You don't deserve a republican congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only people I've ever seen claim that global warming is junk science are people who are not scientists. People who work in other areas for a living that are not connected to science.
Not trying to be underhanded at all. But to me it's like someone claiming to know everything there is to know about law because they've watched some Law and Order episodes.

Also, why is it whenever a scientist does say global warming is real, people instantly say it's junk, mainly because they don't agree with it?

Everyone puts out bogus stats, even the gun crowd. For example, the NRA will harp about Chicago having so many gun deaths after guns were made illegal. What they won't say is the number of handgun deaths went down drastically in Chicago after guns were made illegal.
Both sides stretch the truth on issues no matter what the issues are. The quest is to find common ground. I'm just saying I don't think either side of the global warming issue should just sit there and say the other side is full of crap.
There is not much doubt now that global warming is real. What is in doubt is whether it's caused by us, or just a natural earth cycle. I think it may just be another natural earth cycle. But to just dismiss it as junk science I think is arrogant.
As long as both sides of any debate remain arrogant and argumentative, nothing positive is ever going to be accomplished.
 
simple to answer...will my country fare better under the party of Dean-Kerry-moore?....doubt it...the difference, the Republicans need a cleansing...the Democrats need a burial....
 
I know youre having trouble with this, but there ISNT consensus about global warming. There are lots of people that disagree with you. Dont you get it?

We arent a bunch of neanderthals, we understand science very well. Our opinions are founded on
a) doubt of the science behind the global warming scare- almost completely unprovable theories- just like saying you believe in god or the tooth fairy- potentially true but unable to be proven one way or the other. Real scientists hate this sort of ****.
b) doubt of the political motives of the socialists that are using it to push things like Kyoto. All the communists became Greens after the cold war and it shows in their lobbying efforts. Kyoto amounted to a tax on american industrial activity and a payout to China, Russia, India and various other third world polluters.

From a distance it always sounds like well reasoned tree hugging, but when you take a close look at their claims it has always turned out to be an attack on private property and capitalism cloaked in a veil of pseudoscience.
 
I get it better than you do. I've studied this stuff for years. I know there isn't a consensus. But there are more and more scientists beginning to swing toward the side of the pro-gw theorists.

Like I said, I think it is a general earth cycle. The earth has had changes throughout its history. The fact that there are people here now doesn't change the cycles any. Humans did not exist on this planet when it started and we probably won't exist when it's finished. There's no favoritism toward the human race where nature is concerned. The tsunami and Katrina pretty much proved that. And, I know people very active in the g.w. movements, and to them, there reasons are just as legitimate as you think yours are. They're giving no thought at all to capitalism, much less to attacking it. They just want to see the earth cleaned up.

But again, the judgmental statement that all of their attacks are just to usurp capitalism.

I for one would rather try at least to attempt to prevent something than to ignore it, claim it's bull, and then find out somewhere down the road it was true and it's now too late.
 
As usual, it's the lesser of two weevils. Ruins the cornbread, though.

I don't want Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Or her buddies heading all those committees. I don't want Joe Biden running the Senate Judiciary Committee, with his buddies going along with all his anti-gun legislation.

"Time for a Change!", say the Dems.

Lessee: Unemployment at an all-time low. Stock market near its all-time high, benefitting that half of all households with owners of stocks, and benefitting anybody working within a retirement system.

Taxes are lowest since before Clinton. GDP is still growing. The federal budget deficit is being reduced.

Okay: So what do you want to change? You want higher taxes? More unemployment? A larger deficit? Contracting GDP? A crash in the stock market?

:), Art
 
Unemployment figures are misleading though. When someone has been unemployed for a certain period, they roll off of the statistics whether they've found work or not. Alot of people nationwide have either rolled off the stats or have jobs at Walmart or McDonalds making minimum wage.
I know several people from my ex job alone that are still unemployed.
 
Republicans (nationally) haven’t done much for RKBA and the 2nd. They let the AWB lapse and protected gun companies from lawsuits. That’s it folks. Six years and they passed one law.
Click to expand...

You have to pick battles worth fighting. It took two years to pass the Gun Manufacturers Protection thingy, because of the anti-gun amendments that it drew. Every time you raise the gun issue, the non-germane stuff is paraded, debated, and wastes time trying to get cloture on the debate. It's a time waster when there are other things on the agenda and a finite amount of time to deal with it all. It might be different if the rules allowed the process to be more productive.
 
Beerslurpy,

If you doubt the true motivation of the scientists who believe global warming is occurring, then you need to seriously doubt the motivation of those who say it is not occurring.

If you look closely at funding sources, many who deny global warming are receiving grants and money from major oil companies. I recently read a story of one of these groups. The received a large amount of money from Exxon each year. Both the group and Exxon said that the results were unbiased. But you have to wonder, if the scientists know what kind of results Exxon is looking for, and they don't give them that, will Exxon fund them next year?
 
A vote for anyone other than a Republican is a Democrat vote. Sure I would like to vote Libertarian, but I need about 50 million more voters to agree. Joe
 
View from a Democrat

One of the guys at work sent me this link (The Ornery American):
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html

It's a bit long.

He clarifies:

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
Click to expand...

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well.
Click to expand...

He makes a couple of salient points:

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.
Click to expand...

. . . and later . . .

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war.
Click to expand...

. . . and he makes a point of order:

However, there are several excellent reasons why "War on Terror" is the only possible name for this war.
Click to expand...

. . . and farther on, he highlights the past fiascos resulting from abandoning those who trusted us (Viet Nam, the first Iraq engagement), but goes on to say . . .

Fortunately, there are other lessons as well: West Germany and Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, where liberated nations were protected.
Click to expand...

. . . and goes on to expand on this.

His thoughts are . . . provoking. It's worth the read.
 
After listening to Limbaugh today, and his interview with Tony Snow, it's 3rd Party for me. I'm sick of this crap.

Good God...

Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top