Question

[George Whorewell]

It has been definitively established that global warming is a hoax. It is nothing more than exaggerated junk science plucked out of thin air by scientists and left wing intellectuals motivated by personal and political gain.

Yet nobody calls a spade a spade-- the green job hoax, the millions of dollars stolen by Obama donors-- the money wasting idiocy persists to this day.

It has been definitively established that the stimulus bills were failures. Notwithstanding the fact that nothing was actually accomplished, the stimulus bills ended up becoming political slush funds designed to keep public sector unions afloat and waste tax payer money. Despite the first failure, a second failure was legislatively enacted by the Democratic majority. Supporters included left wing economists and politicians motivated by personal and political gain.

Throw in healthcare-- cut and paste the above and include the fact that it is unconstitutional and we are 3 for 3.

Fast and furious: A radical leftists  wet dream backfires= manufacturing crimes on foreign soil with American assault rifles to garner support for curbing gun rights in the U.S.-- The only problem is that team Obama couldn't story board the outcome, do market research or calculate the result like a test study in a classroom. Hundreds of innocent people are dead as a result. To cover up the mess, the President is asserting executive privilege.

Going down the line from Obama's bungling of the arab spring, leaking classified information to the NYT, the Solyndra debacle etc.


At what point ( if ever) do Obama supporters take ownership of the fact that Obama's presidency has been a complete and utter disaster?  

[avxo]

It has been definitively established that global warming is a hoax. It is nothing more than exaggerated junk science plucked out of thin air by scientists and left wing intellectuals motivated by personal and political gain.

That's actually not entirely true. It has been established fairly concretely that there is a warming trend; what hasn't been established is whether and to what degree human activities are behind this warming trend.

Throw in healthcare-- cut and paste the above and include the fact that it is unconstitutional and we are 3 for 3.

I would be very interested in reading your detailed and no doubt ironclad analysis on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure it would have also been of interest to the Supreme Court; it may be a bit too late now, but you may still want to forward a copy of your seminal work to the Court anyway. If for no other reason, for posterity's sake and to show those fools how it's done.

[whork]

"The stimulus bills ended up becoming political slush funds designed to keep public sector unions afloat"


Yes the money to the Banks and Wall STreet went somehow to public unions


I know you are not that stupid George, does the GOP pay you to post these lies?

[Soul Crusher]

 .  Stim bill not the same thing as tarp jackass.

[whork]

.  Stim bill not the same thing as tarp jackass.

 

[andreisdaman]

It has been definitively established that global warming is a hoax. It is nothing more than exaggerated junk science plucked out of thin air by scientists and left wing intellectuals motivated by personal and political gain.

Yet nobody calls a spade a spade-- the green job hoax, the millions of dollars stolen by Obama donors-- the money wasting idiocy persists to this day.

It has been definitively established that the stimulus bills were failures. Notwithstanding the fact that nothing was actually accomplished, the stimulus bills ended up becoming political slush funds designed to keep public sector unions afloat and waste tax payer money. Despite the first failure, a second failure was legislatively enacted by the Democratic majority. Supporters included left wing economists and politicians motivated by personal and political gain.

Throw in healthcare-- cut and paste the above and include the fact that it is unconstitutional and we are 3 for 3.

Fast and furious: A radical leftists  wet dream backfires= manufacturing crimes on foreign soil with American assault rifles to garner support for curbing gun rights in the U.S.-- The only problem is that team Obama couldn't story board the outcome, do market research or calculate the result like a test study in a classroom. Hundreds of innocent people are dead as a result. To cover up the mess, the President is asserting executive privilege.

Going down the line from Obama's bungling of the arab spring, leaking classified information to the NYT, the Solyndra debacle etc.


At what point ( if ever) do Obama supporters take ownership of the fact that Obama's presidency has been a complete and utter disaster?  

Lets take it one by one.....hopefully this won't descend into name-calling....I think your post was a good one....not factual in a sense because the events you talk of have actually happened, but the spin you put on them is not entirely accurate....

I don't think it has been DEFINITIVELY established that global warming is a hoax as you say...thats a strong word....As Whork pointed out there is an UNMISTAKABLE WARMING TREND that no sane person can deny...the people who deny this trend are those who don't want to spend money to take steps to help reverse this trend......thats why they fight so vehemently against it..it comes down to corporations not wanting to spend money...

The supposed green job hoax you talk about is just a good try by Obama and the govt to help grow the solar industry so we can hopefully someday have unlimited sources of power and stop relying on foreign oil and dirty energies like coal.....This is a worthy goal...expensive...but worthy....also its about gaining control of the energy industry ....who would you prefer to be in control of this industry?..us or the chinese?..  Gov't invests money in new technologies every day....somehow, Obama is vilified for doing what other presidents have done for decades...

The stimulus bill was perceived to be a failure and probably was because the public perceived that the quarter of a trillion dollars we spent would pull us out of recession right away and it didn't....blame the politicians and economists for selling us a dream....blame Obama for this if you want....but the good thing is the money did wind up saving jobs in the states....not its intended purpose but......something good came out of it..

Healthcare bill could turn out to be a failure.....the jury is out yet....the cost is high, but the goal was actually met...almost everyone in America will have healthcare insurance.....which is a worthy goal...we have to take care of everyone healthwise..we are too rich a nation not to....and having people go untreated or go to emergency rooms is SUPER EXPENSIVE...the bill is not perfect but it slows down the runaway costs that were going to happen anyway..

Fast and Furious was dumb...but it started in the BUSH administration......Obam a inherited it....I think he was so pre-occupied by the economy he and others took their eye off the ball and did not supervise the program properly....but you guys present this program as if it was Obama's idea....

So I pose the question back to you..at what point do you stop blaming Obama for everything and THINK?

[George Whorewell]

That's actually not entirely true. It has been established fairly concretely that there is a warming trend; what hasn't been established is whether and to what degree human activities are behind this warming trend.


I would be very interested in reading your detailed and no doubt ironclad analysis on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure it would have also been of interest to the Supreme Court; it may be a bit too late now, but you may still want to forward a copy of your seminal work to the Court anyway. If for no other reason, for posterity's sake and to show those fools how it's done.

Splitting hairs over the precise term used to describe the left wing propaganda campaign designed to control our lives and make life more inconvenient for human beings can be called climate change, global warming-- whatever your heart desires.

  The vast majority of co2 emissions on earth originate from livestock flatulence. That is a demonstrable fact. The considerable number of leaked emails from the top "global warming" experts reveal that numbers were made up, exaggerated, ignored and conclusions were reached based on assumptions without any basis in fact. Please do a little bit of critical reading on this topic before commenting.

The two Federal judges who struck down the law already have already issued detailed, ironclad decisions on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.  I suggest that you educate yourself on the topic before commenting on things you don't understand.

[OzmO]

Green science seems money motivated not enviromenally motivated. 

[whork]

Lets take it one by one.....hopefully this won't descend into name-calling....I think your post was a good one....not factual in a sense because the events you talk of have actually happened, but the spin you put on them is not entirely accurate....

I don't think it has been DEFINITIVELY established that global warming is a hoax as you say...thats a strong word....As Whork pointed out there is an UNMISTAKABLE WARMING TREND that no sane person can deny...the people who deny this trend are those who don't want to spend money to take steps to help reverse this trend......thats why they fight so vehemently against it..it comes down to corporations not wanting to spend money...

The supposed green job hoax you talk about is just a good try by Obama and the govt to help grow the solar industry so we can hopefully someday have unlimited sources of power and stop relying on foreign oil and dirty energies like coal.....This is a worthy goal...expensive...but worthy....also its about gaining control of the energy industry ....who would you prefer to be in control of this industry?..us or the chinese?..  Gov't invests money in new technologies every day....somehow, Obama is vilified for doing what other presidents have done for decades...

The stimulus bill was perceived to be a failure and probably was because the public perceived that the quarter of a trillion dollars we spent would pull us out of recession right away and it didn't....blame the politicians and economists for selling us a dream....blame Obama for this if you want....but the good thing is the money did wind up saving jobs in the states....not its intended purpose but......something good came out of it..

Healthcare bill could turn out to be a failure.....the jury is out yet....the cost is high, but the goal was actually met...almost everyone in America will have healthcare insurance.....which is a worthy goal...we have to take care of everyone healthwise..we are too rich a nation not to....and having people go untreated or go to emergency rooms is SUPER EXPENSIVE...the bill is not perfect but it slows down the runaway costs that were going to happen anyway..

Fast and Furious was dumb...but it started in the BUSH administration......Obam a inherited it....I think he was so pre-occupied by the economy he and others took their eye off the ball and did not supervise the program properly....but you guys present this program as if it was Obama's idea....

So I pose the question back to you..at what point do you stop blaming Obama for everything and THINK?

Good post

[whork]

"left wing propaganda campaign designed to control our lives and make life more inconvenient for human beings can be called climate change, global warming"


Yes they made up this theory just for that, there was no easier way

[Soul Crusher]

Good post

False moron -  Wide Receiver had nothing to do w Fast and Furious. 

You pieces of shit who still kneepad obama are clueless on this.   

[andreisdaman]

False moron -  Wide Receiver had nothing to do w Fast and Furious. 

You pieces of shit who still kneepad obama are clueless on this.   

Wide Receiver was the mother of Fast and Furious....in Wide Receiver, guns were allowed to be sold to Mexican gangs just as in Fast and Furious.......so this stupid program was developed by Bush and the program morphed into something really stupid under Obama....which is his fault......

[Soul Crusher]

Wide Receiver was the mother of Fast and Furious....in Wide Receiver, guns were allowed to be sold to Mexican gangs just as in Fast and Furious.......so this stupid program was developed by Bush and the program morphed into something really stupid under Obama....which is his fault......

Bullshit - the gins NEVER left the sight of the ATF and never were allowed to cross the border.   Mexico was made fully aware of this and acted with us in this,. 


Undwer Fast and furious, the opposite occured. 

[avxo]

Splitting hairs over the precise term used to describe the left wing propaganda campaign designed to control our lives and make life more inconvenient for human beings can be called climate change, global warming-- whatever your heart desires.

I don't care about the term used. I care about the facts. And the facts are that there is a clear warming trend that is evident. That's not at issue. At issue is one question: why is there a warming trend and what will the repercussions of warming be, if there are any? That is, what mechanisms, natural or not, are currently operating that are causing the warning trend? Are those mechanisms part of something cyclical? What will it mean for our planet and for the ecosystem upon which we rely on to survive?

None of those questions, per se, are political. They are legitimate questions that everyone, regardless of political party, should want answered. That we have managed to take a purely scientific issue and turn it into a political circus speaks volumes about the games that the politicos - of all colors - play.

The vast majority of co2 emissions on earth originate from livestock flatulence. That is a demonstrable fact. The considerable number of leaked emails from the top "global warming" experts reveal that numbers were made up, exaggerated, ignored and conclusions were reached based on assumptions without any basis in fact. Please do a little bit of critical reading on this topic before commenting.

Of course the majority of CO₂ is from livestock flatulence. Did I ever suggest otherwise? As a matter of fact did I ever mention CO₂ in my post at all? While the top "global warming" experts seem to have interpreted and extrapolated data poorly (and believe me, most people - even most mathematicians - aren't well-versed in the mathematics necessary to do proper data analysis) and others seem to have relied on these poor results as the basis for further research I've yet to see a smoking gun that conclusively proves that they outright manufactured the data out of thin air towards some nefarious purpose. Is it possible that they did? Sure. I'm just not convinced that's the case.

The two Federal judges who struck down the law already have already issued detailed, ironclad decisions on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.  I suggest that you educate yourself on the topic before commenting on things you don't understand.

Actually, I'd hardly call either of those decisions ironclad. One is well-reasoned, the other not so much. But even the well-reasoned one isn't ironclad. At any rate it's up to the supremes now. As for commenting on things I don't understand... I'm afraid that I could never hope to match your legal acumen and extensive education on the subject. What law school did you graduate from again?

[George Whorewell]

I don't care about the term used. I care about the facts. And the facts are that there is a clear warming trend that is evident. That's not at issue. At issue is one question: why is there a warming trend and what will the repercussions of warming be, if there are any? That is, what mechanisms, natural or not, are currently operating that are causing the warning trend? Are those mechanisms part of something cyclical? What will it mean for our planet and for the ecosystem upon which we rely on to survive?

None of those questions, per se, are political. They are legitimate questions that everyone, regardless of political party, should want answered. That we have managed to take a purely scientific issue and turn it into a political circus speaks volumes about the games that the politicos - of all colors - play.


Of course the majority of CO₂ is from livestock flatulence. Did I ever suggest otherwise? As a matter of fact did I ever mention CO₂ in my post at all? While the top "global warming" experts seem to have interpreted and extrapolated data poorly (and believe me, most people - even most mathematicians - aren't well-versed in the mathematics necessary to do proper data analysis) and others seem to have relied on these poor results as the basis for further research I've yet to see a smoking gun that conclusively proves that they outright manufactured the data out of thin air towards some nefarious purpose. Is it possible that they did? Sure. I'm just not convinced that's the case.


Actually, I'd hardly call either of those decisions ironclad. One is well-reasoned, the other not so much. But even the well-reasoned one isn't ironclad. At any rate it's up to the supremes now. As for commenting on things I don't understand... I'm afraid that I could never hope to match your legal acumen and extensive education on the subject. What law school did you graduate from again?

Brooklyn Law School. June 2009. And yourself?

Feel free to skim my numerous thread contributions on this board. I have explained legal issues that span everything from the Patriot Act to personal injury. While I certainly don't need to prove anything to an "all knowing" internet intellectual such as yourself-- please enlighten me. 

[andreisdaman]

Brooklyn Law School. June 2009. And yourself?

Feel free to skim my numerous thread contributions on this board. I have explained legal issues that span everything from the Patriot Act to personal injury. While I certainly don't need to prove anything to an "all knowing" internet intellectual such as yourself-- please enlighten me. 

I wouldn't exactly call your posts "contributions"

[avxo]

Brooklyn Law School. June 2009. And yourself?

Pretty cool. I don't have a law degree although I find the subject of law in general to be fascinating and try to keep myself up to date with legal developments in certain areas of law related to my work.

Feel free to skim my numerous thread contributions on this board. I have explained legal issues that span everything from the Patriot Act to personal injury. While I certainly don't need to prove anything to an "all knowing" internet intellectual such as yourself-- please enlighten me. 

I never claimed to be "all knowing" - far from it, I subscribe to the school of thought that says "the more you know, the more you know you don't know." And no, you do not need to prove anything to me or anyone else for that matter. As for your posting history, I don't feel particularly inclined to research it - and don't know what I could expect to gain from such an endeavor anyway - but I will take your word that you explained a wide range of legal issues; I will even assume you've done so expertly. But if you go around making outlandish claims like "decision X is ironclad" you should expect to get called out on it, even if the call-out is from a non-lawyer.

Although each Circuit is independent and one Circuit's decision isn't binding on the other Circuits, I think the fact that there's a Circuit split is, in itself, evidence that the rulings - on either side - aren't quite as persuasive and ironclad as you suggest they are. The almost unprecedented amount of oral arguments that the Court scheduled also hints that the issue is contentious and that no decision was quite as ironclad as you suggest.

Not a bad retort for a non-lawyer, internet intellectual methinks!

[Hugo Chavez]

Brooklyn Law School. June 2009. And yourself?

Feel free to skim my numerous thread contributions on this board. I have explained legal issues that span everything from the Patriot Act to personal injury. While I certainly don't need to prove anything to an "all knowing" internet intellectual such as yourself-- please enlighten me.  

OMFG
cheers to you...

[George Whorewell]

Pretty cool. I don't have a law degree although I find the subject of law in general to be fascinating and try to keep myself up to date with legal developments in certain areas of law related to my work.


I never claimed to be "all knowing" - far from it, I subscribe to the school of thought that says "the more you know, the more you know you don't know." And no, you do not need to prove anything to me or anyone else for that matter. As for your posting history, I don't feel particularly inclined to research it - and don't know what I could expect to gain from such an endeavor anyway - but I will take your word that you explained a wide range of legal issues; I will even assume you've done so expertly. But if you go around making outlandish claims like "decision X is ironclad" you should expect to get called out on it, even if the call-out is from a non-lawyer.

Although each Circuit is independent and one Circuit's decision isn't binding on the other Circuits, I think the fact that there's a Circuit split is, in itself, evidence that the rulings - on either side - aren't quite as persuasive and ironclad as you suggest they are. The almost unprecedented amount of oral arguments that the Court scheduled also hints that the issue is contentious and that no decision was quite as ironclad as you suggest.

Not a bad retort for a non-lawyer, internet intellectual methinks!

I think that I should have qualified my initial comments to illustrate why I believe the reasoning behind the circuit court rulings are iron clad. Perhaps iron clad is a bit strong-- but in my opinion, the logic behind the two holdings in question cannot be seriously disputed based on a common sense understanding of the constitution.

To me, a holding isn’t politicized unless the ruling itself is based upon spurious legal analysis.  If the judges in a particular circuit are forced to turn the constitution on its head to reach the outcome most commensurate with the political leanings of the court, I cannot give the ruling any serious esteem.

With that said, if a ruling is supported by a sound and objective legal analysis and should happen to favor a particular side of the ideological spectrum, so be it. At that point, the outcome is happenstance rather than judicial activism.  In such instances, the personal politics of the judges on the bench do not conflict with the constitution. In fact, they are one in the same.  

Quantity is no substitute for quality. And if you tuned in to watch the oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, the arguments advanced by the government were embarrassing to watch.  

The two circuit court decisions which call the constitutionality of Obamacare into question are not based on mere political rhetoric or GOP talking points. Both holdings are buttressed by fundamental legal principles and explained through demonstrable fact. The other circuit court rulings in support of Obamacare are based on an understanding of the constitution that is somewhere between erroneous and intellectually dishonest.

[George Whorewell]

OMFG
cheers to you...

Thanks.

[Shockwave]

My question here -
The earth goes through warming/cooling trends on a huge scale throughout its history, yes?

So why are people freaking the fuck out that were on a warming trend, which, for all we know, is perfectly natural for the planet? I mean, the Earth operates on a scale so massive that we can barely comprehend it, yet we are FREAKING OUT about shit that very well could be perfectly normal.

Ive always wondered why we humans think so highly of ourselves to think that were capable of destroying the planet with our gasses. Pretty sure the earth has seen much worse, and its still around.

[240 is Back]

people like Obama, Mitt, Gore, Palin, Pelos, Newt = are morons who believed in global warming being manmade at one point.

Some of them have flip flopped.  They're all assclowns, as is anyone who supports such tomfoolery.

[avxo]

I think that I should have qualified my initial comments to illustrate why I believe the reasoning behind the circuit court rulings are iron clad. Perhaps iron clad is a bit strong-- but in my opinion, the logic behind the two holdings in question cannot be seriously disputed based on a common sense understanding of the constitution.

Fair enough, I understand what you mean.

With that said, if a ruling is supported by a sound and objective legal analysis and should happen to favor a particular side of the ideological spectrum, so be it. At that point, the outcome is happenstance rather than judicial activism.  In such instances, the personal politics of the judges on the bench do not conflict with the constitution. In fact, they are one in the same.  

Absolutely. We agree a hundred percent on that.

Quantity is no substitute for quality. And if you tuned in to watch the oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, the arguments advanced by the government were embarrassing to watch.  

Verilli's performance was pretty bad (although he did seem to find his stride later in the argument). I was actually surprised at the way the oral arguments went. I didn't think anyone quite expected the Justices to ignore the whole broccoli thing as completely as they did.

The two circuit court decisions which call the constitutionality of Obamacare into question are not based on mere political rhetoric or GOP talking points. Both holdings are buttressed by fundamental legal principles and explained through demonstrable fact. The other circuit court rulings in support of Obamacare are based on an understanding of the constitution that is somewhere between erroneous and intellectually dishonest.

One thing is for sure. The decision will make for an interesting read.

My question here -
The earth goes through warming/cooling trends on a huge scale throughout its history, yes?

So why are people freaking the fuck out that were on a warming trend, which, for all we know, is perfectly natural for the planet? I mean, the Earth operates on a scale so massive that we can barely comprehend it, yet we are FREAKING OUT about shit that very well could be perfectly normal.

People freak out all the time. That's not important. What's important is for us to understand what is happening so that can determine what, if anything, must be done.

Ive always wondered why we humans think so highly of ourselves to think that were capable of destroying the planet with our gasses. Pretty sure the earth has seen much worse, and its still around.

Because in a sense we can. And, what's worse, we have in the past: large releases of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere over a period of years resulted in severe ozone depletion, an indisputable fact. The depletion of the ozone layer had and continues to have serious consequences.

Are we the cause of global warming? Who knows. But we are responsible to some extent - whether that is small or large is unknown. But it is a topic we should examine and be concerned about. To answer your question more directly: can we completely destroy the planet? No, probably not. But we don't need to. All we need to do is fuck things up enough to make the planet unable to sustain human life. And that's exactly why we need to study these things objectively and without partisan blinders and political intervention.

[Shockwave]

Fair enough, I understand what you mean.


Absolutely. We agree a hundred percent on that.


Verilli's performance was pretty bad (although he did seem to find his stride later in the argument). I was actually surprised at the way the oral arguments went. I didn't think anyone quite expected the Justices to ignore the whole broccoli thing as completely as they did.


One thing is for sure. The decision will make for an interesting read.


People freak out all the time. That's not important. What's important is for us to understand what is happening so that can determine what, if anything, must be done.


Because in a sense we can. And, what's worse, we have in the past: large releases of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere over a period of years resulted in severe ozone depletion, an indisputable fact. The depletion of the ozone layer had and continues to have serious consequences.

Are we the cause of global warming? Who knows. But we are responsible to some extent - whether that is small or large is unknown. But it is a topic we should examine and be concerned about. To answer your question more directly: can we completely destroy the planet? No, probably not. But we don't need to. All we need to do is fuck things up enough to make the planet unable to sustain human life. And that's exactly why we need to study these things objectively and without partisan blinders and political intervention.

I think you missed my point. My point was, what are we really concerned about?
You nailed it in your post - supporting HUMAN life.

IMHO, there is no way we can make the planet inhospitable to life. Life as we know it? Yes. But not life, as a whole.

It seems to me most of these people are concerned not with Human life, but us destroying the planet, which to me makes no sense, as the planet is constantly changing, nature is constantly stomping lifeforms out of existance and new ones are constantly adapting and evolving, even if we manage to put a hole in the ozone layer, some new form of life will adapt to the situation and live on.

My main point was the people I know that are freaking out are people concerned that were somehow going to kill all life on the earth, and that simply isnt going to happen.
However, Im not overly concerned for the human race, as its only a matter of time until were wiped out by something anyway. Seems like most people are concerned with trying to "freeze" time, pause the earth at this particular moment (infintismal in the lifespan of the earth) so that all current life can live on, which is a fools errand.

I guess its a negative way of looking at things, but it seems to me our time is going to end someday anyway, and in the long run, all this environmental bullshit matters not.

[avxo]

I think you missed my point. My point was, what are we really concerned about?
You nailed it in your post - supporting HUMAN life.

And that is at it should be.

IMHO, there is no way we can make the planet inhospitable to life. Life as we know it? Yes. But not life, as a whole.

A few dozen nuclear detonations at the right altitude and we can. And without too much effort. With cars? Maybe that will take a bit more work

 

My main point was the people I know that are freaking out are people concerned that were somehow going to kill all life on the earth, and that simply isnt going to happen.

I don't think that you should be as confident in that statement as you apparently are. It's unlikely we can hurt the planet with cars. But it's not impossible.

However, Im not overly concerned for the human race, as its only a matter of time until were wiped out by something anyway. Seems like most people are concerned with trying to "freeze" time, pause the earth at this particular moment (infintismal in the lifespan of the earth) so that all current life can live on, which is a fools errand.

I think that's a silly argument for a couple of reasons: first, unlike all other forms of life that we are aware of at this time, we are in a unique situation to shape our own future and our own destiny and avoid the inevitable wipe out that's right around the corner. Second, even if we ignore the first point, it would be silly for us to hasten to terminate our collective existence just because it is bound to terminate at some point.

I guess its a negative way of looking at things, but it seems to me our time is going to end someday anyway, and in the long run, all this environmental bullshit matters not.

I don't buy the "in the long run we'll all be dead" type of arguments. Even if that's the case, there's something to be said about our quality of life today when we're alive and not dead. Under the mentality you advocate, perhaps we should turn Yellowstone into a garbage dump. Sure, we could enjoy the pristine nature now, but why? After all, what's the point? It's going to end someday too...