If you're still undecided

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VJcrg6A1TtE

[BanginJimmy]

For the most part I like Paul, but in some areas we simply dont agree. I dont agree with his stance on Iraq and Afghanistan specificly.

I certainly wouldnt worry as much about this country as I will be if the idiot squatting in the Whore House isnt replaced.

[.blank cd]

The only relatively sane one there. I'm still going to vote for Obama this time around. I'd like to see what he gets done when he doesn't have to worry about re-election. Already looks like he's making good on the promise to end the wars as they announced today it's definitely winding down in Iraq.

[Vteckidd]

Pauls a loon. His stance on foreign policy is rediculous, his stance on entitlements is suicide, too many bad things. I would take him over Obama, but hes not even going to be close to getting the nomination

[BanginJimmy]

I'm still going to vote for Obama this time around.


We knew you were voting for Obama. Not only is he black, he is a democrat.

Your vote doesnt count though because you live in GA. GA is going to the GOP candidate. Just like we already know New York is going to Dem candidate, Obama in this election, whatever dem runs in the next election.

Let me know if you want to hear my views on Electoral College reform.


I'd like to see what he gets done when he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Wasnt the first time around bad enough?

GOP will probably own the Senate and definitely the House after this election though so it will be nothing but more gridlock.





Already looks like he's making good on the promise to end the wars as they announced today it's definitely winding down in Iraq.

Getting us out of Iraq, which makes sense considering all the political BS that is leaving the troops hanging in the wind with no real mission. That part isnt just Obama though. Bush screwed the pooch just as bad on that one. Asscrackistan is heading to the same fate. Political leadership doesnt have the will to actually win the fight.

Dont forget that he just tossed troops into Africa though so we can say he is adding another small war to make up for Iraq.

Too bad he has ignored all of the promises he made.

Deficit cut in half by the end of his 1st term? Nope, deficit quadrupled.
Close Gotmo by Jan.10? Still opening and running at full throttle.
Unemployment below 8%? 9.1% and holding. Probably going to 9.2% next month though.

[BanginJimmy]

Pauls a loon. His stance on foreign policy is rediculous, his stance on entitlements is suicide, too many bad things. I would take him over Obama, but hes not even going to be close to getting the nomination


His foreign policy is where I draw the line on him. I really do like his monetary policy though.

[Sinfix_15]

I almost want to vote for Cain just because a black guy may be the only way to get another black guy out of office. Black people would vote for Obama no matter what he said or did.

i dont know too much about Cain, from seeing him on TV he seems to be an alright guy. Doesnt appear to have much experience....... but can it get any worse?

[BanginJimmy]

Black people would vote for Obama no matter what he said or did.


Blacks vote Dem for this same reason. They are simply brainwashed into thinking dems are good for them. After more than half of century of this thinking, blacks are no better off than they were.

[Sinfix_15]

Blacks vote Dem for this same reason. They are simply brainwashed into thinking dems are good for them. After more than half of century of this thinking, blacks are no better off than they were.

yeah, but saying that makes us racist. Even if 99% of blacks vote for Obama and 1% claimed they checked the wrong box... its YOU who is the racist.

[BanginJimmy]

Something I didnt know until recently, It was the GOP that got the civil rights bill passed in 1964. It was southern dems that filibustered it for 57 days in the Senate. It was also 2 dem committee chairmen that nearly killed the bill before it ever made it out of committee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


I wonder what the responses would be if we went downtown and asked what party got the Civil Rights Act passed?

[.blank cd]

I wonder what the responses would be if we went downtown and asked what party got the Civil Rights Act passed?
Smart people would say republicans, even smarter people would say that the GOP of that era was a far cry from the crazy lot they call GOP today. Back then they were actually........



...


...Progressive

[Vteckidd]

id be careful to classify all black people as democrats and be careful the language you use. It just furthers the stereotype that GOP people are racists (which i do not believe).

Personally, Obama will get the black vote, but not nearly in the capacity he did last time around. I dont hold it against him because blacks traditionally vote dem anyway. And i see nothing wrong with people voting for someone in the party they were going to vote for him anyway , and came out because he was the same skin tone.

there were people that voted mcain simply because they didnt WANT a black person in the white house (although far fewer of those loons).

I like to keep race out of it, because it is not a race question for me. Its a policy question. I do not like Obamas POLICIES, has nothing to do with his skin tone. I didnt agree with Becks observation that he had a deep seeded hatred for white people. I thought that was disengenious. I think Obama just fundamentally, like the OWS people, dont understand government and its role, and the private sector and its role. period.

hes used to getting his way, and when he doesnt, he gets angry, and his only refuge is to villify the other party. But thats what he is used to, chicago style politics.

I find it funny he gets the black vote because he didnt live the so called "black experience". Hes not from the hood or the streets, hes a privledged HALF WHITE Harvard lawyer. Hes not some guy that fought the struggle and came up. He lived the very lifestyle that the OWS hate.

Gingrich is the person who has my vote right now with Cain a close second. Cain would have been my top choice until he flip flopped on his 9-9-9 plan today.

Gingrich is clearly the most substantive person in the field, and he will prob NOT get the nomination.

[.blank cd]

Gingrich totally lost all my respect after he was preaching up there about not wanting atheists in a position of power.

Cain doesn't believe in climate change, and his 9.99 pizza plan tax is regressive.

...and that's the sane bunch....

[BanginJimmy]

Gingrich totally lost all my respect after he was preaching up there about not wanting atheists in a position of power.

You have to remember that this is a GOP debate. Just like any other same party debate, candidates speak loudest to the base.


Cain doesn't believe in climate change, and his 9.99 pizza plan tax is regressive.

Man-made climate change is a joke at this point. The so called science behind it is garbage and there have been several cases where scientists with an agenda ignored and changed data to support their theories.


I like the 9-9-9 plan even though I think he should run on the fairtax and use the 9-9-9 plan as a bridge. I would even be OK with a 2 tier income tax on it. Something along the lines of 4% for those making under 100k and 12% for those making more. No deductions, in incentives, no nothing. Just a flat 4 and 12% rate. Its about time those at the bottom pay something, even though it wont be their fair share.

[Vteckidd]

Gingrich totally lost all my respect after he was preaching up there about not wanting atheists in a position of power.

no such thing as a perfect candidate, and Gingrich isnt "super christian" like bachman and i dont believe he would try to force his views on us. So thats fine. For the record i disagreed with Cain saying he would have a different vetting process for people who were muslim on his staff. I dont believe in that either.

Gingrich is clearly the smartest person on the economy and economic policies plus he has proven he can do what no one else can, compromise.


Cain doesn't believe in climate change, and his 9.99 pizza plan tax is regressive.

...and that's the sane bunch....

youre insane if you believe in climate change IMO, and his 9-9-9 plan was exactly what this country needs. Its not regressive , but i understand you would say that because its prob something you saw Rachel Maddow spout off.

i have no problem making everyone pay taxes, some portion, because that is what is truly THE FAIR SHARE.

When he changed it to 9-0-9 he lost me

[Sinfix_15]

Gingrich totally lost all my respect after he was preaching up there about not wanting atheists in a position of power.

Cain doesn't believe in climate change, and his 9.99 pizza plan tax is regressive.

...and that's the sane bunch....

Global warming is a legitimate problem. If we reduce our emissions over the next 3-4-5 million years, we might negate the effects of 1 volcano. Thats progress.

[alpine_aw11]

So you guys honestly think all the shit we've been carelessly pumping into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has no effect on our climate? I think it's definitely exaggerated but just not believing in it sounds insanely biased to me.

[Sinfix_15]

So you guys honestly think all the shit we've been carelessly pumping into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has no effect on our climate? I think it's definitely exaggerated but just not believing in it sounds insanely biased to me.

The dinosaurs should have sold their suburbans and started car pooling in a prius.

[.blank cd]

Global warming is a legitimate problem. If we reduce our emissions over the next 3-4-5 million years, we might negate the effects of 1 volcano. Thats progress.Are you being really serious right now? For your sake I hope you're trolling. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

Are you being really serious right now? For your sake I hope you're trolling. Lol

i just dont want my gasoline to be taken away.:no:

[bu villain]

yeah, but saying that makes us racist. Even if 99% of blacks vote for Obama and 1% claimed they checked the wrong box... its YOU who is the racist.

Haha actually that's pretty much a textbook racist statement. You are lumping all blacks into the same group and saying they all act the same way based on their race. Now you may be right for some percentage of blacks but that doesn't mean you can apply a blanket statement to all of them.

[bu villain]

youre insane if you believe in climate change IMO

Yeah because we know better than all these stupid scientists with their scientific method and peer review right? I mean seriously, when have scientists ever been right about anything?


his 9-9-9 plan was exactly what this country needs. Its not regressive , but i understand you would say that because its prob something you saw Rachel Maddow spout off.

I thought we had already been over this. The 9-9-9 plan is regressive..period. If you want to blame someone for this, you can blame Merriam and Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regressive

[Vteckidd]

Yeah because we know better than all these stupid scientists with their scientific method and peer review right? I mean seriously, when have scientists ever been right about anything?

the scientists have been proven to be in bed with the corporations you so despise to make money off this. its a liberal farce and a scam. there is no conclusive evidence its even true. For every scientist that says it exists theres 10 that say it doesnt. For every scientist that says global warming, there is 10 that point to the cooling we have expeerienced.

So now, its not true IMO and its not true because it cant be proven, and there is TONS of corporate and GOVT money behind it. Its an agenda, its not based on anything real.




I thought we had already been over this. The 9-9-9 plan is regressive..period. If you want to blame someone for this, you can blame Merriam and Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regressive

I love how people like you want to force the rich to pay more in taxes, but when someone comes up with a plan to make the 50% of this country who pay ZERO IN TAXES put some skin in the game , its dismissed as "regressive".

I dont know whats so hard to understand. If you pay 35% now, you pay less. If you pay 0% in income taxes, you now pay 9%. Everyone now PAYS THEIR FAIR SHARE, from the millionaire to the poor house. How is that not fair? but your guys idea of "fair" can be translated into "you pay for everything i want".

[alpine_aw11]

i just dont want my gasoline to be taken away.:no:

Trust me bro, I feel you on that. I'm not balls deep in the hype Al Gore style or anything but I do certainly believe we have been harming the environment. How much we can actually do about it is definitely questionable though.

[.blank cd]

Climate change is happening, it doesn't take a scientist to prove it (even though it's been shown in independent studies) Climate change has been happening since the beginning of time, and with the discovery of fossil fuels it's been happening at an accelerated rate.

And there is absolutely no one in this country that pays ZERO taxes. That's a conservative talking point that's been proven false. Stop spreading it.

[.blank cd]

And this tax plan. LOL...

If you take the multi millionaire that makes $10 mil a year, who is paying 20% in income tax, that's $2 mil, then you make him pay 9%, which ends up being almost 1 mil. This guy probably works on wall street and lives in NYC, where sales tax is now 10%, after the 9.99 plan it's 9%. Another hefty break. Provided he spends half of his 8.1 mil on goods/taxable services, that's another $100k tax break. That's a $1.1+ million dollar tax break

And the rich say they hate handouts. LOL.

Now you take the kid who is getting paid just below the current tax bracket, let's say $4k. After the 9.99 plan, he gets taxed on 9%. That's almost $400. Since he's poor and lives in NY, he's probably going to spend most of the remainder on goods/services, so he saves $40 bucks. If he lives in GA, he'll pay an extra $120 in sales taxes.

And the rich say they want to bring the bottom up. LOL

This is what we call a regressive tax. Now if I could buy a house and a car and live comfortably off of 4 grand, I wouldn't really give a damn about this plan, but as the value of the dollar sits (as its plummeting anyway) this is impossible.

[Browning151]

And there is absolutely no one in this country that pays ZERO taxes. That's a conservative talking point that's been proven false. Stop spreading it.

Since you seem to have the numbers nailed down on the post below about the 9-9-9 plan, let's see your numbers on this.


And this tax plan. LOL...

If you take the multi millionaire that makes $10 mil a year, who is paying 20% in income tax, that's $2 mil, then you make him pay 9%, which ends up being almost 1 mil. This guy probably works on wall street and lives in NYC, where sales tax is now 10%, after the 9.99 plan it's 9%. Another hefty break. Provided he spends half of his 8.1 mil on goods/taxable services, that's another $100k tax break. That's a $1.1+ million dollar tax break

And the rich say they hate handouts. LOL.

Now you take the kid who is getting paid just below the current tax bracket, let's say $4k. After the 9.99 plan, he gets taxed on 9%. That's almost $400. Since he's poor and lives in NY, he's probably going to spend most of the remainder on goods/services, so he saves $40 bucks. If he lives in GA, he'll pay an extra $120 in sales taxes.

And the rich say they want to bring the bottom up. LOL

This is what we call a regressive tax. Now if I could buy a house and a car and live comfortably off of 4 grand, I wouldn't really give a damn about this plan, but as the value of the dollar sits (as its plummeting anyway) this is impossible.

I love how the left preaches "fair share", but when someone proposes a tax that EVERYONE pays the same percent across the board, suddenly it's unfair. So what is it? EVERYONE pays, or the top pays for everyone?

[.blank cd]

I love how the left preaches "fair share", but when someone proposes a tax that EVERYONE pays the same percent across the board, suddenly it's unfair. So what is it? EVERYONE pays, or the top pays for everyone?So "fair share" is YOU (yes you Browning) paying most of your income while the 1% pays a sliver of theirs? LOL. If you wanna pay more taxes, feel free to write the govt a check (as the right always say. Lol)

[Browning151]

So "fair share" is YOU (yes you Browning) paying most of your income while the 1% pays a sliver of theirs? LOL. If you wanna pay more taxes, feel free to write the govt a check (as the right always say. Lol)

Just part of the definition from MW:
marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

Free from favoritism.......hmmmmm.......our current tax code shows plenty of favoritism, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS between the bottom that pays none and the top that has plenty of loopholes. So I have a hard time seeing a problem with everyone paying the same percent, top to bottom. The top looses the loopholes, and the bottom actually has to pay something.

Fair share to me is EVERYONE paying the same across the board, 9% is hardly most of my income. What exactly do you see as fair, since everyone paying the same percent of tax doesn't seem to cut it.


Also, I'm not seeing any numbers from you on the first part of my post......

[.blank cd]

Just part of the definition from MW:
marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

Free from favoritism.......hmmmmm.......our current tax code shows plenty of favoritism, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS between the bottom that pays none and the top that has plenty of loopholes. So I have a hard time seeing a problem with everyone paying the same percent, top to bottom. The top looses the loopholes, and the bottom actually has to pay something.

Fair share to me is EVERYONE paying the same across the board, 9% is hardly most of my income. What exactly do you see as fair, since everyone paying the same percent of tax doesn't seem to cut it.


Also, I'm not seeing any numbers from you on the first part of my post......
You mean numbers for the people that "don't pay taxes"? You really need numbers? Unless they repealed sales taxes, everyone who buys something point of sale pays taxes. Everyone.

What do I see as fair? A tax system that doesn't give a tax break to the wealthy and take more from people in poverty.

[Sinfix_15]

Haha actually that's pretty much a textbook racist statement. You are lumping all blacks into the same group and saying they all act the same way based on their race. Now you may be right for some percentage of blacks but that doesn't mean you can apply a blanket statement to all of them.

Lot of black celebrities said they voted for Obama because hes black. I'm taking their word for it. The stats pretty much tell a story.... i mean, somewhere around 50% of white people voted for Obama... thats a normal number, maybe some people agreed with him, some didnt...... 9X% of black people voted for Obama.... im sure they were all up to date on his views and policies.... because there's nothing unusual about 9X% of people agreeing with each other right? that happens all the time.

The guy below is spot on. Thankfully its a black guy saying it, if a white guy delivered the same message there would be a shit storm.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8sbvXvS3LhA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CDlJMtjMMvw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=D0yv-nFheug

[bu villain]

the scientists have been proven to be in bed with the corporations you so despise to make money off this. its a liberal farce and a scam. there is no conclusive evidence its even true. For every scientist that says it exists theres 10 that say it doesnt. For every scientist that says global warming, there is 10 that point to the cooling we have expeerienced.

Where did you get this information from? If you are referring to the so called "Climategate" email scandal, an independent investigation determined the science to be sound. Please give a reference for this 10 to 1 number because as far as I am aware, you got those numbers reversed.


So now, its not true IMO and its not true because it cant be proven, and there is TONS of corporate and GOVT money behind it. Its an agenda, its not based on anything real.

Unless you have reviewed the numerous studies supporting global warming, your personal feelings and suspicions are irrelevant. There is corporate and government money behind pretty most scientific research. If you are going to use that excuse you have to dismiss a rather large portion of all modern scientific research. The scientific method doesn't change based on who is funding it. That's the reason why science is so powerful (and threatening to people who want to discredit it).


I love how people like you want to force the rich to pay more in taxes, but when someone comes up with a plan to make the 50% of this country who pay ZERO IN TAXES put some skin in the game , its dismissed as "regressive".

To clarify you mean zero in INCOME taxes. Everyone who buys anything pays taxes so everyone who buys something does have skin in the game regardless of what they pay in income taxes. Saying something is "regressive" does not dismiss anything. You seem to think "regressive" = "bad", whereas I see it as a mathematical term which is irrelevant to good or bad. The dictionary happens to agree with me.


I dont know whats so hard to understand. If you pay 35% now, you pay less. If you pay 0% in income taxes, you now pay 9%. Everyone now PAYS THEIR FAIR SHARE, from the millionaire to the poor house. How is that not fair? but your guys idea of "fair" can be translated into "you pay for everything i want".

It's not fair by some definitions because you are only talking about income tax and not ALL taxes. Someone could be paying $0.00 in income tax but still easily be spending 10% or more of their income on taxes. I'm actually a proponent of the fair tax. Quit trying to lump me in with your singular idea of people who disagree with you on tax reform.

[bu villain]

Lot of black celebrities said they voted for Obama because hes black. I'm taking their word for it. The stats pretty much tell a story.... i mean, somewhere around 50% of white people voted for Obama... thats a normal number, maybe some people agreed with him, some didnt...... 9X% of black people voted for Obama.... im sure they were all up to date on his views and policies.... because there's nothing unusual about 9X% of people agreeing with each other right? that happens all the time.

The guy below is spot on. Thankfully its a black guy saying it, if a white guy delivered the same message there would be a shit storm.

I completely agree with you that some people voted for him only because of his race. This is fact because some have said as much. What made your previous statement racist is that you then tried to apply it to an entire race. To put it simply:

1. Some blacks voted for Obama because of his race [NOT RACIST, factual statement]

2. Blacks only voted for Obama because of his race [RACIST, generalizing an entire race]

Statement 2 would actually not be racist if every single black voter voted for Obama (which did not happen) and every single black voter stated they only voted for him based on his race (also did not happen).

[Sinfix_15]

I completely agree with you that some people voted for him only because of his race. This is fact because some have said as much. What made your previous statement racist is that you then tried to apply it to an entire race. To put it simply:

1. Some blacks voted for Obama because of his race [NOT RACIST, factual statement]

2. Blacks only voted for Obama because of his race [RACIST, generalizing an entire race]

Statement 2 would actually not be racist if every single black voter voted for Obama (which did not happen) and every single black voter stated they only voted for him based on his race (also did not happen).

i feel what youre saying, i just dont feel the need to "pull punches" when making comments about race. I feel like black people need to be told the cold hard truth and we need to stop having to walk on egg shells around them. A lot of black leaders have made very bold statements to the black community. The basic idea that they need to "shape up" is pretty common, people are just delicate about the way they project that idea to the public.

Rather than the X% of people who feel stereotyped saying "hey quit stereotyping me", they need to turn to the other X% and say "hey, youre making us all look bad, shape up"

[infinitebird]

the scientists have been proven to be in bed with the corporations you so despise to make money off this. its a liberal farce and a scam.

One of the most uninformed statements in this thread.

This idea the right has that all scientists in every single institution and journal and country in the world are colluding to lie in all of their research is what the real farce is.

People on the right had no problem with the reality of climate change until Al Gore got involved in it. Then it had to be wrong because Al Gore was the bad boogeyman.


For every scientist that says it exists theres 10 that say it doesnt.
And this statement shows that you know even less about science than the previous one.

[Vteckidd]

LOL prove to me climate change exists. You can. Al gore and all his cronies are in it to make money, period.

I'm well informed, but feel free to prove your point.

Green tech, climate change, its all a scam

[.blank cd]

LOL prove to me climate change exists. You can. Al gore and all his cronies are in it to make money, period.

I'm well informed, but feel free to prove your point.

Green tech, climate change, its all a scam
LOL. Tell it again human! Did you skip your ENTIRE 8th grade science class?

Whats next? Evolution is a scam? Gravity is a scam?

[Echonova]

I found this interesting.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

[Vteckidd]

So al gore in all his infinite wisdom, makes MILLIONS of dollars and lives in the most NON GREEN house on the planet all in the name of lecturing me about the business of destroying the planet and climate change? right......


Fact is you cannot prove it exists , there is ZERO CONCLUSIVE DATA. There are tons of studies proving it doesnt exist, from the hurricanes, to the record blizzards we have had (and i was in the middle of) in DC and new york the last few years, etc. The earth hasnt warmed like they say it has, there were emails sent by prominent scientists that admitted to HIDING data that proved them wrong.

Al Gore doesnt even grasp the subject he tries to lecture about saying the earths core is millions of degrees in temperature, which is blatantly false because then we would be a STAR and we would be vapor. The earths core is really 4000-6000 degrees. What a genius.


During an appearance on NBC's Tonight show Nov. 12, former Vice President Al Gore told host Conan O'Brien geothermal energy is a promising alternative to fossil fuels because "the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot."

The temperature at the earth's core has been estimated at between 4,000 and 6,000 degrees Celsius. As John Derbyshire of National Review noted, "if the temperature anywhere inside the earth were ‘several million degrees,' we'd be a star."

for every study you have that shows it exists there are ones that say it doesnt. So , i dont believe it exists , and when the major proponents of it fly around in private million dollar jets and escalades, and demand getting major money to lecture about it, then refuse to be held accountable, i smell a rat.

sorry if you arent smart enough or dont want to put the puzzle togehter

[Browning151]

I found this interesting.


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Very interesting.


“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.


“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.


“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico


“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.


“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.


“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.


“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.


“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.


“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.


“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Nope, not a scam at all.

[bu villain]

i feel what youre saying, i just dont feel the need to "pull punches"...

I understand what you're saying as well. I'm not asking you to pull punches, just be clear about what you really mean. People might be more receptive your point. When you overgeneralize it is very easy for people to dismiss you.

[bu villain]

If you are basing your belief in any way on Al Gore (not a scientist) then you are missing the point. People on both sides are making lots of money on this issue, that's why you have to look at the science.

It's clear that some of you are starting with the conclusion that global warming is not an issue we need to address and then going to find evidence to support that preconceived conclusion. You can post dissenting opinions but its not very convincing when you link to a report claiming 700 dissenters when that is such a small group compared to the scientists who feel the evidence is compelling. If I have to choose a group to trust, I'll choose the group that includes pretty much all the major scientific organziations around the world who actually study the field.

[.blank cd]

I found this interesting.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Interesting article, but you have to remember the context of that article. Back then after they did their research on global warming and published it, political pundits spun that information and used it to generate fear to incite some kind of political changes. On both sides. Obviously they didn't want to be a part of that.

But we're talking about climate change, which has been happening since the beginning of time.

[infinitebird]

So al gore in all his infinite wisdom

The mere fact that you referenced Al Gore as your first source about the subject shows me that your knowledge of the subject likely extends no further than what you've heard on Fox News.

The fact that you think scientists who find the evidence compelling make up less than 10% of the scientific community shows that you have no knowledge of any primary source material on the matter.

Just this week a study that was funded by skeptics released their results and said the evidence was compelling and that it was real.

Further, this goes to what I was saying in my last post. Climate change really was not that political (or controversial) until Al Gore got involved. Then a huge swath of the right decided they were going to deny it simply because Al Gore had to be blowing smoke.

[Vteckidd]

The mere fact that you referenced Al Gore as your first source about the subject shows me that your knowledge of the subject likely extends no further than what you've heard on Fox News.

The fact that you think scientists who find the evidence compelling make up less than 10% of the scientific community shows that you have no knowledge of any primary source material on the matter.

Just this week a study that was funded by skeptics released their results and said the evidence was compelling and that it was real.

Further, this goes to what I was saying in my last post. Climate change really was not that political (or controversial) until Al Gore got involved. Then a huge swath of the right decided they were going to deny it simply because Al Gore had to be blowing smoke.

Al Gore is the dirving force behind this sorry guys. You guys probably arent old enough to know all this.

The fact is this, there are scientists who say its FALSE, and there are scientists who say its real. Therefore= NOT PROVABLE, INCONCLUSIVE.

I dont know why its so hard to understand this. Are you a meteorologist? Are you a Climataologist? are you a scientist? then shut up

[Vteckidd]

Interesting article, but you have to remember the context of that article. Back then after they did their research on global warming and published it, political pundits spun that information and used it to generate fear to incite some kind of political changes. On both sides. Obviously they didn't want to be a part of that.

Proves my point, there are far more political reasons behind it than science. We can argue all we want but there is no proof it exists, or doesnt exist. PERIOD.


But we're talking about climate change, which has been happening since the beginning of time.

How old are you again? Im sorry were you around 500 years ago? 100 years ago? 30 years ago? Are you a scientist?

the same kid who thinks he knows more about the financial sector than a bank CEO now thinks he is a scientist too.

amazing.


Did you ever answer my question before? How old are you? what is your education level? what job do you have?

[.blank cd]

VTECKIDD: Makes bold scientific claims and attacks others for not being professional scientists.....


Is actually not a scientist himself


You're funny bro. Keep it coming

"Al Gore = the left wingnut voice that represents the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY."

Who's delusional now?

[Vteckidd]

VTECKIDD: Makes bold scientific claims and attacks others for not being professional scientists.....


Is actually not a scientist himself


You're funny bro. Keep it coming

Al Gore = the left wingnut voice that represents the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

Who's delusional now?

i didnt make any claims, i stated that there is no conclusive evidence it exists, which is true.

Whats your age, whats you education level, what job do you hold?>

[OaTmeaL]

Are you being really serious right now? For your sake I hope you're trolling. Lol

lawlz


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/kikwear/ab056be7.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[.blank cd]

i didnt make any claims, i stated that there is no conclusive evidence it exists, which is true.

Whats your age, whats you education level, what job do you hold?>

Assume my qualifications are such that permit me to speak on economic and scientific topics

[Vteckidd]

Assume my qualifications are such that permit me to speak on economic and scientific topics

which are?

my guess is you arent qualified to do anything

[.blank cd]

You claim that no evidence exists of climate change and global warming, which there is. That is a bold claim, and you have yet to back it up other than your notion that Al Gore is the front runner of the study and the spokesperson for the entire scientific community, which he's far from it; and a article, published by the government, of a group of scientists that don't want their name attached to the research they did because politicians were spinning it and undermining it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are still lacking on the extraordinary evidence.

[.blank cd]

which are?

my guess is you arent qualified to do anythingthat's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Lol.

[.blank cd]

My qualifications are irrelevant at this point. Chances are, you being a young lower middle class Neo-conservative, you're gonna slam anything I say short of being the actual scientist with 17 degrees in climatology spearheading the whole study of climate change.

[Vteckidd]

You claim that no evidence exists of climate change and global warming, which there is. That is a bold claim, and you have yet to back it up other than your notion that Al Gore is the front runner of the study and the spokesperson for the entire scientific community, which he's far from it; and a article, published by the government, of a group of scientists that don't want their name attached to the research they did because politicians were spinning it and undermining it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are still lacking on the extraordinary evidence.

Clearly this shows the lack reasoning you possess or to grasp the topic at hand.

My argument and opinion has always been that you cannot prove global warming exists, because there are HUNDREDS of scientists and research that says its WRONG, just as there are people that say it actually is happening. Al gore is a figurehead, but i assume because your side likes to lump one person in as "the entire movement" its natural to try and deflect the issue and point i was trying to make.

for every "OMG THE EARTH IS WARMER" post you make i can show you hundreds of points of data that show "OMG THE EARTH IS COOLING". So, one could rationalize that neither side can prove anything because there simply isnt any conclusive data. PERIOD.

[Vteckidd]

My qualifications are irrelevant at this point. Chances are, you being a young lower middle class Neo-conservative, you're gonna slam anything I say short of being the actual scientist with 17 degrees in climatology spearheading the whole study of climate change.

my point isnt to degrade you, my point is neither you nor i are in any position to tell for certain what is happeneing

[bu villain]

There is dissent everywhere in science because science by its nature, can't prove anything true. It can only prove things false. What are called scientific facts are really just ideas which we haven't been able to disprove despite lots of trying. There is never 100% concensus on anything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action on the evidence we have. And in the case of climate change, there is evidence for both sides but one side has a hell of a lot more evidence than the other. As with all science we have to move forward in the face of uncertainty, knowing there is always a chance we are wrong. To avoid action because there is a small percentage of dissenters risks severe consequences for the entire planet.

[bu villain]

my point isnt to degrade you, my point is neither you nor i are in any position to tell for certain what is happeneing

Then why do you seem so certain that it is NOT happening?

[Vteckidd]

Then why do you seem so certain that it is NOT happening?

He is acting like because some scientists said that global warming exists it means its true. He made the statement "its been happeneing since the beginning of time" . So apparently he has some knowledge on the subject.

[Vteckidd]

There is dissent everywhere in science because science by its nature, can't prove anything true. It can only prove things false. What are called scientific facts are really just ideas which we haven't been able to disprove despite lots of trying. There is never 100% concensus on anything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take action on the evidence we have. And in the case of climate change, there is evidence for both sides but one side has a hell of a lot more evidence than the other. As with all science we have to move forward in the face of uncertainty, knowing there is always a chance we are wrong. To avoid action because there is a small percentage of dissenters risks severe consequences for the entire planet.

did i say i was for raping the environment? NO.

[bu villain]

He is acting like because some scientists said that global warming exists it means its true. He made the statement "its been happeneing since the beginning of time" . So apparently he has some knowledge on the subject.

Not just "some" scientist, it's a large majority of the relevant scientific community.

[bu villain]

did i say i was for raping the environment? NO.

No you didn't. Nor did I accuse you of saying that. However, you did say that you didn't believe in man's effect on climate change despite the fact that a large majority of relevant scientist say the data is convincing. I'm just trying to figure out why you trust the small minority of scientists over the vast majority. If there was some sort of conspiracy to lie about global warming, it would have to be one of the most massive global conspiracies ever.

[BanginJimmy]

Not just "some" scientist, it's a large majority of the relevant scientific community.


The problem with modern science is that it is so commercial. The "relevant scientific community" has something to gain from global warming, or evolution, or whatever other issue you want to bring up. It may be their ego, or it may be monetary gain. Either way far too much of the community is basing their conclusions on data that isnt entirely unbiased.

I'm a sports guy. I can look at the stats, which are undeniable, and come up with a dozen reasons why Stanford has a much stronger and better resume than LSU. Does it pass the smell test of anyone else that knows CFB? Not at all, but I can find data to support my theory.

[.blank cd]

The problem with modern science is that it is so commercial. The "relevant scientific community" has something to gain from global warming, or evolution, or whatever other issue you want to bring up.Are you being really serious right now?

[BanginJimmy]

Are you being really serious right now?


Are you saying that science is not commercial? You only have to look at all of the cases of fraud in the climate change sector to confirm it is.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_climate_change_hoax_99281.html

[.blank cd]

For your sake, I'm gonna pretend you didn't say that and then post that article to back it up. Lol

[BanginJimmy]

You can do what you want. It is a fact that todays scientific community can and does manipulate data to fit their own agenda. Whether you want to believe that or not is completely up to you.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[.blank cd]

You can do what you want. It is a fact that todays scientific community can and does manipulate data to fit their own agenda. Whether you want to believe that or not is completely up to you.

Sent from my DROIDX using TapatalkNo. Its not a fact actually. Thats your opinion. The scientific method doesn't change because of someones agenda. Thats the beauty of science. You get a result, or you dont. No matter who's money is involved. The scientific method is what is internationally accepted as what we use to find things out. Just like time, or addition. 1+1 will always be 2. I dont care who you ask, who is doing the adding, and who is paying for whoever to do it. THAT is fact

This is why you see dissent, because other people, like politicians, are taking that data and twisting it to fit THEIR political agenda. Science isn't a political ideology, and scientists dont want their results mixed up in that. Credible scientists' only agenda is the truth.

[BanginJimmy]

No. Its not a fact actually. Thats your opinion. The scientific method doesn't change because of someones agenda. Thats the beauty of science. You get a result, or you dont. No matter who's money is involved. The scientific method is what is internationally accepted as what we use to find things out. Just like time, or addition. 1+1 will always be 2. I dont care who you ask, who is doing the adding, and who is paying for whoever to do it. THAT is fact

This is why you see dissent, because other people, like politicians, are taking that data and twisting it to fit THEIR political agenda. Science isn't a political ideology, and scientists dont want their results mixed up in that. Credible scientists' only agenda is the truth.

Yet I just showed you an article about these same scientists changing or hiding data so they could 'prove' their own theories. It is not hard to manipulate data and the more complex the data, the easier it is to manipulate. The scientific method is infalible if it is used without bias, but just like a computer, it is only as good as the data you put into it. By modifing the data you can modify its output.

[.blank cd]

You showed me one incidence of one research facility, who's data was comprimised. Really? Do you not know about the CRU email controversy?

[BanginJimmy]

The data wasnt compromised, it was fraudulent and that fraud was perpetrated by those same scientists that you said wouldnt do that.


here is a case from Berkeley though if you want another one.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9096127/more_global_warming_fraud_from_the.html

[bu villain]

You can do what you want. It is a fact that todays scientific community can and does manipulate data to fit their own agenda. Whether you want to believe that or not is completely up to you.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

To say that global warming is the result of willfull manipulation of data is to claim there is a global conspiracy with hundreds of thousands of scientists participating in willful deception and/or incompetence. Your evidence is the so called "climategate" scandal from University of East Anglia which multiple investigations from multiple countries have concluded there was no wrong doing. You referenced opinion articles with clear political axes to grind with contents such as "Yet liberals, particularly those in journalism, regard this boob as an authority on earth science." refering to Al Gore, and "it appears the global warming (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/2205/global_warming.html) advocates are up to their old tricks". While you have some legitimate concerns, your evidence is far from convincing.

Further you claim because climate scientists have something to gain by global warming being a real problem, that therefore they must be lying. Besides being a fallacy of motivation to conclude that, you neglect the fact that there are some very powerful interests who want to discredit global warming (e.g., a large portion of the energy sector, automobile manufacturers, etc.). Yet you are implicitly trusting the other side instead of simply saying you don't know if it is real or not.

[alpine_aw11]

Isn't it funny that "climategate" just got disproven but it got no media attention? Can't imagine why that would be....

[bu villain]

Admitting you jumped to conclusions and were wrong about a scandal not being a scandal doesn't sell papers.

[.blank cd]

"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change (That means climate change caused by humans) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"

I don't think Herman Cain had read this article before he made his claim that it didnt exist. Sorry to burst your bubble, Herman...
(Links to a .pdf article) A little lengthy read...
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

So is this....(not a pdf)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15400748

But hey, how credible is a couple of scientist guys from Stanford, Toronto, and Palo Alto anyway? LOL.

More... Shows some models with and without human emissions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-4.html

I can produce more compelling data if requested

"The most quantitative evidence for global warming consists of 1.4 billion earth land surface temperature measurements dating back to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. There is useable Earth coverage from 1800 to the present, and excellent coverage from 1900 onward. There have been several criticisms of the prior analyses of these data by NOAA, NASA, and the UK. These include data selection bias (the groups use on 20% or less of the available stations), poor station quality (80% of the US stations are ranked poor by US govt standards), unseparated influence of urban heat islands, and possible bias from the adjustment procedures applied to the data to compensate for station moves and instrument changes. We have now completed a new study of all these issues. Using a statistical approach developed by team member Robert Rohde, we are able to use virtually all the data. We’ve studied each of the systematics in depth, and have looked at possible driving forces other than the greenhouse effect. Our ongoing work consists of analysis of ocean data and exploratory analysis of other climate effects." -Richard Muller, Physicist at University of California, Berkley.


So is climate change happening? Yes. Is it some scary "we're-all-gonna-die-the-day-after-tomorrow" type scenario? No. It is only a cause for concern at this point, and it is still an ongoing study. We dont really know if and when we'll get swallowed up by our own emissions, but its not going to be any time soon.

[BanginJimmy]

"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change (That means climate change caused by humans) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"

Anything UN has no legitimacy to me. It is a heavily corrupt organization that I have absolutely zero faith in. That criticism applies equally to ALL facets of the UN, not the the climate side of it.



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Written by a climate change student at Stanford.

Let me put this in simple terms. If a group of scientists that worked for the oil industry came out and said man made global warming was a fallacy would that carry as much weight as one written by someone studying or teaching man made global warming? No, but both sides carry an equally large bias into their research.




"The most quantitative evidence for global warming consists of 1.4 billion earth land surface temperature measurements dating back to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. There is useable Earth coverage from 1800 to the present, and excellent coverage from 1900 onward. There have been several criticisms of the prior analyses of these data by NOAA, NASA, and the UK. These include data selection bias (the groups use on 20% or less of the available stations), poor station quality (80% of the US stations are ranked poor by US govt standards), unseparated influence of urban heat islands, and possible bias from the adjustment procedures applied to the data to compensate for station moves and instrument changes. We have now completed a new study of all these issues. Using a statistical approach developed by team member Robert Rohde, we are able to use virtually all the data. We’ve studied each of the systematics in depth, and have looked at possible driving forces other than the greenhouse effect. Our ongoing work consists of analysis of ocean data and exploratory analysis of other climate effects." -Richard Muller, Physicist at University of California, Berkley.

Taking measurements of the earth's surface temp only tells us the earth is warming, not why.



So is climate change happening? Yes. Is it some scary "we're-all-gonna-die-the-day-after-tomorrow" type scenario? No. It is only a cause for concern at this point, and it is still an ongoing study. We dont really know if and when we'll get swallowed up by our own emissions, but its not going to be any time soon.

Considering there are now 7 Billion people breathing and producing CO2, I suggest we start ridding the world of excess people immediately. I propose we start by emptying all the prisons, and executing all the prisoners, and turning them nickle cadmium factories for electric cars.

Here is a short, not very in depth article on the idea of electric cars.

[.blank cd]

Considering there are now 7 Billion people breathing and producing CO2, I suggest we start ridding the world of excess people immediately. I propose we start by emptying all the prisons, and executing all the prisoners, and turning them nickle cadmium factories for electric cars.

Here is a short, not very in depth article on the idea of electric cars.I take it science was not your major in college, or even your strong suit in high school. There are a lot of people, even on this site, that would believe whatever you just said here (and thats actually really depressing) but if you went and spouted that off in a scientific discussion with other people who are actually strong in science, they would all look at you with blank stares. I'm just looking out for you.

It's clear that you don't understand the scientific method or peer review. Let me give you an example. If I put two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom together using the scientific method, I'll get water, every single time. As a trained career scientist, I know that I have to be skeptical about my data, so I'll use peer review to have other scientists check and see what I got. H2O isn't socialist or capitalist or communist or Christian or Muslim or any of that. It doesn't work that way

[Vteckidd]

What you don't understand is that climate change isn't as infallible as creating water. There are plenty of studies that contradict man mad climate change.

There is also a lot of money behind climate change scientist because it leans toward this green tech green energy industry libs want to force on everyone.

That is indisputable

[Vteckidd]

2 flawed scientists agreeing don't make a right, just saying.

[.blank cd]

What you don't understand is that climate change isn't as infallible as creating water.I do understand creating water is a little different than climate change, but the method we use to find these out and double check them is the same.


There are plenty of studies that contradict man made climate change.No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Actual fact. Just saying. You may be referring to disputes to its effects on the immediate and the foreseeable future, or scientists that are still unsure of its cause.


There is also a lot of money behind climate change scientist because it leans toward this green tech green energy industry libs want to force on everyone.You keep using this word liberal in a political context and applying it in a purely scientific context. It doesnt work that way. Science finds the answers, politicians and political pundits spin it to push their own political agendas either way. You are absorbing the spin and regurgitating it as science.

[.blank cd]

2 flawed scientists agreeing don't make a right, just saying.Maybe so, but what we have here is 98 out of 100 scientists say that climate change is happening and it is being caused by humans, and 2 out of 100 scientists that say climate change is happening but the cause is still unclear

[Vteckidd]

ok put it this way, CLimate change on the scale that the left uses it as a means to fund their liberal hippie green tech pipe dreams, does not exist. IMO of course.

Has man made some type of impact on the environment , yeah, does pollution happen, yeah, does it effect our surroundings, yup. Is it doomsday? nope. does it deserve to be on the scale of awareness that it is now? nope.

Climate change is a catch phrase, like EL NINO. like Y2K. I believe it has more to do with stealing money to fund companies like SOlyndra, than it does with actual environmental problems.

[Vteckidd]

no. its a fact that MOST universities employ extremely far left liberal scientists and professors. Watch and look at the indoctrination of the colleges on our youth.

Science is only as good as the date put into it. If your reasoning was true there would be no need to check anyones findings. I can cite SEVERAL examples of politically pushed SCIENTIFIC data that was false

[.blank cd]

If a group of scientists that worked for the oil industry came out and said man made global warming was a fallacy would that carry as much weight as one written by someone studying or teaching man made global warming? No, but both sides carry an equally large bias into their research.You mean like the American Association of Petroleum Geologists(AAPG)? Does that qualify as a group of scientists from the oil industry? Did you know that around 2008 they came out and said "yeah the population is growing and their increasing use of fossil fuels is contributing to the additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"?

Imagine that, a group of scientists financed by none other than Big Oil saying that we might have something to do with climate change. Hmmm...

[.blank cd]

The scientific community refers to the impact of anthropogenic factors on the climate as climate change. Lol. It's as simple as that. It's not a left or right thing. It's a reality thing. Lol. Sorry that reality tends to have a liberal bias. Lol.


no. its a fact that MOST universities employ extremely far left liberal scientists and professors. Watch and look at the indoctrination of the colleges on our youth.

Science is only as good as the date put into it. If your reasoning was true there would be no need to check anyones findings. I can cite SEVERAL examples of politically pushed SCIENTIFIC data that was falseNo. It's not a fact that universities hire far left scientists. Lol. This is your interpretation.

Please cite these examples. Id lobe to see them. Please remember that Fox news and Bill O'Reiley are not sources. I'll wait. I have plenty of time.

[Vteckidd]

So do you think trial lawyers are left or right?

Unions?

Bankers?


Scientific community is just as political as any other organization the second it starts getting grants and subsidies from the govt. Sorry. You can pretend its not influenced but that's just sticking your head in the sand.

Fox is just as usable as MSNBC. But oreilly was raw video, you can't argue that. Not my problem you're biased.

[Vteckidd]

And its clear youre just here to argue for arguments sake. I dont know if we are ever gonna get anywere

[.blank cd]

O'Reiley is just as usable for information as the Colbert report. The last time I watched MSNBC was when they had a special on Steve Jobs. Entertainment purposes only. I'm not biased. I'll watch O'Reiley, but only to hear what he has to say. He is only a character on television, just as stewart is, colbert is, peter griffin is. If you want to cite facts, cite actual studies. They're out there. Do some leg work.

[Vteckidd]

Oreilly isn't comedy, its reporting. Clearly you haven't watched him its not even close to Colbert or Stewart

[bu villain]

Oreilly isn't comedy, its reporting. Clearly you haven't watched him its not even close to Colbert or Stewart

Yes, one of the main tenants of journalism requires determining the difference between pinheads and patriots.

[bu villain]

And its clear youre just here to argue for arguments sake. I dont know if we are ever gonna get anywere

Actually it sounded like the argument was mostly over. You agreed man is affecting climate change and that your real concern was about how liberals use it to forward an agenda. Questioning political agenda is definitely valid as is questioning scientific findings with an actual scientific basis. But, questioning a scientific finding simply because it helps a political rival is not valid.

If we agree that the scientific finding is valid, we can move on the real issue which is what is the appropriate response. That is a discussion worth having.

[Vteckidd]

Yes, one of the main tenants of journalism requires determining the difference between pinheads and patriots.

i suppose 60 minutes isnt real reporting either since they had andy rooney on. Nice try pinhead ;)

I dont think it is up for debate by any rational human being right or left that Bill Oreilly just tells it like it is, he is not a comedy reporting team like stewart and colbert.

[Vteckidd]

Actually it sounded like the argument was mostly over. You agreed man is affecting climate change and that your real concern was about how liberals use it to forward an agenda. Questioning political agenda is definitely valid as is questioning scientific findings with an actual scientific basis. But, questioning a scientific finding simply because it helps a political rival is not valid.

If we agree that the scientific finding is valid, we can move on the real issue which is what is the appropriate response. That is a discussion worth having.

I dont believe its valid on the scale that they want to advance the narrative, how about that. I have NOT seen any credible evidence that climate change IE mans existence has impacted NEGATIVELY the climate we live in. Alaska is still cold, hawaii is still hot. I think both sides can make an argument, but not an infallible one.

I also can concede that man probably has had SOME impact on the environment but to what extent we cannot possibly know conclusively. If youre asking me if man causes polution? sure. does pollution cause climate change? not conclusively. not IMO.

[bu villain]

i suppose 60 minutes isnt real reporting either since they had andy rooney on. Nice try pinhead ;)

Fail to see the comparison you are making. Real reporting is based on the methods and intent of impartiality, not who is involved in the production. The pinheads and patriots segment clearly is making judgements which are opinion in nature and that by definition is not journalism.


I dont think it is up for debate by any rational human being right or left that Bill Oreilly just tells it like it is, he is not a comedy reporting team like stewart and colbert.

I think you mean he tells it like you perceive it to be. Having a different world view is not a fault. All people have their own perspectives and filters through which they see the world even when presented with the same facts.

[bu villain]

I dont believe its valid on the scale that they want to advance the narrative, how about that.

That sounds like a valid position to me even though I disagree.


I have NOT seen any credible evidence that climate change IE mans existence has impacted NEGATIVELY the climate we live in. Alaska is still cold, hawaii is still hot. I think both sides can make an argument, but not an infallible one.

I hope you don't think the evidence is as simple as "Alaska is still cold". I know it's refered to as global warming but many places on earth will actually get colder, that's why climate change is a more appropraite term. This is not a simple issue so you will not get obvious (to laymen such as you and me) evidence until it is already a huge problem.


I also can concede that man probably has had SOME impact on the environment but to what extent we cannot possibly know conclusively. If youre asking me if man causes polution? sure. does pollution cause climate change? not conclusively. not IMO.

What does your opinion have to do with this? Don't take it personally because my opinion doesn't matter either. Neither of us have truly studied the issue in depth necessary to make such judgements on our own. That's why I defer to those who have taken the time to look at the data and use emperical methods.

[Vteckidd]

Fail to see the comparison you are making. Real reporting is based on the methods and intent of impartiality, not who is involved in the production. The pinheads and patriots segment clearly is making judgements which are opinion in nature and that by definition is not journalism.

watch STEWART and watch COLBERT, even their "correspondents" are comedians. They arent reporting on anything real. Go watch Oreilly, he has RIGHT wing people on and LEFT wing. He has libertarians. He very rarely gives his own point of view. There is more journalism on his show than any other network .

Pinheads and Patriots is a funny thing he does at the end of the show to lighten everything up. Its no different than what Bret Baier does at the end of Special Report, or what NBC does at the end of their news casts, etc. Youre REALLY stretching with that one. Many of the PINHEADS are right wing, as well as left wing people, or people that just do dumb stuff that has nothing to do with political commentators. Watch it, it should be easy to spot.

So youve seen one of his last 10 second clips on his show and judge the entire show based on it? makes sense. /sarcasm.

my point was because Andy Rooney had funny opinion pieces at the end of 60 minutes do you think they are not legitimate news agency?




I think you mean he tells it like you perceive it to be. Having a different world view is not a fault. All people have their own perspectives and filters through which they see the world even when presented with the same facts.

im about as non politcally affiliated as they come, im not a GOP or Democrat. I can see the bias in Hannity, i can see the bias in stewart (even though i like him). I can see the bias in Chris Matthews. that bias isnt with bill oreilly

[.blank cd]

Fox news creates climate confusion

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/fox-news-successfully-creates-climate-confusion-but-only-among-conservatives.ars

Skip the science, report the controversy

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/fox-news-on-climate-skip-the-science-report-the-controversy.ars

Fox staff ordered to cast doubt on climate change

http://mediamatters.org/iphone/blog/201012150004

Fox news, fair and balanced you say? LOL. Faux news is the equivalent to the comedy channel, except it's not funny at all

[.blank cd]

Bill O'Reiley is a smart man. I do watch his show sometimes. If he was smarter, he'd tell fox news to take a hike.

Fox news isn't entirely stupid either. They know everything about climate change and what's happening. But here's the thing. Their fan base is christian conservatives who don't believe in "change" or anything that happens that's not the work of their god, and Fox knows this. So guess what is gonna get viewership and page views? Politicians casting a dark shadow over the issues like evolution by saying "it's just a theory", and climate change by saying "what about all this dissenting data?"

Fox news: stop casting this black cloud of uncertainty, tell the whole truth, and I just might take you as a credible source of information.

[Vteckidd]

Fox news creates climate confusion

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/fox-news-successfully-creates-climate-confusion-but-only-among-conservatives.ars

I never said Fox News was infallible, no news organization is, i would say they are more slanted AGAINST climate change, that is an accurate statement, but that doesnt effect my opinion because i dont form opinions based on what fox news tells me. Dont confuse me using Bill oreiily links to videos as being brainwashed.


Fox staff ordered to cast doubt on climate change

http://mediamatters.org/iphone/blog/201012150004

Did you even read the report. They werent ordered to cast ddoubt, they were told to :

...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

They were told dont report things as FACTS when the "FACTS" are still being debated. The UN reports say the climate has warmed since 2000-2009, but point out that that is only once source, and its being debated whether or not hte measurements they took were accurate.


At the time that was true, as several of the scientists INVOLVED IN THE UN study had passed around emails claiming they had doctored it

[BanginJimmy]

Fox news creates climate confusion

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/11/fox-news-successfully-creates-climate-confusion-but-only-among-conservatives.ars

Skip the science, report the controversy

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/fox-news-on-climate-skip-the-science-report-the-controversy.ars

Fox staff ordered to cast doubt on climate change

http://mediamatters.org/iphone/blog/201012150004

Fox news, fair and balanced you say? LOL. Faux news is the equivalent to the comedy channel, except it's not funny at all

Let me get this straight. You are going to question the reliability of Fox News based on a mediamatters article?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[.blank cd]

Let me get this straight. You are going to question the reliability of Fox News based on a mediamatters article?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

No, based on an email Fox sent out. Read it. There are other sources for the email, that was just the first one I pulled up

[Vteckidd]

mediamatters is way more left than fox is right, but the context of what you were trying to show is fine, ive seen that on several other sites as well.

however, like i said before, their job is to report all the facts. They report that the UN study says climate has gotten warmer, but several other scientists say it hasnt. They were the first to break climate gate, etc.

I dont see any wrongdoing in that particular issue. I will agree their reporting tends to be more anti climate change. but thats prob because every other organization is PRO climate change. to the point they wouldnt even report on climate gate

[bu villain]

watch STEWART and watch COLBERT, even their "correspondents" are comedians. They arent reporting on anything real. Go watch Oreilly, he has RIGHT wing people on and LEFT wing. He has libertarians. He very rarely gives his own point of view. There is more journalism on his show than any other network .

Let me be clear, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's shows are primarily comedy/commentary with a small amount of journalism. Similarly O'reilly's show is also primarily commentary, it's just not comedy. They both comment on stories they get from actual journalists (reuters, fox new, cnn, etc). If you want to reference the stories that Colbert, Stewart, or O'Reilly are talking about, you should link to the actual news source. Didn't Fox even say that O'Reilly's show was commentary and not a "news" show when they were defending their news being unbiased.


Pinheads and Patriots is a funny thing he does at the end of the show to lighten everything up. Its no different than what Bret Baier does at the end of Special Report, or what NBC does at the end of their news casts, etc. Youre REALLY stretching with that one. Many of the PINHEADS are right wing, as well as left wing people, or people that just do dumb stuff that has nothing to do with political commentators. Watch it, it should be easy to spot.

And there is nothing wrong with that but it's not news or journalism.


im about as non politcally affiliated as they come, im not a GOP or Democrat. I can see the bias in Hannity, i can see the bias in stewart (even though i like him). I can see the bias in Chris Matthews. that bias isnt with bill oreilly

I actually agree that O'Reilly is probably the least biased personality on Fox.

[bu villain]

however, like i said before, their job is to report all the facts. They report that the UN study says climate has gotten warmer, but several other scientists say it hasnt. They were the first to break climate gate, etc.

I dont see any wrongdoing in that particular issue. I will agree their reporting tends to be more anti climate change. but thats prob because every other organization is PRO climate change. to the point they wouldnt even report on climate gate

But accordingly to the Koch brothers funded investigation, there was no scandal in the supposed "climategate". So breaking a story that turns out to be false is nothing to be proud of. Good for the other news organizations for not reporting on a supposed scandal before the facts were in. Also I don't believe any news organization is PRO climate change, they are pro sensationalism and it just happens that climate change is pretty sensational. It would be interesting to compare how many stories were released about climategate compares to how many were released about investigations determining there was no wrong doing by the climate scientists.

[.blank cd]

Herman Cain and other candidates also support waterboarding...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57324283-503544/john-mccain-hits-gop-hopefuls-over-waterboarding/

[BanginJimmy]

Herman Cain and other candidates also support waterboarding...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57324283-503544/john-mccain-hits-gop-hopefuls-over-waterboarding/


I agree completely. Waterboarding is what put US intelligence onto the courier that eventually led to bin Laden.


When used by a pro it is a very effective technique that has no lasting effects.

I already know what you are going to say next too. If used by someone that goes overboard it can lead to death. This is why I say a pro can use it effectively. not jimbob from the local bar.

[.blank cd]

Torture is not effective. I could give you any answer you wanted to hear to get you to stop pouring water over my face.

[BanginJimmy]

Torture is not effective. I could give you any answer you wanted to hear to get you to stop pouring water over my face.


Which is why it must be done by a pro that knows how to it. What questions to ask. How to phrase questions. How to use verifiable or already known to be true info in framing the questions. And I am sure there are a dozen more aspects to it that I dont know about.

[.blank cd]

Lol. No there's really not. People think torture is some elaborate thing to get people to talk. It's nature is elaborate in it's simplicity.

What if they have the wrong person? What if the guy you have really doesnt know the answers to the questions you're asking? What do you do in that case? What if you pass that breaking point

There is absolutely no line of questioning combined with any act of torture that could get someone to tell you something they dont know the answer to.

[Vteckidd]

well facts are that Waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden and the capture of KSM. So it worked.

Im of the opinion that its not torture. Thats just my personal belief. But its also not a big issue to me either. I dont think its a huge thing to debate. If we dont do it, then whatever, im sure there are other techniques we use that are close to as effective. The argument youre using is retarded though. Its a circular argument.

"terrorist wont give up info because hes trained to resist"
"water boarding can make them answer falsley"

So what are we supposed to do offer them cookies and milk?

[bu villain]

well facts are that Waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden and the capture of KSM. So it worked.

Im of the opinion that its not torture. Thats just my personal belief. But its also not a big issue to me either. I dont think its a huge thing to debate. If we dont do it, then whatever, im sure there are other techniques we use that are close to as effective.

Actually it's not a fact that waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden. There are many conflicting reports including those from the agents who actually interrogated KSM and the other detainees. In my opinion, it is somewhat irrelevant anyways as who can say whether other techniques wouldn't have been just as effective? As you aluded to, the ethics of waterboarding is more of a personal belief than a objectively right or wrong issue. However, the effectiveness of that technique may play a role in how a certain portion of the population feels about it.

[BanginJimmy]

Actually it's not a fact that waterboarding led to the death of Bin Laden. There are many conflicting reports including those from the agents who actually interrogated KSM and the other detainees. In my opinion, it is somewhat irrelevant anyways as who can say whether other techniques wouldn't have been just as effective? As you aluded to, the ethics of waterboarding is more of a personal belief than a objectively right or wrong issue. However, the effectiveness of that technique may play a role in how a certain portion of the population feels about it.


According to Peter King, the chairman of the house homeland security committee, it did.


As I already said and you ignored. Any for of interrogation is useless unless you have part of the story already and just need to fill in blanks. In the case of KSM and the courier, the US already had some info on him, but not enough to identify him. With the info they did have, and though the use of several forms on enhanced interrogations, they got KSM to give up the info he did have, and that led to the positive ID of the courier.

You are correct in that torture is useless if you are just fishing for info with no real direction. You are also correct in that if not done correctly it can lead to the death or serious injury of the person being interrogated. Then again, you can say the same thing about the guy that changes the brakes on your car.

[bu villain]

According to Peter King, the chairman of the house homeland security committee, it did.


As I already said and you ignored. Any for of interrogation is useless unless you have part of the story already and just need to fill in blanks. In the case of KSM and the courier, the US already had some info on him, but not enough to identify him. With the info they did have, and though the use of several forms on enhanced interrogations, they got KSM to give up the info he did have, and that led to the positive ID of the courier.

You are correct in that torture is useless if you are just fishing for info with no real direction. You are also correct in that if not done correctly it can lead to the death or serious injury of the person being interrogated. Then again, you can say the same thing about the guy that changes the brakes on your car.

You quoted me but your response sounds like it was directed at someone else. I said there were conflicting reports. That means some people said waterboarding was influential in getting Bin Laden and others said it wasn't. So what's the point of mentioning Peter King when I already agreed people were on the record saying it was influential? Also I never said torture was useless. Nor did I said it can lead to death (of course it can but I never said that).

Generally there are two camps on torture:
1) Toture is necessary and can be effective if done right (the ends justifiy the means)
2) Toture is morally wrong regardless of its effectiveness (the ends do not justify the means)

And of course there is the problem of defining "toture" which is largely subjective. What is the line between making someone extremely uncomfortable and torture? There is no answer we can all agree on. I can tell you that studies have been done that show people who don't think waterboarding is torture, often change their mind once they are subjected to it.

[.blank cd]

Welp, one down...