Looks like global warming is legit..
 

I know you right wingers for the most part have this dellusional view of the world that says global warming isnt real..


well looks like those wacky (obviously socialist hippy left winger) scientists have made another discovery that "proves" the legitimacy of global warming theory


Scientists Find Climate Change 'Smoking Gun'
By Miguel Bustillo
Times Staff Writer

April 29, 2005

The Earth is now absorbing so much heat from the sun that the soot and greenhouse gases that humans are putting in the air appear to be the only reasonable explanation for the warming trend, according to research released Thursday by a team of prominent climate scientists.

The scientists from NASA, Columbia University and the U.S. Department of Energy determined that precise, deep-ocean measurements showed a rise in temperature that matched their computer model predictions of what would happen in an increasingly polluted world.

The scientists wrote that the findings confirmed the planet's "energy imbalance," a long-held theory on global warming.

"This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for," said James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the Columbia University Earth Institute, and lead author of the study, published online Thursday by Science magazine.

"There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause of most observed warming," added Hansen, who has long advanced the idea that human beings have been contributing to global warming, and in recent years has criticized the Bush administration for failing to take aggressive action on the issue.

Although the planet is now soaking up more energy from sunlight than it is reflecting back to space in the form of heat radiation, much of the excess energy remains effectively hidden in the oceans, the study found.

Just as the sands on a beach warm faster than the waters offshore, oceans respond more slowly to temperature changes than land masses.

But the heat trapped in the oceans will eventually manifest itself, with significant consequences for the world's climate, the scientists wrote.

As a result, the average global temperature, which has increased by about one degree Fahrenheit over the last century, will do so again over the next century, simply based on the heat stowed away in the oceans.

"The Hansen paper is important," said F. Sherwood Rowland, a UC Irvine professor who received the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry for finding that pollution from aerosol sprays and coolants was eroding the ozone layer.

"If you have that much [heat] stored up in the oceans, that is about another degree Fahrenheit that is lagging there, and we just haven't felt it yet."

Michael Prather, another UC Irvine professor, said that though Hansen and others had stated for years that the oceans could be a repository for much of the heat generated by the greenhouse effect, the latest paper represented the most convincing evidence yet that it was happening.

"I always believed Jim [Hansen] was right in the first place, but now I think he has proved it," said Prather, the former editor of the Geophysical Research Letters journal.

"You now see the heat building up in the ocean and you have a limited range of options to explain it."

In addition to increasing global temperatures, the warming could lead to an acceleration of the ice sheet disintegration taking place in parts of the polar regions, and even a rapid rise in sea levels, the authors concluded.

Sea levels have risen about 1 1/4 inches in the last decade, twice the rate of the preceding century, partly because the heat content of the oceans has caused the water to expand.

Based on major climate shifts in the planet's history, Hansen estimates that if temperatures increased beyond 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over current levels, large-scale sea level increases could take place.

He argued that represents the threshold that human beings should strive not to exceed. Under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, countries around the world agreed in principle to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate, though they never defined what that was.

Natural variables such as ocean circulation patterns could theoretically account for the high rate of heat storage in deep waters, the authors conceded. But they said that in such a scenario, cooler water would have been pushed to the surface of the oceans, and the measurements over the last decade showed surface temperatures warming.

By contrast, the researchers noted that the additional heat in the oceans corresponds closely with what their computer model predicted would take place due to increased emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and black carbon, making that the more likely cause.

Hansen estimated that if humans could slash the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in half, or eliminate potent methane emissions, the planet's heat would fall back into equilibrium. But such reductions, he said, are unrealistic, and thus the world probably will become warmer.

Just because the Bush administration failed to take aggressive action on the issue does not mean it's a partisan issue. Global warming affects all of us. Also, you speculate that the scientists are partisan? This is irrelevant in science.

Just because you personally give Republicans this label does not mean we’re scientific saps. I am a huge science buff. I’m sure there’s plenty of brilliant right-wing scientists. Again, not that this matters.

You really need to do your homework on this stuff, Dre. Clinton’s Climate Change Action Plan turned out to be a vague joke. What was intended to be a drastic measure toward the limitation of CO2 emissions turned out to be hot air and speculation on what could be.

My point is that politicians and the government have always had a sardonic disregard for science when it conflicts with policy or whatever the case may be.

Of course it exsists. I've have agreed that it does since it was first debated. I blame it on the terrorists and fast food.

On a serious note though. You can't blame ANYONE for global warming. It takes a CFC almost 40 years to reach the ozone after it has been exposed. CFCs came to be shortly after WWII when it started to be used by auto. manufactures and in refrigeration units. So we are now feeling the effects of our parents generation. As far as pollution goes which greatly increases the greenhouse effect, no political party has ever taken an honest stand in combatting it.

salty dont take it personal man..

i just have heard, seen, and read many an article/blog/rant from right wingers about how science is wrong and there is no such thing as global warming...

hell on srtforums they had a wonderful thread full of idiocy and retardedness about this very topic..


hey sti you got any data to support the 40 year claim?

i would think that gasses would be able to rise faster then that.. esp given the fact that many pollutants are found in jetfuel exhaust as well.. (Which as you know is alot closer to the ozone layer then say my can of hairspray).

andre

I did a report on this way back in the day. I'll look but I can tell you that the diffenence of space between a jet and a can of hair spray is relatively negligable. It'd be like comparing the distance of a drive from Philadelphia to LA and Baltimore to LA. Recently the depletion of the Ozone has greatly subsided due to regulations on the use of CFCs.

Here's a little data from an extremely reputable source about CFCs and the ozone:
[url]http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/[/url]

And just to play devils advocate:
[url]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0805_030805_ozone.html[/url]

Hahahhahaha common. I just saw Day after Tomorrow.... we're all going to freeze to death!!!!

I predict we'll be smacked by a meteor or have a cataclismic(sp?) eruption before we succeed in killing ourselves.

I wonder if all these greenhouse gas nuts are willing to have nuclear power plants in their back yards???

I surrender, global socialism is the only answer.

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]Hahahhahaha common. I just saw Day after Tomorrow.... we're all going to freeze to death!!!!

I predict we'll be smacked by a meteor or have a cataclismic(sp?) eruption before we succeed in killing ourselves.

I wonder if all these greenhouse gas nuts are willing to have nuclear power plants in their back yards???[/QUOTE]
So we shouldn't do anything about it? Oh what the hell, lets just destroy our planet. Thats best for everyone! :rolleyes: Besides, its not like global-warming is happening or anything.



:rolleyes:

Humans causing Global Warming is bull****.
 

So, dr3 et al, when will y'all be giving up your Scoobies?

[img]http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png[/img]

This is a graph of the CO2/dust content of an ice core sample, going back roughly 400k years.
Black: CO2
Blue: reconstructed temperature
Red: dust.
X-axis: time before present (years).
Y axis: CO2 ppmv; other curves rescaled to fit.

Looking at the graph, it looks as though every 100K years or so, us mean ol' Conservatives gut the cats on our cars and just go plum crazy. :rolleyes:

And you ****ing idiots buy this!?

[QUOTE]
The Earth is now absorbing so much heat from the sun that the soot and greenhouse gases that humans are putting in the air appear to be the only reasonable explanation for the warming trend, according to research released Thursday by a team of prominent climate scientists.[/QUOTE]

Bull****.
Expalin how CO2 levels increased 200K years ago?

[QUOTE]There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause of most observed warming, added Hansen, who has long advanced the idea that human beings have been contributing to global warming, and in recent years has criticized the Bush administration for failing to take aggressive action on the issue.[/QUOTE]

More bull****.

[QUOTE]Just as the sands on a beach warm faster than the waters offshore, oceans respond more slowly to temperature changes than land masses.[/QUOTE]

No ****.
What's the heat/energy capacity of salt water?
I don't know of the top of my head, but it's at least 5 times that of sand.

The relationship between conservatives and the inability to care for the environment is one of the most groundless claims ever.

[QUOTE=Oaf]So, dr3 et al, when will y'all be giving up your Scoobies?

[img]http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png[/img]

This is a graph of the CO2/dust content of an ice core sample, going back roughly 400k years.
Black: CO2
Blue: reconstructed temperature
Red: dust.
X-axis: time before present (years).
Y axis: CO2 ppmv; other curves rescaled to fit.

Looking at the graph, it looks as though every 100K years or so, us mean ol' Conservatives gut the cats on our cars and just go plum crazy. :rolleyes:

And you ****ing idiots buy this!?[/QUOTE]

did i ever once say i gave a **** about global warming?

Nope.. just never said it didnt exist.. BIG difference..

[quote]
[b]I know you right wingers for the most part have this dellusional view of the world that says global warming isnt real.. [/b] [/quote]

This is a false statement.
An idiot can look at the evidence and see that Earth is getting warmer.
What intelligent people, without a political agenda to push, see is that it's simply part of the Earth's natural cycle of hot/cold.

Yes, people "pollute".
But that amount is far less than what "pollution" Earth puts out on it's own.

[QUOTE=Oaf]So, dr3 et al, when will y'all be giving up your Scoobies?

[img]http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png[/img]

This is a graph of the CO2/dust content of an ice core sample, going back roughly 400k years.
Black: CO2
Blue: reconstructed temperature
Red: dust.
X-axis: time before present (years).
Y axis: CO2 ppmv; other curves rescaled to fit.

Looking at the graph, it looks as though every 100K years or so, us mean ol' Conservatives gut the cats on our cars and just go plum crazy. :rolleyes:

And you ****ing idiots buy this!?[/QUOTE]

Yes the Earth cycles but at what speed is I think the concern here. In the past it was done naturally. But now it is at a faster rate than ever before because of us. That is a concern most individuals have, including myself. So looking at this issues and seeing how we can change them is not a negative thing. We are killing our planet, not just air pollution, and if we want several generations down the line to have this as a major problem the best thing to do now is to face these issues.

[QUOTE=Oaf]This is a false statement.
An idiot can look at the evidence and see that Earth is getting warmer.
What intelligent people, without a political agenda to push, see is that it's simply part of the Earth's natural cycle of hot/cold.

Yes, people "pollute".
But that amount is far less than what "pollution" Earth puts out on it's own.[/QUOTE]


I disagree we don't put out less than the Earth does. If im wrong I'll admit it but show me some reliable information that says this. We after all we have caused foreset fires, nuclear explosions, nuclear melt downs, tons and tons of oil burn up, and the list goes on. Either way I will admit im wrong if you come up with a reliable source.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]...In the past it was done naturally. But now it is at a faster rate than ever before because of us. That is a concern most individuals have, including myself.[/QUOTE]

Look at the graph from right to left, which represents time from about 400K years ago to 1999.
Trace the black line, which represents ppm of CO2.
Notice how the line has a fairly consistant pattern.
CO2 is not rising at a faster rate today than 100K years ago.


[QUOTE=Unregistered]So looking at this issues and seeing how we can change them is not a negative thing. We are killing our planet, not just air pollution, and if we want several generations down the line to have this as a major problem the best thing to do now is to face these issues.[/QUOTE]

This is another matter.
The term "killing our planet" is a bit alarmist; human contribution is analogous to a butterfly fart in a hurricane.

Being a capitalist that works in an old school industry, I can tell you that the laws are so tight, that fines are so steep, that it's far cheaper for me to use "green" products in our manufacturing processes. Yes, they cost more on the front end, but disposal is virtually nil.

For example:

1 rattle bomb of glossy paint: $1.97
Disposal cost of empty can: $5.00

I don't use spray cans anymore.
And I enjoy the fact that I'm lowering my impact on the environment.

It's funny, when I lived in Mill Valley, I remember seeing all thes granola crunchers driving their POS rustbuckets around with "Save Mother Earth" stickers holding their fenders on.

Matters not, cause when it comes to the environment: Democrats good, Republicans bad.

[QUOTE=FUNKED1]I surrender, global socialism is the only answer.[/QUOTE]

We have a winner!!!! ahahah LOL.

Anyway, the same people who'll be rallying against global warming are the same ones running catless subies... like alluded to above /\ /\ /\ ;)

[QUOTE=Oaf]
This is another matter.
The term "killing our planet" is a bit alarmist; human contribution is analogous to a butterfly fart in a hurricane.

Being a capitalist that works in an old school industry, I can tell you that the laws are so tight, that fines are so steep, that it's far cheaper for me to use "green" products in our manufacturing processes. Yes, they cost more on the front end, but disposal is virtually nil.

For example:

1 rattle bomb of glossy paint: $1.97
Disposal cost of empty can: $5.00

I don't use spray cans anymore.
And I enjoy the fact that I'm lowering my impact on the environment.

It's funny, when I lived in Mill Valley, I remember seeing all thes granola crunchers driving their POS rustbuckets around with "Save Mother Earth" stickers holding their fenders on.

Matters not, cause when it comes to the environment: Democrats good, Republicans bad.[/QUOTE]

Well put, Paul.

Could you provide us with a link that supports what you are saying. I really find this intresting stuff, and even though im a liberal, I hate hippies. So could you keep going with what you are saying?

And yes well put.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]Could you provide us with a link that supports what you are saying. I really find this intresting stuff, and even though im a liberal, I hate hippies. So could you keep going with what you are saying?

And yes well put.[/QUOTE]

I can't provide a link for the disposal costs, I just sign the invoices.
CAL EPA rule book is the biggest book I've ever seen and our corporate remediation gurus are simply amazed at the shear numbers of laws cover "hazmat" in California.
It took us 5 years to get Placer County to finally sign off on our environmental permits, and we're a small (60 people/50K square feet) company.

Google Cal EPA fines, rules, etc. for answers.

Contrary to the popular myth, which is spread by our resident foul-tempered potty mouth, conservatives & capitalists favor protecting the environment as much as anyone.
Why?
Because we make lot's of money using natural resources & by avoiding the stiff fines imposed on us that don't follow the rules.

Oaf

First off

never said **** about conservativies or capitalists.. I said right wingers...

2nd

Never said ALL right wingers..


3rd i could give a flying **** about pollution from my cat less cars..


4th i never once preached green anything for ****s sake i got a ****ing sticker on my damn car that says

WARM THE GLOBE

you think im a ****ing green?

[img]http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/g302_450.jpeg[/img]

[QUOTE=Salty]The relationship between conservatives and the inability to care for the environment is one of the most groundless claims ever.[/QUOTE]

It's more about priority than ability.

Personally, I don't do much to help the environment. I litter whenever I can, am catless, throw all of my cans and glass bottles in the garbage....and I'm middle-of-the-road politically.

I don't believe in global warming just so I can get under folks' skin.

Lastly, I think that what 1Regu says about 40 years for cfc's to reach the ozone...I have no earthly idea but if it were true, I'd imagine that maybe it's because cfc's have a higher molecular weight. I dunno.

[QUOTE=Oaf]
Because we make lot's of money using natural resources & by avoiding the stiff fines imposed on us that don't follow the rules.[/QUOTE]

But, if I'm not mistaken, don't we make just as much, if not more money by 'raping' natural resources and doing everything possible to avoid and bend the rules?

I've seen different scientific arguments on both sides of the global warming issue, but putting that aside, we have to realize that sooner or later, population growth will cause a lack of natural resources (incl. air and water)- and just like any closed biological population, we will eventually reach a point where our wastes overwhelm our resources- and population growth ceases- Yeah, I know we'll get there no matter how we treat the planet. But to maximize the time our species thrives on this planet (which, as I see it, should be a priority of human kind), I think certain concessions should be made and everything possible should be done to preserve the environment. I don't mean we should keep water from farmers for a year to preserve an endangered minnow species- but on a larger, international scale, people should be aware and efforts should be made.

I'm sure there's some of both (how you put it and how I put it) going on in various places. The key is making a set of rules that adequately protect the environment while avoiding a drastic impact on production/profits, and finding a way to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules. Going back to Funked's sarcastic 'worldwide socialism' solution- I think he's on the right track, just not quite;). We need a standard, international agreement with standard, disinterested supervision and inpections. I know- this would cost $$$, and we all know the US would probably end up being shamed into footing the bill. But however it's paid for- I think that's the direction we need to head.

[QUOTE=gpatmac]Personally, I don't do much to help the environment. I litter whenever I can, am catless, throw all of my cans and glass bottles in the garbage....and I'm middle-of-the-road politically.

[/QUOTE]

I know you're just trying to rile up us tree-huggers- but I've got a question: Do you do these things out of laziness and lack of concern, or do you just like to spite the efforts of hippies nationwide? :D

Sorry, but this is the exact kind of lack of respect that I think Dre was hiitting on. I don't care where you see yourself politically- if you had a drip of liberal blood in you you would realize how ignorant this statement makes you sound.

Spite.

Being liberal doesn't detract from my ability to loathe liberals nor conservatives. I'm not even really middle of the road, really. For instance, I'm a huge fan of the Swedish political system. Their system and/or leading party is called Social Democracy.

Even though my ideals are aligned in a lot of ways with their system, I still picture that there are a lot of men holding hands and hemp usage...I hate Swedes. You know, I'd let my daughter marry a man of any race, except for a Swede.

Just because someone's liberal about one issue, doesn't mean that they couldn't be ultra-conservative about another, right? Are there any limp-wristed tree-hugging, granola-eating folks who are adamant 2nd amendment zealots? Are there any religious right who are pole smokers? Are there any Anti-war hippies that are biggots?

Further, have you ever heard George Carlin's monologue about mother earth, Gaia, and why she created mankind? She had a burning urge for some styrofoam and plastic to be buried in her, so she created man. THEN when she felt that she had enough plastic and no longer needed man's assistance, she created an deadly, incurable virus that was spread via man's most beloved pastime, sex. Ingenious!

Sorta makes sense, no?

i like to pimp *****es..

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]It's more about priority than ability.[/QUOTE]

You know who lacks in priority? Black people and White trash. They never take priority in responsibility or finding work. See how it sounds that way too?

i think this is silly....the whole idea, not just global warming but the politics threads in the i-club "yeah lets all fight because we can!" people in general are so thick headed about issues like this, nobodys mind will actualy be changed at all by any of it, and politicians dont look for sites like this to try to change their own minds so were pretty much just fighting for no reason

but damn aint it fun!

i totaly have to agree with oaf on this....we arent heating up the earth any faster than it has before, that graph he posted was on a very large scale, if it were a smaller scale graph you'd see smaller and much more rapid changes fluctuations in temperature and co2 levels and such that are no different than what is being observed now, i was scared about global warming and i did some research and theres really nothing to worry about, goddamn stupid humans who always think they are the only cause of anything

no offence to anyone...thats just my two cents

[QUOTE=Salty]You know who lacks in priority? Black people and White trash. They never take priority in responsibility or finding work. See how it sounds that way too?[/QUOTE]

Hey, don't forget Spics & Chinks!

just so you guys know there are idiots like this guy who share the same views and morals as you do.

[url]http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134607&page=1[/url]

[QUOTE=Impooter]i think this is silly....the whole idea, not just global warming but the politics threads in the i-club "yeah lets all fight because we can!" people in general are so thick headed about issues like this, nobodys mind will actualy be changed at all by any of it, and politicians dont look for sites like this to try to change their own minds so were pretty much just fighting for no reason[/QUOTE]

Did you really think we talk here becuase we think we are going to change the world?

Who is fighting? We disagree and argue and discuss but I don't remember anyone fighting. Do you Salty, Oaf, Unregistered, Scoobsport and anyone else here? I've never been yelled at or physically assulted.

This forum is just like TV if you dont' get it, change the channel.

I think the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is directly linked to the growing popularity of paintball. It might be all those damn Chia pets in the 80s finally catching up to us.

Yea it's just the right wing Americans that are destroying the world...ha ha ha...lol...

Really though, out of all the countries out there we have some of the strictest environmental laws that are closely watched. Just take a look at China, Russia, Japan, middle east...ect. It's pretty brutal.

Hmmm, if I were to guess what's going to change life as we know it, I think I'd have to say the flipping of the magnetic polls. I watched a science special on that. We're way over due and it's going to screw everything up, including the atmosphere. Time to break out the FPS 1,000,000,000.

[QUOTE=gpatmac]Personally, I don't do much to help the environment. I litter whenever I can, am catless, throw all of my cans and glass bottles in the garbage....and I'm middle-of-the-road politically.

I don't believe in global warming just so I can get under folks' skin.

Lastly, I think that what 1Regu says about 40 years for cfc's to reach the ozone...I have no earthly idea but if it were true, I'd imagine that maybe it's because cfc's have a higher molecular weight. I dunno.[/QUOTE]

Hahahh, yeah, and don't forget that you enjoy venting a/c freon to atmosphere just for fun!

Woody Guthrie wrote this song about me.;)

[quote][size=5]Mean Talking Blues[/size]

I'm the meanest man that ever had a brain,
All I scatter is aches and pains.
I'm carbolic acid, and a poison face,
And I stand flat-footed in favor of crime and disgrace.
If I ever done a good deed -- I'm sorry of it.

I'm mean in the East, mean in the West,
Mean to the people that I like the best.
I go around a-causin' lot of accidents,
And I push folks down, and I cause train wrecks.
I'm a big disaster -- just goin' somewhere's to happen.
I'm an organized famine -- studyin' now I can be a little bit meaner.
I'm still a whole lot too good to suit myself -- just mean...

I ride around on the subway trains,
Laughin' at the tight shoes dealin' you pain.
And I laugh when the car shakes from side to side,
I laugh my loudest when other people cry.
Can't help it -- I was born good, I guess,
Just like you or anybody else ---
But then I... just turned off mean..

I hate ev'rybody don't think like me,
And I'd rather see you dead than I'd ever see you free.
Rather see you starved to death
Than see you at work --
And I'm readin' all the books I can
To learn how to hurt --
Daily Misery -- spread diseases,
Keep you without no vote,
Keep you without no union.

Well, I hurt when I see you gettin' 'long so well,
I'd ten times rather see you in the fires of hell.
I can't stand to fixed... see you there all fixed up in that house so nice,
I'd rather keep you in that rotten hole, with the bugs and the lice,
And the roaches, and the termites,
And the sand fleas, and the tater bugs,
And the grub worms, and the stingarees,
And the tarantulas, and the spiders, childs of the earth,
The ticks and the blow-flies --
These is all of my little angels
That go 'round helpin' me do the best parts of my meanness.
And mosquiters...

Well, I used to be a pretty fair organized feller,
Till I turned a scab and then I turned off yeller,
Fought ev'ry union with teeth and toenail,
And I sprouted a six-inch stinger right in the middle of the tail,
And I growed horns...
And then I cut 'em off, I wanted to fool you.
I hated union ever'where,
'Cause God likes unions
And I hate God!

Well, if I can get the fat to hatin' the lean
That'd tickle me more than anything I've seen,
Then get the colors to fightin' one another,
And friend against friend, and brother... and sister against brother,
That'll be just it.
Everybody's brains a-boilin' in turpentine,
And their teeth fallin' out all up and down the streets,
That'll just suit me fine.
'Cause I hate ever'thing that's union,
And I hate ever'thing that's organized,
And I hate ever'thing that's planned,
And I love to hate and I hate to love!
I'm mean, I'm just mean...[/quote]

[QUOTE=Oaf]Contrary to the popular myth, which is spread by our resident foul-tempered potty mouth, conservatives & capitalists favor protecting the environment as much as anyone.
Why?
Because we make lot's of money using natural resources & by avoiding the stiff fines imposed on us that don't follow the rules.[/QUOTE]


And why are the fines there in the first place? Because of liberal politicians in the government. So even if 'conservatives' are economically friendly because it helps their bottom line, you can give the credit to the 'tree hugging liberal douches' who got environmental legislation through...even though they had to fight the capitalist conservatives that didn't want the fines to begin with, because the cheapest method would be to have no environmental legislation.


On the global warming issue...I took a few environmental chemistry classes recently, and there are two leading theories: 1) global warming is because of human fossil fuel consumption, and 2) even though humans are increasing the CO2 levels, we also increase particulate levels and particulates reflect UV before it enters the atmosphere so we are netting a 0 difference.
Smart scientists, some liberal and some conservative, are on both sides of the issue. The bottom line is this: If golbal warming is because of us and we try to decrease CO2 emmisions from humans there is no downside (environmentally), and there could be an upside (saving advanced life on earth). If global warming is not because of us, and we decrease CO2 emissions from humans, there is still no environmental downside. So basically, we might as well be cautious and wear our 'environmental seatbelts' and decrease how much green house gas we're emitting to the atmosphere.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]So basically, we might as well be cautious and wear our 'environmental seatbelts' and decrease how much green house gas we're emitting to the atmosphere.[/QUOTE]


My point exactly. I said forget global warming- do you skeptics really think that we should wait until there is visible evidence to take action? How about a 'pre-emptive' strike? If we want to make this libs vs. cons, your side seems to understand the benefits and advantages of such action. There are already higher instances of respiratory illness in densely populated areas. This is an exponential problem, and will continue to get worse until people stop joking and get serious about the environment. It's easy to think that your personal litter or emissions could never devastate mankind, but the attitude, which is contagious, can do just that.

If you still feel cool and defiant when you litter or de-cat your car- good for you. The goal of preserving the environment shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it seems to be. If you put effort into spiting and undermining these efforts, I see you no better (morally) than the insurgents in Iraq trying to undermine our good-willing efforts, which also should, and does to a certain point, have bi-partisan support. At least those 'terrorists' feel what they are doing is right.

What purpose are you supporting by littering out of spite at the environmental movement? Are you preserving your coolness? Personally, I dont see recycling or anything green as 'cool'- so I guess if you are that desperate to join the 'cool' liberal-hating parade, go ahead and keep littering "whenever you can" Maybe you're trying to minimize the number of generations which live here after you're gone. Who knows- I sure don't.

[QUOTE=gpatmac]Woody Guthrie wrote this song about me.;)[/QUOTE]


I didn't even see this before I just went off in that last post... I guess I read you right.

[QUOTE=Salty]You know who lacks in priority? Black people and White trash. They never take priority in responsibility or finding work. See how it sounds that way too?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to sound like a bigot? I sure hope so, otherwise, I don't get it.

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]I didn't even see this before I just went off in that last post... I guess I read you right.[/QUOTE]
No.

Without fail, the only generalization that I can always say about those who are very staunch (ultra-liberal AND ultra-conservative) is that they have no sense of humor.

FWIW, the song was written about strike breakers and those who employed them around the turn of the century.

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]Are you trying to sound like a bigot? I sure hope so, otherwise, I don't get it.[/QUOTE]

No. You just didn't get it.

[QUOTE=Salty]No. You just didn't get it.[/QUOTE]
care to explain?

[QUOTE=gpatmac]No.

Without fail, the only generalization that I can always say about those who are very staunch (ultra-liberal AND ultra-conservative) is that they have no sense of humor.

FWIW, the song was written about strike breakers and those who employed them around the turn of the century.[/QUOTE]


Is this teh funnay forum now? I love it when people try to fall back on humor when they can't make a decent argument. I guess I'm 'ultra-liberal' by your vague classification, right? So how much was a joke? Evreything you've said in this thread? You have to realize you're posting on an online forum, not everyone knows you personally, and you should expect some of your 'humor' to be taken more seriously than it should. As I see it, that's exactly what your goal was- to get people to think that's what you're really like. So please, don''t act surprised, and for your own benefit, try to save yourself from appearing ignorant and juvenile. Unless, of course, that's what you're goin' for.

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]Is this teh funnay forum now? I love it when people try to fall back on humor when they can't make a decent argument. I guess I'm 'ultra-liberal' by your vague classification, right? So how much was a joke? Evreything you've said in this thread? You have to realize you're posting on an online forum, not everyone knows you personally, and you should expect some of your 'humor' to be taken more seriously than it should. As I see it, that's exactly what your goal was- to get people to think that's what you're really like. So please, don''t act surprised, and for your own benefit, try to save yourself from appearing ignorant and juvenile. Unless, of course, that's what you're goin' for.[/QUOTE]

If you take ANYTHING on a forum seriously, you have problems my friend.

I couldn't tell you what the chemical composition of ozone is. That's how dumb I am about the environment. They say ignorance is bliss, so that would explain why I feel so elated while I throw my McDonald's cup out the window. The feeling I get is second only to when I throw out a styro cup.

Lighten up, Francis.

If you want to know what I'm really like, we can exchange emails or something. I'll tell you all about my hopes and dreams. What my favorite color and food are. Whether I like puppies better than kittens.

Well, shoot. Here's a snippet. I think that I am Jesus' brother. If I were to bet on the cummulative odds, I'd say that I'm the 2nd coming. I like the color blue. I have killed a man before. My favorite thing in the world is taking my wife and son to the park. I have been sober for 12 years come November. No one can kill like I can. I am an ordained minister in the Church of Pat (to date, there's only one other member, though.)

What else would you like to know?

[QUOTE=gpatmac]I couldn't tell you what the chemical composition of ozone is.[/QUOTE]


If you can admit to this, then why can't you trust people who DO know about the environment and say some of the things you do are bad for it?

Or does the Church of Pat subscribe to the notion that the rapture is coming and we don't need to take care of the Earth...

Like I said, Mother Gaia created us solely for the reason that she wanted some styrofoam lodes.

Also, I respect science and scientists but just because I'm ignorant about something, I'm not going to just jump on the bandwagon because they use a whole bunch of big words and formulas.

There are many things that I could say but to the staunch, they would just sound like an excuse. If you are that big of an environmentalist, then you and I are sort of similar.

Environment = tyranny.

So long as there are folks burying their used petroleum products, you will always have a fight. So long as there is genocide, I will always have a fight.

[QUOTE=gpatmac]If you take ANYTHING on a forum seriously, you have problems my friend.[/quote] So, are we just supposed to babble sarcatsic jabs at one another in this forum? I had the idea that this particular forum is a place for serious discussion on political issues. It may seem like a right wing dominated, ex-military laugh-at liberals club many times, hell- I maybe that's what it really is.

[quote]What else would you like to know?[/QUOTE]

Please, that's plenty. I never said I wanted to know anything, I was telling you to realize that many people reading your posts don't know you personally and therefore can't distinguish your humor from your true view of reality. If you get your kicks by seeing people over-react to something you didn't mean in the first place, well, to use your verbage, [b]you[/b] have problems my friend.

And regarding Carlin, he wasn't at all condoning or encoraging littering in that bit. It was satire, like most of his stuff, pointing out how we are so good at fu*king up the environment, that must of been why we were created. It's supposed to make people think- gee, I thought we were no different than any other species on this planet? Perhaps we should take some steps to un-fu*k-up this planet of ours. You can take it to support your apparent view, but then you're just the butt of his joke.

[QUOTE=gpatmac]

Environment = tyranny.

So long as there are folks burying their used petroleum products, you will always have a fight. So long as there is genocide, I will always have a fight.[/QUOTE]


Gee- that's quite the stretch. So, if you wish to draw the comparison, how would you take it if I said I made every effort possible to undermine our military's efforts against 'genocide,' simply out of spite? Meaning I hung effigies of dead soldiers on my porch, attended every anti-war/anti-military event and demonstration, and laughed everytime I heard of one of our own being lost in battle, etc.

Would you sluff it off as humor? Perhaps you may be able to see the exaggeration and sarcasm in my words, but knowing that there are people like that, you just may think I was being truthful.

Am I the [b]only[/b] f'ing person here that can see both sides? I guess being close-minded is less stress on the old brain.

[QUOTE=Chrisnonstop]Yea it's just the right wing Americans that are destroying the world...ha ha ha...lol...

Really though, out of all the countries out there we have some of the strictest environmental laws that are closely watched. Just take a look at China, Russia, Japan, middle east...ect. It's pretty brutal.

Hmmm, if I were to guess what's going to change life as we know it, I think I'd have to say the flipping of the magnetic polls. I watched a science special on that. We're way over due and it's going to screw everything up, including the atmosphere. Time to break out the FPS 1,000,000,000.[/QUOTE]


YEAH i saw that too! im looking forwart to the aurora borealis every single night though......

When someone posts very vehemently that if you install water injection on a stock WRX that you can turn an MBC up to 30psi, do you believe them? If you know anything about tuning, you'd probably disagree.

When they say that if you buy some boost juice that you ought to be able to run in the 11's, do you believe that?

If I post something in here, you can agree with me or disagree. Further, if you think I'm off my gourd or teasing or just being an insulting ass, you can either take on the verbal battle or just ignore me.

I think I can normally judge when someone is serious or not. There's nothing wrong with posting ANYTHING in here, I don't think. You get what you pay for.

I try to contribute when I think it's appropriate. I have even been known to e-thug when I feel as though someone is posting stuff that [i]I[/i] don't think is appropriate. (I haven't figured out yet whether I'd act on it or not.;)) I try to bait when I think someone is just too damn serious about a topic that I don't think is worthy of being taken seriously, like the environment. That's my personal opinion; I'm entitled to it. Convince me otherwise. Remember, I'm of the USA Today generation, so if you decide to take me too far down the rabbit hole, you may have to hold my hand, hold my attention, be selective in your method of instruction.

Oh, and about Geo Carlin...you mean to tell me he's a [i]comedian[/i]? What he was saying was a joke?;)

Carlin is a liberal environmetalist- [b]that's[/b] what I was getting at.

So, you say the environment is a topic not to be taken seriously. But you say you're joking when you say you feel great tossing a styrofoam cup out the car window. So which is it? What the hell am I supposed to think?

And once again, many people have quite the deranged view of reality, so you shouldn't be so sure when you think someone isn't being serious. Nor should you expect others to be able to easily distinguish between sarcasm and your true beliefs, just from words on a screen.

But my point is I DON'T CARE IF I'M TAKEN SERIOUSLY on the in the internet WHEN I'M NOT BEING SERIOUS.

To be honest, I'm not really too crestfallen if someone doesn't take me serious when I am being serious.

You know, I've read about folks on the internet who DO take it too seriously:
[url]http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=29415[/url]

The environment issue is something that I don't take seriously.....so I joke about it.

Are you getting it yet, Father SternandSomber?

[QUOTE=gpatmac]But my point is I DON'T CARE IF I'M TAKEN SERIOUSLY on the in the internet WHEN I'M NOT BEING SERIOUS.

To be honest, I'm not really too crestfallen if someone doesn't take me serious when I am being serious.

You know, I've read about folks on the internet who DO take it too seriously:
[url]http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=29415[/url]

The environment issue is something that I don't take seriously.....so I joke about it.

Are you getting it yet, Father SternandSomber?[/QUOTE]


You sound Like you Need an ice cold beer(in a styro foam cup:))

Had to give it up.;)

Ok fine:angry: a lemonade:D

[QUOTE=gpatmac]But my point is I DON'T CARE IF I'M TAKEN SERIOUSLY on the in the internet WHEN I'M NOT BEING SERIOUS.

To be honest, I'm not really too crestfallen if someone doesn't take me serious when I am being serious.

You know, I've read about folks on the internet who DO take it too seriously:
[url]http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=29415[/url]

The environment issue is something that I don't take seriously.....so I joke about it.

Are you getting it yet, Father SternandSomber?[/QUOTE]


Then why act surprised when someone does take something serious?
And I bet if you made a point regarding an issue important to you, and a bunch of uber-liberals/uber-conservatives started cracking jokes and making light of your argument- it would kind of piss you off, or at least frustrate you, regardless of whether it was on an online forum or face to face. I've done my best to explain my side- I even tried to explain it from your point of view. But it seems my efforts are, once again, in vain, as you continue to refuse to hear what I'm saying.

I guess you can tell me if I'm 'getting it' yet...

And the facetious name-calling is getting old, [b]seriously[/b]. :D

So, you weren't trying to contribute intelligently to the discussion, you were trying to be funny and hopefully get someone to take you serious? Pretty lame if you ask me.

I'm finished here.

BTW, if anything's a joke- it's that article.

I guess when compared to his existence, we've all got quite the life.

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]Then why act surprised when someone does take something serious?
And I bet if you made a point regarding an issue important to you, and a bunch of uber-liberals/uber-conservatives started cracking jokes and making light of your argument- it would kind of piss you off, or at least frustrate you, regardless of whether it was on an online forum or face to face. I've done my best to explain my side- I even tried to explain it from your point of view. But it seems my efforts are, once again, in vain, as you continue to refuse to hear what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't surprised.

I would only be pissed if it weren't uber-liberals/uber-conservatives.;) (I see now that you're a guy who needs a lot of winky-smilies.;) I bet I can keep you into this conversation for a while longer.;))

Seriously, what's the harm in frustrating someone. You see, I have completely diverted you from your argument (whatever it was) and immersed you into a parallel argument that has nothing to do with any issue at hand. That's a tactic used frequently in debates and negotiations.

If someone were to make light of an argument that I was making that I took seriously and took to heart, I'd respond (or not) using a variety of approaches. Humor comes to mind first, since it's a topic we've discussed. Redirection as well. Maybe full-frontal assault. Maybe try and appear non-committal and pliable in order to lull them into a sense of nonconcern in order to break down any barriers to communication. You can not convince nor teach someone if there are any barriers in place. Depending on the situation and the person, you decide which is the best tact.

You have not done your best to explain your side and you most certainly haven't explained it from my point of view. You'd better try again.

You seem to care very deeply about the environment and atmosphere, even to the point where you won't allow any joking at their expense. What exactly is your point of view and why?

[QUOTE=gpatmac]I wasn't surprised.

I would only be pissed if it weren't uber-liberals/uber-conservatives.;) (I see now that you're a guy who needs a lot of winky-smilies.;) I bet I can keep you into this conversation for a while longer.;))

Seriously, what's the harm in frustrating someone. You see, I have completely diverted you from your argument (whatever it was) and immersed you into a parallel argument that has nothing to do with any issue at hand. That's a tactic used frequently in debates and negotiations.

If someone were to make light of an argument that I was making that I took seriously and took to heart, I'd respond (or not) using a variety of approaches. Humor comes to mind first, since it's a topic we've discussed. Redirection as well. Maybe full-frontal assault. Maybe try and appear non-committal and pliable in order to lull them into a sense of nonconcern in order to break down any barriers to communication. You can not convince nor teach someone if there are any barriers in place. Depending on the situation and the person, you decide which is the best tact.

You have not done your best to explain your side and you most certainly haven't explained it from my point of view. You'd better try again.

You seem to care very deeply about the environment and atmosphere, even to the point where you won't allow any joking at their expense. What exactly is your point of view and why?[/QUOTE]

I feel I've explained myself more than enough. The question is what your point of view, and a better question, why?

You've said that the environment isn't a topic worth taking seriously, but you also backed off of your comments that you litter, saying it was a joke. If it [b]was[/b] a joke, wouldn't that imply that you [b]do[/b] take the environment seriously? Which is it?

It seems we both like to have the last word- I'll let you have it this time- since you aren't being serious anyway. I'm really done now.

My point of view is that I just don't care. There are many issues that I care deeply about and this isn't one. I guess it just boils down to apathy. Last night when watching the story about the little Somalian babies, I darn near welled up. I can't generate the same sort of emotion about CFCs. That's about the best 'why' I can come up with.

I never backed off of the littering comment. I said that largely, what I said previously was a joke, meant to get your hackles up. Normally, I wouldn't admit that publicly but for you and in an effort to really do a good job of getting under your skin, I felt that the risk of admitting that was necessary and might even be fun.

Alrighty, adios.

It's no wonder that most folks couldn't care less about global warming, and to a lesser extent, the environment in general. The same environmental whackos that close off major portions of our country to vehicular and/or foot traffic to protect an endangered beetle, shrub, rat, or bacteria, are the same whackos that don't want any limits on immigration.

As nature and science have proven, ecosystems thrive in their natural state and adapt to their native populations. Such ecosystems are often destroyed with the introduction of non-native species and resulting exponential population growth. Ok ok... so you all already new that.

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]It's no wonder that most folks couldn't care less about global warming, and to a lesser extent, the environment in general. The same environmental whackos that close off major portions of our country to vehicular and/or foot traffic to protect an endangered beetle, shrub, rat, or bacteria, are the same whackos that don't want any limits on immigration.[/quote]

Okay, so that means just because there are religious zealots and fundamentalists, most folks should care less about religion. :rolleyes: Great argument :applause: , based solely on a fase generalization. There ya go. It's a liberal issue, so tie it to illegal immigration! :rolleyes: And to prevent looking ignorant (with your name, it's kinda hard ;)), you may not want to argue about something you obviously don't have the slightest clue about.

It's no wonder that most folks couldn't care less about genocide around the world, and to a lesser extent, atrocities in general. The same military whackos that charge in thinking they're gonna fix everything are the same whackos that want to close the borders indefinately... therefore, nobody should give a second thought about terrible atriocities in other countries.

See how ignorant and close-minded that sounds?

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]
As nature and science have proven, ecosystems thrive in their natural state and adapt to their native populations. Such ecosystems are often destroyed with the introduction of non-native species and resulting exponential population growth. Ok ok... so you all already new that.[/QUOTE]


Sure, but what does this have to do with anything else you said? It appears that you may possibly know something :), but it would be nice if it actually supported or was related to your original argument.

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]Okay, so that means just because there are religious zealots and fundamentalists, most folks should care less about religion. :rolleyes: snip....See how ignorant and close-minded that sounds?[/QUOTE]

No no no! Comparing religious fundamentalists to environmentalists doesn't work... because those "zealots" are trying to save your soul, not damn you to hell. Now if you are saying that religious fundamentalist go around under the guise of saving your soul, but indeed are damning more people (doing more harm than good), then the comparison might be fair... though misguided.

Many environmentalists (i.e. Sierra Club), but to be fair not all environmental groups, THINK they are helping the world, but they ignore the core cause of pollution (i.e. population growth and consumption).

Beyond recycling and not removing the smog devices from your car, there's little motivation for the average individual to not harm the planet when our "own" environmental agencies and organizations seem to be corrupt and political. They'll close a jogging trail to protect a non-indigenous rat, though they have no problem living in a house that destroyed natural nesting areas.

Let's change the name of this thread to " The Politics Forum...a club divided"

[QUOTE=gpatmac]Last night when watching the story about the little Somalian babies, I darn near welled up. I can't generate the same sort of emotion about CFCs.[/QUOTE]


That's because you don't have the foresite to see that the environment, if not taken care of, would lead to much worse attrocities. If natural resources start drying up, do you think we'll just all go communist everywhere and split everything up? NO...those babies you saw on TV would become the norm. So think about the environment in terms of the people who will die if it goes bad, and maybe your apathy will fade some.

[QUOTE=HellaDumb]No no no! Comparing religious fundamentalists to environmentalists doesn't work... because those "zealots" are trying to save your soul, not damn you to hell. Now if you are saying that religious fundamentalist go around under the guise of saving your soul, but indeed are damning more people (doing more harm than good), then the comparison might be fair... though misguided.[/quote]


I was equating the religious fundamentalists to the 'whacko' environmentalists- you don't seem to be able to see anything but the extremes. Are you saying all
environmentalists are damning people to hell? Maybe those who don't follow, but isn't that the idea with religion, also? Looks like you've got it right in the second sentence, there. The fundamentalists (extremes) are much like the 'whacko' environmentalists, in that they both have taken representing their cause to a point where they are doing more harm than good. See the correlation? Or do I need to make a picture book?

[quote]Many environmentalists (i.e. Sierra Club), but to be fair not all environmental groups, THINK they are helping the world, but they ignore the core cause of pollution (i.e. population growth and consumption).[/quote] Yeah some groups don't exactly have their priorites straight. But they do a hell of a lot more than not give a damn. Are you suggesting the groups (who are already seen as 'out there' by many) advocate worldwide sterilizations? They do what they are able to without stirring up controversy. If people don't even understand why you shouldn't litter or pollute, how will they take this proposition? If you guys on the right want to eliminate crazy environmentalists, perhaps you should stop trying to spite efforts toward a goal we should all share. All you do by proudly saying you litter is incite people who see that as ignorant to take further and further measures to try to get their point across.


[quote]
Beyond recycling and not removing the smog devices from your car, there's little motivation for the average individual to not harm the planet when our "own" environmental agencies and organizations seem to be corrupt and political. They'll close a jogging trail to protect a non-indigenous rat, though they have no problem living in a house that destroyed natural nesting areas.[/QUOTE]

So, just because other organizations supporting a worthy cause may be corrupt, that cause is less worthy? Your mind works in wierd ways, bro. And some things they have control over, some they don't. Where was this closed jogging trail, exactly? These examples get used way too often- they aren't really that common at all.

You're obviously refusing to understand. Don't try to pick apart analagies, or else you'll never get the point. No analagy fits perfectly- but you didn't even point out any real discrepancies.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]That's because you don't have the foresite to see that the environment, if not taken care of, would lead to much worse attrocities. If natural resources start drying up, do you think we'll just all go communist everywhere and split everything up? NO...those babies you saw on TV would become the norm. So think about the environment in terms of the people who will die if it goes bad, and maybe your apathy will fade some.[/QUOTE]


good point... I was gonna respond with something similar to that, but I had given him the last word (which he promptly wasted) in our little tiff.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]Let's change the name of this thread to " The Politics Forum...a club divided"[/QUOTE]


how bout' "the ignorant and the elitist"? :D

^^^^I hear that. I don't mind the politcal debates and such but what's with all the hositility. If I were to say "Yes (insert name) I agree, you are right" then the conversation would end. That's all people want to hear and naturally we don't say it for a number of reasons either because we won't admit defeat or we really don't agree. It's like being politcal missionary, "I will quite knocking on your door and handing out flyers as soon as you accept my beliefs as your own."

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]do I need to make a picture book?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, picture book please!!! ;)

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]Where was this closed jogging trail, exactly? These examples get used way too often- they aren't really that common at all.
[/QUOTE]

Do you know why these examples get used way to often? Because it happens WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to often!!!

I used to frequent this area one to several times a week! They closed the friggen trails because of the "endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and clapper rail."
[url]http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/vtour/map2/access/Rdwdshrs/Rdwdshrs.htm#trailclosed[/url]

Do you know who helped push for it? Freaks who bought houses on what was formerly marsh land!!!!! Greedy bastards just wanted to enjoy the view for themselves.

Reminds me about how horses are allowed on so many OSP trails that mtn bikes aren't allowed on. Bikes are a lot lower impact, especially if it's raining. But horse riders are a lot more rich. So guess who gets kicked out. (horse riding sucks...)

[QUOTE=MVWRX]That's because you don't have the foresite to see that the environment, if not taken care of, would lead to much worse attrocities. If natural resources start drying up, do you think we'll just all go communist everywhere and split everything up? NO...those babies you saw on TV would become the norm. So think about the environment in terms of the people who will die if it goes bad, and maybe your apathy will fade some.[/QUOTE]

I'm waiting for you to remind me of my final destination too, like where I'll end up if I don't give up my carjacking ways and my bleach-mainlining habit...and my dirty mouth.

[QUOTE=gpatmac]I'm waiting for you to remind me of my final destination too, like where I'll end up if I don't give up my carjacking ways and my bleach-mainlining habit...and my dirty mouth.[/QUOTE]



And I'm waiting for you to carjack me while on a bleach bender while swearing at the top of your lungs...


I'm not trying to dictate to you your 'final destination.' But I will reiterate that protecting the environment in your personal life is as easy and potentially far more beneficial as wearing your seat belt. But if your the type who really is that near sighted...that's called being evangelical isn't it?

I'm waiting for Hillary Duff to show up in my bed naked. I guess we're all waiting for different things.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]And I'm waiting for you to carjack me while on a bleach bender while swearing at the top of your lungs...


I'm not trying to dictate to you your 'final destination.' But I will reiterate that protecting the environment in your personal life is as easy and potentially far more beneficial as wearing your seat belt. But if your the type who really is that near sighted...that's called being evangelical isn't it?[/QUOTE]


I think he's getting the point- it would just be too hard for him to admit it now, as regul8STi has said before.

If someone makes a good point in an argument with me, I acknoledge it, I don't dodge it or try to pick it apart. I don't know where you (STi) say that nobody is able to admit they were wrong. That seems to be a problem with the current admin, and right wingers in general. It also seems that your disrespect for the environment is directly tied to your disrespect for liberals. Just because they support it and claim it as 'their' issue, you seem to want to have nothing to do with it. This is one of the lamest reasons to not support something- and once you do it, you are no more than a puppet of the 'side' you represent.

Perpetuating a partisan attitude is one of the most corrosive things you could do to this country. When one side claims issues as their own, and the opposite side promptly disregards and sh*ts on them, just for the sake of opposing the opposing side, we will always be divided. We need to realize that everyone wants the same thing for the most part- but we have different priorities. There are many fragile, universal things (like the environment) that shouldn't be tossed around and played with as a political issue- but I guess everything is a political issue nowdays... so is there no hope for environmentalists, should they give up their efforts?

You'll be thanking them someday... if not you, your children or grandchildren.

But I'm a uber-liberal with no sense of humor- so don't listen to me. :rolleyes:

I totally agree with you said about America being divided just for the sake of opposition. I too, will be the first to admit when I am at fault or wrong. I agree that this administration has made it's mistakes just as any administration has. I'm not pro-Bush nor am I pro- liberal, etc. I support Bush simply because he's the man in charge and ultimately in charge of me. If Kerry were in charge I would support him too. Regardless of who is in office they will do things I approve of and things I don't. It's inevitable. I think all Americans need to put their labels down and quit believing what their fathers and friends believe and start deciding for themselves. Ignorance is the biggest problem facing America today because so many people draw conclusions without considering the task at hand and the facts. Usually the most opinionated people in politics are also the least informed. If they took the time to see an issue from both sides they could probably make a rational conclusion on what needs to be done but instead they side with their "label" and let their peers decided for them. Regardless of what party you are in 99.9% of politicans are doing what they feel is right for America, they just have different approaches in doing it.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi] I support Bush simply because he's the man in charge and ultimately in charge of me. [/QUOTE]

This is the only point I disagree on... [b]We[/b] are supposed to be in charge of [b]him[/b]. A hard-line facist government (or communist for that matter) would love to have every one of their citizens as submissive as yourself. If you say people should start thinking for themselves, saddle up, partner.

Many of us seem to forget our country was founded on rebellion from the British crown, and they created a government where the power was supposed to be with the people (hence, a democracy).

Bush may be the most prominent figure representing our government, but in reality, just like any other president, he's not, or shouldn't be, 'in charge' as much as you may think.

I'm not advocating protests against the government or blantant disrespect, you can still support in general and disagree on certain things, IMHO.


But everything else you said agrees with my view completely- you surprised me with your logical reasoning! :D Lets have more of that!

...but then you'll be a liberal- shucks... ;)

The only thing the president is completely and solely in charge of is the military in times of war.

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]This is the only point I disagree on... [b]We[/b] are supposed to be in charge of [b]him[/b]. A hard-line facist government (or communist for that matter) would love to have every one of their citizens as submissive as yourself. If you say people should start thinking for themselves, saddle up, partner.

Many of us seem to forget our country was founded on rebellion from the British crown, and they created a government where the power was supposed to be with the people (hence, a democracy).

Bush may be the most prominent figure representing our government, but in reality, just like any other president, he's not, or shouldn't be, 'in charge' as much as you may think.

I'm not advocating protests against the government or blantant disrespect, you can still support in general and disagree on certain things, IMHO.


But everything else you said agrees with my view completely- you surprised me with your logical reasoning! :D Lets have more of that!

...but then you'll be a liberal- shucks... ;)[/QUOTE]


I'm not rebelling against Bush for a very simple reason. We're kind of stuck with him for the next few years and even if I were to start such a rebellion as to get him impeached........name me a better alternative. I didn't vote for Kerry for one soldier reason: he tried to appeal himself to everyone and in doing so lost my vote. If he would have stuck to his guns on the issues he built his campaign on in the beginning he'd have had my vote. I take someone's word very seriously and when they go back on it they lose a lot of credibility in my eyes. As elementary as Bush's word may be (quite literally) you can pretty much trust that he'll stick to it. Now don't mistake me here, I'm not saying that word will be the right one, but you can pretty much rest assured that it will be pursued until doom's day. I think the war in Iraq now is evidence of that.
It's hard for me to really draw a solid line on political stance because I am downright conservative on some issues and liberal on others so in these political forums you'll have to bear with me as it takes a lot of explaining for me to get my point of view across. I respect your opinion and I know you are obviously not satisfied with Bush but you have to think about what else could be getting done. You may say Bush is a terrible President but you have to admit, he's got on of the best cabinets behind him a president has ever had and thank God for that or we'd be in a hell of a predicament.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]I'm not rebelling against Bush for a very simple reason. We're kind of stuck with him for the next few years and even if I were to start such a rebellion as to get him impeached........name me a better alternative. I didn't vote for Kerry for one soldier reason: he tried to appeal himself to everyone and in doing so lost my vote. If he would have stuck to his guns on the issues he built his campaign on in the beginning he'd have had my vote. I take someone's word very seriously and when they go back on it they lose a lot of credibility in my eyes. As elementary as Bush's word may be (quite literally) you can pretty much trust that he'll stick to it. Now don't mistake me here, I'm not saying that word will be the right one, but you can pretty much rest assured that it will be pursued until doom's day. I think the war in Iraq now is evidence of that.
It's hard for me to really draw a solid line on political stance because I am downright conservative on some issues and liberal on others so in these political forums you'll have to bear with me as it takes a lot of explaining for me to get my point of view across. I respect your opinion and I know you are obviously not satisfied with Bush but you have to think about what else could be getting done. You may say Bush is a terrible President but you have to admit, he's got on of the best cabinets behind him a president has ever had and thank God for that or we'd be in a hell of a predicament.[/QUOTE]


You still don't get it. You can disagree, protest and all that- and that may just get the president to change his ways. It's not his way or the highway, he really has little personal input on what should be done and how things should be handled. The president is supposed to carry out the will of the people. If the people disagree with how he is handling things, it would be doing him a dis-service to be quiet and let him assume everyone supports him. To use an extreme analagy, if Bush were driving a van, with all of us inside, and heading directly toward a cliff, would you speak up and get his attention? Would you wait for one of us liberals to yell at him? Or would you just shut up and ride it out, hoping for the best and assuming you have no control over the situation?

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

So, I'm thinking more and more that if we had another election today, Bush would have no chance. I'm sure a decent number of people who voted for Bush have thought twice about thier choice. But I can't say the same about those who voted against Bush. I don't see him doing anything to gain their support, as Kerry would have been forced to do with the conservative regions of the country. Even Salty has mentioned how Bush's campaign made good use of some lies and manipulated facts.

WARNING to those allergic to the left: Don't think. You may have adverse reactions... :)

Man I've got to give it you. You are comical. The main issue I have with Bush is the whole philosophy on terrorism. I believe in the war, I really do. I honestly feel that if we were not in Iraq and Afganistan we would have been attacked again as the enemy would be able to consolidate again and formulate a new plan of attack. It's basic martial theory. I've seen in on smaller scale a million times. As soon as you displace someone and you get them on the move it's hard for them to regroup. As soon as you let up expect complications in one form or another. Sure the war is an awful way of protecting ourselves but its the only alternative. I don't agree with how the war is being fought but it is necessary. Give me 20 years when I'm a General with a little more pull and I'll do my best to change the way we fight. Let's face it, the "WAR ON TERROR" is pretty much the main thing on the politcal agenda these days (even though we should be paying a lot more attention to the economy then we are as no broke nation can fight a war) and it is something I believe we are doing pretty close to correctly. Criticize me on that if you want but I think this war, however terrible and costly it may be, will pay off in the long run. I don't want my children to grow up in a place where they'll see their father crying over a friend who died fighting insurgents.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi] The main issue I have with Bush is the whole philosophy on terrorism. [/quote]
Okay, then why refuse to question his leadership?

[quote]Sure the war is an awful way of protecting ourselves but its the only alternative. [/quote] "only alternative"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Alternative to what? Many people (left and right) would disagree that pre-emptive war on that particualr country was the best option to protect ourselves. We've had quite the rough journey in our efforts there thus far- I guarantee you Rummy and his drinking buddies thought we would have had much less casualties than we have actually suffered to date.

[quote]
I don't agree with how the war is being fought but it is necessary. Give me 20 years when I'm a General with a little more pull and I'll do my best to change the way we fight. Let's face it, the "WAR ON TERROR" ...is something I believe we are doing pretty close to correctly. [/quote]

So, you're gonna wait 20 years to voice your opinion? And you almost killed me with this one: "pretty close to correctly"??? PLLEASE! Shouldn't we strive to do things CORRECTLY?

I guess Bush was a "C" student... ;)


[quote]... I think this war, however terrible and costly it may be, will pay off in the long run. I don't want my children to grow up in a place where they'll see their father crying over a friend who died fighting insurgents.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But as you said above, when we let up, we should expect things to go to sh*t again... so, Do we need to stay there forever?

If you enlist or agree to receive a commission, you take an oath the obey the orders of the President of the United States of America.

If you take that oath freely, then you imply that you support the Pres or at least waive your right, so long as you're receiving a paycheck, to publicly speak against the administration.

Hey, I didn't give up. I thought of y'all today as I threw my Rally's cup out of my window. I've been working pretty long hours lately.

No, we stay there until the job is done and the Iraqi people can defend themselves. We backed out early once when the Afgans defeated the Russians and they resented us for using them up. Approx. 20 years later they end up fighting us with our own weapons. I've said a million times, pulling out is nothing but a mess (hahaha that still cracks me up). There is another alternative and that would be just packing up and getting out. That'd do nothing but waste almost 2000 lives and cause another breeding ground for terrorists just like Afganistan was. I said "pretty close to correctly" because I feel the war should be fought a little differently. I'm not in charge though so I'll have to deal with what they feel is the right way to do it. I know you are going to say that I'm a submissive, mindless grunt who is simply a tool for higher brass and in a way that cynical attitude is kind of right. Like gpatmac said, I took my oath and swore to serve under my commander and chief until death do we part, so help me God. The power given to officers is appointed directly by the President, in fact my commissioning certificate is signed by W himself.

About questioning his leadership, given the oath again, I'm not the one to do that. I think every subordinate questions his leaders decisions to a degree but no so much that he refuses to carry them out. All I can tell you about the war is that I think it is a worth while cause and I will support until I am no longer fit to do so, until I am relieved or until it gets the best of me. Regardless of which happens, I'll be proud I served.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi] The main issue I have with Bush is the whole philosophy on terrorism. I believe in the war, I really do. I honestly feel that if we were not in Iraq and Afganistan we would have been attacked again as the enemy would be able to consolidate again and formulate a new plan of attack. [/QUOTE]

Oh god, you are SO misinformed. How, please do tell me, was Iraq involved in 9/11 in anyway shape or form? Please tell me this since Jr and the rest of them would LOVE to know as much as me.

Jesus I can't believe this bull**** is still being spread!

[QUOTE=gpatmac]Hey, I didn't give up. I thought of y'all today as I threw my Rally's
cup out of my window. I've been working pretty long hours lately.[/QUOTE]


Better watch it we all know that Cops single out ricers! They could catch your ass and fine you around 200 dollars for your first offense. :p :D

Are you having a little extra flow tonight? Got a little too much sand in the clam?

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]No, we stay there until the job is done and the Iraqi people can defend themselves. We backed out early once when the Afgans defeated the Russians and they resented us for using them up. Approx. 20 years later they end up fighting us with our own weapons. I've said a million times, pulling out is nothing but a mess (hahaha that still cracks me up). There is another alternative and that would be just packing up and getting out. That'd do nothing but waste almost 2000 lives and cause another breeding ground for terrorists just like Afganistan was. I said "pretty close to correctly" because I feel the war should be fought a little differently. I'm not in charge though so I'll have to deal with what they feel is the right way to do it. I know you are going to say that I'm a submissive, mindless grunt who is simply a tool for higher brass and in a way that cynical attitude is kind of right. Like gpatmac said, I took my oath and swore to serve under my commander and chief until death do we part, so help me God. The power given to officers is appointed directly by the President, in fact my commissioning certificate is signed by W himself.

About questioning his leadership, given the oath again, I'm not the one to do that. I think every subordinate questions his leaders decisions to a degree but no so much that he refuses to carry them out. All I can tell you about the war is that I think it is a worth while cause and I will support until I am no longer fit to do so, until I am relieved or until it gets the best of me. Regardless of which happens, I'll be proud I served.[/QUOTE]

I think we can all respect that. I know I can.

[QUOTE=gpatmac]Are you having a little extra flow tonight? Got a little too much sand in the clam?[/QUOTE]


So you equate resonable, logical reasoning to menstruation? You seem to take any chance you can to joke about how someone is being too serious. That, my friend, is pretty f'ing lame. What do you got for me? Do I have some uncomfortable object in my rectum? Do I have a catchy, titled, moniker cleverly made out of adjectives? :rolleyes:

You're good at the jokes, but how about saying someting intelligent for your side of the argument?

Do you realize how much sh*t would be on the roads if everyone threw their trash out the window? I guess you don't care about that, right? Landfills have too much trash as it is. We need to spread it around everywhere.

Sorry, but just joking about it, even if you don't really do it, shows your lack of respect for an issue that we should all support. It still seems like you're refusing to agree with anything liberal, and continue to joke about littering as to keep up your 'cool,' 'tough,' 'I deal with more important things' soldier attitude.

and STi, Sure the soldiers should follow orders and such, but that doesn't mean the gov't has bought their minds. Pretending like everything is just fine is only hindering our own efforts. And not telling the full truth to new enlistees [by waiving your right to think for yourself, as you said] would sound even more involuntary than I explained before. So, as for the topic of this thread, I see exactly what these people are upset about.

If you still think it's just a bunch of skirt and beanie wearing dirties complainig, you have a lot to learn.

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]

and STi, Sure the soldiers should follow orders and such, but that doesn't mean the gov't has bought their minds. Pretending like everything is just fine is only hindering our own efforts. And not telling the full truth to new enlistees [by waiving your right to think for yourself, as you said] would sound even more involuntary than I explained before. So, as for the topic of this thread, I see exactly what these people are upset about. QUOTE]

We're at war, of course things aren't "fine". This country was founded on taking the hard right over the easy wrong. It may be rough now just as all worthwhile endeavors are in their infancy but it will pay off in the end. During the Revolutionary War many people didn't want us to fight. Had that happened we would be part of parliamentary rule with a figurehead King eating scrumpets. I'm not really sure if you disagree with the war entirely or what aspects you dislike (I would appreciate a little clarification) but I feel it's a rough time that we'll have to endure to get the results we want. Trust me, if I disagreed with the war I'd be voicing my opinion as I am one of the people who is directly affected by its existance. I can promise you there are few soldiers who disagree with the war and as long as that is the case I think it's a pretty legit cause. I know a lot of people say "What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?" and that is understandable. Did Iraq aid Bin Laden in orchestrating the attacks? Maybe, maybe not. That's not the concern. The fact of the matter is that Saddam was a snake in the grass with lethal potential. As soon as he had a means to strike American's I feel he would have done it. Even if he was happy sleeping in his palace's every night and had no intention of attacking America we still could have justified the war as having liberated the Iraqi people from a tyrant. Germany in WWII is a prime example. Would Hitler have attacked America given the oppurtunity? Yes, most definetly. Would he have searched for this oppurtunity? Possibly. We're there people suffering under his rule? Absolutely. That is justification enough for me to go to war.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi]I know a lot of people say "What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?" and that is understandable. Did Iraq aid Bin Laden in orchestrating the attacks? Maybe, maybe not. That's not the concern. The fact of the matter is that Saddam was a snake in the grass with lethal potential. As soon as he had a means to strike American's I feel he would have done it. Even if he was happy sleeping in his palace's every night and had no intention of attacking America we still could have justified the war as having liberated the Iraqi people from a tyrant. Germany in WWII is a prime example. Would Hitler have attacked America given the oppurtunity? Yes, most definetly. Would he have searched for this oppurtunity? Possibly. We're there people suffering under his rule? Absolutely. That is justification enough for me to go to war.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? It was proven afterwards that Iraq had no way to reach us with any type of weapons. On top of this Saddam knew that the second he attacked us he would be destroyed uterly and rightfully, with the full support of the American people. On top of this NO WMD WHERE FOUND. You can't compare Sadam to Germany, I'd go into it but no time. But if you are in it to liberate people from tyrants their are a lot worse people than Saddam.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi][QUOTE=scoobsport98]

and STi, Sure the soldiers should follow orders and such, but that doesn't mean the gov't has bought their minds. Pretending like everything is just fine is only hindering our own efforts. And not telling the full truth to new enlistees [by waiving your right to think for yourself, as you said] would sound even more involuntary than I explained before. So, as for the topic of this thread, I see exactly what these people are upset about. [/QUOTE]

We're at war, of course things aren't "fine". This country was founded on taking the hard right over the easy wrong. It may be rough now just as all worthwhile endeavors are in their infancy but it will pay off in the end. During the Revolutionary War many people didn't want us to fight. Had that happened we would be part of parliamentary rule with a figurehead King eating scrumpets. I'm not really sure if you disagree with the war entirely or what aspects you dislike (I would appreciate a little clarification) but I feel it's a rough time that we'll have to endure to get the results we want. Trust me, if I disagreed with the war I'd be voicing my opinion as I am one of the people who is directly affected by its existance. I can promise you there are few soldiers who disagree with the war and as long as that is the case I think it's a pretty legit cause. I know a lot of people say "What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?" and that is understandable. Did Iraq aid Bin Laden in orchestrating the attacks? Maybe, maybe not. That's not the concern. The fact of the matter is that Saddam was a snake in the grass with lethal potential. As soon as he had a means to strike American's I feel he would have done it. Even if he was happy sleeping in his palace's every night and had no intention of attacking America we still could have justified the war as having liberated the Iraqi people from a tyrant. Germany in WWII is a prime example. Would Hitler have attacked America given the oppurtunity? Yes, most definetly. Would he have searched for this oppurtunity? Possibly. We're there people suffering under his rule? Absolutely. That is justification enough for me to go to war.[/QUOTE]


I agree with lots of what you say here. But you aren't addressing my point whatsoever. Of course we should do what we can to finish the job now that we're there, but the premise we went on (imminent threat of WMD's) was never substantiated. I'm not blaming congress or the president alone, because it was the intelligence that was wrong. But the buck's gotta stop somewhere, and it's not a pile of papers. You say, "what does iraq have to do with 9/11?" isn't the concern. Why not? I see it as [b]quite[/b] the concern. We can't count on the ends to justify the means- even though it may- we have to realize when we defiantly go after someone, leaving other countries behind, that we are alienating ourselves from thge rest of the world who doesn't understand our ways.

So, you think it's fine that the president continues to lie to us about the war on terror? We should just trust that the military will be able to complete their job and extenguish terror? Sorry, but it looks to me that we've stirred up quite the sh*tstorm. At some point, we have to be more realistic than optimistic, and asses the situation objectively, assessing the worldwide impact our actions are having.

Personally, I don't think ignorance is bliss. It can get your ass killed, if you're not careful.





...and remember- I'm not personally advocating we pull out- I'm simply trying to explain a point you can't seem to grasp-So please be careful about assumnptions implied about me in any response you may have. :)

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]
So, you think it's fine that the president continues to lie to us about the war on terror? We should just trust that the military will be able to complete their job and extenguish terror? Sorry, but it looks to me that we've stirred up quite the sh*tstorm. [/QUOTE]

werd. but hey, lemmings need a leader!

[QUOTE=scoobsport98]I agree with lots of what you say here. But you aren't addressing my point whatsoever. Of course we should do what we can to finish the job now that we're there, but the premise we went on (imminent threat of WMD's) was never substantiated. I'm not blaming congress or the president alone, because it was the intelligence that was wrong. But the buck's gotta stop somewhere, and it's not a pile of papers. You say, "what does iraq have to do with 9/11?" isn't the concern. Why not? I see it as [b]quite[/b] the concern. We can't count on the ends to justify the means- even though it may- we have to realize when we defiantly go after someone, leaving other countries behind, that we are alienating ourselves from thge rest of the world who doesn't understand our ways.

So, you think it's fine that the president continues to lie to us about the war on terror? We should just trust that the military will be able to complete their job and extenguish terror? Sorry, but it looks to me that we've stirred up quite the sh*tstorm. At some point, we have to be more realistic than optimistic, and asses the situation objectively, assessing the worldwide impact our actions are having.

Personally, I don't think ignorance is bliss. It can get your ass killed, if you're not careful.





...and remember- I'm not personally advocating we pull out- I'm simply trying to explain a point you can't seem to grasp-So please be careful about assumnptions implied about me in any response you may have. :)[/QUOTE]


I'm not making any assumptions of you at all. So far you've held your own very well and you've been entirely professional about it the whole time we've been discussing it. I don't think I am addressing your point because this thread has gone so far off topic so I'm not really sure what to respond to. As far as Bush lying to us about the war on terror I'm not really sure when he lied to us? I'm sure having said that I will be stereotyped as a mindless follower of the Bush regime but I have stress again that just because I support the Administration (which is more than just the President) doesn't mean I can't think for myself as so many presume. I agree that the intel we had prior to going in did not substantiate the reason (if your going to pick a reason to attack at least make it legit) to invade Iraq at all. I think if they would have said "We believe that if Saddam is giving the potential to attack us with a WMD he will and this is a preemptive effort to thwart such attacks" we could have avoided this entire, finger pointing mess. You say we have to be more realistic than optimistic and I think assuming that leaving Iraq alone would not result in a strike on America is a little to optimistic. The war is a reality now and the only way to finish it successfully is to grit and bear it until we're through. Like I said before all worthwhile endeavors have their hardship.

How long do y'all think certain Muslim factions' resentment towards to west has been brewing?

Let's just say that 9/11 wasn't wholly successful. What would the total picture of terrorist activity look like right now? What will it look like if the military, in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, continues to accomplish their goals?

I think we're on track. We're experiencing mainly victory and but with some setbacks. We're doing things largely effectively and efficiently but are making mistakes too.

Who here thinks we should have asked the Al Queda and the fundamental Suni's to the diplomatic table? Who thinks that would have solved anything.

Who here is ready to run for president because they think that they have the right outlook and many of the answers?

Maybe I need to post another thread asking how YOU would solve this problem.