Blogging

[jgordon1111]

Seems Bernie you are after all, a true dimbulb, you took a pass when asked nicely, lets try a different route.

[Bernie Sanders]

Seems Bernie you are after all, a true dimbulb, you took a pass when asked nicely, lets try a different route.

I'm doing my best, as the others are doing the same. Trying to keep this thread alive, which is based on something none of us understand.

By the way, what's a dimbulb? Are you developing a new language? I would never thought that you were an expert in linguist, perhaps you need to lower your intelligence, so the rest of us could follow your meanings.

[Dukasaur]

Phatts, this ain't about YOU. Try to stay on the subject matter.

Oooops, what is the subject matter of this thread again?

I think we're supposed to quantify hatred and violence through religious bullshit.

I'll see your Jehovah and raise you two Allahs!

Good response to yesterday's topic Duk, but we moved on to how well did Hillary do in yesterday's Gop debate, stay current Duk.

I shall endeavour to do better, master.

[jgordon1111]

Damn Duk, that wasn't called for, why the hostility?

[Dukasaur]

Damn Duk, that wasn't called for, why the hostility?

What hostility?

Just have some fun with it...

[jgordon1111]

Damn Duk, that wasn't called for, why the hostility?

What hostility?

Just have some fun with it...

My mistake, I am put off somewhat by the last word in your previous response, I took it as sarcasm.

[jgordon1111]

But Duk I will use that word as one of my topics, so thank you.

[Phatscotty]

You can't beat them......

Hello Conquer Club

I will now use the open forum to push whatever personal agenda I wish Thank you in advance for your unending support.

Top of my list is using religious bullshit, to quantify killing or spreading hate of any form

So, you approve religious bullshit, to quantify or spreading hate.

You, flood-denier, don't face up to your own bullshit, which quantifies and spreads ignorance. Even though ignorance is the slutty little cousin of hate, it doesn't do anything to help make the world a better place. It's always gonna be a wash when you fail to practice what you preach.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=216569#p4770243

Phatts, this ain't about YOU. Try to stay on the subject matter.

Oooops, what is the subject matter of this thread again?

Blogging is the subject matter, This is my blog founded in positivity and love with the goals to help others and make the world a better place. your move from ignoring your own concerns when they are met and engaged directly and with interest into deflecting and projecting the topic of how you and your fears somehow turn into being about me. I found the perfect gif to sum up your response towards how you deal with being challenged back at ya the way you challenge others, and it's all because I love you and I am here to help you.





Essentially, your point here is exactly what I already did in the other thread, and which is still being ignored by you? Over and over again, nothing you say adds up. For some reason, I don't think the subject matter is going to clear up your own flagrantly flawed logic. I agree, it's not about me. It's not about whoever's logic you were questioning either or their religion either, is it? It's about you and your flawed logic in this thread compared to your flawed logic in another thread. There you are, dishing it out all day, and now we see how you deal with your own logic being shown to be flawed. I do wonder why you bring other's logic up so often, when clearly there are no threads at all about any specific person's logic, is there??? Since you refuse to elaborate on your own observations, you leave it in my lap to find out just how full of shit you are and how clearly you don't seem to care or understand why it's important that words have meaning, for people to be held accountable for what they say, oh, so long as it's only all in the same thread, right? pffff So, let me just double check make sure I am understanding you clearly. Basically, you reserve to right to call out others on their logical flaws as you see fit and never have to or feel the need to point out how/why/what is flawed pertaining to the topic matter, and nobody can challenge your logic even though the flaws are clear as day and presented to you in real time.... because the contradiction to your logic happened to be in another thread? While your at it, how about we just ban hypocrisy altogether, since no 2 topics are exactly the same and you seem to imply logic is totally okay changing day-to-day and topic to topic with no regards for congruence or consistency? Make you a deal, before you demand others stay on topic matter and address issues they bring up, how about you lead by example by staying on topic and address your own issues that you bring to a discussion, especially when they are specifically engaged according to the subject matter you try to make this all about. Also, when you see someone going on and on about how they are athiest, and then the next day they go on and on about how they have always been a Christian, and then next week give a story about their faith in Judaism, I won't see you saying anything about that, because they are different threads on different topics? Cool story bro, too bad none of yours adds up.

When you challenged my logic, that thread was not about you or me either, but you still made it about flaws in my logic while offering no reason along with a few insults. I immediately accepted your challenge head on and with no fear while I remain fully and willingly able to bring forth TONS of evidence to the table and open the debate and discussion on the matter to see just how and where the flaws exist, if any... I blew off your insults and stuck to the logic you questioned in detail specific to the topic matter. You ignored that, you'll ignore this, hide behind the thread title again and keep pushing to make this place some f'd up version in your head resulting in you not having to worry about who's logic is flawed because it won't matter... yeah sounds great! Again, your story just doesn't add up, nothing you say is backed up by anything else you say, and the day one cannot call out someone for being full of shit is the last day any forum can exist as a meaningful exchange of anything. The challenge remains there in that thread, purposefully ignored by you. This thread, different topic, SAME bullshitting Bernie Sanders who's logic hardcore contradicts the logic you offered up in the other thread, and you are already deflecting and misdirecting, asking for specific topic matter? Yeah, I already know that doesn't work as evidenced by your ignoring a very simple question that can clear up your worries about flawed logic, but if you won't face up to backing up your own concerns, just wondering why the F do you even voice them? You and your logic offered in this thread is the topic matter for this post, and I note the pattern continues no matter what the topic may be.

If you have a problem with being called out for your bullshit, then you have a few options here
1) stop constantly bullshitting others and offering up contradictory logic when it's convenient for you
2) stop being the #1 person who calls out others for their bullshit and their flawed logic
3) stop ignoring discussion you introduce, especially when your concerns are fully engaged and challenged back at ya the same way you challenge them, so at least it will make sense that you bring something up and then actually talk about it instead of going directly from being concerned about something to totally ignoring it
4) focus a bit more on your own flaws so it will make sense why you care so much about everyone elses
5) know what you are talking about before making judgments on what is logical and what isn't so it will make some sense in that you can actually explain what is flawed and why, other than to just piss people off and ruin their forum experience and besmirch their opinions and truths and perceptions
6) use this place and it's content to learn and improve yourself rather than focusing on bringing down others. If you must bring down something because it's a bad idea in your opinion or it's flat out wrong, it makes more sense and actually becomes educational and moves progress forward when you opine why their idea or story telling should be brought down, rather than ad-hominem personal attacks having nothing to do with the discussion. Be part of an at least attempt towards a solution rather than pointing out everyone's problems
7) if you can't help calling out other's flaws and still ignore your own flaws, at least attempt to BEGIN to be ready to scratch the surface explaining why they are flawed and listen to why they aren't or may not be flawed at all, because then it will make sense that your opinions are actually based on something rather than your own personal unexplained bias and prejudices and not rooted in hate and focused more on love and being a part of progress rather than bitter mindless division
start a blog documenting your own autodidactic experience

[Phatscotty]

Seems Bernie you are after all, a true dimbulb, you took a pass when asked nicely, lets try a different route.

Best of luck mate! Sorry, I didn't catch the debates or what Hillary is trying to pretend to be this week or how the GOP lacks the courage to better itself. I can tell you for sure soon in the general cycle against the Republican nominee she will be portraying herself as a centrist, basically reversing all her attempts to be a true and brave left wing Liberal Progressive throughout the Democratic primaries and debates, and then finally onto refusing to touch anything controversial in order to ignore negative p.r., which means most real issues won't be discussed and any real issues that are discussed will be met with the exact same failed promises and plans every president promises and says they will make policy but never actually address if not outright totally ignore and let the problems double themselves again until conveniently they will have no choice but to regretfully report in a sad tone there is no choice but for the government to take over while making positive statements about the free market. I'll get on board with your program when I think I can offer something relevant or interesting, not sure if I will read a few more posts of Bernie's or not before I decide to treat his posts the way he treats my posts or if I can refrain from holding him to his own standards he holds everyone else to, but I will try

[Phatscotty]

A forum is a crappy place to blog. Just saying.
If I only had some tyme I would blog, but I'm too lazy to go to the supermarket.

I ran a blog for quite a few years, until I got into a few forums. Besides the fact that I was even able to earn the permission to plug my blog website on national radio shows and track my visitor count, I never made it past 400 and a response was like once a month if lucky. Besides that I like that my old blog is the only thing standing in the way of the zombie response I get whenever I criticize Obama and nothing I spoke about seems to matter other than obviously I only care about my love for taking Bush balls deep and probably just hate black people. After already being labeled an extreme liberal for treating Bush essentially the same way, I already know that when I start digging into the Republican president, anybody that doesn't know me as well as some who do will still conclude obviously I'm just an Obama lover or I simply hate women. At least I can laugh now how ridiculously polarized America is and I quit criticizing the president many years ago because most people are incapable of listening to what is said and are 440mhz'd into auto-hate mode as the true motivation for any criticism of anyone who clearly deserves to be criticized.

[jgordon1111]

Scotty, that is a well put together rebuttal,point by point a direct hit on your target,at the same time if read entirely an alert to those who choose to speak freely, do so without fear of ridicule,from others who can actually think, lets see what happens now

[jgordon1111]

And on to the next TOPIC: WHO THINKS AS HUMANS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DAMAGE THE WORLD TO THE EXTENT QE ALREADY HAVE AND EVEN MORE IF WE CHOOSE TO. For this one explain your specific stance of why or why not, citing examples of your position.remember gifs that don't pertain will be viewed as flames.

[Bernie Sanders]

Vote Republican for less EPA rules and regulation and unleash American Corporations!

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

[jgordon1111]

Vote Republican for less EPA rules and regulation and unleash American Corporations!

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Bernie this is why I Foed you , and ignore what you say as a general rule of thumb, you have a unique way of dismissing anything that doesn't fit your personal view, what I asked for was clear,state your position and GIVE EXAMPLES of it.
Again you have shown you are a dimbulb,incapable of understanding easy requests, and yet you pretend to be a person wishing to hold a powerful position,you do neither justice with this archaic example of rhetoric

[tzor]

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Seriously, isn't that an oxymoron? I can't think of a single sustainable non-carbon energy source that doesn't "harm the environment."

Solar panel creation is extremely harmful to the environment. (Of course if they are all made n China, who cares?)

Wind power kills many species of birds who aren't aware of rotating blades that enter their personal air space.

Water power can't be done without damning up rivers which hurts various populations of fish.

Geothermal is just sitting on a ticking time bomb, a yet to be born volcano which is never environmentally friendly.

On the other hand, fuel generation through algae is by nature environmentally friendly, but carbon based.

[Bernie Sanders]

Vote Republican for less EPA rules and regulation and unleash American Corporations!

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Bernie this is why I Foed you , and ignore what you say as a general rule of thumb, you have a unique way of dismissing anything that doesn't fit your personal view, what I asked for was clear,state your position and GIVE EXAMPLES of it.
Again you have shown you are a dimbulb,incapable of understanding easy requests, and yet you pretend to be a person wishing to hold a powerful position,you do neither justice with this archaic example of rhetoric

I did give examples. You foed me? My heart is broken....

My position is clear. Clean energy to protect the environment. I certainly am not a Republican, who is bought and paid for by oil, gas and coal industries. American air is getting cleaner and some of that is due to natural gas prices being lower priced and is killing the coal industry.

Not sure, as usual why you can't read into my philosophy on clean energy.

[Bernie Sanders]

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Seriously, isn't that an oxymoron? I can't think of a single sustainable non-carbon energy source that doesn't "harm the environment."

Solar panel creation is extremely harmful to the environment. (Of course if they are all made n China, who cares?)

Wind power kills many species of birds who aren't aware of rotating blades that enter their personal air space.

Water power can't be done without damning up rivers which hurts various populations of fish.

Geothermal is just sitting on a ticking time bomb, a yet to be born volcano which is never environmentally friendly.

On the other hand, fuel generation through algae is by nature environmentally friendly, but carbon based.

Did not and will not endorse dam building, as this hurts the fishing industry.

Geothermal can be done safely. What happen in Indonesia where they drilled a hole and unleash a mud volcano can be avoided.

Solar panels being "extremely harmful" to the environment is laughable. Of course, I'm sure you believe in Clean energy from coal, right?

Algae fuel generation? We may as well harness methane gas from cows.

[hotfire]

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Seriously, isn't that an oxymoron? I can't think of a single sustainable non-carbon energy source that doesn't "harm the environment."

Solar panel creation is extremely harmful to the environment. (Of course if they are all made n China, who cares?)

Wind power kills many species of birds who aren't aware of rotating blades that enter their personal air space.

Water power can't be done without damning up rivers which hurts various populations of fish.

Geothermal is just sitting on a ticking time bomb, a yet to be born volcano which is never environmentally friendly.

On the other hand, fuel generation through algae is by nature environmentally friendly, but carbon based.

Did not and will not endorse dam building, as this hurts the fishing industry.

Geothermal can be done safely. What happen in Indonesia where they drilled a hole and unleash a mud volcano can be avoided.

Solar panels being "extremely harmful" to the environment is laughable. Of course, I'm sure you believe in Clean energy from coal, right?

Algae fuel generation? We may as well harness methane gas from cows.

Why not harness methane gas from cows?...And stop flaring the Bakken nat. gas due to "lack of infrastructure" as they are about to shut down the Bakken right now (oil is too cheap). It would be a good time to install some infrastructure while they aren't running, eh? Or just send everyone away until they come back with the oil prices and continue flaring it (AKA wasting an important nonrenewable resource ).

[jgordon1111]

Vote Republican for less EPA rules and regulation and unleash American Corporations!

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Bernie this is why I Foed you , and ignore what you say as a general rule of thumb, you have a unique way of dismissing anything that doesn't fit your personal view, what I asked for was clear,state your position and GIVE EXAMPLES of it.
Again you have shown you are a dimbulb,incapable of understanding easy requests, and yet you pretend to be a person wishing to hold a powerful position,you do neither justice with this archaic example of rhetoric

I did give examples. You foed me? My heart is broken....

My position is clear. Clean energy to protect the environment. I certainly am not a Republican, who is bought and paid for by oil, gas and coal industries. American air is getting cleaner and some of that is due to natural gas prices being lower priced and is killing the coal industry.

Not sure, as usual why you can't read into my philosophy on clean energy.

Ok Bernie, I will spell it out for you,give f ing example of clean energy you propose

[Bernie Sanders]

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Seriously, isn't that an oxymoron? I can't think of a single sustainable non-carbon energy source that doesn't "harm the environment."

Solar panel creation is extremely harmful to the environment. (Of course if they are all made n China, who cares?)

Wind power kills many species of birds who aren't aware of rotating blades that enter their personal air space.

Water power can't be done without damning up rivers which hurts various populations of fish.

Geothermal is just sitting on a ticking time bomb, a yet to be born volcano which is never environmentally friendly.

On the other hand, fuel generation through algae is by nature environmentally friendly, but carbon based.

Did not and will not endorse dam building, as this hurts the fishing industry.

Geothermal can be done safely. What happen in Indonesia where they drilled a hole and unleash a mud volcano can be avoided.

Solar panels being "extremely harmful" to the environment is laughable. Of course, I'm sure you believe in Clean energy from coal, right?

Algae fuel generation? We may as well harness methane gas from cows.

Why not harness methane gas from cows?...And stop flaring the Bakken nat. gas due to "lack of infrastructure" as they are about to shut down the Bakken right now (oil is too cheap). It would be a good time to install some infrastructure while they aren't running, eh? Or just send everyone away until they come back with the oil prices and continue flaring it (AKA wasting an important nonrenewable resource ).

The storage facilities for natural gas is basically filled up. The burning off of natural gas at oil and gas derricks is necessary right now.

There's talk about making LIQUEFACTION PLAnts for natural gas shipments to other countries, but this would be bad for American consumers, as this would double the natural gas prices. We would start paying the international price of natural gas, but would enrich the fat cats who are in the natural gas Corporations.

[Bernie Sanders]

Vote Republican for less EPA rules and regulation and unleash American Corporations!

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Bernie this is why I Foed you , and ignore what you say as a general rule of thumb, you have a unique way of dismissing anything that doesn't fit your personal view, what I asked for was clear,state your position and GIVE EXAMPLES of it.
Again you have shown you are a dimbulb,incapable of understanding easy requests, and yet you pretend to be a person wishing to hold a powerful position,you do neither justice with this archaic example of rhetoric

I did give examples. You foed me? My heart is broken....

My position is clear. Clean energy to protect the environment. I certainly am not a Republican, who is bought and paid for by oil, gas and coal industries. American air is getting cleaner and some of that is due to natural gas prices being lower priced and is killing the coal industry.

Not sure, as usual why you can't read into my philosophy on clean energy.

Ok Bernie, I will spell it out for you,give f ing example of clean energy you propose

Calm down, take a deep breath and read what I posted. It's hard enough to keep your thread alive and not dying with your rambling insults.

[tzor]

Solar panels being "extremely harmful" to the environment is laughable.

How Green Are Those Solar Panels, Really? National Geographic

Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental toxics.

Varying regulations and manufacturing practices make it difficult to get standardized data about the environmental footprint of photovoltaic panels. A study released in May by Northwestern University and Argonne National Laboratory found that the carbon footprint of a panel from China is twice that of one from Europe, because China has fewer environmental standards and more coal-fired power plants.

China has already seen a backlash. Panel manufacturer Jinko Solar, for example, has faced protests and legal action since one of its plants, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, was accused of dumping toxic waste into a nearby river.

Solar Energy Isn’t Always as Green as You Think IEEE Spectrum

Solar panels glimmering in the sun are an icon of all that is green. But while generating electricity through photovoltaics is indeed better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, several incidents have linked the manufacture of these shining symbols of environmental virtue to a trail of chemical pollution. And it turns out that the time it takes to compensate for the energy used and the greenhouse gases emitted in photovoltaic panel production varies substantially by technology and geography.

To understand exactly what the problems are, and how they might be addressed, it’s helpful to know a little something about how photovoltaic panels are made. While solar energy can be generated using a variety of technologies, the vast majority of solar cells today start as quartz, the most common form of silica (silicon dioxide), which is refined into elemental silicon. There’s the first problem: The quartz is extracted from mines, putting the miners at risk of one of civilization’s oldest occupational hazards, the lung disease silicosis.

The initial refining turns quartz into metallurgical-grade silicon, a substance used mostly to harden steel and other metals. That happens in giant furnaces, and keeping them hot takes a lot of energy, a subject we’ll return to later. Fortunately, the levels of the resulting emissions—mostly carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide—can’t do much harm to the people working at silicon refineries or to the immediate environment.

The next step, however—turning metallurgical-grade silicon into a purer form called polysilicon—creates the very toxic compound silicon tetrachloride. The refinement process involves combining hydrochloric acid with metallurgical-grade silicon to turn it into what are called trichlorosilanes. The trichlorosilanes then react with added hydrogen, producing polysilicon along with liquid silicon tetrachloride—three or four tons of silicon tetrachloride for every ton of polysilicon.

Most manufacturers recycle this waste to make more polysilicon. Capturing silicon from silicon tetrachloride requires less energy than obtaining it from raw silica, so recycling this waste can save manufacturers money. But the reprocessing equipment can cost tens of millions of dollars. So some operations have just thrown away the by-product. If exposed to water—and that’s hard to prevent if it’s casually dumped—the silicon tetrachloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes.

The struggle to keep photovoltaics green does not end with the production of polysilicon. Solar-cell manufacturers purify chunks of polysilicon to form bricklike ingots and then slice the ingots into wafers. Then they introduce impurities into the silicon wafers, creating the essential solar-cell architecture that produces the photovoltaic effect.

These steps all involve hazardous chemicals. For example, manufacturers rely on hydrofluoric acid to clean the wafers, remove damage that comes from sawing, and texture the surface to better collect light. Hydrofluoric acid works great for all these things, but when it touches an unprotected person, this highly corrosive liquid can destroy tissue and decalcify bones. So handling hydrofluoric acid requires extreme care, and it must be disposed of properly.

But accidents do happen and are more likely in places that have limited experience manufacturing semiconductors or that have lax environmental regulations. In August 2011, a factory in China’s Zhejiang province owned by Jinko Solar Holding Co., one of the largest photovoltaic companies in the world, spilled hydrofluoric acid into the nearby Mujiaqiao River, killing hundreds of fish. And farmers working adjacent lands, who used the contaminated water to clean their animals, accidently killed dozens of pigs.

[jgordon1111]

Bernie I have been trying to think of a way to say it nicely, but you persist in claiming you have cited clean energy source of natural gas,WTF, if you actually believe natural gas is clean energy beyond a shadow of a doubt you are ignorant beyond repair, hell current events put it as a lie, don't believe it ask California residents, who are currently being made sick from your solution,now it is possible that it is better than oil or coal, but dimbulb the position you keep taking lines you right up with the gop candidates you espouse to oppose

[hotfire]

Vote for Bernie Sanders and protect the environment. Increase research in sustainable non-carbon energy!

Seriously, isn't that an oxymoron? I can't think of a single sustainable non-carbon energy source that doesn't "harm the environment."

Solar panel creation is extremely harmful to the environment. (Of course if they are all made n China, who cares?)

Wind power kills many species of birds who aren't aware of rotating blades that enter their personal air space.

Water power can't be done without damning up rivers which hurts various populations of fish.

Geothermal is just sitting on a ticking time bomb, a yet to be born volcano which is never environmentally friendly.

On the other hand, fuel generation through algae is by nature environmentally friendly, but carbon based.

Did not and will not endorse dam building, as this hurts the fishing industry.

Geothermal can be done safely. What happen in Indonesia where they drilled a hole and unleash a mud volcano can be avoided.

Solar panels being "extremely harmful" to the environment is laughable. Of course, I'm sure you believe in Clean energy from coal, right?

Algae fuel generation? We may as well harness methane gas from cows.

Why not harness methane gas from cows?...And stop flaring the Bakken nat. gas due to "lack of infrastructure" as they are about to shut down the Bakken right now (oil is too cheap). It would be a good time to install some infrastructure while they aren't running, eh? Or just send everyone away until they come back with the oil prices and continue flaring it (AKA wasting an important nonrenewable resource ).

The storage facilities for natural gas is basically filled up. The burning off of natural gas at oil and gas derricks is necessary right now.

There's talk about making LIQUEFACTION PLAnts for natural gas shipments to other countries, but this would be bad for American consumers, as this would double the natural gas prices. We would start paying the international price of natural gas, but would enrich the fat cats who are in the natural gas Corporations.

All that might be necessary to stay even in natural gas stock is to stop extracting it where they need to frack for it by itself (leave it for later if necessary) and get it from where they are flaring it off as it is obviously less energy and chemically intensive to extract it where they are fracking for oil already( and kill two birds with one stone). It can't be that difficult to send nat. gas train cars with the oil cars and this could eliminate the need for any pipe line. Maybe it is difficult to transport by rail, but I don't understand how wasting a natural resource doesn't result in being a negative income for the long run (but who cares about the long run?).

[jgordon1111]

Lmao, it has been brought to my attention I have been unfair, not sure how, but here goes, Dear Bernie, when I asked for which side you stood on and give examples of it. I sure as shit did not mean Vote Bernie I stand for clean energy,that is in no way an example of (clean energy) and as for you helping this thread, it wasn't needed, I don't need to calm down,no do I partake of dope of any kind legal or illegal, what your excuse for the crap you say? Difference is I say what I mean and am capable of observing other's view points and if I disagree I can give a rational response.Can you?