As one leaves the Tropic of Cancer going north, or the Tropic of Capricorn, going south, the period during which the Sun is visible in the sky will last more than 12 hours. BUT …

Is there sufficient daylight, for example, to activate a solar cell?

And, is it not true that even in the Land of the Midnight Sun it is dark for a short time at night, no matter what day of the year it is?

My point that the sun does not “shine” all day is correct, and my point that this means that the Sun is not the most efficient form of energy, unless and until the problems of transportability and storage are both solved, is also correct.

The floggings will continue until morale is improved. And in view of the fact that I never supported terrorism, I ask you: Have you abandoned the delusion that I support terrorism yet?

And, further, have you discovered that you do not define the American political landscape correctly, either in here, or anywhere?

“Frank DiSalle”: “Just tell me somewhere on earth where the sun shines unremittingly for more than 12 hours day, besides the North Pole ?”

you still don’t know what you are talking about “Frank” despite being repeatedly corrected and given ample time to figure this out.

Sunshine is sunrise to sunset.

http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/longestday.htm

And by the way, “Frank”, have you repudiated your support for terrorism yet?

Norway, parts of Sweden, Finland, Russia, Alaska, Iceland, and Chile, to name a few.

Wow, when did that happen?

So?

Yeah, yeah, I know – It’s MRC … I suggest you look up Lichter and Rothman

Really don’t care that much, but thanks.

Notice how none of them takes the time to comment on anything he says, even though he sucks up to them shamelessly for approval? Guilt-by-association wouldn’t be a logical fallacy in that instance, it would be an irrefutable indictment that they are just as bad.

Just tell me somewhere on earth where the sun shines unremittingly for more than 12 hours day, besides the North Pole ?

Any time in the future you tell a lie about me I will take the time to correct you — until everyone knows what I know: That you are a bloviating a buffoon, a bottomless pit of lies and distorted data. Try reading that website you are linked to .

Amazing!

No, MOH, I was referring to this particular overly verbose poster in question’s penchant for the ad hominem to dispel any point ever made. Of course he uses the the ad hom as a rhetorical tool by calling the person making the point a name, that is a given with him. Such as “Extreme right-wing neocon Jew Michael “Savage” Weiner….”, or “Right-winger Dennis”…, or “Extreme right-winger and rape apologist AO”….”

But then just after the his pre-requisite and obligatory rhetorical ad hominem, he always goes right into a purposely long diatribe laced with obscure and mainly fallacious tidbits and ad hominems from the distant past that has nothing at all to do with the point being made, nor with his point, to discredit the original point.

He, and another overly verbose poster just like him, are the two I was referring to who make ample use of the guilt-by-association, ad hominem and tu quoque fallacies on nearly every post they make.

if you add up the extent of the media those right wing media owners own it means that 99.7% of media in America is run by right wingers who vote Republican.

Now it’s your responsibility to prove me wrong.

*******
Also, the book that right winger “Frank DiSalle” is referencing is the fictional work called “The Media Elite: America’s New Powerbrokers.”

Assuming Wikipedia is correct (an assumption I never make) The dated 1986 book apparently decided that unless a journalist said that they thought that homosexuality was “wrong” that journalist was labeled as “liberal”. It also labeled anyone that didn’t support nuclear energy “liberal”.

By those standards, Republican Cheney is a liberal (after eight long years of Cheney’s cowardice rejecting his lesbian daughter when his voice could have counted he’s now decided to come out and support his daughter lesbianism).

And Democratic President Obama is a conservative (he’s pro-nuclear energy and has a shoddy gay rights record).

“I can’t dazzle them with brilliance, so I’ll just try to baffle them with bullshit.”

news reference’s stock in trade: argumentum vebosium

This is the same “Frank DiSalle” that thinks that the observable evidence of global climate change is “bilge water” and thinks the sun turns off 12 hours a day.

Suggesting otherwise are just more example’s of ‘liberal bias’.

Right winger “Frank DiSalle’s” evidence includes things like “I’ve heard figures as high as”…

… well, ‘I’ve heard’ figures as high as 97% of corporate media owners and executives vote Republican. And I’m being conservative about that number because if you add up the extent of the media those right wing media owners it means that 99.7% of media in America is run by right wingers who vote Republican.

Now it’s your responsibility to prove me wrong.

See how right wing (il)logic works?

After all, liberal bias is clearly illustrated by the use of “facts” and “evidence” and “science”.

Using “facts” and “evidence” and “science” mean you are liberal.

And I’m pretty sure the only group muscled out was bondholders, not shareholders (whose investment truly had no value).

/nitpick

Yup. The Republican Party never embraced Buchanan. Nixon and Reagan did, but not the Republican Party. Check.

While i don’t know about all these fancy, elitist sounding things like “logical fallacies” and “strawman” arguments, i do know one thing: The conservative trolls here are always just flat out fucking wrong.

An example of “ad hominem” would be the Obama administration calling Chrysler shareholders, who were muscled out of their money in favor of the UAW, “terrorists.”

I guess that makes the Chrysler bailout an official “man-caused disaster…”

J.

An example of ad hominem would be Obama calling the bondholders who were muscled out of thier money in favor of the UAW speculators.

Trying to parse that sentence gave me a headache. Next time read your comment in the new preview and add some punctuation like:

An example of ad hominem would be Obama calling the bondholders, who were muscled out of thier money in favor of the UAW, speculators.

Waaa?!? Speculators? You mean the “speculators” who invested year after year of their work building the product in return for the promise of a pension?

Good heavens, AO, that’s an egregious redefinition, even by your standards.

An example of ad hominem would be Obama calling the bondholders who were muscled out of thier money in favor of the UAW speculators. An attack on the man not the arguement trying to change to subject.