• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michele Bachmann announces presidential campaign

Grant said:
Perhaps what you meant to say is that despite there being losses today, there are possibilities for profits in the future.

We shouldn't need a degree in economics to understand that.
Click to expand...

/facepalm

Seriously... I don't know why I should even get in this debate with you, because you don't know what you're talking about and yet you're naive enough to lecture me like I am retard.

Honestly, Grant, their balance sheets and income statements are public information... we can just go get their income statements and see if they are showing a profit on them. Economic losses doesn't mean red ink. You know... revenue - losses = profit. If revenue is greater than the losses, then we could easily infer that they are capable of meeting their debts and not about to collapse. That article also said they are growing and selling more, therefore sales revenue accounts are increasing... not decreasing, so it's not like ONLY losses are increasing and not revenues.

Profit Definition
 
Grant said:
It was you, in an apparent attempt to give higher status to your opinion, who introduced your education into the debate.
Click to expand...

You insisted that I am ignorant on the issue... I am betting I have more to prove that I am knowledgeable than you do, so all you can do is attack my education and my career.
 
MistressNomad said:
Why are only the most shameful of Minnesota politicians involved in this one? Man...

She thinks global warming is a hoax, wants to teach creationism in schools, supports a constitutional ban on SSM (she even goes as far as to call being gay a "sexual disorder"), and thinks we should consider going nuclear with Iran.

She is insane to the point of delusion, and she was one of the early warning signs of the GOP going off the rails.

Seriously, yeah, I'm a liberal, but I don't mind conservatives. Really. It's just that people like her are not "conservatives." They're insane. Real conservatives are abandoning the GOP like a sinking ship in embarrassment. People like Bachmann are the reason why.
Click to expand...
What is your problem? 1) Global warming is a hoax, as more genuine scientists become brave enough to express their doubt. 2) Creationism is just as likely as evolution. Things do evolve but to say that we came from ooze is insane. The one time that life was supposedly created has been debunked because it has not been re-created. ( That is the true scientific test.) 3) Until they changed the dictionary, marriage meant one man and one woman. 4) I would like to see a link proving that she wants to "GO NUCLEAR" with Iran.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
What is your problem? 1) Global warming is a hoax, as more genuine scientists become brave enough to express their doubt. 2) Creationism is just as likely as evolution. Things do evolve but to say that we came from ooze is insane. The one time that life was supposedly created has been debunked because it has not been re-created. ( That is the true scientific test.) 3) Until they changed the dictionary, marriage meant one man and one woman. 4) I would like to see a link proving that she wants to "GO NUCLEAR" with Iran.
Click to expand...

If you choose to believe completely false information about science, I can't talk you out of it. All I can say is that you are factually wrong in ways that even a moderately literate 3rd grader would know. You don't understand how scientific consensus works, your "understanding" of evolution or abiogensis is so pitiful I wouldn't even know where to start to correct you, and the definition of "marriage" has changed radically at least a handful of times in the past - your notion of tradition is laughable.

In terms of going nuke with Iran, what I actually said is that she considers it an option.
Michele Bachmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And while I was browsing, I also found she considers nukes an option for pretty much anything - even a cyber attack.
Are Nukes Needed to Deter Cyber Attacks? Bachmann Says 'Yes' - The Note
 
MistressNomad said:
You don't understand how scientific consensus works
Click to expand...

There was once a scientific consensus that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, the the Mediterranean was literally the center of Earth, that man could never fly, etc. If we have learned anything it is that science is not decided by "consensus". All scientists must be skeptics until the evidence is beyond a doubt. Such is not the case with global warming. Or cooling.

Follow the money.
 
Grant said:
There was once a scientific consensus that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, the the Mediterranean was literally the center of Earth, that man could never fly, etc. If we have learned anything it is that science is not decided by "consensus". All scientists must be skeptics until the evidence is beyond a doubt. Such is not the case with global warming. Or cooling.

Follow the money.
Click to expand...

That was not a scientific consensus. True scientific methodology didn't exist then, and mythology was inseparably mixed in with the fledglings of scientific thought.

Things like a flat earth that was the center of the universe was religious consensus more than anything.

All decent scientists are skeptics. There is no such thing as an absolute statement in true science. This doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't mean anything, or that an overwhelming mountain of evidence isn't a good enough reason to factor it into the scientific world view.

You're only further proving my point that not only do you not understand science, but you don't even know what it is.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
I highly doubt the company is going to collapse and neither does Wall St. which is why their stocks have been trading since I last checked. They are experiencing losses, but analysts looking at their balance sheets aren't saying the companies are worthless and incapable of turning a profit...
Click to expand...
Of course government motors is not going to collapse. At least not until the one term president Obama collapses the US economy.

And this statement is far more reasonable than saying a company losing money is profitable.
 
MistressNomad said:
In terms of going nuke with Iran, what I actually said is that she considers it an option.
Michele Bachmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And while I was browsing, I also found she considers nukes an option for pretty much anything - even a cyber attack.
Are Nukes Needed to Deter Cyber Attacks? Bachmann Says 'Yes' - The Note
Click to expand...

I think nuclear weapons as an option makes a great deal of sense. I am with M. Bachmann on this one. Ditto on the global warming hoax.
 
Misterveritis said:
I think nuclear weapons as an option makes a great deal of sense.
Click to expand...

And lets be glad that your in the minority in this one, and hopefully always will be.

I'm not into the whole death of millions of civillians.

I am with M. Bachmann on this one. Ditto on the global warming hoax.
Click to expand...

And once again, opinion is opinion, just a real shame opinion of the ignorant has to trump real science.
 
Jetboogieman said:
And lets be glad that your in the minority in this one, and hopefully always will be.

I'm not into the whole death of millions of civillians.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea what military force is for?
How many deaths were there at Hiroshima? At Nagasaki? Millions? No. High hundreds of thousands? No. Low hundreds of thousands? Well, maybe. About 200K for one and about 100K for the other.

Do you prefer killing the old fashioned way?

Jetboogieman said:
And once again, opinion is opinion, just a real shame opinion of the ignorant has to trump real science.
Click to expand...
We agree, but for opposite reasons. The opinion of charlatans will be trumped by real science. The global warming hoax will live on for a while.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you have any idea what military force is for?
How many deaths were there at Hiroshima? At Nagasaki? Millions? No. High hundreds of thousands? No. Low hundreds of thousands? Well, maybe. About 200K for one and about 100K for the other.

Do you prefer killing the old fashioned way?
Click to expand...

And the "This is how we did it in WW2 strawman appears.


We agree, but for opposite reasons. The opinion of charlatans will be trumped by real science. The global warming hoax will live on for a while.
Click to expand...

Real science indicates Global warming to be a reality. thank you come again.
 
Jetboogieman said:
And the "This is how we did it in WW2 strawman appears.
Click to expand...
The first two atomic bombs were crude devises. Targeting was adequate to find an hit small-medium sized cities. Today we can choose which end of a building to hit. Weapons are selected based on the amount of military damage needed to accomplish the goal.

I showed you by example that the use of nuclear weapons does not cause millions of deaths. Why do you kick so hard against that which is real. Why do you struggle with ghosts?

Jetboogieman said:
Real science indicates Global warming to be a reality. thank you come again.
Click to expand...
Mantra of the Left...
 
Misterveritis said:
The first two atomic bombs were crude devises. Targeting was adequate to find an hit small-medium sized cities. Today we can choose which end of a building to hit. Weapons are selected based on the amount of military damage needed to accomplish the goal.

I showed you by example that the use of nuclear weapons does not cause millions of deaths. Why do you kick so hard against that which is real. Why do you struggle with ghosts?
Click to expand...

Actually we have missiles that can do what we need, why bring nuclear weapons into the equation at all? Poisioning the atmosphere and making parts of the planet uninhabitable for generations?

Sounds like a PERFECT PLAN.


Mantra of the Left...
Click to expand...

Mantra of someone with half a brain, a decent education, logic and the use of all that to decipher sound scientific information.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Actually we have missiles that can do what we need, why bring nuclear weapons into the equation at all?
Click to expand...
If we have a non-nuclear answer we will have the option of using it. Some targets are too hard for conventional attack.

Jetboogieman said:
Poisioning the atmosphere and making parts of the planet uninhabitable for generations?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that either one would occur? Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki uninhabitable for generations? Have any of the places where nuclear weapons detonated been uninhabitable for generations? Or is it that you have received your knowledge of nuclear weapons from popular movies and television?

Jetboogieman said:
Mantra of someone with half a brain, a decent education, logic and the use of all that to decipher sound scientific information.
Click to expand...
Your insistence is more religious than scientific. If the science is real it will win out. There is no need to harass, bully, and compel citizens to knuckle under to a government thug.
 
Misterveritis said:
If we have a non-nuclear answer we will have the option of using it. Some targets are too hard for conventional attack.
Click to expand...

And what makes either you, or Miss Bachmann experts on what targets require a nuclear attack?

What makes you think that either one would occur? Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki uninhabitable for generations? Have any of the places where nuclear weapons detonated been uninhabitable for generations? Or is it that you have received your knowledge of nuclear weapons from popular movies and television?
Click to expand...

Should have added "possibly" for that, but make no mistake, the Nuclear Weapons of Today are alot more powerful, the atom bomb used on Horoshima and Nagasaki were a BB gun compared to the power of todays nuclear weapons.

Your insistence is more religious than scientific. If the science is real it will win out. There is no need to harass, bully, and compel citizens to knuckle under to a government thug.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about doing that? I guess you have nothing to add on this subject.
 
Hey Jet, have a coffee buddy. :coffeepap:
 
American said:
Hey Jet, have a coffee buddy. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's really no reason to engage people who propose mass-murder as a solution to a problem...
 
Jetboogieman said:
And what makes either you, or Miss Bachmann experts on what targets require a nuclear attack?
Click to expand...
I cannot speak to her qualifications. I spent four years in a joint assignment (military) as a targeteer. So I know quite a bit. Dated, of course.


Jetboogieman said:
Should have added "possibly" for that, but make no mistake, the Nuclear Weapons of Today are alot more powerful, the atom bomb used on Horoshima and Nagasaki were a BB gun compared to the power of todays nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
One selects the right weapon for the right level of damage to the target. No one has any interest in killing non-combatants just for the sake of killing. One does what one can to minimize loss of innocent life.
 
Misterveritis said:
I cannot speak to her qualifications. I spent four years in a joint assignment (military) as a targeteer. So I know quite a bit. Dated, of course.



One selects the right weapon for the right level of damage to the target. No one has any interest in killing non-combatants just for the sake of killing. One does what one can to minimize loss of innocent life.
Click to expand...

Which would categorically preclude the use of nuclear weapons.
 
Misterveritis said:
Perhaps in your mind. No weapon can be used without the potential loss of innocent life. Tough.
Click to expand...

You must have a different definition of "minimize" than I do. A nuclear weapon is guaranteed to kill more innocent people than a precision conventional strike.
 
Deuce said:
You must have a different definition of "minimize" than I do. A nuclear weapon is guaranteed to kill more innocent people than a precision conventional strike.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that I do. One selects the weapon based on the effects one is looking for in the target. If you want to break windows you use one sized weapon. If you want to render the facility unusable a different weapon may be required. Select the smallest yield that gives you the effects you want in the time frame you need.
 
Misterveritis said:
I have no doubt that I do. One selects the weapon based on the effects one is looking for in the target. If you want to break windows you use one sized weapon. If you want to render the facility unusable a different weapon may be required. Select the smallest yield that gives you the effects you want in the time frame you need.
Click to expand...

Unless the effect you want is "level half the city," then there's no need for a nuclear weapon. If that is your goal, you're a mass-murderer regardless of what the intended target is.
 
Deuce said:
Unless the effect you want is "level half the city," then there's no need for a nuclear weapon. If that is your goal, you're a mass-murderer regardless of what the intended target is.
Click to expand...
I am incredibly impressed by your deep, profound knowledge of our nuclear weapons and targeting techniques. Appeals to emotion work well for emotional cripples for which emotion trumps all. For me, not so much. If it is in our interest the weapons should be an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom