Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
FFX Political Insider
()
Date: July 03, 2013 10:09AM
'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Q&A with the organization's executive director and communications director.
http://fallschurch.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/ready-for-hillary-showing-early-support-for-2016-election_784cf0b8
When Adam Parkhomenko and Allida Black started Ready for Hillary at the beginning of the year, they simply had a post office box and aFacebook page (which now has more than 300,000 likes).
Parkhomenko previously worked for Hillary Clinton and Black is a professor at George Washington University. They knew many supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, but they still didn't expect so many supporters to step up so soon.
Ready for Hillary recently leased the space next door to Tippy's Taco at the Huntington Station Shopping Center — an ideal place due to the fact that it's close to the post office, not far from the metro and provides a lot of parking for the organization's volunteers, explained Seth Bringman, communications director.
Bringman also said the owner is a supporter and the space has "good karma" as it previously served as a campaign office for Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
The super PAC's recently launched its online store and Bringman said the T-shirts, buttons and hats will be shipped out of the Alexandria office. They currently have four interns and four regular staff members working in the office, and the organization is offering supporters a .
Patch recently sat down with Bringman and talked to Parkhomenko via phone about the organization and what they're expecting to accomplish.
Patch: The 2016 Presidential Election is three years away. Why start so early?
Bringman: We want to get people in at the grassroots level. We now have 300,000 supporters, and we started early because of the energy from people across the country. Also, in modern political campaigns, you have to get started early. She's [Clinton] going to have to make a tough decision and we want her to know how many people are behind her if she decides to run.
Parkhomenko: We want to make sure she knows we're supporting her. If people want to help out [at the Alexandria office], we won't turn them away. It's a decision she'll have to make with her family and it's an important decision. And when you decide to run, it's good to know you have the support. We don't want to look back two years from now and say, 'What could we have done differently?'
Patch: What do you think of the response you've received from supporters?
Parkhomenko: I think the support is very overwhelming. We feel very hopeful that it's going to be everything we wanted and more.
Bringman: The support is very overwhelming. We go to another storefront here in the shopping center all the time and they ask us, 'Can my children volunteer for you?'
Patch: What response have you received from Clinton herself?
Bringman: First, we are independent from her office, but they issued a statement where they said all of the excitement surrounding her potential candidacy is inspiring, but the decision is ultimately hers.
Patch: Why Hillary Clinton?
Bringman: She presents a tremendous opportunity for the country. She was first lady, senator and then secretary of state. She is the most qualified. She'd be the first woman president [if elected], and no on is better prepared to do it.
Patch: It's still early, but who do you think may be possible competition for her if she decides to run?
Bringman: As you said, it is early so I can't really say who may decide to run against her if she enters the race.
Patch: What if Clinton decides not to run?
Parkhomenko: We hope we never have to deal with it. But whatever she decides to do, we'll support that. We're not trying to force her to make a decision, and no one is going to be mad if she decides not to run. We think she is the best person to run. Ultimately, we think the decision she makes will be what is best for this country.
Attachments:
Q&A with the organization's executive director and communications director.
http://fallschurch.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/ready-for-hillary-showing-early-support-for-2016-election_784cf0b8
When Adam Parkhomenko and Allida Black started Ready for Hillary at the beginning of the year, they simply had a post office box and aFacebook page (which now has more than 300,000 likes).
Parkhomenko previously worked for Hillary Clinton and Black is a professor at George Washington University. They knew many supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, but they still didn't expect so many supporters to step up so soon.
Ready for Hillary recently leased the space next door to Tippy's Taco at the Huntington Station Shopping Center — an ideal place due to the fact that it's close to the post office, not far from the metro and provides a lot of parking for the organization's volunteers, explained Seth Bringman, communications director.
Bringman also said the owner is a supporter and the space has "good karma" as it previously served as a campaign office for Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
The super PAC's recently launched its online store and Bringman said the T-shirts, buttons and hats will be shipped out of the Alexandria office. They currently have four interns and four regular staff members working in the office, and the organization is offering supporters a .
Patch recently sat down with Bringman and talked to Parkhomenko via phone about the organization and what they're expecting to accomplish.
Patch: The 2016 Presidential Election is three years away. Why start so early?
Bringman: We want to get people in at the grassroots level. We now have 300,000 supporters, and we started early because of the energy from people across the country. Also, in modern political campaigns, you have to get started early. She's [Clinton] going to have to make a tough decision and we want her to know how many people are behind her if she decides to run.
Parkhomenko: We want to make sure she knows we're supporting her. If people want to help out [at the Alexandria office], we won't turn them away. It's a decision she'll have to make with her family and it's an important decision. And when you decide to run, it's good to know you have the support. We don't want to look back two years from now and say, 'What could we have done differently?'
Patch: What do you think of the response you've received from supporters?
Parkhomenko: I think the support is very overwhelming. We feel very hopeful that it's going to be everything we wanted and more.
Bringman: The support is very overwhelming. We go to another storefront here in the shopping center all the time and they ask us, 'Can my children volunteer for you?'
Patch: What response have you received from Clinton herself?
Bringman: First, we are independent from her office, but they issued a statement where they said all of the excitement surrounding her potential candidacy is inspiring, but the decision is ultimately hers.
Patch: Why Hillary Clinton?
Bringman: She presents a tremendous opportunity for the country. She was first lady, senator and then secretary of state. She is the most qualified. She'd be the first woman president [if elected], and no on is better prepared to do it.
Patch: It's still early, but who do you think may be possible competition for her if she decides to run?
Bringman: As you said, it is early so I can't really say who may decide to run against her if she enters the race.
Patch: What if Clinton decides not to run?
Parkhomenko: We hope we never have to deal with it. But whatever she decides to do, we'll support that. We're not trying to force her to make a decision, and no one is going to be mad if she decides not to run. We think she is the best person to run. Ultimately, we think the decision she makes will be what is best for this country.
Attachments:
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
nofingchance
()
Date: July 03, 2013 10:13AM
puke.
Benghazi?
Benghazi?
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Conveniently Located...
()
Date: July 03, 2013 10:14AM
Next to Tippy's Tacos in the Huntington Station Shopping Center.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
ffxwut
()
Date: July 03, 2013 10:17AM
what's this have to do with fairfax county again?
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
FFX Political Insider
()
Date: July 03, 2013 10:30AM
ffxwut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's this have to do with fairfax county again?
They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's this have to do with fairfax county again?
They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Tray von Martin
()
Date: July 03, 2013 10:39AM
Oh, you know all the Libtards will fall in line behind her. Their lament in 2008 was that they had to choose between the first mulatto president and the first woman president. Once again, the woman got the beat down.
It will be interesting to see who challenges her in the Dhimmicrat primary in early 2016.
And to the earlier post about Bengahzi, sadly that won't even factor in. Most libbies think it's all overblown anyhow.
It will be interesting to see who challenges her in the Dhimmicrat primary in early 2016.
And to the earlier post about Bengahzi, sadly that won't even factor in. Most libbies think it's all overblown anyhow.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
asdfasdffsad
()
Date: July 03, 2013 10:58AM
Tray von Martin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, you know all the Libtards will fall in line
> behind her. Their lament in 2008 was that they had
> to choose between the first mulatto president and
> the first woman president. Once again, the woman
> got the beat down.
>
> It will be interesting to see who challenges her
> in the Dhimmicrat primary in early 2016.
>
> And to the earlier post about Bengahzi, sadly that
> won't even factor in. Most libbies think it's all
> overblown anyhow.
I think the Republicans will make a big deal out of the Bengahzi incident to undermine Hilary's presidential run. Anything to create fear and doubt. Personally, I thought she could have done alot more on Bengahzi but she blamed it on Congress not freeing up the money for the State Dept to use.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, you know all the Libtards will fall in line
> behind her. Their lament in 2008 was that they had
> to choose between the first mulatto president and
> the first woman president. Once again, the woman
> got the beat down.
>
> It will be interesting to see who challenges her
> in the Dhimmicrat primary in early 2016.
>
> And to the earlier post about Bengahzi, sadly that
> won't even factor in. Most libbies think it's all
> overblown anyhow.
I think the Republicans will make a big deal out of the Bengahzi incident to undermine Hilary's presidential run. Anything to create fear and doubt. Personally, I thought she could have done alot more on Bengahzi but she blamed it on Congress not freeing up the money for the State Dept to use.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Tray von Martin
()
Date: July 03, 2013 05:26PM
Maybe, but I don't see it getting much mileage for them. You can be right, but if nobody cares, then it really doesn't matter. And in her case it will be carrying on the Obama legacy, more freebies for the base, and domestic policy. The Dem base doesn't care about foreign policy (other than blaming us for making war against everyone else) or the details of the bureaucracy, and Benghazi falls squarely into both.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Tray von Martin
()
Date: July 03, 2013 05:27PM
Would be interesting however to do a quick poll of FFX county dems to see how many support her versus random dem in the primaries.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
birch beer
()
Date: July 03, 2013 05:31PM
Conveniently Located... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next to Tippy's Tacos in the Huntington Station
> Shopping Center.
That explains the smug-looking yuppie types I saw loitering next to Tippy's this afternoon.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next to Tippy's Tacos in the Huntington Station
> Shopping Center.
That explains the smug-looking yuppie types I saw loitering next to Tippy's this afternoon.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
lolwtf
()
Date: July 03, 2013 05:58PM
FFX Political Insider Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxwut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> again?
>
> They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
Did they? This article says it opened in Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park of Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that in the article. In fact the article is horrible. It just starts off talking about two random people with no backstory on where they are from, what one of them does, or anything relevant. It says the one guy "Previously worked for her", which could mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did he get her coffee? Was he some random guy who stabbed signs in the ground during her campaign for NY senator? The other is a professor of who knows what in Washington, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ffxwut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> again?
>
> They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
Did they? This article says it opened in Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park of Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that in the article. In fact the article is horrible. It just starts off talking about two random people with no backstory on where they are from, what one of them does, or anything relevant. It says the one guy "Previously worked for her", which could mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did he get her coffee? Was he some random guy who stabbed signs in the ground during her campaign for NY senator? The other is a professor of who knows what in Washington, D.C.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
imbiker
()
Date: July 03, 2013 06:07PM
I'm back!
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
duck 1 : three stooges 0
()
Date: July 03, 2013 06:14PM
NPR cheered me up today by suggesting that Rick Perry is likely to make another run...
Good to see that the GOP are warming up for another re-run of the Three Stooges
Jon Stewart should have plenty of material - especially if Bachman shows up again as she's threatening to do (perhaps she's really an agent provocateur funded by the DNC, its the only sensible explanation)
If the GOP can't sort their act out and ditch the loonies, the Dems could run a duck and still win
Good to see that the GOP are warming up for another re-run of the Three Stooges
Jon Stewart should have plenty of material - especially if Bachman shows up again as she's threatening to do (perhaps she's really an agent provocateur funded by the DNC, its the only sensible explanation)
If the GOP can't sort their act out and ditch the loonies, the Dems could run a duck and still win
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Vince Foster
()
Date: July 03, 2013 06:20PM
If you have dirt on Hillary, you're likely to end up dead like me.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 15
()
Date: July 03, 2013 07:09PM
Tray von Martin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would be interesting however to do a quick poll of
> FFX county dems to see how many support her versus
> random dem in the primaries.
FFX county ones will overwhelmingly support her most likely. Its irrelevant though. She wont be able to get the black vote out like Obama which has been the difference in the last two elections
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would be interesting however to do a quick poll of
> FFX county dems to see how many support her versus
> random dem in the primaries.
FFX county ones will overwhelmingly support her most likely. Its irrelevant though. She wont be able to get the black vote out like Obama which has been the difference in the last two elections
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Tray von Martin
()
Date: July 03, 2013 07:57PM
Good point.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Tray von Martin
()
Date: July 03, 2013 07:58PM
duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NPR cheered me up today by suggesting that Rick
> Perry is likely to make another run...
>
> Good to see that the GOP are warming up for
> another re-run of the Three Stooges
>
> Jon Stewart should have plenty of material -
> especially if Bachman shows up again as she's
> threatening to do (perhaps she's really an agent
> provocateur funded by the DNC, its the only
> sensible explanation)
>
> If the GOP can't sort their act out and ditch the
> loonies, the Dems could run a duck and still win
If you think they're all loonies, then who would you seriously suggest they should run? And someone who has serious chance of winning. Let's hear some names.
-------------------------------------------------------
> NPR cheered me up today by suggesting that Rick
> Perry is likely to make another run...
>
> Good to see that the GOP are warming up for
> another re-run of the Three Stooges
>
> Jon Stewart should have plenty of material -
> especially if Bachman shows up again as she's
> threatening to do (perhaps she's really an agent
> provocateur funded by the DNC, its the only
> sensible explanation)
>
> If the GOP can't sort their act out and ditch the
> loonies, the Dems could run a duck and still win
If you think they're all loonies, then who would you seriously suggest they should run? And someone who has serious chance of winning. Let's hear some names.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Tray von Martin
()
Date: July 03, 2013 07:59PM
lolwtf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FFX Political Insider Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ffxwut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> > again?
> >
> > They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
>
>
> Did they? This article says it opened in
> Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park of
> Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that in
> the article. In fact the article is horrible. It
> just starts off talking about two random people
> with no backstory on where they are from, what one
> of them does, or anything relevant. It says the
> one guy "Previously worked for her", which could
> mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did he
> get her coffee? Was he some random guy who stabbed
> signs in the ground during her campaign for NY
> senator? The other is a professor of who knows
> what in Washington, D.C.
Article was horrible you say? And it came from Patch you say? Hmm...
-------------------------------------------------------
> FFX Political Insider Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ffxwut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> > again?
> >
> > They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
>
>
> Did they? This article says it opened in
> Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park of
> Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that in
> the article. In fact the article is horrible. It
> just starts off talking about two random people
> with no backstory on where they are from, what one
> of them does, or anything relevant. It says the
> one guy "Previously worked for her", which could
> mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did he
> get her coffee? Was he some random guy who stabbed
> signs in the ground during her campaign for NY
> senator? The other is a professor of who knows
> what in Washington, D.C.
Article was horrible you say? And it came from Patch you say? Hmm...
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Fact Police
()
Date: July 04, 2013 06:53AM
lolwtf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FFX Political Insider Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ffxwut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> > again?
> >
> > They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
>
>
> Did they? This article says it opened in
> Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park of
> Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that in
> the article. In fact the article is horrible. It
> just starts off talking about two random people
> with no backstory on where they are from, what one
> of them does, or anything relevant. It says the
> one guy "Previously worked for her", which could
> mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did he
> get her coffee? Was he some random guy who stabbed
> signs in the ground during her campaign for NY
> senator? The other is a professor of who knows
> what in Washington, D.C.
Last time I heard, Alexandria was a part of Fairfax County you fucking idiot.
-------------------------------------------------------
> FFX Political Insider Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ffxwut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> > again?
> >
> > They opened their office in Fairfax this week.
>
>
> Did they? This article says it opened in
> Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park of
> Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that in
> the article. In fact the article is horrible. It
> just starts off talking about two random people
> with no backstory on where they are from, what one
> of them does, or anything relevant. It says the
> one guy "Previously worked for her", which could
> mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did he
> get her coffee? Was he some random guy who stabbed
> signs in the ground during her campaign for NY
> senator? The other is a professor of who knows
> what in Washington, D.C.
Last time I heard, Alexandria was a part of Fairfax County you fucking idiot.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Alex Andria
()
Date: July 04, 2013 12:08PM
Fact Police Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lolwtf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FFX Political Insider Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ffxwut Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> > > again?
> > >
> > > They opened their office in Fairfax this
> week.
> >
> >
> > Did they? This article says it opened in
> > Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park
> of
> > Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that
> in
> > the article. In fact the article is horrible.
> It
> > just starts off talking about two random people
> > with no backstory on where they are from, what
> one
> > of them does, or anything relevant. It says the
> > one guy "Previously worked for her", which
> could
> > mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did
> he
> > get her coffee? Was he some random guy who
> stabbed
> > signs in the ground during her campaign for NY
> > senator? The other is a professor of who knows
> > what in Washington, D.C.
>
> Last time I heard, Alexandria was a part of
> Fairfax County you fucking idiot.
Ummm, no. Only the area called "Aexandria" as a postal address which is outside of Alexandria city. It's not really Alexandria.
You do get partial credit though since Huntington is in that area.
-------------------------------------------------------
> lolwtf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FFX Political Insider Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ffxwut Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > what's this have to do with fairfax county
> > > again?
> > >
> > > They opened their office in Fairfax this
> week.
> >
> >
> > Did they? This article says it opened in
> > Alexandria (presumablt the City of -- not park
> of
> > Fairfax County) and there's no mention of that
> in
> > the article. In fact the article is horrible.
> It
> > just starts off talking about two random people
> > with no backstory on where they are from, what
> one
> > of them does, or anything relevant. It says the
> > one guy "Previously worked for her", which
> could
> > mean anything -- when? where? doing what? Did
> he
> > get her coffee? Was he some random guy who
> stabbed
> > signs in the ground during her campaign for NY
> > senator? The other is a professor of who knows
> > what in Washington, D.C.
>
> Last time I heard, Alexandria was a part of
> Fairfax County you fucking idiot.
Ummm, no. Only the area called "Aexandria" as a postal address which is outside of Alexandria city. It's not really Alexandria.
You do get partial credit though since Huntington is in that area.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
voter 2016
()
Date: July 04, 2013 12:14PM
Thanks for the info, OP.
I just sent her 200 bucks and bought a cool T-shirt.
Attachments:
I just sent her 200 bucks and bought a cool T-shirt.
Attachments:
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
duck 1 : three stooges 0
()
Date: July 04, 2013 12:36PM
Tray von Martin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NPR cheered me up today by suggesting that Rick
> > Perry is likely to make another run...
> >
> > Good to see that the GOP are warming up for
> > another re-run of the Three Stooges
> >
> > Jon Stewart should have plenty of material -
> > especially if Bachman shows up again as she's
> > threatening to do (perhaps she's really an
> agent
> > provocateur funded by the DNC, its the only
> > sensible explanation)
> >
> > If the GOP can't sort their act out and ditch
> the
> > loonies, the Dems could run a duck and still
> win
>
>
>
> If you think they're all loonies, then who would
> you seriously suggest they should run? And someone
> who has serious chance of winning. Let's hear some
> names.
Seriously, I don't think they have an electable candidate who can win the primary.
If you buddy up with the Tea Party and the Kochs then you don't stand a chance with the center, if you stand with the center, the Kochs will fund a Tea Party candidate who'll best you in the primaries
Net is that nearly all of the GOP elected officials are drifting right and expressing outdated religious and social views which just turns the bulk of the electorate off.
Look at Cuccinelli - raving social conservative who goes on a witch hunt against scientists in his own state's universities to protect his coal buddies. Which century does he think he's in? The 21st or the 16th?
Unless they ditch the tea party and the religious right, then they're doomed to just being the party of "no" for a very long time.
Even their approach to budget cuts was crazy - everyone agreed that we needed cuts and taxes but to demand that no cuts come from defense implying that all other federal functions had to be gutted was not a real plan. They clearly didn't really want a deal - and that's the Tea Party for you
The only glimmer of sanity in the GOP was that they realized that in fighting against gay rights they were on the wrong side of history and that their only hope was to play Canute in the red-states as their last attempt at delaying change. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't play the same game with immigration
The only real hope they have is gerrymandering (which we're seeing in Texas) and voter suppression (which we saw in the last election) - which they've just been handed on a plate by the Supremes. By deciding that the Voting Rights Act had to be amended at a point when congress is gridlocked, the right of the court made a very aggressive move to protect the GOP against the electorate
For the GOP to recover as a real political force, rather than as an irritant, they have to realize that the country as a whole no longer wants a xenophobic, misogynistic , fundamentalist religious party running things. They need to shift away from out dated social dogma to a rational, middle of the road economic focus
The world has just moved on
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NPR cheered me up today by suggesting that Rick
> > Perry is likely to make another run...
> >
> > Good to see that the GOP are warming up for
> > another re-run of the Three Stooges
> >
> > Jon Stewart should have plenty of material -
> > especially if Bachman shows up again as she's
> > threatening to do (perhaps she's really an
> agent
> > provocateur funded by the DNC, its the only
> > sensible explanation)
> >
> > If the GOP can't sort their act out and ditch
> the
> > loonies, the Dems could run a duck and still
> win
>
>
>
> If you think they're all loonies, then who would
> you seriously suggest they should run? And someone
> who has serious chance of winning. Let's hear some
> names.
Seriously, I don't think they have an electable candidate who can win the primary.
If you buddy up with the Tea Party and the Kochs then you don't stand a chance with the center, if you stand with the center, the Kochs will fund a Tea Party candidate who'll best you in the primaries
Net is that nearly all of the GOP elected officials are drifting right and expressing outdated religious and social views which just turns the bulk of the electorate off.
Look at Cuccinelli - raving social conservative who goes on a witch hunt against scientists in his own state's universities to protect his coal buddies. Which century does he think he's in? The 21st or the 16th?
Unless they ditch the tea party and the religious right, then they're doomed to just being the party of "no" for a very long time.
Even their approach to budget cuts was crazy - everyone agreed that we needed cuts and taxes but to demand that no cuts come from defense implying that all other federal functions had to be gutted was not a real plan. They clearly didn't really want a deal - and that's the Tea Party for you
The only glimmer of sanity in the GOP was that they realized that in fighting against gay rights they were on the wrong side of history and that their only hope was to play Canute in the red-states as their last attempt at delaying change. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't play the same game with immigration
The only real hope they have is gerrymandering (which we're seeing in Texas) and voter suppression (which we saw in the last election) - which they've just been handed on a plate by the Supremes. By deciding that the Voting Rights Act had to be amended at a point when congress is gridlocked, the right of the court made a very aggressive move to protect the GOP against the electorate
For the GOP to recover as a real political force, rather than as an irritant, they have to realize that the country as a whole no longer wants a xenophobic, misogynistic , fundamentalist religious party running things. They need to shift away from out dated social dogma to a rational, middle of the road economic focus
The world has just moved on
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
indie
()
Date: July 04, 2013 12:42PM
Incredibly enough, Hillary looks nearly ethical compared to slimey Barack Obama (who got into Columbia only because he was half black and added much-coveted diversity) and Eric Holder.
Painting conservatives as all white evangelical Baptists is how knee-jerk, pin-headed liberals think. There are plenty of hispanic conservatives who are business owners.
Painting conservatives as all white evangelical Baptists is how knee-jerk, pin-headed liberals think. There are plenty of hispanic conservatives who are business owners.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
1984
()
Date: July 04, 2013 12:44PM
voter 2016 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info, OP.
> I just sent her 200 bucks and bought a cool
> T-shirt.
That's some freaky mind control looking shit.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the info, OP.
> I just sent her 200 bucks and bought a cool
> T-shirt.
That's some freaky mind control looking shit.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 15
()
Date: July 04, 2013 12:48PM
duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at Cuccinelli - raving social conservative
> who goes on a witch hunt against scientists in his
> own state's universities to protect his coal
> buddies. Which century does he think he's in? The
> 21st or the 16th?
Wait let me get this straight, youre making a man made global warming comment and asking what century someone else lives in? Oh the irony.
The rest of what you wrote is just pure bullshit. The GOP ran a dog shit candidate in 08 and then an okay one at best in 2012 against a candidate getting all time record support from blacks for being black and a few hundred thousand votes in key swing states were the difference.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at Cuccinelli - raving social conservative
> who goes on a witch hunt against scientists in his
> own state's universities to protect his coal
> buddies. Which century does he think he's in? The
> 21st or the 16th?
Wait let me get this straight, youre making a man made global warming comment and asking what century someone else lives in? Oh the irony.
The rest of what you wrote is just pure bullshit. The GOP ran a dog shit candidate in 08 and then an okay one at best in 2012 against a candidate getting all time record support from blacks for being black and a few hundred thousand votes in key swing states were the difference.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
duck 1 : three stooges 0
()
Date: July 04, 2013 01:19PM
Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> Wait let me get this straight, youre making a man
> made global warming comment and asking what
> century someone else lives in? Oh the irony.
>
> The rest of what you wrote is just pure bullshit.
> The GOP ran a dog shit candidate in 08 and then an
> okay one at best in 2012 against a candidate
> getting all time record support from blacks for
> being black and a few hundred thousand votes in
> key swing states were the difference.
Romney was not an okay candidate - he was a careless idiot who allowed himself to get tossed around by the turbulence in the party slip sliding all over the place on policy. Even with a class of clowns for competition in the primaries, he failed to shine and then withdrew into a bubble where he clearly wasn't looking at the evidence even as it pilled up on election night,
Choosing Paul Ryan who's only qualification was a slash and burn economic plan straight from the Koch playbook was suicidal. It was McCain 2.0 and the showed very poor personal judgement that dammed McCain 1.0
He was flat out unelectable - even with the GOP turnout being helped by a president they hated.
Is Hilary electable - perhaps, She'll increase GOP turnout and may not enliven the Dem base - I'm not convinced that she'll get the nomination. May depend on her choice of running mate, whether she can home in on a strong transformative message and whether the GOP can get its act together.
On climate change, you still wont find credible scientists who have good theories and models against it - all you've got is economic interests fighting a rearguard. This 'vast liberal scam' argument just doesn't wash - there is extremely strong and broadly based scientific consensus (including at leading independent US research universities such as MIT) which has stood up to significant national and international review and meta-analysis with Stern etc. Even the oil and gas companies accept it when you talk to them without their PR people (which I do). I don't like the fact it rains in July and freezes in january - but that's what the facts show and I have to live with them
Now, there is argument about whether you can do anything about it from an economic perspective - and another about whether the polluting nations really care enough to do anything from a political perspective. But the scientific consensus is robust.
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> Wait let me get this straight, youre making a man
> made global warming comment and asking what
> century someone else lives in? Oh the irony.
>
> The rest of what you wrote is just pure bullshit.
> The GOP ran a dog shit candidate in 08 and then an
> okay one at best in 2012 against a candidate
> getting all time record support from blacks for
> being black and a few hundred thousand votes in
> key swing states were the difference.
Romney was not an okay candidate - he was a careless idiot who allowed himself to get tossed around by the turbulence in the party slip sliding all over the place on policy. Even with a class of clowns for competition in the primaries, he failed to shine and then withdrew into a bubble where he clearly wasn't looking at the evidence even as it pilled up on election night,
Choosing Paul Ryan who's only qualification was a slash and burn economic plan straight from the Koch playbook was suicidal. It was McCain 2.0 and the showed very poor personal judgement that dammed McCain 1.0
He was flat out unelectable - even with the GOP turnout being helped by a president they hated.
Is Hilary electable - perhaps, She'll increase GOP turnout and may not enliven the Dem base - I'm not convinced that she'll get the nomination. May depend on her choice of running mate, whether she can home in on a strong transformative message and whether the GOP can get its act together.
On climate change, you still wont find credible scientists who have good theories and models against it - all you've got is economic interests fighting a rearguard. This 'vast liberal scam' argument just doesn't wash - there is extremely strong and broadly based scientific consensus (including at leading independent US research universities such as MIT) which has stood up to significant national and international review and meta-analysis with Stern etc. Even the oil and gas companies accept it when you talk to them without their PR people (which I do). I don't like the fact it rains in July and freezes in january - but that's what the facts show and I have to live with them
Now, there is argument about whether you can do anything about it from an economic perspective - and another about whether the polluting nations really care enough to do anything from a political perspective. But the scientific consensus is robust.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
You're a Dinosaur
()
Date: July 04, 2013 01:20PM
Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Look at Cuccinelli - raving social conservative
> > who goes on a witch hunt against scientists in
> his
> > own state's universities to protect his coal
> > buddies. Which century does he think he's in?
> The
> > 21st or the 16th?
>
> Wait let me get this straight, youre making a man
> made global warming comment and asking what
> century someone else lives in? Oh the irony.
If you have a point, you're not making it. No one can deny that Cuccinneli went on a witch hunt at UVA.
> The rest of what you wrote is just pure bullshit.
Astute analysis, as always.
> The GOP ran a dog shit candidate in 08 and then an
> okay one at best in 2012...
John McCain might have won if he had stayed John McCain. He used to be a man of principle. But he caved to the wackjobs. Same with Romney - although there never was any there there.
> ... against a candidate
> getting all time record support from blacks for
> being black and a few hundred thousand votes in
> key swing states were the difference.
You keep telling yourself that. Obama got record support from both blacks and whites - and not just because he's black. Blacks will not be sent back to the plantation, women will not be sent back to the kitchen, gays will not be sent back in hiding, and immigrants will not be sent back to the homeland. Most of the country views that as progress.
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Look at Cuccinelli - raving social conservative
> > who goes on a witch hunt against scientists in
> his
> > own state's universities to protect his coal
> > buddies. Which century does he think he's in?
> The
> > 21st or the 16th?
>
> Wait let me get this straight, youre making a man
> made global warming comment and asking what
> century someone else lives in? Oh the irony.
If you have a point, you're not making it. No one can deny that Cuccinneli went on a witch hunt at UVA.
> The rest of what you wrote is just pure bullshit.
Astute analysis, as always.
> The GOP ran a dog shit candidate in 08 and then an
> okay one at best in 2012...
John McCain might have won if he had stayed John McCain. He used to be a man of principle. But he caved to the wackjobs. Same with Romney - although there never was any there there.
> ... against a candidate
> getting all time record support from blacks for
> being black and a few hundred thousand votes in
> key swing states were the difference.
You keep telling yourself that. Obama got record support from both blacks and whites - and not just because he's black. Blacks will not be sent back to the plantation, women will not be sent back to the kitchen, gays will not be sent back in hiding, and immigrants will not be sent back to the homeland. Most of the country views that as progress.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
You're a Naive Dreamer
()
Date: July 04, 2013 01:36PM
You're a Dinosaur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You keep telling yourself that. Obama got record
> support from both blacks and whites - and not just
> because he's black.
BS. He wouldn't have even qualified for, not to mention won, the nomination if he wasn't black. If he were a white guy with his quals he'd be laughable as a candidate. Being black was about all that he had going for him. And the novelty of that largely has worn off.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You keep telling yourself that. Obama got record
> support from both blacks and whites - and not just
> because he's black.
BS. He wouldn't have even qualified for, not to mention won, the nomination if he wasn't black. If he were a white guy with his quals he'd be laughable as a candidate. Being black was about all that he had going for him. And the novelty of that largely has worn off.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
it's Saganista
()
Date: July 04, 2013 01:37PM
Is "You're a dinosaur" really Saganista, who was banned from the pathetic city-data forum? Had "Keep the Illegals, Deport the Republicans" as his tag line? He was such an arrogant old fart. It's easy to spot his writing style--because he is so narrow-minded and convinced that only liberals have a moral mandate to lead the country.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 15
()
Date: July 04, 2013 01:51PM
duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On climate change, you still wont find credible
> scientists who have good theories and models
> against it - all you've got is economic interests
> fighting a rearguard. This 'vast liberal scam'
> argument just doesn't wash - there is extremely
> strong and broadly based scientific consensus
> (including at leading independent US research
> universities such as MIT) which has stood up to
> significant national and international review and
> meta-analysis with Stern etc. Even the oil and gas
> companies accept it when you talk to them without
> their PR people (which I do). I don't like the
> fact it rains in July and freezes in january - but
> that's what the facts show and I have to live with
> them
I dont even know where to begin with this trash. You cant find a single respectable credible scientist that believes in it anymore.
Honestly how clueless how are?
Nasas own data has disproved it, their climate change guy retired before getting exposed as a hack, their astronauts know its bullshit, a nobel peace price scientist left the climate change group because they started at a conclusion
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-quits-physics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313636
Please though continue on with the bullshit about what an insider you are.
Feel free to explain why every climate model has been wrong, significantly wrong and our temp is stable. How about how 1932 was the hottest year on record. How about how the earth/nature releases more green house gasses than man does.
I could go on and on and on, but I get the feeling facts arent very important to you just pushing the progressive agenda.
> Now, there is argument about whether you can do
> anything about it from an economic perspective -
> and another about whether the polluting nations
> really care enough to do anything from a political
> perspective. But the scientific consensus is
> robust.
Im sorry I just find it so humorous when pretencious liberals like yourself think youre so much smarter than everyone and just make things up when youre really the dumbest people in the room.
You probably still think that were making a hole in the o zone layer, or what about the ice age that was predicted in the 70s, how about the Valdez oil spill that was supposed to end life as we know it in the ocean. Yea all bullshit.
Man made global warming is nothing more than a fallacy created to tax companies and people more.
-------------------------------------------------------
> On climate change, you still wont find credible
> scientists who have good theories and models
> against it - all you've got is economic interests
> fighting a rearguard. This 'vast liberal scam'
> argument just doesn't wash - there is extremely
> strong and broadly based scientific consensus
> (including at leading independent US research
> universities such as MIT) which has stood up to
> significant national and international review and
> meta-analysis with Stern etc. Even the oil and gas
> companies accept it when you talk to them without
> their PR people (which I do). I don't like the
> fact it rains in July and freezes in january - but
> that's what the facts show and I have to live with
> them
I dont even know where to begin with this trash. You cant find a single respectable credible scientist that believes in it anymore.
Honestly how clueless how are?
Nasas own data has disproved it, their climate change guy retired before getting exposed as a hack, their astronauts know its bullshit, a nobel peace price scientist left the climate change group because they started at a conclusion
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-quits-physics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313636
Please though continue on with the bullshit about what an insider you are.
Feel free to explain why every climate model has been wrong, significantly wrong and our temp is stable. How about how 1932 was the hottest year on record. How about how the earth/nature releases more green house gasses than man does.
I could go on and on and on, but I get the feeling facts arent very important to you just pushing the progressive agenda.
> Now, there is argument about whether you can do
> anything about it from an economic perspective -
> and another about whether the polluting nations
> really care enough to do anything from a political
> perspective. But the scientific consensus is
> robust.
Im sorry I just find it so humorous when pretencious liberals like yourself think youre so much smarter than everyone and just make things up when youre really the dumbest people in the room.
You probably still think that were making a hole in the o zone layer, or what about the ice age that was predicted in the 70s, how about the Valdez oil spill that was supposed to end life as we know it in the ocean. Yea all bullshit.
Man made global warming is nothing more than a fallacy created to tax companies and people more.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
You're a Dinosaur
()
Date: July 04, 2013 01:55PM
it's Saganista Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is "You're a dinosaur" really Saganista, who was
> banned from the pathetic city-data forum? Had
> "Keep the Illegals, Deport the Republicans" as his
> tag line? He was such an arrogant old fart.
> It's easy to spot his writing style--because he is
> so narrow-minded and convinced that only liberals
> have a moral mandate to lead the country.
You think there's only one liberal in Fairfax County? I don't know this guy, but I like him already.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is "You're a dinosaur" really Saganista, who was
> banned from the pathetic city-data forum? Had
> "Keep the Illegals, Deport the Republicans" as his
> tag line? He was such an arrogant old fart.
> It's easy to spot his writing style--because he is
> so narrow-minded and convinced that only liberals
> have a moral mandate to lead the country.
You think there's only one liberal in Fairfax County? I don't know this guy, but I like him already.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
duck 1 : three stooges 0
()
Date: July 04, 2013 02:57PM
Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > On climate change, you still wont find
> credible
> > scientists who have good theories and models
> > against it - all you've got is economic
> interests
> > fighting a rearguard. This 'vast liberal scam'
> > argument just doesn't wash - there is extremely
> > strong and broadly based scientific consensus
> > (including at leading independent US research
> > universities such as MIT) which has stood up to
> > significant national and international review
> and
> > meta-analysis with Stern etc. Even the oil and
> gas
> > companies accept it when you talk to them
> without
> > their PR people (which I do). I don't like the
> > fact it rains in July and freezes in january -
> but
> > that's what the facts show and I have to live
> with
> > them
>
> I dont even know where to begin with this trash.
> You cant find a single respectable credible
> scientist that believes in it anymore.
>
> Honestly how clueless how are?
>
> Nasas own data has disproved it, their climate
> change guy retired before getting exposed as a
> hack, their astronauts know its bullshit, a nobel
> peace price scientist left the climate change
> group because they started at a conclusion
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-g
> lobal-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_
> global_warming_debunked.html
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-glob
> al-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html
>
> http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever
> -quits-physics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313
> 636
>
> Please though continue on with the bullshit about
> what an insider you are.
>
> Feel free to explain why every climate model has
> been wrong, significantly wrong and our temp is
> stable. How about how 1932 was the hottest year
> on record. How about how the earth/nature
> releases more green house gasses than man does.
>
> I could go on and on and on, but I get the feeling
> facts arent very important to you just pushing the
> progressive agenda.
>
> > Now, there is argument about whether you can do
> > anything about it from an economic perspective
> -
> > and another about whether the polluting nations
> > really care enough to do anything from a
> political
> > perspective. But the scientific consensus is
> > robust.
>
> Im sorry I just find it so humorous when
> pretencious liberals like yourself think youre so
> much smarter than everyone and just make things up
> when youre really the dumbest people in the room.
>
>
> You probably still think that were making a hole
> in the o zone layer, or what about the ice age
> that was predicted in the 70s, how about the
> Valdez oil spill that was supposed to end life as
> we know it in the ocean. Yea all bullshit.
>
> Man made global warming is nothing more than a
> fallacy created to tax companies and people more.
Damn - you've spotted it - its all a plot to raise taxes
Tinfoil - much?
So, let me get this right - a letter from a collection of astronauts and engineers from unrelated disciplines (and a metrologist with 5 years experience) is the equivalent of the weight of peer reviewed science papers and several major national and international reviews such as Stern and the IPCC?
That'll be why 98% of publishing climate scientists agree on ACC
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Try getting 98% of scientists publishing in any discipline to agree on anything.
Fast facts from the JPL
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa
Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year
-------------------------------------------------------
> duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > On climate change, you still wont find
> credible
> > scientists who have good theories and models
> > against it - all you've got is economic
> interests
> > fighting a rearguard. This 'vast liberal scam'
> > argument just doesn't wash - there is extremely
> > strong and broadly based scientific consensus
> > (including at leading independent US research
> > universities such as MIT) which has stood up to
> > significant national and international review
> and
> > meta-analysis with Stern etc. Even the oil and
> gas
> > companies accept it when you talk to them
> without
> > their PR people (which I do). I don't like the
> > fact it rains in July and freezes in january -
> but
> > that's what the facts show and I have to live
> with
> > them
>
> I dont even know where to begin with this trash.
> You cant find a single respectable credible
> scientist that believes in it anymore.
>
> Honestly how clueless how are?
>
> Nasas own data has disproved it, their climate
> change guy retired before getting exposed as a
> hack, their astronauts know its bullshit, a nobel
> peace price scientist left the climate change
> group because they started at a conclusion
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-g
> lobal-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_
> global_warming_debunked.html
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-glob
> al-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html
>
> http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever
> -quits-physics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313
> 636
>
> Please though continue on with the bullshit about
> what an insider you are.
>
> Feel free to explain why every climate model has
> been wrong, significantly wrong and our temp is
> stable. How about how 1932 was the hottest year
> on record. How about how the earth/nature
> releases more green house gasses than man does.
>
> I could go on and on and on, but I get the feeling
> facts arent very important to you just pushing the
> progressive agenda.
>
> > Now, there is argument about whether you can do
> > anything about it from an economic perspective
> -
> > and another about whether the polluting nations
> > really care enough to do anything from a
> political
> > perspective. But the scientific consensus is
> > robust.
>
> Im sorry I just find it so humorous when
> pretencious liberals like yourself think youre so
> much smarter than everyone and just make things up
> when youre really the dumbest people in the room.
>
>
> You probably still think that were making a hole
> in the o zone layer, or what about the ice age
> that was predicted in the 70s, how about the
> Valdez oil spill that was supposed to end life as
> we know it in the ocean. Yea all bullshit.
>
> Man made global warming is nothing more than a
> fallacy created to tax companies and people more.
Damn - you've spotted it - its all a plot to raise taxes
Tinfoil - much?
So, let me get this right - a letter from a collection of astronauts and engineers from unrelated disciplines (and a metrologist with 5 years experience) is the equivalent of the weight of peer reviewed science papers and several major national and international reviews such as Stern and the IPCC?
That'll be why 98% of publishing climate scientists agree on ACC
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Try getting 98% of scientists publishing in any discipline to agree on anything.
Fast facts from the JPL
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa
Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 15
()
Date: July 04, 2013 03:13PM
duck 1 : three stooges 0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Damn - you've spotted it - its all a plot to raise
> taxes
>
> Tinfoil - much?
It is an excuse to raise taxes, either that or you liberals are complete fucking idiots, pick one.
> So, let me get this right - a letter from a
> collection of astronauts and engineers from
> unrelated disciplines (and a metrologist with 5
> years experience) is the equivalent of the weight
> of peer reviewed science papers and several major
> national and international reviews such as Stern
> and the IPCC?
Yes all their data has been proven to be complete bullshit. None of their models are remotely accurate, they doctored studies, only a small group of vocal activists playing scientist believe any of that crap.
> That'll be why 98% of publishing climate
> scientists agree on ACC
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/10031
> 87107.full.pdf+html
>
> Try getting 98% of scientists publishing in any
> discipline to agree on anything.
98 percent dont agree, thats a bullshit number that has been disproven time and time again.
> Fast facts from the JPL
>
> Sea level rise
> Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7
> inches) in the last century. The rate in the last
> decade, however, is nearly double that of the last
> century
Prove its cause by man
> Global temperature rise
> All three major global surface temperature
> reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since
> 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the
> 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred
> since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years
> occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the
> 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting
> in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009,
> surface temperatures continue to increase.
Prove it caused by man, that data isnt even accurate.
> Warming oceans
> The oceans have absorbed much of this increased
> heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet)
> of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees
> Fahrenheit since 1969
Prove its caused by man
> Shrinking ice sheets
> The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have
> decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity
> Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland
> lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic
> miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006,
> while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers
> (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Prove its caused by man
> Declining Arctic sea ice
> Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice
> has declined rapidly over the last several
> decades
Prove its caused by man
> Glacial retreat
> Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around
> the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas,
> Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa
False, but prove its caused by man.
> Ocean acidification
> Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,
> the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased
> by about 30 percent. This increase is the result
> of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the
> atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the
> oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by
> the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by
> about 2 billion tons per year
Prove its caused by man
What you idiots are too stupid to realize is that one our tempature has been incredibly stable. Warming climate is better for humans anyway, more food can be grown less disasters ect. Two, the EARTH CHANGES.
Did cave men start the ice age when they discovered fire?
Aside from the fact that most of what you posted was bullshit, you couldnt ever prove a single one of those things is caused by man.
Its funny how you think something thats been slamed by asteroids and is fine is so fragile. A true environmentalist though would off themselves and stop taking from mother earth.
The koolaid is too strong in you to bother trying to save you when all you do is believe bullshit talking points. Even your own party realizes its bullshit and has abandoned it, you dont hear a single word about it unless Obama needs a distraction for his other screw ups. Just like you dont hear about the ozone layer anymore because its all bullshit.
On that note im done wasting time on you because you wont be able to link a single thing to man and are trying to argue that the earth and sun have constant temperatures which is just to low of an intelligence level to bother with.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Damn - you've spotted it - its all a plot to raise
> taxes
>
> Tinfoil - much?
It is an excuse to raise taxes, either that or you liberals are complete fucking idiots, pick one.
> So, let me get this right - a letter from a
> collection of astronauts and engineers from
> unrelated disciplines (and a metrologist with 5
> years experience) is the equivalent of the weight
> of peer reviewed science papers and several major
> national and international reviews such as Stern
> and the IPCC?
Yes all their data has been proven to be complete bullshit. None of their models are remotely accurate, they doctored studies, only a small group of vocal activists playing scientist believe any of that crap.
> That'll be why 98% of publishing climate
> scientists agree on ACC
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/10031
> 87107.full.pdf+html
>
> Try getting 98% of scientists publishing in any
> discipline to agree on anything.
98 percent dont agree, thats a bullshit number that has been disproven time and time again.
> Fast facts from the JPL
>
> Sea level rise
> Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7
> inches) in the last century. The rate in the last
> decade, however, is nearly double that of the last
> century
Prove its cause by man
> Global temperature rise
> All three major global surface temperature
> reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since
> 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the
> 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred
> since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years
> occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the
> 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting
> in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009,
> surface temperatures continue to increase.
Prove it caused by man, that data isnt even accurate.
> Warming oceans
> The oceans have absorbed much of this increased
> heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet)
> of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees
> Fahrenheit since 1969
Prove its caused by man
> Shrinking ice sheets
> The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have
> decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity
> Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland
> lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic
> miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006,
> while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers
> (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Prove its caused by man
> Declining Arctic sea ice
> Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice
> has declined rapidly over the last several
> decades
Prove its caused by man
> Glacial retreat
> Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around
> the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas,
> Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa
False, but prove its caused by man.
> Ocean acidification
> Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution,
> the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased
> by about 30 percent. This increase is the result
> of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the
> atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the
> oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by
> the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by
> about 2 billion tons per year
Prove its caused by man
What you idiots are too stupid to realize is that one our tempature has been incredibly stable. Warming climate is better for humans anyway, more food can be grown less disasters ect. Two, the EARTH CHANGES.
Did cave men start the ice age when they discovered fire?
Aside from the fact that most of what you posted was bullshit, you couldnt ever prove a single one of those things is caused by man.
Its funny how you think something thats been slamed by asteroids and is fine is so fragile. A true environmentalist though would off themselves and stop taking from mother earth.
The koolaid is too strong in you to bother trying to save you when all you do is believe bullshit talking points. Even your own party realizes its bullshit and has abandoned it, you dont hear a single word about it unless Obama needs a distraction for his other screw ups. Just like you dont hear about the ozone layer anymore because its all bullshit.
On that note im done wasting time on you because you wont be able to link a single thing to man and are trying to argue that the earth and sun have constant temperatures which is just to low of an intelligence level to bother with.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
It's a CONSPIRACY!
()
Date: July 04, 2013 03:20PM
> Man made global warming is nothing more than a
> fallacy created to tax companies and people more.
HAHAHAHAHA! God, you're an idiot.
> fallacy created to tax companies and people more.
HAHAHAHAHA! God, you're an idiot.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 15
()
Date: July 04, 2013 03:29PM
It's a CONSPIRACY! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Man made global warming is nothing more than a
> > fallacy created to tax companies and people
> more.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! God, you're an idiot.
Says the guy who thinks we can change the earths temp. Now you can cite our 100 years of recorded temperature data which is a nano second in the earths history like thats meaningful.
Its like taking your temperature and it being up .01 degrees and concluding youll burst on fire soon because its climbing.
No wonder it was so easy for Al Gore to make half a billion off you people
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Man made global warming is nothing more than a
> > fallacy created to tax companies and people
> more.
>
> HAHAHAHAHA! God, you're an idiot.
Says the guy who thinks we can change the earths temp. Now you can cite our 100 years of recorded temperature data which is a nano second in the earths history like thats meaningful.
Its like taking your temperature and it being up .01 degrees and concluding youll burst on fire soon because its climbing.
No wonder it was so easy for Al Gore to make half a billion off you people
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Mr. Spock
()
Date: July 04, 2013 06:19PM
Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a CONSPIRACY! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Man made global warming is nothing more than
> a
> > > fallacy created to tax companies and people
> > more.
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHA! God, you're an idiot.
>
>
> Says the guy who thinks we can change the earths
> temp. Now you can cite our 100 years of recorded
> temperature data which is a nano second in the
> earths history like thats meaningful.
>
> Its like taking your temperature and it being up
> .01 degrees and concluding youll burst on fire
> soon because its climbing.
>
> No wonder it was so easy for Al Gore to make half
> a billion off you people
It's getting a little hotter these days, wouldn't you say Mr. SATs?
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a CONSPIRACY! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Man made global warming is nothing more than
> a
> > > fallacy created to tax companies and people
> > more.
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHA! God, you're an idiot.
>
>
> Says the guy who thinks we can change the earths
> temp. Now you can cite our 100 years of recorded
> temperature data which is a nano second in the
> earths history like thats meaningful.
>
> Its like taking your temperature and it being up
> .01 degrees and concluding youll burst on fire
> soon because its climbing.
>
> No wonder it was so easy for Al Gore to make half
> a billion off you people
It's getting a little hotter these days, wouldn't you say Mr. SATs?
Attachments:
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Bill Nye
()
Date: July 04, 2013 07:44PM
Mr. Spock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's getting a little hotter these days, wouldn't
> you say Mr. SATs?
Yes, very little. Don't look now but, despite even setting the scale to magnify a very small increase, your chart says that in about 130 years the temperature has increased a whopping 1.2 degrees. That's with a very large increase over base CO2 levels (i.e., natural levels are not zero). And note that includes measurement error and less sampling in early years, so the true change may be substantially less.
In addition, as always, correlation is not causation. Heating alone tends to increase CO2 levels. There very well could be, and likely is, something else driving both, particularly given that you don't see, for example, corresponding changes in temp with CO2 peaks (1930-1950) and low points (1900-1920, 1960-mid 1970s).
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's getting a little hotter these days, wouldn't
> you say Mr. SATs?
Yes, very little. Don't look now but, despite even setting the scale to magnify a very small increase, your chart says that in about 130 years the temperature has increased a whopping 1.2 degrees. That's with a very large increase over base CO2 levels (i.e., natural levels are not zero). And note that includes measurement error and less sampling in early years, so the true change may be substantially less.
In addition, as always, correlation is not causation. Heating alone tends to increase CO2 levels. There very well could be, and likely is, something else driving both, particularly given that you don't see, for example, corresponding changes in temp with CO2 peaks (1930-1950) and low points (1900-1920, 1960-mid 1970s).
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 15
()
Date: July 04, 2013 08:20PM
Mr. Spock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's getting a little hotter these days, wouldn't
> you say Mr. SATs?
No I wouldnt. As mentioned by the other poster the change is miniscule. Its like saying any variation in your body temp is a fever or hypothermia.
You do understand the earths temp isnt constant and changes on its own right?
If man caused this we would have see huge increases by now, we havent seen anything.
Even if there were a change you would then have to prove it was caused by man and not a natural variation which you couldnt.
You also ignore that that the earth and animals are responsible for more of the gasses than humans are. Ill give you a hint, things that occur naturally the earth knows how to deal with just like the ocean has bacteria that eats oil the atmosphere has its own methods.
You guys cant even make up your mind. In the 70s it was an ice age, in the 90s the hole in the ozone layer, now this. All have been proven to be nothing more than hysteria with no truth to them. You guys are just slinging mud at a wall hoping something will stick
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's getting a little hotter these days, wouldn't
> you say Mr. SATs?
No I wouldnt. As mentioned by the other poster the change is miniscule. Its like saying any variation in your body temp is a fever or hypothermia.
You do understand the earths temp isnt constant and changes on its own right?
If man caused this we would have see huge increases by now, we havent seen anything.
Even if there were a change you would then have to prove it was caused by man and not a natural variation which you couldnt.
You also ignore that that the earth and animals are responsible for more of the gasses than humans are. Ill give you a hint, things that occur naturally the earth knows how to deal with just like the ocean has bacteria that eats oil the atmosphere has its own methods.
You guys cant even make up your mind. In the 70s it was an ice age, in the 90s the hole in the ozone layer, now this. All have been proven to be nothing more than hysteria with no truth to them. You guys are just slinging mud at a wall hoping something will stick
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Mr. Spock
()
Date: July 05, 2013 08:23AM
Liberal Logic 15 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Spock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It's getting a little hotter these days,
> wouldn't
> > you say Mr. SATs?
>
>
> No I wouldnt. As mentioned by the other poster
> the change is miniscule. Its like saying any
> variation in your body temp is a fever or
> hypothermia.
>
> You do understand the earths temp isnt constant
> and changes on its own right?
>
> If man caused this we would have see huge
> increases by now, we havent seen anything.
>
> Even if there were a change you would then have to
> prove it was caused by man and not a natural
> variation which you couldnt.
>
> You also ignore that that the earth and animals
> are responsible for more of the gasses than humans
> are. Ill give you a hint, things that occur
> naturally the earth knows how to deal with just
> like the ocean has bacteria that eats oil the
> atmosphere has its own methods.
>
> You guys cant even make up your mind. In the 70s
> it was an ice age, in the 90s the hole in the
> ozone layer, now this. All have been proven to be
> nothing more than hysteria with no truth to them.
> You guys are just slinging mud at a wall hoping
> something will stick
No, I don't think so. The temparature of the Earth does change during various periods and cycles, right now we are in the process of the Earth heating up. Now, that's not to say that we should blame pollution for it, but it did contribute to the temperatures increasing quicker rather than gradually in previous cycles. This has been proven by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core samples taken from both poles. Real science, not amateur posturing without merits sir.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Spock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It's getting a little hotter these days,
> wouldn't
> > you say Mr. SATs?
>
>
> No I wouldnt. As mentioned by the other poster
> the change is miniscule. Its like saying any
> variation in your body temp is a fever or
> hypothermia.
>
> You do understand the earths temp isnt constant
> and changes on its own right?
>
> If man caused this we would have see huge
> increases by now, we havent seen anything.
>
> Even if there were a change you would then have to
> prove it was caused by man and not a natural
> variation which you couldnt.
>
> You also ignore that that the earth and animals
> are responsible for more of the gasses than humans
> are. Ill give you a hint, things that occur
> naturally the earth knows how to deal with just
> like the ocean has bacteria that eats oil the
> atmosphere has its own methods.
>
> You guys cant even make up your mind. In the 70s
> it was an ice age, in the 90s the hole in the
> ozone layer, now this. All have been proven to be
> nothing more than hysteria with no truth to them.
> You guys are just slinging mud at a wall hoping
> something will stick
No, I don't think so. The temparature of the Earth does change during various periods and cycles, right now we are in the process of the Earth heating up. Now, that's not to say that we should blame pollution for it, but it did contribute to the temperatures increasing quicker rather than gradually in previous cycles. This has been proven by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core samples taken from both poles. Real science, not amateur posturing without merits sir.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
I'm a scientist
()
Date: July 05, 2013 08:31AM
Mr. Spock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No, I don't think so. The temparature of the Earth
> does change during various periods and cycles,
> right now we are in the process of the Earth
> heating up. Now, that's not to say that we should
> blame pollution for it, but it did contribute to
> the temperatures increasing quicker rather than
> gradually in previous cycles. This has been proven
> by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core
> samples taken from both poles. Real science, not
> amateur posturing without merits sir.
Nothing has been proven. We don't know near enough about our climate and their cyclical nature to prove anything. You throw that word around without understanding what it means. You wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No, I don't think so. The temparature of the Earth
> does change during various periods and cycles,
> right now we are in the process of the Earth
> heating up. Now, that's not to say that we should
> blame pollution for it, but it did contribute to
> the temperatures increasing quicker rather than
> gradually in previous cycles. This has been proven
> by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core
> samples taken from both poles. Real science, not
> amateur posturing without merits sir.
Nothing has been proven. We don't know near enough about our climate and their cyclical nature to prove anything. You throw that word around without understanding what it means. You wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Mr. Spock
()
Date: July 05, 2013 08:37AM
I'm a scientist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Spock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > No, I don't think so. The temparature of the
> Earth
> > does change during various periods and cycles,
> > right now we are in the process of the Earth
> > heating up. Now, that's not to say that we
> should
> > blame pollution for it, but it did contribute
> to
> > the temperatures increasing quicker rather than
> > gradually in previous cycles. This has been
> proven
> > by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core
> > samples taken from both poles. Real science,
> not
> > amateur posturing without merits sir.
>
>
> Nothing has been proven. We don't know
> near enough about our climate and their cyclical
> nature to prove anything. You throw that word
> around without understanding what it means. You
> wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
You're obviously not a scientist, because if you were you'd know that the core sample findings have been accepted by nearly all credible scientists as known fact. Perhaps, you're confusing the "Global Warming Theory", now if you assumed that I was talking about that, I was not. The "Global Warming Theory" is clearly flawed. A more accurate theory is the "Global Environmental Change Theory", which is also flawed based on limited information, but from the core samples taken from the poles we can determine the temperatures, atmospheric content, etc. from them. That's been established as well as confirmation that the Earth's climate changes in cycles and through outside intervention. The last Ice Age for example we experienced an abrupt change in climate when the Northern American glaciers melted and dumped several hundred thousand liters of freezing water into the Atlantic, and affecting the North Atlantic warm currents.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Spock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > No, I don't think so. The temparature of the
> Earth
> > does change during various periods and cycles,
> > right now we are in the process of the Earth
> > heating up. Now, that's not to say that we
> should
> > blame pollution for it, but it did contribute
> to
> > the temperatures increasing quicker rather than
> > gradually in previous cycles. This has been
> proven
> > by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core
> > samples taken from both poles. Real science,
> not
> > amateur posturing without merits sir.
>
>
> Nothing has been proven. We don't know
> near enough about our climate and their cyclical
> nature to prove anything. You throw that word
> around without understanding what it means. You
> wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
You're obviously not a scientist, because if you were you'd know that the core sample findings have been accepted by nearly all credible scientists as known fact. Perhaps, you're confusing the "Global Warming Theory", now if you assumed that I was talking about that, I was not. The "Global Warming Theory" is clearly flawed. A more accurate theory is the "Global Environmental Change Theory", which is also flawed based on limited information, but from the core samples taken from the poles we can determine the temperatures, atmospheric content, etc. from them. That's been established as well as confirmation that the Earth's climate changes in cycles and through outside intervention. The last Ice Age for example we experienced an abrupt change in climate when the Northern American glaciers melted and dumped several hundred thousand liters of freezing water into the Atlantic, and affecting the North Atlantic warm currents.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Mr. Spock
()
Date: July 05, 2013 08:41AM
Here's a link to "Educate" you on facts:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
I'm a scientist
()
Date: July 05, 2013 08:45AM
Mr. Spock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a scientist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Spock Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > >
> > > No, I don't think so. The temparature of the
> > Earth
> > > does change during various periods and
> cycles,
> > > right now we are in the process of the Earth
> > > heating up. Now, that's not to say that we
> > should
> > > blame pollution for it, but it did contribute
> > to
> > > the temperatures increasing quicker rather
> than
> > > gradually in previous cycles. This has been
> > proven
> > > by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core
> > > samples taken from both poles. Real science,
> > not
> > > amateur posturing without merits sir.
> >
> >
> > Nothing has been proven. We don't know
> > near enough about our climate and their
> cyclical
> > nature to prove anything. You throw that word
> > around without understanding what it means.
> You
> > wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
>
>
> You're obviously not a scientist, because if you
> were you'd know that the core sample findings have
> been accepted by nearly all credible scientists as
> known fact. Perhaps, you're confusing the "Global
> Warming Theory", now if you assumed that I was
> talking about that, I was not. The "Global Warming
> Theory" is clearly flawed. A more accurate theory
> is the "Global Environmental Change Theory", which
> is also flawed based on limited information, but
> from the core samples taken from the poles we can
> determine the temperatures, atmospheric content,
> etc. from them. That's been established as well as
> confirmation that the Earth's climate changes in
> cycles and through outside intervention. The last
> Ice Age for example we experienced an abrupt
> change in climate when the Northern American
> glaciers melted and dumped several hundred
> thousand liters of freezing water into the
> Atlantic, and affecting the North Atlantic warm
> currents.
I obviously am a scientist, as the PhD on my wall so indicates. Your post is babbling nonsense. You are stringing together bits of information, using words (like 'prove' and 'fact') that you don't understand. Do you know how much 'several hundred thousand liters' of water is? 1 million liters is about 250,000 gallons - or about what 50 oil trucks carry. And you think that amount effects anything? LOL
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a scientist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Spock Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > >
> > > No, I don't think so. The temparature of the
> > Earth
> > > does change during various periods and
> cycles,
> > > right now we are in the process of the Earth
> > > heating up. Now, that's not to say that we
> > should
> > > blame pollution for it, but it did contribute
> > to
> > > the temperatures increasing quicker rather
> than
> > > gradually in previous cycles. This has been
> > proven
> > > by actual (unbiased) examinations of the core
> > > samples taken from both poles. Real science,
> > not
> > > amateur posturing without merits sir.
> >
> >
> > Nothing has been proven. We don't know
> > near enough about our climate and their
> cyclical
> > nature to prove anything. You throw that word
> > around without understanding what it means.
> You
> > wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
>
>
> You're obviously not a scientist, because if you
> were you'd know that the core sample findings have
> been accepted by nearly all credible scientists as
> known fact. Perhaps, you're confusing the "Global
> Warming Theory", now if you assumed that I was
> talking about that, I was not. The "Global Warming
> Theory" is clearly flawed. A more accurate theory
> is the "Global Environmental Change Theory", which
> is also flawed based on limited information, but
> from the core samples taken from the poles we can
> determine the temperatures, atmospheric content,
> etc. from them. That's been established as well as
> confirmation that the Earth's climate changes in
> cycles and through outside intervention. The last
> Ice Age for example we experienced an abrupt
> change in climate when the Northern American
> glaciers melted and dumped several hundred
> thousand liters of freezing water into the
> Atlantic, and affecting the North Atlantic warm
> currents.
I obviously am a scientist, as the PhD on my wall so indicates. Your post is babbling nonsense. You are stringing together bits of information, using words (like 'prove' and 'fact') that you don't understand. Do you know how much 'several hundred thousand liters' of water is? 1 million liters is about 250,000 gallons - or about what 50 oil trucks carry. And you think that amount effects anything? LOL
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Mr. Spock
()
Date: July 05, 2013 08:51AM
I'm a scientist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Spock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm a scientist Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Mr. Spock Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't think so. The temparature of
> the
> > > Earth
> > > > does change during various periods and
> > cycles,
> > > > right now we are in the process of the
> Earth
> > > > heating up. Now, that's not to say that we
> > > should
> > > > blame pollution for it, but it did
> contribute
> > > to
> > > > the temperatures increasing quicker rather
> > than
> > > > gradually in previous cycles. This has been
> > > proven
> > > > by actual (unbiased) examinations of the
> core
> > > > samples taken from both poles. Real
> science,
> > > not
> > > > amateur posturing without merits sir.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nothing has been proven. We don't
> know
> > > near enough about our climate and their
> > cyclical
> > > nature to prove anything. You throw that
> word
> > > around without understanding what it means.
> > You
> > > wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
> >
> >
> > You're obviously not a scientist, because if
> you
> > were you'd know that the core sample findings
> have
> > been accepted by nearly all credible scientists
> as
> > known fact. Perhaps, you're confusing the
> "Global
> > Warming Theory", now if you assumed that I was
> > talking about that, I was not. The "Global
> Warming
> > Theory" is clearly flawed. A more accurate
> theory
> > is the "Global Environmental Change Theory",
> which
> > is also flawed based on limited information,
> but
> > from the core samples taken from the poles we
> can
> > determine the temperatures, atmospheric
> content,
> > etc. from them. That's been established as well
> as
> > confirmation that the Earth's climate changes
> in
> > cycles and through outside intervention. The
> last
> > Ice Age for example we experienced an abrupt
> > change in climate when the Northern American
> > glaciers melted and dumped several hundred
> > thousand liters of freezing water into the
> > Atlantic, and affecting the North Atlantic warm
> > currents.
>
>
> I obviously am a scientist, as the PhD on my wall
> so indicates. Your post is babbling nonsense.
> You are stringing together bits of information,
> using words (like 'prove' and 'fact') that you
> don't understand. Do you know how much 'several
> hundred thousand liters' of water is? 1 million
> liters is about 250,000 gallons - or about what 50
> oil trucks carry. And you think that amount
> effects anything? LOL
I don't believe you at all, let's see your PhD.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Spock Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm a scientist Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Mr. Spock Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't think so. The temparature of
> the
> > > Earth
> > > > does change during various periods and
> > cycles,
> > > > right now we are in the process of the
> Earth
> > > > heating up. Now, that's not to say that we
> > > should
> > > > blame pollution for it, but it did
> contribute
> > > to
> > > > the temperatures increasing quicker rather
> > than
> > > > gradually in previous cycles. This has been
> > > proven
> > > > by actual (unbiased) examinations of the
> core
> > > > samples taken from both poles. Real
> science,
> > > not
> > > > amateur posturing without merits sir.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nothing has been proven. We don't
> know
> > > near enough about our climate and their
> > cyclical
> > > nature to prove anything. You throw that
> word
> > > around without understanding what it means.
> > You
> > > wouldn't know "real science" if it bit you.
> >
> >
> > You're obviously not a scientist, because if
> you
> > were you'd know that the core sample findings
> have
> > been accepted by nearly all credible scientists
> as
> > known fact. Perhaps, you're confusing the
> "Global
> > Warming Theory", now if you assumed that I was
> > talking about that, I was not. The "Global
> Warming
> > Theory" is clearly flawed. A more accurate
> theory
> > is the "Global Environmental Change Theory",
> which
> > is also flawed based on limited information,
> but
> > from the core samples taken from the poles we
> can
> > determine the temperatures, atmospheric
> content,
> > etc. from them. That's been established as well
> as
> > confirmation that the Earth's climate changes
> in
> > cycles and through outside intervention. The
> last
> > Ice Age for example we experienced an abrupt
> > change in climate when the Northern American
> > glaciers melted and dumped several hundred
> > thousand liters of freezing water into the
> > Atlantic, and affecting the North Atlantic warm
> > currents.
>
>
> I obviously am a scientist, as the PhD on my wall
> so indicates. Your post is babbling nonsense.
> You are stringing together bits of information,
> using words (like 'prove' and 'fact') that you
> don't understand. Do you know how much 'several
> hundred thousand liters' of water is? 1 million
> liters is about 250,000 gallons - or about what 50
> oil trucks carry. And you think that amount
> effects anything? LOL
I don't believe you at all, let's see your PhD.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Barry Satan
()
Date: July 05, 2013 07:46PM
I'll be ready for Hillary when Hell freezes over.
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Done Deal
()
Date: July 09, 2013 12:46PM
She'll be the first woman president. Count on it!
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Klan Man
()
Date: July 09, 2013 01:21PM
Barry Satan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll be ready for Hillary when Hell freezes over.
Isn't that how Obama got elected?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll be ready for Hillary when Hell freezes over.
Isn't that how Obama got elected?
Re: 'Ready for Hillary' Showing Early Support for 2016 Election
Posted by:
Billy Clintoon
()
Date: July 09, 2013 02:38PM
Obama was a fictitious creation of the leftwing media. Sadly, the nonstop scandals and failures of his administration are the result.
Hillary has a much longer documented history of corruption, partisanship, hatred, and divisiveness. Does anyone really think that's going to work out well? Anyone other than Al-Queda and other America-haters? It'll be a lot harder for the lamestream media to re-invent the nasty Hillary into something electable.
Hillary has a much longer documented history of corruption, partisanship, hatred, and divisiveness. Does anyone really think that's going to work out well? Anyone other than Al-Queda and other America-haters? It'll be a lot harder for the lamestream media to re-invent the nasty Hillary into something electable.