OCinBuffalo Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yes, but those Republicans are no longer in charge of the GOP PTR If that is true, then it's only because Democrats lost control of their party after 2004. Hell, we already had signs of it prior = Howard Dean "Aaeeeeeeiiiiii" You can't possibly be so obtuse that you don't see the connection. Pushing too far in one direction, gives rise to pushing in the other. There would be no TEA party, if there was no plausible need for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yes, but those Republicans are no longer in charge of the GOP. Obviously the mayor sees the same thing. PTR You're going to have to expand and defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) If that is true, then it's only because Democrats lost control of their party after 2004. Hell, we already had signs of it prior = Howard Dean "Aaeeeeeeiiiiii" You can't possibly be so obtuse that you don't see the connection. Pushing too far in one direction, gives rise to pushing in the other. There would be no TEA party, if there was no plausible need for one. OC you are correct saying the Dems did something to give rise to the Tea Party...but you would deny it. You're going to have to expand and defend. You never heard of climate change deniers? Mitt's "hold back the ocean" remark brought the house down in Tampa. PTR Edited November 2, 2012 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) OC you are correct saying the Dems did something to give rise to the Tea Party...but you would deny it. You never heard of climate change deniers? Mitt's "hold back the ocean" remark brought the house down in Tampa. PTR Would you like me to shred to pieces all of your assumptions about climate change and those mislabled "climate change deniers"? I don't mind doing it. Edited November 2, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Would you like me to shred to pieces all of your assumptions about climate change and those mislabled "climate change deniers"? I don't mind doing it. Waste of time. Better chance convincing him that not all Obama critics are racists. And good luck with that, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) Would you like me to shred to pieces all of your assumptions about climate change and those mislabled "climate change deniers"? I don't mind doing it. There is no point arguing with me because I'm not the mayor of NYC who just endorsed the president. You can name any number of experts who say humans can't affect weather but the fact is there has been a steady increase of "once in a lifetime" weather events in the last few years. Why they are occuring you can debate. That fact they are occurring you can't. Mayor Bloomberg has a city to manage and would rather cast his lot with President Obama than with the candidate of the party filled with flat-earthers. PTR Edited November 2, 2012 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) There is no point arguing with me because I'm not the mayor of NYC who just endorsed the president. You can name any number of experts who say humans can't affect weather but the fact is there has been a steady increase of "once in a lifetime" weather events in the last few years. Why they are occuring you can debate. That fact they are occurring you can't. Mayor Bloomberg has a city to manage and would rather cast his lot with President Obama than with the candidate of the party filled with flat-earthers. PTR You say you aren't interested in an argument, but your reply is littered with mischaracterizations, poisonous well fallacies, and backhanded prejudicial language. Why would you behave like that unless you wanted me to tear you to shreds? Edited November 2, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 SO LET’S BE CLEAR: While Starving New Yorkers Dumpster-Dive For Food, while commuter delays rage, and while Staten Islanders beg for food, gas and clothing, Mayor Bloomberg has time to talk about “climate change.” New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg was a past master of lecturing about the cosmic while at times ignoring the more concrete. Governing the boroughs of an often-chaotic New York City is nearly impossible. Pontificating on the evils of smoking, fatty foods, and supposed anti-Muslim bigotry was not only far easier but had established the mayor as a national figure of sensitivity and caring. He was praised for his progressive declarations by supporters of everything from global warming to abortion. Quite simply, the next time your elected local or state official holds a press conference about global warming, the Middle East, or the national political climate, expect to experience poor county law enforcement, bad municipal services, or regional insolvency. MEANWHILE, BLOOMBERG IS WORRIED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING: Video: Blacked Out New York Lighted By Candles And $10 Mini Flashlights. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I guess if I lived in the "City" I'd like Guliani to still be the Mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 OC you are correct saying the Dems did something to give rise to the Tea Party...but you would deny it. Ok.... How exactly that would happen? Or, do I not want to know we arrive at me saying something definitive, and contradicting myself, at the same time? Before we proceed, is there any chance of creating a new dimension, or messing with the space/time continuum here? I really don't have time for any Dr. Who, crazy adventures...I still have 2 meetings tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 You say you aren't interested in an argument, but your reply is littered with mischaracterizations, poisonous well fallacies, and backhanded prejudicial language. Why would you behave like that unless you wanted me to tear you to shreds? Go ahead...tear me to shreds if it makes you happy. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Go ahead...tear me to shreds if it makes you happy. PTR It won't make me happy, but it will make you look like an ignorant boob. It would save me a good deal of time, and you a good deal of face, if you'd walk back your statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Go ahead...tear me to shreds if it makes you happy. PTR My 2:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204840504578089413659452702.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop Hurricane Sandy left in its path some impressive statistics. Its central pressure was the lowest ever recorded for a storm north of North Carolina, breaking a record set by the devastating "Long Island Express" hurricane of 1938. Along the East Coast, Sandy led to more than 50 deaths, left millions without power and caused an estimated $20 billion or more in damage. But to call Sandy a harbinger of a "new normal," in which unprecedented weather events cause unprecedented destruction, would be wrong. This historic storm should remind us that planet Earth is a dangerous place, where extreme events are commonplace and disasters are to be expected. In the proper context, Sandy is less an example of how bad things can get than a reminder that they could be much worse. In studying hurricanes, we can make rough comparisons over time by adjusting past losses to account for inflation and the growth of coastal communities. If Sandy causes $20 billion in damage (in 2012 dollars), it would rank as the 17th most damaging hurricane or tropical storm (out of 242) to hit the U.S. since 1900—a significant event, but not close to the top 10. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 tops the list (according to estimates by the catastrophe-insurance provider ICAT), as it would cause $180 billion in damage if it were to strike today. Hurricane Katrina ranks fourth at $85 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 There is no point arguing with me because I'm not the mayor of NYC who just endorsed the president. You can name any number of experts who say humans can't affect weather but the fact is there has been a steady increase of "once in a lifetime" weather events in the last few years. Why they are occuring you can debate. That fact they are occurring you can't. Mayor Bloomberg has a city to manage and would rather cast his lot with President Obama than with the candidate of the party filled with flat-earthers. PTR You best stick with spending hours on who the Bills should draft in the 7th or how Mario is doing stuff Bloomberg endorses Obama because of global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 You best stick with spending hours on who the Bills should draft in the 7th or how Mario is doing stuff Bloomberg endorses Obama because of global warming? Jim is right PTR, stick to football and probably more important, hockey. You don't do this political stuff very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 You best stick with spending hours on who the Bills should draft in the 7th or how Mario is doing stuff Bloomberg endorses Obama because of global warming? Jim is right PTR, stick to football and probably more important, hockey. You don't do this political stuff very well. Nah. PTR has been good here in the past. I've seen interesting points, and even some insight. I don't like it but, as I say, tough schit if I don't like it. He has been retarded lately. The same may be said, due to the proximity of the election, about all of us. This is an uninteresting time for PPP. That's because when it's not election time, you have one team on O, one on D, everybody knows their position, etc. and you get the real discussions and/or take downs. Somebody starts a 30 page thread about finance, etc. There's no nearby, big, "hahaha you lost" election outcome that can be used as the argument-ender in all threads. Right now, there's a lot of anxiety about which team is going to get that big thread-smasher. In 2008, at this point, we already knew, and the "regular season" had already started. Me back then: "if Obama goes overboard, he's going to lose the House and Senate just like Clinton did" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) ...I'm not the mayor of NYC who just endorsed the president. Mayor Bloomberg has a city to manage and would rather cast his lot with President Obama than with the candidate of the party filled with flat-earthers. PTR Mayor Bloomberg was bribed by FEMA/Obama. NYC is getting 100% clean up reimbursement when they should only qualify for 75%. That's why the New York Times called it a "surprise" endorsement by Bloomberg. Edited November 2, 2012 by PearlHowardman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 News Flash!!! NY and NJ will now be solidly in the BO camp. Wow! Who ever saw that coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 the fact is there has been a steady increase of "once in a lifetime" weather events in the last few years. Why they are occuring you can debate. That fact they are occurring you can't. PTR maybe we should ask the dinosaurs? I don't think extreme weather is new or more frequent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) maybe we should ask the dinosaurs? I don't think extreme weather is new or more frequent. Hard to say. We have been monitoring the weather patterns on Earth for such a very tiny slice of geologic time, it is impossible to predict with any certainty how this relates to any time in the past and future. Which is why there will NEVER be a scientific consensus on "Global Climate Change due to mankind's influence" as I like to call it. What is indisputable, due to the laws of physical chemistry, is that dumping large quantities of gases which absorb in the IR is an unwise practice, and reducing their input to the atmosphere should be considered a prudent course of action. But we must find a way to do so without completely destroying the economy. This is the point that is nearly always missed in political discussions... Edited November 2, 2012 by TheMadCap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts