kapkomet

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 02:38 PM) Quite the opposite - its a huge business opportunity. In fact, continuing your parallel... the cost to have gotten this country COMPELTELY energy independent, as an example, would cost less than the over 1 trillion dollar cost so far of the Iraq War, have resulted in a ton of new jobs, cleaned up our environment substantially and done a lot more to make us safer than this debacle of a war. But hey, hyperbole seems to work better than fact, yeah? Sure, there's opportunities with every business "shift". I'm not that stupid, but thanks for insinuating that I am. (I'm kidding on the last part). Irish linked one such "cost" report on cleaning up our environment. It would kill the steel industry, put us in a situation where the power grid (which is already on thin ice) would completely fail, etc. I think OVER TIME it can be done, but to listen to the Goracle, we're going to die in 10 years if we don't fix it NOW. In all seriousness, there has to be a shift in thinking, and I'm all for that. I think we can work towards cleaning things up but it has to be done in a way that will not disrupt the economy... AND Asian countries (read: China and India) need to be on board as well.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) Why would our economy shut down? Who's proposing that we do that? What a terrible analogy. Bush needed to convince Congress that we needed to invade Iraq. Al Gore doesn't need to convince the scientists across the world about anything. They're the ones that convinced him, with scientific evidence, that there is a problem. The costs of "cleaning up our environment" such that the Goracle proposes would pretty much shut down capitalism as we know it. But that's ok, socialism is really what most of them are after anyway. The last one - it really isn't that far off from what's happening. It's not about who's convincing who. It's about the reality of the world in which we live.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 08:07 AM) Not once have you ever had no further comment.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 08:15 AM) By the way, I want to address two particular arguments I am seeing about the whole climate change / global warming thing (hereafter called CCGW) - one from each side... --I see posters who feel that CCGW is a given doing exactly what jenksismyb**** pointing out - lumping together those who are in denial of climate change and its consequences in their entirety, and those who acknowledge he reality and possible consequences but are not decided yet on how much (if any) human effect is there. I personally feel there is a ton of solid scientific evidence (not just leaps of faith) indicating such - but I have plenty of respect for those choosing to be undecided at this time. I have similar feelings about other larger issues beyond my understanding, including those surrounding my faith. --I also see a lot of people who are skeptical of CCGW using as one of their base claims the argument that scientists are more likely to find in favor of CCGW because it will get them more (or continuing) grant money. This argument, to me, makes no sense. Getting a grant is about, more than anything, adding something NEW to the discussion. If you propose a doctoral thesis based on a theory that has already been tested numerous times, then you'd better either have some new/unique methodology, or go in with a different causation, or expect a different outcome... SOMETHING different than anyone else. I therefore think that this argument is actually quite the opposite - if a scientist with a real scientific background proposed a sound study saying "I think there is something else at work here", that would automatically give them an advantage in many forums for getting support. Yes, I am sure there are isntances where a professor or review board is SO biased that they won't hear the other side - but this would be true in both cases. The fact that there is such overwhelming conclusions in the community, using any thousands of different methodologies and stats, that show there is at least some human effect, are enough to make me feel highly confident that there is some truth there. My official stance is centered around point 1. I know there's issues concerning global warming. I also think we should be good patrons of our planet. I'm all for that. But I don't think that we start shutting down our economy, etc. because we don't KNOW what all the effects are and I personally think that we are pretty damn arrogant to think that we can "destroy" the planet like the Goracle and their ilk contend. As far as the "grant money" issue, I don't think that's entirely true, yet I think the Goracle and people like him feed a frenzy, much like BushCo create a frenzy on the "war on terror" - or at least a Democratic view of it. It's sort of the same thing.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 12:36 PM) So I am curious where the label police are when "neoconservative" is thrown around by a "mainstream" publication like it is going out of style. Of COURSE it's different, it always is.

Well, I've said this before - I am deeply disappointed with our president. I think he's right on the issue of "the war on terror" but the way it's being handled is about as piss poor as I have seen any president handle a major issue certainly in our lifetime, if not history itself. The arrogance is astounding to me, and it's something I do not understand. The one thing that I always come down to is these people have access to information we do not have, and the remarks that were made were made for a reason. For every response, there is a counter to it. I have to believe at least that much.

Balta, to counter that, just a bit, did you see southsider's posts about Ahmadinejad and his religious beliefs? This guy believes that we are in the time of the (Muslim) version of Armegeddon. That's nothing to make light of, and our government knows that is what we're up against. If this guy gets the bomb, he will use it. It's not about a country the size of Finland. It's about the fundamentalism that is taking hold in Iran. It's not something to dismiss forthright. I'm not saying we go in there and take care of crap, at least not yet, but the pressure has to be maintained to get these guys off that course. I personally think we're edging to the brink of something no one ever thought we would be at and that's a nuclear power in the middle east. It's not a pretty thought. All the negotiating in the world I don't think is going to stop this guy. One other point. Ahmadinejad didn't rise to power on his own... none of them do. Think about it.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 12:12 AM) I never would've guessed, signing up for SoxTalk, that this was an "old conservatives circle jerk" forum. (I can take the heat. But you, of course, know how I feel about your debate tactics and those of most others in this forum, which can be frustrating. I understand fully why people leave the Filibuster.) And you, the saintly President of SoxTalk, the oh, so mighty one, is above all things. I'm trying to decide on the green, but meh, I think you'll get the point. You have proclaimed many times that you are of high intelligence. Good grief. You spend more time trying to defend what we're all (on any political spectrum, not just conservatives, so you must enjoy them or something to even bring it up) laughing about then "debating".

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 11:32 PM) Ummm, not covertly - but privately. It shouldn't be secretive, just quiet. I think it should be secretly - and for a reason. No one needs to know that the meetings are taking place - no one. That's part of the problem today.

This from another board - this guy writes for a Cincinnati newspaper:

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 09:10 PM) And there is still room on the bandwagon!!! Was that directed at me?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 09:46 PM) incorrect. she was all for the half-assed strategy, she made no objections. John McCain? Yes, he called GW out on the strategy. She made no objections until the polling data told her to say something about it, you mean.

Things are looking up in 'Hawk land.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) Personally, I think we oughta sit down and talk with the people in Iran who actually make decisions. Actually, so do I - but not publicly but covertly.

http://blackhawks.nhl.com/team/app/?servic...rticleid=340871

Holy cripes, I thought this would never happen - the Blackhawks on TV @ HOME!

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 08:43 PM) yeah god forbid we sit and talk to other countries. You know diplomacy. We should just bomb everyone that even think's something different than the goold ole' USA and Jesus. whatever, Mr. Chamberlain.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 07:16 PM) Would any other Presidential Candidate from the last 8 years or so have invaded Iraq and done so in such a foolish way? Part A. Yes, all things being equal. Part B, no. But we've hashed that out for 4 years now, haven't we?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 06:25 PM) You're wasting your time Sqwert. That's all I have to say and I think you'll know what I mean. You can't stand it, can you?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 06:06 PM) Hijack a thread? Whatever. Forget I said anything. You're wasting your time, YAS. I'll just leave it at that, and with that said, you'll know exactly what I mean.

*PM* VOTE FOR ME! Oh wait, I got that one in error.

They are not pretty to these people who set these things on purpose... that's for sure.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) I didn't win because I "spammed for votes" (I don't consider it spam: attempts to de-alienate SoxTalk's voters aren't "spam"). I won because I was the only non-establishment candidate. I won because I promised youth, vigor and change. I won because I was right for SoxTalk. That is why I am the President, like every President -- I won on my own merits! Really? I have proof that says otherwise. And by the way, I don't give a s***. Just for the record. But it IS funny.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 04:58 PM) There is some value in his candidacy. The other night he was discussing campaign laws and how he can't use colbertnation.com he has to use a different one. Btw checkout colbert08.com If it sparks some interest, and a few more people vote, that's a good thing. It is almost exactly like when soxtalk attempted a serious election, with a series of debates and hopefully thought evoking speeches. Instead, someone decided to fore go that process and resort to spamming for votes.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 22, 2007 -> 04:55 PM) Maybe penis jokes do fail . . . For only one person, they do.