This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

One Hand Against The Other

Ever notice how Liberals hold diametrically opposed notions simultaneously? They seem blissfully unaware that they are speaking out both sides of their mouth. I invite them to clarify some examples.

On one hand liberals claim to want a colorblind society where one is not judged by the color of their skin. On the other hand they support affirmative action which puts ones color as priority one. Please liberals, don't miss the point by saying why we need affirmative action. I see three valid responses: 1)Admit you do want to judge by the color of skin, 2) Explain how affirmative action is not judging by skin color, or 3)Show the flaw in my logic by explaining how these two opposing views don't contradict.

On one hand Bush's spending policies killed the economy. On the other hand they support Obama spending us out of debt. Is that possible?

On one hand we are warming the globe. On the other hand, global warming is the reason it's so cold.

On one hand they want bipartisanship. On the other hand they're freaking out at the prospect of loosing the "peoples seat" Ted Kennedy occupied because it will require finding a single Republican vote to end filibusters.

On one hand they claim to want civil discourse. On the other hand they hurl vile insults without reservation.

I'm sure there are more.

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
guy faulkes said...

In all fairness, liberals are not the only people that do this. I have several black friends that are very conservative. They are pro gun, pro life, social and fiscal conservatives, but yet supported Obama because he was black. The only reason I have been given was that they said they did it to break the glass ceiling. This makes little sense to me, but at least it is an opinion supported by a chain of logic. Most of them now say they regret what they did.

There is no chain of logic to support the other examples HD has given.

Honest Debate said...

Guy,

My guess, from what I've gleaned about your character, is anyone you would label a friend would be intellectually honest. It would be interesting to know if they would admit to judging Obama by the color of his skin. They clearly did and would probably admit so. It may even be justified by their chain of logic. That is respectable. I see no conflict.

Liberals will admit no such thing as evidenced by their absence on this thread. It's been up only a couple of hours so we'll see. I did pose this question to them on anther thread and asked them not to run from the question. They did. That was one reason I put the question front and center.

guy faulkes said...

HD, you are correct. Every one of my black friends admitted they voted for Obama because of race. I think part of the conservative problem is that the majority of us really are color blind. Some people, even fellow conservatives, do not realize this because of the lies of the left, many of which you list in this thread. This is why the logic my friends that the glass ceiling needed to be broken is understandable. I do not agree with it as I truly believe a conservative black would have as good a chance in a political primary as would a conservative white, but I understand it.

I think the major problem conservative blacks have in politics is the vicious label of being an "Uncle Tom" that would be and is administered by our liberal friends.

Honest Debate said...

"I think the major problem conservative blacks have in politics is the vicious label of being an "Uncle Tom" that would be and is administered by our liberal friends." -Guy Faulkes

That is dead on and history bears it out. Obama joined Rev. Wright's church to up his "street cred" and avoid that outcome. What else could a light-skinned non negro dialect speaking 1/2 black man do?

guy faulkes said...

I would like to add to HD's list. On one hand the liberals consider corporations to be evil profiteers and on the other hand have their retirements in mutual funds that make them the owners of the corporations. Also, on one hand they love unions while on the other hand union retirement programs are heavily into mutual funds so unions are owners of profiteering corporations, also what about GM?

Johnny Rico said...

Adding to Faulk's conclusion that conservatives are colorblind, I would vote for Alan Keyes any day of the week. When Keys took on Congress over the gun issue several years back, it was a thing to behold. Sadly, as pointed out already, he is labeled an "Uncle Tom" by his own kind whom he is trying to protect from liberal policies!!!!!!

BikerBard said...

"Yes, bark for us, you liberals"
(If you want to hear barking, call out "Faux, bark for us, Faux."

This MUST be a prank!

Faux says, "It's not only the liberals, but the negroes, too."

Oatz will copy and paste his response when someone posts it.

Snark is above it all. He slithered away from my question.

Rico Wack-o is the poster child for vile remarks.

Honest Debate is neither honest, nor wants a debate. Tell
Sark-astic to answer MY question, first. Who are you to demand a response? Grow up and get real.

ARE WE GETTING PUNKED?
ROTFLMAO!

guy faulkes said...

More personal attacks. No substance. It must be terrible to be as pathetic as is BB. He is a waste of blog space.

Sarkazein said...

BB- Your question was irrelevant. Still is.


BB says, "I don't blame you for not answering such an irrelevant question."

Johnny Rico said...

Tricycle Lard Cheerleader said:

"Rico Wack-o is the poster child for vile remarks"

And what vile remarks have I ever made? This ought to be interesting if you can even answer the question(a stretch for ADD Lard)

LOL

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

oatz said...

BikerBard are you offended I purchased a recycled Orange Flag for your Likkercycle? I admit i did not pay taxes on that Flag so your Baroke Obama could spend 4 x the tax collected, but I did manage to save valuable space in the Watauga County trash transfer station saving those poor illiberal souls in East Tennessee added trash income oh those unintended consequences.

BikerBard also remember when you are in your command center quiet center (aka glass outhouse @ moms)refrain from throwing rocks because everything you complain or whine about Watauga Conservative posters doing you are the master of the Dodge, the blame, the grammar/spelling police, the Rubber/Glue defense, and the best one at the la la la I can't hear you trick. BTW I did find a great deal on some two cycle engine oil shall I purchase some for you and your trusty stead Wild William Shakespeare (aka Likkercycle)?

oatz said...

Speaking of "One hand against the Other" here is a big one.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) reported:

Let the good times roll” – and roll they have at the Obama White House, while nearly 11% of the workforce remains unemployed, nearly four million Americans are losing their homes, and terrorists ride the open skies.

In fact, according to the Chicago Tribune, the stylish Ms. Rogers and the party-hearty First Couple hosted no less than 170 parties and social events through December 3 of 2009. And that does not even include the 17 parties and 11 open houses – feting more than 50,000 guests – ABC News reported the Obamas hosted throughout the Holiday Season.

For those not counting, that means by January, 2010, Ms. Rogers had staged one gala White House event every three days throughout the first year of the Obama Administration, making the once austere Executive Mansion look more like party central.

Honest Debate said...

"...command center quiet center (aka glass outhouse @ moms)..." -Oatz

Building on a theme...nice.

Honest Debate said...

BikerBard,

Okay smart ass (see what you make me do) suppose I and all the others you name agree, we are all that. You really told us. Ya' got us good.

The question remains: ARE YOU SHARP ENOUGH TO HAVE A POINT?

If so, make one. This thread is custom made for you and your ilk. Make the best of it. The dichotomies are plain enough, 'splain them.

Honest Debate said...

Johnny Rico,

I like Alan Keyes a lot. He can really fire a man up. His articulation of distilled, bottom-line truth is mesmerizing...yeah! However, I could never vote for him. For one thing, he is very dark-skinned. The other thing is, when he really gets fired up, you know, preachin' hard...if you listen close...you can hear a negro dialect.

Can you imagine thinking like that?

Simon Jester said...

It is time we overrule Guy Faulkes. He has always argued that nobody should be banned from this site, but it is time to do it.

BikerBard has crossed the line. He has threatened people with violence because they do not agree with him. This is a hate crime. He makes posts with no point but viciously attacking people. More hate crimes. He should not be banned because of what he thinks about the issue we are talking about, he should be banned for his conduct. He never has a point to make, only hateful personal attacks. I know Rico was banned from Watauga Watch because she asked questions they could not answer. This is not the same thing.

The other liberals that post here make it more interesting. BikerBard takes away from the site. He needs to go.

Sarkazein said...

Speaking of the peace loving liberal's violent acts, BikerBard, after threatening violence on people that disagree with him, mentions conservative protestors with guns strapped to their ankles. Yet the only news stories have been about a liberal biting off the finger of a conservative, a Black conservative protestor being beaten by liberal union thugs, the reporter being sissy shoved to the ground by liberal Democrat consultant Mehan and I am sure there are others.
These liberals truly are perverse thinkers.

BikerBard said...

HaHa:

Did I stir up the hornet's nest, or what! Fun to watch you all buzzing around with indignation, superiority, and self-importance, trying in vain to get back at me!

YOU JUST GOT PUNKED! Ha!Ha!
ROTFLMAO!

Now, I ignore you and your irrelevant postings of no substance. Bye! LOL!

guy faulkes said...

Simon, I would have argued against you proposal to ban BB, but his last post convinced me you might be right. He has no concept of proper or polite behavior. You are also correct in that he adds nothing to the discussion as do Bridle, RV, and even POV.

Sarkazein said...

BB's was definitely wearing one of his neighbor's skin as he typed out that last comment.

Johnny Rico said...

Please o please don't ban the Cheerleader (Tricylce Lard...I mean Biker Bard). I truly need this idiot. After I get done with a hard week's work helping to pay for other's laziness through Hussein Obama induced high taxes (Tricyle Lard for instance), I enjoy the "release" of trouncing Lard as he ineveitably makes some stupid remark or comment. Lard is an honest to goodness whacko who allows us all to get under his skin.

Notice how sometimes lardboy disappears for several days at a time after we pile drive him into a dust pile of liberal rubble? Well, this disappearence correlates nicely with lardboy nearly being driven over the edge of what small amount of sanity he has.

I have a psychologist boyfriend (Billy) whom I share this blog with, and he is the one who noticed Tricycle Lard's abscence. Billy was the one who deduced that Lard probably does indeed live with his parents and is most likely to identify and covet his mother. Hence the spaghetti Os remarks etc... that Lard NEVER answers to. I made, and continue to make, these remarks as they come from a mental health professional!!! Good stuff!!

Lard is, from a professional's standpont, socially repressed and depressed. His mood swings are idicative of his violent remarks towards Faulks and others with whom he identifies as having the social skills that he does not. Notice how lardboy does not project violent tendencies towards me! I am both a woman and not of the same cognitive caliber as others on this site. Lardboy, subconciously, as Billy tells me, processes this as me not being a threat when, in fact, I am causing him the most trouble!!

So, let's not ban this idiot from our site. He does have mental problems, but not enough that we should refrain from picking on an honest to goodness retard. Funny that I was banned from Watauga Watch, yet I advocate for the Watauga Watch idiots not to be banned on this site.

And you say Conservatives are hate mongers? How's that?

LOL!!

This is fun

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Billy G.

PS Tricycle Lard - can I have some of your Spaghetti Os?

Liberal POV said...

GOP (Grumpy Old People )

"BikerBard has crossed the line. He has threatened people with violence because they do not agree with him. "

I must have missed this post or is there some GOP logic being applied like flag pin silliness or other such silliness.

Sarkazein said...

No POV, it must be President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's fault.

Simon Jester said...

POV, Bicycle Bard posted this on the Who are the Racists? thread.

"Note to Faux- if we ever do meet, you will own my right foot up your ass. That is all you will own. You belong here. You can only be a big man when you are surrounded by others. When alone, you, too, are a coward. And ignorant, besides".

He needs to go.

What is your opinion on what he said? You have been asked that before and as usual will not answer.

guy faulkes said...

Here is a pretty good example of one hand against the other. Mr. Biden is holding a closed meeting on transparency. Hmmmm.....

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/joe-biden-update.html

BikerBard said...

My apologies to Faux if he felt threatened. The point was, he is very brave when around his tea party girlfriends. I have no problems with his disagreement, only with his childish goading. And someday Faux, it WILL backfire on you (not a threat, Faux, don't cry.) Faux needs to be careful when goading people online. What if he had goaded REEK-O WACK-O? Now THAT guy is unstable!

You folks are certainly amusing.
YOU decide what is relevant, Sark? Please! Who made you the Gate Keeper?

Do you holders of great and open thought fear opposition? You all need to step back and see how funny you are! My posts on this thread were only a mirror I held up to you all, and obviously, you don't like what you see.

I have no sense of polite behavior and REEK-O is one of the conservative sheep here?(to use HIS terminology.) You MUST be joking! This is funny!

Note to Simple Simon: Do you really need to speak for and protect Faux? Did I miss a relationship thing here?

Note to Liberal POV:
Exactly! They can't stand anyone supporting you. Go at 'em!
"Don't take no s**t from nobody!"
-Billy Joel

"Or whilst I have clamor in my breath, I'll tell thee thou dost evil!" - W.S.

guy faulkes said...

BB, I have posted on Watauga Watch many times when it was still a viable concern. I miss being able to do so now. Not many "tea party friends" are on that site. You on, the other hand challenge Rico to meet you on that site where you know she is banned and you are protected from her. I think it is pretty evident as to whom is the coward. Rico has never physically threatened anyone. Shyster once threatened the Wolf and your threat to me on both blogs are the only such occurrences I can remember.

You made threats to my physical well being. I have to take them into consideration even though I feel you are harmless. You seem to me to be the type to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

You do not have to be polite. You do need to make a point instead of just mindless rants and personal attacks.

Gribbish said...

This is my first time looking at this site and it's interesting to me how not one commenter has really addressed the host's original comments. Seems the rabble got all all worked up and their short attention spans have already forgotten the question.
As a liberal I'd be happy to respond to part of your "One Hand..." comment. Let's look at global warming. Where did you hear that the reason it's so cold is because of global warming? I've heard people (who obviously don't know the difference between weather and climate) say that our recent cold spell proves that global warming is a hoax. But I haven't heard anyone blaming it on global warming. Please enlighten me.
A more accurate term than "Global Warming" is actually "Climate Change" since the entire world will not be warming evenly, though it will all warm to some extent. A bigger concern is changes to precipitation, the melting of glaciers that half of the world's population depends on for their drinking and irrigation water, etc. Some areas will benefit from more rain, many areas will lose their ability to raise crops as their lands turn to scrub and desert. Here in the southeast expect warmer and drier summers and less of a beach to enjoy on the coast as the oceans rise.
If you really do want to learn about this subject there are some good books out there, full of irritating footnotes and lots of science that support and explain the facts. A couple I'd recommend are "Hot, Flat and Crowded" and "Six Degrees". Both point out that warming will be greater at the poles and less at the equator, more at high elevations than low, but regardless it will be happening globally.
I know there are many readers on this blog who think Climate Change is fabricated, though I'm not sure exactly how someone would benefit from making it up. If they weren't working on climate change issues they'd find something else to do. They're not going to starve without this topic. But you fail to recognize that it's not just a few scientists who believe in this, there are thousands of them. And they have thousands of studies to back up this belief. I haven't read them all of course, but I've read many that deal with wildlife response to warming temperatures and there are lots of data to support the idea that our climate is changing and that people's actions are the cause.
I hope this clarifies at least part of your question. That is assuming that you really are interested in a dialogue and not just asking inane questions that will cause Beck and O'Reilly fans to rant about something they really don't know anything about and are not willing to make the effort to learn.
I know you guys like to poke fun at liberals but this is a serious issue. It's not one that I'll suffer from since I'm an old fart and will be gone before the most significant effects happen. But it certainly is something that our children and grandchildren will need to address.

guy faulkes said...

Gibberish, if you wish to see how the hoax of MAN MADE Climate Change have enriched and empowered the charlatans that promoted it, then I would suggest you review some of the leaked emails that were disclosed about fraud, doctored data, and professional censorship. You might also be interested to know thousands of scientist (that were threatened and censored) think man made climate change is a hoax. The climate is always changing. Man does not and cannot influence it.You might also google Al Gore's increase in wealth through this issue.

As far as the original topic of the thread, your post does not address it. The point was that the left talks out of both sides of its mouth. Diverging from this point is fine. You made a statement and defended it. We do not have to agree on your post or to be slaves to the topic of the thread,even though it is nice to stay on topic.

I have to disagree with your comment that none of the posts address the topic of the thread. Except for BB's rants,the responses to them and your post, they all do.

Welcome to the blog.

Sarkazein said...

"YOU decide what is relevant, Sark? Please! Who made you the Gate Keeper?"-BikerBard

I keep MY gate, as you were asking ME a question that I deemed irrelevant. So I decide if I want to answer an irrelevant statement of yours, thus keeping my gate.

Sarkazein said...

Gribish-

Changing the original hoax name from global warming to climate change is corrupt because change can include warmer, wetter, dryer, colder, windier, less windy, more mediumish, and on and on.
Originally it was the ice is melting as in it is warmer and will raise the tide and flood the cities. The polar bears are a drift on the last 6' of ice and the crops are burning up in the fields. Change is unprovable except to say cooling and warming, wetter and dryer, have been a part of the Earth's history since forever.

Who profits from the global climate warming presto chango you ask? Al Gore has made millions, scientists have been granted millions, power hungry bureaucrats are devouring power and developing tax schemes and more importantly they are schemes to take money from the US and give it to 3rd world countries.
The more regulations in the form of mandates in the US, the more jobs and companies you send off-shore.

Johnny Rico said...

Tricycle Lard said:

"What if he had goaded REEK-O WACK-O?"

Uh oh, I think my last post did what I wanted it to - made you so seethingly mad that you can barely contain yourself. LOL!! The truth can be a stinging parable even for a socialist oppressor such as yourself.

Like most liberals, Pam and husband were unable to take care of their finances, hence you inability to access the sacred dummy site! If you socialists took greater care of yourselves instead of trying to take other's money, you might not have the problems that you do!!!! LOL!!!!

And we should entrust health care to whacks who can't keep a simple blog up and running? LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS I won

Katharine

Johnny Rico said...

"Rico Wack-o is the poster child for vile remarks"

And what vile remarks have I ever made? This ought to be interesting if you can even answer the question(a stretch for ADD Lard)

LOL

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

John Rico said...

Honest Debate said:

"I like Alan Keyes a lot. He can really fire a man up. His articulation of distilled, bottom-line truth is mesmerizing...yeah! However, I could never vote for him. For one thing, he is very dark-skinned. The other thing is, when he really gets fired up, you know, preachin' hard...if you listen close...you can hear a negro dialect.

Can you imagine thinking like that?"

Yeah Honest Debate, you are right, I forgot about Mr. Keye's negro dialect, dark skin, and preacher like persona. What in the world was I thinking when I said I would vote for him? Thanks for keeping me straight.

J. Rico

Gribbish said...

One of the original comments was "On one hand we are warming the globe. On the other hand, global warming is the reason it's so cold." I believe I did address this. But more importantly the original claim is that liberals are saying global warming is the cause of the cold weather we're having. I've never heard a liberal say anything close to this, and I hang out with quite a few of them. Was it some liberal commentator on TV, a columnist in the paper, who is this mysterious liberal that talks out of both sides of his/her mouth? I'm anxious to hear who it was so I can revoke their liberal card. Or maybe this person doesn't exist and it's just another example of making general statements with no facts to back them up (something that I associate with Republicans unfortunately).
But to get to the mixed message that is probably behind this false accusation. There is no evidence that climate change is the reason it's so cold. Perhaps you heard of the concerns that melting the Arctic will send a huge rush of freshwater entering the northern Atlantic. This is supposed to dilute the saltwater of the Gulf Stream and shut down the conveyor belt of warm water that keeps England and Europe's climate moderate. This would cause temperatures in Europe to drop and so global warming would lead to colder temperatures in Europe. Newer research, however, has put this into question. It appears that even when the glaciers and snow melt there probably isn't enough water to dilute the Gulf Stream. Otherwise I know of no other claim that climate change will cause widespread and long-term cooling. There will always be cold spells, as we just went through, but this is not the same as global climate change which takes place over long periods of time.
I think Al Gore was pretty rich even before he went around the country giving his slide show. His investments do include sustainable and green energy but this is not how he made his wealth.
Maybe tomorrow we can talk about bipartisanship and how members of the minority party have actually voted for bills supported by President. Oh wait, that would be the Democrats helping Bush solve our nation's problems. Unfortunately the Republicans seem more intent on scoring political points than in helping Obama help our nation. Or maybe health care is just fine as it is. I've got some good insurance so who cares about the 40 million Americans who don't. Certainly not the Republicans in the Senate or House. Of course I want a Democrat in Kennedy's old seat. I'm glad Obama tried to get bipartisan bills passed, though I think he made way too many concessions and got nothing in return. But trying to keep a Senate seat filled by a Democrat has nothing to do with being for or against bipartisanship. It's just wanting what is best for our nation.

Sarkazein said...

Gribish wrote:" But more importantly the original claim is that liberals are saying global warming is the cause of the cold weather we're having. I've never heard a liberal say anything close to this, and I hang out with quite a few of them..."



So Liberal POV must not be one of your homies. He has shared this brilliance often here. But, he's not alone. I have heard global warming preachers say the same thing in the media.

Sarkazein said...

Gribish wrote: "I think Al Gore was pretty rich even before he went around the country giving his slide show."

Al Gore's wealth has increased many times over with his global warming scheme.
Remember, he was a Senator and a Vice President. and pretty much just a Senator's kid before that.
Accounts say he has increased his wealth 100X.

guy faulkes said...

Gibberish, you missed the point of the thread. On this blog, we (or at least most of us) try to substantiate our comments with proofs and examples. HD was substantiating that liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth by several examples, including one in which a frequent member of this blog, LiberalPOV, made a post ascertaining that man made global warming had caused the northern hemisphere to be colder than normal while because the southern hemisphere was cooler. He appears to not be aware of the phenomena know as seasons or how the tilt of the earth in its orbit effects weather. The last time I checked, man did not increase or decrease earths rotation, orbit, or the tilt on its axis.

I agree with you that this concept is ridiculous. After all, it is not called half global warming.

The global warming example was not the first of the way liberals speak out of both sides of their mouths on the thread opening. It was third. It followed the colorblind society vs. affirmative action example and the Bush's bad spending vs. Obama's good spending example. It preceded bipartisanship vs. fear of losing the super majority example and the civil discourse vs. the insulting personal attack example. Other examples were added in posts about the thread. The examples were discussed as to their validity.

This is why your post, although not adding to the thread as to an example, was perfectly acceptable. It did not make personal attacks. It expressed your opinion about one of the examples. While it did not address the topic of the thread, it did address the validity of an example used to prove the topic. The only thing I found objectionable was your claim that other people should not have made posts comparable with yours.

I do admit the posts went off topic in response to BB's rants, but spanking him is a common occurrence. One cannot blame people for defending themselves from his insults.

Honest Debate said...

Gribbish,

“Global warming could make some places colder.”

I've heard it elsewhere as well. The theory seems to be that humans (greedy, wasteful Americans) are causing more dramatic climate which includes hotter summers and colder winters. When temperatures started dropping the theory was born and "global warming" was replaced by "climate change". Before that, the theory was the ozone that protects us from the sun is being depleted. That theory doesn't make it colder.

You probably missed this when we posted it a while back. It's worth a look.

As Guy said, welcome to the blog.

Honest Debate said...

Gribbish,

Thanks in advance for revoking Bill Clinton's "liberal card".

Liberal POV said...

Flat Earthers

I must admit I'm not an expert at Meteorology or Climatology as Sark and Guy seem to be.

What I understand is when the water in the Pacific warm more than normal it causes an El Nina changing the jet stream which can bring extreme cold air further south in the Northern Hemisphere.

Now guy will rewrite this comment as he always does to give room for his misinformation and myths.

My understanding of Global Climate Change is, it causes more extreme weather conditions and is tied to other forms of pollution. Human greed has taken a toll on the earth the last 150 years with a hugh spike the last 50 years.
Haiti has been totally deforested, Islands of garbage float in the ocean, Trees are dying in the Appalachian Mountains.
he coal industries has hired lobbiest to confuse you and you buy the coal industries lies.

guy faulkes said...

Grib, lets talk about bipartisanship. In order to archive this, Obama has to support issues in a moderate manner. He does not. As a matter of fact, he governs from the far left. He wants to make the country socialist. Therefore, his policies should be opposed.

Unfortunately he has had bipartisan support from people such as Olympia Snow. Arlan Specter even switched parties. Granted, he was trying to save his own butt(this is going to result in him losing his seat in the Senate). Going from Republican to Democrat is about as "across the isle" as you can get.

My point is that Obama has done nothing except the aid to Hati and approving the shooting of the pirates (although he took to long to make that decision) that was worthy of bipartisan support. He did make a valid statement that Kayne West was a jackass.

All of his policies are horrible. The American people do not approve of them. This is why Obama has tanked in the polls and has taken the Democratic party with him. Who would have though of a neck and neck race for the Senate in the People's Republic of Massachusetts? Brown is not that conservative, but the liberal Democrats fear having to deal with him in a bipartisan manner.

How do you expect any kind of bipartisan support when the Democrats have frozen the Republicans out of any input in the health care bills?

Speaking of health care, it seems that the Democrats need to achieve partisan support in order to pass it in reconciliation. The factions are competing to out liberal each other on various topics.

guy faulkes said...

POV, the jet stream has changed back and forth for millions of years. It is what is know as a natural phenomena. Climate change is a natural phenomena. Ice ages were not caused by dinosaur farts nor did woolly mammoths and cave men make them go away.

The orbit of the earth and such things as solar flares and volcanic eruptions do effect the global climate. What a novel idea. The sun controls the warmth of the earth.

RT Sender said...

I think we can all agree that putting large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air and water is not a good thing. Unfortunately, the alarmists are attempting to use the problem as a vehicle for socialism. Current climate change "solutions" are little more than power and money grabs. They will cost jobs and personal freedom with no effect on the enviroment. The UN has stated that even if all the goals of conforming nations are met, the planet will still warm 3 to 6 degrees by the end of the century. In the meantime, we have to face the fact that scientists who disagree with man-caused global warming are being silenced while the proponents are fudging the data. Even NASA is being sued for information because they are won't let us see their books. Before we run about screaming that the sky is falling, we need to know more. For me to believe that man is the greatest contributor to climate change, there will have to be a lot more debate

Sarkazein said...

H.D- Every time I watch that This link you put up, it gives me a sense of no hope. If there are leaders in our country, both political and institutional, that feel they have done right by putting this kind of fear in our youth (and others), based on a scientific theory then we may be beyond salvation.
I was a kid in the fifties and the sixties. Nuclear war was the big fear. As proven by JFK in the Cuban missile crisis, and the fact that wars do happen, a nuclear holocaust was a legitimate theory, and yes it would have been a man-made catastrophe.
Al Gore's greed and the Left's lust for power over the US and the individual is shameful.
Between global warming fear and the fear that if the government doesn't all of the sudden manage your health-care there will be no health-care and you will die, is an assault on the American way.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep said:

"Trees are dying in the Appalachian Mountains."

While these trees are dying, Watauga County liberal socialist sheep such as yourself are whining about ANWR and other percieved slights to the environemnt. How about thinking globally, and acting locally? How many liberals have paid money to innoculate hemlock trees here in the Southern Appalachians. Over on the currently defunct (they couldn't pay their bill) Watauga Watch, 99% of the liberals didn't even know what a Hemlock was/is. Yet they continued to whine about ANWR during the election. I see they are not whining about ANWR right now. Why is that? LOL!!! Hard questions, hard questions.....

As for what you said abotu the Pacific Ocean being warm...so what? El Nina is a natural phenomenon that has taken place for as long as we know. What is the big deal? You say extreme weather is due to climate change. How then, do you explain last year being one of the calmest on record in regards to hurricanes. 3 years ago, they were predicing a massive rise in numbers and strength of hurricanes. With no hurricanes to speak of last year, how do you explain that way in deference to your position that climate change would make more and worse hurricanes?

In other words, what you want to say is "I am a liberal socialist sheep who, in the spirit of placid Jimmy Carter, know absolutley nothing about that which I speak!!!

LOL!!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Sarkazein said...

Gribbish-

Here is the undeniable liberal proclaiming the Haiti earthquake was caused by GLOBAL WARMING. It was just a matter of time.
Now the kids in your neighborhood can KNOW that they WILL be killed in the same way.

BikerBard said...

Sark SAYS there is no global warming! Must be so.

Sarkazein said...

Wrong BB- There is global warming, and global cooling, global wetting, global drying, global calming, global windiness... always has been, always will be.

BikerBard said...

Sark:
Let me invite you and your open mind to a film. It will be showing at the I.G. Greer Auditorium, on the ASU campus. The dates are April 22-24 (Shakespeare's birthday is the 23) so it will be easy to remember.

It is a film with documentary evidence about why we didn't stop global warming when we had the chance. Please invite your
friend(s.)

Oh, the title? "Age of Stupid."
You'll love it! See you there.

bridle said...

HD- Perhaps I can clarify some of these conundrums for you. Affirmative action is not necessarily based on skin color. It may involve such criteria as income level, class, or gender. So thanks to affirmative action, a kid from Watauga High school may have a chance to go to Harvard even though he/she is competing against legacies ( G.W.Bush) with mediocre marks but tons of money. Government affirmative action policies are designed to counter the de facto affirmative action enjoyed by the rich and powerful. So skin color is not the primary factor.
Bush's spending policies killed the economy because all that money went to fatten the pockets of the rich (Halliburton, KBR etc) and to bombs and wasting billions of gallons of fuel in Iraq. None of these paid any dividends, but in fact created more enemies, more inequalities and more debt. Obama's stimulus on the other hand is building roads (like here in Boone for example) funding schools and saving teaching positions (again we have seen this happen in Boone) and developing energy efficient technologies that will pay off in the future. That's the difference between wasting money and investing it.
Global climate change is so dangerous because the effects are unpredictable. All we do know is that human civilization relies on 4 main food items, rice, wheat, soy, and corn. All these foods were domesticated in the last 10,000 years of climate stability. If the climate changes so much that our food crops can't grow, we are doomed.
We can see these effects on a smaller scale by looking at civilizations such as the Maya, and Anasazi. All were flourishing centers of civilization until the climate changed, and then they went bust. ( I recommend Collapse by Jared Dianmond as a good exploration of why civilizations survive or go extinct.)
You should be aware that one possible result of global warming is a new ice age, as the ocean currents are disrupted by warm fresh water inputs from the north.
Very few real phenomena are as simple as they are presented in television sound bites. So when you see TV entertainers talking about how the climate isn't warming because "it's cold outside", they are either stupid, or dishonest.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Yes, I can remember seeing the pictures of the color drawings in the National Geographic of the Mayas running around in their SUVs, and using fossil fuel up like there was no tomorrow. Freon was constantly leaking into the atmosphere from their AC units. Damn those Maya.

"We can see these effects on a smaller scale by looking at civilizations such as the Maya, and Anasazi. All were flourishing centers of civilization until the climate changed, and then they went bust."-Bridle

Sarkazein said...

Here you go Gribbish, you said it couldn't be done... and here it is in all it's brilliance:

"You should be aware that one possible result of global warming is a new ice age, as the ocean currents are disrupted by warm fresh water inputs from the north."-Bridle

Liberal POV said...

Bridle

Well said, let see if the flat earther have the ability to change their minds or learn anything new.

Sarkazein said...

"...rice, wheat, soy, and corn. All these foods were domesticated in the last 10,000 years of climate stability. If the climate changes so much that our food crops can't grow, we are doomed."-Bridle

Bumper wheat crops during the "Dust Bowl" droughts of the thirties. Or was it farming techniques?
Check the commodity reports for wheat in Kansas back in the year 7990 BC (10,000 years ago). Don't want to research back that far, just go back to 500 BC.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Check the climate (weather averages over the past 30 years +-) of South Dakota and compare it to south Texas. Both grow corn. What temperature change total do you predict?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle a Gribbish-

Why do you think the definition of climate is the average weather conditions of a region for a period ranging from several months to 30 years?

bridle said...

Um Sark- No one ever said that CO2 from human activity is the ONLY reason for climate change. It's the only one we can influence, however. And as for global warming causing an ice age, remember we don't know for sure what the effects of change may be. But human civilization developed within a very narrow range of climatic factors. A rapid change will stress our ability to adapt and puts civilization at risk.
Only incredibly irresponsible ignoramuses consider it acceptable to risk our children's and grandchildren's future when we could make a difference by acting decisively now.

Sarkazein said...

should read: Bridle and Gribbish

Sarkazein said...

Bridle, what puts your grandchildren at risk is massive deficit spending, the weakening of our economy with socialism and Cap and Trade... not the ever reoccurring change in the climate.
And if you live 12 feet below sea-level in New Orleans, the Nutria will drowned you, not a melting iceberg.

bridle said...

Sark, Did all those people leave the midwest during the dust bowl because it was too easy to grow wheat? And South Texasdoesn't feature corn as a major crop as far as I can tell. And neither does North Dakota. What the hell are you talking about? I am not understanding your main point.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle- Your link seems to mostly blame Earth's rotation and tilt for changes in the climate.
Next, Al Gore will try to mandate moving mass groups of people around to different regions of the Earth as a counter-balance or to create a more perfect orbit or exactly perfect tilt.
This is just as nutty as man-made global warming, or the more PC climate change.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

main point: The global warmers are talking about a few degrees difference. You wrote that if the climate changed it could wipe out the food supply. IF corn can grow in North Dakota, and it can grow in south Texas (there average temps are more that a few degrees), then a few degrees either way ain't gonna make a hill of spit.

bridle said...

Granted the deficit spending will put our kid's futures at risk, if it is not recouped. But with a Democrat in the white house we have a good chance at getting back to where we might even see a surplus again. All your blather about socialism is nothing more than buzzwords. You have no evidence to back it up and you ignore the fact that the "socialist" European countries are doing pretty darn well in most aspects of their economies and living standards compared to the US. And what did that last sentence mean? What drowned all those folks in New Orleans was a hurricane, which derives energy from heat in the water,which certainly is related to increased temperatures in the atmosphere.
Please try to leave off some of that dense sarcasm and just say what you mean, OK?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

The other point regarding the Dust Bowl, is there were fewer SUVs, fewer people, and a lot fewer Al Gore type energy consuming mansions and private jets.
THE CLIMATE STILL CHANGED! sorry to have to yell at you like that.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle- The hurricane did not drowned all the people in New Orleans.
The hurricane had passed. It was even clear enough for the looting to start. Check the time-line.
The levies failed. I don't even believed they were topped (water going over the top of a levy), they collapsed in or failed to hold the tidal surge.
I believe the Nutria undermined the levies. It's the only thing that makes sense. Chief Deputy Steven Seagal's theory is the only one that makes sense. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

Sark - The Earth's rotation and tilt certainly influence the climate. So does Carbon dioxide and so does water vapor and so does methane. There are many inputs to climate. The one we can control, is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide can also be emitted from volcanoes. But the effect is still the same no matter where it comes from. And when you talk about a few degrees of temperature over the entire Earth, it represents a vast amount of energy. It doesn't take much energy to heat a cup of water. It takes a vast amount of energy to heat a swimming pool. So 3 degrees temperature averaged over the whole Earth, means huge swings in local regions and tremendous increase in energy driving ocean and wind currents.
I don't get why folks like you are so set on continuing to rely on fossil fuels when there are so many downsides. What do you propose we or our children do when the reserves do run out, anyway? Do you think there are some endless magically refilling pots of oil in the Earth somewhere?

Sarkazein said...

"Please try to leave off some of that dense sarcasm and just say what you mean, OK?"-Bridle

Not gonna happen. Why do you think my parents named me Sarkazein?

bridle said...

OK, The climate does change reflecting many many factors. It has been very warm in the past (before humans were around) and it will be very warm in the future. The question is, do we want catastrophic change to occur suddenly, if we can avoid it. Carbon dioxide is one very important factor. It is the only one we are directly responsible for and it is the only one we can influence. It sounds like you are saying we are doomed anyway, so there is no point in trying to avert catastrophe.
And about New Orleans, are you suggesting that it was a coincidence that the 6th strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic happened along just as the nutrias were burrowing under the levees? Really?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Katrina was downgraded to a cat 4 when the eye hit NOT NEW ORLEANS, but east of N.O. in Buras La.

Check the pictures of the Wal-Mart "shoppers" looting the stores. It was later that the levees failed, the wind didn't blow them over... they failed.

Plants seem to do better with Carbon dioxide. CO2 levels have seasonal changes. The more our pick-up trucks and SUVs spit out CO2, the greener the plants get. It's a good thing.

Chevron, having to drill way off-shore in the Gulf, has hit a reserve that goes all the way to Africa.
I am guessing our grandchildren will be taxed in to poverty and financial and social collapse, LONG before we hear that slurping sound from the straw.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

I believe color of skin is the major factor, it is primary. What, you want to judge someone by the color of their skin just a little bit? Affirmative action cannot exist if skin color is not known. Can it?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

The atmosphere contains .04% CO2. There is 60 times more water vapor from evaporating oceans. Do we need to drain them?

The 500 pound gorilla in the room is rising CO2 levels do not drive temperature as Algore's hideous graph shows. Temperatures rise then CO2 levels follow. Doesn't that cut the legs out from under the argument?

Honest Debate said...

I may not have composed this sentence correctly: "The 500 pound gorilla in the room is rising CO2 levels do not drive temperature as Algore's hideous graph shows".

Clarification:
The 500 pound gorilla in the room is rising CO2 levels do not drive temperature. Algore's graph shows this. He represents it as the opposite of what it is. That's hideous.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Your theory about melting ice from global warming causing cooling is the same one Clinton cited in the link I provided Gribbish. Gribbish pointed out that the theory has since been disproved by new research.

I believe it was grasping at straws in the first place. Of course it's not true, they had to come up with something as temperatures plummeted and hurricanes disappeared or the money might dry up. My cynicism is mostly due to evidence and only partly from my admitted biases.

bridle said...

HD- Of course affirmative action can exist if skin color is not known. Affirmative action can be based on income levels, or educational levels, or regional criteria, or gender. It all depends on which groups are being unfairly excluded from opportunities. So a progressive government in Iraq might mandate that a certain number of candidates for office be female, as females are typically discriminated against in that culture. In our culture,where skin color has been the basis for historical discrimination, skin color is often a factor in determining who should benefit from affirmative action laws. But, there are scholarships that are preferentially awarded to white students who attend historically black schools. So it really can benefit everyone.

Mike D. said...

"Affirmative action can be based on income levels, or educational levels, or regional criteria, or gender." - Bridle

Yes, from now on, at least 20% of all college professors must not hold any degree higher than a Bachelor's, just to keep things fair. :)

bridle said...

HD and Sark. The Earth's climate is a dynamic process with many different inputs. Our atmosphere results from complex interactions between plant and animal life, and other factors such as volcanic eruptions.But basically homeostasis is maintained because carbon, and other elements are recycled between the atmosphere, the water, and organisms at a constant rate. The climate we enjoy now is perfect for the development of human civilizations, which is why civilization has developed in the past 10,000 years. We are upsetting this balance in several ways. We are destroying the plants that absorb CO2 and produce oxygen. We are pumping into the atmosphere millions of tons of Carbon that have been buried for 250 million years. We are pumping particulate pollution into the atmosphere at a rate that is clearly unsustainable and unhealthy. Scientists are worried for several reasons. Altering the balance of Carbon dioxide will increase heat retention. This is the same theory of physics on which you rely when you turn on a light switch, or get an x-ray at the dentists office.
Plant life is very sensitive to changes in climate. Our food crops will be at risk if the climate changes quickly. There is some evidence that increased levels of CO2 may favor noxious weed growth such as poison ivy or other plant pests.
When CO2 mixes with water it creates carbonic acid. Humans rely on the oceans for a huge part of our food cycle. There is evidence that ocean acidification is occurring.
The real danger is that rising CO2 levels can kick off a positive feed back cycle that spins our climate into an unbalanced state. As the arctic permafrost melts it releases methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas.
There is some evidence that suggests this process has occurred in the past and been responsible for mass extinctions.
So here's my question for you. If there is even a remote possibility that our reliance on fossil fuels is as bad as most scientists say it is, what is the upside of continuing to use it?

Mike D. said...

"Chevron, having to drill way off-shore in the Gulf, has hit a reserve that goes all the way to Africa." - Sarkazein

Sark,

Would you please post a link to an article which discusses this find? I searched for it but came up empty. I have trouble believing that there could be an uninterrupted reservoir, be it crude oil or natural gas, which crosses through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

bridle said...

Oh Yeah - John Stossel is a twit.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle asks: "So here's my question for you. If there is even a remote possibility that our reliance on fossil fuels is as bad as most scientists say it is, what is the upside of continuing to use it?"


The answer is on a Texas bumper sticker. It reads "Let the bastards freeze in the dark"

In other words, to keep you bastards from freezing in the dark, we keep finding and delivering fossil fuels.

MikeD. said...

Bridle,

There is a distinct possibility that additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could benefit the planet. Let me explain.

When we talk of the carbon/oxygen cycle, we mainly refer to terrestrial plants and trees, but the overwhelming majority of the processing of these elements occurs in the ocean. Indeed, almost all life in the ocean depends on microscopic plant growth. Increasing the level of available carbon in the ocean, particularly when coupled with some mineral fertilization, would mean increasing the amount of phytoplankton, making it more abundant for the zooplankton who consume it. This means a higher concentration of zooplankton, which would greatly benefit colonial polyp organisms like coral, permitting accelerated reef growth. Krill populations would flourish in this environment, providing tremendously abundant food for baleen whales. Populations of pilchard and herring would blossom, helping threatened populations of tuna, salmon, sailfish, toothed whales, etc. There would be much more 'marine snow' drifting down into deeper waters, allowing greater development of deep water ecosystems.

If such a change made it more difficult for humans to survive, would that necessarily be such a bad thing? At 6 1/2 billion humans, perhaps we have enough already!

Sarkazein said...

This is the story on Chevron's OIL find.

I have always believed OIL is not fossil fuel or rotting plants and decomposed dinosaurs. I believe it is from the interior of the Earth and through centrifugal force is thrown closer to the Earth's surface through fissures in the Earth's layers.

bridle said...

Sark - Your hypothesis about oil is interesting - but intellectually on a par with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
Mike, Life on the planet will endure what ever we do. The geological record shows many instances of extinction events large and small and life always seems to recover after millions of years. But it is never the same kind of life as before. And I have grandchildren. I don't want my generation to be the last that enjoys a decent standard of living. I would rather sacrifice now and pay carbon taxes and use more public transport and eat less food from Chile if it means my grandkids won't have to suffer from the terrible effects of destabilization. I say give out condoms,teach everyone about birth control and as standards of living rise, especially for women, birth rates always decline.

BikerBard said...

"If such a change made it more difficult for humans to survive, would that necessarily be such a bad thing?" -Mike

I am appalled at the callousness of your response, but have come to expect that on this site. How about if we were to start with YOU and YOUR FAMILY?

Not such a bright idea now, is it?

bridle said...

Sark - You cited a source with an aggressive agenda and very suspect integrity. I looked up the report from Chevron and the most optimistic estimate for the Jack field is 15 billion barrels of crude recoverable. (The lower end is 3 billion!) So The US alone consumes about 7 billion barrels per year. Unless you suggest we nationalize Chevron, that oil will be sold on the open market and most likely will go to China, while Americans living on the coast will bear the environmental costs of oil spills and pollution. It doesn't sound like a bargain to me.

Mike D. said...

"has hit a reserve that goes all the way to Africa." - Sarkazein

Sark,

I read the whole article. It never mentions the physical parameters of the field. It also never mentions Africa.

Mike D. said...

BikerBard,

As you know, I have studied edible wild foods most of my life, and I am a pretty good gardener, so, if times get tough, you may wish to stop thinking of me as callous, and start thinking of me as a resource.

bridle said...

Here is a thought. As long as petroleum is the primary source of energy for nations, the nations with the largest reserves will be the richest, have the most power and be able to control the other nations. Looking at this list, we can see that the countries with the largest oil reserves - together totaling about 55% of the total oil reserves - are Muslim nations.
Interesting thought?

bridle said...

Mike D - I love to eat wild foods! I am looking forward to the first dandelion greens, and poke salad, and violets in the next few months. And then there will be lamb's quarters and amaranth. Yum.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

It doesn't matter if oil is sold on the open market. It is all still used. It doesn't matter if you are kept from freezing in the dark by Russian oil or US oil... the supply brings down the price. It is a HUGE find. Other lower stories come out to keep the market price from dropping too much too quickly. There are oil-traders out there with millions of pre-sold barrels floating around on tankers and in storage farms not looking for news of a larger supply. Supply and demand, now, but while President Bush was in office he controlled the price of oil as well as gasoline. Just ask a liberal. Somehow now, with gasoline doubling in price since Obama took office it is no more the US President that controls the price and DOUBLING doesn't even make the news in this 10+% unemployment country.

Sarkazein said...

Mike D-

"I read the whole article. It never mentions the physical parameters of the field. It also never mentions Africa."

It's called an exaggeration, just think HUGE.

bridle said...

Sark - Let me guess; you know it's bigger than reported by Chevron because the guy who sold you a piece of it told you so.

bridle said...

Sark - FYI, the point of my previous post is that neither Bush nor Obama control the price of oil.
OPEC controls the price of oil. And a much greater percent of our government than most of us have any idea.
There is a fascinating book titled Sleeping with the Devil. I recommend it.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-
Apparently you forget the hell President Bush paid when the price of gasoline went up before the election.

The Wall Street Journal cited Chevron officials as estimating recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico could hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil and gas reserves. That would boost U.S. current reserves by 50 percent.

The region could become the nation’s biggest new domestic source of oil since the discovery of Alaska’s North Slope more than a generation ago, the Journal said.

guy fauleks said...

The insurmountable proof that man made global warming is a hoax is the leaked emails that prove data was doctored, dissenting opinions were censored, and that professionals that proved global warming to be a natural phenomena being threatened and intimidated.If there were any truth to the claim, none of this would have been necessary. The disputed issue would have been argued in an open and transparent manner. If you defend man made global warming, your proof is bad science. Even worse, it is fraudulent science.

bridle said...

OK Sark - 15 billion barrels. US oil consumption alone is between 7 and 9 billion barrels a year. So we have two extra years before we run out? While China's appetite is increasing exponentially? I'm not impressed.

bridle said...

Guy -What balony. The so-called email scandals proved that scientists are normal argumentative human beings. They get really pissed off when idiots misuse information to create great harm. And they are not always nice about the way they say it.

What you need to understand about science is this. Every researcher uses the work of previous researchers as a foundation for every new study. When you look at a research article, you will see that there are hundreds of citations listed at the end. Every scientist bases his/her work upon the work of those who have come before. If the previous work is false or inaccurate, following work will be invalid.
There is a powerful incentive to not only be strictly honest, but to gather more proof than absolutely before making assertions.
In other words, if you are a scientist you must have confidence that the data you are using is accurate, or you will be wasting your time and life work. There is a powerful ethic of honesty in science. A scientist who falsifies data is finished and will never be able to regain professional standing. Your whole notion that scientific concern over global climate change is a hoax is absurd.
Stop watching Fox news. It rots the brain.

BikerBard said...

Mike D:

As senile Emily Latella said on old Sat. Night Live, "Nevermind."

Also, get the hang of this place. If Sark says something is true, it is true! LOL!

Sarkazein said...

By CARL CAMPANILE
Last Updated: 10:55 AM, January 15, 2010
Posted: 2:49 AM, January 15, 2010
PRINT EMAIL
SHARE
RSS
Big Labor got some big love from President Obama and congressional Democrats yesterday after they agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health-care plans until 2018.
The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won't be as lucky -- they'll have to cough up almost $90 billion.
The 40 percent excise tax on what have come to be called "Cadillac" health-care plans would exempt collective-bargaining contracts covering government employees and other union members until Jan. 1, 2018.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM#ixzz0cpZ56dh6 ///

OK, the Amish, union members, and Congressmen are the Privileged Characters.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-


Katrina was Category 3, not 4
Hurricane weaker at landfall than initially thought

Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Posted: 9:23 a.m.
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- When it slammed ashore on the Gulf Coast in August, Hurricane Katrina was a strong Category 3 storm, not a Category 4 as initially thought, the National Hurricane Center said Tuesday.///

Mike D. said...

Bridle,

In the Spring, I am a fan of morels and winter cress, harvested just as the tender flower spikes start to bud up like broccoli (no surprise, it's in the crucifer family with broccoli).

Maybe someday we'll meet up and go foraging. I feel like I possess ancient, secret, forgotten knowledge as I walk along, collecting free, organic, delicious food as others zoom past me in their internal combustion vehicles, racing to purchase their organic, yet commercial, foodies.

Do they think I'm weird? Homeless? Who knows. But as I eat my delicious dinner, I imagine them sometimes, secure in their limited understanding of life, never realizing the delicacies they are missing. =)

Sarkazein said...

Mike D-

Shoot a deer while you're out there, and add a back-strap to the banquet.

bridle said...

Sark - I have deer in my yard. Last summer a doe and her fawn slept in the raspberry hedge and ate all the beans in my garden. I just enjoyed their beauty. If I were to be truly in need, I would kill a deer, but until then they feed my spirit.
Mike D - nicely said.

Mike D. said...

Sark,

NORTHWESTERN NC DEER SEASON
Bow and arrow: Sept. 12 to Nov. 13
Muzzleloader: Nov. 14 to Nov. 20
Gun: Nov. 21 to Dec. 19

Not a good idea to bag a deer in April, but don't worry, I have plenty of friends with deep-freezers full. You may guess that I am some stinky, vegetarian flower child, but I thoroughly enjoy meaty meats of doom, and I shave, bathe, and wear antiperspirant!

Sarkazein said...

Deer season, oh yea, I forgot. I spent too much time in West Virginia. Hunting season starts every year at sun up.

Mike D. said...

BikerBard,

"Also, get the hang of this place. If Sark says something is true, it is true! LOL!" - BikerBard

"Deer season, oh yea, I forgot." - Sarkazein



You stand corrected. =)

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

You describe an affirmative action I've never heard tell of. Fine, just drop any mention or requirement of race whatsoever and I'm on board. Otherwise, you're judging by the color of skin which is cool. Just admit it.

You wrote: "The climate we enjoy now is perfect for the development of human civilizations, which is why civilization has developed in the past 10,000 years."

The climate has varied dramatically in the last 10,000 years. I don't understand.

You also asked: "If there is even a remote possibility that our reliance on fossil fuels is as bad as most scientists say it is, what is the upside of continuing to use it?"

Oil is the engine that fuels the world. There's gobs of it, too. It is , dollar for dollar, the most effective and efficient fuel on the market. It has an existing infra-structure to deliver it. Without it, industry and life as we know it grinds to a halt. We can't do without it unless we lower our standard of living dramatically which is what many want. They just won't say it.

bridle said...

HD- From Wikipedia "The term affirmative action refers to policies that take race, ethnicity, physical disabilities, military career, sex, or a person's parents' social class into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity or increase ethnic or other forms of diversity. " .

About oil - What I hear you saying is there's plenty of oil, it will never run out, so we can continue to use it forever without making any changes in our lifestyles.
Is that right?

bridle said...

HD- This quote comes from the US EPA - "The IPCC estimates it has warmed 1.2 to 1.4°F over
the past century and projects a further 3 to 7°F over the
21st century. The increases may appear minor compared
to short-term weather changes from night to day and
winter to summer. In global climate terms, however,
warming at this rate would be much larger and faster
than any of the climate changes over at least the past
10,000 years."
Let me ask you this. If there is even a chance that this scenario of disaster may be true, what amount of risk would cause you to support alternate carbon free energy use? In other words, if there is in your mind a 50% probability of these scientists being correct, are you still ok with sticking with fossil fuels? (setting aside the fact that Muslim counties control most of the oil reserves, and that mining and using coal is incredibly destructive and dangerous)
What probability of disaster would be sufficient to move you against fossil fuels?

guy faulkes said...

Bridle, you are never going to get past the 30,000 scientists that signed a paper discrediting man made global warming in spite of the censorship and intimidation methods being used against them. You cannot explain away fraudulent data by saying this dishonesty was just scientists being human. Doing so only supports the evidence of fraud. It does nothing to make the data creditable.

We are now in a different kind of race than is usually held in politics. The term, as usually applied, is the competition between people for an office. It now has to be defined as the amount of time before Cap and Trade is passed against the wishes of the people (as the health care bill may be)and of when the politicians that would do so to promote socialism can be replaced at the polls.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

With all due respect, I don't give a damn what Wiki says, affirmative action is judging by the color of skin. It stretches credibility to say otherwise. The definition is nice but that is not the way it works in the real world. Again, affirmative action cannot exist if skin color is not known.

You asked: "About oil - What I hear you saying is there's plenty of oil, it will never run out, so we can continue to use it forever without making any changes in our lifestyles. Is that right?"

That's pretty much it, yes. I wouldn't say it will never ever run out but there is certainly enough to keep us from changing our lifestyle. That is what you want isn't it? I don't, we don't have to and oil is the only way to fuel our needs.

Who said I'm against "alternate carbon free energy use"? I love that stuff. I'm all for it. How 'bout nuclear power? That's the only reason Europe can lecture us on emissions. You may have missed the discussion about the dam I want to one day refurbish. Wind, solar...love it. None of it can replace fossil fuels at this time.

Finally, to your question about eminent demise. I don't believe it. "Most scientist" don't see it the way you claim, quite the contrary. I am very skeptical about talks of doom. They always sell big. Remember Y2K? Remember the bird flu, or was it the swine flu? Oh yeah both. Remember global cooling? Remember the cold war? Remember the Rahm Emanuel doctrine?

bridle said...

Guy - There was no fraudulent data and no evidence of fraudulent data- period.
No scientist would ever admit in an email or any other venue to falsifying data as doing so would end his or her career.
Let me ask you the same questions I have posed HD.
1) About oil - What I hear you saying is there's plenty of oil, it will never run out, so we can continue to use it forever without making any changes in our lifestyles.
Is that right?
2)What probability of disaster would be sufficient to move you against fossil fuels?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Please respond to Algore's graph and the fact that temperatures rise before CO2 levels. Try something more substantial than "John Stossel is a twit".

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

What do you mean "there was no fraudulent data and no evidence of fraudulent data- period."? They changed the models in the computer programs!

Honest Debate said...

Dang, where'd he go? He was right here a minute ago.

BikerBard said...

Bridle:

Typical right-wing nutcase excuses to do nothing and continue to be wasteful, corpulent consumers.

Honest Debate said...

BB,

Drill here, drill now. ANWR. Nukes.

That's not nothing.

Honest Debate said...

BB,

I'll bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours.

bridle said...

HD - I remember Y2K. There was a potential problem and a lot of work was done to avert it and everything turned out ok. Swine flu, again, many measures were taken and thankfully not needed. Bird flu is still on the books. Microbiologists are still concerned about a combination of bird flu and swine flu. You may wish to study the history of the flu epidemic of 1918 to understand why they are so concerned.

What makes you think there is an endless supply of oil? Are you like Sark who thinks it is magically produced at the center of the Earth? And are you OK with all those Muslim countries with the power to shut down our economy anytime they choose?
And as for most scientists - how do you define that term? Would you include the National Academies of Science??
Or NOAA? Or this organization? Or the scientists at the EPA?
Or perhaps you might subscribe to the Science News, or Discover Magazine or Scientific American?
Or how about the scientists at the United Nations?
All of the opposing information comes from organizations that have an economic or political agenda. And if you watch Fox news you should be aware that they have a strong financial interest in pushing their agenda supporting our continued addiction to oil.
How many more citations do you need?
What kind of evidence would it take to make you change your opinion? Is it even possible?

Honest Debate said...

Gee wiz Bridle, you missed my point which was doom sells not that flus aren't deadly.

Certainly some of the groups you list are not credible such as the UN. What about temperatures changing before CO2 levels. The evidence is clear.

It this good news? I think it is.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

Your first group is composed of "Experts representing various levels of government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and research and academic institutions have been selected to serve on four panels and an overarching committee."

In other words bureaucrats.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

What makes you think oil is running out? We aren't even looking for it. Why not look until they invent the solar powered jet.

Honest Debate said...

"All of the opposing information comes from organizations that have an economic or political agenda." -Bridle

Unmitigated BS...unless by "opposing information" you mean the proponents of AGW. They're the ones getting rich.

Honest Debate said...

Ask yourself Bridle, why do you assume its fossil fuels or alternative but not both, no overlap? You've repeatedly accused me and others of being against such technology when nothing is further from the truth. If I may guess, it's because the alternatives you mention cannot compete in the marketplace against fossil fuels without artificially influencing demand. That's what you want.

$5/gal. gas is okay with you because it would force people (greedy wasteful Americans) to use less. It would make more expensive less robust energy sources viable. More people would buy electric cars, drive less and conserve more. $6/gal. would be even better, wouldn't it? It's a small price to pay, right?

Sarkazein said...

H.D-

"$5/gal. gas is okay with you because..."

That is UNLESS there is a Republican President. Then he is a heartless SOB that doesn't care about the working poor and is in bed with his oil man buddies.

Price of gasoline doubles while there is a Democrat President... no problem, it's saving the planet.

Sarkazein said...

BB wrote:" And are you OK with all those Muslim countries with the power to shut down our economy anytime they choose?"


Drill here, drill now, CHEVRON.

bridle said...

HD- Please support your assertions.
1) The UN science is not credible
2) Proponents of AGW are getting rich.
3)All of the scientists in the National Academies of Science and NOAA etc are bureaucrats (and therefore dishonest?).

As to the glacier evidence, I am personally acquainted with geographers and climbers who research glacier activity by climbing them. All of their "boots on the ground" evidence makes it clear that glaciers are receding in most regions in the world, and the problem is especially severe in regions that rely on glaciers for water storage. The American Alpine Club is very much involved in such research.
So - Why not continue looking for oil?
1) At some point all the easily recoverable oil will be gone. Many informed people believe that peak oil has already occurred.
2) Many reputable scientists are convinced that continued use of fossil fuels pose a very high probability of causing catastrophic climate change.
3)Our continued reliance on petroleum puts our economy in the hands of despotic regimes (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc).
4) Coal mining is extremely destructive and dangerous.
5) Using fossil fuels puts tons of other toxic pollutants into the atmosphere we breath and the water we drink.
6)The infrastructure required for fossil fuels requires large and expensive installations and transport systems that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes.
7) Petroleum spills cause immeasurable economic and environmental destruction.
8)The fact that oil is the primary source of energy for most nations on the planet has led to wars and will lead to more wars as countries fight over control of the limited resources.
OK - Is that enough?

bridle said...

HD - I just now see your question about temperatures rising.
Temperatures have been rising for 20,000 years since we emerged from the ice age. What scientists are concerned about is the sudden and dramatic rise that we will not be able to adapt to.
What exactly is your question about Al Gore's graph?

I forgot point 9) The oceans are being acidified from excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

BikerBard said...

"I'll bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours."-Honest? Debate

Note to HD:
I'll bet your BRAIN is smaller than mine! LOL!

Note to Lib POV:
The problem is not in the chart. The problem is that it is Al Gore's chart. In addition, you are confusing the heck out of them with facts and logic.

Use Sark's tactics: just make stuff up and stick to your guns when challenged. Hang tough!

Note to Sark(astic):
DROLL, Baby, DROLL! LOL!

Simon Jester said...

Do we really have to keep putting up with BikerBard? I am serious. He needs to be thrown off the blog. He has nothing to say but his stupid attacks.

Johnny Rico said...

Tricycle Lard, Liberal Socialist Sheep, Unbrideled Idiot, and other socialist lemmings,

Care to explain what ever happened to the notion of rising sea levels. The global warming smucks started the rumor that melting ice caps would result in increased sea levels. You NEVER hear that these days. Why is that? Because it was just a theory and no more. Now that they are lying about shrinking ice caps they are unable to keep up with the rising sea level thing. LOL!!! What a bunch of idiots.


You then go on to say extreme weather is due to climate change. How then, do you explain last year being one of the calmest on record in regards to hurricanes. 3 years ago, they were predicing a massive rise in numbers and strength of hurricanes. With no hurricanes to speak of last year, how do you explain that way in deference to your position that climate change would make more and worse hurricanes?

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Jason B.

Honest Debate said...

Sure Bridle, happy to do it. The first two can be summed up with the scandal at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia. They are a very big deal. They receive 20 million a year for research. The have the largest temperature data set in the world. Their mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report represents untold billions in UN policy. The models were cooked.You got the third one wrong. I didn't say anyone was dishonest. I just said they weren't all scientist (much like the IPCC) and used the quote from their website.

Algore showed a graph in his movie of 600,000 years of temperature. He then superimposed a graph of 600,000 years of CO2 levels on top of it. They matched. They match alright but the temperature went up first then CO2 levels followed. Let it settle in...it's true.

BikerBard said...

Simon:

How shocked I am. I think I'm at least being humorous and clever. (I liked DROLL, BABY, DROLL -clever, no?)

Is this the way you silence your critics? Getting payback for
REEKO-O and WW?

Really, Simon. You have REEK-O here ranting about the "Socialist Liberal Sheep" and THAT'S OK with you? Sark is more sarcastic then anyone here, but his politics agree with you, so that's OK?

Here, I'll give you something to chew on. Bridle has presented a well-thought argument in support of our having Climate Change. Bridle has spoken to dwindling fossil fuels. THAT, you have no response to? I'd like to hear your response to Bridle. But you kick the can down the road to cry about me?

Let's all read your response. I'll respond to your response, or not. I'd just love to read it. That's the way a blog works.

But if insulting someone, or offering snide remarks is the measure of removal from this site, then Sark is the FIRST to go, followed by Rico, Guy, YOU, Oatz and HD. In fact, there will be no one left except BRIDLE and Reader.

Imagine that!

PS: If you need to be reminded, I'll be happy to copy you the sarcastic remarks from your crew.

"Pot," meet "Kettle."

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

On your other points:

The point on the glaciers is that the data was fraudulent and the IPCC is rescinding their estimates. It's good news they were wrong.

1) How can anyone possibly know that? It's not gone yet, let's use it.
2)No they don't.
3)True, let's drill here.
4)& 5) It's not what it used to be. New technologies are much, much, much cleaner.
6) All energy requires vulnerable infrastructure.
7) Spills suck, all the more reason to drill here.
8) Wars suck, all the more reason to exploit nuclear energy.

You've given reasons not to use oil. Some are valid, some are not. It doesn't matter, we have to use oil. We have nothing else to do the job. If something else comes along that can take it's place in the marketplace, cool.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle asked-"What kind of evidence would it take to make you change your opinion?"


At least you use the words opinion and .
Remember evidence is not proof and there are other opinions. Once laws like cap and trade are passed, it is no longer a debate. Your opinion has been forced upon me by law. There is evidence that opposing opinions were stifled and that evidence was tampered with.

Sarkazein said...

Should read: At least you use the words opinion and evidence.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-
Seriously, it is not your fault (not sarcasm).

Please read this article and at least agree that it is not even close to cut and dry.

Thank you

Sarkazein said...

BB wrote- "But if insulting someone, or offering snide remarks is the measure of removal from this site, then Sark is the FIRST to go..."


I would like to thank Blogger and HD and all those behind the scenes for this award. I could not have done it without the comments of POV, BB, A'mous...etc.
It is an honor just to be nominated along with such greats as Guy, Rico, Oatz and so many others.

Simon Jester said...

BikerBard never makes a point. Rico makes points the left run from. BikerBard tries to change the subject because he has no knowledge of the issue being talked about. Rico not only answers the questions, she backs up her answers. BikerBard viciously attacks people because that is all he can do. He can't say anything about what is under discussion so he starts fights. Rico does call the left names just like POV does. I do not think Bridle and RV do this, but they may have. Almost anyone will once in a while. BikerBard adds nothing but his ignorance and hate to a blog. Rico makes people think and asks questions that both sides find it hard to answer. POV, RV, or Bridle have never answered if they approve of BikerBard. I think he embarrasses them. If he does not, he should.

MikeD did say he acts the way he does because he was raised as your typical rude Yankee. MIkeD has also described him on the other blog by saying he was large and strong with finely chiseled features. I do not care if MikeD thinks BikerBard looks like Brad Pitt, he should not be allowed to participate in a blog because of the way he acts.

Rico got banned from Watauga Watch because of her ability to ask hard questions. BikerBard needs to be banned here because of how he acts. These bannings are not the same thing. Rico's was not the right thing to do. BikerBard's is. BikerBard should be thrown off the site.

BikerBard said...

Simon to blog (in a whiney voice):

"Please Mommy, make the bad man go away. He says nasty things about me and I cannot defend myself. I can't stop crying! Help Mommy, help!"

You are a litte sad boy. Grow some hair on your chest and grow up.

bridle said...

HD - One last comment about alternate energy. Solar power already powers (nearly) every living organism on the planet. Even the fossil fuels we are depleting were created from sunlight absorbed by pigments creating large energy rich molecules from water and air. A blade of grass can do it. If we decided to invest in a project to develop truly decentralized sustainable energy, there is no doubt it could occur in a generation. We put humans on the moon. We broke the secrets of the atom. We decoded the human genome. The only reason to put it off any longer, risking so much, is that it will take power out of the crooked greedy grasping hands that now rule the world.
Again I recommend you read Sleeping with Devil : How Washington sold our soul for Saudi crude by Robert Baer.
It's most enlightening.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Do you have a comment about the Thank You article I linked on an earlier comment? Does this give you room to doubt?

bridle said...

Sark- Notice the article does not dispute that Himalayan glaciers are receding ""The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough."
What is disputed is the source of the specific numbers cited. The source was a phone conversation with scientist who offered his educated opinion, which was then cited as research. Scientists get very upset about this kind of thing because (as I said earlier) each scientific work is based on earlier work and if the earlier work is discredited, all subsequent work is suspect.
As to the melting of Himalayan glaciers, I personally know several people who work in this field (climbers and geographers) and I have seen the slide shows that document glacial recession. If you check this link to the American Alpine Club, which is the premier climbing club in North America - you will see that everyone who is intimately connected with mountains is very much aware of and concerned about this issue.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle- OK, I get it. NOTHING can change your faith in global warming "research"... amen.

bridle said...

Sark- I do have confidence in the scientific method. It is the opposite of faith.
The thing about science is that a theory in order to be accepted as a theory (in the scientific sense) must be supported by many lines of evidence. So germ theory of disease is supported by microscopic evidence, epidemiological evidence, and the fact that predictions based on the theory come true. So If you have a cold and you sneeze on me, I could predict that I will get the same cold based on germ theory.
It's the same thing with the current theory of carbon dioxide and climate change. It is supported by many different lines of evidence including physical properties of molecules, geological observations, biological observations, glacier studies, ocean studies, etc. The problem is that if we wait for all the predictions to come true, it will be too late for our civilization. It doesn't strike me as being conservative or responsible to have the attitude, well, we don't need to change anything; maybe it'll be ok.

BikerBard said...

Here's an Oatz Special:

"Science Daily (June 23, 2007) — A new report finds that North Carolina’s coastline will continue to experience significant loss in land area, property and recreational value in the next 30 to 75 years due to projected changes in climate, leading North Carolina researchers announced."

There was another article in yesterday's W-S Journal repeating this same warning.

Hey Sark - how about a nice waterfront house at the beach?

bridle said...

BB - If you want to find out who believes the coasts will be innundated - just follow the money.

Johnny Rico said...

Unbrideled said:

Notice that I did not call you an "idiot" here because, for once you are acting a bit sane.

You said:

As to the melting of Himalayan glaciers, I personally know several people who work in this field (climbers and geographers) and I have seen the slide shows that document glacial recession. If you check this link to the American Alpine Club, which is the premier climbing club in North America - you will see that everyone who is intimately connected with mountains is very much aware of and concerned about this issue."

You experts are exactly like my Grandfather and Great Grandfather who, time and again, explained to us bored children that winters were once much colder than they are now. I believe what they say. What I do not believe is that man caused it. Climate change has always occured, as Faulk's points out, and it will always continue to occur. Those frosts in June that granddad talked about might be a thing of the past, for now.

Johnny rico

Sarkazein said...

Bridle wrote: "Sark- Notice the article does not dispute that Himalayan glaciers are receding ""The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough."


The point of the article is the way these scientists, UN included, are not doing scientific studies.
The Great Lakes, part of New York, Minnesota were under a glacier at one time. The retreating glaciers, never a tourist attraction during the life of the combustible engine, have been retreating and growing since forever.
The fear the scientists were publishing about the glaciers being gone by 2035 was HYPE. Global warming is HYPE.
There was a glacier that showed signs of animals having grazed in the area it covered prior to that area being covered. Glaciers CHANGE, always have always will.
How hard would it be for a scientist to get a grant to study something that never changes and is not a threat?
If climate never changed, the definition of climate would not be the weather conditions over a 30 year+- period in a certain region. Why 30 years, it should be forever if they thought it would never change.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-

Remember the HYPE story about the hole in the ozone being caused by man. It was burning out the eyes of sheep in the mountains in Peru. There are still people believing that BS today.
Turns out a sheep eye disease did it.
But scientists were saying "your eyes are going to be burnt out by the hole in the Ozone".
Remember the HYPE about increased skin cancer caused by the hole in the ozone. Turns out, it's because whitey is moving south. Turns out, bathing suits have gotten smaller. Turns out diagnosis of skin cancer is better. Look at a picture of people at a baseball game in the 40's compared to people at a baseball game today. 40's- suits and fedoras, today- wife beater t shirt and hat on backwards.
More sun exposure.

Sarkazein said...

Bridle-
regarding your coastal story. People used to not live at the beach. They knew better. At most they would have a cabin. This was because they knew it was not a safe place to set up a homestead. Hurricanes, storm surge, beach erasion always has been, always will be.
Developers and their buyers created a problem, not mother Nature. Look at Nags Head in the 50's and look at it now.

Johnny Rico said...

That was most excellant Sark!!! Hat tip.

Honest Debate said...

I really hope bridle comments on Algore's graph.

Sarkazein said...

Here's one for Bridle and POV.

Sarkazein said...

NOW
and THEN Baseball fans

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Do you know anything about basic Photoshop?

BikerBard said...

Sark:

So you post a photo of a hand-written sign and you now believe that busses do not run on oil and fossil fuels?? Have you NEVER driven in back of a bus??

Wake up and smell the diesel.

bridle said...

HD - On what exactly about Al Gore's chart should I comment?

bridle said...

HD - I didn't watch John Stossel. As a science reporter, he is as credible as Bozo the Clown. Plus he is unbelievably annoying. In other words, a twit.
I'll assume your question is about why global temperatures began to rise before the industrial revolution. This link gives a detailed explanation but in a nutshell - Earth began to enter an interglacial period about 20,000 years ago due to the interaction of some of the many inputs that affect climate. About 10,000 years ago the climate became perfect for the grasses which were most easily domesticated and humans began to domesticate and cultivate wheat, rice, rye, etc. Civilization was able to develop. Carbon dioxide is released as a result of human activity, possibly as long as 10,000 years ago, because when soil is plowed and cultivated, organic matter is depleted, meaning carbon is lost. But it was really during the industrial revolution when we began to burn fossil fuels on a large scale that CO2 strongly began to amplify the warming which caused a positive feedback effect which amplifies warming even more. As temperatures rise, warm water releases dissolved carbon dioxide which causes more warming and so on. Other sources of greenhouse gases include methane loss from warming permafrost which further accelerate the warming. As ice is lost from the poles, the whole process spirals out of control.
So carbon dioxide did not start the process but amplifies it. Yes, climate change is natural. But it would be great if it could change slowly over the next 10,000 years, rather than suddenly in my grandchildren's lifetime. The first step has to be, stop pumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
So here's my next question for you. Is there any evidence that would make you feel concerned about this?

BikerBard said...

Sark:

No response, but EVERYONE should snap to when you post?

Do buses run on fossil fuels or not? And if so, why did you post a sign which is so false in nature?

Sarkazein said...

BB-

I'll give you a little more time to figure out the Bus picture.

Sarkazein said...

BB-

While you are thinking about it, try not to think about


)))))))))))))))))))))SCOTT BROWN(((((((((((((((((((((((

BikerBard said...

Is Brown like your cousin, or somebody? Did you work on his campaign?

Don't look into it more than it is: Republicans lying to people to boil up the pot for change.

That's the point of the Tea Party Gatherings - spreading falsehoods in large quantities.

"I want my country back!!" "Really, where did you lose it? Unless, you mean the rights trampled on by
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld."

PS: I can't tell if you are gloating. You gloat most of the time.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

John Stossel is irrelevant. Listen to the leading experts in the field. I'm not talking about "why global temperatures began to rise before the industrial revolution" at all. Temperature changed BEFORE CO2 levels went up going back 600,000 years. CO2 does not drive temperature and no "scientist" worth his salt disagrees. I've already explained it but you will not even give me the courtesy of looking at evidence I linked. I've read everything you linked. I don't waste my time or ask anyone to waste theirs. I do not give a damn what your opinion of me is . If you can't tell by now that I will make the case with evidence for what I'm saying then you haven't paid attention. I am open but you've got to bring it. It is highly insulting to engage with someone so smug that they assume my evidence isn't even worth a look. What the hell is that? How can we debate honestly?

Honest Debate said...

Bridle your first link states the author is NOT a climate scientist. Your second one has phrases like "appears to be hastening global warming" and "could boost emissions". The scientist are unnamed, the studies are not shown.

You are afraid of the truth. You pick the evidence that fits your ideology and ignore the rest. One cannot grow in this way. It's sad. The confusing thing is your lectures from your high horse. You're not as smart as you think you are.

Sarkazein said...

BB-

Gloating, to be sure.

gloat |glōt|
verb [ intrans. ]
contemplate or dwell on one's own success or another's misfortune with smugness or malignant pleasure : his enemies gloated over his death.

Sarkazein said...

BikerBard-

The Obama-care bill would fine and/or put people in prison if they did not comply with his form of health-care. Does that not seem to you to be radical and worth fighting against?

bridle said...

HD- Please give me some leading experts in the field who are not supported by the fossil fuels industry. As Upton Sinclair said "It's hard for a man to understand something when his paycheck demands that he not understand".
OK the first link is maintained by a physicist. More reputable than John Stossel, no?
The second links to a synopsis from a Scientific American article. Scientific language rarely uses words such as proven. Scientists think in terms of probability rather than absolutes. I will photocopy the entire article and citations if it makes you happy. Or you could buy your own subscription.
Please answer the question. What kind of evidence would you find persuasive?

Sarkazein said...

Bridle wrote

You may have stumbled into something if you agree with Upton Sinclair. Think grants.

BikerBard said...

Sark:

No need to promote fear. No one is going to prison.

Witness the very topic of this thread, and consider that it IS, by its very nature, insulting. Proof positive for a different discussion on another thread.

BikerBard said...

I left off "Note to HD". The later part of my last post was for HD.

Sarkazein said...

BB proclaimed: "No need to promote fear. No one is going to prison."


Are you denying Obama-care excludes the Amish from penalty for not participating? Are you thinking everyone not wanting to be a part of Obama-care can convert to Amishism?
Are you thinking if one refuses to pay his fine, overseen by the IRS, nothing else happens?
By your comment, you agree if it is true, one should fear Obama-care. You just don't think it true. Is this correct?

Sarkazein said...

BB-

In case history rears it's ugly head again, remember Hillary-care mentioned jail over 50 times. Her bill was DOA. Obama-care probably is dead now. Democrats are running for cover.

Sarkazein said...

Two impossible things happened. Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator yesterday, and Sheila Jackass Lee ducked news cameras today.

Honest Debate said...

Bridle,

It's all in the video you are afraid to watch.

BikerBard said...

Sark:

Hilary was NOT elected president, Barack was (newsflash.)

You promote fear based on HILIARY???

You are really stretching it now.

Liberal POV said...

BB

Fear is what drives the current conservative movement. If you take fear away you find no plan for fixing anything. No political reform, no prison reform, no health care plan, no foreign policy plan, no plan for jobs that pay a living wage plan.
The shallow end of the think tank is the only world these people know.
The Heritage Foundation is more then happy to feed their fears.
The corporate royality depends on these folks to live poor and vote rich. I don't think many of the posters here're in the corporate royality.

Sarkazein said...

BB/POV-

Fear of socialism... it's a good thing.

BB- equate socialized health-care with loss of freedom as in jail, if you can't figure that one out on your own.
Would it have been any different if you served time from not abiding by Hillary-care or Obama-care?
Jail is Jail.
Next to come is jail for being obese...watch. Michelle AKA Wide-Ride has spoken.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"Fear of socialism... it's a good thing."

Capitalism without justice both legal and social justice has little to offer 75% of Americans.

The current wave of corporate greed by the corporate royalty with bonuses while Americans are losing jobs and wages is failed Capitalism.

America's lack of health care for 43 million citizens is failed capitalism.

America with one percent of the citizens behind bars is failed capitalism.

America with it's current drug addiction problem is failed capitalism.

The US capitalist need to fix the system in America.

What is the silly tea bag movement doing to fix the above problems? What plans do they have?

The tea baggers only plan is to hold power with fear.

Which of these countries do you consider Socialist?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Norway&countryCode=no&regionCode=eu&rank=5#no

Sarkazein said...

You're a pinko POV. That would be less typing for you. You can just write "I'm a pinko". It's like Dittos with Rush. It saves time, and says all those descriptive things.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Give us a lesson on the following.

What do you consider capitalism and what countries are capitalist? USA, Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, Mexico, China?

What do you consider Socialism? Is Corporate socialism socalism or just when a countries citizens have a social safety net? What Countries are socialist? USA, France, Cuba, Canada, UK, Israel ?

How do you define a pinko? Someone that believes in justice or disagrees with the current wave of corporate greed that lead to the Small Smiles torturing children for a huge profit?

What else will you justify in the name of capitalism?

bridle said...

LPOV - Sark has no ideas to talk about, he relies on the Joe McCarthy method of inventing a boogyman to blame for everything. Socialist! Socialist! Boooooooo.....

Sarkazein said...

Where' Joe McCarthy when you need him?

Sarkazein said...

s

Liberal POV said...

bridle

I want to here not only Sark's answer to the above questions but also the other fearful posters on his blog.

How do they define those questions?

BikerBard said...

Nice intellect, Sark. When you have run out of arguments, ridicule the features of Michele Obama. Nice arguments.

Bet YOU drooled over her more than once. And I'm SURE some women in YOUR family tree have a big caboose and have bent the branches.

bridle said...

LPOV - Good luck with that. Try just one question at a time. Sometimes that works.

Liberal POV said...

Bridle

That may mean they are thinking for a change.

I will restate the question to all so called conservatives

I would like to hear your answers to the following.


Each can answer one or all. Give us liberals a lesson in real capitalsim.

What do you consider capitalism and what countries are capitalist? USA, Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, Mexico, China?

What do you consider Socialism? Is Corporate socialism socalism or just when a countries citizens have a social safety net? What Countries are socialist? USA, France, Cuba, Canada, UK, Israel ?

How do you define a pinko? Someone that believes in justice or disagrees with the current wave of corporate greed that lead to the Small Smiles torturing low income children for profit?

What else will you justify in the name of capitalism?

Sarkazein said...

BB-

I am being kind to Wide Ride. Have you seen her new commercial for the Haiti relief, I think. HOLY COW!
She has on so much make-up, she had to have been dried in a tool oven. If she had tried an expression, there would have been after-shocks here. I hadn't seen anything like that since 1969 just off Bourbon Street at Madam Maya Angelou's Whore House.

Cameraman for all that's merciful, back off the close ups.

Sarkazein said...

POV asks-"What else will you justify in the name of capitalism?"


Your computer.

Sarkazein said...

Here, you decide. She's only able to blink once, and it's like slow motion. There is no expression, someone applied her make-up with a margin trowel.

EPOXY

Sarkazein said...

Definition of pinko



Overview of noun pinko

The noun pinko has 1 senses? (no senses from tagged texts)
1. pinko, pink
(a person with mildly leftist political views)
2. see POV

Liberal POV said...

Sark

Looking to change the subject?


I will restate the question to all so called conservatives

I would like to hear your answers to the following.

Each can answer one or all. Give us liberals a lesson in real capitalsim.

What do you consider capitalism and what countries are capitalist? USA, Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, Mexico, China?

What do you consider Socialism? Is Corporate socialism socalism or just when a countries citizens have a social safety net? What Countries are socialist? USA, France, Cuba, Canada, UK, Israel ?

How do you define a pinko? Someone that believes in justice or disagrees with the current wave of corporate greed that lead to the Small Smiles torturing low income children for profit?

What else will you justify in the name of capitalism?

Honest Debate said...

Lib,

You have not even made an attempt to answer the questions of the original post. Why would anyone answer yours?

Liberal POV said...

HD

"You have not even made an attempt to answer the questions of the original post. Why would anyone answer yours?"

Because you think you can.

Liberal POV said...

HD

I remind you we are 195 comments from the original post.

guy faulkes said...

I remind you we are 195 comments from the original post. - POV

And POV still cannot think of an on topic post. We continue to wait.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

You unable to address the following question logically also ?
Looking to change the subject?

Give us liberals a lesson in real capitalsim.

What do you consider capitalism and what countries are capitalist? USA, Canada, France, Sweden, Finland, Mexico, China?

What do you consider Socialism? Is Corporate socialism socalism or just when a countries citizens have a social safety net? What Countries are socialist? USA, France, Cuba, Canada, UK, Israel ?

How do you define a pinko? Someone that believes in justice or disagrees with the current wave of corporate greed that lead to the Small Smiles torturing low income children for profit?

What else will you justify in the name of capitalism?

Liberal POV said...

Conservatives

How will the new Supreme Court ruling allowing the corporate royalty even greater influence on elections and public opinion affect our freedom and lives?

Multi National Corporations already own 95% of the Republican Party and 30% of the Democrats or more.

Do these corporate giants work for America's interest or the executive officers income?
Will the be conserned about your families future?

Sarkazein said...

POV wrote- "Do these corporate giants work for America's interest or the executive officers income?
Will the be conserned about your families future?"

Ask Obama's 17%+ unemployed.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»