NationStates Jolt Archive

Since no one seems to have mentioned it yet, I figure it's my responsibility to let everyone know. Goerge Bush's approval ratings have collapsed completely. (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/) He's in the thirties now, thirty-six percent to be exact. I've always thought that 40% was about the bottom for him, that for him to drop below that point, he's have to be getting almost no independents, and some of his base would have to desert him. Well, here's the news.

Among Republicans (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 77% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 18% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 15% approve and 81% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 21% approve and 72% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.
Question--who the hell are those Democrats? :D

Those independents and Republicans numbers have to be disturbing, because during the elections, Bush split the independents or eked out a win, and now he's losing them nearly three to one, and Republican support was always around 90%--that's an 18 point drop.

The thread title was a joke, albeit one with a bit of resonance I think. We've been hearing about plans for Iran and Syria since the Iraq invasion began, and nothing raises Bush's poll numbers like a war, so what do you think? Hmmm?

And by way of comparison, Bush's numbers are now lower than Nixon's during Watergate--Nixon was at 39%.

It's official now--George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

At this point I really don't think it'd bring his approval up, even if you're one of the people who supports Bush and his wars no matter what, it's bad strategy. He doesn't have enough troops the way it is. Not to mention not having adequate equipment and etc. So no I don't think it'll help, I think it'll hurt.

Silly git! Don't you know that it's only "Wagging the Dog" when a Democrat president does it?

I wonder if this will traslate into anything in the 2006 elections?

I wonder if this will traslate into anything in the 2006 elections?

Let's hope if not people need to get out from under their rocks!

Bush could start up some gladiatorial games, with suspected terrorists taking on monster trucks in the arena. It worked for Rome, and would be easier than invading another country.

I wonder if this will traslate into anything in the 2006 elections?
I predict DieBold for the win!

Bush could start up some gladiatorial games, with suspected terrorists taking on monster trucks in the arena. It worked for Rome, and would be easier than invading another country.

We invade countries to get gladiators...even better. And we could have illegal immigrants fight for citizenship, as a backup supply of fighters!

I wonder if this will traslate into anything in the 2006 elections?

Yeah, those parliamentary elections will be very interesting to observe. Will the republican hegemony be broken? I should hope so, for the sakes of several American friends who have suffered hardships under the current state of political homogeneity.

Bush could start up some gladiatorial games, with suspected terrorists taking on monster trucks in the arena. It worked for Rome, and would be easier than invading another country.

Can we have orgies afterwards as well? Please please! :fluffle:

I predict DieBold for the win!

Yeah, I predicted them in the 2004 election too! ;)

Yeah, I predicted them in the 2004 election too! ;)

Too bad you couldn't get a receipt for that prediction so you could prove what you predicted. ;)

I predict DieBold for the win!

I hear that Head Of Lettuce has been gaining support rapidly of late. It may even have reached endemic proportions by 2006.

I hear that Head Of Lettuce has been gaining support rapidly of late. It may even have reached endemic proportions by 2006.
We've already got a vegetable in office.

Since no one seems to have mentioned it yet, I figure it's my responsibility to let everyone know. Goerge Bush's approval ratings have collapsed completely. (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/) He's in the thirties now, thirty-six percent to be exact. I've always thought that 40% was about the bottom for him, that for him to drop below that point, he's have to be getting almost no independents, and some of his base would have to desert him. Well, here's the news.


Question--who the hell are those Democrats? :D

Those independents and Republicans numbers have to be disturbing, because during the elections, Bush split the independents or eked out a win, and now he's losing them nearly three to one, and Republican support was always around 90%--that's an 18 point drop.

The thread title was a joke, albeit one with a bit of resonance I think. We've been hearing about plans for Iran and Syria since the Iraq invasion began, and nothing raises Bush's poll numbers like a war, so what do you think? Hmmm?

That's nice. I still support him. (for the most part)

Keep in mind that that is not the entire US, and you could never get a poll that showed the views of the entire nation.

And I highly doubt that we'll go to war again with so many troops in Iraq...

I think some of you may be drawing the wrong conclusions from Bush's low poll numbers. Whenever the pollsters ask if we support Bush's handling of the war they almost never ask if he should be firmer. I am a conservative and I have spoken with others and many of us would like to see the gloves come off. No more political correctness. No more sitting around and waiting for terrorists to come into Iraq. I am not saying lets start blowing up mosques. But I am saying if they have training camps in Syria warm up a few rockets. Lets kick down a few more doors and get a firmer grip on the borders. Overwhelming force is more often than not effective and will be respected. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has said "The world is ruled through the aggressive use of force" and I suspect it always will be. I know most of you posting on such a thread will not agree with me, but I thought I could give you a glimps at what many of us "crazy right wingers" are thinking and offer a different explanation to the poll numbers.

I think some of you may be drawing the wrong conclusions from Bush's low poll numbers. Whenever the pollsters ask if we support Bush's handling of the war they almost never ask if he should be firmer. I am a conservative and I have spoken with others and many of us would like to see the gloves come off. No more political correctness. No more sitting around and waiting for terrorists to come into Iraq. I am not saying lets start blowing up mosques. But I am saying if they have training camps in Syria warm up a few rockets. Lets kick down a few more doors and get a firmer grip on the borders. Overwhelming force is more often than not effective and will be respected. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has said "The world is ruled through the aggressive use of force" and I suspect it always will be. I know most of you posting on such a thread will not agree with me, but I thought I could give you a glimps at what many of us "crazy right wingers" are thinking and offer a different explanation to the poll numbers.

*Applauds*

Good first post.

That's nice. I still support him. (for the most part)

Keep in mind that that is not the entire US, and you could never get a poll that showed the views of the entire nation.

And I highly doubt that we'll go to war again with so many troops in Iraq...
Ever take a class in statistics?

Can we have orgies afterwards as well? Please please! :fluffle:

I'm sure Bush would be happy to allow that, as long as the orgies conform strictly to the Bible.

Ever take a class in statistics?
Exactly what I was wondering.

I wonder if this will traslate into anything in the 2006 elections?

I doubt it highly. They way Dean has continued to open his mouth, it has insulted millions of people. If he keeps this up through 2006, the Republican Party will gain more seats. It'll be interesting none-the-less though.

We've already got a vegetable in office.

Would that be Senator Reid?

*note: This wasn't meant to be offense. I hope he has a full recovery*

I think some of you may be drawing the wrong conclusions from Bush's low poll numbers. Whenever the pollsters ask if we support Bush's handling of the war they almost never ask if he should be firmer. I am a conservative and I have spoken with others and many of us would like to see the gloves come off. No more political correctness. No more sitting around and waiting for terrorists to come into Iraq. I am not saying lets start blowing up mosques. But I am saying if they have training camps in Syria warm up a few rockets. Lets kick down a few more doors and get a firmer grip on the borders. Overwhelming force is more often than not effective and will be respected. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has said "The world is ruled through the aggressive use of force" and I suspect it always will be. I know most of you posting on such a thread will not agree with me, but I thought I could give you a glimps at what many of us "crazy right wingers" are thinking and offer a different explanation to the poll numbers.

Here here.

Well said dude, well said indeed.

That poll is riddled with errors.

First off, how about one that is more accurate? Say of likely voters, and not registered voters?

www.rasmussenreports.com - One of the few pollsters (and I believe only) that accurately predicted the 2004 election puts it 48% approval. These are likely voters, and not just registered voters.

And I've been hearing the confidence in the democratic party is much lower right now. I've been recently dismayed by both parties. I think we should stand strong at this time, and continue the fight. People obviously don't have the same backbone as me.

We've already got a vegetable in office.

Yeah but he's more of a potato than lettuce :D

I doubt it highly. They way Dean has continued to open his mouth, it has insulted millions of people. If he keeps this up through 2006, the Republican Party will gain more seats. It'll be interesting none-the-less though.
What is with your hatred of Dean? He's hardly front and center, at least on a national scale, and he's been doing that deliberately. He's been working low-profile, on the individual state level, trying to rebuild the party, because he realizes that you don't win state elections unless you win local ones, and you don't win federal elections unless you win state ones.

Oh, I get it. You're afraid that he'll actually succeed.

What is with your hatred of Dean? He's hardly front and center, at least on a national scale, and he's been doing that deliberately. He's been working low-profile, on the individual state level, trying to rebuild the party, because he realizes that you don't win state elections unless you win local ones, and you don't win federal elections unless you win state ones.

Oh, I get it. You're afraid that he'll actually succeed.

You need someone who will rebuild your party and bring it back to the center. Not someone who is going to destroy it.

I doubt it highly. They way Dean has continued to open his mouth, it has insulted millions of people. If he keeps this up through 2006, the Republican Party will gain more seats. It'll be interesting none-the-less though.

Dean could say he likes to eat aborted fetuses, and it would never be as bad as public perception of mismanagement by those in charge. Incumbents always have more to lose than challengers. Disapproval with the way the government is handling this war will reflect upon everyone running for re-election next year.

I think some of you may be drawing the wrong conclusions from Bush's low poll numbers. Whenever the pollsters ask if we support Bush's handling of the war they almost never ask if he should be firmer. I am a conservative and I have spoken with others and many of us would like to see the gloves come off. No more political correctness. No more sitting around and waiting for terrorists to come into Iraq. I am not saying lets start blowing up mosques. But I am saying if they have training camps in Syria warm up a few rockets. Lets kick down a few more doors and get a firmer grip on the borders. Overwhelming force is more often than not effective and will be respected. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has said "The world is ruled through the aggressive use of force" and I suspect it always will be. I know most of you posting on such a thread will not agree with me, but I thought I could give you a glimps at what many of us "crazy right wingers" are thinking and offer a different explanation to the poll numbers.

well done mate, history has shown, attack is the best defense.

People obviously don't have the same backbone as me.

You've enlisted in the US Army, then?

That poll is riddled with errors.

First off, how about one that is more accurate? Say of likely voters, and not registered voters?

www.rasmussenreports.com - One of the few pollsters (and I believe only) that accurately predicted the 2004 election puts it 48% approval. These are likely voters, and not just registered voters.

And I've been hearing the confidence in the democratic party is much lower right now. I've been recently dismayed by both parties. I think we should stand strong at this time, and continue the fight. People obviously don't have the same backbone as me.
So because it contradicts the way you feel, the ARG poll is riddled with errors, huh? Point out the errors--don't point to another poll and say "See?" Point out the methodological errors in the ARG poll if you can. Otherwise, you've got no case.

I had another look at that poll and found more errors in it.. it over-represents "independents".

"Among Republicans (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 77% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 18% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 15% approve and 81% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 21% approve and 72% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president."

This is the type of bullshit that didn't fly in the election. Gross mis-representation. Please be careful when you buy into polls that easily. They obviously don't tell anything when the sample is totally off.

What is with your hatred of Dean? He's hardly front and center, at least on a national scale, and he's been doing that deliberately.

I guess you never heard any of his speeches?

He's been working low-profile, on the individual state level, trying to rebuild the party, because he realizes that you don't win state elections unless you win local ones, and you don't win federal elections unless you win state ones.

And many conservative Democrats (and there are several of them) aren't happy with the way Dean is talking. Dean is beginning to alienate those democrats and that is not a good thing.

Oh, I get it. You're afraid that he'll actually succeed.

He's succeeding? Sorry but he has insulted me, my father, and millions of other republican party members.

You've enlisted in the US Army, then?
I hear they're most carefully not asking about sexual preference anymore. They need the bodies.

I had another look at that poll and found more errors in it.. it over-represents "independents".

"Among Republicans (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 77% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 18% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 15% approve and 81% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 21% approve and 72% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president."

This is the type of bullshit that didn't fly in the election. Gross mis-representation. Please be careful when you buy into polls that easily. They obviously don't tell anything when the sample is totally off.

How did they over-represent Independents?

So because it contradicts the way you feel, the ARG poll is riddled with errors, huh? Point out the errors--don't point to another poll and say "See?" Point out the methodological errors in the ARG poll if you can. Otherwise, you've got no case.

I take rasmussenreports over your partisan based pollster. Funny, how rasmussenreports was the only pollster right about the 2004 election. Funny how it predicted nearly every battleground state properly. Funny how it has one of the most leveled samplings (with accurate representations for both parties).

ARG has plenty of issues, including over-representation of independents.

I had another look at that poll and found more errors in it.. it over-represents "independents".

"Among Republicans (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 77% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 18% disapprove. Among Democrats (37% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 15% approve and 81% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among Independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 21% approve and 72% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president."

This is the type of bullshit that didn't fly in the election. Gross mis-representation. Please be careful when you buy into polls that easily. They obviously don't tell anything when the sample is totally off.
Wow--you really have no fucking clue about the percentage of people that consider themselves independents in this country. 28% is, if anything, a conservative number--some pollsters go as high as 35%. You might want to actually do a little research before you go making claims you can't back up.

Dean could say he likes to eat aborted fetuses, and it would never be as bad as public perception of mismanagement by those in charge.

Actually, it'll be worse than what is going on now.

Incumbents always have more to lose than challengers.

Accurate. Can't say your wrong because your not.

Disapproval with the way the government is handling this war will reflect upon everyone running for re-election next year.

I don't think it'll be that much of an issue right now. Your forgetting the power of the military vote. Oops! Forgot about them didn't you?

He's succeeding? Sorry but he has insulted me, my father, and millions of other republican party members.

Just the type of people he's concerned with getting the votes of.

Wow--you really have no fucking clue about the percentage of people that consider themselves independents in this country. 28% is, if anything, a conservative number--some pollsters go as high as 35%. You might want to actually do a little research before you go making claims you can't back up.

You are the one with no fucking clue how the political situation is in this country. Very few of those independents hardly ever vote, and 28% is a gross over-representation. Take a foot in the mouth. Rasmussenreports has a way better sampling then that shitty sample. You might want to do a little research on this country before you make your dumb claims. Ignorance is fucking bliss for some.

Just the type of people he's concerned with getting the votes of.

Saying that we never worked an honest day in our lives? Sdaeriji, that's the type of rhetoric used to rally the other side's base. He's since backed away from comments like that but if he continues to hurl inaccurate depictions of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party will go down hill really fast.

Ever take a class in statistics?
They actually have classes for that? :rolleyes: I guess you can take a class in almost anything these days.

I don't know why people act like these numbers mean something. Walk around talking to actual people, and you'll see how meaningless these numbers really are. You can come up with any poll results you want, as long as you know how to word the questions. These polls are not an accounting of other people's views, they are a tool to manipulate your view. If you want to see numbers that actually mean something, try counting votes.

I voted democratic once or twice, but I'm concerned that people like Nazz are going to alienate me further. That's excellent for driving more votes away, but I don't think that is the goal. So, nazz, tell me.. why do you like alienating people who could vote either way?

Saying that we never worked an honest day in our lives? Sdaeriji, that's the type of rhetoric used to rally the other side's base. He's since backed away from comments like that but if he continues to hurl inaccurate depictions of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party will go down hill really fast.

What does it matter if he insults people registered for the opposing party? You've made it abundantly clear that you'd rather eat your own shit than vote for Dean, so what does he lose by making fun of you? He's not losing your vote, and what kind of rallying will he cause in the Republican party? Rallying to not vote for a Democratic candidate anyway?

What does it matter if he insults people registered for the opposing party?

The more you insult the other party, the more votes they'll get and the less votes the your party will get. You see the corrolation here?

You've made it abundantly clear that you'd rather eat your own shit than vote for Dean, so what does he lose by making fun of you?

He loses my chance to actually vote FOR a democratic candidate. :eek: Did I say that outloud?

He's not losing your vote,

ACtually he is!

and what kind of rallying will he cause in the Republican party? Rallying to not vote for a Democratic candidate anyway?

I'm going to let you figure that one out.

I hear they're most carefully not asking about sexual preference anymore. They need the bodies.
(laughing hysterically)
They stopped asking about that over a decade ago. "Don't ask don't tell policy". You actually thought that was something new to help recruting for the Iraq war, didn't you?
(laughing some more)

What does it matter if he insults people registered for the opposing party? You've made it abundantly clear that you'd rather eat your own shit than vote for Dean, so what does he lose by making fun of you? He's not losing your vote, and what kind of rallying will he cause in the Republican party? Rallying to not vote for a Democratic candidate anyway?

He turns off people who are in the middle and vote either way; the middle is the key to winning the election and trashing one party while offering nothing in return is not going to get you votes, especially from "swing" Republicans who might vote Democrat in certain elections, and vice versa. Dean is going to destroy the party if he keeps ranting and offering nothing back; it creates an image of pure politics, partisanship, and obstructionism which, although the truth might be totally different, is going to hurt the Democrats.

I voted for Antonio Villaraigosa and a prosecutor here in LA.. Antonio did a good job getting moderate votes and even republican votes from Hahn. So why the fuck aren't democrats trying to do that on a national scale?

Get rid of Dean.. he's a boneheaded loser... you need more people who can attract votes from the other party.

The more you insult the other party, the more votes they'll get and the less votes the your party will get. You see the corrolation here?


So, by that logic, all those "liberals = evil" quotes I could dig up about Bush should mean that the Democrats should have dominated 2004. It didn't quite work out that way, though.


He loses my chance to actually vote FOR a democratic candidate. :eek: Did I say that outloud?

ACtually he is!


You're full of shit. You would never vote for a Democrat, much less Dean himself. Don't pretend like you might have actually voted based on an unbiased evaluation of the two candidates; myself and everyone else here know you're a Republican groupie. You're not fooling anyone.


I'm going to let you figure that one out.

How patronizing. How about you explain it?

Historian Victor Davis Hanson has said "The world is ruled through the aggressive use of force" and I suspect it always will be. I know most of you posting on such a thread will not agree with me, but I thought I could give you a glimps at what many of us "crazy right wingers" are thinking and offer a different explanation to the poll numbers.


First off, don't put to much stake in what some historian says. If Victor Davis Hanson knew what to do all the time, we wouldn't be worrying need a president, would we?

Secondly, you assume we want to rule the world. I damn well hope not. If the US is about ruling the world, then shit is about to get serious real fast. There are plenty of nations and alliance, including the rest of the UN and NATO, that wouldn't be ready to fork over their sizeable tracks of land and bend over for America to "rule the world."

And in case you were wondering, ruling the world is alot different from cooperating with the rest of it.

You're full of shit. You would never vote for a Democrat, much less Dean himself. Don't pretend like you might have actually voted based on an unbiased evaluation of the two candidates; myself and everyone else here know you're a Republican groupie. You're not fooling anyone.


But I have... so why alienate moderates? I'm still wondering. You partisans are so full of it. I don't like partisans from either party, but the democrat liberal partisans scare me a lot.

But I have... so why alienate moderates? I'm still wondering. You partisans are so full of it. I don't like partisans from either party, but the democrat liberal partisans scare me a lot.

Right, you're an non-partisan moderate. Of course.

You can't pretend that you would ever vote for a liberal democrat when your nation is a Compulsory Consumerist State.

And don't play the "These aren't my real political views!" card. You aren't fooling us. You clearly have a conservative bias, even if you are registered as an "Independant."

And before you say it, my nation title is "Liberal Democratic Socialists," so don't try to place me anywhere in the realm of voting for someone who is a capitalist. Even a liberal democrat.

Right, you're an non-partisan moderate. Of course.

Can the sarcasm please.

Alot of us would vote for a democrat and that includes me. Your right, I wouldn't vote for Dean. However, if I felt that a democratic candidate is better qualified than a republican candidate, I would vote for the Democratic candidate.

Alot of us feel that way and we hold those types of views. However, Dean is alienating his own party as well as the centrists and that isn't conducive to actually winning an election.

Right, you're an non-partisan moderate. Of course.

cut the crap.

I voted for the California democratic party several times. I know who I voted for. I did not vote for the republican candidate in the LA Mayor's race (he was some unknown).. I voted for the leading democrat. So want to dispute me there? You want to scare off my vote? I also considered voting for Wesley Clarke if it was him instead of John Kerry..

You can't pretend that you would ever vote for a liberal democrat when your nation is a Compulsory Consumerist State.

And don't play the "These aren't my real political views!" card. You aren't fooling us. You clearly have a conservative bias, even if you are registered as an "Independant."

And before you say it, my nation title is "Liberal Democratic Socialists," so don't try to place me anywhere in the realm of voting for someone who is a capitalist. Even a liberal democrat.

How I run my country on here is not anything like how I am in real life. People will tell you that many times. Check player profiles.. conservatives are running their nations like communist countries. It doesn't make them communist. Please don't fucking tell me I am authoritarian because I'm running my nation in a totally different way then in reality. I'm not conservative.

cut the crap.

I voted for the California democratic party several times. I know who I voted for. I did not vote for the republican candidate in the LA Mayor's race (he was some unknown).. I voted for the leading democrat. So want to dispute me there? You want to scare off my vote? I also considered voting for Wesley Clarke if it was him instead of John Kerry..

I don't care who you say you've voted for. You could say you voted for whoever you wanted, and I would have no way to prove it. All I can base my judgements of you on is what you've said, and what I've seen you say towards anyone who disagrees with your opinion on Bush or the war in Iraq are some of the most vitrolic things I've ever seen on this forum.

I don't care who you say you've voted for. You could say you voted for whoever you wanted, and I would have no way to prove it. All I can base my judgements of you on is what you've said, and what I've seen you say towards anyone who disagrees with your opinion on Bush or the war in Iraq are some of the most vitrolic things I've ever seen on this forum.

Ok wonderful. Fantastic. Don't believe me.

You can't pretend that you would ever vote for a liberal democrat when your nation is a Compulsory Consumerist State.

And don't play the "These aren't my real political views!" card. You aren't fooling us. You clearly have a conservative bias, even if you are registered as an "Independant."

And before you say it, my nation title is "Liberal Democratic Socialists," so don't try to place me anywhere in the realm of voting for someone who is a capitalist. Even a liberal democrat.

The Imperial Dominion of Sdaeriji
"Audentes fortuna juvat"


UN Category: Compulsory Consumerist State
Civil Rights: Some
Economy:Frightening
Political Freedoms:Rare

Huh. Would you look at that? I guess I'm a conservative. Yay Bush! Boo Dean!

Right, you're an non-partisan moderate. Of course.

coming to these forums, i realize i lean more to the right than i do the left. However, i look at what some people do for both sides (i.e. Ann Coulter/Michael Moore) and if Dean is throwing out shit like those two do, i'm definitely not going to vote for him.

The last election, i thought Kerry had a better idea than Bush did, so i voted for him.

The point is, if Dean doesn't have a plan and is just "slinging mud" i'm not going to vote for him. (see's himself as an independent)

I also considered voting for Wesley Clarke if it was him instead of John Kerry..

And I thought about voting for Joseph Lieberman.

Ok wonderful. Fantastic. Don't believe me.

I don't. Because the vision of yourself that you've presented on this forum is entirely contradictory to how you style yourself.

The Imperial Dominion of Sdaeriji
"Audentes fortuna juvat"


UN Category: Compulsory Consumerist State
Civil Rights: Some
Economy:Frightening
Political Freedoms:Rare

Huh. Would you look at that? I guess I'm a conservative. Yay Bush! Boo Dean!

No wait.. you're imperial.. you're a NEO-CON! I knew it.. :eek: j/k

We've been hearing about plans for Iran and Syria since the Iraq invasion began, and nothing raises Bush's poll numbers like a war, so what do you think? Hmmm?
I smell a Chickenhawk.

I don't. Because the vision of yourself that you've presented on this forum is entirely contradictory to how you style yourself.

I haven't talked enough about my views I think. But then again look at the gay rights issue and evolution. Bush is a damn fool for promoting intelligent design..

Yay Republicans! Go Bush! DeLay is the man!

I don't think anyone gives a shit about your vote. I certainly don't. Go ahead and vote conservative. If you were a real moderate, you wouldn't let anyone scare your vote either way. That's what being "moderate" or "independant" is about.

But go ahead. Vote for corrupt conservative corporate puppets. I bet you want your kids to live in a smog-choked sewage dump with nothing left to them but an over-cropped patch of soil-slicked soil that can't help them any more than the "would have, should have" attitude that they take to your generation's decisions. Don't worry, it'll happen while your progeny are still alive, as long as they inherit your wife's intelligence and not yours.

We've been hearing about plans for Iran and Syria since the Iraq invasion began, and nothing raises Bush's poll numbers like a war, so what do you think? Hmmm?
I smell a Chickenhawk.

Plus, i don't think that another war would help Bush. Unless he can actually give a valid reason to go in this time.

*edit*

let me rephrase.... a solid reason.

Ok wonderful. Fantastic. Don't believe me.
Welcome to a debate forum where you are judged by what you say, not by what you claim.

I don't think anyone gives a shit about your vote. I certainly don't. Go ahead and vote conservative. If you were a real moderate, you wouldn't let anyone scare your vote either way. That's what being "moderate" or "independant" is about.
<snip>
who was this addressed to?

Mesatecala.

who was this addressed to?

I believe it was addressed to Mesatecala!

Welcome to a debate forum where you are judged by what you say, not by what you claim.


Amen.

But go ahead. Vote for corrupt conservative corporate puppets. I bet you want your kids to live in a smog-choked sewage dump with nothing left to them but an over-cropped patch of oil-slicked soil that can't help them any more than the "would have, should have" attitude that they take to your generation's decisions. Don't worry, it'll happen while your progeny are still alive, as long as they inherit your wife's intelligence and not yours.
Wow. That was both enlightened and reasonable. I'm so glad that your debating and fact-gathering skills are so refined, otherwise, who knows how much trolling could be going on in this thread?

I don't think anyone gives a shit about your vote. I certainly don't. Go ahead and vote conservative. If you were a real moderate, you wouldn't let anyone scare your vote either way. That's what being "moderate" or "independant" is about.

But go ahead. Vote for corrupt conservative corporate puppets. I bet you want your kids to live in a smog-choked sewage dump with nothing left to them but an over-cropped patch of soil-slicked soil that can't help them any more than the "would have, should have" attitude that they take to your generation's decisions. Don't worry, it'll happen while your progeny are still alive, as long as they inherit your wife's intelligence and not yours.

I would pass this off to the moderators, but taking advice from some people here I'll be less sensitive. You want to play hard ball? I don't vote conservative. And my vote is decided upon the maturity of certain people promoting their party. That's why I can't vote for the greens or reform party.

Furthermore, you don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to capitalism. You're a little twisted partisan who is stuck in a mind warp. Go ahead and vote for your terrorist appeasing morons who do little screams (Howard Dean).

And you are talking to me? My wife's intelligence? Uh? You have the right person? I'm 20, and gay.

President Bush is a chump. I almost typed chimp, how ironic.

I've disapproved of him since he won in 2000, I approved of him after 9/11 and disapproved of him after he started the Iraq war. I think a barrell full of hair from a barbershop would be a better president than him.

<snip>

And you are talking to me? My wife's intelligence? Uh? You have the right person? I'm 20, and gay.

i knew there was a reason i asked :P

So, if Bush's approval rating is down to 36%, does that mean that a majority of Americans hate America?

:p

I've disapproved of him since he won in 2000, I approved of him after 9/11 and disapproved of him after he started the Iraq war. I think a barrell full of hair from a barbershop would be a better president than him.

He's still better than Carter. :p

He's still better than Carter. :p

He's by far better than Carter! :p

He's still better than Carter. :p

At least Carter can grow peanuts. The only thing Bush can do is choke on them. :P

So, if Bush's approval rating is down to 36%, does that mean that a majority of Americans hate America?

:p
no just means the majority hate Bush :p

Thank god, you won't have progeny...

If you care to know, my fact gathering skills are more refined that a small blurt may point to.

You want facts? Here I come.

The ice fields of eastern Siberia are melting rapidly, with temperatures increasing at the astounding rate of 3 degress C in just the past 40 years. Under these ice fields lies billions of tons of deadly, scentless methan gas that would be released into the atmosphere upon the melting of the ice fields. Billions of tons. Do you realize how much a billion tons of methane is?

Those, my friend, are facts.

At least Carter can grow peanuts. The only thing Bush can do is choke on them. :P

I was waiting for something about peanuts... ;)

Thank god, you won't have progeny...

If you care to know, my fact gathering skills are more refined that a small blurt may point to.

You want facts? Here I come.

Wonderful, now you attack me as a person.

Your fact gathering skills are non existent.


The ice fields of eastern Siberia are melting rapidly, with temperatures increasing at the astounding rate of 3 degress C in just the past 40 years. Under these ice fields lies billions of tons of deadly, scentless methan gas that would be released into the atmosphere upon the melting of the ice fields. Billions of tons. Do you realize how much a billion tons of methane is?

Those, my friend, are facts.

You are irrelevant too, and not very correct... you dont' know what you're talking about. You don't provide facts. You also don't realize that global warming can actually lead to cooling.

Can somebody give this guy a cookie for being mind blowingly ignorant?

And my vote is decided upon the maturity of certain people promoting their party.
Wait, by that do you mean that you decide your vote based on how the parties' supporters act? Or did I misinterpret?

You want to know what I think? I think Dean would have been a great candidate instead of that moron named John Kerry. The thing is with Dean, he is much different than anyone else. Its like all the politicians follow a strict code of etiquette and when someone like Dean who really does not give a crap about what most of these people think, he gets pounded on for being someone different. The dude has an attitude and most of you people fear change and that is why you did not want to vote for him. The only supposed thing that destroyed Dean was the fact that he had a different attitude. And you supposed "independents" really would not have taken much offense to what he had said but you did anyways. That only tells me that you were very much leaning towards the right. You conservatives talk about there not being an aggressive democrat. Dean was an aggressive democrat but you guys pounded him.

Corneliu, you say you are an "independent" who would have liked to vote for Wesley Clarke. If that is the case, then why are you on Bush's side now?

The ice fields of eastern Siberia are melting rapidly, with temperatures increasing at the astounding rate of 3 degress C in just the past 40 years. Under these ice fields lies billions of tons of deadly, scentless methan gas that would be released into the atmosphere upon the melting of the ice fields. Billions of tons. Do you realize how much a billion tons of methane is?
.

The atmosphere has 9,350,000,000 tons of methane in it currently, or 0.00017% percent. The new methane isn't that big of a problem even if CO2 is not reduced; it's only 1/2 times as powerful a greenhouse gas.

Wait, by that do you mean that you decide your vote based on how the parties' supporters act? Or did I misinterpret?

Well I should restate that.. it is one of the factors. Where they stand is another... but often immaturity is translated into views, and I don't really vote for immature ones who can't control themselves (Howard Dean).

That was not an attack on your sexual orientation, it was merely relevant to it. Just a side note.

Those are facts, my friend. And yes, it can lead to cooling: drastic cooling. Shall we say, speeding up an Ice Age?

My facts are not irrelevant at all. Most conservatives, especially capitalists, are on the side of big businesses, including those mining coal and oil as an energy source. They release green house gasses, which, as I sincerely hope you are aware, have been proven to be a direct cause of ozone loss.

Corneliu, you say you are an "independent" who would have liked to vote for Wesley Clarke. If that is the case, then why are you on Bush's side now?

Actually, I said Lieberman and not Clark! Mesatecala said he was thinking about Clark.

Why am I on Bush's side? I didn't like Kerry's boring speeches, I didn't like how he dressed and he is no leader by far. I voted Bush because of National Security and economic reasons. Kerry had good ideas but I didn't trust his leadership abilities. Even his own fitreps should he was average but I'm not going to get into that fight.

If the dems had put up someone other than Kerry, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush would be out of office. The minute I heard that Kerry was the candidate, I knew Bush would win because of kerry's lackluster Senate Career.

Those are facts, my friend. And yes, it can lead to cooling: drastic cooling. Shall we say, speeding up an Ice Age?

That blows Global Warming out of the water :D

Vetalia, that's not saying much, as CO2 is quite a potent greenhouse gas.

As for the methane, it's not merely the amount that will be released, its the fact that it will cause a significant change percentage-wise in the composition of the atmosphere, which (we all know) is nothing but bad news.

That blows Global Warming out of the water :D

Baaaa-zing!

As for the methane, it's not merely the amount that will be released, its the fact that it will cause a significant change percentage-wise in the composition of the atmosphere, which (we all know) is nothing but bad news.

It won't change it significantly in a normal sense; probably from 0.00017% to 0.00021 or 0.00022%. However, on the scale of the Earth such a change could seriously affect the planet in multiple ways.

That methane is in the ice, which means it was in the atmosphere or came from decaying matter most likely. However, when it was in the atmosphere there was less CO2 and so it will not be as easily accomodated as it was; the question arises of what to do, and when.

Actually, I said Lieberman and not Clark! Mesatecala said he was thinking about Clark.

Why am I on Bush's side? I didn't like Kerry's boring speeches, I didn't like how he dressed and he is no leader by far. I voted Bush because of National Security and economic reasons. Kerry had good ideas but I didn't trust his leadership abilities. Even his own fitreps should he was average but I'm not going to get into that fight.

If the dems had put up someone other than Kerry, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush would be out of office. The minute I heard that Kerry was the candidate, I knew Bush would win because of kerry's lackluster Senate Career.

Oops! Mixed up the candidates :( . Exactly what I said about the Democrats. John Kerry is a moron no doubt. But I would prefer the moron over the idiotic moron (or whatever is worse then moron).

If that is the case how come you still support Bush? Shouldnt you be like "Bush sucks but Kerry sucked even more."?

I forgot to mention, Mescetala...you have yet to refute my facts with those of your own. You've done nothing but nay-say. I'd like to see some counter-evidence if we're rolling facts here.

HA POSTED AT THE SAME time!!! :D

And by way of comparison, Bush's numbers are now lower than Nixon's during Watergate--Nixon was at 39%.

It's official now--George W. Bush is the worst president ever.

hear, hear!
funny how long its taken people to realize that. I mean, he won a SECOND election,c'mon guys!

Wow, I can hardly imagine Blair reaching near 40% popularity and that being unsuccessful...over 2/3 of Britain hate Blair most of the time.

If that is the case how come you still support Bush? Shouldnt you be like "Bush sucks but Kerry sucked even more."?

I'm a tad more mature than that. I don't think anyone really truly sucks but I'm also of the old addage that you never change a horse midstream. I would prefer the person in power to run a war and stick with that war than an outsider who promises to withdraw troops within 6 months. That would've caused a Civil War in Iraq.

Also, better the person you know than the one you don't.

I'm a tad more mature than that. I don't think anyone really truly sucks but I'm also of the old addage that you never change a horse midstream. I would prefer the person in power to run a war and stick with that war than an outsider who promises to withdraw troops within 6 months. That would've caused a Civil War in Iraq.

Also, better the person you know than the one you don't.

In other words, you are saying that Bush is not great but Kerry is much worse.

I think what is going to happen is that the US will lose to Mexico in World Cup qualification, thereby proving that they are harboring anti-American terrorists and the US will invade.

That was not an attack on your sexual orientation, it was merely relevant to it. Just a side note.

Those are facts, my friend. And yes, it can lead to cooling: drastic cooling. Shall we say, speeding up an Ice Age?

My facts are not irrelevant at all. Most conservatives, especially capitalists, are on the side of big businesses, including those mining coal and oil as an energy source. They release green house gasses, which, as I sincerely hope you are aware, have been proven to be a direct cause of ozone loss.

You shouldn't do it anyways. And side note, my rear end.

Those are the facts? Because you say so? I didn't see any proof from you. I side with businesses (big, medium, small alike). You don't know what you're talking about again. You can't back yourself up.. let me guess.. you're a green?

I thought we were invading the moon next?

The democratic party is being pulled apart within....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050822/pl_washpost/democrats_split_over_position_on_iraq_war

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) broke with his party leadership last week to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006. In delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that "it's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."

Although critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden (news, bio, voting record) Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who rose to public prominence on an antiwar presidential campaign, said on television a week ago that it was the responsibility of the president, not the opposition, to come up with a plan for Iraq.

"Clearly Democrats are not united in what is the critique of what we're doing there and what is the answer to what we do next," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4141348.stm

I believe it is illegal for newspapers to publish facts not based on anything but scientific research, and I'm sure that the Bush administration would have done all it can to look into claims like these in order to refute them.

^reworded

Lots of interesting posts here, and nearly all of them completely out to lunch. Paranoid and irresponsible comments, for the most part. Besides, it should be pointed out that Bush is in his second term, cannot possibly win another, so what would it profit him personally to "start another war for political gain"? Just exactly whom do you think would profit by this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4141348.stm

I believe it is illegal for newspapers to publish anything not based on scientific fact, and I'm sure that the Bush administration would have done all it can to look into claims like these in order to refute them.

Ignorant.

You know global warming can actually lead to global cooling, therefore whatever warming occurs may be countered in the future? :rolleyes: And you realize that whatever methane is released may be insignificant?

In other words, you are saying that Bush is not great but Kerry is much worse.

Accurately put

If you read back, we've discussed the significance of the methane release. If you knew anything about environmental science, you'd know that the smallest change in an environment can spark drastic changes, if it comes in something as delecate as the composition of the atmosphere.

And, if you had read my posts, you would have seen that global cooling would be just as bad as the warming. It's called balance. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," as I believe a fairly intelligent man once said.

If you read back, we've discussed the significance of the methane release. If you knew anything about environmental science, you'd know that the smallest change in an environment can spark drastic changes, if it comes in something as delecate as the composition of the atmosphere.

And, if you had read my posts, that global cooling would be just as bad as the warming. It's called balance. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," as I believe a fairly intelligent man once said.

OMG such a socialist. The amount of methane in that area is very insignificant and would not impact the environment in any great amount. So typical. You can go spread your anti-capitalist rhetoric elsewhere. And quit hijacking this thread.

Ignorant.

You know global warming can actually lead to global cooling, therefore whatever warming occurs may be countered in the future? :rolleyes: And you realize that whatever methane is released may be insignificant?

So we shoudn't worry at all! Great idea.

The warming is countered by a shift in the North Atlantic current, which will bring in a new ice age. However, what's interesting is that an ice age will actually increase global warming.

CO2 is released into the atmosphere by volcanos and internal heating from the earth. However Earth counters that with rain, falling water collects CO2 and brings it back down. However, with most of the water frozen there will be almost no rain and CO2 is released into the atmosphere causing global warming. When the earth heats back up the water melts and it begins to rain again. Thank you Discovery channel.

However, we're speeding up the process which is bad.

If you read back, we've discussed the significance of the methane release. If you knew anything about environmental science, you'd know that the smallest change in an environment can spark drastic changes, if it comes in something as delecate as the composition of the atmosphere.

And, if you had read my posts, that global cooling would be just as bad as the warming. It's called balance. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," as I believe a fairly intelligent man once said.

so would you say that the Ice Age was a time period of balance? I would say it was not. Yet, it happened naturally. Why don't people ever look at global warming/cooling as a completely natural phase or cycle for our little planet. If its our time to go, its our time to go.

On the one hand, this is the second term curse of every president. Usually, they mess up big time. No gigantic scandle has happened this term, so I just assume that his magic is wearing off. The mob that got him in doesn't like him, and is trying to find someone else.
Keep in mind, however, that Bush is not of the mob. He may try and draw it, but he's not a part of it. He has deep convictions, many contrary to most Americans. And he is unafraid to act on them, despite what may happen.

Ignorant.

You know global warming can actually lead to global cooling, therefore whatever warming occurs may be countered in the future? :rolleyes: And you realize that whatever methane is released may be insignificant?

And you do realize that methane is thousands of times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? Ignorant.

Accurately put

That was why I voted for Dub. Not because I thought he was the best man for the job as much as I knew Kerry wasn't it. He was, simply, the lesser of two evils. Nearly all the American elections have been that way for me.

CO2 is released into the atmosphere by volcanos and internal heating from the earth. However Earth counters that with rain, falling water collects CO2 and brings it back down. However, with most of the water frozen there will be almost no rain and CO2 is released into the atmosphere causing global warming. When the earth heats back up the water melts and it begins to rain again. Thank you Discovery channel.

However, we're speeding up the process which is bad.

I believe we are actually doing less then what the greens and socialists want us to think. I personally ignore people who distort the facts for their own little games. I feel that global warming is occurring at a much slower rate then many want to admit.

And you do realize that methane is thousands of times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? Ignorant.

Says the person with four posts, and no links.. you are the one who is ignorant. In fact it isn't more effective.

It will soon (geologically) be our time to go, but why should we speed it up?

You know, nevermind. We can take whatever nature throws at us. I bet Haliburton will make us all some anti-tank grade mammoth-killing bazookas and we'll do just fine...right?

It will soon (geologically) be our time to go, but why should we speed it up?

You know, nevermind. We can take whatever nature throws at us. I bet Haliburton will make us all some anti-tank grade mammoth-killing bazookas and we'll do just fine...right?

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Sign-Get-Gas.jpg

That's what I'm feeling from your rhetoric. Maybe we should make the environment better and not blow methane out of our rear-ends.. don't take the socialist/greenist rhetoric as fact!

I believe we are actually doing less then what the greens and socialists want us to think. I personally ignore people who distort the facts for their own little games. I feel that global warming is occurring at a much slower rate then many want to admit.


Being an advocate of businesses, yes, naturally, you would ignore scientific facts and formulate your own skewed opinion (which is all it is) about how humanity is doing just fine and dandy and is going to be just fine . Get your head out of the propoganda toilet, dry out your ears, and listen to raw information.

..Ignorant.

I believe we are actually doing less then what the greens and socialists want us to think. I personally ignore people who distort the facts for their own little games. I feel that global warming is occurring at a much slower rate then many want to admit.

Possibly, but we should try to reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the air. Personally I don't trust scientists who work for politicians...

Politician: "We need some facts that says Global Warming isn't Real."
Scientist: "Can do!"

Politcian2: "We need some facts that says Global Warming eats children."
Same Scientist: "Can do!"

Being an advocate of businesses, yes, naturally, you would ignore scientific facts and formulate your own skewed opinion (which is all it is) about how humanity is doing just fine and dandy and is going to be just fine . Get your head out of the propoganda toilet, dry out your ears, and listen to raw information.

..Ignorant.

Ignorant.

You are the one ignoring the facts, and you are using skewed socialist nonsense to back yourself up. You are not applying science properly. You are spewing hot air with no backing. You are the one with the skewed, ridiculous opinion. You should get your own head out of the propaganda toilet and out of your rear-end. You need to listen to raw information.

Contrary to popular belief, human farts contain no methane. So shut your hole on that one.

Possibly, but we should try to reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the air. Personally I don't trust scientists who work for politicians...

Politician: "We need some facts that says Global Warming isn't Real."
Scientist: "Can do!"

Politcian2: "We need some facts that says Global Warming eats children."
Same Scientist: "Can do!"

Erhm, more ethanol in gasoline? Hybrid vehicles? Who says we aren't doing anything? California for example puts a lot of ethanol in gasoline causing it to burn a lot cooler. Los Angeles, which still has pollution issues, has cleaned up its act greatly since the 1970s.

Contrary to popular belief, human farts contain no methane. So shut your hole on that one.

It was a joke. But I guess your kind never has heard of jokes. How sad. :( Good thing you don't have any political power in the US.

http://www.pollutiononline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=%7bDEE56A4E-D156-4D5A-8F22-7E32130B188A%7d&VNETCOOKIE=NO

8/18/2005 Washington, D.C. — 2004 decreases in emissions of ozone forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) signal that ozone air quality throughout the eastern US is improving. According to a new report released today, "Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in the Eastern United States: Focus on the NOx Budget Trading Program, 2004", EPA's rule, known as the "NOx SIP Call,"has yielded reductions to improve air quality for more than 100 million people. The NOx SIP Call directs 21 eastern states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NOx during the summer months. All states subject to this rule chose to comply by participating in the EPA-administered NOx Budget Trading Program.

Excuse me, but you have offered no raw information to counter my point, so PLEASe stop trying to refute my facts with your nay-saying. Simply saying "You're lying" doesn't prove me wrong.

So go ahead. Prove me wrong. If not, shut your mouth.

Excuse me, but you have offered no raw information to counter my point, so PLEASe stop trying to refute my facts with your nay-saying. Simply saying "You're lying" doesn't prove me wrong.

So go ahead. Prove me wrong. If not, shut your mouth.

*slams your head against the facts*

Yes I did. Please take a look at the facts. You are the one spreading naysaying. You didn't bother providing facts (besides one by the questionable leftist BBC).

You shut your mouth. SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Air quality has nothing to do with ozone or global warming. The air we breathe has little or no effect on what gets into the atmosphere.

Sounds like someone is getting a little tempermental. No need to be angry. The facts have nothing to do with emotion. Pretending to scream at me won't help your case, and only makes you seem immature to those who read your posts.

Air quality has nothing to do with ozone or global warming. The air we breathe has little or no effect on what gets into the atmosphere.

My, what a tool of the left.

There has been a reduction in emissions by the United States. That's a fact. Please read the article.

Oh and someone is getting tempermental? I'm not the one who couldn't take a joke.

Funny how my article provides substantial fact.

No doubt, reductions are progress. But not enough progress. As long as factories continue to spew out CO and other greenhouse gasses, ozone will continue to be depleted. The poor excuses for effort that are being made now are nothing to the progress that could be made in just a few years if an environmentally conscious government were in charge.

No doubt, reductions are progress. But not enough progress. As long as factories continue to spew out CO and other greenhouse gasses, ozone will continue to be depleted. The poor excuses for effort that are being made now are nothing to the progress that could be made in just a few years if an environmentally conscious government were in charge.

*yawn* We don't need some green government that would put us all out of work.

I'm going to stop hijacking this thread. If you want to talk about this, open up a new thread and I'll take part in it.

You most certainly would not participate. You're sick of losing.

As a matter of fact, a Green economy would create jobs. Using our current coal and oil resources to develope green technology would open up jobs for both skilled and unskilled labor that will be totally unavailable as long as we insist on doing things the old fashioned way.

If you tire of our little chat, then I will certainly leave you at peace. But please, think about what I've said. I don't so much look to prove you wrong as I wish to spread information to nay-sayers and disbelievers who don't think global warming is real, or who think that a Green economy would endanger the economy. And even if it did, don't you think the juice would be worth the squeeze? Time is priceless, and we can buy it for relatively little if we would all wise up.

You most certainly would not participate. You're sick of losing.

As a matter of fact, a Green economy would create jobs. Using our current coal and oil resources to develope green technology would open up jobs for both skilled and unskilled labor that will be totally unavailable as long as we insist on doing things the old fashioned way.

Yes I would participate. And I didn't lose a damn thing. You did.

A green economy would destroy many jobs. It will cause market crashes and huge unemployment, as well as hyper-inflation. It would wipe out millions of jobs, and cause a collapse in the entire financial system.

If you tire of our little chat, then I will certainly leave you at peace. But please, think about what I've said. I don't so much look to prove you wrong as I wish to spread information to nay-sayers and disbelievers who don't think global warming is real, or who think that a Green economy would endanger the economy. And even if it did, don't you think the squeeze would be worth the juice? Time is priceless, and we can buy it for relatively little if we would all wise up.

I'm the one spreading information, not disinformation. I never said global warming was not real. I just don't think we are effecting it as much as you want to believe. A green economy would give us 11% unemployment like that of some European economies.

No, I won't think about the rhetoric you spewed.

You call yourself a moderate, but if you would look at the facts from both sides, you would see that there is no need for moderation: progress is the realistic way.

Don't you think that 11% unemployment wouldn't be too high a price to pay for generations to come? You might think about the lives that it could possibly (and not probably) decrease the standard of living for. I, on the other hand, choose to think of the hundreds of generations that we could give life to generations upon generations that will never exist period should we choose to continue on this path.

You can choose not to believe that global warming is a serious danger. and it's ok, you don't really matter that much. I wish I could convice you otherwise, but you are clearly to closed-minded to accept something other than what you've been brought up with.

You've got to be kidding me if you think that humans are any serious threat to this planet right now. This rock has been around for billions of years......it's been through ice ages, techtonic plate shifting, volcanic eruptions (which pollute on magnitudes humans can't come close to), hurricanes, tornadoes, magnetic reversal of the poles, millions of meteor strikes ............and some tree huggers think some plastic and some exhaust gas is killing us. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Has anyone actually considered that the climate changes....ON IT'S OWN!!! OMG, that's a new thought. We've had ice ages long before we were around, and we've only been ACURATELY measuring the weather for LESS than 100 years, how the hell do we have any evidence that we are doing anything. If humans are destroyed on this planet it will be just like the dinosaurs, something will happen that is completely beyond our control and that we didn't cause. Now everyone start worrying about something worth a shit.......... like what to do about these damn gas prices.

By the by...Did you know that the EU exports vastly more than the US? Germany alone rivals the US's exporting capabilities, and far exceeds the US's poor export to import ratio.

Are you attempting to deny that there are gaping holes in the atmosphere that are a direct result of the release of CFCs and greenhouse gasses? Good lord, I thought the other guy was ignorant. I don't think we pose a threat to the earth, I think we pose a threat to ourselves. Humans will not efficiently survive an ice age. Do you really want to rumble with me on global warming? The simple fact that you incorporated LOL with a few dozen exclamation points attatched to it into your message shows me that you can't be more than 14, and will clearly know something accumulating to roughly nothing about the environment.

wait wait.... independents dont vote????

if anything being independent motivates you to vote even more, as well as to study your vote more properly, Im a registed independent, I registered independent because i agree with the views of many of the 3rd non votable(sp?) in some states views and opinions, when the 2nd bush election came around I spent weeks studying issues watching the news reading up on political views prospects of candidates after their election and looked into those candidates i was tipped towards to see if they had been regular in holding up the views they were currently broadcasting, I just didnt nod and walk in hit a button that said "democratic" or "republican" (they had that in my state -NC-) While I was waiting to vote I saw old men telling their wives who to vote for on the polls which is a horrible thing to let someone tell you what to do.


so next time you say independents dont vote, shut up and think about what it is like to be someone who doesnt have a single party to lean on

You call yourself a moderate, but if you would look at the facts from both sides, you would see that there is no need for moderation: progress is the realistic way.

Don't you think that 11% unemployment wouldn't be too high a price to pay for generations to come? You might think about the lives that it could possibly (and not probably) decrease the standard of living for. I, on the other hand, choose to think of the hundreds of generations that we could give life to generations upon generations that will never exist period should we choose to continue on this path.

You can choose not to believe that global warming is a serious danger. and it's ok, you don't really matter that much. I wish I could convice you otherwise, but you are clearly to closed-minded to accept something other than what you've been brought up with.

You don't know what to believe because you follow skewed facts. That's your own problem. I'm not going to listen to you, because I think you don't understand the reality. That's the difference between me and you. I understand the facts and reality. I emphasis a high tech economy, over an industrial one. Progress is following my ways, not your ways.

Just want to clarify, I never said anything about independants/moderates not voting...If I had my way they would all vote, and vote green Green...But I agree, in theory, independants should be studying their vote more carefully and analyzing the candidates. Unfortunatly, theory is rarely reality, so Nader will never be elected.

You don't know what to believe because you follow skewed facts. That's your own problem. I'm not going to listen to you, because I think you don't understand the reality. That's the difference between me and you. I understand the facts and reality. I emphasis a high tech economy, over an industrial one. Progress is following my ways, not your ways.
Europe's '11% unemployment' is more due to structural problems then any sort of environmentalist policy.

Mesatecala-

If you favor a high-tech economy over an industrial one, then I am glad to inform you that our viewpoints are closer than we previously thought. However, I favor Green technology: windmills, solar panels, hydrogen automobiles, and all the rest. Not sure what you would have, but at least we both seem to want to move away from oil.

Unfortunately, siding with Bush is doing everything but decreasing industrialization.

Your thoughts?


And one more thing: Please do not calls my facts "skewed" if you cannot disprove them. If you can accurately refute them, I would be glad to offer further evidence.

Mesatecala-

If you favor a high-tech economy over an industrial one, then I am glad to inform you that our viewpoints are closer than we previously thought. However, I favor Green technology: windmills, solar panels, hydrogen automobiles, and all the rest. Not sure what you would have, but at least we both seem to want to move away from oil.

I strongly favor a move from oil power. However, I disagree with you on the methods, and on Bush increasing industrialization (that makes no sense because the US economy is moving away from industrialization to services).

I want high tech businesses to take over, old ones like the steel industry to be phased out (which is fading away). I also advocate nuclear power, and an eventual move to nuclear fusion (over nuclear fission which is a short/medium term plan).

I favor hybrid vehicles. While these still use gas, they are far more fuel efficient.

You've got to be kidding me if you think that humans are any serious threat to this planet right now. This rock has been around for billions of years......it's been through ice ages, techtonic plate shifting, volcanic eruptions (which pollute on magnitudes humans can't come close to), hurricanes, tornadoes, magnetic reversal of the poles, millions of meteor strikes ............and some tree huggers think some plastic and some exhaust gas is killing us. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Has anyone actually considered that the climate changes....ON IT'S OWN!!! OMG, that's a new thought. We've had ice ages long before we were around, and we've only been ACURATELY measuring the weather for LESS than 100 years, how the hell do we have any evidence that we are doing anything. If humans are destroyed on this planet it will be just like the dinosaurs, something will happen that is completely beyond our control and that we didn't cause. Now everyone start worrying about something worth a shit.......... like what to do about these damn gas prices.
You have your own entire website. Do you really have to come to this one, Miss Ann Coulter?

And by way of comparison, Bush's numbers are now lower than Nixon's during Watergate--Nixon was at 39%.

It's official now--George W. Bush is the worst president ever.
Rather early to tell. It's only 2005 and the guy has three and a half years left. I also question whether the worth of poll approval ratings determine the quality of a president. In the few months after 9/11 he would have ranked among the best presidents ever, which he is not, based on approval ratings.

And many conservative Democrats (and there are several of them) aren't happy with the way Dean is talking. Dean is beginning to alienate those democrats and that is not a good thing.

In fairness, Bush never really played so well with liberal Republicans ( www.logcabin.org refused to endorse him ) but it still worked for him in 2000 and 2004.

I don't think it'll be that much of an issue right now. Your forgetting the power of the military vote. Oops! Forgot about them didn't you?
You seem to assume that the military will absolutely always vote Republican. If the government doesn't manage the war properly, surely the military voters will be the first to turn against them?

if he continues to hurl inaccurate depictions of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party will go down hill really fast.
Hurling around inaccurate depictions of opposing parties is what most political parties in the world do. The Republicans did it in the last election. For example: the "Democrats are all about lots of abortion and banning the Bible". :rolleyes:

Dean is going to destroy the party if he keeps ranting and offering nothing back; it creates an image of pure politics, partisanship, and obstructionism which, although the truth might be totally different, is going to hurt the Democrats.
It worked for Newt Gingrich, why not for Dean as well?

Well, I'm glad we've found at least some common ground amidst our differences.

I have very little opposition to nuclear fusion; if the technology could be developed, it is certainly a very efficient and low-waste way to produce energy. Another great energy source along those lines that is often overlooked is geothermal power, taken from the heat given off by the earth itself; the obvious problem is that power stations would be at a risk (albeit a very low one) for meltdowns or sinking into the source of heat itself.

Hybrids are certainly a better choice than a Mustang or an SUV, but keep in mind that the electricity that they use is created by coal and oil. A better solution is hydrogen, which, while not delivering the visceral thrills that are exclusive to gas powered vehicles, is a very realistic and clean option that will not cost too much money to develop as soon as many companies adopt it and make it more competitive in the market.

Bush is indeed an advocate of industry. While sevices like Real Estate are certainly taking over a larger portion of the market, Bush's support of companies like Haliburton is a step backwards, pushing the US back to production of both weapons and the raw materials needed to make them.

Well, I'm glad we've found at least some common ground amidst our differences.

I have very little opposition to nuclear fusion; if the technology could be developed, it is certainly a very efficient and low-waste way to produce energy. Another great energy source along those lines that is often overlooked is geothermal power, taken from the heat given off by the earth itself; the obvious problem is that power stations would be at a risk (albeit a very low one) for meltdowns or sinking into the source of heat itself.

Nuclear fusion is apparently already being developed and the process is known. We know how to do it, but there are still more issues that need to be cleared up in its development. If we train technicians properly we won't have the worry of a meltdown like what happened to the Russians. The crew in charge was very poorly trained.

Hybrids are certainly a better choice than a Mustang or an SUV, but keep in mind that the electricity that they use is created by coal and oil. A better solution is hydrogen, which, while not delivering the visceral thrills that are exclusive to gas powered vehicles, is a very realistic and clean option that will not cost too much money to develop as soon as many companies adopt it and make it more competitive in the market.

Look, in my opinion Hybrids are a good medium term solution. I posted articles about experimental hybrids that get 250MPG.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/miamiherald/news/weather/environment/12391800.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_environment

That's the long term solution. Hydrogen by the way is dangerous from what I heard. If the process can be contained safely, and used safely then I'll be all for it.

Bush is indeed an advocate of industry. While sevices like Real Estate are certainly taking over a larger portion of the market, Bush's support of companies like Haliburton is a step backwards, pushing the US back to production of both weapons and the raw materials needed to make them.

Bush is an advocate of cleaner industry too. He pushed through an energy bill that promotes a move towards cleaner sources, hybrid vehicles, hydrogen vehicles and nuclear power.

Did he push it through. or was it pushed through him?

I hate to say it, but if it's the former, I doubt that it was out of sincere interest; more likely out of interest for political image. Then again, I could be wrong. I don't pretend to know what goes on inside his mind...

--snip--Bush is an advocate of cleaner industry too. He pushed through an energy bill that promotes a move towards cleaner sources, hybrid vehicles, hydrogen vehicles and nuclear power.

Bwah-ha-hahhahahahahahahahaha!

So, if Bush told you black was white, you'd agree as well?

Nuclear fusion is apparently already being developed and the process is known. We know how to do it, but there are still more issues that need to be cleared up in its development. If we train technicians properly we won't have the worry of a meltdown like what happened to the Russians. The crew in charge was very poorly trained.

We have had near misses. All it takes is one.


Look, in my opinion Hybrids are a good medium term solution. I posted articles about experimental hybrids that get 250MPG.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/miamiherald/news/weather/environment/12391800.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_environment


Experimental is the operative word. We will probably never see them in our life time. Oil industry does not like efficent cars.


Bush is an advocate of cleaner industry too. He pushed through an energy bill that promotes a move towards cleaner sources, hybrid vehicles, hydrogen vehicles and nuclear power.

:D that was funny. Thank you for the laugh.

It's all talk my boy. The "promotion" is more along the lines of "hey wouldn't it be nice if we did this?" It is a paper tiger.

Nuclear power is clean? Ok we my get some cleaner air but all those rods......

We need the Constitution Party to take over the place of the democrats then hopefully we can get rid of the democratic, green and other liberal political organizations and go back to being a christian federalist nation that made us great. We need to mobilize indpendent and conservative democrats to join us and move America back to the right. Over 70% of America is conservative christian and its about time we take back our nation! Peroutka in '08

www.constitutionparty.com

I think some of you may be drawing the wrong conclusions from Bush's low poll numbers. Whenever the pollsters ask if we support Bush's handling of the war they almost never ask if he should be firmer. I am a conservative and I have spoken with others and many of us would like to see the gloves come off. No more political correctness. No more sitting around and waiting for terrorists to come into Iraq. I am not saying lets start blowing up mosques. But I am saying if they have training camps in Syria warm up a few rockets. Lets kick down a few more doors and get a firmer grip on the borders. Overwhelming force is more often than not effective and will be respected. Historian Victor Davis Hanson has said "The world is ruled through the aggressive use of force" and I suspect it always will be. I know most of you posting on such a thread will not agree with me, but I thought I could give you a glimps at what many of us "crazy right wingers" are thinking and offer a different explanation to the poll numbers.

although i agree with you about the use of aggressive force, i dont really like it. but, thats the truth, you crazy right wingers actually are 'right' for once.

*applauds himself for pun*

Erhm, more ethanol in gasoline? Hybrid vehicles? Who says we aren't doing anything? California for example puts a lot of ethanol in gasoline causing it to burn a lot cooler. Los Angeles, which still has pollution issues, has cleaned up its act greatly since the 1970s.

Well I wasn't aware of that :D

We need the Constitution Party to take over the place of the democrats then hopefully we can get rid of the democratic, green and other liberal political organizations and go back to being a christian federalist nation that made us great. We need to mobilize indpendent and conservative democrats to join us and move America back to the right. Over 70% of America is conservative christian and its about time we take back our nation! Peroutka in '08

www.constitutionparty.com

umm.
no.

We need the Constitution Party to take over the place of the democrats then hopefully we can get rid of the democratic, green and other liberal political organizations and go back to being a christian federalist nation that made us great. We need to mobilize indpendent and conservative democrats to join us and move America back to the right. Over 70% of America is conservative christian and its about time we take back our nation! Peroutka in '08

www.constitutionparty.com

yeah let's just ignore the other "30%".

I'm an Agnostic Centrist so you can bite me :D

We need the Constitution Party to take over the place of the democrats then hopefully we can get rid of the democratic, green and other liberal political organizations and go back to being a christian federalist nation that made us great. We need to mobilize indpendent and conservative democrats to join us and move America back to the right. Over 70% of America is conservative christian and its about time we take back our nation! Peroutka in '08

www.constitutionparty.com

Umm.
No.

I'm sorry, but what twisted statistic led you to believe that 70% of America is comrpised of conservative Christians? That is absolutely ludicris. How could elections possibly be so close if things are the way you claim they are? I'm sorry, but what you say is quite simply fictional.

umm.
no.

You really didn't give much of areason why. Returning America back to it's original way would stop the growing socialism that the democrats are trying to push down our throuts.

You really didn't give much of areason why. Returning America back to it's original way would stop the growing socialism that the democrats are trying to push down our throuts.

umm.
no.

umm.
no.

I'm going to have to agree on this one. These people are straight from the 1950's:

The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, against special rights for homosexuals, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, anti-unchecked immigration, pro-gun, and against the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws, in favor of a strong national defense and opposed to unconstitutional interventionism.

You really didn't give much of areason why. Returning America back to it's original way would stop the growing socialism that the democrats are trying to push down our throuts.

Yeah and on the other hand we'll have bibles pushed down our throats. No thanks. I like having at least a two party system and not the old Iraqi election system...

Ballet
o Saddam
o We can see you

You really didn't give much of areason why. Returning America back to it's original way would stop the growing socialism that the democrats are trying to push down our throuts.

I agree with controlling the spread of Big Government and wasting moeny, but too many of their ideas are antiquated (like protectionism) and do more harm than good.

I'm sorry, but what twisted statistic led you to believe that 70% of America is comrpised of conservative Christians? That is absolutely ludicris. How could elections possibly be so close if things are the way you claim they are? I'm sorry, but what you say is quite simply fictional.

Sorry it's true, unfortunatly we still have those damn liberals like Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon at our throats. Hopefully people like that will get their just desserts.

What on earth have you smoked...

(Hopefully something really dangerous.)

I agree with controlling the spread of Big Government and wasting moeny, but too many of their ideas are antiquated (like protectionism) and do more harm than good.

Unfortunatly the Repub's mindless belief in globilization is what is going to destroy our economic stability. The NWO and globilization is the movement of our soverign rights to global multi-nationals. We need to keep our money in our nation.

Tariffs and Trade

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others these Constitutional powers. We oppose, therefore, the unconstitutional transfer of authority over U.S. trade policy from Congress to agencies, domestic or foreign, which improperly exercise policy-setting functions with respect to U.S. trade policy.

We favor the abolition of the Office of Special Trade Representative, and insist on the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and all other agreements wherein agencies other than the Congress of the United States improperly assume responsibility for establishing American trade policies.

Article I, Section 8 provides that duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. We support a tariff based revenue system, as did the Founding Fathers, which was the policy of the United States during most of the nation's history. In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item's cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.

Tariffs are not only a constitutional source of revenue, but, wisely administered, are an aid to preservation of the national economy. Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.

We oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America's economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which impoverishes American families, undermines American communities, and diminishes America's capacity for economic self-reliance, and the provision of national defense.

We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.

We reject the trade concept of normal trade relations (Most Favored Nation status), used to curry favor with regimes whose domestic and international policies are abhorrent to decent people everywhere, and which are in fundamental conflict with the vital interests of the United States of America.

We strongly oppose unconstitutional "Trade Promotion Authority," which transfers the establishment of trade policy from Congress to the Executive branch of government.

In the name of free trade, multi-national corporations have been given tax breaks by the U.S. government which are not available to American businesses, and the money extracted from U.S. taxpayers has been used by the government to subsidize exports and encourage businesses to move abroad. Such improprieties must cease.

The United States government should establish the firm policy that U.S. or multinational businesses investing abroad do so at their own risk. There is no obligation by our Government to protect those businesses with the lives of our service personnel, or the taxes of our citizens.

In the area of national security, foreign interests have been abetted in gaining access to America's high-tech secrets under the guise of commercial enterprise. We propose that technology transfers which compromise national security be made illegal, and urge that all violators be prosecuted. We demand that all weapons systems, military uniforms and equipment purchased for the American military be domestically produced in their entirety along with all their component parts.

We oppose the practice of any officer of the United States government, or spouse thereof, who, subsequent to Federal government employment is employed to represent a foreign government or other foreign entity, public or private, for purposes of influencing public opinion or policy on matters affecting U.S. trade with such foreign government or entity.

yeah let's just ignore the other "30%".

I'm an Agnostic Centrist so you can bite me :D


As opposed to what?.....letting the 30 percent win. That's why your called a minority, pick another country where you are the majority if you want to have your way.

This forum has officially been hijacked by people who have no clue about what they are saying.

As opposed to what?.....letting the 30 percent win. That's why your called a minority, pick another country where you are the majority if you want to have your way.

I'm not asking to have my way, I'm asking that my voice be heard like any true democracy. You can go ahead and kick me out, while you're at it kick out the North East and the West Coast, the logical half of the nation.

This forum has officially been hijacked by people who have no clue about what they are saying.

I disagree...I think most people here know what they are saying.

My point above that protectionism with the elimination of labor and wage laws will bring more jobs here in America. We must eliminate the minimum wage, Job safety, pension plans, labor unions and other labor laws. That will bring back jobs to America.

"Bush's approval ratings at all time low--who will we attack next?"

Yo momma. :D

"Bush's approval ratings at all time low--who will we attack next?"

Yo momma. :D

You are probably right. She is a democrat and hates the shrub to no end.

"Bush's approval ratings at all time low--who will we attack next?"

Yo momma. :D
Sorry Eutrusca--It's not cute anymore, not to me, not after some of the crap you've said on the various Cindy Sheehan threads.

I predict DieBold for the win!
Ouch. :(

Seriously, that was a hard-spent "win".

"Bush's approval ratings at all time low--who will we attack next?"

Yo momma. :D
You didn't happen to snag any of the "Yo Momma ...." quotes, did you?
This appears out of context ....
;)

Sorry it's true, unfortunatly we still have those damn liberals like Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon at our throats. Hopefully people like that will get their just desserts.
At your throats?
So, are you educated enough to know how to TURN YOUR F*CKING TV OFF?
Don't watch movies?
Grow up!

Can we have orgies afterwards as well? Please please! :fluffle:
Gladiator orgies? :eek:
*...recalls "Airplane", the movie...*

You are probably right. She is a democrat and hates the shrub to no end.
Actually, my mom is a Jehovah's Witness and as such is non-partisan and a non-voter, but I appreciate the snark on my behalf. :D

I'm sure Bush would be happy to allow that, as long as the orgies conform strictly to the Bible.
Kinda like the one with Noah's daughters ....
:eek:

My point above that protectionism with the elimination of labor and wage laws will bring more jobs here in America. We must eliminate the minimum wage, Job safety, pension plans, labor unions and other labor laws. That will bring back jobs to America.

Yeah...But who'd want them?

Go read about the Industrial Revolution and living standards at the time.

Actually, my mom is a Jehovah's Witness and as such is non-partisan and a non-voter, but I appreciate the snark on my behalf. :D

Ahh heck. At least I tried! ;)

I don't think anyone gives a shit about your vote. I certainly don't. Go ahead and vote conservative. If you were a real moderate, you wouldn't let anyone scare your vote either way. That's what being "moderate" or "independant" is about.

But go ahead. Vote for corrupt conservative corporate puppets. I bet you want your kids to live in a smog-choked sewage dump with nothing left to them but an over-cropped patch of soil-slicked soil that can't help them any more than the "would have, should have" attitude that they take to your generation's decisions. Don't worry, it'll happen while your progeny are still alive, as long as they inherit your wife's intelligence and not yours.
KaPOW! :sniper:

You have some VERY interesting posts for a new feller here. :eek:
*bows*

I smell a Chickenhawk.

Does anybody know how to fix the static here? :rolleyes:

And by way of comparison, Bush's numbers are now lower than Nixon's during Watergate--Nixon was at 39%.

It's official now--George W. Bush is the worst president ever.He's not the worst ever but he is definitely one of the worst.

Yeah...But who'd want them?

Go read about the Industrial Revolution and living standards at the time.

That's just socialist bull crap. The industrial age was a great age that was a golden age. People today are just too lazy to do a hard day's work. It brought character and strength to our nation.

Thank god, you won't have progeny...

If you care to know, my fact gathering skills are more refined that a small blurt may point to.

You want facts? Here I come.

The ice fields of eastern Siberia are melting rapidly, with temperatures increasing at the astounding rate of 3 degress C in just the past 40 years. Under these ice fields lies billions of tons of deadly, scentless methan gas that would be released into the atmosphere upon the melting of the ice fields. Billions of tons. Do you realize how much a billion tons of methane is?

Those, my friend, are facts.
Since your posts have garnered my attention ...

You might be speaking of this ....
(if i may presume)
Warming hits 'tipping point'

Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.
The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.
The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.
The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across.
Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.
Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.
"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."
In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.
"These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner.
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.
Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.
The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.
But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture.
It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases.
"If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not much.
"The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time."
In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global warming was damaging the permafrost. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that her team had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia. At the hotspots, methane was bubbling to the surface of the permafrost so quickly that it was preventing the surface from freezing over.
Last month, some of the world's worst air polluters, including the US and Australia, announced a partnership to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of new technologies.
The deal came after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get the US president, George Bush, to commit to any concerted action on climate change and has been heavily criticised for setting no targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
--
It's good to have the facts on your side ... *bows*

He's not the worst ever but he is definitely one of the worst.
Well, I've made the argument in the past that Nixon was the worst ever--not based on popularity, but on criminal behavior--and since Bush had fallen below Nixon... Okay, I was really just looking for a hook, but I am starting to believe that he has out-Nixoned Nixon.

Wonderful, now you attack me as a person.

Your fact gathering skills are non existent.



You are irrelevant too, and not very correct... you dont' know what you're talking about. You don't provide facts. You also don't realize that global warming can actually lead to cooling.

Can somebody give this guy a cookie for being mind blowingly ignorant?
I'd give you a cookie but i think you're pulling a Bush here, like he did with the pretzel.
Now pay attention to the above post.
N'joy. *tap*

KaPOW! :sniper:

You have some VERY interesting posts for a new feller here. :eek:
*bows*


I may be new to the board, but I am certainly no beginner in environmental politics ;)

That's just socialist bull crap. The industrial age was a great age that was a golden age. People today are just too lazy to do a hard day's work. It brought character and strength to our nation.

Right. So you work 16-20 hour days?

You live on wages in no way enough to support a decent life?

Look, that lifestyle works for you, have at it. As for me, I'll keep mine.

That's just socialist bull crap. The industrial age was a great age that was a golden age. People today are just too lazy to do a hard day's work. It brought character and strength to our nation.
You mind taking your decidedly odd view of history to its own thread? Please?

The atmosphere has 9,350,000,000 tons of methane in it currently, or 0.00017% percent. The new methane isn't that big of a problem even if CO2 is not reduced; it's only 1/2 times as powerful a greenhouse gas.
M'kay .... source?
Read above?
*curious*

In fairness, Bush never really played so well with liberal Republicans ( www.logcabin.org refused to endorse him ) but it still worked for him in 2000 and 2004.

No arguement from me on that one.

You seem to assume that the military will absolutely always vote Republican. If the government doesn't manage the war properly, surely the military voters will be the first to turn against them?

The military vote will always go to the candidate that promises a stronger military and follows through on that. That was what got Carter elected in 1976. However, he betrayed the military and the military ousted him in 1980. Never piss off the military. As for mismanaging a war...that was one reason why LBJ didn't run for election in 1968 even though he could've.

Hurling around inaccurate depictions of opposing parties is what most political parties in the world do.

Your right about that but Dean has taken it to extremes.

The Republicans did it in the last election. For example: the "Democrats are all about lots of abortion and banning the Bible". :rolleyes:

And that is inaccurate how? Most Democrats are Pro-abortion and most republicans are pro-life. As for banning the bible thing, Alot of democrats are part of the ACLU so......

That's just socialist bull crap. The industrial age was a great age that was a golden age. People today are just too lazy to do a hard day's work. It brought character and strength to our nation.

Nice sweeping generalization there.

I do about 70+ a week. Most people I know do about 50+.

The industrial age was great? It brought character?

What have you been smoking? ;)

At least what have you been reading?

That's just socialist bull crap. The industrial age was a great age that was a golden age. People today are just too lazy to do a hard day's work. It brought character and strength to our nation.

It was good for some people, but too many of the poor were chained deplorable living conditions, hazardous workplaces (Triangle Shirtwaist fire), abuse of child labor, and the total inability of these workers to improve their situation, be it in wages, benefits, or anything else. The Industrial Revolution was both good and bad, but far from a golden age.

That blows Global Warming out of the water :D
Corny ... you're not on the same page.
And don't bother with the "Yeah well my dad/uncle/cousin is a CLIMATE RESEARCHER and it turns out that Michael Crichton is right and you are all dupes of the left-wing conspiracy! Nyahh!" shtick, please.

Go easy on Mesacatala, he had a few valid points, and he falls far left of industrial conservatism.

The democratic party is being pulled apart within....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050822/pl_washpost/democrats_split_over_position_on_iraq_war

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) broke with his party leadership last week to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006. In delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that "it's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."

Although critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden (news, bio, voting record) Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who rose to public prominence on an antiwar presidential campaign, said on television a week ago that it was the responsibility of the president, not the opposition, to come up with a plan for Iraq.

"Clearly Democrats are not united in what is the critique of what we're doing there and what is the answer to what we do next," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled."
Interesting!!!

Republican Senator Says U.S. Needs Iraq Exit Strategy Now
The war has destabilized the Mideast and created a potential Vietnam, Nebraska's Chuck Hagel says. Other lawmakers express frustration.

By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — As President Bush prepared to hit the road this week to bolster public support for his policies in Iraq, a senior Republican senator said Sunday that the United States needed to craft an exit strategy because its continued presence had created a potential Vietnam.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said on ABC's "This Week." "I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."
Hagel, the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a prospective presidential candidate in 2008, was among several senators from both parties who used the Sunday talk shows to express mounting frustration over the administration's handling of the war and the occupation.

A decorated Vietnam veteran, Hagel has been critical of the Iraq war for some time. But his remarks Sunday, along with those of other lawmakers, appeared to mark a significant escalation in the scope and breadth of the criticism of Bush and his administration's handling of the Iraq effort, some analysts said.

"It seems that the ice is cracking in a bipartisan way in terms of congressional dissatisfaction with President Bush's policy in Iraq. The silence in terms of directly criticizing the administration's handling of Iraq — its mismanagement — has come to an end," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. Although his independent centrist organization is affiliated with the Democratic Party, Wittmann formerly served as a senior aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

He noted that some of those on Sunday's shows, such as Sens. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and Carl Levin of Michigan, were Democrats who had frequently criticized the administration over Iraq, whereas others were staunch Republicans.

"The change now is that Republicans for the first time will assume oversight of the administration's policy," Wittmann said. "There is no more patience for happy talk from the administration."

In recent weeks, polls have shown a rising skepticism over Bush's handling of the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 1,860 U.S. troops and injured thousands more. In their comments Sunday, several lawmakers made note of the public's apparent unease, even as they differed over how long the U.S. should stay in Iraq and whether it should announce a tentative withdrawal date soon, as Feingold urged last week and reiterated Sunday.

Even those defending Bush tempered their support with expressions of concern about what they described as a disconnect between the administration and the public over the U.S. role in Iraq.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the former majority leader, said that his constituents, despite their "very pro-military" feelings, were beginning to question whether the United States was doing enough to help establish an independent Iraqi government and make enough progress to allow troop withdrawals anytime soon.

"They still believe very strongly in President Bush," Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press," citing recent conversations with frustrated constituents. "But they have a right to ask their elected officials, you know, 'What is the plan?' "

On Sunday, the White House said Bush would address such concerns in speeches this week, including one to a National Guard unit that has served in Iraq.

In response to the lawmakers' comments, White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said Sunday that Bush believed that "a free and democratic Iraq will help transform a dangerous region and lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren."

"That is why it is so important for our troops to complete this important mission," she said. "Our policies of the past only allowed the Middle East to become a terrorist breeding ground. Quitting now wouldn't help anyone except terrorist killers who certainly aren't quitting their efforts to target innocent people."

Three GOP senators — Hagel, Lott and George Allen of Virginia — agreed that Washington couldn't simply pull out of Iraq and leave a vacuum that might further destabilize the Middle East.

Lott said an eventual withdrawal "should be based on conditions, not on a calendar," and Allen called it "absolutely essential that we win" in Iraq.

Hagel, however, said that it was the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that was causing the destabilization, and that the administration needed to start articulating its long-range plans for withdrawal immediately or risk having Iraq become as politically costly as the Vietnam War.

"We are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar or dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay, the more problems we are going to have," Hagel said. He was particularly harsh in his criticism of Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, for saying in an Associated Press interview a day earlier that the Pentagon was making contingency plans for having more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through 2009.

Such plans, even if they are a worst-case and unlikely scenario, are "complete folly," Hagel said. "There's no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Kinda like the one with Noah's daughters ....
:eek:

That'll be Lot's daughters. Noah only had 3 sons

Corny ... you're not on the same page.
And don't bother with the "Yeah well my dad/uncle/cousin is a CLIMATE RESEARCHER and it turns out that Michael Crichton is right and you are all dupes of the left-wing conspiracy! Nyahh!" shtick, please.

Since Global Warming isn't man made and is infact a natural event....your the one that is dilusional.

That'll be Lot's daughters. Noah only had 3 sons
...so who'd they propegate with again after The Deluge?

Since Global Warming isn't man made and is infact a natural event....your the one that is dilusional.
As i said. You are apparently very uneducated on the subject. Stick to Rush and Crichton. I'll post again later ... or just refresh your memory.

Since Global Warming isn't man made and is infact a natural event....your the one that is dilusional.
HA! HA!

Since Global Warming isn't man made and is infact a natural event....your the one that is dilusional.
Do you disagree with Rush Limbaugh on anything?

That'll be Lot's daughters. Noah only had 3 sonsI wasn't exactly there to see for myself. :D

As i said. You are apparently very uneducated on the subject. Stick to Rush and Crichton. I'll post again later ... or just refresh your memory.
Are you a scientist?

Since Global Warming isn't man made and is infact a natural event....your the one that is dilusional.Scientific consensus states that Greenhouses Gases have made a considerable and unnatural contribution to global warming.

...so who'd they propegate with again after The Deluge?

Noah's sons had wives that were also on the ark!

this forum... has gotten... RIDICULOUS!

As i said. You are apparently very uneducated on the subject. Stick to Rush and Crichton. I'll post again later ... or just refresh your memory.

Actually, I'm educated in the theory of Global Warming. How? I had to put up with it throughout high school and as part of my study into Meteorology. :eek:

Guess what? Its a natural cycle and not man-made.

Do you disagree with Rush Limbaugh on anything?

I don't listen to Rush nor do I listen to Hannity. I don't watch much TV anymore because its the same crap on a different day.

this forum... has gotten... RIDICULOUS!


Seriously. It's like all the normal people have moved on, and all the obsessive nuts have stayed behind to arg...Wait a minute...

Scientific consensus states that Greenhouses Gases have made a considerable and unnatural contribution to global warming.

And other scientists have disproven it. Depends on what you believe I guess. However, all I'm seeing is a natural cycle that repeats itself every so number of years.

Seriously. It's like all the normal people have moved on, and all the obsessive nuts have stayed behind to arg...Wait a minute...
You're a damn liar.

this forum... has gotten... RIDICULOUS!

I couldn't agree more. We have gotten seriously off topic.

As to the thread, we're not going to attack anyone unless they force it.

Actually, I'm educated in the theory of Global Warming. How? I had to put up with it throughout high school and as part of my study into Meteorology. :eek:

Guess what? Its a natural cycle and not man-made.
Then your teacher is either a liar or an idiot who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

The only scientists who have any doubts about whether or not global warming is occurring and/or man-made are those who are cashing fat checks from the energy industry.

And other scientists have disproven it. Depends on what you believe I guess.What part of the word consensus do you not understand?

Densim and Corn guy... thankyou for having some semblence of real intelligence here, not to mention sense of humor

Nice sweeping generalization there.

At least what have you been reading?

Ayn Rand of course but I don't agree with her views on religion cause she is a athiest.

And other scientists have disproven it. Depends on what you believe I guess. However, all I'm seeing is a natural cycle that repeats itself every so number of years.
YOU aren't seeing it because YOU *haven't been alive long enough* to have observed any such veracity to that. I'm not talking about you being a whelp, i'm talking about visible observance in record for so long. So.... you have to pretty much rely on *EXPERTS* in the field, which you have cited approximately ... how many? *poke*
As compared to the industrial revolution .... records have this way of .....

*ahem*

Historical Evidence Shows Larsen Ice Shelf Collapse Is 'Unprecedented'

In the spring of 2002, a large chunk of the Larsen B ice shelf (LIS-B) on the Antarctic Peninsula broke off and tumbled into the Weddell Sea. A new analysis published today in the journal Nature suggests that the more than 3,200 square kilometer area that collapsed signifies an unprecedented loss in the past 10,000 years and can be attributed to accelerated climate warming in the region.
Eugene Domack of Hamilton College and his colleagues studied six sediment cores collected from the area around the ice shelf as well as other data, such as temperature and salinity measurements of the Weddell Sea. The results indicate that LIS-B has been stable since the Late Pleistocene to Holocene transition, which occurred 11,500 years ago. The ice shelf had been thinning slowly, however, which was evidenced by a change in the oxygen isotopes present in plankton preserved from the underlying water column. The team calculates that the glacier thinned by a few tens of meters over the course of thousands of years.
Local temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, have risen by about two degrees Celsius over the past 50 years, an increase that is more pronounced than in other regions of the world. The authors write that their observation that the modern collapse of the LIS-B is a unique event supports the hypothesis that the current warming trend in the northwestern Weddell Sea is longer and bigger than past warm episodes. Together with the slow thinning, it was this prolonged period of warming that led to LIS-B's collapse, they conclude. --Sarah Graham

Then your teacher is either a liar or an idiot who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Actually, they're neither since 1) a liar would never be allowed to teach and an idiot wouldn't have gotten their doctorate degree.

The only scientists who have any doubts about whether or not global warming is occurring and/or man-made are those who are cashing fat checks from the energy industry.

Meteorologists don't work for the energy industry :rolleyes:

What part of the word consensus do you not understand?
I think he qualified *HIS* perpective with "believe". :rolleyes:

*snip*

You do know that part of the Anartic ice shelf is in the TEMPORATE ZONE right? You also know that Antartica is actually getting COLDER and NOT warmer right?

Actually, I'm educated in the theory of Global Warming. How? I had to put up with it throughout high school and as part of my study into Meteorology. :eek:

Guess what? Its a natural cycle and not man-made.
Guess what else? That was a while back for me and the natural cycles of cooling and heating covered in a *REMEDIAL* meteorology study in school are of an entirely different calibre than this topic. It may be that you JUST TOOK the schooling provided to the common populace, and you may be confabulating just a bit .... that's okay, i'm sure once again you'll provide some kind of evidence ... or link .... or something that isn't a blogspew.

*tap*

PRROOOOOOOOVE it.

You do know that part of the Anartic ice shelf is in the TEMPORATE ZONE right? You also know that Antartica is actually getting COLDER and NOT warmer right?
One:
I do know how to at least SPELL the region correctly.
Two:
Only one specific area in that region is the one you're likely referring to.
Three:
Again, post it.

Actually, they're neither since 1) a liar would never be allowed to teach and an idiot wouldn't have gotten their doctorate degree.



Meteorologists don't work for the energy industry :rolleyes:
Let me let you in on something. The public school system is full of liars and idiots, doctorates or not, and the private school system is virtually unregulated when it comes to teacher qualifications. Secondly--scientists of virtually any background--and that includes meteorology--can be and are funded by industries including the energy industry. Those who take the funding in exchange for coming up with conclusions the industry likes regardless of the data they gather are usually referred to as "shills," which is generally defined as "whore with a degree."

You do know that part of the Anartic ice shelf is in the TEMPORATE ZONE right? You also know that Antartica is actually getting COLDER and NOT warmer right?
**POSTED WITHIN THE PAST HALFHOUR**

...Local temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, have risen by about two degrees Celsius over the past 50 years, an increase that is more pronounced than in other regions of the world. The authors write that their observation that the modern collapse of the LIS-B is a unique event supports the hypothesis that the current warming trend in the northwestern Weddell Sea is longer and bigger than past warm episodes. Together with the slow thinning, it was this prolonged period of warming that led to LIS-B's collapse, they conclude. --Sarah Graham

Read. Not listen. Or don't argue.
Global warming is quite a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.
Link or proof, otherwise, this is getting more embarrassing for you.

I wonder if this will traslate into anything in the 2006 elections?

Not unless we get a paper trail. Diebold won't let the Republicans lose.

Noah's sons had wives that were also on the ark!
Seems i remember the term "shame" being used for that issue ... something about him getting drunk .... i'd post it now but i honestly don't have it on this computer. It's on Heikoku's thread i think .... maybe i'll exhume later.
Otherwise, feel free to taunt and play with my flaccid post. ;)
:fluffle:

EDIT ... another day shall pass.
Gotta get guacamole-mole-mole.

Not unless we get a paper trail. Diebold won't let the Republicans lose.
Can you say President Chuck Hagel? His family owned the parent company of ES&S, the second largest election machine manufacturer in the country, I believe.

Let me let you in on something. The public school system is full of liars and idiots, doctorates or not, and the private school system is virtually unregulated when it comes to teacher qualifications.

1) I only attended private school for Kindergarten and 5 and part of 6th Grade!

2) I only attended public school in 1-4 and 1 month in 9th Grade.

3) After that, I was homeschooled and got a much better education than those in Public school.

As for the public school system being liars and idiots, that explains 90% of the people on these boards since now you just call ALL TEACHERS liars and idiots. Good job. Makes me glad that I didn't have to suffer with it through out my entire schooling.

I applaud you for telling the truth for once.

Secondly--scientists of virtually any background--and that includes meteorology--can be and are funded by industries including the energy industry.

And yet they aren't attached to the Energy department. They are actually attached to the interior department I believe.

Those who take the funding in exchange for coming up with conclusions the industry likes regardless of the data they gather are usually referred to as "shills," which is generally defined as "whore with a degree."

Explains the Global Warming Crowd. You did nothing to convince me but yet prove that it doesn't matter who you believe. No matter what, there will be biasness on both sides and neither side is 100% correct.

I actually brought this up on a different thread. My guess is that Iran is next. They're already begging for excuses. Just watch, they'll be trumpeting the "fact" the Iran elected a hardline muslim, and soon enough they'll be saying that they're trying to make nukes with their enrichment program. Excuse, after excuse, after excuse.

Corny--you were home-schooled? That explains so very very much about you.

Corny--you were home-schooled? That explains so very very much about you.

I agree, I had no idea until now, but it does explain soo much.

Originally Posted by Vetalia
The new methane isn't that big of a problem even if CO2 is not reduced; it's only 1/2 times as powerful a greenhouse gas.
Originally Posted by Maxus Paynus
And you do realize that methane is thousands of times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? Ignorant.

So very wrong. Methan (http://greennature.com/article282.html) is About 21 times higher than that of CO2.

Originally Posted by Gilligus
They release green house gasses, which, as I sincerely hope you are aware, have been proven to be a direct cause of ozone loss.

CFC green house gases do. CFCs are now outlawed.

Originally Posted by Gilligus
Contrary to popular belief, human farts contain no methane. So shut your hole on that one.

Farts (http://www.heptune.com/farts.html) do contain methane. Why do you think they can burn?

Originally Posted by Conservative Thinking
Has anyone actually considered that the climate changes....ON IT'S OWN!!!

Got that right. That is what I always say when people start talking about us causing global warming. We are not helping though.

Originally Posted by Gilligus
hydrogen automobiles

And where do you think we will get the hydrogen from? Gasoline or methane (easiest cheapest way).
Hydrogen can be produced from a seperater, but we would have to double our electricity output to get the hyrogen needed. How do you get more electricity? Burning more coal, nat gas and oil. And by the way, you get far less energy from hydrogen than gasoline. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Originally Posted by Mesatecala
Hydrogen by the way is dangerous from what I heard.

Actually it is very safe. go here (http://www.geocities.com/hydrogenpower1/essays/main/hydrogen.html#safety) and click on safety, also go here (http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid536.php).

Originally Posted by Allemonde
People today are just too lazy to do a hard day's work.

Moron. Average weekly hours worked in the US by men are over 40 and almost everyone I know work 50 to 84 hours (12 hours a day 7 days a week) a week. The person that works 84 hours a week works in a steel mill. Tell me that is not a hard days work.
You are such an ass hole Allemode.

Originally Posted by Canada6
Scientific consensus states that Greenhouses Gases have made a considerable and unnatural contribution to global warming.

Greenhouse gasses are always present in the atmosphere naturally. And can anyone prove to me that global warming is not causing greenhouse gas amounts to go up. Ice melts releasing traped CO2.

Originally Posted by Straughn
Historical Evidence Shows Larsen Ice Shelf Collapse Is 'Unprecedented'

In the spring of 2002, a large chunk of the Larsen B ice shelf (LIS-B) on the Antarctic Peninsula broke off and tumbled into the Weddell Sea. A new analysis published today in the journal Nature suggests that the more than 3,200 square kilometer area that collapsed signifies an unprecedented loss in the past 10,000 years and can be attributed to accelerated climate warming in the region.
Eugene Domack of Hamilton College and his colleagues studied six sediment cores collected from the area around the ice shelf as well as other data, such as temperature and salinity measurements of the Weddell Sea. The results indicate that LIS-B has been stable since the Late Pleistocene to Holocene transition, which occurred 11,500 years ago. The ice shelf had been thinning slowly, however, which was evidenced by a change in the oxygen isotopes present in plankton preserved from the underlying water column. The team calculates that the glacier thinned by a few tens of meters over the course of thousands of years.
Local temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula, meanwhile, have risen by about two degrees Celsius over the past 50 years, an increase that is more pronounced than in other regions of the world. The authors write that their observation that the modern collapse of the LIS-B is a unique event supports the hypothesis that the current warming trend in the northwestern Weddell Sea is longer and bigger than past warm episodes. Together with the slow thinning, it was this prolonged period of warming that led to LIS-B's collapse, they conclude. --Sarah Graham

Does not say or mean that it is not caused by natural sources. Earth naturally warms, ice melts and releases traped CO2.


Come on people, look this shit up. Google is at your finger tips.

Corny--you were home-schooled? That explains so very very much about you.

Quit it with the cheap shots, alright?

Quit it with the cheap shots, alright?Please check your telegrams.

1) I only attended private school for Kindergarten and 5 and part of 6th Grade!

2) I only attended public school in 1-4 and 1 month in 9th Grade.

3) After that, I was homeschooled and got a much better education than those in Public school.

Wow... you gone through four or five schools before you were home-schooled? Crazy. Your parents must be pissed off at the education system.

Corny--you were home-schooled? That explains so very very much about you.

What? That I got a better education and learned to actually think for myself? Your right! That does explain alot about me.

What? That I got a better education and learned to actually think for myself? Your right! That does explain alot about me.
What I meant is that it explains your distaste for sources that fall outside your chosen world-view, and your stubborn insistence that you and the sources you choose are the only possible explanation for what you've decided for yourself (or had decided for you) as truth. Contrariness is not the same as thinking for one's self.

What I meant is that it explains your distaste for sources that fall outside your chosen world-view, and your stubborn insistence that you and the sources you choose are the only possible explanation for what you've decided for yourself (or had decided for you) as truth. Contrariness is not the same as thinking for one's self.

No! My mother has always taught me to dig and dig for the truth because no one ever states the whole truth. Also, she taught me to ignore poll numbers because they are represent a miniscual sampling of the Population as a whole.

I always try to get to the bottom of things but you know what? You'll never get to the full truth but you have to dig to get as much of the truth as you possibly can.

No! My mother has always taught me to dig and dig for the truth because no one ever states the whole truth. Also, she taught me to ignore poll numbers because they are represent a miniscual sampling of the Population as a whole.

I always try to get to the bottom of things but you know what? You'll never get to the full truth but you have to dig to get as much of the truth as you possibly can.
I'm not going to argue this with you, Corneliu, because I don't think there's any way for me to do so without being insulting, intentionally or unintentionally, and I don't want to do that anymore. I've just given you my opinion and an explanation for why I said that learning you are home-schooled seemed to explain a lot to me., and I'm doing it because my quick response came across as a cheap shot, which it was not intended as. I owed you the explanation, and I provided it--if you disagree, I understand, but there's really no point in continuing in this vein.

I'm not going to argue this with you, Corneliu, because I don't think there's any way for me to do so without being insulting, intentionally or unintentionally, and I don't want to do that anymore. I've just given you my opinion and an explanation for why I said that learning you are home-schooled seemed to explain a lot to me., and I'm doing it because my quick response came across as a cheap shot, which it was not intended as. I owed you the explanation, and I provided it--if you disagree, I understand, but there's really no point in continuing in this vein.

And I gave you my explaination. Me becoming a homeschooler is actually complex because of circumstances that I wish not to discuss here. It is nice that we can actually do this without resorting to namecalling for once :)

If you have any messengers, I'd be glad to add you :)

Does not say or mean that it is not caused by natural sources. Earth naturally warms, ice melts and releases traped CO2.



Actually that post does say something you should note in it. Maybe you should read it more carefully.
It doesn't however say that Earth doesn't naturally warm or cool. It's talking about what DOESN'T FIT THE CURVE. That's why i posted it.
Don't tell me where to find info. You back your sources up and i'll back mine and we'll be fine.