Damnit Urbi! We are on more important things that wasting billions of our tax dollars! We are talking about takin out the Castro brothers!!! Get on board here man! WHAT THE HELL??? hahaha Kidding Urbs.
we have a fairly wide spectrum of political views on this board. However, i feel that the one thing we can all agree with is that if we are going to be taxed we should know where the money is going.
IF we should be taxed and how much are always open up for debate ( you all know my opinion on that).
Id even say MOST of us will agree that the Bail outs were not the right way to run this situation.
I agree with your guys on this one, the bail out was a bad idea, but it's even worse that they can't account for where the money has gone and is going. This bad idea was executed VERY poorly which makes it even worse.
On a little brighter note I have a rant today that is short but says a lot. Actor David Spade had seen a story on Fox News about how the Phoenix PD was having problems buying weapons for their officers and he went and dropped $100,000 on AR-15's for their agency! It was good to see someone in Hollywood donating money to something that will truly help save lives and do a lot of good for people here in the U.S. Made me think MUCH more highly of David Spade!
they can petition all they want, but as soon as they force him off the air, or shut him up via government mandate, there is a problem.
need i remind you of the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech"
I also seem to remember a very famous H.R. Clinton quote: "...We have the right to disagree with this administration or any administration..."
I agree with that statement. I also dont do double standards. the Left had a field day with Bush (as well they should have) they shouldnt get their panties in a knot when the Right has vocal critics of the left.
and for the record: i agree with the premise of Rush's statement. That is: IF a more communist state is what Obama is after, i hope he fails. this country is about freedom. I hope any restrictions on that freedom would fail.
Chomsky has some interesting views on democracy and I was curious as to if you had ever had a chance to read anything of his work. He is a Linguist Professor at M.I.T.
they can petition all they want, but as soon as they force him off the air, or shut him up via government mandate, there is a problem.
need i remind you of the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech"
I also seem to remember a very famous H.R. Clinton quote: "...We have the right to disagree with this administration or any administration..."
I agree with that statement. I also dont do double standards. the Left had a field day with Bush (as well they should have) they shouldnt get their panties in a knot when the Right has vocal critics of the left.
and for the record: i agree with the premise of Rush's statement. That is: IF a more communist state is what Obama is after, i hope he fails. this country is about freedom. I hope any restrictions on that freedom would fail.
Kuzi yes free speech, but really there is no free speech anymore. I mean I can't go around and say what's on my mind, I'd get sued, or fined or thrown in jail. Free speech is a so-called myth these days. Rush and a lot of the far right republicans are doing nothing but pushing out lies and false propaganda. Agree or disagree but I mean listen to what they are saying, recently the current GOP leader spoke in a n interview about what the republican party needs to do to get back on track, he stated that bush with his popularity had brought down the party, but the man agreed with the policies which bush was pushing, which are "republican" policy's. They seem to be in the past. Obviously they are keen on thinking they did nothing wrong these past several years and just don't want to deviate from their policies. It's sort of hard to think about what it will take for these "certain" republican's to realize that their policies don't work.
it doesnt matter if you agree with it or not, or if it is propaganda or not. none of that matters. He has a right to say it. Even if people on "his side" disagree with him he can say it.
and to be honest, bush did have a ton of issues, but Rush was against a bunch of Bush's Ideas (if you listened to the show you would know) At this point id like to point out that there is a HUGE difference between "republican" and "conservative" there are many issues with the republican party that conservatives have problems with (the spending of the bush era for example)
conservatism is just as much "propaganda" (as you put it) as liberalism is. ( I mean, how many years does the world have to cool before the left understands that global warming is BS) it is a way of thinking that you dont agree with. that does not make it "propaganda." that makes it a disagreement.
and just because "free speech is a so-called myth these days" does not mean that it should be, OR that we should let it be.
I dont like what the KKK has to say about just about anything, but they have the right to say what they want to say. you have to take the good with the bad, and just because you, or anyone else, does not like what rush says should never mean that he should be forced (or pressured) to stop. its his right to speak his mind.
I personally think Al Gore is retarded. his hypocrisy and lack of accurate information when it comes to Global warming is amazing to me. BUT he has every right to go out and say what he has to say. If we, as a nation, try to shut up everyone that we dont agree with politically, then we will lose what makes this country great. Debate, dissent, disagreement, different ideas, a transfer of thoughts all make the USA great. A one party system will never work for long (it never has). and to be quite honest, we need other parties, other schools of thought, other options at any given moment, to best fit a given situation.
I will never try to shut up anyone's voice when they are spouting their political beliefs.
BTW I dont want this to turn into a global warming debate. the point was to pull out a subject that I dont agree with and show that i think that they can still talk about it. this is a debate about free speech, not global warming.
BTW I dont want this to turn into a global warming debate. the point was to pull out a subject that I dont agree with and show that i think that they can still talk about it. this is a debate about free speech, not global warming.
Oh great!! You sure know how to take the air out of my weather balloon Kuzi, thanks, LMAAO
BTW I dont want this to turn into a global warming debate. the point was to pull out a subject that I dont agree with and show that i think that they can still talk about it. this is a debate about free speech, not global warming.
Oh great!! You sure know how to take the air out of my weather balloon Kuzi, thanks, LMAAO
Absolutely 100% natural baby Harp Seal bladder, taken straight from the annual "cull" in NewFoundLand, (an island province off the East coast of Cananda) That Eco friendly ?
Yeah, you would think that with all that practice each year with these clubs, that Canada would produce some real home run hitters for the Major leagues but alas no. Maybe if they would pitch the balls a little closer to the ground or something? Or put whiskers on it
Maybe if they would pitch the balls a little closer to the ground or something? Or put whiskers on it
Wow, you officially received your place in hell for that one.
lol, nice... btw global warming is not a myth
It sure as hell is where I live, I know that !!!
Here in kentucky too.
To be clear I meant to agree with Phobic not about global warming being a myth. Although I wouldn't want to base that soley on this winter. Here we are seeing quit alarming things associated with global warming. I don't think there is a question of wether it's warming... The question is who / what is causing it to warm.
At the risk of hijacking Kuzi's rant about free speech, I'd say this about global warming. I'm not smart enough to have an intelligent thought about it. The perponderance of evidence I've heard and read would point to global warming with some significant level of human influence. But I think it's one of those things that is so utterly complex, we'll look back 25 or 50 years from now (if we're not burnt to crispies) and laugh at what we thought we knew (one way or another).
Maybe if they would pitch the balls a little closer to the ground or something? Or put whiskers on it
Wow, you officially received your place in hell for that one.
lol, nice... btw global warming is not a myth
It sure as hell is where I live, I know that !!!
Here in kentucky too.
To be clear I meant to agree with Phobic not about global warming being a myth. Although I wouldn't want to base that soley on this winter. Here we are seeing quit alarming things associated with global warming. I don't think there is a question of wether it's warming... The question is who / what is causing it to warm.
Well since carbon monoxide and all other pollutants that we are admitting in the atmosphere is causing the climate to reduce the amount of protection from the sun (in a nutshell). Though global warming is natural, but we are truly speeding up the process. On an interesting side note, while watching a show called "the universe" on the history channel, there was an episode about mars and one of the interesting things were a way to make the atmosphere livable, all we need to do is release massive amounts of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere..
Ive read that all the other planets have warmed up the same amount (with respect to the distance to the sun). this leads me to think that global warming is caused by the sun.
even if that is not the cause, i dont believe that we are the cause, or that we can do anything about it. There are many theories that it is all cyclical. we just ended a warming cycle and are entering a cooling cycle this year. long story short is, the case is not closed on global warming. there is not a single person on the planet that can give you a 100% accurate account of what the climate is, or will be. hell, we can hardly predict the weather NEXT TUESDAY
to me it just looks like a way for the government to get us all scared into higher taxes and more regulations on what we can/cannot buy.
on a slightly related note... if we want a true alternative fuel, we shouldnt be subsidizing what we want to be a fuel. we should be trying to make one of them profitable. Once someone can turn a profit on hydrogen combustion engines (for example) and it is cheap enough for the masses to attain, that will become the fuel of choice. Im all for that. You cant, however, FORCE a market to work. Either it will work or it wont.
It is funny that Al Gore was in DC ranting about global warming, when my little skinny a$$ spent almost an hour chipping and chiseling the half of a freakin inch of SOLID ICE off my damn car here in TEXAS! lol It's not supposed to be that cold here! If I wanted half an inch of ice I'd move up and be neighbors with Laker! I freakin HATE winter!
But on a more serious note, I agree with ya Kuz! That isn't anyone out there that can tell you 100% that Global Warming is our fault, or that we have nothing to do with it. I do know that our little rock in the universe has been warming since that last ice age, before that it cooled for years and years. At one point the entire planet was warm and covered by water, now it's not. The earth does go in cycles... History has proven that...
But as to your first statement I agree 100%!!! The funny part about the left in this country is that they preach and protest for freedom of speech as long as it goes along with their beliefs. Not once have you heard me complain about Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report and how they bashed Bush and every other Republican cadidate on the planet. That is what they believe and I would damn sure fight for their right to say it. Just like anyone else. I don't see that freedom of speech is dead in this country, in fact I would say it is alive and well! If it was truely dead we wouldn't be here on this forum debating and discussing all the issues we have touched on.
I agree with Luko that this just feels like one of those things where we'll eventually look back at what we thought we knew, and laugh. Kind of like "the world is flat," or "God created the universe" (ok, I threw that second one out there to get a rise out of people.. focus.. focus). However, in the interim, we are only equipped to rely on the experts in the field. Specifically, the scientists whose job it is to conduct research and made a determination with respect to global warming are the only ones with a credible view on the subject. A majority of those scientists feel global warming is real, and that human behavior is a substantial cotributing factor. So I'll have to listen to that, as it is the only rational course of action. All other beliefs, while potentially correct, rely on propaganda put forth by people with political objectives.
I agree with Luko that this just feels like one of those things where we'll eventually look back at what we thought we knew, and laugh. Kind of like "the world is flat," or "God created the universe" (ok, I threw that second one out there to get a rise out of people.. focus.. focus). However, in the interim, we are only equipped to rely on the experts in the field. Specifically, the scientists whose job it is to conduct research and made a determination with respect to global warming are the only ones with a credible view on the subject. A majority of those scientists feel global warming is real, and that human behavior is a substantial cotributing factor. So I'll have to listen to that, as it is the only rational course of action. All other beliefs, while potentially correct, rely on propaganda put forth by people with political objectives.
My only arguement to that is that many of the beliefs that Global Warming IS our fault also rely on propaganda put forth by people with political objectives. I read a story a few months ago that said NASA found signs that the Earth may be entering a cooling period despite Global Warming. They said the overal temperatures in key arctic regions had been edging gradually downward over the last few years and that they found large areas of new growth to glaciers. The same day I also read a story reporting that Global Warming is something that we can not change because we have already done too much damage and it will take 1,000 years of ZERO polution to correct itself... It's an issue we will debate and argue about until the entire planet either melts or freezes solid...
everyone has a political objective. Everyone wants to promote their own. Calling one side or the other "propaganda" serves no one any service in a debate. only facts and figures help.
Many scientists do think that there is global warming. there are many reasons why they think that. there are also many scientists that think that we are not warming at all.
while we try to sort out if we are warming or not, and if so/not why/why not, it is irresponsible to make any form of legislation altering/regulating our life and economy. Not all the facts are in. It would be an uninformed decision.
If you're going to site the source that said it will take 1,000 years of ZERO pollution to undo the damage that we've already done, I don't like the argument that we should quit trying because it's a lost cause. Wouldn't we want to minimize the damage, rather than just give up?
It is a fact that not all scientists agree that global warming even exists. A majority of scientists believe that this is the case. Speculation about a potential cause is the next step, and subsequent testing and research comes after that. The big problem is that this issue isn't as simple as an analysis of data over a number of years which, in the life of our planet, or even our society, is very small. That is the only set of data that currently exists. This is why, beyond our lifetime, we will eventually find better answers, and we will be amused at the debate going on today.
Legislation must act on the information we have currently available. Doctors don't look at a patient and say, "well, he's probably dying, but we're not sure.. let's wait until he's dead and then we'll have our answer." They do the best they can with the information that they have, and hope they get it right. The debate itself is ongoing, and is healthy because it signifies that people are analyzing the information. It is natural that, with the level of information we have, there would be differing opinions. Anyone who says global warming definitely is or is not real is jumping to a conclusion.
Kuzi, I agree that there is propaganda on both sides. On both of these sides, it comes as a result of jumping to a conclusion and then espousing that conclusion as fact. My methodology for sorting it all out is to look at the majority opinions of the experts, as that is the most rational way to act. I sort out propaganda by looking at underlying motives. Businesses which are responsible for the production of pollutants are motivated by an incentive to protect their net income, and therefore will contend that global warming is not real, or at least is not a product of their pollutants. The motives counter to this become a lot more obscure. Are a bunch of tree-huggers just inventing propaganda to spite big business? This makes a lot less sense. Income protection as a motive seems a lot more robust than spite, so I would have to believe that the propaganda would be proportionately skewed. But in all that, I am just drawing a conclusion based on my own analysis and opinion, which again is irresponsible. So once again, the only responsible thing to do is to begin and end analysis with the majority opinion of the experts.
If you're going to site the source that said it will take 1,000 years of ZERO pollution to undo the damage that we've already done, I don't like the argument that we should quit trying because it's a lost cause. Wouldn't we want to minimize the damage, rather than just give up?
It is a fact that not all scientists agree that global warming even exists. A majority of scientists believe that this is the case. Speculation about a potential cause is the next step, and subsequent testing and research comes after that. The big problem is that this issue isn't as simple as an analysis of data over a number of years which, in the life of our planet, or even our society, is very small. That is the only set of data that currently exists. This is why, beyond our lifetime, we will eventually find better answers, and we will be amused at the debate going on today.
Legislation must act on the information we have currently available. Doctors don't look at a patient and say, "well, he's probably dying, but we're not sure.. let's wait until he's dead and then we'll have our answer." They do the best they can with the information that they have, and hope they get it right. The debate itself is ongoing, and is healthy because it signifies that people are analyzing the information. It is natural that, with the level of information we have, there would be differing opinions. Anyone who says global warming definitely is or is not real is jumping to a conclusion.
Kuzi, I agree that there is propaganda on both sides. On both of these sides, it comes as a result of jumping to a conclusion and then espousing that conclusion as fact. My methodology for sorting it all out is to look at the majority opinions of the experts, as that is the most rational way to act. I sort out propaganda by looking at underlying motives. Businesses which are responsible for the production of pollutants are motivated by an incentive to protect their net income, and therefore will contend that global warming is not real, or at least is not a product of their pollutants. The motives counter to this become a lot more obscure. Are a bunch of tree-huggers just inventing propaganda to spite big business? This makes a lot less sense. Income protection as a motive seems a lot more robust than spite, so I would have to believe that the propaganda would be proportionately skewed. But in all that, I am just drawing a conclusion based on my own analysis and opinion, which again is irresponsible. So once again, the only responsible thing to do is to begin and end analysis with the majority opinion of the experts.
No no no, Thats not what I meant Duty, I just meant that on the same day I read the two stories I mentioned that were pretty much exact opposites. One said we had done too much damage already and the other said we had done no damage. My point was that we don't know and neither do the experts.
In responce to your last paragraph, just because there is a majority, doesn't mean that are right... But also income protection plays a VERY large role on the part of scientists who swear we are causing global warming. Think about it, if they are getting millions in grants from the government then come out and say "Global warming is false. There is no threat to our planet." then POOF... The government money is gone... Greed isn't something that only infects people on the political "right".
Comments
IF we should be taxed and how much are always open up for debate ( you all know my opinion on that).
Id even say MOST of us will agree that the Bail outs were not the right way to run this situation.
On a little brighter note I have a rant today that is short but says a lot. Actor David Spade had seen a story on Fox News about how the Phoenix PD was having problems buying weapons for their officers and he went and dropped $100,000 on AR-15's for their agency! It was good to see someone in Hollywood donating money to something that will truly help save lives and do a lot of good for people here in the U.S. Made me think MUCH more highly of David Spade!
all I have to say about this is:
free speech.
they can petition all they want, but as soon as they force him off the air, or shut him up via government mandate, there is a problem.
need i remind you of the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech"
I also seem to remember a very famous H.R. Clinton quote:
"...We have the right to disagree with this administration or any administration..."
I agree with that statement.
I also dont do double standards. the Left had a field day with Bush (as well they should have)
they shouldnt get their panties in a knot when the Right has vocal critics of the left.
and for the record: i agree with the premise of Rush's statement. That is: IF a more communist state is what Obama is after, i hope he fails. this country is about freedom. I hope any restrictions on that freedom would fail.
Have you ever read anything by Noam Chomsky ?
why do you ask?
Chomsky has some interesting views on democracy and I was curious as to if you had ever had a chance to read anything of his work.
He is a Linguist Professor at M.I.T.
and to be honest, bush did have a ton of issues, but Rush was against a bunch of Bush's Ideas (if you listened to the show you would know) At this point id like to point out that there is a HUGE difference between "republican" and "conservative"
there are many issues with the republican party that conservatives have problems with (the spending of the bush era for example)
conservatism is just as much "propaganda" (as you put it) as liberalism is. ( I mean, how many years does the world have to cool before the left understands that global warming is BS) it is a way of thinking that you dont agree with. that does not make it "propaganda." that makes it a disagreement.
and just because "free speech is a so-called myth these days" does not mean that it should be, OR that we should let it be.
I dont like what the KKK has to say about just about anything, but they have the right to say what they want to say. you have to take the good with the bad, and just because you, or anyone else, does not like what rush says should never mean that he should be forced (or pressured) to stop. its his right to speak his mind.
I personally think Al Gore is retarded. his hypocrisy and lack of accurate information when it comes to Global warming is amazing to me.
BUT
he has every right to go out and say what he has to say.
If we, as a nation, try to shut up everyone that we dont agree with politically, then we will lose what makes this country great. Debate, dissent, disagreement, different ideas, a transfer of thoughts all make the USA great. A one party system will never work for long (it never has).
and to be quite honest, we need other parties, other schools of thought, other options at any given moment, to best fit a given situation.
I will never try to shut up anyone's voice when they are spouting their political beliefs.
...even if they are dumb.
I dont want this to turn into a global warming debate.
the point was to pull out a subject that I dont agree with and show that i think that they can still talk about it. this is a debate about free speech, not global warming.
Oh great!! You sure know how to take the air out of my weather balloon Kuzi, thanks, LMAAO
That Eco friendly ?
killed in the most humane way
...the club.
Yeah, you would think that with all that practice each year with these clubs, that Canada would produce some real home run hitters for the Major leagues but alas no.
Maybe if they would pitch the balls a little closer to the ground or something? Or put whiskers on it
What?...
It sure as hell is where I live, I know that !!!
To be clear I meant to agree with Phobic not about global warming being a myth. Although I wouldn't want to base that soley on this winter.
Here we are seeing quit alarming things associated with global warming.
I don't think there is a question of wether it's warming... The question is who / what is causing it to warm.
even if that is not the cause, i dont believe that we are the cause, or that we can do anything about it. There are many theories that it is all cyclical. we just ended a warming cycle and are entering a cooling cycle this year.
long story short is, the case is not closed on global warming. there is not a single person on the planet that can give you a 100% accurate account of what the climate is, or will be. hell, we can hardly predict the weather NEXT TUESDAY
to me it just looks like a way for the government to get us all scared into higher taxes and more regulations on what we can/cannot buy.
on a slightly related note...
if we want a true alternative fuel, we shouldnt be subsidizing what we want to be a fuel. we should be trying to make one of them profitable. Once someone can turn a profit on hydrogen combustion engines (for example) and it is cheap enough for the masses to attain, that will become the fuel of choice. Im all for that. You cant, however, FORCE a market to work. Either it will work or it wont.
But on a more serious note, I agree with ya Kuz! That isn't anyone out there that can tell you 100% that Global Warming is our fault, or that we have nothing to do with it. I do know that our little rock in the universe has been warming since that last ice age, before that it cooled for years and years. At one point the entire planet was warm and covered by water, now it's not. The earth does go in cycles... History has proven that...
But as to your first statement I agree 100%!!! The funny part about the left in this country is that they preach and protest for freedom of speech as long as it goes along with their beliefs. Not once have you heard me complain about Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report and how they bashed Bush and every other Republican cadidate on the planet. That is what they believe and I would damn sure fight for their right to say it. Just like anyone else. I don't see that freedom of speech is dead in this country, in fact I would say it is alive and well! If it was truely dead we wouldn't be here on this forum debating and discussing all the issues we have touched on.
Many scientists do think that there is global warming. there are many reasons why they think that.
there are also many scientists that think that we are not warming at all.
while we try to sort out if we are warming or not, and if so/not why/why not, it is irresponsible to make any form of legislation altering/regulating our life and economy. Not all the facts are in. It would be an uninformed decision.
If you're going to site the source that said it will take 1,000 years of ZERO pollution to undo the damage that we've already done, I don't like the argument that we should quit trying because it's a lost cause. Wouldn't we want to minimize the damage, rather than just give up?
It is a fact that not all scientists agree that global warming even exists. A majority of scientists believe that this is the case. Speculation about a potential cause is the next step, and subsequent testing and research comes after that. The big problem is that this issue isn't as simple as an analysis of data over a number of years which, in the life of our planet, or even our society, is very small. That is the only set of data that currently exists. This is why, beyond our lifetime, we will eventually find better answers, and we will be amused at the debate going on today.
Legislation must act on the information we have currently available. Doctors don't look at a patient and say, "well, he's probably dying, but we're not sure.. let's wait until he's dead and then we'll have our answer." They do the best they can with the information that they have, and hope they get it right. The debate itself is ongoing, and is healthy because it signifies that people are analyzing the information. It is natural that, with the level of information we have, there would be differing opinions. Anyone who says global warming definitely is or is not real is jumping to a conclusion.
Kuzi, I agree that there is propaganda on both sides. On both of these sides, it comes as a result of jumping to a conclusion and then espousing that conclusion as fact. My methodology for sorting it all out is to look at the majority opinions of the experts, as that is the most rational way to act. I sort out propaganda by looking at underlying motives. Businesses which are responsible for the production of pollutants are motivated by an incentive to protect their net income, and therefore will contend that global warming is not real, or at least is not a product of their pollutants. The motives counter to this become a lot more obscure. Are a bunch of tree-huggers just inventing propaganda to spite big business? This makes a lot less sense. Income protection as a motive seems a lot more robust than spite, so I would have to believe that the propaganda would be proportionately skewed. But in all that, I am just drawing a conclusion based on my own analysis and opinion, which again is irresponsible. So once again, the only responsible thing to do is to begin and end analysis with the majority opinion of the experts.
In responce to your last paragraph, just because there is a majority, doesn't mean that are right... But also income protection plays a VERY large role on the part of scientists who swear we are causing global warming. Think about it, if they are getting millions in grants from the government then come out and say "Global warming is false. There is no threat to our planet." then POOF... The government money is gone... Greed isn't something that only infects people on the political "right".