Dude, it's become pretty obvious you have some messed up views without basis and they kill your credibility.
Nothing messed-up about my argument for this particular thread, and yes it has plenty of basis. Your problem is you are unable to refute it, but it goes so much against your opinion that you can't stand it, so now you're going to try to refute it along the lines of, "Here are a bunch of other areas where I think Wheels was wrong, so therefore he must also be wrong here."
I mean seriously, the whole following spiel would be completely un-necessary if you could quite easily refute my point.
For a lark and because I had time, I gathered a few links to sort of serve as a collection of your various views, your tendency to gather sources from right wing blogs while simultaneously claiming diversity of resources, and your complete denial in the face of information that contradicts the narrative you've constructed in your head.http://www.rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=63192
: Wheels points out that Medicare's increasing costs show that the CBO's cost projections can't be trusted because they were wrong about Medicare. It's pointed out that the CBO didn't run cost projection analysis of Medicare because it didn't exist yet.
adamantine27, that is a minor error, and I think you miss the central point there, which is that if the GOVERNMENT overall couldn't properly project the costs of Medicare, then what makes anyone think it will properly project the costs of the AFA? That it's the CBO doing it now doesn't somehow magically increase it's abilities. I am hoping that if upheld by the Court, that the cost projections are correct, but I am still a bit skeptical on that front.
: In which Wheels cannot comprehend of a world in which the GOP is literally being petty and playing politics with the issue of health care. He fixates on details, has them explained to him, accepts the answers, and then goes right back to fixating on those details.
That's a long thread, so maybe I am missing the part where I "can't comprehend" the GOP has never been petty or engaged in partisan politics, however I do remember I distinguished between the Republican party as a whole and the Republican party politicians. The Republican base as a whole is not
being petty or engaging in partisan politics regarding healthcare. You can argue they are wrong, that's fine, but they have never supported things like an individual mandate or anything like that.
Certain Republican POLITICIANS, on the other hand, yes they are hypocrites to a degree in that during the 1990s some of them supported an individual mandate very similar to the AFA. But that is an example of when Republicans complain that the party's politicians oftentimes are not conservative and basically act as Democrat-lite, as they see it (and conservatives did not like that elements of the GOP were embracing the idea of an individual mandate back in the 1990s). As a result, the party's base is holding the Republicans to a high standard now in that they want them to be actually conservative, such as with the healthcare law.
: In which wheels claims that the Joker, a fictional Batman villain, is an example of a brilliant but insane individual, when we were asking for a real life example for the purpose of our argument. He insists that this is a valid response.
YEP, and then I realized the fallacy of my ways there. It's called learning. It happens. That's WHY I debate, because you learn when you present your viewpoints to folks who disagree.
: Same thread. In which wheels claims that various radical left wingers are being appointed by the Obama administration, and therefore are justified in being blocked from taking office. After being shown that the only "radical" thing about the lot of them is that they accept the reality of global warming and accept that we have to do something about it,
Actually, some of them are pretty radical in certain ways. Steven Chu's positions are that we have to get the price of gas up to what it is in Europe (yeah, he backed away from that later, but that's for reasons of politics) and that it is okay for the U.S. government to essentially outlaw incandescent lightbulbs (and yes contrary to what the proponents claim, including himself, they're being outlawed) because the American people are too stupid to know what product to buy.
Sotomayer was caught mocking the idea that justices are not supposed to create law from the bench. And Goodwin Liu believes that terms like free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government (all of which he places in quotes) are "code words" for an agenda hostile to environmental, consumer, and workplace protections: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... ectoldpage
I'd love to know what on Earth he means by placing them in quotes as those are not arbitrary words, they are core principles held by certain people regarding their political philosophy, and two of them (free enterprise and private ownership of property) are central to the existence of the republic and free societies in general. According to him, if someone says they are for free-enterprise (as opposed to the government driving the economy), private property (i.e. not allowing people to be run of f their property for special interests), and limited government (as opposed to big government), then they don't care about issues such as the environment, workplace, and consumer safety.
He insists that this is actually a mass conspiracy on part of scientists. In this epic thread, I not only prove to Wheels the reality of global warming using actual studies, but how global warming "skepticism" is actually intentional misrepresentations pushed by oil companies in order to stall efforts to do anything about it, and expose Wheel's laughable exclusive use of right-wing blogs and oil backed studies while he claims he has a "diversity of resources" as well. In the course of this conversation, Wheels repeatedly insists on a left wing conspiracy, then completely denies it even when his own words are explicitly quoted back to him. He also insists on a conspiracy on behalf of scientists, and is debunked with pure common sense.
I agree on the global warming issue and I was wrong on that. While I do not believe in mass conspiracies, it has been shown occassionally in science for there to be a massive amount of collective willful ignorance of evidence that is to the contrary of what the consensus position is. I am not arguing that's the case with global climate change, but I mean it has happened. Such an occurrence isn't a conspiracy though, which would imply all the scientists know they are wrong but conspire together secretly.
: In which Wheels claims that Israel has never hurt Palestinians, never breached a UN resolution, etc... He is provided with an exhaustive list of UN security counsel resolutions that describe various inhumane breaches by Israel toward Palestine. He then claims that the UN security counsel is "biased."
It is. Good grief, look at how much Israel, a tiny liberal democracy, gets criticized by it in comparison to other nations that engage in real slaughter. A majority of the resolutions condemn Israel for human rights violations. Yeah, there is no bias there. The country can't even defend itself from attack without getting criticized for human righs violations. Meanwhile you have countries in Africa, countries in the Middle East like Syria, etc...engaging in wholesale slaughter of their people, but no one nearly cracks down on them as much. The primary reason for the plight of the Palestinians as it exists is that the other countries in that region use them as a tool with which to pressure Israel and make it look bad. They otherwise don't give a crap about them. Israel is a tiny liberal democracy surrounded by other countries that are at best on so-so terms with it. It desires peace. It has gone consistently out of its way in order to try to get peace, being willing to give up some very sacred areas. Each time it has been rejected because its enemies don't want peace, they want to destroy it.
Earlier in the same thread, he claims that the US never tortured anyone. We point out how the US has. He denies it still.
I've noticed that you have a tendency to manipulate out of context my points of view, so rather than respond to this, I'll just say that you'll have to cite the specific part where I claimed this so I can read it, as that thread is too large for me to go through page-by-page to find it.
Wheels is not a credible source for most anything. He's got some racist opinions, gathers all his information from far right wing resources, claims bias for anything that doesn't conform to those resources, and his views don't evolve with greater information.
Completely wrong on all accounts:
1) My opinions are not racist. That is just your opinion,
an opinion which you have thus far been completely unable to substantiate at all. Since you can't substantiate it, you've decided to dig up past threads, basically on the logic of, "I can't disprove this guy's argument here, so I'll just show how I think he's been wrong in the past, and that will unto itself disqualify his arguments here."
It's a lousy way to try to make your point.
2) I do not gather all of my information from "right-wing" sources. I DID have a problem with doing that regarding global climate change, but I realized that fallacy and don't do it anymore.
3) I only claim bias when there's a clear bias, not when something doesn't conform to my POV.
4) You haven't been reading much if you think my views don't evolve with greater information as I conceded much in the healthcare and global warming debates.
And BTW, you yourself have been wrong on some things. Doesn't mean you aren't right on other things. You have to go by a person's arguments on each issue. On a slightly related note, one thing I recently discovered that you might want to be aware of, in our climate change debate, you had written the following:
If you can find me one climatologist's research, not a geologist, not a meteorologist, not a chemist... a CLIMATOLOGIST's research that has been peer reviewed, and that climatologist was not bankrolled by some oil company think tank or something of that sort, I will concede the point. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=62244&start=360
I wasn't aware of it at the time, but in the world of climate science, there isn't really any such formal education that makes one a "climate scientist" or a "climatologist." Most climatologists have degrees in fields such as mathematics, physics, geology, meteorology, atmospheric science, chemistry, etc...for example, look at the website RealClimate.org's contributors:
Gavin A. Schmidt - BA in Mathematics, PhD in Applied Mathematics
Michael E. Mann - undergrad in Physics and Applied Math, M.S. in Physics, Ph.D in Geology and Geophysics
Caspar Ammann - site says he is a climate scientist, doesn't mention what degrees he has
Rasmus E. Benestad - physicist by training in atmospheric, oceanic, and planetary physics
Raymond S. Bradley - paleoclimatology from what I can tell
Stefan Rahmstorf - physicist (who at first worked in early relativity theory) and oceanographer by training
Eric Steig - isotope geochemist, Ph.D in geological sciences
David Archer - computational ocean chemist
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - Ph.D in hydrodynamic stability theory, professor of geophysical sciences
Thibault de Garidel - Ph.D in geosciences
Jim Bouldin - research ecologist, Ph.D in plant science
then here are some other climate scientists:
James Hansen - B.A. in physics and mathematics, M.S. in astronomy, Ph.D in physics
Peter Gleick - Ph.D in energy and resources
Kevin Trenburth - Sc. D in Meteorology
Michael MacCracken - Ph.D in applied science
...and so on...
So even if you disagree with scientists who are climate change skeptics, technically geologists, physicists, oceanographers, chemists, meteorologists, etc...can make counter arguments regarding global climate change as well. A "climate scientist" or a "climatologist" generally seems to be a person with an education in some field heavy in physics and math who has devoted themselves to studying climate-related issues. That someone has their Ph.D in such a field doesn't automatically disqualify them as "not being a climate scientist" if they are skeptical of some element of climate science.