It's late and I need sleep so I'll have to address the rest of this later because so far the only thing that seems to make sense is this statement here:

Oh wait ........... that's because that's one of my statements that you didn't attribute. That explains it. So none of what you said seems to make any sense here. But I'll have to look at it (and your other statements) tomorrow to me sure.

 

Stumbler, for the record, yes, I would consider The Economist to be a conservative publication. It's basically the British equivalent of Time or Newsweek, but it's less entertainment-oriented and maintains a much higher intellectual plane, in my opinion.

 

Read the "whats up with gasoline thread", pretty easy Stumbles.

 

Please read your words again.

Since I am not embarrassed, what is your next concern???

 

Ok lets see about this.

I have to disagree. Your statement is pretty straightforward and wrong and my response clearly addresses that misconception.

Jefferson was conflicted and anguished so it is logical he would have tried to rationalize owning slaves which would explain his faulty logic in his essay. But then so was George Washington to a certain extent and he eventually freed all his slaves upon his and his wife's death. His wife however figured the clause in his will that their slaves would be free upon her death saw that as an incentive for their slaves to kill her so she freed them early.

But let's not stray too far afield here. Your original point was that since Kimiko in particular noted that it is ignorance and stupidity to vote for or against a leader based solely on skill color is an unintelligent way to select our leaders, and since Jefferson held prejudices and owned slaves means we must be saying Jefferson was not intelligent does not apply because we are talking about now in our modern times and knowledge and attitudes more than 200 years ago were quite different.

So to put it in more simple terms; that dog won't hunt tenguy.

And you're trying to tell me these people are intelligent? How can that be if they cling to things that they know or should know are wrong and ignorant. An intelligent person would progress beyond that. Which incidentally most of them have.

And by its very definition and application prejudice is stupid.

Yes that would be the intelligent thing to do.

But yes we can legislate it and did through the civil rights act. Otherwise blacks in the south would still not be able to vote.

And the election of Barack Obama proves that it does work. It just takes time for people to begin to shed their ignorance and use their intelligence.

This one is my statement and I still like it and believe in nails you but good.

The people who don't share this knowledge are ignorant and untelligent because prejudice is destructive and counter productive which hurts all of us including and perhaps even more; them.

 

Nope. I easily proved why your explanation of why diesel prices are falling at a slower rate then gasoline prices was incorrect. But if you want to dispute that point start posting them on this, that or a separate thread and I'd be glad to debate them with you.

 

Ok lets see about this one too.

Here's what I said:

See the highlighted phrase "ought to" that makes is a suggestion not a command.

That you ought to be.

 

I don't think you quite get where I'm coming from Tengy, so I'll explain it a little more clearly...

I can perhaps understand that some less mature people like to have a sense of superiority over the "dumb" person, but that's amusement and mild ridicule of that person's deficits or traits. You could use that same analogy based on age, weight, race, and it would equally apply.

However, emulating, appreciating and admiring such people, based on their stupidity? Or the person themselves acting in a superior manner, because they are unintelligent? That makes no sense whatsoever. Yet it happens, everyday.

Bye for now - Fluffy McNoo.

 

I guess you're right, you just posted this. didn't you??:excited:

 

In that thread you stated that the refinery can chose whether to distill either gasoline or diesel out of a barrel of crude, this is not true. To distill gasoline he will get diesel as well, whether he wants to or not.

It makes perfect sense that if you are trying to get diesel, you will also get gasoline, it is basic hydrocarbon chemistry. Therefore if you have a low demand for gasoline and a high demand for diesel, you will have to stockpile or sell off the gasoline that results from the process.

You totally ignored this in the subject thread, that implies that you didn't know it.

If you dispute this, let's either go back to that thread or start a new one, I'm waiting for your rebuttal.

 

In the first place you totally misconstrue the crux of our disagreement. I asked you why diesel fuel was falling in price at a slower rate then gasoline and you said because of the Ultra Low Sulfur requirements which is not true.

But more to the point (and I will double check to me sure) in order to get diesel all they have to do is cook and refine oil at a lower temperature and pressure. To get gasoline all they have to do is cook it at a higher temperature and pressure. What can not be distilled into gasoline can be distilled into diesel.

It is perfectly possible and even way cheaper to refine a barrel of oil into diesel instead of gasoline. But since we use way more gasoline then diesel in this nation it makes more sense to refine as mush gasoline as possible out of a barrel of diesel and then distill diesel out of what can't be made into gasoline.

Its you tenguy and not me that does not understand the refining process.

 

Wrong.

I said one of the reasons that diesel cost more than it used to was low sulfur fuel requirements.

You are absolutely incorrect in that statement. Diesel is a different molecular compoud than gasoline, you can not "cook" diesel and get gasoline. You can crack it and reassemble to a different hydro carbon, but you can not distill it, but that is even more costly process.

Since you won't do it I will start another thread for you to explain this.

 

As I said I did double check my understanding of refining diesel and as I said on the thread you put up that I was wrong.

But let me ask you a question tenguy. What does my mistake about the refining process have to do with the triumph of intellect?

Nothing does it? But it does have everything to do with your personal vendetta against me, and your personal attacks, which to me at seems to be a failure of intellect.

But let me try and re-rail this thread because there have been some important developments since it was first started.

Those developments would be the selections Barack Obama is making for his advisers and cabinet members and the approach he is taking to prioritize the issues he wants to tackle as soon as he gets into office.

As an example I would point to his announcment yesterday that he wants to create 2.5 million new jobs. Nothing could be more important to our failing economy but I think it is even more important to look at where and why he wants to create these jobs.

Obama wants to tackle the problem of our crummbling infrastructure the dramatic example of which would be the tragic bridge collapse in Minnosata. These are things that really need to be done for both the infrastructure and the economy and to me that is the "triumph of intellect."

 

I don't believe this is true but will research it and post the results on the thread I created to specifically address what I see as your vendetta against me.

But more to the point tenguy now and on this thread we are not talking about wordpower over brainpower. We are talking about the triumph of intellect of the election of Barack Obama over the intellectual failure of the past eight years.

It is not Barack Obama's words I point to in order to demonstrate this but his actions.

 

In this thread you have chosen to bring all thing into it, from a verbal rape of diedre to the obvious biased opinion that conservatives have intellectual shortcomings.

Now you wan to re-rail it to the oiginal false premise that the election of Obama was "the triumph of intellect".

In your childish rants against the lady, you exposed your very stupid side.

So please don't start your tirade again.

Thank you.

 

Nope, tenguy these are more false statements and untrue accusations. I have posted the sequence on the Your turn to be challenged thread which clearly indicates you started this out of your personal dislike for me, not the ulterior motives you try and claim here.

I think there is ample evidence that the election of Barack Obama is a triumph of intellect for this nation is not a false premise.

This is a strawman argument tenguy because my reactions to Deidre's ridiculous and hateful statements have nothing to do with you and I.

I didn't start this you did. (See your turn to be Challenged tenguy thread)

You're welcome

 

This is where your wrong once again. It has everything to do with you, because it shows your inability to interact in a civil manner.

It has a lot to do with me, because it helps me form an opinion of you both.

 

I believe he will make this country become even better than ever
peace out

 

You are not in the minority with that opinion, let's hope he can.