kapkomet

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) PNR. If we are almost there, we don't have the luxury of a couple more generations of passive data collection and analysis. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 05:12 PM) But we do have the ability to examine generations of data on the climate. We have at this point many different proxies that tell us what sort of CO2 and temperature changes have been seen in the geologic record, what sort of changes we've had in the Pleistocene, what sort of changes we've had in the recent, and so on. We have plenty of ability to study what happens to the climate when there are large shifts in the atmosphere. And beyond that, we have a pretty good understanding of how the atmosphere reacts to different inputs. To my eyes, what you're doing here is just giving the argument of ignorance...saying that we can't know anything for certain until we wait and see what happens every single time, and that's simply not a valid way of making an argument. We have plenty of ways to get information on things you're saying we can't know. OMG! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! NOW! 100 YEARS FROM NOW!! 1,000 YEARS FROM NOW!!! !!!! !!!!! Anyway, I think there are strong correlations that says "mankind" is doing some harm to the environment. I'm not denying that. What gets me is, 30 years ago, we were experiencing "global colding" ( ) according to some of the same (now bandwagon) "global warming" scientists. So, which is it? I wonder if the funding was strong in the 1970's for the "global colding" crowd, you know, the impending ice age and all of that? I think that it's naive to think we don't have an impact. I can also respect both you and Flaxx, because you're from the "scientific" type of field, which I am not a part of. Having said that, though, there's enough evidence from the other side, IMO, to at least question how much of an impact we are having. After all, earth has been through a "global warming" cycle before, otherwise, we'd still be in the ice age.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 05:49 PM) Link. Here are some vote highlights And a Huffington Post bit. Altogether, Chuck Hagel has voted with the White House position about 95% of the time since Bush 2 came into office. So his pecker is just blowing in the wind looking good for all the media darlings? (PUKE) How nice. I really dislike him now.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 05:22 PM) If you think Clinton administration missteps won't be covered as harshly, you're forgetting that the previous Clinton administration was impeached based on a scandal from Star magazine. I think I mentioned that in my post. Yep. I did. It was "sex" and it sold. And that's NOT why he was impeached, but nice try.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) That is definitely true. It's gotten where every new scandal/crisis/screw-up is just one more thing and almosty nothing surprises anymore. I do want you all to understand that I think GWB is an idiot, I did in 2000, and 2004, but I voted for him both times because the Goracle was laughable in 2000, and John Kerry is a blowhard jackass, IMO. I really just wish we could get a real president that would represent what was best for the most Americans, and not all the special interests. My whole thing is - there's so much s*** in our government on BOTH sides of the aisle, yet everyone wants to attack the Executive Branch with full vigor. That bothers me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 04:01 PM) Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has decided not to decide... yet. Of all the Republican candidates and possible candidates, I actually like Hagel best, at this point. This guy is an assclown, too. How many focus groups and how many messups will it take before he becomes the hero and enters the race?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 03:43 PM) True enough that a 100% consensus is not achievable in science. But I'm a firm believer in the peer review process and in the ability of science to incrementally advance the state of knowledge to the point where we achieve a sound working knowledge of the physical and biological systems that surround us. The overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate science is painting a picture of a planet whose large-scale climate systems can be affected and are being affected by human activity. I believe these statements are wholly accurate. If you poop in your back yard, does it effect your environment? Why, yes! It gets stinky! I think it goes without saying that humans are effecting the environment - and to some extent, the climate. The question is, how much, and does the earth "correct" things on its own, so to speak? Only generations of studies will be able to prove that, not just our generation.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 04:24 PM) Drama and controversy sell papers more than actual news. I think the reason that there is this conspiracy about the leftist media is that they're generally anti-Bush (and his admin) because of what it creates. It's the popular thing to do now. That's probably more true then anything else. If Mrs. Bill Clinton gets elected, though, her policies and "cover-ups" (unless it sells more papers, i.e. Monica!!!) will definitely not be as widely reported, though. It is the "in" thing to rip George W. Bush. That's certainly true. And Flaxx, at the heart of it all, GWB sucks ass at covering his ass, legal or otherwise. And his ass is getting bigger every day, if you know what I mean.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. We can revisit this in a year or two, maybe.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) I think an elective world religion class would be a perfectly appropriate offering within the framework of any public school social studies program. Bible as literature would be less appropriate at the K-12 public school level and I think you could take issue with federal funds going toward any course offering that seems to give a preferential treatment to the written works of a single religion, but it would bean interesting elective offering from a college literature department. That's a good point. It is probably something you don't want to make mandatory. That line starts to blur right there, probably.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 03:21 PM) The point is, if this was an across the board federal prosecutor purge that happened in March of 2001 right after Bush had taken office there wouldn't be such an uproar over it. Bull s***. Stop it. You know damn well everyone would have gone nuts, just like everyone always does with anything the Bush Administration does that doesn't fit the liberal agenda. My point is what southsider's point was above. They all do it, and yes, it's wrong, but Reno gets a free pass because it was "everyone". Please.

If you teach it from a historical perspective (and not faith) and also discuss how the other major world religions differ, I think this is a good idea. Maybe after a generation or two, some of the ignorance and hate could be limited?

I know! It only fits when there is an agenda to be followed, duh.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 04:57 AM) Kap: Rostenkowski still went to jail. But Janet Reno didn't have to "resign" like they're calling for AG to resign, now did it?

But somehow, AG's issue is totally different, right?

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 02:40 AM) I'll agree w/ that, and if I were a Dem adviser, I would lobby hard for Warner to be VP if Obama wins the nomination. VA would be a big state to "carry"... so yea, he'd be a likely choice.

The guys SUCK. The women are a lot better this year.

Mrs. Bill Clinton. And truthfully, I'm not so sure Obama wouldn't take a chance on him, but in reality, Obama has to go with someone "southern" and "moderate" to maximize the electoral college. Bayh doesn't have enough "southern roots" for Obama, but he certainly moderates Mrs. Bill Clinton.

QUOTE(Chet Lemon @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 01:16 AM) I'm of the belief that Richardson is trying to become an attractive Vice- Presidential option. He has more credentials than any other contender in the field, but I don't think primary voters will throw their lot in with him. It is unfair, yet probably true. Richardson along w/ Mark Warner are good bets to be Dem VP. I think Evan Bayh has already been promised that job, which is why he bowed out really, really early.

I think many of us have been saying that from the get go with Obamamania! (sic)

I saw this yesterday. Go little Indiana schools!

ok I've got my top 5 in but haven't done the "exclude" part. I'll try tomorrow before the draft.

/bsssssst bssssssssst bssssssssssst Please pardon the interruption for this unrelated to anything post. This might sound strange, but this thread has caused a couple of hangups on the server. I have to optimize the database, but I have to do that at like 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning while people aren't around. Frankly, it's not going to happen for a couple of weeks until I'm done with this MBA. If you could please indulge me and click on the page #'s of the thread instead of the "get new posts" graphic until I can optimize, I'd appreciate it. Sorry about that... now carry on, you blathering Dems. /bsssssssssst bsssssssssst bsssssssssst

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 07:19 PM) Its not any specific testimony I'm questioning. What makes their investigation and resulting analysis worthless is that the Senate had too much of a personal stake in the outcome regarding pre-war intelligence. That's really an ironic statement if you think about it.

I'm sure he did sign some sort of NDA, but obviously it didn't matter.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 03:47 AM) Ok, so the banner said Democrat instead of Democratic. oooooh, that cuts deep. As for the cutting away early, that is bull. I will find you the link complete with transcript that i read yesterday, as soon as I can find it. They did not cut away early. As for who Fox has on AFTER the debate, why does that matter? As for Fox maknig Obama look bad, he seems to be doing a bit of that without Fox's help. Yes, so far all his missteps have been minor, but Fox didn't tell him to be pals with rezko, or have his blind trust not-so blind. Face it, this is just poor excuses for dropping out of a debate because of the fringe elements b****ing and moaning. As for 'controversial questions', if they can't stand up to Juan Williams, how are they gonna talk to the Palistinians? Hey Alpha, I know we all chime in here from time to time, but remember, this is a DEM THREAD ONLY, which means they get to s*** on whatever they want without reprocussion. It's a place to hide!