That the right get their talking points from Rush is just a left wing talking point.

(01-03-2010 12:47 AM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

He makes the rights talking points so when I hear the rights commentators and politicians say the same thing, you know you are hearing what Limbaugh is saying. THen you guys repeat the same idiotic comments.

Who's telling you Rush makes the rights talking points? Where are you getting your info?

I see it on the news. You first hear Rush make assinine comments then they are repeated over and over by the rightwing media and you guys on this board.

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

Remember, he lives in public housing and is on welfare, he has plenty of time to listen to Rush.

(01-03-2010 01:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

Remember, he lives in public housing and is on welfare, he has plenty of time to listen to Rush.

Remember Crabman(why do you call yourself Crabman-do you have "crabs"? That can be treated), you and the rest of these rightwing posters can't read or at the very least can't comprehend what they are reading.

(01-03-2010 01:23 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-03-2010 01:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

Remember, he lives in public housing and is on welfare, he has plenty of time to listen to Rush.

Remember Crabman(why do you call yourself Crabman-do you have "crabs"? That can be treated), you and the rest of these rightwing posters can't read or at the very least can't comprehend what they are reading.

Hey Bobby.....you have no clue of my political persuasion.

However, from reading your posts, it's obvious that you don't pay any taxes. That's why you are all for the government expanding their payouts to your for food, housing, and now healthcare. It's real easy to have your views because you don't have any skin in the game.

Bobby, you are a taker from the system, not a payer into the system. Welfare Bum.

(01-03-2010 02:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Bobby, you are a taker from the system, not a payer into the system. Welfare Bum.

We call those parasites. And Robert al-N is biggest of them all.

Things like robert love living off the hard work of others. It's because they are morons and lack any skills to contribute to society. They can only consume.

Naturally, as you pointed out, their political views are predictable as they revolve around whatever gets them more for nothing.

(01-03-2010 12:18 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-03-2010 12:47 AM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

He makes the rights talking points so when I hear the rights commentators and politicians say the same thing, you know you are hearing what Limbaugh is saying. THen you guys repeat the same idiotic comments.

Who's telling you Rush makes the rights talking points? Where are you getting your info?

I see it on the news. You first hear Rush make assinine comments then they are repeated over and over by the rightwing media and you guys on this board.

You are very vague, Entitlement boy. What news? Be specific. Who has said this?

(01-03-2010 02:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-03-2010 01:23 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-03-2010 01:18 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

Remember, he lives in public housing and is on welfare, he has plenty of time to listen to Rush.

Remember Crabman(why do you call yourself Crabman-do you have "crabs"? That can be treated), you and the rest of these rightwing posters can't read or at the very least can't comprehend what they are reading.

Hey Bobby.....you have no clue of my political persuasion.

However, from reading your posts, it's obvious that you don't pay any taxes. That's why you are all for the government expanding their payouts to your for food, housing, and now healthcare. It's real easy to have your views because you don't have any skin in the game.

Bobby, you are a taker from the system, not a payer into the system. Welfare Bum.

I have had some grants to pay for school and I have used unemployment and I currently work(as mentioned, make too much for government help) and pay taxes. If that makes me a welfare bum, then so be it.

(01-03-2010 11:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I have had some grants to pay for school and I have used unemployment and I currently work(as mentioned, make too much for government help) and pay taxes. If that makes me a welfare bum, then so be it.

I'm guessing your tax liability is close to nothing after deductions.

(01-04-2010 08:00 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-03-2010 11:34 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I have had some grants to pay for school and I have used unemployment and I currently work(as mentioned, make too much for government help) and pay taxes. If that makes me a welfare bum, then so be it.

I'm guessing your tax liability is close to nothing after deductions.

On the other hand, plenty of people who have made fortunes believe that the world will be destroyed by carbon dioxide, or in 2012, or by the anti-christ, or by plastic.

I've always been interested in weather and consider myself pretty knowledgeable in meteorology. But I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how melting glaciers cause cold weather:

Quote:In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly. These communities, living at the edge of what is possible, face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers.

(bold mine)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan...inter-cold

If anything, a layer of ice and snow keeps the ground's relative warmth from influencing the lower levels of the air. The more dirt and soil exposed, the more it will absorb the sun's rays and release the heat into the surrounding air. Ice and snow simply reflect sun's rays back into space. It's as if the Guardian (always well known for its particularly left-wing slant) is another example of slapping the 'global warming' label to any unusual weather event, regardless of what it is.

I do believe the overall global climate has warmed over the past quarter-century, though I have no idea to what extent man influences it and how much is natural and cyclical (solar activity, etc.). On a strictly regional level, the northeastern US has seen a cooling spell these past few years, culminating with a generally non-existant summer in 2009.

Still, it's frightening how many will exploit climate change... not out of sympathy or care, but to alarm the world into further taxation and regulation, in order to satisfy insatiable appetites for governmental power and control.

(01-04-2010 06:41 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I've always been interested in weather and consider myself pretty knowledgeable in meteorology. But I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how melting glaciers cause cold weather:

Quote:In a world growing ever hotter, Huancavelica is an anomaly. These communities, living at the edge of what is possible, face extinction because of increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers.

(bold mine)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan...inter-cold

If anything, a layer of ice and snow keeps the ground's relative warmth from influencing the lower levels of the air. The more dirt and soil exposed, the more it will absorb the sun's rays and release the heat into the surrounding air. Ice and snow simply reflect sun's rays back into space. It's as if the Guardian (always well known for its particularly left-wing slant) is another example of slapping the 'global warming' label to any unusual weather event, regardless of what it is.

I do believe the overall global climate has warmed over the past quarter-century, though I have no idea to what extent man influences it and how much is natural and cyclical (solar activity, etc.). On a strictly regional level, the northeastern US has seen a cooling spell these past few years, culminating with a generally non-existant summer in 2009.

Still, it's frightening how many will exploit climate change... not out of sympathy or care, but to alarm the world into further taxation and regulation, in order to satisfy insatiable appetites for governmental power and control.

Beyond the counter-intuitive conclusion, there are a couple of bizarre things about this article. First of all, Peru is in the middle of summer. As you can see from last month's temperatures in Huancavelica, Peru, December 2009 doesn't exactly look like 18th century Ireland:

Huancavelica: Highs of 75-80, lows 50-55 Last Month

The article goes on to note that, this month, conditions will only get worse. As you can see, something strange is happening, but not exactly what the article would lead us to believe:

January Temps Running 15-20 degrees ABOVE NORMAL

I'll do some checking and see if I can find what the temps were back in June...

I can't find any temperature records for that part of Peru. Cusco is about as close as I can find at a similar elevation:

June mean temps for the past several years:

2000: 51
2001: 51
2002: 52
2003: 51
2004: 49
2005: 51
2006: 51
2007: 51
2008: 52
2009: 52

July temps:

2000: 51
2001: 51
2002: 49
2003: 50
2004: 49
2005: 51
2006: 50
2007: 51
2008: 51
2009: 51

Those mountains look to be about the most stable regions, as far as winter temperatures, that you'll ever come across.

I would guess that the Guardian reporter has been in Peru about 3 months, and has no idea what temperatures were last year, much last five years ago. I would also guess that the local population is trying to find ways to generate incomes to replace the old mercury mines.

Cusco is actually much closer than the "neighboring district of Puno" mentioned in the article. Cusco is adjacent to Huancavelica region; Puno is actually several districts southeast.

(01-02-2010 10:00 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

Not quite sure what you all are arguing about, but the study suggests a few things:

-The earth's ability to remove carbon dioxide from the air has not diminished;

-"About 45% (of CO2) remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years;"

-The results run contrary to most climate models.

Carbon dioxide readings at Mauna Loa indicate that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 0.0320% of the atmosphere in the 1950s to approximately 0.0387% of the atmosphere today.

Assume for a moment that the bigger numbers are true and the other is the exception...

SO the obvious questions are these:
is the difference between 0.032 and 0.039 meaningful? Is it within the margin of error? Is it potentially explained by more or less volcanic activity?
Is it related to post WWII baby boom population growth? Does it imply that it will be 0.007% higher in another 60 years? What is the global impact of (as an example) of a .021% increase by 2200 and how does that compare to the cost of reversing this trend?? How much of this change is related to the issues we are trying to address like cars and factories and how much is related to breathing?

We hear an awful lot about the cause of the problem and that rich countries and people should pay for their sins... but I've yet to hear someone talk about how much it would actually cost to fix the problem. Spending trillions of dollars to have a minutely fractional impact on a minute fraction of an event that may or may not happen 200 years from now seems like a big old waste of time. I'm certainly concerned about wasting our natural resources and polluting the air... but having actually been alive and in DC back in the 70's when all of the big hullabaloo over pollution (I actually have a letter from NIXON re the EPA) was going on... we have no doubt done much better in the last 35 years... yet we seem to have had no impact on our global prospects. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done... just that the end-game may be a fait accompli

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content...6hmijf.asp

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/ap_o...er_weather

"Frigid weather hits Midwest, -52 wind chill in ND"

Walt Disney World...

Saturday: A chance of rain showers, snow showers, and sleet before 1pm. Cloudy, with a high near 44. North northwest wind between 10 and 15 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php...2=-81.3742

Hundreds gather to protest global warming!!!!

MMGW is their religion. They have faith. Facts and reality will not dissuade them.

But at the same time they hate people who are religious.

(01-06-2010 08:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 10:00 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

Not quite sure what you all are arguing about, but the study suggests a few things:

-The earth's ability to remove carbon dioxide from the air has not diminished;

-"About 45% (of CO2) remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years;"

-The results run contrary to most climate models.

Carbon dioxide readings at Mauna Loa indicate that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 0.0320% of the atmosphere in the 1950s to approximately 0.0387% of the atmosphere today.

Assume for a moment that the bigger numbers are true and the other is the exception...

SO the obvious questions are these:
is the difference between 0.032 and 0.039 meaningful? Is it within the margin of error? Is it potentially explained by more or less volcanic activity?
Is it related to post WWII baby boom population growth? Does it imply that it will be 0.007% higher in another 60 years? What is the global impact of (as an example) of a .021% increase by 2200 and how does that compare to the cost of reversing this trend?? How much of this change is related to the issues we are trying to address like cars and factories and how much is related to breathing?

We hear an awful lot about the cause of the problem and that rich countries and people should pay for their sins... but I've yet to hear someone talk about how much it would actually cost to fix the problem. Spending trillions of dollars to have a minutely fractional impact on a minute fraction of an event that may or may not happen 200 years from now seems like a big old waste of time. I'm certainly concerned about wasting our natural resources and polluting the air... but having actually been alive and in DC back in the 70's when all of the big hullabaloo over pollution (I actually have a letter from NIXON re the EPA) was going on... we have no doubt done much better in the last 35 years... yet we seem to have had no impact on our global prospects. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done... just that the end-game may be a fait accompli

From a cost-benefit analysis, the various proposals set out by the world's governments would have almost no long term effect on temperatures (anyone is free to show me where I'm wrong; I haven't been looking at them too closely, but I understand we're talking about saving a couple tenths of a degree over decades.)

These plans do make certain assumptions about mankind's ability to develop cleaner, more efficient energy sources, and, in particular, they assume that government regulations and restrictions on fossil fuels will give us this energy more quickly. "See how much new technology we got from space?" they say, even though most of the technology was already on the cusp of discovery, and we now have a very unimaginative program that produces almost no new innovations.

The cost, of course, is the productive capacity of the world, which drives its ability to innovate. Poor countries don't want to implement these restrictions because they will cause people to die. Rich countries don't because they will lose economic power. In the end, the loss of this vitality may well IMPEDE our ability to develop new energies.