Looking worse and worse for Mittens. Just one week before the first debate. Things will only go downhill from here. I'm getting excited!

http://nationalpolls.com/stories/2012/0925-battleground.html

I could be wrong but I'm right 99% of the time
Attachments:

I can't wait to watch next week's Presidential debate. I hope Obama wears a surgical smock and facial splash guard because he will be covered in Mitt's blood after the slaughter.

Pepe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope Obama wears a surgical smock and
> facial splash guard because he will be covered in
> Mitt's blood after the slaughter.

No, he's going to be covered in "Mitt's" shit.

This is going to be one of the least factual "debates" we've witnessed, IMHO.

==========

The Media has already been set up by The Insane Party to report Romney's debating "style" as being "aggressive" rather than bullying, disrespectful, and content-free. Since the Media, the Me-Too Media, is full of sheep I fully expect them to report it exactly that way.

Jobless rate has been over 8% for nearly four fucking years....

Workforce participation is at the lowest rate in decades.....

Foodstamp usage is at the highest rate ever.....

Debt and deficits are higher that ever...

Regardless of any job gains, we are at a NET LOSS for job creation...


If Romney focuses on these facts, he cleans the clock of the community wrecker.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jobless rate has been over 8% for nearly four
> fucking years....
>
> Workforce participation is at the lowest rate in
> decades.....
>
> Foodstamp usage is at the highest rate ever.....
>
> Debt and deficits are higher that ever...
>
> Regardless of any job gains, we are at a NET LOSS
> for job creation...
>
>
> If Romney focuses on these facts, he cleans the
> clock of the community wrecker.

6 1/2 minutes into the debate Oromney will say somehting stupid. Watch.

I could be wrong but I'm right 99% of the time

Boey poo Mittens is going to get his butt kicked in the debates. Romney has flip-flopped on so many issues it's not even funny.

Not to mention every time Romney opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it.

OBlomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boey poo Mittens is going to get his butt kicked
> in the debates. Romney has flip-flopped on so
> many issues it's not even funny.
>
> Not to mention every time Romney opens his mouth
> he sticks his foot in it.

Bullshit.

Looking forward to the Romney Debate Fail
Attachments:

Obama's not that good in a debate format.

The only reason he "won" last time was that McCain was completely ineffective and came across as an angry old white guy. Romney's had a lot more practice and by the time the 300 Republican debates were done he was pretty darn good at it.

People forget that Hillary pretty much kicked Obama's ass in the debates. She knew the secret - push his buttons and call him out on his BS. Then he gets upset and starts to come across as being petty, insincere, and (as always) not accepting responsibility for his words/actions. You know you have him when He goes into the "uh uh uh uh uh" stutter thing and it makes him look like a bullshitter when he constantly has to go back and parse his own words to clarify what you thought he said wasn't really what he said.

Obama was head of the Harvard debate team. He's going to crush Romney!

Westerns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama was head of the Harvard debate team. He's
> going to crush Romney!


Umm, no.

wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Westerns Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama was head of the Harvard debate team.
> He's
> > going to crush Romney!
>
>
> Umm, no.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-romney-obama-classmate-says-president-will-smoke-romney-in-debates/

Lol!

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrong again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Westerns Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obama was head of the Harvard debate team.
> > He's
> > > going to crush Romney!
> >
> >
> > Umm, no.
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-romney-obama
> -classmate-says-president-will-smoke-romney-in-deb
> ates/
>
> Lol!


Where in that article does it say Obama was head of the Harvard debate team?

Waiting....

LOL!

What's with all the lies? Is the truth about Obama that bad?

I bet you don't have the balls to respond and admit you were wrong.

The problem for the challenger in a debate is to walk the fine line between proving that times are bad because of the incumbent and not being overly negative. It takes some finesse and I'm not sure Romney has the skill to pull it off.

wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where in that article does it say Obama was head
> of the Harvard debate team?

Most abject apologies - I was not responding to some minor historical fact (or not!) about Obama, I was responding to:

> ...
>> ...He's going to crush Romney! [in the debates]
>
> Umm, no...

Note that the linked article, not surprisingly, is exactly that response.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrong again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where in that article does it say Obama was
> head
> > of the Harvard debate team?
>
> Most abject apologies - I was not responding to
> some minor historical fact (or not!) about Obama,
> I was responding to:

You mean the lie told by the Obama supporter?

Call it what it is.

Hopefully this means I get to keep all the free stuff obama gave me
Attachments:

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jobless rate has been over 8% for nearly four
> fucking years....
>
> Workforce participation is at the lowest rate in
> decades.....
>
> Foodstamp usage is at the highest rate ever.....
>
> Debt and deficits are higher that ever...
>
> Regardless of any job gains, we are at a NET LOSS
> for job creation...
>
>
> If Romney focuses on these facts, he cleans the
> clock of the community wrecker.

We may still be at a NET LOSS, but the important point is that the job #'s have been positive since shortly after Obama took office. That's a better trend then when Bush left.

All Obama has to say is this country is in a better place than it was when the previous Republican president left. People are feeling a LOT better than they did 4 years ago....almost done with Bush's wars, stock market and 401k's are way up... most of the country likes most aspects of the HCA....Bin Ladens gone.....I could go on.

res Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jobless rate has been over 8% for nearly four
> > fucking years....
> >
> > Workforce participation is at the lowest rate
> in
> > decades.....
> >
> > Foodstamp usage is at the highest rate
> ever.....
> >
> > Debt and deficits are higher that ever...
> >
> > Regardless of any job gains, we are at a NET
> LOSS
> > for job creation...
> >
> >
> > If Romney focuses on these facts, he cleans the
> > clock of the community wrecker.
>
> We may still be at a NET LOSS, but the important
> point is that the job #'s have been positive since
> shortly after Obama took office. That's a better
> trend then when Bush left.
>
> All Obama has to say is this country is in a
> better place than it was when the previous
> Republican president left. People are feeling a
> LOT better than they did 4 years ago....almost
> done with Bush's wars, stock market and 401k's are
> way up... most of the country likes most aspects
> of the HCA....Bin Ladens gone.....I could go on.


I really hate this stupid argument. Of course it's better than it was at the depth of the crash. Which wasn't Bush's fault any more than it was Clinton's fault when he handed off the dot.com crash and recession to Bush.

The issue is that we've still not recovered to where we should be even after spending trillions to pump it and having Bernanke diluting the dollar. Beyond not getting the near-term results now we have some serious issues when our debt service costs start to kick back up. Which they will.

About the "author"....

Why did he donate $250 to Romney's campaign and $1500 to Obama's?

Why do people do that?

Is he hedging his bet (or claim in this instance)?

edit for Res: BUSH IS STILL NOT RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE. (I typed that in caps because you keep forgetting that little point) Hope this helps.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2012 05:30PM by SoylentGreen.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jobless rate has been over 8% for nearly four
> fucking years....
>
> Workforce participation is at the lowest rate in
> decades.....
>
> Foodstamp usage is at the highest rate ever.....
>
> Debt and deficits are higher that ever...
>
> Regardless of any job gains, we are at a NET LOSS
> for job creation...
>
>
> If Romney focuses on these facts, he cleans the
> clock of the community wrecker.

Jobless rate willstay if not grow.
To many people and fucking growing.
When will people wake up and except the basic fact that we are overpopulated.

Weak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> res Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WingNut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Jobless rate has been over 8% for nearly four
> > > fucking years....
> > >
> > > Workforce participation is at the lowest rate
> > in
> > > decades.....
> > >
> > > Foodstamp usage is at the highest rate
> > ever.....
> > >
> > > Debt and deficits are higher that ever...
> > >
> > > Regardless of any job gains, we are at a NET
> > LOSS
> > > for job creation...
> > >
> > >
> > > If Romney focuses on these facts, he cleans
> the
> > > clock of the community wrecker.
> >
> > We may still be at a NET LOSS, but the
> important
> > point is that the job #'s have been positive
> since
> > shortly after Obama took office. That's a
> better
> > trend then when Bush left.
> >
> > All Obama has to say is this country is in a
> > better place than it was when the previous
> > Republican president left. People are feeling a
> > LOT better than they did 4 years ago....almost
> > done with Bush's wars, stock market and 401k's
> are
> > way up... most of the country likes most
> aspects
> > of the HCA....Bin Ladens gone.....I could go
> on.
>
>
> I really hate this stupid argument. Of course
> it's better than it was at the depth of the crash.
> Which wasn't Bush's fault any more than it was
> Clinton's fault when he handed off the dot.com
> crash and recession to Bush.
>
> The issue is that we've still not recovered to
> where we should be even after spending trillions
> to pump it and having Bernanke diluting the
> dollar. Beyond not getting the near-term results
> now we have some serious issues when our debt
> service costs start to kick back up. Which they
> will.

I'm not sure if your in Obama's or Romney's camp, but you don't hold Bush accountable after 8 years in office, but yet you say we're not recovered from the worst recession since the depression, and this falls solely on Obama's shoulders?!?

Yes we pumped a lot of money into the system to stabilize it, but how bad would things be IF WE DIDN'T? No one knows, oh yeah, except the republicans.

A good percentage of the debt comes from Bush's progams (tax cuts, wars, medicare plan d), so I hold him responsible.

On the positive side, debt will "improve" as our economy improves with less people needing assistance and more people paying into the system.

And what is it with the a-holes who just keep posting moronic pictures. Do they not get the notion of a DISCUSSION forum. ? Spiking the Football 2012: if you have something to say jump in and say it, but posting the same pictures OVER AND OVER is a lame cop-out.

When you're down so many points in every major poll and in every major battle ground state - be a White Trailer Park Tea Party Nigger and spike the ball.
Attachments:

res Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Weak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > res Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WingNut Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Jobless rate has been over 8% for nearly
> four
> > > > fucking years....
> > > >
> > > > Workforce participation is at the lowest
> rate
> > > in
> > > > decades.....
> > > >
> > > > Foodstamp usage is at the highest rate
> > > ever.....
> > > >
> > > > Debt and deficits are higher that ever...
> > > >
> > > > Regardless of any job gains, we are at a
> NET
> > > LOSS
> > > > for job creation...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If Romney focuses on these facts, he cleans
> > the
> > > > clock of the community wrecker.
> > >
> > > We may still be at a NET LOSS, but the
> > important
> > > point is that the job #'s have been positive
> > since
> > > shortly after Obama took office. That's a
> > better
> > > trend then when Bush left.
> > >
> > > All Obama has to say is this country is in a
> > > better place than it was when the previous
> > > Republican president left. People are feeling
> a
> > > LOT better than they did 4 years
> ago....almost
> > > done with Bush's wars, stock market and
> 401k's
> > are
> > > way up... most of the country likes most
> > aspects
> > > of the HCA....Bin Ladens gone.....I could go
> > on.
> >
> >
> > I really hate this stupid argument. Of course
> > it's better than it was at the depth of the
> crash.
> > Which wasn't Bush's fault any more than it was
> > Clinton's fault when he handed off the dot.com
> > crash and recession to Bush.
> >
> > The issue is that we've still not recovered to
> > where we should be even after spending
> trillions
> > to pump it and having Bernanke diluting the
> > dollar. Beyond not getting the near-term
> results
> > now we have some serious issues when our debt
> > service costs start to kick back up. Which
> they
> > will.
>
> I'm not sure if your in Obama's or Romney's camp,
> but you don't hold Bush accountable after 8 years
> in office, but yet you say we're not recovered
> from the worst recession since the depression, and
> this falls solely on Obama's shoulders?!?
>
> Yes we pumped a lot of money into the system to
> stabilize it, but how bad would things be IF WE
> DIDN'T? No one knows, oh yeah, except the
> republicans.
>
> A good percentage of the debt comes from Bush's
> progams (tax cuts, wars, medicare plan d), so I
> hold him responsible.
>
> On the positive side, debt will "improve" as our
> economy improves with less people needing
> assistance and more people paying into the system.


Clinton wasn't responsible for the event. Nor was Bush. Nor was Obama. They are responsible for their response.

Clinton reversed course in his second term and helped things grow by lowering capital gains taxes. That the market crashed wasn't his fault or a direct result of his policies.

Likewise, Bush drew a bad hand with the market crash and then 9/11 and the resulting recessions. He did his own version of the "stimulus" with the tax cuts. The economy was going along just fine up until the debt markets crashed which had nothing to do with the tax cuts.

Obama was handed a mess. The initial actions were necessary to stabilize things. Beyond that it's his baby and the baby's 4 years old and still looking ugly. More significantly, I don't see any real progress or significant strategy other than avoiding substantively talking about SS/Medicare/Medicaid at all costs until after the election. The Fed is effectively funding most of our existence at this point.

Most of the "debt" is in entitlements and financing operations and obligations. That blows away any tax cuts, wars, etc. That will not get better because it mostly reflects the demographics of the boomers hitting retirement age and now we have to actually come up with HUGE money that we've been pretending was there for SS and health benefits.

@Look

You are seriously overlooking what happened in 2008 -- and its causes. It was the total deregulation of the financial markets, in particular the banks, real estate finance and stock market that allowed not only the banks and brokerage houses to make outrageous bets on the markets, but also to stick it to the American taxpayer.

This just didn't "happen" it was a total disregard for our nation's welfare. Just look at the "too big to fail" banks that failed -- not a single merger or acquisition was questioned by the Bush appointees.

Yes there are recessions that are due to market timing -- a stale bull market. There are recessions that are due to bubbles, like the tech bubble in the early 2000s. But the 2008 implosion of the markets was due to all the Republican deregulation that was supposed to bring us great benefits.

Republicans might have amnesia, but the American people shouldn't.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Look
>
> You are seriously overlooking what happened in
> 2008 -- and its causes. It was the total
> deregulation of the financial markets, in
> particular the banks, real estate finance and
> stock market that allowed not only the banks and
> brokerage houses to make outrageous bets on the
> markets, but also to stick it to the American
> taxpayer.
>
> This just didn't "happen" it was a total disregard
> for our nation's welfare. Just look at the "too
> big to fail" banks that failed -- not a single
> merger or acquisition was questioned by the Bush
> appointees.
>
> Yes there are recessions that are due to market
> timing -- a stale bull market. There are
> recessions that are due to bubbles, like the tech
> bubble in the early 2000s. But the 2008 implosion
> of the markets was due to all the Republican
> deregulation that was supposed to bring us great
> benefits.
>
> Republicans might have amnesia, but the American
> people shouldn't.


Who was President and Secretary of the Treasury when we repealed Glass-Stegall? Just want to make you say it given your post. Seems to be some amnesia of your own here.

Beyond that, there's plenty of blame to go around as far as underlying causes of the crash.

Oh I'm fully aware that Clinton signed the bill. But signing a bill and then completely deregulating just about every industry for 8 year from the executive branch is something different.

I am not happy about Obama's performance on this subject either. This is what has me outraged that the Republicans only managed to put up a bunch of crazy people as presidential candidates this time around. Couldn't we get a mainstream candidate that can take a serious look at what caused the 2008 financial crisis?

Romney, Tea Party & Co are still beating the drums for MORE deregulation? The only band aid that passed in the wake of the scandal is something that Romney wants to repeal in his first month of office?

We still have too big to fail -- in fact, its worse.

I agree with the Obama posts about his lukewarm performance on economic issues. I have been outraged not only by Bush's big government response to the crisis with TARP, but Obama's complete lack of focus on the economy when he had the majority during his first year -- he pissed it away trying to pass Obamacare.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh I'm fully aware that Clinton signed the bill.
> But signing a bill and then completely
> deregulating just about every industry for 8 year
> from the executive branch is something different.
>
> I am not happy about Obama's performance on this
> subject either. This is what has me outraged that
> the Republicans only managed to put up a bunch of
> crazy people as presidential candidates this time
> around. Couldn't we get a mainstream candidate
> that can take a serious look at what caused the
> 2008 financial crisis?
>
> Romney, Tea Party & Co are still beating the drums
> for MORE deregulation? The only band aid that
> passed in the wake of the scandal is something
> that Romney wants to repeal in his first month of
> office?
>
> We still have too big to fail -- in fact, its
> worse.
>
> I agree with the Obama posts about his lukewarm
> performance on economic issues. I have been
> outraged not only by Bush's big government
> response to the crisis with TARP, but Obama's
> complete lack of focus on the economy when he had
> the majority during his first year -- he pissed it
> away trying to pass Obamacare.


Hold your nose and read this...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/regulation-nation-new-study-finds-obama-is-no-1-regulator/

I'm sorry, but some shit needs to be regulated. It was the complete lack of regulation and oversight that let 2008 happen. Part of the bargain for bailing out banks in the 1933 and setting up the FDIC was that banks needed to be regulated. When this legislation was gutted in 1999, it left the burden on the taxpayer but allowed the banks to do whatever the hell they wanted.

It was only a matter of time before 2008 resulted.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry, but some shit needs to be regulated. It
> was the complete lack of regulation and oversight
> that let 2008 happen. Part of the bargain for
> bailing out banks in the 1933 and setting up the
> FDIC was that banks needed to be regulated. When
> this legislation was gutted in 1999, it left the
> burden on the taxpayer but allowed the banks to do
> whatever the hell they wanted.
>
> It was only a matter of time before 2008 resulted.


I agree.

But what about everything the EPA touches? Every bit of it directly reflects in the costs of absolutely everything we do and buy in this country.

And they answer pretty much to no one.

I'm with you there on the EPA. Its actually worse because of all the individual state and local regulations.

The EPA is practically a rogue agency, but these are not just the political appointees -- they have a mandate and the rank-and-file regulators are overly enthusiastic about doing their job.

Again, this is why I am so totally disappointed in the crop of Republican candidates. They are supposed to be the sensible party. Instead we have people who don't even believe in science. Its hard to win an argument about the climate if you don't even believe that the world is over 6,000 years old.

On the other hand, one trip to China will make you realize that the EPA isn't the worst thing that could happen. Look at any picture of Beijing or Shanghai -- you can't even see a skyline.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm with you there on the EPA. Its actually worse
> because of all the individual state and local
> regulations.
>
> The EPA is practically a rogue agency, but these
> are not just the political appointees -- they have
> a mandate and the rank-and-file regulators are
> overly enthusiastic about doing their job.
>
> Again, this is why I am so totally disappointed in
> the crop of Republican candidates. They are
> supposed to be the sensible party. Instead we have
> people who don't even believe in science. Its hard
> to win an argument about the climate if you don't
> even believe that the world is over 6,000 years
> old.
>
> On the other hand, one trip to China will make you
> realize that the EPA isn't the worst thing that
> could happen. Look at any picture of Beijing or
> Shanghai -- you can't even see a skyline.


Not to mention the fervent rejection of global warming. Quite frankly, I'm glad to see religion get it's due. I never understood how a people (christian right) so against the Gov't telling you what to do, allowing some unproven gospel to dictate every aspect of their life.

The thing about "Global Warming" is that it is indisputable. We have been recovering from the "Little Ice Age" since the 1600s. We are finally approaching the temperatures from the "Medieval Warm Period" that existed 600 years ago. Evidence? Greenland wasn't misnamed at the time it was discovered. The Vikings established colonies there and FARMED.

What is in dispute is how much we are doing that is warming the planet. The same guy who came up with the Global Warming theory was the same Luddite who said that the next ice age is coming quicker because of carbon emissions in the 1970s. The prescription is always the same -- get rid of carbon emissions.

That being said, it is hard to refute that a billion engines across the planet belching gasses into the atmosphere is a bad thing.

The question is what do you do about it?

This summer I went to Yosemite, the John Muir Forest and King's Canyon and Sequoia National Park. When you see the 2,000 year old redwoods and sequoias you really get how important it is to protect the environment. Thankfully we didn't clear cut all those old trees.

I care about the planet. But I don't want to walk or ride my bike 20 miles to and from work every day.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm with you there on the EPA. Its actually worse
> because of all the individual state and local
> regulations.
>
> The EPA is practically a rogue agency, but these
> are not just the political appointees -- they have
> a mandate and the rank-and-file regulators are
> overly enthusiastic about doing their job.
>
> Again, this is why I am so totally disappointed in
> the crop of Republican candidates. They are
> supposed to be the sensible party. Instead we have
> people who don't even believe in science. Its hard
> to win an argument about the climate if you don't
> even believe that the world is over 6,000 years
> old.
>
> On the other hand, one trip to China will make you
> realize that the EPA isn't the worst thing that
> could happen. Look at any picture of Beijing or
> Shanghai -- you can't even see a skyline.


EPA is a mess. As are most of the other big agencies. As people around here should know better than most since a lot of the people and companies they work for effectively run these places.

If you think that the money tagged 'environment' actually goes to do anything about the environment, forget that. Mostly it goes to pay thousands of bureaucrats and contractors working there as Program Managers, Policy Analysts, Legislative Analysts, Staff Attorneys, etc., etc., and to big contractors like Booz Allen where there are thousands more doing what the Feds should be doing themselves.

I worked there for a long time and I rarely met anyone who actually did anything that functionally benefited the 'environment.' About as close as most get are managing some contractor who might actually be doing some sampling somewhere but even those are rare. Then you have all of the purely administrative and IT people who exist only because the agency is as big as it is.

Same with Education. I still don't know what the office I was working for actually did beyond making tons of circle jerk crap like mission statements and program plans and pass stuff off to contractors.

At Energy one of the office that I worked for actually worked maybe 3 months out of the year. The rest of the time they sat around and read the damn paper or had meetings with each other and just shot the shit all day.

Ridiculous. And, unfortunately, it's the rule not the exception in my experience.

I've had a similar experience in other agencies. Its the worst as a military contractor because you not only have your contracting boss, but your civilian boss and then all the chain of command with the military bosses. Frequently the only thing that ever gets done is passing the buck until it gets down the the contractor.

However, I should add that not all of the stuff going on is nonsense. My experience with the FAA is an example. There is a lot of dead weight, but there were whole divisions that worked really hard doing real work -- really important work.

Its one of those things, if you got rid of the EPA or the Dept. of Education, you'd just have to re-create them anyway. There are some useful functions within them -- if only the fact that they exist keeps people out in the hinterlands honest.

The debate we are having is rational. Unfortunately the rhetoric, particularly from one side -- my former party -- is completely out of bounds. Its the same problem that they have when they try to deny that the president isn't American and isn't a legitimate president, its hard to then come back and have a reasonable conversation about the issues. When you start with the premise that the EPA should be destroyed or that global warming doesn't exist, you can't have a reasonable debate.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing about "Global Warming" is that it is
> indisputable. We have been recovering from the
> "Little Ice Age" since the 1600s. We are finally
> approaching the temperatures from the "Medieval
> Warm Period" that existed 600 years ago. Evidence?
> Greenland wasn't misnamed at the time it was
> discovered. The Vikings established colonies there
> and FARMED.
>
> What is in dispute is how much we are doing that
> is warming the planet. The same guy who came up
> with the Global Warming theory was the same
> Luddite who said that the next ice age is coming
> quicker because of carbon emissions in the 1970s.
> The prescription is always the same -- get rid of
> carbon emissions.
>
> That being said, it is hard to refute that a
> billion engines across the planet belching gasses
> into the atmosphere is a bad thing.
>
> The question is what do you do about it?
>
> This summer I went to Yosemite, the John Muir
> Forest and King's Canyon and Sequoia National
> Park. When you see the 2,000 year old redwoods and
> sequoias you really get how important it is to
> protect the environment. Thankfully we didn't
> clear cut all those old trees.
>
> I care about the planet. But I don't want to walk
> or ride my bike 20 miles to and from work every
> day.

We need not be so extreme. If the public turns to 'clean' energy solutions, even in moderation as is happening now, it wouldn't be a bad thing. I actually wouldn't mind biking to work if it became a workable solutions. Also, the WH has set 54.5mpg by 2025. Moving 300M in one direction may require a bat some times. I happen to believe humans are contributing to the GW effect...

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I care about the planet. But I don't want to walk
> or ride my bike 20 miles to and from work every
> day.

Thats a false choice (to care about the planet means you have to step back 100 years and use bikes for transportation). If the GOP got on board with the Dems and we all acknowledged the environment is undergoing major changes, then goals could be set. People would collectively work towards those goals. And some of the most significant improvements would be made by people everyday. Things like maybe buying a slightly more efficient car vs. a larger suv, spending a little more on efficient windows, spending a little more on a better furnace when you replace it, hell, even not buying that damn bottled water all the time!

There's decisions we make everyday that affect the environment. Many small choices buy everyone can have more impact than the Big Things the GOP uses as a false choice.

res Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ito Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > I care about the planet. But I don't want to
> walk
> > or ride my bike 20 miles to and from work every
> > day.
>
> Thats a false choice (to care about the planet
> means you have to step back 100 years and use
> bikes for transportation). If the GOP got on board
> with the Dems and we all acknowledged the
> environment is undergoing major changes, then
> goals could be set. People would collectively work
> towards those goals. And some of the most
> significant improvements would be made by people
> everyday. Things like maybe buying a slightly more
> efficient car vs. a larger suv, spending a little
> more on efficient windows, spending a little more
> on a better furnace when you replace it, hell,
> even not buying that damn bottled water all the
> time!
>
> There's decisions we make everyday that affect the
> environment. Many small choices buy everyone can
> have more impact than the Big Things the GOP uses
> as a false choice.

You are absolutely correct but the planet is fucked and it's football season.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrong again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Westerns Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obama was head of the Harvard debate team.
> > He's
> > > going to crush Romney!
> >
> >
> > Umm, no.
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-romney-obama
> -classmate-says-president-will-smoke-romney-in-deb
> ates/
>
> Lol!


LOL, indeed, dummy.

Obama was resoundly defeated by Romney.

So, yeah, my "umm no" now stands valid on both accounts.

The Me-Too Media is beginning to change their story - they're starting to comment on content rather than style. Guess commenting on "the slugfest" has limited appeal or something, huh?

Let's see how the Sunday talk shows go.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Me-Too Media is beginning to change their
> story - they're starting to comment on content
> rather than style. Guess commenting on "the
> slugfest" has limited appeal or something, huh?
>
> Let's see how the Sunday talk shows go.


You mean the media that was stunned and disappointed that Obama lost? No matter how hard you try to spin it, President Obama's performance was abysmal.

wrong again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You mean the media that was stunned and
> disappointed that Obama lost?...

Yes - that's the Me-Too Media I mean!

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Me-Too Media is beginning to change their
> story - they're starting to comment on content
> rather than style. Guess commenting on "the
> slugfest" has limited appeal or something, huh?
>
> Let's see how the Sunday talk shows go.


David Axelrod tells the Obama-frothing media to help bail out Oblamer after he to shellacked, and they dutifuly comply....

http://www.nationalreview.com/media/video/329420

You democrats are truly anti-American.

Uncle.Ream.Us Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You democrats...

I am pro-Obama and THOROUGHLY anti-Romney AND anti-Republican (now) however I'm not nor ever have been a Democrat.

I lived in MA when Romney was Gov. What a disaster!

Why would I want to live through THAT again?