, they were all in agreement that something must be done about health care, only just not that.

canndo said:

What it tends to show is that the left does not march in lock step as the right does, that they have no obligation to their party and ideology first. We see them crossing the isles far more often then we see Repubs doing the same thing.

I marvel at Repulicans handling the health care problem - when they had control they did nothing about health care, they didn't see it as important but as soon as the other side managed to whip something up (even though they originaly proposed it), then it couldn't be a decent program, then, they were all in agreement that something must be done about health care, only just not that.

Click to expand...

You're correct on all counts. The Republicans don't have many who will cross party lines, and Obamacare was originally a Heritage Foundation alternative to a single payer system, but all you have established is that the Republicans suck. You need to come to terms with the Democrats sucking.

Remember when Obama picked Larry Summers as his top economic adviser? The guy behind much of the deregulation of the financial system? That move tells me that he never really intended to shake up the financial sector. If you believe the accounts in "Confidence Men", Obama actually has some very good friends on Wall Street and was privately telling the CEOs that all the public anger will fade if they invest in some PR.
For me, this is more evidence that their goals and their rhetoric are two different things.

bedspirit said:

You're correct on all counts. The Republicans don't have many who will cross party lines, and Obamacare was originally a Heritage Foundation alternative to a single payer system, but all you have established is that the Republicans suck. You need to come to terms with the Democrats sucking.

Remember when Obama picked Larry Summers as his top economic adviser? The guy behind much of the deregulation of the financial system? That move tells me that he never really intended to shake up the financial sector. If you believe the accounts in "Confidence Men", Obama actually has some very good friends on Wall Street and was privately telling the CEOs that all the public anger will fade if they invest in some PR.
For me, this is more evidence that their goals and their rhetoric are two different things.

Click to expand...

Dems suck, I won't argue otherwise, my contention is that Repubs suck more is all. Obama is a great dissapointment to me, Gitmo, transparency in government, perpetuating wars, even more invasions of privacy, and don't get me started on his about face on marijuana.