|
On August 30 2011 00:57 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 00:42 Zorkmid wrote:On August 30 2011 00:29 raviy wrote:For all of you who haven't heard this said about Ron Paul, here's a quote from Ralph Nader: " I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." [1]So for all of you who think Ron Paul's policies are extreme, and border on insanity: I don't disagree. But I will still support this man. Because the system is broke, and the only man I can see who is in a position to fix it, is Ron Paul. You might disagree with his policies, but if there's anything this guy is, it's consistent. When he says he wants to reform American politics, he doesn't mean it like Obama meant it in 2008. Ron Paul would go in with a wrecking ball. And that's the only damn way the system will change. So I support Ron Paul. It's not because he's the hero we were looking for. It's because he's the hero we need. A god damned enema. Ron Paul would be paralyzed by the other branches of government just as Obama has been. not really....the POTUS is commander in chief...so he can do what he wants. at least thats guaranteed
President really isn't that big of a deal. You can veto some stuff but you really can't do whatever you feel like without support from the other side.
That's what causes all these back room dealings. I vote for your law, you vote for mine. It's also the system that keeps things stable and stops the government from being a rotation of dictators.
|
On August 30 2011 01:01 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 00:57 thoradycus wrote:On August 30 2011 00:42 Zorkmid wrote:On August 30 2011 00:29 raviy wrote:For all of you who haven't heard this said about Ron Paul, here's a quote from Ralph Nader: " I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." [1]So for all of you who think Ron Paul's policies are extreme, and border on insanity: I don't disagree. But I will still support this man. Because the system is broke, and the only man I can see who is in a position to fix it, is Ron Paul. You might disagree with his policies, but if there's anything this guy is, it's consistent. When he says he wants to reform American politics, he doesn't mean it like Obama meant it in 2008. Ron Paul would go in with a wrecking ball. And that's the only damn way the system will change. So I support Ron Paul. It's not because he's the hero we were looking for. It's because he's the hero we need. A god damned enema. Ron Paul would be paralyzed by the other branches of government just as Obama has been. not really....the POTUS is commander in chief...so he can do what he wants. at least thats guaranteed President really isn't that big of a deal. You can veto some stuff but you really can't do whatever you feel like without support from the other side. That's what causes all these back room dealings. I vote for your law, you vote for mine. It's also the system that keeps things stable and stops the government from being a rotation of dictators.
From what i have read, Bush and Obama have ignored congress several times and even signed laws into effect with without congress.
The president looks more like a king or emperor. I wouldn't go so far as to say dictator but im afraid its not too far off.
|
On August 30 2011 01:11 Tremendous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:01 zalz wrote:On August 30 2011 00:57 thoradycus wrote:On August 30 2011 00:42 Zorkmid wrote:On August 30 2011 00:29 raviy wrote:For all of you who haven't heard this said about Ron Paul, here's a quote from Ralph Nader: " I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." [1]So for all of you who think Ron Paul's policies are extreme, and border on insanity: I don't disagree. But I will still support this man. Because the system is broke, and the only man I can see who is in a position to fix it, is Ron Paul. You might disagree with his policies, but if there's anything this guy is, it's consistent. When he says he wants to reform American politics, he doesn't mean it like Obama meant it in 2008. Ron Paul would go in with a wrecking ball. And that's the only damn way the system will change. So I support Ron Paul. It's not because he's the hero we were looking for. It's because he's the hero we need. A god damned enema. Ron Paul would be paralyzed by the other branches of government just as Obama has been. not really....the POTUS is commander in chief...so he can do what he wants. at least thats guaranteed President really isn't that big of a deal. You can veto some stuff but you really can't do whatever you feel like without support from the other side. That's what causes all these back room dealings. I vote for your law, you vote for mine. It's also the system that keeps things stable and stops the government from being a rotation of dictators. From what i have read, Bush and Obama have ignored congress several times and even signed laws into effect with without congress. The president looks more like a king or emperor. I wouldn't go so far as to say dictator but im afraid its not too far off.
Whatever you're reading must be garbage. The president can't draft or pass laws. He can only sign what Congress gives him. What presidents can do is issue executive orders or exercise administrative authority in a way that is consistent (or, at the very least, not inconsistent) with the expressed will of Congress.
|
On August 30 2011 00:47 Stijx wrote:
How can a country that started out with it's first amendment being that the country shall have no laws or affiliation with Religion, have a party (and such a large base of supporters) that are 100% being voted for based on their religion and how much they love their imaginary friend?
An honest question to Bachmann supporters here, excluding her Religion, what exactly does she propose that sounds better for America?
this. i just wonder how todays america could change so much from what it once should be. you have religious fanatics at the top, private companys running evrything from media over money to governemnt and the peoples freedom gets cut more and more.
but damn this bachman is crazy. i really thought palin would be the top of the most ridiculous nutheads that ever tried to run for high office in a first world country. guess i was wrong and know there is another that tops here idiocy... and shes not alone...
last election i watched it live till 8 am in the morning with a friend. first black president! i was happy. this time it seems its about not getting a insane at the top of one of the most pwerful nations. (again... hello mr bush. tho compared to bachman and mr paul that guy looks harmless)
On August 30 2011 01:11 Tremendous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:01 zalz wrote:On August 30 2011 00:57 thoradycus wrote:On August 30 2011 00:42 Zorkmid wrote:On August 30 2011 00:29 raviy wrote:For all of you who haven't heard this said about Ron Paul, here's a quote from Ralph Nader: " I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." [1]So for all of you who think Ron Paul's policies are extreme, and border on insanity: I don't disagree. But I will still support this man. Because the system is broke, and the only man I can see who is in a position to fix it, is Ron Paul. You might disagree with his policies, but if there's anything this guy is, it's consistent. When he says he wants to reform American politics, he doesn't mean it like Obama meant it in 2008. Ron Paul would go in with a wrecking ball. And that's the only damn way the system will change. So I support Ron Paul. It's not because he's the hero we were looking for. It's because he's the hero we need. A god damned enema. Ron Paul would be paralyzed by the other branches of government just as Obama has been. not really....the POTUS is commander in chief...so he can do what he wants. at least thats guaranteed President really isn't that big of a deal. You can veto some stuff but you really can't do whatever you feel like without support from the other side. That's what causes all these back room dealings. I vote for your law, you vote for mine. It's also the system that keeps things stable and stops the government from being a rotation of dictators. From what i have read, Bush and Obama have ignored congress several times and even signed laws into effect with without congress. The president looks more like a king or emperor. I wouldn't go so far as to say dictator but im afraid its not too far off.
obama was countless times blocked and couldnt do what he wanted cause the right wing just said "no lol. problem?". do you think all that drama wouldve happened if he had the ability to just ignore them?
|
On August 30 2011 00:52 RaQIl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 22:17 jon arbuckle wrote:On August 29 2011 21:33 AcuWill wrote:On August 29 2011 20:52 pAzand wrote:On August 29 2011 20:24 Undrass wrote:On August 29 2011 17:34 justinpal wrote:On August 29 2011 16:11 Happy Juvia wrote:On August 29 2011 13:43 thoradycus wrote:so hes an idiot just because you think hes wrong on one unrelated issue? Whats wrong with the above statement anyway? "A politician's attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today." - Dawkins. Nah. You aren't stupid in all/most fields just because you are ignorant of one biological theory. Like the first response says its an unrelated issue. Just because you quote a pretentious author does not change that fact. Would you vote for someone claiming the earth is flat, and wants to teach it to children at school? The fact that people like that don't get laughed/boo'ed of stage says it all about americans. The fact that you think that your opinions hold greater weight than another's for no other reason than they are yours, and you use that logic to marginalize 312 million unique individuals says it all about you. That all you Ron Paul fanatics can't see how closely social issues are linked to economic issues is either capital disingenuousness or just ignorance. Welcome to high school social science. Global warming (besides its apocalyptic import) and evolution matter because for a politician to deny them is a tacit admission of perversion to education. No matter how you want to portray this, fact remains that you'll raise a nation of petulant children who regard science with disdain and who cling to outmoded, increasingly expensive energy sources. Add to that borders closed to immigrants and America will be ill-equipped to deal with a 21st century global economy and will plunge into an economic, scientific, and philosophic backwater. O enlighten one, do tell how paying carbon taxes to Al Gore is going to save the earth? I mean really man? And you consider yourself educated? What do plants breathe? What is the life cycle of this planet called? Do you even know what is photosynthesis? Photosynthesis (English pronunciation: /foʊtoʊˈsɪnθəsɪs/; from the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together", "composition") is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.[1] Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of bacteria, but not in archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since they can create their own food. In plants, algae, and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is vital for all aerobic life on Earth. As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it, either as a direct source of energy, or indirectly, as the ultimate source of the energy in their food[2] (the exceptions are chemoautotrophs that live in rocks or around deep sea hydrothermal vents). The rate of energy capture by photosynthesis is immense, approximately 100 terawatts,[3] which is about six times larger than the power consumption of human civilization.[4] As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of the carbon in all the organic compounds within organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms convert around 100–115 petagrams of carbon into biomass per year.[5][6] Do I love all these billions of cars and industry getting all that carbon dioxide out? No, If there is a way to reduce carbon emissions I'm all for it. I'm all for other type of fuel and stuff, but I'm certainly not for paying Al Gore and the Rothschilds money to breathe. Filling them with money for breathing is not what I'd call a solution. But to say that there is global warming is just absurd. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius on average more than it was 100 years ago, then I'd say hey we humans may actually be causing global warming, but last year we saw some of the coldest weather all around the world. In fact in some part of the world it was snowing in March.
You just completely proved your ignorance on the situation. Global warming is a part of the general concept of climate change. The issue isn't the heat, it's the seasons going apeshit and n
Then again, you're both talking about carbon taxing which doesn't do diddly squat. That's like that asinine solution talked about at the completely ignored (save DemocracyNow) climate change summit earlier this year in which they propsed letting corporations pay their way out of polluting just as much by sponsoring sections of land in countries they aren't even located in!
Also, if we're going to talk about the ____est weather in the ____est month, we just had record breaking heat for months straight in many parts of the US.
|
For clarity, when people doubt/deny/question "global warming" or "climate change," what they usually mean is that they doubt/deny/question the proposition that man is causing global warming or climate change. The flipside is also true. When people talk about "global warming" or "climate change" being a problem, they usually mean or imply that man is causing the problem.
|
On August 30 2011 00:52 RaQIl wrote:
But to say that there is global warming is just absurd. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius on average more than it was 100 years ago, then I'd say hey we humans may actually be causing global warming, but last year we saw some of the coldest weather all around the world. In fact in some part of the world it was snowing in March.
Yeah, you are smarter than NASA, The US Navy and more or less all meterological and scientific institutions of note around the world. They all agree that the globe is getting warmer and that we contribute to that development.
And they have always said that one of the biproducts of it would be increasingly wild swings in weather. Warmer globe = more water vaporized = more water in the atmosphere = more rain and more snow.
Which is why they have shifted to using the term climate change, in order to accommodate the idiots and Bill O'Reilly's out there.
You argument is basically the litmus test for whether you are debating someone with just an ounce of knowledge on the subject or not.
I still can't believe that anyone would be willing to make the "I am looking out my window and theres no rain, so water does not exist" argument publically. Amuses, and saddens me, every time.
I guess I can't explain that, at least.
|
On August 30 2011 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Whatever you're reading must be garbage. The president can't draft or pass laws. He can only sign what Congress gives him. What presidents can do is issue executive orders or exercise administrative authority in a way that is consistent (or, at the very least, not inconsistent) with the expressed will of Congress.
That's not entirely true, seeing as to how countless times in history, the President has also drafted laws for Congress' consideration. One example being every Treaty that has been ratified, was originally written by the Executive branch of government and passed to Congress for review. The Patriot Act, the laws creating Alphabet Soup and economic restructuring during the Great Depression, and more recently, the health care reform act, all spearheaded by a presidential administration, all of which would not exist without presidential intervention.
|
On August 30 2011 01:27 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 00:47 Stijx wrote:
How can a country that started out with it's first amendment being that the country shall have no laws or affiliation with Religion, have a party (and such a large base of supporters) that are 100% being voted for based on their religion and how much they love their imaginary friend?
An honest question to Bachmann supporters here, excluding her Religion, what exactly does she propose that sounds better for America? this. i just wonder how todays america could change so much from what it once should be. you have religious fanatics at the top, private companys running evrything from media over money to governemnt and the peoples freedom gets cut more and more.
Eh...that idea above, the "...shall have no laws or affiliation with religion..." is a bit of a gross oversimplification of the actual idea that many people interpret the words of the First Amendment to mean. You cannot establish a religion over another religion, religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. That last one being what most people seem to miss.
Aside from which, there was no "This is what the Founding Fathers intended" for sure. There has been contention regarding the Establishment Clause for a long time. Some interpret it to mean a literal barrier between church in state in totality, others consider it to simply mean that the government cannot establish a religion or church above others, yet can still acknowledge the idea of God and religiosity in the public sphere.
That being said, I hate Bachmann and think she's an historical illiterate, which drives me insane. My ultimate hope is for the non-religious and non-corporatist branch of the Republican party to step up. Sadly, this will never happen since the old guard Republican's tend to fall into either of these two categories, and that's where all the power and money lies.
Regardless I won't be voting Democrat. I'm philosophically at odds with their economics and parts of their social policies.
|
Even putting all of the actual political leanings aside I would still support Ron Paul simply for the fact that he has always adhered strictly to the constitution. We have a trend of presidents constantly abusing and expanding the powers of the executive branch. That needs to be stopped and should in fact be reversed.
What we have is a system where the executive can almost rule by fiat. One side complains about it but then their guy gets in office and they adopt the powers of the predecessor and goes even further and then the other side gets mad at the abuse, then the other side says "your guy did it, it's only fair".
People get so caught up in the left vs right struggle they forget about the up and down so to speak. The struggle between the individualism and statism, and our federalist system of government that is supposed to limit our central government.
|
On August 30 2011 00:57 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 00:42 Zorkmid wrote:On August 30 2011 00:29 raviy wrote:For all of you who haven't heard this said about Ron Paul, here's a quote from Ralph Nader: " I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." [1]So for all of you who think Ron Paul's policies are extreme, and border on insanity: I don't disagree. But I will still support this man. Because the system is broke, and the only man I can see who is in a position to fix it, is Ron Paul. You might disagree with his policies, but if there's anything this guy is, it's consistent. When he says he wants to reform American politics, he doesn't mean it like Obama meant it in 2008. Ron Paul would go in with a wrecking ball. And that's the only damn way the system will change. So I support Ron Paul. It's not because he's the hero we were looking for. It's because he's the hero we need. A god damned enema. Ron Paul would be paralyzed by the other branches of government just as Obama has been. not really....the POTUS is commander in chief...so he can do what he wants. at least thats guaranteed
Umm I don't think you know much about the U.S. government if you think the President holds most of the power.
Congress actually holds most of the power with the only thing holding them back being the 2 party system and them never getting anything done because each congressman is only looking out for their district or their state and never for the betterment of the country.
|
On August 30 2011 01:46 Bombmk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 00:52 RaQIl wrote:
But to say that there is global warming is just absurd. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius on average more than it was 100 years ago, then I'd say hey we humans may actually be causing global warming, but last year we saw some of the coldest weather all around the world. In fact in some part of the world it was snowing in March. Yeah, you are smarter than NASA, The US Navy and more or less all meterological and scientific institutions of note around the world. They all agree that the globe is getting warmer and that we contribute to that development. And they have always said that one of the biproducts of it would be increasingly wild swings in weather. Warmer globe = more water vaporized = more water in the atmosphere = more rain and more snow. Which is why they have shifted to using the term climate change, in order to accommodate the idiots and Bill O'Reilly's out there. You argument is basically the litmus test for whether you are debating someone with just an ounce of knowledge on the subject or not. I still can't believe that anyone would be willing to make the "I am looking out my window and theres no rain, so water does not exist" argument publically. Amuses, and saddens me, every time. I guess I can't explain that, at least.
Provide links to those scientists and NASA publications ! Where are they?
As far as I know all credible scientists have moved to squash the man made warming movement. And look it up friend, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Celsius from 100 years ago and there is absolutely no evidence linking it to man. For all we know the 0.5 increase in temperatures may be due to you know the sun, which basically heats and gives life to the earth and without it we wouldn't be alive and our planet would be a rock of ice.
And lets talk about real man made dangers like cutting the Amazon rain forest, nuclear power plants and waste materials from chemical plants freely going into rivers and lakes that we and animals then drink and use.
Lets talk about genetic engineering and species mixing to create cows that produce human milk and stuff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.html
Seriously man you need to wake up. I mean I've watched all these man made warming movies in which they say cows and pigs in farms shitting is causing part of the global warming and the other half is coal plants.
I mean sorry if I'm not concern about cows and pigs shitting and releasing carbon dioxide that plants than breathe. Cows shit is like a breath of fresh air to plants.
And sorry I don't think paying Al Gore money will save the earth from carbon dioxide, which again is what plants breathe.
I mean why can't we talk about real issues like all the nuclear waste material and radiation that is stored underground and all the wasteful chemicals from chemical plants that go into the ground and rivers, but we talk about hoaxes like global warming which Al Gore took home since the 1970's and then campaigned on it in 1988.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61428.html
|
I just hope the Republican nominees find some better comments to make than just attacking Obama. Seriously, if you do get elected, you gotta have some sort of plan.
|
On August 30 2011 02:12 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
I just hope the Republican nominees find some better comments to make than just attacking Obama. Seriously, if you do get elected, you gotta have some sort of plan.
So how about Obama's 24/7 blame republicans and/or Bush for everything campaign that he's been running since he was elected? Also, Obama's reelection campaign probably will be 100% negative because he really doesn't have anything good to run on right now. His signature achievements are Obamacare and the stimulus bill -- both of which are politically toxic. If the economy turns around over the next year, he'll be in a better position. However, as of now, he really doesn't have anything.
|
On August 30 2011 02:12 RaQIl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 01:46 Bombmk wrote:On August 30 2011 00:52 RaQIl wrote:
But to say that there is global warming is just absurd. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius on average more than it was 100 years ago, then I'd say hey we humans may actually be causing global warming, but last year we saw some of the coldest weather all around the world. In fact in some part of the world it was snowing in March. Yeah, you are smarter than NASA, The US Navy and more or less all meterological and scientific institutions of note around the world. They all agree that the globe is getting warmer and that we contribute to that development. And they have always said that one of the biproducts of it would be increasingly wild swings in weather. Warmer globe = more water vaporized = more water in the atmosphere = more rain and more snow. Which is why they have shifted to using the term climate change, in order to accommodate the idiots and Bill O'Reilly's out there. You argument is basically the litmus test for whether you are debating someone with just an ounce of knowledge on the subject or not. I still can't believe that anyone would be willing to make the "I am looking out my window and theres no rain, so water does not exist" argument publically. Amuses, and saddens me, every time. I guess I can't explain that, at least. Provide links to those scientists and NASA publications ! Where are they? As far as I know all credible scientists have moved to squash the man made warming movement. And look it up friend, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Celsius from 100 years ago and there is absolutely no evidence linking it to man. For all we know the 0.5 increase in temperatures may be due to you know the sun, which basically heats and gives life to the earth and without it we wouldn't be alive and our planet would be a rock of ice. And lets talk about real man made dangers like cutting the Amazon rain forest, nuclear power plants and waste materials from chemical plants freely going into rivers and lakes that we and animals then drink and use. Lets talk about genetic engineering and species mixing to create cows that produce human milk and stuff. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.htmlSeriously man you need to wake up. I mean I've watched all these man made warming movies in which they say cows and pigs in farms shitting is causing part of the global warming and the other half is coal plants. I mean sorry if I'm not concern about cows and pigs shitting and releasing carbon dioxide that plants than breathe. Cows shit is like a breath of fresh air to plants. And sorry I don't think paying Al Gore money will save the earth from carbon dioxide, which again is what plants breathe. I mean why can't we talk about real issues like all the nuclear waste material and radiation that is stored underground and all the wasteful chemicals from chemical plants that go into the ground and rivers, but we talk about hoaxes like global warming which Al Gore took home since the 1970's and then campaigned on it in 1988. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61428.html
It's one thing to deny the man-made component of global warming/climate change.
To deny it's happening entirely is another.
The planet is getting hotter. Climates are shifting. Weather is becoming more and more erratic and unpredictable. Before you know it, the gulf stream will stop and Britain and most of the northern part of Europe will no longer maintain a temperate climate. These things are happening. Denying our involvement in it might help you justify the purchase of a Hummer, but it isn't going to stop the world from going through some major climate changes in the next few decades.
Some people might call it being pro-active and showing some downright common sense in not waiting for absolute proof to come out before changing their behaviour. If we are the cause, then it would be a damn good idea to start being more responsible now, rather than waiting. Assuming that there's no correlation between the temperature increases coinciding with our discovery of the combustion engine is quite a leap of faith. The scale of the earth is in magnitudes we can barely comprehend; things happen over periods of thousands of years at a time. Yet, we've seen a big temperature shift in the last hundred.
|
On August 30 2011 02:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 02:12 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
I just hope the Republican nominees find some better comments to make than just attacking Obama. Seriously, if you do get elected, you gotta have some sort of plan. So how about Obama's 24/7 blame republicans and/or Bush for everything campaign that he's been running since he was elected? Also, Obama's reelection campaign probably will be 100% negative because he really doesn't have anything good to run on right now. His signature achievements are Obamacare and the stimulus bill -- both of which are politically toxic. If the economy turns around over the next year, he'll be in a better position. However, as of now, he really doesn't have anything.
Debatable. If one looks at the comments from Bachmann and other GOP leaders one gets the impression that it is a race against time to win and repeal the new Healthcare law(s) as there is some possibility, fear even, of it being accepted and worse being approved of and demand for more. Look what happened AFTER FDR's new deal, politically.
And I don't think any Politician is going to say they favor bringing back preexisting conditions.
Like it or not the without the Stimulus the economy would be in far worse shape.
Bachmann, Perry, & Romney all have plans to unveil their plans for Jobs, and Healthcare.
|
On August 30 2011 02:23 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 02:12 RaQIl wrote:On August 30 2011 01:46 Bombmk wrote:On August 30 2011 00:52 RaQIl wrote:
But to say that there is global warming is just absurd. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius on average more than it was 100 years ago, then I'd say hey we humans may actually be causing global warming, but last year we saw some of the coldest weather all around the world. In fact in some part of the world it was snowing in March. Yeah, you are smarter than NASA, The US Navy and more or less all meterological and scientific institutions of note around the world. They all agree that the globe is getting warmer and that we contribute to that development. And they have always said that one of the biproducts of it would be increasingly wild swings in weather. Warmer globe = more water vaporized = more water in the atmosphere = more rain and more snow. Which is why they have shifted to using the term climate change, in order to accommodate the idiots and Bill O'Reilly's out there. You argument is basically the litmus test for whether you are debating someone with just an ounce of knowledge on the subject or not. I still can't believe that anyone would be willing to make the "I am looking out my window and theres no rain, so water does not exist" argument publically. Amuses, and saddens me, every time. I guess I can't explain that, at least. Provide links to those scientists and NASA publications ! Where are they? As far as I know all credible scientists have moved to squash the man made warming movement. And look it up friend, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Celsius from 100 years ago and there is absolutely no evidence linking it to man. For all we know the 0.5 increase in temperatures may be due to you know the sun, which basically heats and gives life to the earth and without it we wouldn't be alive and our planet would be a rock of ice. And lets talk about real man made dangers like cutting the Amazon rain forest, nuclear power plants and waste materials from chemical plants freely going into rivers and lakes that we and animals then drink and use. Lets talk about genetic engineering and species mixing to create cows that produce human milk and stuff. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.htmlSeriously man you need to wake up. I mean I've watched all these man made warming movies in which they say cows and pigs in farms shitting is causing part of the global warming and the other half is coal plants. I mean sorry if I'm not concern about cows and pigs shitting and releasing carbon dioxide that plants than breathe. Cows shit is like a breath of fresh air to plants. And sorry I don't think paying Al Gore money will save the earth from carbon dioxide, which again is what plants breathe. I mean why can't we talk about real issues like all the nuclear waste material and radiation that is stored underground and all the wasteful chemicals from chemical plants that go into the ground and rivers, but we talk about hoaxes like global warming which Al Gore took home since the 1970's and then campaigned on it in 1988. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61428.html It's one thing to deny the man-made component of global warming/climate change. To deny it's happening entirely is another. The planet is getting hotter. Climates are shifting. Weather is becoming more and more erratic and unpredictable. Before you know it, the gulf stream will stop and Britain and most of the northern part of Europe will no longer maintain a temperate climate. These things are happening. Denying our involvement in it might help you justify the purchase of a Hummer, but it isn't going to stop the world from going through some major climate changes in the next few decades.
And you know this because you said so.
Where is all you people proof? I mean you talk the talk, but when you need to walk the walk and present factual evidence its no where to be seen or its Al Gore said so. Yeah and he and Obama collaborated on the Chicago climate exchange that was supposed to be part of Obama's tax and cap system. Just google it, because I won't bother providing you evidence when you don't provide any yourself.
|
On August 30 2011 02:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 02:12 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
I just hope the Republican nominees find some better comments to make than just attacking Obama. Seriously, if you do get elected, you gotta have some sort of plan. So how about Obama's 24/7 blame republicans and/or Bush for everything campaign that he's been running since he was elected? Also, Obama's reelection campaign probably will be 100% negative because he really doesn't have anything good to run on right now. His signature achievements are Obamacare and the stimulus bill -- both of which are politically toxic. If the economy turns around over the next year, he'll be in a better position. However, as of now, he really doesn't have anything.
well isnt that kinda true? people need to think about what the previous government is/was responsible for.
we had the same thing here just the other way round. with merkel etc heavily profiting from what schroeder did and then selling it as her success. and in the end she got reelected.
|
On August 30 2011 02:27 RaQIl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 02:23 Bibdy wrote:On August 30 2011 02:12 RaQIl wrote:On August 30 2011 01:46 Bombmk wrote:On August 30 2011 00:52 RaQIl wrote:
But to say that there is global warming is just absurd. If temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius on average more than it was 100 years ago, then I'd say hey we humans may actually be causing global warming, but last year we saw some of the coldest weather all around the world. In fact in some part of the world it was snowing in March. Yeah, you are smarter than NASA, The US Navy and more or less all meterological and scientific institutions of note around the world. They all agree that the globe is getting warmer and that we contribute to that development. And they have always said that one of the biproducts of it would be increasingly wild swings in weather. Warmer globe = more water vaporized = more water in the atmosphere = more rain and more snow. Which is why they have shifted to using the term climate change, in order to accommodate the idiots and Bill O'Reilly's out there. You argument is basically the litmus test for whether you are debating someone with just an ounce of knowledge on the subject or not. I still can't believe that anyone would be willing to make the "I am looking out my window and theres no rain, so water does not exist" argument publically. Amuses, and saddens me, every time. I guess I can't explain that, at least. Provide links to those scientists and NASA publications ! Where are they? As far as I know all credible scientists have moved to squash the man made warming movement. And look it up friend, the temperature has only risen 0.5 degrees Celsius from 100 years ago and there is absolutely no evidence linking it to man. For all we know the 0.5 increase in temperatures may be due to you know the sun, which basically heats and gives life to the earth and without it we wouldn't be alive and our planet would be a rock of ice. And lets talk about real man made dangers like cutting the Amazon rain forest, nuclear power plants and waste materials from chemical plants freely going into rivers and lakes that we and animals then drink and use. Lets talk about genetic engineering and species mixing to create cows that produce human milk and stuff. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/8423536/Genetically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk.htmlSeriously man you need to wake up. I mean I've watched all these man made warming movies in which they say cows and pigs in farms shitting is causing part of the global warming and the other half is coal plants. I mean sorry if I'm not concern about cows and pigs shitting and releasing carbon dioxide that plants than breathe. Cows shit is like a breath of fresh air to plants. And sorry I don't think paying Al Gore money will save the earth from carbon dioxide, which again is what plants breathe. I mean why can't we talk about real issues like all the nuclear waste material and radiation that is stored underground and all the wasteful chemicals from chemical plants that go into the ground and rivers, but we talk about hoaxes like global warming which Al Gore took home since the 1970's and then campaigned on it in 1988. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61428.html It's one thing to deny the man-made component of global warming/climate change. To deny it's happening entirely is another. The planet is getting hotter. Climates are shifting. Weather is becoming more and more erratic and unpredictable. Before you know it, the gulf stream will stop and Britain and most of the northern part of Europe will no longer maintain a temperate climate. These things are happening. Denying our involvement in it might help you justify the purchase of a Hummer, but it isn't going to stop the world from going through some major climate changes in the next few decades. And you know this because you said so. Where is all you people proof? I mean you talk the talk, but when you need to walk the walk and present factual evidence its no where to be seen or its Al Gore said so. Yeah and he and Obama collaborated on the Chicago climate exchange that was supposed to be part of Obama's tax and cap system. Just google it, because I won't bother providing you evidence when you don't provide any yourself.
I know this because scientific journals get published all the godamned time with measurements from various parts of the globe, ranging back over the last 150 years. Maybe you should do a degree in science, or read a publication or two, where you're exposed to these journals. Sorry if I assume that hundreds of scientists backing a paper on climate change, published by the same people that do research on things like carbon nano-tubes and plastics that have greatly improved production and scientific advancement in the last decade, leaves behind a modicum of credibility.
But, no, you're right. Bill O'Reilly saying it's 'nonsense' should be enough to satisfy us.
|
On August 30 2011 02:10 Tippecanoe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 00:57 thoradycus wrote:On August 30 2011 00:42 Zorkmid wrote:On August 30 2011 00:29 raviy wrote:For all of you who haven't heard this said about Ron Paul, here's a quote from Ralph Nader: " I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — let’s let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now." [1]So for all of you who think Ron Paul's policies are extreme, and border on insanity: I don't disagree. But I will still support this man. Because the system is broke, and the only man I can see who is in a position to fix it, is Ron Paul. You might disagree with his policies, but if there's anything this guy is, it's consistent. When he says he wants to reform American politics, he doesn't mean it like Obama meant it in 2008. Ron Paul would go in with a wrecking ball. And that's the only damn way the system will change. So I support Ron Paul. It's not because he's the hero we were looking for. It's because he's the hero we need. A god damned enema. Ron Paul would be paralyzed by the other branches of government just as Obama has been. not really....the POTUS is commander in chief...so he can do what he wants. at least thats guaranteed Umm I don't think you know much about the U.S. government if you think the President holds most of the power. Congress actually holds most of the power with the only thing holding them back being the 2 party system and them never getting anything done because each congressman is only looking out for their district or their state and never for the betterment of the country.
Sorry i misworded it....what i meant is in terms of military where he has the power to bring troops home .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
