Librul- Your reply makes me sad as much as anything as it speaks directly to the death of rational thought and debate. I put forth a very simple question. All I was interested in was a brief outline of an energy policy that would be something you could get behind. I asked you to convince me that your position is correct. To this you respond with three paragraphs of personal attack. I don’t know you. You may be a wonderful person, and we simply disagree on an issue. It speaks volumes that you would rather make a personal attack then simply state your position clearly.
The fact that you would like to relegate those that may differ from you to the camp of idiocy does not in any way speak to the validity of your truth claims.
Wallyworld- Another fantastic example of the template applied. You totally nailed number 1. You took a little creative license with number 2. You really dropped the ball on number 3. I don’t watch porn or Nascar. You should be careful here and simply stick to the script you’ve been given. Number 3 is the self-righteous statement.
Librul- You have an uncanny knack for making your opponent’s arguments for them, but ok. I’ll play.
Let’s pretend I’m from another planet or just a newbie to this issue. Convince me of your position.
It's easy to see the liberal attack template in action here. First, an ad hominem attack is launched. Second, some general emoting is offered, or just another attack on the opponent. Third, toss out a self-righteous comment to jump start the process of feeling good about yourself the rest of the day.
People often change their tunes when they have some skin in the game; something to lose. I often hear the arguement that it is better to be known for what we are for than for what we are against. I would ask the true believers in man made global warming leading to catastrophe to put forth some ideas that would solve this.