Congressional ratings : Rasmussen poll

[SilverNRed]

LOL, hearing people slam the republicans who now believe in climate change reminds me of the speech by Gov. Schwarzenegger, where he said the denier core of the party is like an ever-shrinking party of penguins on a melting iceberg. "Better learn to swim, penguins!"

Well, if Schwarzenegger believes in man-made global warming, then I guess it must be true!

 

 

Saying the climate is changing and saying that humans are causing the climate to change are two different things.

[VABills]

Minus a few republicans - WHOOOHOOOOOOO!!!

I am still waiting for all those democrats who ran on the promise to not vote for any funding bills for the war. They told the American people the troops would be home within one budget cycle. Here we are and they just approved a third funding bill since that group has been in office. All it takes for Obama, Webb and the rest is to put in a few million in set aside for their friends and they are voting yes. !@#$ing liars.

[pBills]

I am still waiting for all those democrats who ran on the promise to not vote for any funding bills for the war. They told the American people the troops would be home within one budget cycle. Here we are and they just approved a third funding bill since that group has been in office. All it takes for Obama, Webb and the rest is to put in a few million in set aside for their friends and they are voting yes. !@#$ing liars.

 

 

I'm sure some of them did run on that. Of course they approved funding. What, do you think that they would leave the troops high and dry? They to bring them home, not get them killed for not having adequate supplies.

 

Try placing some blame on the other side of the aisle as well.

[Simon]

Which is all that matters to people like you.

Says the guy who does nothing but bash libocrats and defend conservicans.

You're also those "people like you".

 

 

 

NO WAY!! I did not know that. Please forgive me for my moronic post to you. I'm such a moron.

 

 

< Simon >

 

If you actually believe that bullshlt you should reconsider who's the moron.

[SilverNRed]

Says the guy who does nothing but bash libocrats and defend conservicans.

You're also those "people like you".

Yeah, I'm a real cheerleader for a political party.

 

Find a post where I'm excited about anything the Republicans (or any political party) are doing and get back to me, jackass.

[Simon]

Yeah, I'm a real cheerleader for a political party.

 

Find a post where I'm excited about anything the Republicans (or any political party) are doing and get back to me, jackass.

 

All you do is bash those you consider "libs" and defend those you consider "conservatives".

Following idiot lockstep with all tenets of conservatism is no different than following idiot lockstep with all tenets of a political party. It's the same blind devotion exhibited by cheerleaders and morons who would rather be part of the right "team" than be different or think with any nuance.

You're no different than the rest of the Molsons or Wackas of this board.

[SilverNRed]

All you do is bash those you consider "libs" and defend those you consider "conservatives".

Following idiot lockstep with all tenets of conservatism is no different than following idiot lockstep with all tenets of a political party. It's the same blind devotion exhibited by cheerleaders and morons who would rather be part of the right "team" than be different or think with any nuance.

You're no different than the rest of the Molsons or Wackas of this board.

You just explained exactly why I'm different and you're too dumb to even realize it.

 

I associate myself with ideas, not political parties. Just because I'm consistently conservative, that doesn't invalidate my opinions. The difference is that people like Molson and pBills associate with their party and really don't care if their party is doing something wrong -- hence the constant posts that are essentially "So? The _____'s do it too!" There's a pretty huge difference between devotion to a political party and devotion to your own ideas, and it's amazing that you don't realize that.

 

But thank you for accidentally helping me prove my point.

[Simon]

You just explained exactly why I'm different and you're too dumb to even realize it.

 

I associate myself with ideas, not political parties. Just because I'm consistently conservative, that doesn't invalidate my opinions.

 

Your points (have you ever even made any? smarmy thorns from your ivory tower are all I ever see) are invalidated because you're consistently conservative. And associating yourself with ideas is no different than associating yourself with political parties, particularly when they're not even your ideas.

When you follow every single idea of a certain tenet, you're nothing but another cheerleader. You can convince yourself otherwise but folks who don't blindly follow a single tenet can easily see it for what it is, even if you can't.

[Chef Jim]

Your points (have you ever even made any? smarmy thorns from your ivory tower are all I ever see) are invalidated because you're consistently conservative. And associating yourself with ideas is no different than associating yourself with political parties, particularly when they're not even your ideas.

When you follow every single idea of a certain tenet, you're nothing but another cheerleader. You can convince yourself otherwise but folks who don't blindly follow a single tenet can easily see it for what it is, even if you can't.

 

Associating oneself with a polictal party or an ideal is not the same as cheering for a particular politician that happens to have an R or a D after their name. Having and sticking up for ones ideals is what character is all about. Rooting for a particular person is paramount to creating posters for the senior class president. Today's politicians follow no straight path. They talk one way to get the nomination then sway towards the center to get win the general election and that sickens me.

[SilverNRed]

Your points (have you ever even made any? smarmy thorns from your ivory tower are all I ever see) are invalidated because you're consistently conservative. And associating yourself with ideas is no different than associating yourself with political parties, particularly when they're not even your ideas.

When you follow every single idea of a certain tenet, you're nothing but another cheerleader. You can convince yourself otherwise but folks who don't blindly follow a single tenet can easily see it for what it is, even if you can't.

That's amazing that you think being consistent in my views on what the government should be allowed to do actually invalidates those views. I'll try to be all over the map in the future to earn your respect.

 

There's a huge difference between associating with ideas instead of political parties. For starters, every political party slap fight always boils down to "I don't care if my party does that, your party is worse." Conversely, you can defend your ideas by actually defending your ideas. You can't just say my party is better than your party like it's a thread about the Sox versus the Yankees. If you want a small government with low taxes and low spending, you can (and should) actually be able to explain why.

 

That's a huge, obvious difference.

[finknottle]

I don't doubt the fact that the earths temperature is rising, but I do doubt the cause. Different opinions I guess.

 

The problem is that the debate over what to do about climate change has been hijacked into one about proving whether and exactly how much man is to blame. The latter is a textbook maneuver for blocking meaningfull action.

 

Most people agree that in time oil demand will pass supply. Should we begin looking for a new energy strategy, or spend the next few years proving whether or not today's high prices are truely supply-demand related versus being artificially high due to speculation? And should we block any action until such time that all parties agree we has as definitive an answer as we are demanding with climate change or, to cite another example of delay, whether cigarettes cause lung cancer?

 

What if 40 years from now the artic has melted, the Atlantic currents have shifted, Europe is an ice box, half the US is a desert and the other half a rainforest, and everybody south of the Rio Grande is streaming north? What if we still have not determined the definite cause? Do we give it another 40 years?

 

Firefighters don't seem to have a problem putting out wild fires before they know whether it's arson or not.

[SD Jarhead]

The problem is that the debate over what to do about climate change has been hijacked into one about proving whether and exactly how much man is to blame. The latter is a textbook maneuver for blocking meaningfull action.

 

Most people agree that in time oil demand will pass supply. Should we begin looking for a new energy strategy, or spend the next few years proving whether or not today's high prices are truely supply-demand related versus being artificially high due to speculation? And should we block any action until such time that all parties agree we has as definitive an answer as we are demanding with climate change or, to cite another example of delay, whether cigarettes cause lung cancer?

 

Isn't this key in considering whether we should devote countless dollars into solving a 'problem' when we are not sure of the cause? The price tag on global warming is enormous. Let's look at history. There were dinosaurs and then there was an ice age. The earth eventually warmed and here we are. We know the earths temperature has changed dramatically well before man inhabited it.

 

I think a coherent energy strategy is HUGE. I also think conservation is very important, as is development of alternative energy sources, but I also think we should develop the known resources we possess and am dumbfounded that we refuse to do so.

[VABills]

I'm sure some of them did run on that. Of course they approved funding. What, do you think that they would leave the troops high and dry? They to bring them home, not get them killed for not having adequate supplies.

 

Try placing some blame on the other side of the aisle as well.

That's one of the main points for Obama , and the only platform item for Jim Webb. And I do mean only. Yet here they are both voting for funding for three straight years, because well in Webb case, he got a whole bunch of add on stuff for Vet's which is admirable, but still just a bunch of add-ons to to war funding bill thatreally should have been part of the VA funding bill. Obama voted because he got a bunch of add-ons for his wife hospital that she sits on the board for.

 

Pretty good, pay offs work wonders for even the most righteous of politicians. You think a lot of that money didn't find it's way back into their campaign or hell even directly into their pockets or family pockets then you're crazy.

 

They both are slime.

 

Now I don't give the R's a pass either, because they haven't had a cohesive agenda in years. They've had some good programs that got through early in the Bush years and then they've allowed themselves to get sidetracked and overspend to keep people happy rather than control themselves.

[pBills]

That's one of the main points for Obama , and the only platform item for Jim Webb. And I do mean only. Yet here they are both voting for funding for three straight years, because well in Webb case, he got a whole bunch of add on stuff for Vet's which is admirable, but still just a bunch of add-ons to to war funding bill thatreally should have been part of the VA funding bill. Obama voted because he got a bunch of add-ons for his wife hospital that she sits on the board for.

 

Pretty good, pay offs work wonders for even the most righteous of politicians. You think a lot of that money didn't find it's way back into their campaign or hell even directly into their pockets or family pockets then you're crazy.

 

They both are slime.

 

Now I don't give the R's a pass either, because they haven't had a cohesive agenda in years. They've had some good programs that got through early in the Bush years and then they've allowed themselves to get sidetracked and overspend to keep people happy rather than control themselves.

 

 

From what I read, the add-on or $1 million dollar federal funding request for the Hospital Michelle Obama worked at was not passed through.

[VABills]

From what I read, the add-on or $1 million dollar federal funding request for the Hospital Michelle Obama worked at was not passed through.

That was in 2006. Of course, she got a doubling of her salary last year to over 300k, for her fine work in securing funding. Obama has refused to announce his 2007 and 2008 set aide ear-marks, but rumor was there 3 million for the hospotal, and this is what I was referring to, not the unfunded 1 million for the building addition.

[pBills]

That was in 2006. Of course, she got a doubling of her salary last year to over 300k, for her fine work in securing funding. Obama has refused to announce his 2007 and 2008 set aide ear-marks, but rumor was there 3 million for the hospotal, and this is what I was referring to, not the unfunded 1 million for the building addition.

 

 

Do you know for a fact her raise was due to the hospital receiving funding? Where is that stated?

[finknottle]

Isn't this key in considering whether we should devote countless dollars into solving a 'problem' when we are not sure of the cause? The price tag on global warming is enormous. Let's look at history. There were dinosaurs and then there was an ice age. The earth eventually warmed and here we are. We know the earths temperature has changed dramatically well before man inhabited it.

 

I think a coherent energy strategy is HUGE. I also think conservation is very important, as is development of alternative energy sources, but I also think we should develop the known resources we possess and am dumbfounded that we refuse to do so.

 

I agree. We need a genuine debate on what we can do, because the economic risks are enormous. But I believe a consequence of shifting the debate to first determining man's exact contribution has stifled the debate that really matters. Instead we have a hardening of camps into deniers and believers of man-made influences along partisan lines and with no meeting of the minds. As a result the only solutions on the table come from the most vocal of the believers and, unfortunately, they are not good ones. But those who might believe climate change is a huge problem but don't agree with Kyoto or trading carbon caps have no alternative.

 

IMO Bush was right to reject Kyoto. But instead for pushing for meaningfull global action which included India and China and attempted to protect our interests, the rejection was a smoke-screen for doing nothing. No alternatives were pushed, just token research into whether there really was a problem, and a coordinated effort to avoid discussion of the entire topic. As unlikely as Kyoto is to make a difference, it remains the only game in town.

 

Regarding your example, I'm sure you are aware that 65 million years passed between the dinosaurs and the Ice Ages. Assuming the trend predictions are reasonablyy accurate, at no time did the temperature change as quickly as we are expecting. Broadly speaking, it warmed a few degrees after the dinosaurs, but from 62 million years ago until about 1 million years ago it was a gradual decline. On those occasions when it did shift globally by 4-6 degrees, the quickest transitions appeared to be on the order of 5-10,000 years. Several of these occured, and were always accompanied by mass exctinctions and significant geographical changes like the initiation of new ocean currents. (Things like the middle ages thaw were geographically local, and not as extreme.)

[finknottle]

Do you know for a fact her raise was due to the hospital receiving funding? Where is that stated?

 

I don't know that for a fact, but here is the hospital defending the tripling of her salary two months after Obama was elected:

 

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/671612...lary/index.html

 

Obviously they are putting it in the best light.

 

Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs in March 2005, two months after her husband took office in the Senate. According to a tax return released by the senator this week, the promotion nearly tripled her income from the hospitals to $316,962 in 2005 from $121,910 in 2004.

:

Easton said the hospital management believed she merited the promotion based on a series of achievements. They included expansion of the institution's women and minority vendor purchases, rejuvenation of its volunteer program and work she did to help set up a collaborative effort with South Side clinics and doctors' offices to provide primary care for low-income residents who otherwise would seek treatment at the emergency room.

:

Obama's new salary is significantly higher than her annual earnings during the seven prior years for which the Obamas have released their taxes. During those years, her wages ranged from a low of $50,343 in 1999 to a high of $121,910 in 2004.

 

She is one of 17 VP's, responsible for the non-profit's PR (not that anyone would anticipate is a conflict of interest with her lobbying a government in which her husband is a congressmen). She is being paid 150% what the average anesthesiologist there makes.

[SD Jarhead]

I agree with just about everything you posted. I would like to hear a serious debate of the issues leading to why scientists empirically believe the earth is warming. Maybe it will be brought up as an issue during the campaign.

 

As a conservative minded person, I cannot stand the right's arrogant attitude that I'll drive the biggest SUV I can find 'because I can'. I feel we should all sacrifice and do our part to conserve and save energy where we can. It is a national security issue for me. I want us out of the Middle East as quickly as possible. I'd love to have us out of Iraq as soon as we can leave provided there's security there. Therefore the sooner we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil the better off we'll be.

[finknottle]

I would like to hear a serious debate of the issues leading to why scientists empirically believe the earth is warming. Maybe it will be brought up as an issue during the campaign.

 

I think the scientific community is beyond that. The discussion that needs to happen is what should we do about it, since everything we can think of is economically crushing. We (the US) can only come to agreement on that if we are assured that we are not going to be unduly screwed. If everybody takes the same hit economically, then I think everybody becomes more receptive to making sacrifices. But if just the US has to hobble its industry and China et al only grows the problem, then american industry (and their politicians) will rightfully fight it. So what is called for is a global framework which can only come about if the G-8 applies extreme pressure on the rest of the world to mandate compliance.

 

(My personal view is that it can't be done, and it doesn't matter because it is too late anyway. Once a spinning top starts to wobble, it's going to fall where it may. IMO if mankind disappeared from the earth tomorrow, the inertia is such that the planet would find a new equilibriam rather than return to pre-industrial patterns.)

 

As for the campaign, I see two bad ideas currently afloat. Cap-and-trade misses the boat since it assumes that industry-based carbon emmissions are the only problem - deforestation and other factors get a free pass. It is a gimmick that will allow politicians to say they are doing something about the problem. A lesser-known factor in their enthusiasm is the fact that the caps will be auctioned off - Obama uses anticipated cap money to pay for new spending in his straw budget, and McCain (probably) counts it towards deficit reduction. Either way, they like it because it serves as a hidden revenue stream which will surely be passed on to the consumers.

 

The other bad idea is green technology. It's not that there is anything wrong with it - it must be pursued. Rather, Obama (and Clinton) made it the centerpiece of their technology competativeness vision. They argued that it would lead to new economic growth, exports, and jobs. This is dangerous sugar-coating. If green technology pays off, we are not going to be exporting the equipment, any more than we are an exporter of cell phones or PC's today. Some companies may make money off of technology licensing, but that's it. A national strategy of R&D in green technology will not change the unpleasant fact that quickly changing our industry and lifestyle will likely be economically wrenching and neccessary.