KipWellsFan

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 06:46 AM) Cimate change data dumped. Soare we just supposed to take thier word for it, and change the entire world's economy on their say so? At the very least this calls for a global effort to reconstruct the raw data with the utmost transparancy to keep politics out of it, and stop the data manipulation so no more fake 'hockey sticks' show up. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece I will not change the way I live based on research done by the 20th ranked university in Britain!

Screw drudge. But seriously the difference of a couple of points over a couple days doesn't matter. If a month from now Obama was consistently around 58% or say 45% then that would be interesting. Even then the relevance probably wouldn't be much. All these polls do right now is drive the punditry.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 26, 2009 -> 06:42 PM) The Wachowski brothers never quite got back to the level that they were at with the Matrix. I enjoyed V for Vendetta, but there were still parts in that movie that pissed me off Should it be the Wachowski siblings now? In their defense they only produced Ninja Assassin. But seriously I could only watch like 10 minutes before I turned off Speed Racer. What the fcuk was that?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) If people can't make the connection between a HUGE political push for environmental measures (i.e., lots and lots of money for "study" to scientists, and lots and lots of money being made by people who invested in green energy years ago) then you're crazy. I don't think that makes the debate more or less relevant, but there IS a political and financial gain from this debate. We're talking hundreds of billions that the government will spend to fix a problem we don't yet clearly understand. Yes, we're suffocating ourselves with pollution. But we don't know yet what that's going to cause. We have models, and theories, but all of that is pure conjecture at this point. And the problem isn't that we don't have a conversation going on about the seriousness of the problem, it's that the scientific community has already decided, unequivocally, that man has caused his own destruction and it's going to happen tomorrow. Anyone who disagrees with the severity or the timing is quickly dismissed, thrown into the "nonbeliever" camp, and forgotten. And if anyone thinks that the government is going to fix this problem you're nuts. On one side of the aisle you have people that believe God would never let them die from their own doing, and therefore global warming is a myth. And on the other you have an entire party in bed with an industry that relies on the energy base we need to change. At best we'll get a bunch of initiatives for energy conservation which we should all be doing anyway. I think it's a false equivalency to place climate scientists and renewable energy industries on one side and energy biz and their lobbyists on the other side. But sheesh, having common sense doesn't count for much anymore. It must suck to be a climate scientist. You spend your whole life studying these issues, working hard and doing what you think is hopefully right. But duh, you're actually just a tool of renewable energy and your whole life has been a waste of time. The people doing the real work, advancing humanity, actually work at the Competitive Industries Institute, and live in coal states.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 04:48 PM) It's too bad that the vocabulary disconnect is largely the cause of this, and despite there being completely rational explanations for the language used, they will obviously be ignored. Of course Fox News has called this Global Warming's Waterloo. Despite the obvious preponderance of evidence that indicates otherwise. I don't get the vitriol aimed against people who want to stop global climate change. Besides Al Gore being a champion for it, I don't know why it's such a politically divisive issue. What do global warming deniers believe the incentive is for those "making it up" is? Well for one, some people think that scientists somehow need to be 100% certain about the issue before taking even the most anemic steps. Of course it's impossible to be certain about climate change as it is about most things. You either take political action or not. Two, any government intervention is bad to some people. Hence, only the invisible hand of the market should control this. Of course these people ignore that government intervention reduced ozone damaging emissions. Successfully and with little economic disturbance. Three, some complete idiots think that scientists are somehow acting in a conspiratorial way with an end to transferring large amounts of money from business to government. These people are bonkers in general. I think it's normal to be skeptical. I am skeptical. I'm skeptical about most things. I'm not a scientist and I'm not a climate scientist. I've got to make common sense decisions. Pumping endlessly increasing amounts of crap into the air is bad. It may have helped give us a quality of living unseen before, but everything comes to an end.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 02:37 PM) What am I missing here??? Daily Tracking- Gallup 50-44% http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm#Gallup Various Opinion Polls taken since 11/1/09 + approval varies from +17% (CBS) to Neutral (Fox) http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm Your first link is a day behind.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 06:09 PM) lol Al Gore. Still a joke of a man. Still the politician who knows more about the science of climate change than any other poltician.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) I don't know where you are getting any of this. The governments in European countries come to better compromise specifically because they have 5 or 6 parties with seats at the table. Because 20% can't pass anything, but two or three of those can. That means the majority of moderation gets a more real say, instead of the gutters of two parties doing so. And as for it not being structurally possible, I think that is only partially true. There are significant barriers. But it was only 5 or 6 cycles ago we had a 3rd party Presidential candidate who had a serious shot of winning, and may have, if he hadn't stumbled over himself on a few occasions. The possibility is there. We don't have as much money in Canadian Politics and the system is totally different but in Canada it is almost a tradition that after a conservative party has been in power a long time, and tries to hug the center too long, it is replaced by a more right wing party. So I could see these Tea Party absolutists being a factor. EDIT: see my post above Northside

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Couldn't disagree more. Look at the coalition governments European countries have to make majorities out of 5 or 6 parties, you end up with 25-30% of the population dictating policy as opposed to our 50%+1. Not that there can be 2 or more viable parties in America to begin with. Structurally its impossible. Umm, I think you're wrong about coalitions. The only country I know that has a coalition government in Europe is Germany (I'm sure there are others). In 2005, the coalition was between the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats and they won 70% of the vote together. And in 2009 the Christian Democrats are now in coalition with the more conservative Free Democrats and they won almost 50% of the vote together. By definition, coalitions tend to represent more of the voters, not less than a non-coalition government. For example, in Canada the Liberal Party had esssentially absolute control sans coalition for 11 years after attaining between 38% and 41% of the vote in three straight elections.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Nov 3, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) "Tucker & Dale vs Evil" Red Band That is must-see!

Jaws, The Shining, The Devil's Rejects, High Tension, Saw, Eden Lake But really there have been so many that I like. Love horror stuff. Quarantine, Wolf Creek, Signs, the Hostel series too EDIT: How can I forget Cloverfield.

It's mostly a term used by people who don't like the genre... But I don't mind it. I don't know what it says about me that I like to watch these movies, but when it comes to my entertainment I don't like much censorship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_porn#.22Torture_porn.22

If you can stand the genre Eden Lake might be the best torture porn, survivalist horror movie I've ever seen.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 16, 2009 -> 10:17 PM) No Blood For Oil! How many people have died as a result of Obama's domestic policies?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Sep 29, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) I gotta believe the Saudis would look the other way i.e an Israeli attack on Iran. So too would Egypt and Jordan. I also gotta think that Syria would join the fray against Israel. Saudi Arabia looking the other way? Iran will be looking for whatever excuse it has to meddle in Saudia Arabia. Lets not forget that Iran essentially would like to control Mecca, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. I hardly doubt any Arab countries would be able to sit idly by. Egypt might be one of the most hostile Arab countries to Iran but could they really afford to take such a moderate position with a bubbling Islamist insurgency, perhaps funded in part by Iran. How about shutting down the straight of Hormuz or activating it's proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas? You think the moderate Fatah could hold on in the West Bank after this? And maybe Iran might make it's control of Shiite Iraq a little bit more official... And speaking of Iraq what would al-Maliki do? Would Sunnis in Iraq become especially vulnerable? And I've got no idea if Iran has any kind of foreign operatives left around the western world? That would be pretty... And you think Iran treated the moderates in their country harshly during the recent election protests? I wonder how they'd be treated in an all out war scenario. I believe that Iran would be able to unleash hell in the middle east... The unintended consequences could be endless. Again, I'm stealing from Robert Baer's book that's a must read if you're interested in this situation.

lol!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 11:55 AM) Its not about expanding their power. You guys are thinking way too much like Americans. This isn't about money, or power, or any of that other crap. It is about fulfilling religious destiny. I mean I guess it is a possibility but doesn't make much sense to me. Makes more sense to me that the real people who run Iran are extremely smart and have been expanding their little empire for years now and are essentially positioned to lead the muslim world particularly in their opposition to Israel. As Bob Baer writes, the people who fight Israel know that it's the Shiites in Iran that are the real effective fighters not a bunch of goof off Sunnis. Of course I don't really know what their end goal is against Israel. But nuking Israel would end up destroying themselves. And Iran isn't just one big suicide bomber.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) Religion is a funny thing. Achy believes that it is Iran's destiny to destroy Israel and bring about the return of the prophet. The rest is secondary. What Khamenei think isn't secondary.

Yah, I never understood this "mainstream media" thing. Aren't Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh mainstream? So most of the media don't think like Kapkomet, for example, doesn't mean they're liberal. I would say the media has major problems, but whether or not they're liberal or conservative is probably not the biggest problem.

Oh god... all the righteous indignation on here. He flipped em the bird... big flippin' deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2009 -> 07:59 PM) It works for the Prime Minister across the pond. Yah that moment reminded me of Canada in a way too. But of course this joint session is nothing like our Question Period where heckling is allowed. Also, the Prime Minister isn't really the Commander in Chief and doesn't really have the same pomp as the President. The most similar things we have to speeches like this one or State of the Nation speeches are our Throne Speeches which are written by the Prime Minister and officials but read by the Queen's representative in silence with the Prime Minister seated next to him or her. Even in debate and Question Period in Canada I don't believe that members recognized to speak by the Speaker are allowed to call other members "liars". If they do the are removed from the house. You have to be more creative in your choice of words I guess.

Hope you're having a good one Tex!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 11:00 PM) Sure they were, but the alphabert networks and CNN all told us that these guys were no big deal, we really shouldbn't be bothered by them. So yeah, we heard about them, but it was all 'pay no attention to the skelaton behind the curtains'. You see what you want to see.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 04:46 PM) #1 - so what. Status quo. #2 - I don't think he had a lot of choice. Larry Summers? LMAO. Paul Voeckler? Been there done that. #3 - so what. That means something big? #4 - LOL. That's a non starter because India and China are laughing their asses off. Say one thing and do another, and there's no power to do s*** to stop it, meanwhile, cap and trade, er raise taxes on every American for their energy, baby! #5 - wow, no s***? Seriously? That's really exciting. How's that $5 a month doing for everyone? Big Mac, anyone? Er, uh, McRoyal and Cheese? Er, um, tofu for the vegetarians here. That's laughable he gets to say he cut taxes for the middle class, while creating the largest deficits BY FAR in the world's entire history. #6 - she's the most underqualified POS nominee just about ever, Harriet Myers notwithstanding. And she's a straight line liberal. Straight line Democrat, baby! Let's lob some missles at Iraq. Oh wait a minute. (yes, I'm kidding). I'm not sure, but just because the deficit and Obama have driven you absolutely bonkers Sotamayor is not underqualified. And just because you think being a liberal (however you are defining that incorrectly nowadays) is a bad thing it's not radical. And she's not more "liberal" than Ginsberg for f sake. And by arguing that Obama is continuing to run up the deficit, continuing to oppose gay marriage, keeping the same economic people as Clinton you are admitting that Obama is not radical at all. Shyte policy... sure whatever you say Kap, but radical, far left? That's just a horse's arse.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 04:25 PM) Other than jumping off a cliff and killing themselves, what would a Democratic President have to to to not be considered a radical to you Kap? Tort reform.