Sarah vs Hillary: the Brutal Battle

[quote]ZEB wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side.

Really now, how closely have you looked at Al Gores nonsense? Have you looked at your side with as critical an eye, or did you just tip your head back and swallow?

“A lie repeated enough times becomes the truth”

Lenin[/quote]

Did you actually read my post? I haven’t looked at “Al Gores nonsense” at all, because it’s juts as much nonsense as the links you guys are posting. And what do you mean your side? I haven’t even taken a side. All I’m doing is pointing out nonsense, like faked stats about “31,000” scientists. Besides, even if I wanted to examine either side with a critical eye (now I’m referring to people like the MIT guy here) I couldn’t. I don’t know a thing about climatology. Me examining climatology research by reading through popular articles would be like a climatology examining work on transfinite cardinals by thinking about Hilberts hotel. It wouldn’t go well.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Global Warming - Climate Change - Forecasting - The New York Times… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

Everyone please ignore the above it’s meaningless since it hasn’t been on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or any of the other liberal media.

[/quote]

No, that would be meaningless too. It’s meaningless because it’s not real research. It’s just bullshit agenda pushing of the most obvious sort.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=3&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

A cursory browsing of some of those links makes me think they would be just as easy to take apart as the “31,000 scientist fact” I just took apart (But hey, 31,000 vs 200, what’s the difference?). For example, a quick google search of some of the “PhD’s” on the program given in that first link brings up that they don’t actually hold positions as faculty or researchers anywhere (Yes yes, I saw the guy from MIT). And despite what you or petition people may think, I don’t think that anyone with a degree has an informed opinion about global warming.

The real point is a bunch of popular articles quoting other would-be anti-global warming reports are just as irrelevant as Al Gore’s stupid books. Besides, I never even gave an argument for global warming above. I’m not qualified to do that, and I know it. What I did was question some of the bullshit stats being thrown around here. Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side.

You mean other than the fact that first link, pages 7-28 are lists of the scientists, professors, researchers, faculty, est. est. est. The freaking book is basically a list of scientists with credentials. You obviously never even looked at it and made up what you wanted to believe about it.[/quote]

Trust me, you don’t want me to look closer at this stuff. Let’s have a look though at some of those people you mentioned:

J. Scott Armstrong
Professor at the Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
A Forecasterâ??s View of Climate Change: Methodology Also Counts

Kesten Green
Senior Research Fellow
Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University
Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for

(and those are in the “climatology” workshop)

Marlo Lewis
Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Economic Train Wreck: Regulating CO2 Emissions Under
the Clean Air Act

Ross McKitrick
Associate Professor of Economics
University of Guelph
Calling the Cap-and-Trade Bluff
Public Policy Decision Making

Here’s a doctor:

John Dale Dunn
Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine
Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas
Human Health Effects of Warming and Cooling

Here’s someone probably lacking a higher degree, whose ambiguous title is funny:

David Evans
Formerly of the Australian Greenhouse Office
Carbon Dioxide Not Responsible
for 20th Century Warming

Here are some other amusing speakers:

Cal Beisner
National Spokesman
The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing

Barun Mitra
Founder and Director
Liberty Institute
The Three Eâ??s of Energy: Ethics, Economics and Efficiency

There are also a host of other people on there with no apparent academic or research affiliations.

Of course, there were some one there with PhD’s who did hold academic positions, but I never denied that. There are two points here: first, exaggerating your case by quoting lists that have a few academics but are largely filled with nonscientists doesn’t help your case, second, any list you can provide of real researches who are anti-global warming I can provide lists 10x as long of ones who aren’t (I’ll just start going through faculty lists.)

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=3&ref=world&oref=slogin&oref=slogin… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

A cursory browsing of some of those links makes me think they would be just as easy to take apart as the “31,000 scientist fact” I just took apart (But hey, 31,000 vs 200, what’s the difference?). For example, a quick google search of some of the “PhD’s” on the program given in that first link brings up that they don’t actually hold positions as faculty or researchers anywhere (Yes yes, I saw the guy from MIT). And despite what you or petition people may think, I don’t think that anyone with a degree has an informed opinion about global warming.

The real point is a bunch of popular articles quoting other would-be anti-global warming reports are just as irrelevant as Al Gore’s stupid books. Besides, I never even gave an argument for global warming above. I’m not qualified to do that, and I know it. What I did was question some of the bullshit stats being thrown around here. Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side.

You mean other than the fact that first link, pages 7-28 are lists of the scientists, professors, researchers, faculty, est. est. est. The freaking book is basically a list of scientists with credentials. You obviously never even looked at it and made up what you wanted to believe about it.

Trust me, you don’t want me to look closer at this stuff. Let’s have a look though at some of those people you mentioned:

J. Scott Armstrong
Professor at the Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
A Forecasterâ??s View of Climate Change: Methodology Also Counts

Kesten Green
Senior Research Fellow
Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University
Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for

(and those are in the “climatology” workshop)

[/quote]
wow, guys that know about complex modeling, commenting on complex modeling. Interesting, maybe you don’t see the connection.

economists talking about the economic impact of global warming legislation… interesting.

a medical guy talking about the health impacts of global warming…
sounds pretty relevant

and a host with

most of the ones you even listed were relevant to the discussion.

[quote]

doesn’t help your case, second, any list you can provide of real researches who are anti-global warming I can provide lists 10x as long of ones who aren’t (I’ll just start going through faculty lists.)[/quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

most of the ones you even listed were relevant to the discussion.

[/quote]

That depends on what you mean by “relevant to the discussion”. What is really relevant to the discussion of to what extent human activity is increasing global temperatures at an unsafe rate is just that. The people who are qualified to discuss this are researchers who actually do research on this topic. Any talk of “economic” or “health” implications, while perhaps important to subsidiary debates, is meaningless to this primary question. Whether or not making needed adjustments to our energy usage will have bad economic consequences doesn’t effect whether or not there is man-made global warming. As for the people who do mathematical modeling, just because someone does mathematical modeling doesn’t mean they have an informed opinion about global warming. I know a good deal about mathematical modeling of various sorts and know a good deal of statistics, but I certainly am in no position to evaluate global warming. Why? Because in addition to knowing about mathematical modeling you need to actually know about global warming! For example, I may knows tons about mathematical modeling, but I won’t be able to evaluate the effectiveness of models of multi-electron atoms in quantum mechanics unless I know about quantum mechanics! It is the same thing with climatology issues, without knowledge of the background issues you have no idea what you’re talking about. Now, of course you might say that these people do have the relevant background, and they might, but that’s not clear from there little blurb. Business schools don’t exactly include geophysics and climatology as general education courses.

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

most of the ones you even listed were relevant to the discussion.

That depends on what you mean by “relevant to the discussion”. What is really relevant to the discussion of to what extent human activity is increasing global temperatures at an unsafe rate is just that. The people who are qualified to discuss this are researchers who actually do research on this topic. Any talk of “economic” or “health” implications, while perhaps important to subsidiary debates, is meaningless to this primary question. Whether or not making needed adjustments to our energy usage will have bad economic consequences doesn’t effect whether or not there is man-made global warming.

[/quote]
It is pertinent when one side is making given claims. These are all refuting claims, not making them.

[quote]

As for the people who do mathematical modeling, just because someone does mathematical modeling doesn’t mean they have an informed opinion about global warming. I know a good deal about mathematical modeling of various sorts and know a good deal of statistics, but I certainly am in no position to evaluate global warming. Why? Because in addition to knowing about mathematical modeling you need to actually know about global warming! For example, I may knows tons about mathematical modeling, but I won’t be able to evaluate the effectiveness of models of multi-electron atoms in quantum mechanics unless I know about quantum mechanics! It is the same thing with climatology issues, without knowledge of the background issues you have no idea what you’re talking about. Now, of course you might say that these people do have the relevant background, and they might, but that’s not clear from there little blurb. Business schools don’t exactly include geophysics and climatology as general education courses. [/quote]

Absolutely not true. Have you ever read the book freakonomics?

what you are saying is more true when trying to prove something, but not really necessary for disproving something. For instance, by looking at a given model and it’s variables, you can statistically disprove a model with a given data set using economical tools. You don’t have to know about climate to do this. If you have the data and the model, a good economist or statistician or actuary could give you an informed opinion about the correctness of the model.

I mean that’s what actuaries do. You could give them a set of data about used cars (selling price, make, model, millage, est.) and they could either give you a model to predict selling price with and given desired accuracy, or they could tell they data is insufficient to give an accurate model. You do not need to know about cars to do this.

If you know DOE you can look over an experiment and comment on its correctness in how the experimentation accounts for variables. You do not have to know what the subject even is.

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side.

Really now, how closely have you looked at Al Gores nonsense? Have you looked at your side with as critical an eye, or did you just tip your head back and swallow?

“A lie repeated enough times becomes the truth”

Lenin

Did you actually read my post? I haven’t looked at “Al Gores nonsense” at all, because it’s juts as much nonsense as the links you guys are posting. And what do you mean your side? I haven’t even taken a side. All I’m doing is pointing out nonsense, like faked stats about “31,000” scientists. Besides, even if I wanted to examine either side with a critical eye (now I’m referring to people like the MIT guy here) I couldn’t. I don’t know a thing about climatology. Me examining climatology research by reading through popular articles would be like a climatology examining work on transfinite cardinals by thinking about Hilberts hotel. It wouldn’t go well. [/quote]

Keep back peddling you’re almost out the door.

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NY09Program.pdf

http://icecap.us/

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090114065138.aspx

http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080917152523.aspx

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/a-tempered-view-of-greenlands-gushing-drainpipes/?ex=1215748800&en=8f674850110be7cb&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/200805060

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506084437.aspx

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Global Warming - Climate Change - Forecasting - The New York Times… Read More

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=283994812311134

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131

A cursory browsing of some of those links makes me think they would be just as easy to take apart as the “31,000 scientist fact” I just took apart (But hey, 31,000 vs 200, what’s the difference?). For example, a quick google search of some of the “PhD’s” on the program given in that first link brings up that they don’t actually hold positions as faculty or researchers anywhere (Yes yes, I saw the guy from MIT). And despite what you or petition people may think, I don’t think that anyone with a degree has an informed opinion about global warming.

The real point is a bunch of popular articles quoting other would-be anti-global warming reports are just as irrelevant as Al Gore’s stupid books. Besides, I never even gave an argument for global warming above. I’m not qualified to do that, and I know it. What I did was question some of the bullshit stats being thrown around here. Throwing more shaky popular articles at me isn’t exactly going to sway me towards the anti-global warming side.

You mean other than the fact that first link, pages 7-28 are lists of the scientists, professors, researchers, faculty, est. est. est. The freaking book is basically a list of scientists with credentials. You obviously never even looked at it and made up what you wanted to believe about it.

Trust me, you don’t want me to look closer at this stuff. Let’s have a look though at some of those people you mentioned:

J. Scott Armstrong
Professor at the Wharton School
University of Pennsylvania
A Forecasterâ??s View of Climate Change: Methodology Also Counts

Kesten Green
Senior Research Fellow
Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University
Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for

(and those are in the “climatology” workshop)

Marlo Lewis
Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Economic Train Wreck: Regulating CO2 Emissions Under
the Clean Air Act

Ross McKitrick
Associate Professor of Economics
University of Guelph
Calling the Cap-and-Trade Bluff
Public Policy Decision Making

Here’s a doctor:

John Dale Dunn
Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine
Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas
Human Health Effects of Warming and Cooling

Here’s someone probably lacking a higher degree, whose ambiguous title is funny:

David Evans
Formerly of the Australian Greenhouse Office
Carbon Dioxide Not Responsible
for 20th Century Warming

Here are some other amusing speakers:

Cal Beisner
National Spokesman
The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Remember the Poor: A Christian Perspective on Energy Rationing

Barun Mitra
Founder and Director
Liberty Institute
The Three Eâ??s of Energy: Ethics, Economics and Efficiency

There are also a host of other people on there with no apparent academic or research affiliations.

Of course, there were some one there with PhD’s who did hold academic positions, but I never denied that. There are two points here: first, exaggerating your case by quoting lists that have a few academics but are largely filled with nonscientists doesn’t help your case, second, any list you can provide of real researches who are anti-global warming I can provide lists 10x as long of ones who aren’t (I’ll just start going through faculty lists.)[/quote]

Yes, if only they had the background of say some like hmm, AL GORE.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I read your article on Global warming, I found it interesting and could not discredit in any way, like I say my mind is not made up on that particular subject.

Someone is right and someone is wrong on this (like most other) topic. I submit to you that the global warming farce is brought to you by a bunch of politically correct egg heads for a myriad of reasons. Glad you found the article interesting. There are over 32,000 (and growing) scientists who think that there is no man made global warming, I tend to agree.

You term Group think is most evident in these forums , the GROUP is Republican with a strong Libertarian streak, and a couple right wing Wackos, Most of them agree on Abortion, Anti Poor, and that any body that does not see things the way the group dictates is to be ridiculed and deemed not as intelligent as the GROUP. I see it differently, I see the GROUP as being incapable (for the most part) of original thought

I was speaking about the politically correct, not this forum. There are credible scientists who have taken a brave stand against the nonsense of global warming. However, there are other topics where those who stand outside the politically correct dare not say a word. You won’t hear about them on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or any of the other mainstream media outlets.

Oh please, do not be disappointed :slight_smile: Right now we are in a major recession, and there is no way to break even. (Ask Any State).The last two Presidents that balanced the budget did not do so by cutting expenditures. They did it by creating the environment that creates a robust economy.

The only President I ever saw treat the economy any other way than you would run a business was George W Bush , even his Dad knew if you increase spending you have to increase taxes.

GH Bush was a domestic policy failure as President. But keep this in mind your hero Obama has raised the national debt more in just 10 months than the previous 5 Presidents {b]COMBINED[/b]. Why oh why does he think it’s a good idea to spend money in this fashion? How much longer can this country spend at these rates before the inevitable happens? On top of all of this he wants to have national health care, cost- 950 BILLION! This is a seriously bad President who lacks not only judgement, but experience and a strong knowledge of history. Have you been watching the value of the dollar tumble? We are in terrible economic shape and all he can do is think of more ways to spend money. It’s mind blowing, it is.

I have heard many Republicans say our health care system is broke that it is unsustainable, that we need to fix it. But they are afraid to do so, because the Insurance and Pharm companies have them by the balls

There are many people who think that the health care system needs to be improved, I am one of those people. But, there are very few republicans who actually believe that we should throw out the best health care system in the world for a government run mess. Why not fix what we have? What’s the rush for government control? As I’ve said when the government gives you something the money to do it does not fall from the sky it comes out of hard working Americans pocketbooks. It’s bad for the economy, bad for the democratic party (voters will punish them) and ultimately bad for the very people it’s supposed to help as they will lose rights. National heath care is a tremendously BAD idea and I pray it be defeated in the senate.

Glen Beck may or may not be a liar but he is truley an IDIOT.

Thank God for a free press, you can be an idiot and still be heard. But, you said he was a liar and you have NOT proven that. I do not believe him to be a liar, a showman Yes.

I think most people are going to side with me on Cheney; this is not a legal proceeding. I and most Americans feel he profited handsomely from the rise in Halliburton stock. I can not prove anything , this is a court of public opinion.

Ten thousand people saying that they spoke to martians does not make it so. You and other left wingers can say what you want, and you do with ZERO proof, or in this case even a scintilla of evidence. This is what venomous creatures like Michael Moore has brought us. A society that deems it alright to destroy a persons reputation with ZERO PROOF, just because you disagree with them on policy matters. They call it the politics of personal destruction, and you are participating in it.

It seems okay in your eyes to pound republicans with every dam lie you can think of, it’s even cool in some circles. The good part is you never ever have to back it up, just say it enough times and it becomes truth at least with fringe types and some young people who don’t know any better . It is ignorant to think that Cheney or Bush prospered because of Iraq, and it’s also cruel to continue to beat a drum that does not now and never did have any merit. This is shameful on your part and no doubt one reason why more good Americans do not get involved in politics, people like you casting ridiculous unfounded assertions. Things that you just know must be true because you’ve heard it from scum like Michael Moore or moveon.org, and why not you disagree with their policy anyway they must be evil, since you and yours are so very virtuous. This more than any other part of current American politics makes me sick.

[/quote]

Like I say, I can not find any thing with that article that I am qualified to disagree with, but I did ask you a question. The question was, if I were to sign the petition would that list of Scientists grow to 30,001? Meaning would I be another scientist signing on?

I know you were speaking about the (LIBERALS) but I was making the point that the people that call themselves (CONSERVITIVE) on this forum and others are as culpable.

Our dollar is devalued by many factors and most were from George Bush. Obama is not my hero (YET). He has many things to do before he is my hero. Like I said earlier L.B.J. and Bill Clinton (BOTH DEMACRAT) did not balance the budget my draconian cuts to our services. They did it by stimulating the economy to where it was robust enough to generate all moneys needed, Health Care could be that Boom.

On health care, I know three people that are vehemently opposed to Health Care Reform . One works for the City of Tempe AZ. The other is retired Military and the other is an employee at a major Airport. All three of their employers are what I would call social programs. And they are afraid of Socialized Medicine.

I heard yesterday that almost fifty percent of all health care is paid for by tax dollars.

As far as Glen beck being a liar, I think he spreads disinformation, I donâ??t think that requires much of a stretch to call him a liar. Here are a couple of ladies that would agree with me , Whoopie would have been my hero if she would have kicked his butt:)

I agree, it does not matter how many people agree that some thing is right. That is why I prefer reasoning over rhetoric. Would you not agree that it would be highly unlikely that a former CEO would have some stock put away of his former company ? I would call it highly probable

Why Do you not hold Glen Beck to the same standard you hold Michael Moore

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Like I say, I can not find any thing with that article that I am qualified to disagree with, but I did ask you a question. The question was, if I were to sign the petition would that list of Scientists grow to 30,001? Meaning would I be another scientist signing on?

I know you were speaking about the (LIBERALS) but I was making the point that the people that call themselves (CONSERVITIVE) on this forum and others are as culpable.

Our dollar is devalued by many factors and most were from George Bush. Obama is not my hero (YET). He has many things to do before he is my hero. Like I said earlier L.B.J. and Bill Clinton (BOTH DEMACRAT) did not balance the budget my draconian cuts to our services. They did it by stimulating the economy [/quote] Clinton rode a dot com bubble and use newt’s budget [quote] to where it was robust enough to generate all moneys needed, Health Care could be that Boom.

[/quote] Okay if they do have the health care thing figured out, why not start by fixing current government healthcare. Once they show they can run that, we talk about expansion?[quote]

On health care, I know three people that are vehemently opposed to Health Care Reform . One works for the City of Tempe AZ. The other is retired Military and the other is an employee at a major Airport. All three of their employers are what I would call social programs. And they are afraid of Socialized Medicine.

[/quote]Swing and a miss. All three have to provide a service in order to be covered. That makes it the completely un-socialized medicine. Now, if they got care out of shear fact they were born (entitled), then it would be socialized. They, however, are being compensated for a service. It is no more socialized than their paycheck[quote]

I heard yesterday that almost fifty percent of all health care is paid for by tax dollars.

As far as Glen beck being a liar, I think he spreads disinformation, I don’t think that requires much of a stretch to call him a liar. Here are a couple of ladies that would agree with me , Whoopie would have been my hero if she would have kicked his butt:)

[/quote]I like whoopee too. Something about an intellectual underdog that brings my sympathy.[quote]

I agree, it does not matter how many people agree that some thing is right. That is why I prefer reasoning over rhetoric. Would you not agree that it would be highly unlikely that a former CEO would have some stock put away of his former company ? I would call it highly probable

Why Do you not hold Glen Beck to the same standard you hold Michael Moore

[/quote]

Why don’t you?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Like I say, I can not find any thing with that article that I am qualified to disagree with, but I did ask you a question. The question was, if I were to sign the petition would that list of Scientists grow to 30,001? Meaning would I be another scientist signing on?

I know you were speaking about the (LIBERALS) but I was making the point that the people that call themselves (CONSERVITIVE) on this forum and others are as culpable.

Our dollar is devalued by many factors and most were from George Bush. Obama is not my hero (YET). He has many things to do before he is my hero. Like I said earlier L.B.J. and Bill Clinton (BOTH DEMACRAT) did not balance the budget my draconian cuts to our services. They did it by stimulating the economy Clinton rode a dot com bubble and use newt’s budget to where it was robust enough to generate all moneys needed, Health Care could be that Boom.

Okay if they do have the health care thing figured out, why not start by fixing current government healthcare. Once they show they can run that, we talk about expansion?

On health care, I know three people that are vehemently opposed to Health Care Reform . One works for the City of Tempe AZ. The other is retired Military and the other is an employee at a major Airport. All three of their employers are what I would call social programs. And they are afraid of Socialized Medicine.

Swing and a miss. All three have to provide a service in order to be covered. That makes it the completely un-socialized medicine. Now, if they got care out of shear fact they were born (entitled), then it would be socialized. They, however, are being compensated for a service. It is no more socialized than their paycheck

I heard yesterday that almost fifty percent of all health care is paid for by tax dollars.

As far as Glen beck being a liar, I think he spreads disinformation, I don’t think that requires much of a stretch to call him a liar. Here are a couple of ladies that would agree with me , Whoopie would have been my hero if she would have kicked his butt:)

I like whoopee too. Something about an intellectual underdog that brings my sympathy.

I agree, it does not matter how many people agree that some thing is right. That is why I prefer reasoning over rhetoric. Would you not agree that it would be highly unlikely that a former CEO would have some stock put away of his former company ? I would call it highly probable

Why Do you not hold Glen Beck to the same standard you hold Michael Moore

Why don’t you?
[/quote]

What is this a tag team :slight_smile:

I think the main problem with health care in America is cost control. I think the easiest way to remedy that is a public option. It would set a bench mark for private insurers to shoot for. It could only be a plus for the consumer.

I think you only think I missed , I did not say they had socialized medicine I said their jobs were all supported by tax payers thus their livelihood is dependent on Americaâ??s social programs .

I would have loved Whoopee if she would have beaten him up. She did not do that so she made no gains in my esteem of her

I think I do take Beck and Moore in a similar vain. I do not think Moore is the out and out liar that Beck is, but I do feel Moore practices an art of disinformation.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

What is this a tag team :slight_smile:

I think the main problem with health care in America is cost control. I think the easiest way to remedy that is a public option. It would set a bench mark for private insurers to shoot for. It could only be a plus for the consumer.

[/quote]
The public option will probably be more expensive that private coverage. That doesn’t do much for cost control.

Not to mention things like eliminating pre-existing conditions is going to drive up costs.

The only thing in the current bill that looks to control cost is increasing the pool size by mandating coverage and fining/jailing people who don’t get it. And I find that part to be a slight infringement on liberty.

Real reform for cost control would include tort reform, and an elimination and laws that prevent interstate competition.

It is dependent on taxes and them providing a service. it is not dependent ant on social programs.

lol. right. Moore doesn’t outright lie.

I saw an interview with him talking about European taxes versus US taxes. he stated Europeans pay less in taxes than we do. He then went on to claim outrageous things like that the french only pay about 10% of their income to taxes. These were 100% outright lies.

transcript: CNN.com - Transcripts

the tax burden for a single person with no kids is over 50% of income in France (almost double what it is here) and it’s about 4 times larger for married people with 2 kids.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp

I for one think Moore is the worse of the 2 when it comes to playing loose with the facts, I however admittedly don’t listen to either much.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

What is this a tag team :slight_smile:

I think the main problem with health care in America is cost control. I think the easiest way to remedy that is a public option. It would set a bench mark for private insurers to shoot for. It could only be a plus for the consumer.

The public option will probably be more expensive that private coverage. That doesn’t do much for cost control.

Not to mention things like eliminating pre-existing conditions is going to drive up costs.

The only thing in the current bill that looks to control cost is increasing the pool size by mandating coverage and fining/jailing people who don’t get it. And I find that part to be a slight infringement on liberty.

Real reform for cost control would include tort reform, and an elimination and laws that prevent interstate competition.

I think you only think I missed , I did not say they had socialized medicine I said their jobs were all supported by tax payers thus their livelihood is dependent on America�¢??s social programs.

It is dependent on taxes and them providing a service. it is not dependent ant on social programs.

I would have loved Whoopee if she would have beaten him up. She did not do that so she made no gains in my esteem of her

I think I do take Beck and Moore in a similar vain. I do not think Moore is the out and out liar that Beck is, but I do feel Moore practices an art of disinformation.

lol. right. Moore doesn’t outright lie.

I saw an interview with him talking about European taxes versus US taxes. he stated Europeans pay less in taxes than we do. He then went on to claim outrageous things like that the french only pay about 10% of their income to taxes. These were 100% outright lies.

transcript: CNN.com - Transcripts

the tax burden for a single person with no kids is over 50% of income in France (almost double what it is here) and it’s about 4 times larger for married people with 2 kids.

I for one think Moore is the worse of the 2 when it comes to playing loose with the facts, I however admittedly don’t listen to either much.[/quote]

I disagree that the public option would be more expensive, there would be no dividends to pay to stock holders no exorbitant wages or no profit. Profit is thirty percent of all medical insurance ? I agree with tort reform and interstate competition.

The Military, City Government and Airports are all programs designed for the Social benefits of the citizens; they are (with the exception of some Airports) all non profit and paid for by the Tax payer.

We disagree about Moore, I do think he practices disinformation but he either has a much better editor than Beck or he is way more intelligent. If you are going to be a liar, be one that is not despicable and donâ??t get caught in all your lies. I find Beck repugnant

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I disagree that the public option would be more expensive, there would be no dividends to pay to stock holders no exorbitant wages or no profit. Profit is thirty percent of all medical insurance ? I agree with tort reform and interstate competition.

[/quote]
Just massive government inefficiency and fraud.

According to CBO estimates, the bill that passed the house’s public option would have higher premiums. Not that these estimates are really reliable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125694764832619997.html

Doesn’t make them receiving medical care socialist.

Did you read his interview I posted?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I disagree that the public option would be more expensive, there would be no dividends to pay to stock holders no exorbitant wages or no profit. Profit is thirty percent of all medical insurance ? I agree with tort reform and interstate competition.

Just massive government inefficiency and fraud.

According to CBO estimates, the bill that passed the house’s public option would have higher premiums. Not that these estimates are really reliable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125694764832619997.html

The Military, City Government and Airports are all programs designed for the Social benefits of the citizens; they are (with the exception of some Airports) all non profit and paid for by the Tax payer.

Doesn’t make them receiving medical care socialist.

We disagree about Moore, I do think he practices disinformation but he either has a much better editor than Beck or he is way more intelligent. If you are going to be a liar, be one that is not despicable and don�¢??t get caught in all your lies. I find Beck repugnant

Did you read his interview I posted?[/quote]

I did not say their medical was socialist, I was connecting the Dots that their job by definition is Socialist.

Time will tell, One of my problems with the way this bill is going through is it is strictly a Democrat bill, The Republicans only contribution is negative I am sure they have many fine Ideas but do not want Obama to get credit for anything , so they are dragging the bill down. It is possible that after they get the bill passed they can tweak it to make it a good bill.

I did not read any interview; I did watch the Katie Couric interview.