Well you know what, after watching Obama's acceptance speech, I don't think I would mind if he became president (if he can actually keep his promises), and with Palin as his running mate, I don't think I would mind McCain as our president. Neither are getting my vote (sorry, I believe a man can change his views and until Bob Barr does something to disprove that he's seen the errors of his ways I will put my support behind him) but at least I feel confident that no matter what, the white boys club of washington politics is ending either this year, or in 4-8 (when Palin runs)
Whomever we get is going to be an improvement imo.
My test with any VP pick is going to be: "If the roles are reversed on the ticket for Vice President and President, would I still vote for them?"
I keep asking, "If the Realms has a serious threat from a Spellplague, who would you want answering the phone at 3 am?"Ah! But they did not say "D&Der for Romney"; they are saying "Pathfinders for Romney."
There is a big difference.
Oh no! The next phase of the edition wars:
"What's Senator McCain's position on Daily, Per-Encounter, and At-Will powers?"
Ummm, "Jason Bulmahn" (Sorry, /threadjack) :P
|
Man...how did saying that some people can't be reasoned with turn into me being a warmonger and thinking that everyone's lumped into a good guy/bad guy pot? Just because you can't reason with someone doesn't mean there aren't other ways to deal with them besides go to war with them. I contend that the idea that all of those problems could be solved by just talking to their leaders is foolishly optimistic.I agree. I didn't necessarily assume you were a warmonger; I only remarked that your post made it seem very much as if you were indeed "thinking that everyone's lumped into a good guy/bad guy pot," and I asked if that was your intent. From your reply, it seems that it wasn't, and that you and I don't actually disagree at all. Which often turns out to be the case, when negotiations are still on the table.
Personally, I feel that both talking and warfare are more apt to be successful when warfare and diplomacy, respectively, are held in reserve rather than ruled out a priori.
I think we can certainly agree enough on all those points to get along just fine.
Oh, and it was someone else who quoted me and made me out to be a warmonger - I just happened to pick you to hit the quote button on.
.... Neither are getting my vote (sorry, I believe a man can change his views and until Bob Barr does something to disprove that he's seen the errors of his ways I will put my support behind him) ...
While it is true that people can change their view and recant, the total 180 degree in Barr's views to suit his new affiliation seems a little too convenient in my eyes.
There is his stand on Wicca (which he now thinks is OK.)
Then there is his role in the Clinton Impeachment
And of course some more fun stuff regarding his many changes of heart.
Sorry, I just can't stand the man, and having him at the helm of my beloved Libertarians really gets to me. I know folks can change, but I stand by my earlier comparison. If Karl Rove woke up one day and said "I am sick of Republicans, I am becoming a Democrat!" How many would take him seriously? But I can at least take heart that he will not win and the Libertarians will recover.
|
Meh, I like Palin. She's attractive, smart, and devoted to her family. She's also fought against political corruption, tried to reduce Alaska's dependence on federal dollars, and pissed off a couple big oil companies. Lastly, she had a hand in ending the "Bridge to Nowhere".
Could I see her as President if McCain kicked the bucket? From what I've seen so far, yes.
Not to mention, I heard she's got five kids. My mom had five kids. If she's anything like my mom, I'd be scared to mess with her.
...
Not to mention, I heard she's got five kids. My mom had five kids. If she's anything like my mom, I'd be scared to mess with her.
True that. Talk about executive experience!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Govenour Palin is a better VP choice than Joe Biden because...
1) She actually stands up to Washington (Sen. Stevens, Pres. Bush)
2) She's not been running for the job for 20 years.
3) She actually listens to her consultants.
4) She doesn't, ahem, borrow others words.
5) Her ego would fit in the VP's office.
Heck, she's better qualified than Sen. Obama because...
1) She has executive experience
2) She knows what it's like to manage a state, manage a house
3) She may not know when life begins, but knows enough to know that letting the baby die after its been delivered is not the right thing to do. She's been 'punished' with 5 children after all.
4) She won't threaten to sic the Justice department on people who confront her with 'inconvient truths'
5) She knows you lock up unrepentant terrorists, not work with them in public institutions have fund raising at their place, and then just call them 'some guy I know, who lives in the same neighborhood.'
As to Sarah Palin and creationism/ID Littlegreenfootballs (hardly a bastion of support for ID) reports here on that issue.
|
|
The more this election is dragged out, the more pessimistic I become. Obama's nomination of Biden gave me a bit of the chills, and to me McCain just seems... well, stuck in the past. While I don't have anything personal against his nominee, she does not seem exactly qualified to me. Her views on energy and the environment seem naive. But, I do trust her more than Biden... Luckily, the VP is a relatively powerless job (recent examples excluded). I really think that the primary process needs to happen a LOT later. I am so sick of all the pandering, and with such a drawn-out process, politicians feel it is necessary to win. Blech.
And I feel I need to explain myself from much earlier in the thread. When I mentioned WWII, I was trying to convey that the Axis powers viewed themselves as "good" and the allies as "bad", to put it in the simple terms I used earlier. This kind of thought is possibly the main cause of war, to "bring civilization/democracy/whatever to the world". Furthermore, diplomacy should not imply weakness. Good diplomacy is ruthless, but bloodless.
I apologize for taking up so much space commenting on previous issues. I hope I am remaining civilized, please tell me if I sound vitriolic. :D
|
|
My test with any VP pick is going to be: "If the roles are reversed on the ticket for Vice President and President, would I still vote for them?"
I voted for Sarah. I saw her on an Alaska Air flight once after she started her term. She and one of her handlers rode coach with all the rest of us, not in any special seating, not on a private jet.
No fan fare. I really respect that.
She's done a great job governing my home state, as well.
|
|
Creationism in schools? She should appeal to the fundamentalist crowd.Yikes. I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, vote for that... even if her fiscal conservatism is refreshing.You know, I'm surprised by how many conservatives have expressed a similar sentiment. It makes me wonder if the marriages of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism was such a great idea (assuming you believe such a marriage exists in the contemporary Republican party). I know my perception of just such a union precludes me from seriously considering most Republican candidates.
this is why i can't vote republican. when they get rid of the religious right, i'll be wearing my GOP pin, until then, libertarian is it (except this year, i think barr is faking it)
|
|
At least you had drinking time. I went home, spent some time with my wife and three kids, got my three hours of sleep, and then worked the night shift in a factory. I am the student Obama talks about in his speeches, he just doesn't know it.That's rough. Kudos for pulling it off.
I'm glad I held off marriage until later in life. (I still don't know if I want kids.)
but you two would have cute intelligent kids! dammit!
why are so many intelligent, successful people content to be childless when they'd raise (for the most part) intelligent, successful and let the idiots overpopulate the planet?
just saying...
|
I find it interesting that people get all excited about fiscal conservatives.
Last I checked, the tax and spend liberals had actually cut spending and ran a surplus.
Then we get some fiscal conservatives and they spend like there is no tomorrow and we have trillions in debt again.
Maybe I am missing something. But it seems to me like they are using some kind of double talk. Fiscal conservative actually means we are going to bankrupt the country to the point our currency is worthless. And Tax and Spend liberal means we'll balance the budget and behave responsibly with your money...
But then again I am voting Libertarian .
|
|
I find it interesting that people get all excited about fiscal conservatives.
Last I checked, the tax and spend liberals had actually cut spending and ran a surplus.
Then we get some fiscal conservatives and they spend like there is no tomorrow and we have trillions in debt again.
Maybe I am missing something. But it seems to me like they are using some kind of double talk. Fiscal conservative actually means we are going to bankrupt the country to the point our currency is worthless. And Tax and Spend liberal means we'll balance the budget and behave responsibly with your money...
But then again I am voting Libertarian .
the part you're missing is where newt gingrich shoved fiscal conservatism down clinton's throat in '96. when he was drummed out, the RINOs took over the party and spent like drunk sorority girls with access to daddy's gold card.
oh, and bob barr is about as "libertarian" as the ocean is "dry". he's faking the funk, sorry...
After hearing about Sarah Palin being selected as McCain's running mate, I raced home and did the following:
1. Formally joined the Republican Party and made a donation. (First time ever)
2. Joined McCain's Team, made a donation, and VOLUNTEERED. (First time ever)
3. Purchased a Sarah Palin for Vice President bumper sticker and put it on my car (Yes, another first)
So regardless of what the Democrats personally think of Governor Palin, they had better be respectful of the fact that she motivated this Republican to get off his ass and actively participate when no other candidate before her ever did.
|
|
this is why i can't vote republican. when they get rid of the religious right, i'll be wearing my GOP pin, until then, libertarian is it (except this year, i think barr is faking it)Creationism in schools? She should appeal to the fundamentalist crowd.Yikes. I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, vote for that... even if her fiscal conservatism is refreshing.You know, I'm surprised by how many conservatives have expressed a similar sentiment. It makes me wonder if the marriages of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism was such a great idea (assuming you believe such a marriage exists in the contemporary Republican party). I know my perception of just such a union precludes me from seriously considering most Republican candidates.
All she said was that Creationism (as it relates to the Bible) could be taught alongside Evolution. She said, in essence, teach both together and let the kids debate it in class.
|
|
All she said was that Creationism (as it relates to the Bible) could be taught alongside Evolution. She said, in essence, teach both together and let the kids debate it in class.this is why i can't vote republican. when they get rid of the religious right, i'll be wearing my GOP pin, until then, libertarian is it (except this year, i think barr is faking it)Creationism in schools? She should appeal to the fundamentalist crowd.Yikes. I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, vote for that... even if her fiscal conservatism is refreshing.You know, I'm surprised by how many conservatives have expressed a similar sentiment. It makes me wonder if the marriages of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism was such a great idea (assuming you believe such a marriage exists in the contemporary Republican party). I know my perception of just such a union precludes me from seriously considering most Republican candidates.
doesn't change the fact that as long as the republicans continually refuse to release the anchor that is the evangelical right, i ain't voting for them.
i don't give two hoots who marries whom, who sleeps with whom, who listens to metal, plays d&d, has an abortion, wants to smoke a joint, any of that.
i care about a fiscally responsible government that eliminates wasteful bureaucracy, keeps taxes low, and doesn't reward people for making piss poor life decisions (i don't mind helping people caught in a "s#!t happens" situation, but people that dig their own hole shouldn't be thrown a rope attached to my wallet, sorry)
normally, i vote libertarian, but this year, they nominated a pro life drug warrior who has claimed to "see the light", and whom i strongly believe is full of it...
oh, well, here's to another four years of "meh..."
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All she said was that Creationism (as it relates to the Bible) could be taught alongside Evolution. She said, in essence, teach both together and let the kids debate it in class.
Indeed. Which is just as valid as teaching cosmology and the Hindu creation myth cycle together in science class and letting kids debate in class.
Or showing mustard plants alongside Jesus' comments about the mustard being the largest plant, and letting kids debate in class.
What's to debate?
I think it's important, somewhere in a science class, to discuss scientific principles, what it means to be a "natural philosopher," and how science accumulates facts, tests them, forms hypotheses, and constructs theories.
(Likewise, it would warm the cockles of my heart if some history class, somewhere in America, ever talked about the philosophy of researching history, and how different historians have gone about deciding which facts to verify, and what narrative to construct...)
But why pick on evolution, one of the most certain of the biological theories? Why not invite the same inquiry about the atomic model of chemical elements, or the theories relating to the life cycle of stars?
|
|
I think it's important, somewhere in a science class, to discuss scientific principles, what it means to be a "natural philosopher," and how science accumulates facts, tests them, forms hypotheses, and constructs theories.
(Likewise, it would warm the cockles of my heart if some history class, somewhere in America, ever talked about the philosophy of researching history, and how different historians have gone about deciding which facts to verify, and what narrative to construct...)
But why pick on evolution, one of the most certain of the biological theories? Why not invite the same inquiry about the atomic model of chemical elements, or the theories relating to the life cycle of stars?
I'm personally fond of the "theory" of Intelligent Falling. It has just as much evidence backing it as ID!
"Gravity doesn't exist, instead a 'faller' pushes objects closer together."
But I digress. I have no problem teaching Intelligent Design in school, as long as it is in a PHILOSOPHY class. It is not science, but it is an intriguing idea nonetheless. Biblical Creationism should probably stay in sunday school, unless it is joined by other creation stories from other cultures in a class of that sort.
No offense intended to any parties.
PS - The asian history class I am taking right now is discussing the very philosophy you mentioned: how perspective and bias shows itself in historical record. Particularly, how Europe and the West has viewed Asia and the "Orient" through time, from Herodotus to Marco Polo to today.
the part you're missing is where newt gingrich shoved fiscal conservatism down clinton's throat in '96. when he was drummed out, the RINOs took over the party and spent like drunk sorority girls with access to daddy's gold card.oh, and bob barr is about as "libertarian" as the ocean is "dry". he's faking the funk, sorry...
Meh. There were already fiscally responsible Democrats in Washington by then. They were pushing for a balanced budget in 1993, without any Republican votes, I might add. Democrats may not have embraced conservatism in the sense of cutting down government services, but they were pretty tight fisted about spending money without raising it first.
So I wouldn't overstate Gingrich's effect on Clinton's budgets quite so much.
PS - The asian history class I am taking right now is discussing the very philosophy you mentioned: how perspective and bias shows itself in historical record. Particularly, how Europe and the West has viewed Asia and the "Orient" through time, from Herodotus to Marco Polo to today.
Going to be reading some Edward Said, I assume?
Reason enough to think she is a bad choice:
Wikipedia:
"After she was announced as Senator McCain's presumptive running mate, she stated that she does not believe that climate change is man-made."
|
Reason enough to think she is a bad choice:
Wikipedia:
"After she was announced as Senator McCain's presumptive running mate, she stated that she does not believe that climate change is man-made."
The problem that I have with man-made global warming is that James Hanson, the man who first proposed the idea of man-made climate change, has himself said that the last time CO2 levels were this high was 35 million years ago. That to me says that this is a natural cycle, humans may have played a role as a catalyst but the process itself is driven by nature. I think that anyone who callenges the notion that the science is settled sho be respected, not punished. Remember that the last person to challenge the "accepted science" was Galileo, and he turned out to be right.
Do you have a source for that quote from him? I'm not challenging you, I'd just like to find out more about him.
EDIT: THIS James Hansen?
|
|
Do you have a source for that quote from him? I'm not challenging you, I'd just like to find out more about him.
EDIT: THIS James Hansen?
Yes that James Hansen. Here is a copy of a paper he released last year. On page 1497 he discusses the plio-pleistocine whipsaw and he also mention that there seems to be fluctuiations every 100 thousand to 23 thousand years. Also in this paper he states that in the cenezoic period CO2 levels were at 450 ppm while currently we are at 385 ppm. Sorry I don't have a page number on that, I took the information from the executive summery. I hope this helps.
All she said was that Creationism (as it relates to the Bible) could be taught alongside Evolution. She said, in essence, teach both together and let the kids debate it in class.this is why i can't vote republican. when they get rid of the religious right, i'll be wearing my GOP pin, until then, libertarian is it (except this year, i think barr is faking it)Creationism in schools? She should appeal to the fundamentalist crowd.Yikes. I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, vote for that... even if her fiscal conservatism is refreshing.You know, I'm surprised by how many conservatives have expressed a similar sentiment. It makes me wonder if the marriages of fiscal conservatism and religious fundamentalism was such a great idea (assuming you believe such a marriage exists in the contemporary Republican party). I know my perception of just such a union precludes me from seriously considering most Republican candidates.
Gosh, is *that* all? That makes perfect sense then. Let's put a theory with literally MOUNTAINS of freakin evidence on equal footing with a crackpot idea that has, well, none.
Better make room for the "smurfs created the universe idea" while we're at it...
The problem that I have with man-made global warming is that James Hanson, the man who first proposed the idea of man-made climate change, has himself said that the last time CO2 levels were this high was 35 million years ago. That to me says that this is a natural cycle, humans may have played a role as a catalyst but the process itself is driven by nature. I think that anyone who callenges the notion that the science is settled sho be respected, not punished. Remember that the last person to challenge the "accepted science" was Galileo, and he turned out to be right.Reason enough to think she is a bad choice:
Wikipedia:
"After she was announced as Senator McCain's presumptive running mate, she stated that she does not believe that climate change is man-made."
"Challenging accepted science" is great. In fact, it is VITAL to the scientific method. But you have to present some evidence, not just say "I don't believe that." So, unless Mrs. Palin is moonlighting as an environmental geologist, I don't think we should put her up there with Galileo just yet. Opinion != challenge.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
wandering further off topic...
I am honestly torn on ID. On the one hand I believe in the concept of micro-evolution and am unsure about macro evolution but understand it.
On the other hand, it is statistically possible for my truck to be put in drive and random influences get it all the way to work without hitting anything. I'd be more comfortable with a driver though.
I guess my take on ID is 'it's perfectly possible to evolve into a man. I prefer to believe that we had a push.'
But then I'm a henothestic Lutheran Heritic, so take it as you will.
As an aside, I do have to laugh at people calling the Religions 'Right' an anchor. I mean these people who hate GE food, are convinced that global warming (High of 84 in August/September today) is manmade and of course Fred Phelps (D-Hell) aren't the worst of the Religious Left?
|
|
"Challenging accepted science" is great. In fact, it is VITAL to the scientific method. But you have to present some evidence, not just say "I don't believe that." So, unless Mrs. Palin is moonlighting as an environmental geologist, I don't think we should put her up there with Galileo just yet. Opinion != challenge.
But in a year where there is more polar ice than the year before, something that hasn't happened in a decade according to the India Times, and which will likely fall outside the top 15, if not the top 20, for temperature accord to NOAA, I think we can say that there may be some evidence against man made climate change. Even NPR is that the ocean temperature sensors have showed no change in the past five years, and that is supposed to be the big indicator. So there are three options; 1) the climate is healing itself, 2) man-made climeat change never existed, or 3) we have turned the corner with our efforts to reverse global warming. Certainly more data is needed, but there is enough to star making some educated guesses.
On the other hand, it is statistically possible for my truck to be put in drive and random influences get it all the way to work without hitting anything. I'd be more comfortable with a driver though.
What if there were influences that made it more likely to stay on the road, and unlikely to veer off of it? You'd still have no control over which way it would go at a fork in the road, but it wouldn't crash into buildings. And the deal would be, whatever building you ended up at, you'd have a job there. That's a (very slightly) better analogy -- natural selection is NOT "random."
But in a year where there is more polar ice than the year before, something that hasn't happened in a decade according to the India Times, and which will likely fall outside the top 15, if not the top 20, for temperature accord to NOAA, I think we can say that there may be some evidence against man made climate change. Even NPR is that the ocean temperature sensors have showed no change in the past five years, and that is supposed to be the big indicator. So there are three options; 1) the climate is healing itself, 2) man-made climeat change never existed, or 3) we have turned the corner with our efforts to reverse global warming. Certainly more data is needed, but there is enough to star making some educated guesses.
No. One year is meaningless; climate is mean trend, year after year. Look at this series: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 3, 12, 15, 19, 22. The progression is increasing, despite the anomalous "3" in the middle of the series. Even a 5-year series is not very convincing, when we consider that the last ice age ended about 11 thousand years ago.
There are a number of feedback loops, both positive and negative, governing climate warming/cooling, some natural, some susceptable to anthropogenic influences. These must be taken into account before a decision is made. In the early Eocene (about 55 million years ago), evidence indicates there were no ice caps, so we know that large natural swings are possible. On the other hand, study of how the feedback loops work implies that anthropogenic influences could indeed substantially increase the rate at which a warming climate warms.
I'm a geologist by training and by trade; I spent a summer at NASA Langley learning about the satellites that study climate; and even I have to say "the jury is out," until more data are available. For a layman to make firm opinions at this time -- one way or the other -- without understanding most of the process, is akin to believing in the boogey man, or refusing to believe in gravity, as the case may be.
...
doesn't change the fact that as long as the republicans continually refuse to release the anchor that is the evangelical right, i ain't voting for them.
i don't give two hoots who marries whom, who sleeps with whom, who listens to metal, plays d&d, has an abortion, wants to smoke a joint, any of that.
i care about a fiscally responsible government that eliminates wasteful bureaucracy, keeps taxes low, and doesn't reward people for making piss poor life decisions (i don't mind helping people caught in a "s#!t happens" situation, but people that dig their own hole shouldn't be thrown a rope attached to my wallet, sorry)
normally, i vote libertarian, but this year, they nominated a pro life drug warrior who has claimed to "see the light", and whom i strongly believe is full of it...
oh, well, here's to another four years of "meh..."
TELL IT LIKE IT IS BROTHER!
Oh and I found out something else about Palin I can respect. When she became governor she dismissed the domestic staff at the Alaskan Governor's mansion and she sold the governor's private jet on eBay. That kind of fiscal responsibility is exactly what I can admire in a politician.
Hmm, looking more and more like this disenfranchised Libertarian is going to be voting Republican this year. Only question is can we have a Palin/McCain rather than a McCain/Palin ticket?
For a layman to make firm opinions at this time -- one way or the other -- without understanding most of the process, is akin to believing in the boogey man, or refusing to believe in gravity, as the case may be.
Which would include almost everyone you hear talking about climate change in any public setting, including these boards. People who suggest that because she doesn't believe it is man-made she must be daft, but indicate that they believe it is man-made are equally as daft.
By the way, there has been a miny ice-age more recent. I believe in the middle ages there was one.
...
By the way, there has been a miny ice-age more recent. I believe in the middle ages there was one.
Little Ice Age it was called, it came around the time of the Black Death and is a contributing cause of many historical issues, like the abandonment of Greenland as a Norse colony to the forgetting of Vinland and America, to the Protestant Reformation and various revolutionary movements in European society.
Reason enough to think she is a bad choice:
Wikipedia:
"After she was announced as Senator McCain's presumptive running mate, she stated that she does not believe that climate change is man-made."
Why would that make her a bad choice? Man-made climate change is a theory and not a fact, regardless what people have tried to push.
|
|
]No. One year is meaningless; climate is mean trend, year after year. Look at this series: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 3, 12, 15, 19, 22. The progression is increasing, despite the anomalous "3" in the middle of the series. Even a 5-year series is not very convincing, when we consider that the last ice age ended about 11 thousand years ago.
Which by Hansen's own statements puts us right about the middle of the natural cycle.
There are a number of feedback loops, both positive and negative, governing climate warming/cooling, some natural, some susceptable to anthropogenic influences. These must be taken into account before a decision is made. In the early Eocene (about 55 million years ago), evidence indicates there were no ice caps, so we know that large natural swings are possible. On the other hand, study of how the feedback loops work implies that anthropogenic influences could indeed substantially increase the rate at which a warming climate warms.I'm a geologist by training and by trade; I spent a summer at NASA Langley learning about the satellites that study climate; and even I have to say "the jury is out," until more data are available. For a layman to make firm opinions at this time -- one way or the other -- without understanding most of the process, is akin to...
Please explain to me why I, a lay person, should accept that we, meaning mankind, are causing global warming when you, a scientist, point to a period where we, meaning mankind, were not even specks in the eye of evolution as an example of where we may be heading. I have asked this question of many scientists and the former vice-president, but so far none of them have bothered to answer. Also, why should we trust the predictions of what is going to happen 10, 20, or 50 years down the road when the same computer models can't tell me what the weather will be like two weeks from now.
|
|
hey I can Smurf that
And Palin is too a Mother I'd like to Smurf
What frightens me is the shallowness by which people support someone because of their looks . . . especially when that someone may likely become commander-in-chief.
For all the banter McCain's been throwing out about Obama's lack of experience, he picks someone with NO experience in Federal government. Her experience? Mother of Five. City Councilwoman. Mayor. Governor (for two years). All McCain's previous banter now serves as a discredit to the man with this pick. It says, that for the past few months, all his banter is nothing more - pure dribble.
What else does it tell us? He's impetuous. Let's face it, the only reason he picked her was that he perceives the Democrats will have a hard time attacking her because (a) she's a woman and (b) she's inexperienced. His hope is to draw over Clinton's disgruntled women voters. My wife and a great many women I know who supported Clinton are rather insulted by this move. How shallow does McCain think the women populace is?
Let's face it. Obama was right about McCain. "He just doesn't get it." Obama spoke strongly how this election has never been about him, but about us - and the degraded state of our nation - both internally and in its role within the world. The economy is in a lull. House prices and house sales are in a dwindling slump. Gas prices are high and the current powers that be (the one's with whom McCain sides) have no desire to move beyond the oil industry to new (and perpetual) alternatives. We've waged one war that never needed being waged - a war based on misinformation, Republican agendas, and the lives of our soldiers - who are simply treated as expendable humans . . . while forgetting the reason that brought us over into that region in the first place - Osama Bin Laden. And what about Supreme Court Justices? Do we really want a court that's imbalanced to a Scalia-viewpoint - scaling back our civil rights and "inalienable" freedoms. (Frankly, I fear the most what four more years of Conservatism could bring to the Court.)
No. We've seen where the past eight years under a Republican administration have taken us. Down. Down. Down.
Is Obama a knight in shining armor? Nope. But he's got a plan and a message that I connect with. Whether it'll work, whose to say. But is it better than four more years of the same. You betcha.
"House prices and house sales are in a dwindling slump. Gas prices are high"
This is not Bush's fault. We have Clinton to thank for these two problems.
|
|
Why would that make her a bad choice? Man-made climate change is a theory and not a fact, regardless what people have tried to push.
The scientific term for theory is immeasurably different than the definition used in common speech. A scientific theory has huge amounts of evidence supporting it. Gravity is a theory, we have an atomic theory, plate tectonics is a theory. Terming something a theory in science means that it is the BEST possible explanation currently known and that it has thousands upon thousands of pieces of observable evidence backing it up.
Going back to evolution to explain further, Evolution itself is a fact. Life has changed over time. There is no denying it with scientific evidence. Natural Selection is a theory, with over 150 years worth of evidence backing it. There is yet to be a SERIOUS challenge to it in the scientific community.
As for Global Climate Change, I don't know how it is termed in the scientific community, but the speed with which the climate is changing is unheard of. Not to mention that we KNOW that human activity has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a rate unheard of in the geological record. The amount of change we have witnessed in the last 100 years normally takes a few hundred thousand to a few million years naturally. That speaks to me of some kind of intervention. And about 99% of the scientific community agrees.
Also, the scientific community is not a democracy. Unlike civilized debates such as this, it does not accept just any idea. It needs rigorous testing and mountains of written evidence.
Me done rant. :p
|
|
Also, why should we trust the predictions of what is going to happen 10, 20, or 50 years down the road when the same computer models can't tell me what the weather will be like two weeks from now.
Oh, c'mon. That little pot shot is entirely disingenuous. Predicting complex models tend towards greater accuracy at a broader range.
|
|
The scientific term for theory is immeasurably different than the definition used in common speech.
Why would that make her a bad choice? Man-made climate change is a theory and not a fact, regardless what people have tried to push.
Correct. To simplify, though, a scientific theory is the explanation of observed facts.
Hence gravity. We all know it exists -- we see its effects every day. The theory of gravity is merely the explanation of why gravity behaves in the manner it does.
I can't believe you guys seriously think man-made climate change is a theory. I don't want to debate it, because I really don't think this is the right thread, nor do I wish to enter into political debates. I just wonder why people are so skeptical of scientists on this issue.
|
|
"House prices and house sales are in a dwindling slump. Gas prices are high"
This is not Bush's fault. We have Clinton to thank for these two problems.
I disagree. I don't want to over-simplify the cyclical nature of economics, but our housing bubble burst and our gas prices spiked horrifically during Bush's second term as president. In both cases, there were warning signs during Bush's regime that he did nothing to address.
Housing? I don't know the motive, other than it was probably too complicated for him and his administration to address. (Bush does tend to turn a blind eye to issues that he can't easily simplify. Katrina? Go fishing. Saddam. "He tried to kill my daddy."
Gas? I think there's NO secret how embedded W. and his family is in the oil and gas industry. Ya don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Please explain to me why I, a lay person, should accept that we, meaning mankind, are causing global warming when you, a scientist, point to a period where we, meaning mankind, were not even specks in the eye of evolution as an example of where we may be heading.
Let me flip it around for a moment: Please explain to me why you, a lay person, refuse to accept it as a possibility, when I, a scientist, understand that it is possible. The climate is warming, and that is almost certainly part of a natural cycle. But there is evidence to indicate that we, humans, are increasing the rate of change beyond what would normally be expected. Isn't that worth looking into more carefully, rather than dismissing outright?