It doesn't take rocket science to figure out....
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Yes, several in my town...... - sm
the crap you are posting is just that, crap.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's wrong with the economy.
This was on the yahoo home page about layoffs at Dell in Austin.
"...Everyone in the room was fired, their jobs shipped overseas."
WHY is this happening? Why is our dear leader not cracking the whip on this BS? What happened to "Yes we can" or did that mean yes we can ship your job to Timbuktu (Mumbai) and there ain't a dern thing you can do about it?
Disgusting is the only word for it.
As an aside, DO NOT BUY DELL.
This is not rocket science. If Americans have access to
it creates a win/win situation for us all. If they open that plan to such a broad base, they would be able to essentially write their own ticket in terms of policy and coverage. As the plan stands now, it is perfectly acceptable, affordable and offers broad choice.
If McCain and his supporters want to wallow around in the politics of nay-saying, fear and hate, no problem. Go for it, but don't expecct Americans who are ready for change and are looking forward instead of backwards in terms of policy to buy into all hat negativity. That's the Bush world mentality and those days are numbered now down to less than 100.
I guess they figure if Bush doesn't play by the rules,
they don't have to, either. No big surprise here. They want to take over everything, just as Bush does: With Bush, it's the world. With them, it's this message board. I agree with you, though. They should stay on their own board, as the moderator has requested. 
It does not take a rocket scientist to...
figure it out. If Al Qaeda is using Google maps to know where to set bombs, you can figure out they watch CNN. Of course they do! Al Zawahiri has commented on the protests. He has told his people to take heart...we are weakening. That was reported even on the Clinton News Network..oops I mean CNN...as well as Fox. I did not make that up...the terrorists themselves told us they are watching and they are using it for propaganda. So when you get out there and protest, you are playing right into their hands. And you are damaging the morale of the troops. They have said it in interviews time and time and time and time again. If you choose to ignore it, that is your privilege. But I will continue to expose it for what it is. Protesting is selfish. It hurts the effort and it hurts the troops. But if it makes YOU feel good...which is obviously the reason you are doing it...go ahead and do it. But don't expect me or other conservatives to pat you on the back and tell you what a good job you are doing.
I'm beginning to believe it DOES take a rocket scientist
to figure things out. If you want to shop at Wal-Mart........fine. I don't. I prefer to support those who support America...local businesses who don't sell cheap, low quality imports. If you think Wal-Mart's prices are lower...fine...I don't. Try comparing them. I have. Wal-Mart was great when Sam was alive, and living in this part of the country you probably won't be surprised that I knew him and his wife personally. I expect Sam would be turning in his grave if he could see what has become of what he built.
As for unions, think what you want. "We the people" do not pay for union benefits, card carrying union members pay for them through their dues. AND my husband will be the first to tell you that Jimmy Hoffa hung with corrupt people but he also benefited American workers.
So if you don't support unions or pay raises............quit b*tching about how little MTs are paid.
Well, it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to guess that the- sm
majority of the people the anti-antiwar demonstrations and chants are proooobably republican. Ya think!
I could be wrong, but that's my guess.
Science? Guess we don't need it any more....
Poll: Give Bible story of creation equal time
Laurie Goodstein, New York Times
August 31, 2005 RELI0831
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly 66 percent of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold strict creationist views, agreeing that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time; of those, 18 percent said that evolution was guided by a supreme being, and 26 percent said it occurred through natural selection.
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
The poll was conducted July 7 to 17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people; the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.
The poll showed 41 percent of Americans want parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who say teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who say school boards should.
Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. Those who believe in creationism said they were very certain of their views (63 percent), compared to those who believe in evolution (32 percent).
The poll also asked about religion and politics, among other things. Respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44 percent agreed), and that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent agreed).
ARROGANT? The Decider had that down to a science!
Landing on that aircraft carrier with his fake package - hahahahaha - Mission Accomplished all right! See ya in the soup kitchen!
A "theory" is not SCIENCE anymore than the
theory of evolution is science. Science is a repeated study in the laboratory that produces the same result over and over.
Gravity is not a theory. You jump 100 floors, you die. Repeated over and over with same results, inside and outside the laboratory.
So much for your public education.
facts, evidence, science, and reason
Hasn't worked so well lately, has it?
I see you've been reading the junk science
mags, watching AL Gore movies. You really are being disingenous here. There are 692 scientists who have declared that global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Now, we are talking scientists with pedigress a mile long after their names. You make that insidious claim that the ice caps are melting, and yes, they are, like they usually do, but you neglect to speak to the fact that as they melt, bigger ice caps form that are not melting.
If you have the intelligence to read the report on Fox News, you will see that this is a UN initiative that has been in the works for years. It goes right along with their plan to strip property rights, huddle the masses in "villages," and only those in power will be the land owner barons.
Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!
It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it. But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.
Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon
Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State
POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005
UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005
The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.
Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.
The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.
About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.
From the Christian Science Monitor earlier this year
|
from the March 16, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html
For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'
The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.
If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.
For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.
By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.
For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at reclaiming America for Christ. The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.
We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them, Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.
Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. Some speak of restoring a Christian nation. Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.
In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
This is the 10th conference to spread this cultural mandate among Christians, and although the church's pastor couldn't speak due to illness, others presented the message intended to rouse the conservative faithful, eager to capitalize on gains won during the November election.
This melding of religion and politics, Christianity and patriotism, makes many uneasy, particularly those on the other side of the so-called culture war, who see a threat to the healthy discourse of a pluralistic society.
This is an effort to impose a particular far-right religious view, and political and social policies that result from that, on others, says Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a group that advocates for a diverse society. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to adopt their views, but [Dr. Kennedy's] effort is also to use the levers of government to force changes.
An energetic pastor who built Coral Ridge into a 10,000-member megachurch with far-reaching radio and TV audiences, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy regularly calls the US a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders.
Some critics suggest these views reflect far-right Presbyterian thinking, some of which extends to the realm of theocracy, the belief that God - or His representatives - should govern the state.
Frederick Carlson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, he is certainly a dominionist, one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.
Kennedy is not in the theocratic camp, says John Aman, Coral Ridge spokesman. He does believe that Christians should not sequester themselves inside their stained-glass ghettoes, but seek to be 'salt and light' - apply biblical moral truth and the Gospel - to every area of society.
It's apparent that those who've traveled here from 40 states are eager to do just that. Many of them say they are most motivated by signs of moral decline in America, concern for their children's future, and what they see as an effort to keep God and religious speech out of public life.
The country is getting further away from Christian values, and we're being stifled, says Debbie Mochle-Young, of Santa Monica, Calif. Other nationalities are coming to live here and say, 'We want our beliefs,' but they don't let you have yours. Nathan Lepper, an Air Force retiree active in politics in Florida, says he has a personal passion to help America turn back to its moral and ethical bases.
Some are already involved in their communities - in antiabortion actions, in trying to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo, or in efforts to oppose same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Gabriel Carpenter, from Dryden, N.Y., works at a local crisis pregnancy center and is a coordinator for the now-required sexual abstinence program in New York public schools. He and his wife, Penelope, say they hope to learn more about how to share America's Christian heritage with others.
Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing patriotic concert. Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)
David Barton, a leading advocate for emphasizing Christianity in US history, deftly selects quotes from letters and historical documents to link major historical figures such as George Washington to a Christian vision, and to suggest that the courts and scholars in the last century have deliberately undermined the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
Critics, including historians and the Baptist Joint Committee, challenge the accuracy of some of Mr. Barton's work, including what he calls the myth of separation of church and state.
In Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America, religious historian Randall Balmer of Columbia University writes that a contrived mythology about America's Christian origins has been a factor in the reentry of evangelicals into political life, helping sustain the conservative swing in American politics. Barton and others say they are recapturing truths hidden behind a secularist version of history, while critics say they are producing revisionist history that cherry-picks facts and ignores historical evidence.
But Barton is clearly a favorite speaker, with a theme buttressing the identity and purpose of those eager to reform the country. And there's plenty for them to do. Coral Ridge's Center for Reclaiming America is building a grass-roots alliance around five issues: the sanctity of life, religious liberty, pornography, the homosexual agenda, and creation vs. evolution.
The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.
If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.
Taking back is a major theme - taking back the schools, the media, the courts.
It's time to take back the portals of power, and particularly those of commerce, because commerce controls all the gates - to government, the courts, and so on, says businessman Michael Pink in a workshop. Recounting his own business success based on in-depth Bible study, Mr. Pink says he's now urging wealthy Christian businessmen to start using their earnings to purchase such prizes as ABC and NBC.
Interspersed between worshipful singing, prominent activist leaders tout recent successes. Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has led the charge in the states against same-sex marriage, talks of victories in Ohio and California and the phalanx of 800 lawyers now trained for the fight across the US. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association highlights growing impact on the entertainment industry, from spurring FCC regulatory actions against broadcast indecency to causing major companies to pull their ads from TV programs.
Yet it's the most combative language that brings the crowd to its feet in applause: Judicial activists are running rampant and a God-free country is their goal.... All means to turn the tide must be considered, including their removal, urges the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which mobilizes patriot pastors across the US.
SBC's Dr. Land, credited with helping to turn out evangelical voters in the 2004 election, says Kennedy's conferences have an impact: No one has been more important in helping Christians of every denominational persuasion understand first, their evangelistic responsibility ... and then their responsibility to be salt and light in the world.
Others suggest that among evangelicals as a whole - whose numbers are estimated to represent at least 25 percent of the US population - the appeal and influence of such religio-political activism are limited.
This is more right wing and religiously politicized than the majority of evangelicals, says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most would not make the kind of 'take back America' statements in such an overt way.
In an in-depth national study published in 2000 under the title, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Dr. Smith explored the views of a remarkably diverse group, with many holding conflicted views on political involvement and the issues and methods of activists.
Still, the 2004 election confirmed a growing mobilization of conservative Christians. And in a recent Barna survey of American pastors about their choice for the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, Dr. Kennedy made the top 10, sharing the final spot with three others, including Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson and President Bush, each winning the vote of 4 percent of the clergy.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email Copyright |
|
Religious "voodoo?" Science has documented and shown that....sm
life begins at conception, those cells are living, have their code, and I have seen my own children on ultrasound as early as 8 weeks (with high risk pregnancies) fully formed, moving all extremities, trying to suck their thumbs, kicking, tiny heart beating away, with everything that you or I have, only inside the womb. Now if you wish to believe that a woman can do with THAT as she wants, so be it, I still have to stand with the pro-choice crowd not because I believe in abortion or that it is okay and not murdering a human being, but because I can see the instances where a woman would be justified in her actions, and let her make her own peach and atonement with God, as we all will. Science more and more is proving out what has been in the Bible all along. I do not think that was a fair or rational characterization of "religion," and it was hurtful and inflammatory. Choose to be atheist or agnostic, Christianity is not "voodoo."
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.
Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.
He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.
This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.
Gore Slams Global Warming Critics
Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves
In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.
Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"
Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."
Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."
In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.
Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.
According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.
They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”
'Bout time, too! This science shows such great promise in
N/M
Ayers doesn't regret the bombings, doesn't feel like they did enough sm
In a story that appeared in the Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers told a reporter while promoting his memoir "Fugitive Days": "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Mr. Ayers, now a professor of education in Chicago, was a founder of the Weather Underground, which bombed government buildings in the early 1970s. He was indicted on conspiracy charges that were thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.
He served with Mr. Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a charitable organization, and, along with his wife, the former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted Mr. Obama at his home in 1995 when he was running for state office.
Mr. Obama has called Mr. Ayers "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."...so because it was 40 years ago, and Ayers is still proud of what he did, how is it justifiable for a US presidential candidate to now be friends with this man? Unless he has the same view of America.
How do you figure?
Don't see anything unraveling except more of W's disastrous economic fall-out. You must have been watchin Focks Noise non-stop replay of the guilt-by-association-to-nowhere mantra. Sooner or later, you are going to have to get over the election and move on.
How you figure that?
xx
Go figure.
x
I'm still trying to figure out what
"voted in the decider..." means. Anyone got a clue?
trying to figure this out...
If not for the war in Iraq where we spent billions of dollars, and I don't mean to open another can of worms here, we wouldn't have to print or borrow money!
I know we don't want to digress, but please stop blaming the fact that we have to resort to these measures on the current adminstration.
You should be able to figure out the
...I'm sure you know JTBB as well as she knows herself.
Still trying to figure out what
you would have had him do....stand there folding it like a doofus folding towels in a laundromat? I dunno, seems that might have reduced the dramatic impact somehow. He had the knife in one hand, which would have made folding a tricky thing to accomplish. Seriously, not sure how else he could have handled the flag, given the situation. Maybe throw it over one shoulder like a toga? One would assume those who had improperly hung the flag might have been nearby, maybe a little P.O.'d over his cutting it down. When ''exigent circumstances'' exist, you get the flag down as efficiently as possible and worry about the frills later. Tell us all, exactly what would Amanda do?
Let me rephrase that. It doesn't *seem like* my vote doesn't count...sm
It does not count because its in the bag that our 3 electoral votes will go to the republican party.
My take, go figure, is completely different...
and I am an independent, not a Republican. First of all, he questioned her like she is running for President. She isn't. I would like Bill Clinton to have had this kind of questioning when he first ran for President having only been a governor. He would have done no better than she has, but the left would have sung his praises. Such is politics.
Politics aside, she did well. She avoided the traps he laid, and there were many.
As to avoiding answering questions and only hitting the talking points...did you watch the Obama-O'Reilly interview? Danced all around subjects and would not commit to anything. I don't hear any on the left complaining that he tried to evade questions and threw out talking points.
Keeping the money from the bridge to nowhere...states do that every day. Lobbyists for Alaska...earmarks. Joe Biden's son was a professional lobbyist until yesterday and he and dad did a great many deals while Dad has been in Congress (I guess they finally decided they really could not dump on lobbyists when they had them in the family). Obama has worked with lobbyists as well, has some on his advisory staff. And as far as earmarks...he got elected, Michelle Obama's hospital doubled her salary, and Obama earmarked a million plus for them. Who benefitted from that? Fact is, all politicians have done that. What you don't say here is what Palin explained very well...the earmarks they seek to stop are the crooked under the table ones, attaching huge earmarks to bills to get them passed that would not otherwise pass. The earmarks that were asked for by Alaska were by the Fish and Game Commission in Alaska. It is perfectly fine for states to request funds from Washington. Some get them, some don't. But the practice of adding "pork" to a bill just to get it passed is the WRONG practice and that is the one they seek to stop. She was very succint in explaining that. Guess you missed that part of the interview.
As far as abuse of power in troopergate...maybe we should wait for the results? And I STILL say, any "trooper" who tasered an 11-year-old for ANY reason SHOULD be fired.
There is nothing wrong with having the ceremony for sending off those troops on 9/11 to commemorate the day. I do not believe she did it for publicity. It is a very meaningful date for many of the soliders who are being deployed. I think that is a cheap shot at them as well as her, implying she does not care about them (one of whom is her son) and just wanted publicity. I think she has PLENTY of publicity without that.
As as for disparaging things said about someone in the primary season...most of the other democrats in the primary focused on Obama's inexperience. Hillary did. His now running mate did...if I recall, said "The Presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job experience." You can't have it both ways either.
I can't figure out why she finds
the word Salmonella offensive.
How do you figure that those with mortgages
Decreasing the mortgage payment by 30% would only lengthen the repayment terms. Mortgage holders wouldn't get anything out of it, but probably would end up paying more over the course of time due to interest.
What cracks me up is you asking "what's in it for me?" and then complaining about the greed of others. Hypocrits are everywhere.
Obama would figure some way to get
at least 8 syllables out of yes, 5 out of no!
How you figure? She WAS lying
@
Did she think they wouldn't figure it out????
http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html
can mean either good or bad, you figure it out for yourself. nm
.
Fake? How do YOU know? You cant even figure
nm
I have another question...go figure..
So, just today there have been posts saying that Obama is a Muslim. There have also been posts regarding Reverend Wright on this board. If it's against christian beliefs to be a Muslim, why would he have been accepted into a christian church? Which one are you guys going to stick with?
how to figure out which jobs are on their way out
Anything that requires a loan: houses, cars, trade schools, university of Phoenix type schools, shopping malls, vacations and travel, elective surgeries or cosmetic dental lasik surgeries, etc.
Jobs that will increase:
Anything that helps America:
Teachers, nurses, geologists, scientists, infrastructure, power grids, alternative energy, solar.
...and yet....he's still unqualified...go figure....
Unfortunately, they let young, uninformed people vote that know no better.....ah well....c'est LA vie
I don't think Freud himself could figure her out!!
xx
Which figure would you have us accept?
the 38% (average) disapproval, the 60% somewhat approval or the 34% strong approval ratings, all with that wide, wide +/- 14% margin of error? Don't see a whole lot of difference there. Like I said, 76% overall approval (CNN)...not too shabby after the week from he!!.
Reply to ok, Trying to figure this out...
... I know we don't want to digress, but please stop blaming the fact that we have to resort to these measures on the current administration
Here’s what a lot of us believe: We don't 'have' to print or borrow money to buy our way out of this mess. That is the thing most people will not acknowledge. The mortgage crisis and the housing ‘bubble’ were caused by government meddling with Fannie/Freddie loan standards. That sent the whole house of cards tumbling and the cascade of threatened failures that resulted. More government meddling will not fix this. You cannot shore up a house of cards. It's still cards. It should have been allowed to fall and be rebuilt, even if that meant starting from the ground up. Sucks to be us.
Foolish people who bought too much house for their means must be allowed to lose them. Bad companies have to be allowed to fail. Bad politicians with worse ideas also should to be allowed to fail; I'm doing my part not to get in their way.
I don't think anyone can name three things government does as efficiently and/or cheaply as private industry. Now government will part owners in AIG, banks, and other failing concerns. Now government wants to control health care? And all of this - plus much more - was put in an 1100-page document nobody who voted on it could even read?
Even though this is all mostly a done deal, I still cannot go along with the can't-we-all-get-along; wait-and-see crowd. Of course we’ll all just have to ‘sweat it out’ now, what choice? This is so reminiscent of the FDR New Deal 70 years ago that I cannot believe we have learned nothing from history. What am I saying? Of course I can believe it. We’re still idiots!
Tell me if any of this sounds familiar:
‘We seldom know six weeks in advance, what we are going to do.’ ‘It is common sense, to take a method and try it: if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.’ FDR
Some of the things he tried:
National Recovery Act (fixed prices and wages). Forced smaller companies out of business, since lower wages and prices where the only way they could compete with big companies.
A law in Washington, DC, mandating a minimum monthly wage for women (only), resulting in women losing their jobs to men who were willing to work for much less than that guaranteed wage.
Agricultural Adjustment Act (subsidized farms by taking acreage out of production and fixed prices). Designed to curb overproduction and support prices. In reality production rose because farmers used their cash subsidies to buy fertilizer, and they had taken their worst acreage out of production anyway. They switched to the crops whose prices were guaranteed, hence, even more overproduction.
Works Progress Administration (to provide employment and improve infrastructure). Turned into a giant political patronage system to reward supporters with ‘shovel-leaning’ jobs and to punish detractors. To get most such jobs, you had to declare your political party, ‘vote right’ and ‘tithe’ to the D party.
Emergency Relief Act (made available to governors to assist the needy in their states). Since it was supported by huge tax increases, it all but shut off voluntary charitable contributions that traditionally went to the needy.
Excise taxes arbitrarily levied on a few luxury items of the rich such as yachts, furs and jewelry, but also on cars, gasoline, radios, cosmetics, cameras, bank checks, long-distance phone calls and movie tickets used by lower-income groups.
Tariffs on imported goods, which caused other countries to retaliate by taxing or not buying our goods and damaged our export business.
Top income tax bracket for the too-rich (only) 79% and the IRS was used as a weapon to harass and punish the wealthy, as well as critics of New Deal policies. Roosevelt was incensed that the wealthy (though he was born to wealth) used tax loopholes such as charitable deductions and business losses to legally avoid taxes, so he instructed the IRS and Congress to close them. Meanwhile, FDR himself used such loopholes to deduct the value of materials he donated for his own future presidential library. He took business losses and farm losses on his personal tax returns.
Roosevelt was one of those silver-spoon guys, subsidized by someone else’s money (his mother’s) his entire life. He failed repeatedly in businesses financed by family money. He had a solid record of picking losers; he thought the airplane was a fad. He had a lackluster academic career. Never held a ‘real’ job. His only talents were his personality and charisma.
Yes, FDR inherited the beginnings of the Great Depression from Herbert Hoover in 1933, but Roosevelt’s repeated ‘try something’ efforts to fix it kept it going until World War II.
Any of this starting to sound familiar? We’ve been at this exact pivotal point before and we are blowing it again. Elected another snake oil salesman. Way to go.
I cannot figure what ever caused you to
have such deep hatred for Republicans, especially President Bush. It certainly isn't anything he ever did as president as your posts indicate that your hatred for him began at his first inauguration. I also get the feeling that you will never be able to let it go, as you constantly bring it up in almost every post you make. The major difference between you two that stands out is that he is a Christian and you are an atheist. He does not believe in abortion and you chose to have one. Maybe you have a guilt problem that you are trying to overcome before you can move on?
However, I can't see how you can use your hatred for Bush to justify Obama speaking to the French town hall meeting and, essentially, telling the world that America is not special to him and that Europe is the greatest nation. How can you say that is doing an awesome job?
And technically how do you figure that?
My husband is currently on active duty in Iraq, doing everything he can to stay alive to come home to his family. He is being shot at and has had suicide bombers attack his post twice. To him, and me, this is war, no doubt. And while yes you have the extremists there that want the US out, there are many more "every day people" who want them there and to stay because they know what will happen once the US pulls out. These people are extremely grateful to my husband and the other men/women of the military that are there for taking down Saddam Hussein and allowing them to live their lives more freely.
What is your media source for the 50/50 figure?
I can cite three sources right away that state that statistically this move is supported more than not by the Jews as well as major U.S. Jewish organizations.
Trying to figure this out. Religious dems....sm
give more than religious repubs, and nonreligious dems give less than nonreligious repubs. Do I have this right? It seems to me the religious dems give the most, yes?
From one post you figure someone is a neocon...
geez. Post a clip, so people can see the whole context of what was said. Then let them decide. After all the ripping of Sarah Palin, you seize on this? Walls shattering in your glass house there, friend.
This test actually did help me to figure some things out...
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
I think there are other tests because this seems to be sponsored by the VA I think, but it is still great to determine issues. I scored only 22 percent with McCain, which I kind of figured anyway, but it helps me when so many people like to cloud the issues and confuse people, especially women.
I used to see that in the union when I was just a medical record clerk (which was a union job) and then went to transcription (nonunion job) - when the administration was trying to break the union they would always stir the women up with issues that were sort of minor, or confusing, and sit back and watch everyone fighting about such petty things, and meanwhile emotions would get so high people did not even know the issues anymore.
It was weird to watch, but they do the same thing where my partner works while they try continually to break the union - they use the women to do it - sad but true, and it almost works every time.
Right. We're just too stupid to figure out what
to our economy, mortgages, home values, 401Ks, lending institutions, banks, stock market, wages, disappearing jobs, retail prices, consumer confidence, blah, blah, blah. We all need your divine guidance on that one.
More double standards ...go figure (sm)
*when has government ever solved a problem.*
*They actually believe that is their government's job, to make all their laws and tell them how to live.*
How about remembering that you said this when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage.
See inside. I can't figure out what to title this. LOL
I just don't know a nice way to say this but those families that have babies they can't afford do so just to get on the welfare system. They certainly don't want that taken away from them. As long as they have babies, they won't have to work and live off the system.
What does Pelosi plan to do? Force everyone on birth control that have X amount of dollars per each child and state "You make $1 less than you're allowed to have this many children. Now you go on birth control."
Before you flame me, my husband's cousin did that. He was too lazy to work as was his wife...well, nah, she didn't have time to get a job. She was too busy having kids.
didn't take an education to figure out that one
x
You're so "bright", you figure it out....
##
It's a figure of speech..., not spin. I was always referring only to.
x
|
