How Liberals, the Green Movement, Abortion, Gay Marriage are all connected

[ILLuminato]

I would fear you if you had access to weapons and the motor skills to pull the trigger.

Gay people are denied the right to the pursuit of happiness by way of being able to seal their committed physical and romantic relationships in a legal ceremony.

There's no law saying they can't live together or get a civil union. So I hereby declare that UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You can't just use that pursuit of happiness phrase for anything you convienently want... I don't go down to the Lexus dealer with $100 and say GIVE ME A CAR then sue them because they're denying my pursuit of happiness.

I am denied the right to the pursuit of my happiness by way of being able to seal my committed physical and romantic relationship in a legal ceremony with more than one woman.

[JACK D. RIPPER]

This is just dumb

Its not dumb. Its absolutely true. Global warming is nothing new. Its a Malthusian carbon copy. In fact, Malthus himself wasn't the originator of this pseudo science.
He ripped it off of a guy from Venetian society called Giamaria Ortes. Thats where the "humans are the enemy of the earth" bull**** started.

Try looking it up before you label it dumb.

Regarding global warming or climate change or whatever they call it now, all you need to look at to know that man made co2 causinging the temp's to rise is a hoax is to look at the medieval warm period from 1000-1200.

The temperatures were higher than they were in the 20th century and both warming periods had one thing in common.
Increased sunspot activity.

The percentages of co2 released by human activities are miniscule..less than 5 %...the majority of it is created by Volcanic activity and the ocean. Co2 isnt even bad. Its what plants breathe, lol.

Anthroprogenic global warming is a hoax used by the bankers and elites to tax the globe for breathing and confiscating property, the means of production and reducing the standard of living to that of third world status.
All for the good of the planet.
How nice of them.
You should look up the Club of Rome.

[ILLuminato]

Just like Obama is the resurrection of Saul Alinsky....just look it up!

[JACK D. RIPPER]

As long as we're posting tinfoil hat conspiracy theories lets talk about the moon landing, 9/11 as an inside job and the Nazi's having a moon base...

Global organizations ( not just liberal lefts ) have concluded in four reports available at that link Global Warming is a reality. So with the majority of the worldwide experts in consensus holding global warming to be true, this is a global conspiracy directed against Conservative Americans and the American Christian population?

So, you claim "I know what the liberals want, even if they don't say this is what they want" in a nutshell. You can not possibly attempt to claim you can tell what another individual is really thinking, that's absurd unless you want to claim you are now telepathic. Since your entire argument hinges on the assertion that your view of a liberal agenda is correct and your argument hinges not on factual evidence but that you know what they are thinking your argument breaks down quite quickly.


Now we can list the logical fallacies...
Poisoning the Well - You've already portrayed the political left to be lying, deceitful, manipulative and untrustworthy and attempt to set up Christianity and Conservatives as the antithesis of those qualities.
False Dilemma - You assign a position to the political left which is based off your personal belief and attempt to prove how wrong the position of the left is. In reality, all you have done is proven your perception of the political left's true agenda is flawed.
Composition - All the attributes you have assigned to the political left are based on your composition ( an opinion )
Ignoratio elenchi - Your thesis is based off your opinion and opinion is not considered a fact.
There's more, but that's enough to prove my point. Your thesis is illogical.

On the strength of what argument exactly? The argument of your opinion of a political ideology based on personal bias? Honestly, it lends no weight to your thesis in the slightest.

The fact that you use a politicized body such as the IPCC to back up your statements discredits you from the start.
The IPCC is a body made up of bureucrats first and foremost and scientists on the payroll second.
If scientists on the IPCC dont produce "the right" finding their grant money gets cut off.
There are tons of scientists who can vouch for this and reject the IPCCs conclusions about anthropogenic global warming.
The rest of your rant is post modern philosophy bull****. I have a friend that went to Berkeley and majored in Phil. and talks and writes EXACLTY like you do.
Way to regurgitate nonsense.

[JACK D. RIPPER]

Just like Obama is the resurrection of Saul Alinsky....just look it up!

You're expecting to much sophistication from the fools on here. No way they know who that is or would ever open his book.

[squealpiggy]

There's no law saying they can't live together or get a civil union.

Conservatives are working on in though.

You can't just use that pursuit of happiness phrase for anything you convienently want... I don't go down to the Lexus dealer with $100 and say GIVE ME A CAR then sue them because they're denying my pursuit of happiness.

What's the deal with you and Lexus cars? They wouldn't let you test drive on until you could prove you could finance it?

Luxury goods are not generally considered to be a legitimate requirement in the pursuit of happiness. The security and companionship of a long term loving physical relationship generally is.

I am denied the right to the pursuit of my happiness by way of being able to seal my committed physical and romantic relationship in a legal ceremony with more than one woman.

The trouble with polygamy is that by definition they are exploitative and do not exist apart from in intrinsically unbalanced societies. In other words if your pursuit of happiness requires multiple wives then this will directly affect the pursuit of happiness of your wives who, like most women, need exclusivity in order to have security and thus happiness.

Its not dumb. Its absolutely true. Global warming is nothing new. Its a Malthusian carbon copy. In fact, Malthus himself wasn't the originator of this pseudo science.
He ripped it off of a guy from Venetian society called Giamaria Ortes. Thats where the "humans are the enemy of the earth" bull**** started.

Try looking it up before you label it dumb.

Ooooh the "try looking it up" fallacy. Here's a better idea, it's your argument, you explain it!

Regarding global warming or climate change or whatever they call it now, all you need to look at to know that man made co2 is whats causing the temp's to rise is to look at the medieval warm period from 1000-1200.

The temperatures were higher than they were in the 20th century and both warming periods had one thing in common.
Increased sunspot activity.

Citation needed. I know where this idea is from, it's an oft-cited Exxon funded study from a decade ago, that has since been refuted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

But you still really ought to provide a citation to show that you arrived at the knowledge by some way other than "I heard someone say it and now something Malthusian is happening."

The percentages of co2 released by human activities are miniscule..less than 5 %...the majority of it is created by Volcanic activity and the ocean. Co2 isnt even bad. Its what plants breathe, lol.

You need a citation for the 5%. Other sources say that the concentration of new CO2 levels caused by fossil fuels is 80-85% so cite up or shut up. Furthermore CO2 is bad in large concentrations, just like oxygen is.

Anthroprogenic global warming is a hoax used by the bankers and elites to tax the globe for breathing and confiscating property, the means of production and reducing the standard of living to that of third world status.
All for the good of the planet.
How nice of them.
You should look up the Club of Rome

If the Club of Rome is relevant you should explain what it is and why it is part of the conversation. Oh and conspiracy theories? Always a winner.

[squealpiggy]

People who tell others to "look it up" in a debate have insufficient understanding of whatever "it" is to be qualified to use them as a debating tool. Throwing names around makes you pretentious, not intelligent. But you won't learn this without the wisdom of years.

[ILLuminato]

People who tell others to "look it up" in a debate have insufficient understanding of whatever "it" is to be qualified to use them as a debating tool. Throwing names around makes you pretentious, not intelligent. But you won't learn this without the wisdom of years.

I challenge you to just google his name, look at anything about him. Do you really think Obama the Anointed One came up with "Change" all by himself? I mean seriously.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ssentia_1.html

[squealpiggy]

I challenge you to just google his name, look at anything about him. Do you really think Obama the Anointed One came up with "Change" all by himself? I mean seriously.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ssentia_1.html

"Change" is hardly a novel concept.

[ILLuminato]

Conservatives are working on in though.

Working on what? We don't believe in government's involvement in everyday life, that is for liberals.


What's the deal with you and Lexus cars? They wouldn't let you test drive on until you could prove you could finance it?

Luxury goods are not generally considered to be a legitimate requirement in the pursuit of happiness. The security and companionship of a long term loving physical relationship generally is.

It basically is similar to gay marriage because if you're not gonna have kids what's the point of getting married? So then what's the point of me having a Lexus??



The trouble with polygamy is that by definition they are exploitative and do not exist apart from in intrinsically unbalanced societies. In other words if your pursuit of happiness requires multiple wives then this will directly affect the pursuit of happiness of your wives who, like most women, need exclusivity in order to have security and thus happiness.

You can't just cherry pick who can get married and who can't if gay marriage is legal. Why couldn't siblings get married then? You simply can't use this "pursuit of happiness" term for gay marriage. Its like saying "my shirt is blue". Then does that mean that every shirt is blue?


Ooooh the "try looking it up" fallacy. Here's a better idea, it's your argument, you explain it!
Please look up the word fallacy and use it properly.

My words are in bold.