SOTU Address

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
63

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]hedo wrote:

Nah he glared at the Republican side of the house, he didn’t smile at the Democrats with his smartass snicker. People openly mock this guy, both here and abroad. He is not taken seriously and that is entirely his fault not the Republicans. His extemporaneous retort to them was “even if you don’t believe in it, it’s still a good idea”. He wouldn’t have defended his statement if it wasn’t being ridiculed. Plain to see in the tape.
[/quote]

I watched it too. That’s not what happened.

As they should have been for that awful decision.

[quote]
In all seriousness you still don’t believe in Global Warming do you? And if you do, do you think the Cap and Trade bill would actually fix it?[/quote]

You are fool if you don’t believe in global warming. The thing is how much people have to do with it.

And I don’t know if Cap and trade will fix it… I’m not certain that it’s a manmade problem,with a man-made solution.

But it is definitely happening, no doubt about it. [/quote]

Huge doubts about whether it is happening. Faulty measurements, lost and discarded data by psuedo scientists with dubious motivations is more then enough to make global warming a belief, not a theory that can be proven or replicated. Cap and Trade won’t fix anything and thinking humans can stop the weather or do anything about changing is nothing more than a hope.

Here’s a link to a paper that analyzes how the measurement fraud was perpetrated.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

Are you saying he didn’t respond to the laughter at some of his comments? I guess his “that’s how budgeting works” comment was also a response to laughter towards him that didn’t happen when he talked about a spending freeze. Come on it’s plain to see he is being mocked by legislators and I don’t recall that happening to this degree before.

64

[quote]pat wrote:
The first 15 minutes was just fucking painful to watch…It did improve around the middle before it dived at the end…Bottom line, he didn’t do himself any favors. Especially when he was bragging about how good he did wit the stimulus, yet most people think is was a waste. He made some slight concessions, but honestly I am glad he remained as polarizing as he did…It should not effect what should be a detrimental mid term election. If he loses a majority in either house, his agenda is done. He will have to negotiate and compromise on everything.

My favorite part is how he was telling the democrats not to worry about getting reelected…Have the “courage” to shove his agenda through even if it costs them their jobs…We’ll see how many jump on that bandwagon. [/quote]

I’m glad he stuck to his guns too, in a way. The momentum has been blunted but his idealogy and inexperience is keeping him moving in the same direction. This bodes well for 2010. At least at that point the Republicans can take the house and a good portion of the Senate back from the Dems and restore some balance. At that point they will actually have to talk and compromise to get anything done.

Obama won’t be able to drive the real wacky left wing bullshit through congress after 2010, he knows that too. I also think he is a one termer and probably gave the Republicans more then enough ammo to keep a radical lefty out of the presidency for another 20 years.

65

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Harry Reid yawning said it all.
[/quote]

I love the quick cut away from him, lol.[/quote]

Harry Reid wasn’t impressed. He only believes his own bullshit.

66

Rasmussen, which is by far the most meaningful polling outfit due to the very effective methods they use, has everything significant this crew has touched in a flaming tailspin. Take a look around. The daily presidential approval index is at -17 post SOTUA. This nation hasn’t been completely lobotomized quite yet.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

67

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Rasmussen, which is by far the most meaningful polling outfit due to the very effective methods they use, has everything significant this crew has touched in a flaming tailspin. Take a look around. The daily presidential approval index is at -17 post SOTUA. This nation hasn’t been completely lobotomized quite yet.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/[/quote]

Even dogs know enough to leave the room when someone is ripping nasty farts.

68

[quote]hedo wrote:

Huge doubts about whether it is happening. Faulty measurements, lost and discarded data by psuedo scientists with dubious motivations is more then enough to make global warming a belief, not a theory that can be proven or replicated. Cap and Trade won’t fix anything and thinking humans can stop the weather or do anything about changing is nothing more than a hope.

Here’s a link to a paper that analyzes how the measurement fraud was perpetrated.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
[/quote]

Maybe you have huge doubts that it’s happening. Which is fine I guess… really ignorant and kind of embarrassing for you, but then I’m sure there were people that insisted the world was flat into the 1800s.

There is unequivocal proof that it’s happening- no more snows on Kilmanjaro, no more ice on the North Pole in the summer, no more glaciers where there should be. That shit doesn’t happen because nothing is changing.

69

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

really ignorant and kind of embarrassing for you, [hedo] [/quote]

yep.

70

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
There is unequivocal proof that it’s happening- no more snows on Kilmanjaro, [/quote]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania have been diminishing for more than a century but probably not due to global warming, researchers report.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1225401620070612[/quote]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
no more ice on the North Pole in the summer, [/quote]

North Pole: ice 100% thicker than expected

Under normal conditions, the ice is formed within two years and ends up being slightly above 2 meters of thickness. “Here, the thickness was as high as four meters,” said the spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven. According to the scientists, this conclusion seems to contradict the warming of the ocean water.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/04/north-pole-ice-100-thicker-than.html

[i]He said: �¢??I don�¢??t think it�¢??s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can�¢??t be changed.�¢??

He said that the false claim in the IPCC�¢??s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

�¢??Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There�¢??s definitely an issue there. If there wasn�¢??t, there wouldn�¢??t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, �¢??There�¢??s a level of uncertainty about that�¢??.�¢?? [/i]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
That shit doesn’t happen because nothing is changing.[/quote]

I don’t think there’s any disputing that cyclical climate change on relative micro- and macro- time scales is real. It happens. Period.

Those things you mention are not as cut and dry as you might think. There is dispute amongst the scientists who study these things.

The dispute is whether there is a “man-made” factor in this change. This is, by far, NOT wholly supported uniformly in the scientific community, regardless of the skew in the way it’s reported in all media.

If, then, the man-made factor is in question (even by you), then how can there be any justification in:

  • Laws, proposed or passed, punishing or regulating things that are questionably significant to “climate change”,

  • Taxes, proposed or levied, " "

  • Complete dismissal of the view that natural climate change is affected by humans at all.

71

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]hedo wrote:

Huge doubts about whether it is happening. Faulty measurements, lost and discarded data by psuedo scientists with dubious motivations is more then enough to make global warming a belief, not a theory that can be proven or replicated. Cap and Trade won’t fix anything and thinking humans can stop the weather or do anything about changing is nothing more than a hope.

Here’s a link to a paper that analyzes how the measurement fraud was perpetrated.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
[/quote]

Maybe you have huge doubts that it’s happening. Which is fine I guess… really ignorant and kind of embarrassing for you, but then I’m sure there were people that insisted the world was flat into the 1800s.

There is unequivocal proof that it’s happening- no more snows on Kilmanjaro, no more ice on the North Pole in the summer, no more glaciers where there should be. That shit doesn’t happen because nothing is changing.

[/quote]

It’s funny how when more ice than expected melts: “GLOBAL WARMING, THE SKY IS FALLING”

When it re-freezes at a record pace and sets record levels: “SHH! nothing to see here, move along.”

I’m also curious, in your opinion what is the “proper” place for glaciers?

72

Whatever his fellow travelers are saying, would be the real answer.

You can see for yourself that on matters such as Arctic ice, or glaciers, or really anything at all, he gets his information from group-think, not from actually learning for himself the first thing about the matter. And this is typical of those espousing his positions.

The only further thing in that area is that nut-hugging probably outweighs group-think in the decision making (so to speak) process, although outcome is the same either way in those matters where nut-hugging is involved. Global warming isn’t one of those categories, though for example if Obama were being criticized for a given GW statement then it would be involved. I mention this additional factor just so as to be complete.

73

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]hedo wrote:

Huge doubts about whether it is happening. Faulty measurements, lost and discarded data by psuedo scientists with dubious motivations is more then enough to make global warming a belief, not a theory that can be proven or replicated. Cap and Trade won’t fix anything and thinking humans can stop the weather or do anything about changing is nothing more than a hope.

Here’s a link to a paper that analyzes how the measurement fraud was perpetrated.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
[/quote]

Maybe you have huge doubts that it’s happening. Which is fine I guess… really ignorant and kind of embarrassing for you, but then I’m sure there were people that insisted the world was flat into the 1800s.

There is unequivocal proof that it’s happening- no more snows on Kilmanjaro, no more ice on the North Pole in the summer, no more glaciers where there should be. That shit doesn’t happen because nothing is changing.

[/quote]

The question isn’t whether or not he climate changes it’s whether man made it change. Climate change is part of the natural cycle of the earth and the sun. It’s been doing the for the better part of 4.5 billion years. Man made climate change science has been the most pathetic attempt at a power grab based on junk science ever seen. It you want to drive a prius, and no exhale go right the fuck ahead, it ain’t going to do a fucking thing for the environment.

74

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Rasmussen, which is by far the most meaningful polling outfit due to the very effective methods they use, has everything significant this crew has touched in a flaming tailspin. Take a look around. The daily presidential approval index is at -17 post SOTUA. This nation hasn’t been completely lobotomized quite yet.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/[/quote]

Even dogs know enough to leave the room when someone is ripping nasty farts.[/quote]

Who would have ever thought (I admittedly did not) that with unstoppable command of the legislative and executive branches these clods would succeed in relatively little beyond self destruction. I would have bet money that by now we would have a wholesale invasion of the medical industry and de facto federal ownership of the means of energy production through cap n trade and thereby the end of anything like American liberty.

I celebrate the grotesque failures as victories for freedom. So far.

75

[quote]hedo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The first 15 minutes was just fucking painful to watch…It did improve around the middle before it dived at the end…Bottom line, he didn’t do himself any favors. Especially when he was bragging about how good he did wit the stimulus, yet most people think is was a waste. He made some slight concessions, but honestly I am glad he remained as polarizing as he did…It should not effect what should be a detrimental mid term election. If he loses a majority in either house, his agenda is done. He will have to negotiate and compromise on everything.

My favorite part is how he was telling the democrats not to worry about getting reelected…Have the “courage” to shove his agenda through even if it costs them their jobs…We’ll see how many jump on that bandwagon. [/quote]

I’m glad he stuck to his guns too, in a way. The momentum has been blunted but his idealogy and inexperience is keeping him moving in the same direction. This bodes well for 2010. At least at that point the Republicans can take the house and a good portion of the Senate back from the Dems and restore some balance. At that point they will actually have to talk and compromise to get anything done.

Obama won’t be able to drive the real wacky left wing bullshit through congress after 2010, he knows that too. I also think he is a one termer and probably gave the Republicans more then enough ammo to keep a radical lefty out of the presidency for another 20 years.[/quote]

20 years? I doubt it. Maybe 4…America has the shortest memory on the planet… I do not want super conservatism either. I want liberty oriented people not people who want to campaign on family values or the Christian coallition. I want somebody to campaign on “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone”.

76

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Whatever his fellow travelers are saying, would be the real answer.

You can see for yourself that on matters such as Arctic ice, or glaciers, or really anything at all, he gets his information from group-think, not from actually learning for himself the first thing about the matter. And this is typical of those espousing his positions.

The only further thing in that area is that nut-hugging probably outweighs group-think in the decision making (so to speak) process, although outcome is the same either way in those matters where nut-hugging is involved. Global warming isn’t one of those categories, though for example if Obama were being criticized for a given GW statement then it would be involved. I mention this additional factor just so as to be complete. [/quote]

Hey fuckwad, who’s toeing the party line here? It isn’t me. I’m not saying it’s people that are doing this, or CO2 levels from man made sources. I’m just saying that it is happening.

Personally I’ve become more of a subscriber to the idea that the Earth just does things like this due to orbital tilt, distance from the sun, activity of the sun, etc.

But no, obviously I’m subscribing to “group think.” From the guy that’s choking down everyone’s dick here and doesn’t disagree with anything a fellow neocon says. OK buddy.

77

And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.

78

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.

79

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]

It was a setup for cap and tax in the speech.

80

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.

81

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]

How about until it is invented we use our own resources?

82

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And by the way- I hated the part about nuclear power and offshore drilling. Very dissapointing. I don’t know where that came from or why he brought it up.[/quote]
Because it makes sense? Hmmm, buy oil from a bunch of arabs who want to kill us, or drill with in our own borders? Gee, what to do.[/quote]

How about invest in newer, cleaner technologies and do neither? Just an option.[/quote]

How about until it is invented we use our own resources? [/quote]

I agree with you but without investing in the new tech, no one will ever invent anything. This is one of those things where we need to take some risk and try new things. At the same time, while those new techs are being tested we should be using our own resources.