Politics

[irishff1014]

To take this one step further, it's extremely hard to draw the line on what measures should be taken, what their effect will be, how much of a problem climate change really is, etc. because the line between "natural" and "man made" is very blurry.

People will always point at cars, factories, etc. and CO2 emissions... but the ridiculously large cattle/livestock population on this planet produces a shitton of methane which happens to be something like 23 times more detrimental as a greenhouse gas than CO2 if I'm remembering correctly. I also remember hearing years ago that cows create more greenhouse gasses than cars. So... cows are living, natural creatures... we didn't create their species... they simply existed the same way a bird or tree exists. At the same time, we're responsible for the growth of their population to the level its currently sustained at. So how many cows would naturally exist if humans never came along? Do we have too many? To we need to cap-and-trade livestock??? Attempting to "correct" something as gargantuan and complicated as the global climate is no simple task... and it's also not necessarily the fault of big bad polluting corporations... it's almost an unavoidable circumstance that results from the continued growth of the human population.

Don't forget about all the landfills that have ineffective systems or now systems to catch the gases.

Sources and Emissions | Methane | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Don't forget gravity.

I believe that's a law because it can be witnessed and proven, unlike evolution which has been proven but obviously is a bit harder to observe. The science behind evolution is really amazing and fascinating.

 

[Bluto]

The argument that cows are a major driver of climate change is a bit of a mistatement in my opinion. If you look back at historical accounts of the mid-west plains the buffalo herds we're enormous. Just speculation but I'd imagine the emissions from those herds were close to the same level as cows in say the US today. So the grazing cattle themselves are not the problem. The problem is that when you have a relatively stable set of environmental factors dictating the climate for thousands of years and then abruptly introduce something that alters that equation over a relatively short period of time. We as a species have been and continue to do that with CO 2. When that happens then you have a problem from a climate stability stand point. Remember it wasn't the meteor that did the dinosaurs in. It was the abrupt change in climatic conditions that were a result of the meteors impact.

The one critical way cattle have a huge impact on this issue is in the clearing of forest lands to convert them to grazing. That is a double whammy of releasing the CO 2 sequestered in the tress as well as eliminating that ecosystem as a source of sequestration from the overall equation.

Anyhow. read Collapse by Jared Diamond if you are interested in this issue. Great book and a fairly easy read.

 

[Downinthebend]

Drugs are bad yo, bawdddd

 

[IrishinSyria]

I believe that's a law because it can be witnessed and proven, unlike evolution which has been proven but obviously is a bit harder to observe. The science behind evolution is really amazing and fascinating.

As is the science behind gravity. The law of gravity covers how it works, but does not explain why.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

 

[GoIrish41]

That is the problem. Obama got 100% because of his skin? Really? How much of the black vote did Allen West get? There is this idea that minorities are a monolith. They all think the same. Palin was going to lock in the female vote. Rubio will lock in the Hispanic vote in 2016. That is completely false. As long as Republicans continue this idea of creators and moochers, of "real" America vs. the other, of religious rights over individual rights, and that compromise is a dirty word, they will lose over and over again.

You already hear the excuses on talk radio. Romney wasn't conservative enough, Sandy was the October surprise, Christie betrayed his party, the takers are now the majority. That is all BS, Republicans lost because they had no new ideas and their social policy continues to go backwards. If Herman Cain was running against Hillary Clinton, Hillary would get 100% of the black vote. That is what Republicans don't get, and that is why they will continue to lose in the future.

this

 

[Rhode Irish]

Accountability is important. When we read Irishpat's posts about climate change, in my mind it is important to note that a few days ago he asserted with total confidence that Obama was going to lose in a landslide. I'm not saying he's full of sh*t all the time, but I'm saying that when you make erroneous, intentionally provocative statements, you should be held accountable when you're shown to be wrong. What Irishpat and others so boldly predicted a few days ago does not drift into oblivion today - it matters, b/c our reputations on an anonymous internet board are based on posts, and nothing more. So my attempts to hold people accountable are not designed simply to rub it in their faces, they are designed to make it perfectly clear that you have lost some credibility. That's it.

And I respect him more for at least acknowledging that he was wrong. I also wish that the experience of being shown to be wrong on an issue that many of you felt confident about might lead people to temper their claims on other issues, and to acknowledge the complexity of some of the issues that we've been discussing. That doesn't happen as much as it should, in my opinion.

You should post more.

 

[Bubba]

Came upon this in my FB newsfeed. Thought it was an interesting read. (What with Socialism right around the corner and all...)

"Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a president and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country" - FDR

Big Corporation: We the People: 75 Ways Socialism has Improved, Saved, and Shaped America

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Accountability is important. When we read Irishpat's posts about climate change, in my mind it is important to note that a few days ago he asserted with total confidence that Obama was going to lose in a landslide. I'm not saying he's full of sh*t all the time, but I'm saying that when you make erroneous, intentionally provocative statements, you should be held accountable when you're shown to be wrong. What Irishpat and others so boldly predicted a few days ago does not drift into oblivion today - it matters, b/c our reputations on an anonymous internet board are based on posts, and nothing more. So my attempts to hold people accountable are not designed simply to rub it in their faces, they are designed to make it perfectly clear that you have lost some credibility. That's it.

And I respect him more for at least acknowledging that he was wrong. I also wish that the experience of being shown to be wrong on an issue that many of you felt confident about might lead people to temper their claims on other issues, and to acknowledge the complexity of some of the issues that we've been discussing. That doesn't happen as much as it should, in my opinion.

Dude, this is such a garbage *** post it blows my mind. One must have accountability for firmly and openly backing his candidate of choice? Had Romney won would his supporters on this board need to be held accountable for their comments or does victory absolve the winners of this? People have wrongly picked the winners and losers of CFB games on this board... should they be held accountable and come on here and apologize or admit their inaccuracy? Since Irishpat, and many others on this board including myself, were so wrong about our predictions we have some how lost credibility? Outrageous! Rhode Irish - I'm actually surprised that you find this post to be so good. Autry - I actually neg repped you, which I NEVER do, because I find your post so appalling..

 

[pkt77242]

Dude, this is such a garbage *** post it blows my mind. One must have accountability for firmly and openly backing his candidate of choice? Had Romney won would his supporters on this board need to be held accountable for their comments or does victory absolve the winners of this? People have wrongly picked the winners and losers of CFB games on this board... should they be held accountable and come on here and apologize or admit their inaccuracy? Since Irishpat, and many others on this board including myself, were so wrong about our predictions we have some how lost credibility? Outrageous! Rhode Irish - I'm actually surprised that you find this post to be so good.

You are my bro and all but this is slightly off base. I don't know if the post he called out needed to be called out but all the posters who said that the polls were wrong and that mainstream media was screwing up the polls and that Romney was going to win in a landslide, well they could be called out.

Let me put it another way. If I went to a recruits thread and said this guy is a lock, ignore what all the sites are saying, he is coming to ND bank on it and it isn't even close. Then the guy commits to Michigan, I would catch so much **** that I couldn't see straight. I think that is more of what he is doing. Well at least I hope.

Edit: If this doesn't make sense it is because I started celebrating Obama's win again when I got home today. Beer and whiskey are not a great mix.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Dude, this is such a garbage *** post it blows my mind. One must have accountability for firmly and openly backing his candidate of choice? Had Romney won would his supporters on this board need to be held accountable for their comments or does victory absolve the winners of this? People have wrongly picked the winners and losers of CFB games on this board... should they be held accountable and come on here and apologize or admit their inaccuracy? Since Irishpat, and many others on this board including myself, were so wrong about our predictions we have some how lost credibility? Outrageous! Rhode Irish - I'm actually surprised that you find this post to be so good. Autry - I actually neg repped you, which I NEVER do, because I find your post so appalling..

He wasn't backing his candidate. That would look something like this hypothetical post (that I am faking and irishpat didn't actually say):

I really hope Romney is going to win. He will be a much better president than Obama. There are some encouraging numbers for him, and I think he has a really good chance.

This is not backing your candidate:

But I guess it's not suprising the closer we get to an election in which Obama is going to lose. Romney has already tied him in OH and with women voters. Obama is going to lose this in a landslide.

That is a prediction, which in theory should be totally independent from your desired outcome. A prediction is an assertion of a yet-to-be-determined fact. You are either right or wrong. Nate Silver was right, and irishpat was wrong - clearly and objectively. That isn't debatable.

And the point isn't that he needs to be put on blast and embarrassed; the point is that your track record about being right or wrong informs the amount of weight people give to the things you say. irishpat, based on his prediction, looks like a guy that will just say whatever makes him feel good with any regard for reality. The things he has said here concerning climate change certainly seem to support that impression. And so, it is relevant.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

You are my bro and all but this is slightly off base. I don't know if the post he called out needed to be called out but all the posters who said that the polls were wrong and that mainstream media was screwing up the polls and that Romney was going to win in a landslide, well they could be called out.

Let me put it another way. If I went to a recruits thread and said this guy is a lock, ignore what all the sites are saying, he is coming to ND bank on it and it isn't even close. Then the guy commits to Michigan, I would catch so much **** that I couldn't see straight. I think that is more of what he is doing. Well at least I hope.

Edit: If this doesn't make sense it is because I started celebrating Obama's win again when I got home today. Beer and whiskey are not a great mix.

Nothing but love here, pkt... that's a far fetched comparison, though. In all fairness Irishpat was going of of polls and information that he was receiving. I watched several different news programs throughout this election but I mainly watched FOX News and believe me... they made you seriously believe Romney was going to win. Now, I don't know where he got his information but let's be honest... anyone can find information to back any claim they make.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Nothing but love here, pkt... that's a far fetched comparison, though. In all fairness Irishpat was going of of polls and information that he was receiving. I watched several different news programs throughout this election but I mainly watched FOX News and believe me... they made you seriously believe Romney was going to win. Now, I don't know where he got his information but let's be honest... anyone can find information to back any claim they make.

Yes, this the point that people have been trying to make to you for a while now: FOXNews makes up their own reality. They operate in a bubble - an echo chamber of confused and distorted noise. I'm begging you, man. Please try to get news from another source for two weeks, and really give it an open-minded chance. If you want to go back to FOXNews afterwards, then its the right place for you. But give it a shot.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

That is a prediction, which in theory should be totally independent from your desired outcome. A prediction is an assertion of a yet-to-be-determined fact. You are either right or wrong. Nate Silver was right, and irishpat was wrong - clearly and objectively. That isn't debatable.

And the point isn't that he needs to be put on blast and embarrassed; the point is that your track record about being right or wrong informs the amount of weight people give to the things you say. irishpat, based on his prediction, looks like a guy that will just say whatever makes him feel good with any regard for reality. The things he has said here concerning climate change certainly seem to support that impression. And so, it is relevant.

I agree, that's not debatable. But what is so wrong about being 100% confident in your candidate and "wearing it on your sleeve?" He truly believed and wanted Romney to win and that led him to put more weight in polls that confirmed his choice. I see no fault in his confidence; we all get that way with ND quite often. Just because your polls were better and more accurate than his he is somehow in the wrong? Now I'm not saying that Pat never went to far and said some rude things or what not; I haven't read this entire thread. However, I see nothing wrong with being confident and outspoken about something you believe in... even if you end up being wrong.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Yes, this the point that people have been trying to make to you for a while now: FOXNews makes up their own reality. They operate in a bubble - an echo chamber of confused and distorted noise. I'm begging you, man. Please try to get news from another source for two weeks, and really give it an open-minded chance. If you want to go back to FOXNews afterwards, then its the right place for you. But give it a shot.

I have. I've watched a lot of CNN and MSNBC throughout this election as well. I just prefer the hosts on FOX News. And in all fairness, they covered all polls... even the ones that disagreed with them.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I have. I've watched a lot of CNN and MSNBC throughout this election as well. I just prefer the hosts on FOX News. And in all fairness, they covered all polls... even the ones that disagreed with them.

I'd also like to point out...just because I'm so nice...Rasmussen was the worst polling organization during this cycle. Came up consistently biased toward Romney.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I'd also like to point out...just because I'm so nice...Rasmussen was the worst polling organization during this cycle. Came up consistently biased toward Romney.

I agree.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Yes, this the point that people have been trying to make to you for a while now: FOXNews makes up their own reality. They operate in a bubble - an echo chamber of confused and distorted noise. I'm begging you, man. Please try to get news from another source for two weeks, and really give it an open-minded chance. If you want to go back to FOXNews afterwards, then its the right place for you. But give it a shot.

I regularly read CNN, Fox News, and Al Jazeera. Started reading Al Jazeera when I lived overseas, one of my lecturers recommended the site.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I agree, that's not debatable. But what is so wrong about being 100% confident in your candidate and "wearing it on your sleeve?" He truly believed and wanted Romney to win and that led him to put more weight in polls that confirmed his choice. I see no fault in his confidence; we all get that way with ND quite often. Just because your polls were better and more accurate than his he is somehow in the wrong? Now I'm not saying that Pat never went to far and said some rude things or what not; I haven't read this entire thread. However, I see nothing wrong with being confident and outspoken about something you believe in... even if you end up being wrong.

When you predict something, unless you are Skip Bayless or Colin Cowherd or something and are just doing it for shits and giggles and you don't care about your credibility, the idea is to say what you think is going to happen. So yes, when you are wrong that does put you in the wrong.

A prediction is not a statement of what you want to happen. And Autrey's post wasn't about irishpat being rude or supporting his guy. Its about him being wrong, and when you're wrong your credibility gets taken down peg. That is the way it works. So when he comes on here babbling crazy talk about climate change, why would anybody listen to him when we now know he is just saying stuff that he wishes were true?

 

[PraetorianND]

Dude, this is such a garbage *** post it blows my mind. One must have accountability for firmly and openly backing his candidate of choice? Had Romney won would his supporters on this board need to be held accountable for their comments or does victory absolve the winners of this? People have wrongly picked the winners and losers of CFB games on this board... should they be held accountable and come on here and apologize or admit their inaccuracy? Since Irishpat, and many others on this board including myself, were so wrong about our predictions we have some how lost credibility? Outrageous! Rhode Irish - I'm actually surprised that you find this post to be so good. Autry - I actually neg repped you, which I NEVER do, because I find your post so appalling..

I hold Mark May accountable.

His absurd bias blinds his judgement. He's consistently wrong when picking games and not just ND games. At this point I think he is just a buffoon.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

When you predict something, unless you are Skip Bayless or Colin Cowherd or something and are just doing it for shits and giggles and you don't care about your credibility, the idea is to say what you think is going to happen. So yes, when you are wrong that does put you in the wrong.

A prediction is not a statement of what you want to happen. And Autrey's post wasn't about irishpat being rude or supporting his guy. Its about him being wrong, and when you're wrong your credibility gets taken down peg. That is the way it works. So when he comes on here babbling crazy talk about climate change, why would anybody listen to him when we now know he is just saying stuff that he wishes were true?

I disagree with this. If Pat were a professional pollster he would lose credibility. Instead, he's just a strong conservative who voted for the losing candidate. He didn't make up the polls he used to back his prediction; he was just fed garbage political analyses.

 

[pkt77242]

I disagree with this. If Pat were a professional pollster he would lose credibility. Instead, he's just a strong conservative who voted for the losing candidate. He didn't make up the polls he used to back his prediction; he was just fed garbage political analyses.

I agree. But. It does make others question if he can see through all the bullshit and come to the right answer or if he sees what he wants to see (think Climate change which has a bunch of info being thrown around by both sides). I am not saying that this was my tipping point (I reached it long ago with him) but that if you didn't know anything else about him and he said that Romney was going to win in a landslide then that is questionable. I also wonder where he got that info from as most actual polls had it close not a landslide for Romney?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I disagree with this. If Pat were a professional pollster he would lose credibility. Instead, he's just a strong conservative who voted for the losing candidate. He didn't make up the polls he used to back his prediction; he was just fed garbage political analyses.

Where's the personal responsibility my man

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Where's the personal responsibility my man

Haha... hi, my name's Lou and I voted for Romney. I'm here to take my lashings and hand over some credibility points.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I disagree with this. If Pat were a professional pollster he would lose credibility. Instead, he's just a strong conservative who voted for the losing candidate. He didn't make up the polls he used to back his prediction; he was just fed garbage political analyses.

Seriously? If he was a professional pollster he would lose his job (or should, anyway). Instead, his opinions here carry less weight. This is just a matter of common sense. When you assert something, and that thing turns out not to be true, your assertions thereafter mean less. This is just a truism of life. If someone tells you something and they are wrong, you will value anything they tell you thereafter a little less. What they do for a living is immaterial.

Somehow a lot of other people in the thread were able to distinguish the good information from the bad. That is a part of credibility, too. It isn't just based on whether you know you're full of shlt or not. Not being capable of identifying and using the right information also contributes to it.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

To lose credibility off of a singular prediction is quite moronic. Now, if Pat has a history of doing this then I understand where you're coming from but I voted for Romney and predicted he'd win as well but I don't feel any less credible nor has anyone called me out.

 

[Rhode Irish]

To lose credibility off of a singular prediction is quite moronic. Now, if Pat has a history of doing this then I understand where you're coming from but I voted for Romney and predicted he'd win as well but I don't feel any less credible nor has anyone called me out.

If I pick BC to win this weekend 56-3, how much will you care about my prediction for the Wake Forest game? Your statements don't exist in a vacuum. Its part of who you are. If your statements reveal a tendency to be wrong, for whatever reason, then people will think about that when they evaluate what you say. That is the entire point, and that is the only point. Irishpat has shown that he will assert whatever he wishes to be true as actually true. So everything else he says has to be evaluated with that in mind. That, as Autry said, is called accountability.

Think of it like this: every time you make a statement of fact, you are making a bet. You are wagering some portion of your credibility. The more confidently you make the assertion, the more of your credibility you are laying down on the wager. If you are right, your credibility goes up; if you're wrong, it goes down.

I cannot believe we are having a round-and-round about this. It is not a complicated topic. If you cannot understand it at this point, there is no use in continuing the conversation.

 

[PraetorianND]

To lose credibility off of a singular prediction is quite moronic. Now, if Pat has a history of doing this then I understand where you're coming from but I voted for Romney and predicted he'd win as well but I don't feel any less credible nor has anyone called me out.

I think it depends on the prediction. If you come in like an OU fan and say ND doesn't stand a chance and are wrong then all credibility is gone because you clearly didn't do your homework.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

If I pick BC to win this weekend 56-3, how much will you care about my prediction for the Wake Forest game? Your statements don't exist in a vacuum. Its part of who you are. If your statements reveal a tendency to be wrong, for whatever reason, then people will think about that when they evaluate what you say. That is the entire point, and that is the only point. Irishpat has shown that he will assert whatever he wishes to be true as actually true. So everything else he says has to be evaluated with that in mind. That, as Autry said, is called accountability.

Think of it like this: every time you make a statement of fact, you are making a bet. You are wagering some portion of your credibility. The more confidently you make the assertion, the more of your credibility you are laying down on the wager. If you are right, your credibility goes up; if you're wrong, it goes down.

I cannot believe we are having a round-and-round about this. It is not a complicated topic. If you cannot understand it at this point, there is no use in continuing the conversation.

I sure am glad that this board is filled with such credible posters who have never made a bold prediction and wound up being wrong. What gives Autry, you or any other IE'er the right to call Pat or any other Romney supporter out? Now if you feel that anything that comes out of Pat's mouth is just garbage, that's fine. But to come in this thread demanding accountability shows a smugness that I, personally, don't appreciate.

 

[RubberSoul]

I sure am glad that this board is filled with such credible posters who have never made a bold prediction and wound up being wrong. What gives Autry, you or any other IE'er the right to call Pat or any other Romney supporter out? Now if you feel that anything that comes out of Pat's mouth is just garbage, that's fine. But to come in this thread demanding accountability shows a smugness that I, personally, don't appreciate.

Its one thing to celebrate if your guy wins. Its quite another to gleefully twist the knife and act smug when they get a response. Their guy won and they have the right to celebrate. And we have the right to voice displeasure with being 19 trillion in debt, perpetual high unemplyment and 4 dollar gas.

I think Obama is a good man. I repect him and hope he can turn it around. As far as this site, ive seen a lot of ugliness being blasted at one another. We are all Irish fans and all deserve to be treated with dignity and repect. This thread was a bad idea, politics and religous discussions will only turn fans against each other when being Irish fans should be bringing us together.