The Democrat Thread

[BearSox]

I'll just continue to side with the other 43 presidents on this one. You can keep using your asterisk based rationalizations for immorality.

Immorality? What do you think about abortion, stem cell research, etc...?

 

How dare you bring up my morality. Yeah, I'm so immoral because I don't want thousands of innocent americans being killed by these things you call people. But the dems are the kings of morality because they favor the killing of millions of babies (oh wait, dems like to hide the fact that they are babies and would rather call them fetuses and embryos, sorry for not being "PC". Oh, and I should have said "extermination" instead of killing).

 

I could go on and on about how immoral and how sickening the democrat party is. But you are the morality police, it's wrong to want innocent lives spared because some scumbag terrorist would have to endure some rough treatment.

 

All I can say right now is how dare you. If you agree with it is, it's moral, but if you don't agree with you, I'm immoral? Who do you think you are? How dare you call me immoral.

[BigSqwert]

I think lostfan's sig sums it up best. Good day sir.

[BearSox]

I think lostfan's sig sums it up best. Good day sir.

Oh good comeback. You insult me by calling me immoral, and then just run off when I challenge you and your views of morality.

 

I'll stop here just out of respect for this forum.

[mr_genius]

So we can release this, but not the minutes from board meetings that Obama administration officials attended at the banks we are giving trillions of dollars to? What a joke.

 

that's different. Obama is a God. He does as he pleases and it is good.

[mr_genius]

Oh and this whole 'torture' scandal is coming out now as to be a distraction from the April unemployment numbers. They have known about this 'torture' stuff for years.

[lostfan]

Oh yeah, I'm sure they'd reveal all their plans over a nice cup of tea.

No offense but you don't really have a clue what you're talking about here.

 

By the way, if you think you can get information over a nice cup of tea, then why not?

Edited April 25, 2009 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Well, the GOP had a brilliant scientist from England flown in, but the dirty Dems blocked him from speaking because he'd make Al Gore look like the big fat lying fraud he is.

 

Why do you consider him brilliant? Because you agree with him and not the other scientists who say otherwise?

[BearSox]

Why do you consider him brilliant? Because you agree with him and not the other scientists who say otherwise?

 

He's actually got facts on his side, and he knows more about this subject than anyone else I have ever heard talking about "global warming" either in support or against it.

 

Also, why don't you mention how the dirty dems actually banned him from testifying? Oh I know, because he's some radical nutjob because he doesn't believe in the crap Gore has been peddling.

[lostfan]

More than, say, Balta? Who is about to have a PhD in geology and could rattle off more about it in 10 minutes than all of my knowledge about it combined? Or other people like him? Or are they just corrupted by our "liberal education system" (whatever that means).

 

I don't have a firm opinion on global warming (besides really obvious things that people are stupid if they don't believe, like the fact that greenhouse gases retain heat), but generally I find the arguments from the majority of the anti-global warming crowd to be laughable, and they have no room to talk about anyone. Like showing me data from a single year, or only going back to 2003 to show me the earth is cooling. lol.

[BearSox]

Why do you refuse to mention that the dirty dems refused to let him speak? Please tell me why they would refuse to let him speak.

Edited April 25, 2009 by BearSox

[lostfan]

Frankly I don't care that they didn't let him speak and things like that don't even register on my radar. Do you really think the Republicans don't do the same kind of thing, on an issue as highly policitized as this? (I said this in another thread)

Edited April 25, 2009 by lostfan

[BearSox]

Frankly I don't care that they didn't let him speak and things like that don't even register on my radar. Do you really think the Republicans don't do the same kind of thing, on an issue as highly policitized as this? (I said this in another thread)

Give me an example in the past 10 years of Republicans doing that, and I'll accept your point.

[lostfan]

Give me an example in the past 10 years of Republicans doing that, and I'll accept your point.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...ve_repor_1.html

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

 

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

 

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

Business as usual.

[StrangeSox]

He's actually got facts on his side, and he knows more about this subject than anyone else I have ever heard talking about "global warming" either in support or against it.

 

Also, why don't you mention how the dirty dems actually banned him from testifying? Oh I know, because he's some radical nutjob because he doesn't believe in the crap Gore has been peddling.

 

He's not a scientist. I'd venture a guess that the thousands of scientists who spend their lives studying this know more about this subject than he does.

 

I don't like Gore testifying either. Bring in real scientists to discuss real science. Then you risk having moments like Chu had with Rep. Barton, though.

 

IIRC, ,the Bush admin. altered reports to convey whatever sort of scientific message they wanted instead of what the scientists were saying.

Edited April 26, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Texas requests help from federal government in preparing for swine flu.

 

Federal government laughs, says "No you secessionist bastard".

 

If only the world was that funny....

[Chet Lemon]

Well, the GOP had a brilliant scientist from England flown in, but the dirty Dems blocked him from speaking because he'd make Al Gore look like the big fat lying fraud he is.

 

Why the hell should we be consulting with Europeans to make American environmental laws? Watch yourself or else people will throw tea bags at you for deferring to Europeans about American policy. Good thing the GOP has consistently protected brilliant Europeans from the dirty Dems.

[BigSqwert]

Texas requests help from federal government in preparing for swine flu.

 

Federal government laughs, says "No you secessionist bastard".

 

If only the world was that funny....

Damn Texas socialists. Guess we'll have to foot the bill for their vaccinations?

[mr_genius]

Texas requests help from federal government in preparing for swine flu.

 

Federal government laughs, says "No you secessionist bastard".

 

If only the world was that funny....

 

The swine flu is just a lie perpetuated by the racist anti-Mexico lobby. Probably should get some congressional hearing to look into this big time scandal. I heard the whole plot was hatched by Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.

[Balta1701]

The swine flu is just a lie perpetuated by the racist anti-Mexico lobby. Probably should get some congressional hearing to look into this big time scandal. I heard the whole plot was hatched by Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.

Who is Carl Rove?

[mr_genius]

Who is Carl Rove?

 

some anti-Mexico lobbyist i guess.

Edited April 27, 2009 by mr_genius

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I'll just continue to side with the other 43 presidents on this one. You can keep using your asterisk based rationalizations for immorality.

 

LMAO.

 

I love irony.

[Cknolls]

More than, say, Balta? Who is about to have a PhD in geology and could rattle off more about it in 10 minutes than all of my knowledge about it combined? Or other people like him? Or are they just corrupted by our "liberal education system" (whatever that means).

 

I don't have a firm opinion on global warming (besides really obvious things that people are stupid if they don't believe, like the fact that greenhouse gases retain heat), but generally I find the arguments from the majority of the anti-global warming crowd to be laughable, and they have no room to talk about anyone. Like showing me data from a single year, or only going back to 2003 to show me the earth is cooling. lol.

 

 

Ot that ice is growing on the east side of Antartica while all we hear is the Ross Ice Shelf is collapsing and the oceans are going to rise 6 metres. Please, both sides are guilty.

[Balta1701]

Ot that ice is growing on the east side of Antartica while all we hear is the Ross Ice Shelf is collapsing and the oceans are going to rise 6 metres. Please, both sides are guilty.

Of course, this is actually predicted as an early consequence of warming, because as you warm the temperatures in the southern and northern oceans, you cause more evaporation of water from the ocean, and having more water in the air leads to more precipitation, and because of the defined circulation boundaries in the atmosphere (you know them as jet streams) moisture moves from the equator to the poles and not the reverse, so if you warm the oceans slightly you first cause an increase in ice mass in certain areas because they're getting more precipitation, and the atmosphere is able to respond to changes on a timescale of days to weeks while ice sheets are a big thermal mass and can take years to decades to respond to major changes.

 

Wow, that was all one long run-on sentence.

 

Basically, here's the trend if you start your northern and southern oceans on a warming path:

 

1. Oceans start warming.

2. More winter precipitation falls in antarctica, leading to slowly increasing ice mass in the interior.

3. More winter precipitation falls at the north pole, but that isn't continental so it doesn't matter in any balance and the only thing controlling that ice volume is how much melts from below.

4. The most exposed spots, where you have ice close to the ocean, start to rapidly decline, through processes including thinning/disappearance of sea ice, collapse of ice shelves that are floating on the now warmer ocean, acceleration of ice streams that root in to the ocean, retreat of calving fronts, and major effects in isolated areas like the Antarctic peninsula.

5. The effects of the warmer ocean propagate inwards in to the heart of the ice sheets and they become more and more unstable due to increased melting. The major ice shelves collapse, removing the thing that is supporting the weight of the ice sheets. The increased ice mass due to the increased precipitation is lost at this stage.

6. Eventually, the instability runs away as the melting ice leads to warmer air which in turn leads to more melting ice.

 

With the rate that we're pumping the climate system, we're at step 4 in that flow chart. The major ice streams in West Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, and especially Greenland have seen huge jumps in their flow rates in the last 10 years, especially after the 2003 warm event (the heat wave in Europe), and they have taken a beating. The central parts of Antarctica are currently shielded, but that's a temporary state.

[Balta1701]

On a different topic, I'd just like to bring up this little ditty from one Karl Rove from barely 2 months ago arguing how the stimulus package included such horrid and unacceptable wastes of money.

In H.R. 1, there's $41 billion set aside for school districts, $1.5 billion for university research grants, $2 billion for Energy Department labs, and $3 billion for the National Science Foundation. Yet education is one of the few sectors that added jobs last year.

 

There's also $4 billion for health programs like obesity control and smoking cessation, $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health, $462 million for the Centers for Disease Control, and $900 million for pandemic flu preparations. Health care also added jobs last year.

 

Thankfully, the Republicans and their couple who were willing to negotiate were able to effectively strip that provision from the bill. What could go wrong?

[StrangeSox]

Between this and the hilarious "volcano monitoring" timing, t's almost as if nature is out to make the GOP look like idiots.