https://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/
Explain how one would take the above any other way than you would be in favour switching over to renewable energy in order to speed up WW3?Strangelove wrote:
Well "burning fossil fuels until they run out" is probably the best way to postpone WWIII
... so I suppose I'm in favour of "switching over to renewable energy" asap.
I am sure even you must realise that there are many versions of christianity. That you would even contemplate accusing me of pretending to be christian reminds me of the line:I am a Christian though, I've stated that more than a few times in these forums.
(you used to pretend to be the same... remember?)
Proving Per correct once more, you surely do love to tell others what they are thinking.Nope this is why you dropped said discussion:ukcanuck wrote: That's why I dropped the "discussion" about Israeli brutality in Palestine.
http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 83#p214183
Did you think people had forgotten about how you got nailed on all the lies you were spreading?
Funny how when it comes to AGW there's a media conspiracy but when it comes to honest reporting in Palestine the media is believable and virtuousTypical behavior of a fully-indoctrinated goosestepping antisemitic moron...
Newbies interested in the truth about UK/moi should read a few pages of that linked thread
Watch as UK writes-off facts from encyclopedia/NY-Times/Washington-Post/etc
... as all part of some insanely massive Jewish conspiracy.
Watch as UK promotes discredited lies with his fingers in his ears, same ole, same ole...
Death in the Middle East: An Analysis of How the New York Times and Chicago Tribune Framed Killings in the second Palestinian Intifada*
ABSTRACT
This paper analyzed New York Times and Chicago Tribune newspaper coverage of killings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The purpose of the study was to analyze how the two newspapers framed the political violence of Israelis and Palestinians to find out what specific framing devices the newspapers used to express positions. Findings from the content analysis employed here suggest that the New York Times and Chicago Tribune framed Israeli-Palestinian conflict violence in such a way as to legitimate Israeli killings by implicitly justifying Israeli violence and assigning more prominence to the Israeli perspective. Results also suggest that the newspapers de-legitimated Palestinian violence by implicitly condemning Palestinian killings.
www2.gsu.edu/~wwwaus/jmem/Elmasry2009.doc
Mick your one to talk, think before you spew.micky107 wrote:I was born at St. Vincent's Hospital in Vancouver in late 57. A Canadian citizen.
My father served in Korea with the Canadians and had his back broken but recovered.
My grandfather served for the Canadians in both WW1 and WW2. He was no boy in WW2.
My Grandmother on Dad's side was a nurse in WW1.
On my Mother's side my American Grandfather was killed in WW2.
My Grandmother worked as a maid in the U.S. then Canada.
Four of my eight Great Grand parents were born in North America, the others in England, Scotland and Ireland.
I have spent no less than 11 of my 58 years in the U.S. and have at some point visited almost all major cities.
In the late 70s and early 80s I was playing hockey in the U.S.
From 1990 to 1996 I served with both the American and Canadian militaries as a private contractor training them in Air to Air and Air to Ground Photography as aviation photography is what I did.
I've heard many, many points of view and have seen a great deal.
For the record, I am more of a science guy than a religious one and I hate war as much as anyone else but I understand it, do you?
I understand that politics can seem extremist and over passionate, do you?
Understand your adversary in debate before you put your foot in your mouth, again.
By the way, I'll yank it out for you, if you think that's safe.
You are not qualified to advise me on anything, little-big man.
You are exactly the type that one day, if not already, Is going to get shit-kicked in a road rage situation because you don't think before you spew...
I was talking about Reef's bias toward AGW (you schmuck)ukcanuck wrote: if reef has a bias then you have given it to him
Yeah, it looks pretty bad when you quote someone completely out of context.ukcanuck wrote: *quotes the nasty bits of Strangelove's posts*
attached.
Fair response to a post like that no?damonberryman [color=#FF0000]Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:08 am[/color] wrote:Are you married Per? If not would you consider a long distance relationship with an East End boy who visited Oakalla and the old B.C. Pen too many times? I have chilled a lot but that may be due to the weed and benzos but let us not get caught up in details. I currently live in NY and am both Canadian and a British citizen so we will have to do this thing before Brexit is implemented.
Yeahno, the other 99.7% of my words contained the “reasonable debate” part.ukcanuck wrote: lets not pretend that any of the above is meaningful as reasonable debate
So you admit to the very sins you of which you accuse me!!ukcanuck wrote:I do admit that my time on canuckscorner has darkened my sense of humour somewhat, but I've learned from the best and really it seems to be the only language you understand.Strangelove wrote:Pot/kettle... especially that last part.ukcanuck wrote: You do the same thing to him as you do to everyone.
Derision, name calling and complete evasion of anything that doesn't fit your version of things.
Yes well obviously you wasted that hour googling the links in order to regurgitate leftist propaganda.ukcanuck wrote:I did watch as much of your propaganda I as could stomachStrangelove wrote: I asked you to watch "every second of MY videos, especially "the last two".
You promised that you would... but you did not.
... barely worth the effort to pay attention for longer than maybe a minute.
but I spent considerably more than that on your links. The way I see it, you owe me an hour of my time.
Well, now that you mention it, you are clearly guilty of both seeing as how you didn't watch the videos...ukcanuck wrote:while technically it’s an ad hominem, it is not a logical fallacy as you would sneakily intend.Strangelove wrote: … and instead launched into an ad hominem rage (remember?)
Strangelove wrote:So you admit to the very sins you of which you accuse me!!ukcanuck wrote:I do admit that my time on canuckscorner has darkened my sense of humour somewhat, but I've learned from the best and really it seems to be the only language you understand.Strangelove wrote:Pot/kettle... especially that last part.ukcanuck wrote: You do the same thing to him as you do to everyone.
Derision, name calling and complete evasion of anything that doesn't fit your version of things.
Well guess what Buttercup, in the end your sins are much worse than mine...
Yes well obviously you wasted that hour googling the links in order to regurgitate leftist propaganda.ukcanuck wrote:I did watch as much of your propaganda I as could stomachStrangelove wrote: I asked you to watch "every second of MY videos, especially "the last two".
You promised that you would... but you did not.
... barely worth the effort to pay attention for longer than maybe a minute.
but I spent considerably more than that on your links. The way I see it, you owe me an hour of my time.
Nothing new, and as I said you your masters understood neither Molyneux nor Cook's abstract.
Well, now that you mention it, you are clearly guilty of both seeing as how you didn't watch the videos...ukcanuck wrote:while technically it’s an ad hominem, it is not a logical fallacy as you would sneakily intend.Strangelove wrote: … and instead launched into an ad hominem rage (remember?)
BTW you constantly interchange GW and AGW, ya might wanna work on that good buddy!
I hear youCornuck wrote:Ok - the next poster to make any kind of reference to a threat of violence will be going on holiday for a while - not that I think there's a chance something violent will happen - just because it's fucking stupid.
Zero tolerance.
A donation to the Foundation could make it happen.Cornuck wrote:But if Clinton gets in we'll have Sharia Law across North America and we're All DOOMED!Per wrote:There's no Muslim invasion going on. Just a whole lot of people fleeing from religious extremism.griz wrote:
At least Trump is attempting to do something about Muslim invasion rather than what's going on in Germany or Sweden. And you know what they say about not knowing history and being doomed to repeat it. It's not like there haven't been Muslin invasions throughout history. Sharia law isn't compatible with non Muslims is it? And don't forget that the non-radical Muslims are targets for the Muslim extremists too.
Besides, there was roughly a million Syrian refugees heading to Europe last year. There are more than 300 million people living in the European Union. It's a drop in the ocean.
And these are people trying to get away from the religious loonies.
I doubt they are going to push for extreme measures here.
I just look at Trump and see a demagogue trying to demonize a religious minority with roots in the Middle East.
Hmmmm... Now, why does this picture look familiar?
Sigh, the drivel just doesn't end...griz wrote:Some more food for though about Climate Change...
Global Warming Fraud - Lord Christopher Monckton Before U S Congress :
However lets just stick to the science in your you tube video.
Thats interesting because I believe he was talking about the constant name calling and general absence of reasonable debate from you.“Strangelove" wrote: I was talking about Reef's bias toward AGW (you schmuck)
Well shit Doc, now you know how David Norris must have felt. Imagine having your words twisted and not only tossed back in your face, but also coated with slander? Can’t be much fun I know*quotes the nasty bits of Strangelove's posts*
Yeah, it looks pretty bad when you quote someone completely out of context.
Is that an option here? Is there a function on Canuckscorner that actually counts what percent a person quotes another poster? thats pretty coolYou posted exactly .3% of my total words in this thread btw.
Thanks for proving yet-again that you ignore any+all points made by any+all opponents.
BTW you started the Chicken Little conversation by first posting "I am not a Chicken Little..."
(begging the rebuttal: "Actually you are a Chicken Little because..."
Damon first called moi "passive-aggressive"... I merely returned the favour with a
"Gong-show monkey" is commonly used as a description of a dumb post.
"Schmuck" + asking someone if he's being "stupid"... does this really hurt anyone's feelings?
"Fully indoctrinated, bat shit crazy" = brainwashed folks who won't/can't listen to reason.
"Brainwashed zombie" = more of the same.
"Deluded self-righteous totalitarian folk" + "environazi" + "leftist" = fair descriptions of someone.
(there are many people in the world who fairly fit those descriptions, what's the problem?)
"Goosestepping"... I already gave Webster's definition of that word = "mindless".
"ESL buddy"... Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you said you are an ESL teacher overseas?
**edit: nope I'm an actual high school teacher**
"your Irish politician friend was a PEDOPHILE" = TRUTH!!
"but yes, a homosexual pedophile"... wtf your Irish politician admits it, is PROUD of it!
"an antisemitic moron”... is exactly what I proved you to be in that linked thread.
"tramp stamp"... I did not say that, try again.
Damon stated he's "not as much of a man as Fred McFeely Rogers"... I merely underscored it.
"Tree-boinkers" = "tree-huggers".
"Drama Queen" + "Prison Bitch"... were a tongue-in-cheek response to this Damon post:
Fair response to a post like that no?damonberryman [color=#FF0000]Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:08 am[/color] wrote:Are you married Per? If not would you consider a long distance relationship with an East End boy who visited Oakalla and the old B.C. Pen too many times? I have chilled a lot but that may be due to the weed and benzos but let us not get caught up in details. I currently live in NY and am both Canadian and a British citizen so we will have to do this thing before Brexit is implemented.
Y'know, some folk like to have a little fun around here sometimes IF that is FUCKING okay with you!
Doc, it seems thou doth protest too much?
really? can you really work it out to a three tenths of one percent? that’s so coolYeahno, the other 99.7% of my words contained the “reasonable debate” part.ukcanuck wrote: lets not pretend that any of the above is meaningful as reasonable debate
This is true I referenced McCarthy when you labelled me a communist as an “ad hominem.” I don't know- kinda felt like a kangaroo court at the time? shrug...Sure I use colourful language, but you’ve likened me to Mcarthy, Onceler and a Jehovah’s Witness.
The Onceler, its kind of fitting since you’re denying AGW in much the same fashion as the character in The Lorax wants to keep knitting sweaters.
Actually I believe I said watching your links is like trying to read the Watchtower and Awake magazines but I could be wrong… maybe I also inferred something along the lines of Paleo-conservatists engaging in groupthink similar to JWs
You also said I “label any and all criticism of Isreal as racist and antisemitism”.
You do…the evidence is readily apparent, I cant imagine why you would even bother to deny it.
You said I was falsely referring to your Irish politician friend as a PEDOPHILE (he admits it).
You are since the man has not been charged by police for an action that is surely a crime and we’ve already covered taking people’s words out of context.
I wasn’t I posted links that question Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West bankYou claimed you weren’t nailed for spreading lies in the linked thread.
(You proclaiming them as lies does not make them so, therefore I could not have been nailed by anything but your opinion)
Nope I went through the last couple of days posts and isolated the amount of times you resorted to name calling in order to hi-lite the observation brought by Reefer and to refute your claims that you don't indulge in what are classic right wing tacticsYou claimed that everything I’ve said in this thread is summed-up by the out-of-context .3% above.
I left alone the logical fallacies and the avoidance of my main point all along.
Namely that this whole Climate Change denier, liberal hoax conspiracy is entirely made up by far right wing Anarcho-Capitalists. (or paleo-conservatives if you prefer)
Ive dealt with the science by providing ample links to actual scientists who are open about their motivations (saving the environment for future generations.) and whom discount your "hoax" presenter's attempts to cloud the issue with half truths and faux science.
I’ve shown the connection between the men in each of the links you and Griz have provided.
(Their financial connection and membership in far right extreme "astroturf" populist organisations)
*astroturf populist meaning - fake grassroots populist
However, in the same breath you that you accuse me ofyou have respond to exactly none of the above so far.”ignore any+all points made by any+all opponents”
I can only surmise at this point that you won't deal with it because in fact, you cannot.
Whoa Doc it seems that I've got under your skin!Yup, a c-word such as yourself should expect to have a few colourful words/phrases shot his way.
You do remember this is all in good fun right?
No really, you do realise this is all in good fun?
"It was the best of times, it was the worse of times."Per wrote:Pretty good article in the Telegraph, written by a fellow Swede:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/why- ... olden-age/
ukcanuck wrote: Doc, it seems thou doth protest too much?
whooshukcanuck wrote:Whoa Doc it seems that I've got under your skin!Strangelove wrote: Yup, a c-word such as yourself should expect to have a few colourful words/phrases shot his way.
You do remember this is all in good fun right?
No really, you do realise this is all in good fun?
ukcanuck wrote:Strangelove wrote: You said I was falsely referring to your Irish politician friend as a PEDOPHILE (he admits it).
You are since the man has not been charged by police for an action that is surely a crime
Nope, you were spreading wild accusations against Israelukcanuck wrote:I wasn’t I posted links that question Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West bankStrangelove wrote: You claimed you weren’t nailed for spreading lies in the linked thread.
(You proclaiming them as lies does not make them so, therefore I could not have been nailed by anything but your opinion)
