26 replies to this topic

[Timtacious]

The Bible says, "God cannot be mocked" and "Do not repay evil with evil. I (God) will repay!" As a Pittsburgher, you may remember that during the elections in November, we Pennsylvanians were called, "Bible toting, gun loving yahoos!" or words to that effect - so, in essence, they mocked God, The Holy Bible, the second amendment, etc. I believe these recent blizzards ALL OVER the 50 United States (including snow in Hawaii - yes, Hawaii) are God's way of making a mockery of the "Global Warming" farce, just one of Obama and his flunkies many warped and twisted attempts to bilk Americans and the world into walking blindly over the cliff to Socialism and Communism. Score: God: 1, Obama: 0
Go God! YOU ROCK!!!!

I lol'ed.

I was also having fun messing with reactionaries in this FB group: http://www.facebook.com/pages/OBAMA-One ... 5572534029

[Invicta]

God I hate posts like that *facepalm*. How are there so many idiots in the world?

If anyone cares, I am one of the (sadly) few authoritarian socialist Christians in the world. I've actually studied crap like political theory, global climate change, evolution, etc. and formed intelligent opinions. Her blocking Socialism and Communism together, despite the fact that true socialists and true communists hate each other, proves that she has no education on the subject at all. She's just repeating the crap she's picked up from other un-edjucated idiots. If I remember correctly there is a mandate in Genesis given by God to humanity to take care of the plants and animals of the world, to watch over and steward them. So I can definitely see how "Obama and his flunkies" wanting us to take care of the environment is "warped and twisted" from a Christian perspective. Totally makes sense to me...

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

People like Melody Cavanaugh love to talk about cultural "elitists." But what's more elitist than believing that you are the only people who are going to heaven? And how do you think these so-called "Christians" would react if a bearded, long-haired, sandal-wearing hippie and his twelve scruffy followers showed up in their neighborhood preaching peace and brotherly love?

These kinds of people are nothing more than narrow minded, mean spirited, shallow, and petty. They are trivially moral bullies who cheapen religion with their sanctimonious and self-serving rhetoric.

[Learz]

/facedesk.

I mean, I have nothing against her or anyone else, but that was just painful.

And to think, people like that vote.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Not only do they vote, they vote in large numbers. One of the failures of our system is that it is the most extreme elements of society -- on the right and the left -- who basically control our system. Why? Because of primary elections and gerrymandering.

In the vast majority of primary elections only the party faithful come out to vote. That party faithful tends to be either extremely conservative (in the case of Republicans) or extremely liberal (in the case of Democrats). So to get a party's nomination, a politician has to be either one extreme or the other. Then when it comes time for the general election -- in which far more people vote -- there is no candidate who reflects the more moderate, centrist bent of the majority of people. Once upon a time, not so long ago, creatures known as "liberal Republicans" and "conservative Democrats" roamed the land. Their presence guaranteed that the most extreme elements on each side were balanced by a natural gravitational pull towards the center. But no more.

Gerrymandering is the act of drawing the boundaries of a congressional district to ensure that it is "safe" for one party or the other. Every ten years, after the census results have determined the new allocation of congressional seats, the state legislatures redraw the districts. Because of gerrymandering, the vast majority of those seats are not seriously in contention.

There are solutions to each of these problems, and neither would be particularly difficult to implement. The first would be to change the rules of primary elections so that the top two vote-getters, no matter their party, went on to the general election. This would weaken the grip of party extremists on both sides. The second would be to encode into law the idea that congressional districts must have as much geographic and demographic continuity as possible, and take the drawing of those districts' boundaries out of the hands of professional politicians. Instead, they should be drawn by independent panels made up of an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and independents (or, better yet, no party affiliation whatsoever), none of whom may be sitting elected officials.

Anyone want to take bets on whether it will ever happen? http://cn-invicta.co...tyle_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[Evil Rudekker]

And Hawaii is the one state without snow. But they actually expect snow in Hawaii because their mountains are over 9000!

I'm sorry, I'll read that again.

Hawaii's mountains are over 12,000 feet high. Everyone gets snow at 12,000 feet. Except Hawaii, so far, this year.

[Lucas Perry]

People who react like that are annoying.

[Evil Rudekker]

Wait, I had something important to say to Jorost's post...

orite. The problem with the winner-take all system like we have, is what Jorost is talking about. This is not the case everywhere. Some places actually have systems where political minorities are represented. So, if, say, the Nick Gates is Always Right Party get 15% of the votes, they get 15% of the seats.

Instead, my district, the 4th Wisconsin ("The Fightin' Fourth!") is perpetually represented by the Democratic status quo, simply because they're the biggest party in Milwaukee County. My conservative friends effectively have no representation, but then again, as a Christian democrat/social democrat/green, neither do I. The opposite holds with my friends and family in the suburbs, who are represented by a Republican.

It's very very hard to change anything, and this holds even in a town like Milwaukee, where we elected Socialists into the Mayor's office at the height of the Red Scare.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Rudekker is quite correct. And it goes further than that. Because of our bizarre electoral college system of presidential elections, many people's votes effectively do not count.

Consider: My state of Massachusetts is overwhelmingly Democratic (the recent election of Scott Brown notwithstanding). In a presidential election, we can be reliably counted upon to vote for whichever candidate has the D next to his name. So, anyone in Massachusetts who wants to vote for the Republican candidate might as well just stay home, because whether their guy gets 15% of the vote or whether he gets 40% of the vote, it doesn't matter -- all 12 of the Bay State's electoral votes will go to the Democrat.

The situation is the same for Democrats in places like Alabama or Mississippi. And if you happen to favor neither the Democrat nor the Republican, well, you're just shit out of luck no matter where you live.

The electoral college not only perpetuates the stranglehold of the two parties, it has created a situation in which the President of the United States is essentially chosen by the voters in the 15 or so "swing" states. That hardly seems fair.

Try this exercise: Take a group of 30 nine-year-olds and divide them into five unequal groups of, say, 10, 8, 6, 3, and 3. Then tell them that each group has a certain number of "super votes." The group with 10 gets 5, the group with 8 gets 4, the group with 6 gets 3, and the groups with 3 get 1 each, for a total of 14. Now explain to them that they're going to vote to pick either chocolate or vanilla ice cream, but they're going to vote by group, and whichever flavor gets the most votes in a group gets ALL that group's "super votes." The flavor that gets 8 out of 14 "super votes" wins. So, you tell them, even though 18 kids might vote for chocolate and 12 for vanilla, vanilla could still win because it got more "super votes." After you've explained all this, enjoy the few moments of awkward silence that will follow while the children look at you as if you had just suggested in complete seriousness that they all take a shit in their desks. Then try to answer their questions without sounding like an asshole.

[Shotgun Willy]

*yawn* copy/paste from your article

btw, I disagree with your views on the senate in that article. Can't go into detail right now; could be because my Gov & Politics teacher is a hardcore Reaganite, though....

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Ha ha. I didn't think anyone had read it. But anyway a good illustration is a good illustration.

[Thrash]

Answer me this:

If my morning crap which normally occurs at like 6:30AM starts happening at 9:30AM, is that due to Global Warming? I'm sure ya'll can find a way to twist it into that.

Freakin fear mongers.

[Gangsta White Boy]

Us on the right do not want to pollute the enviroment. I am all for clean air and water. But don't blow smoke up my ass that we have to do it due to unproven science (ie. GW). Don't tell me that there is a scientific concensus. First of all, that is patently false. Secondly, even if there was a consensus, that isn't how sciectific theory works. Science does not work on a hand raise of who thinks what. Until there can be no dispute whatsoever, it is just a theory, and a bad one at that. Please don't get me going.....

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Look, consensus is all you ever get in science. There will always be a few experts who disagree about any scientific premise, no matter how widely accepted it is. Hell, as recently as the 1980s you could still find doctors who said that smoking was not bad for you! (Or, for a real laugh, watch a medical show from the 1950s, in which the doctors are often seen smoking while talking to patients. Heh.)

If we sit around and wait for proof that will satisfy everyone it might very well be too late to do anything about it. Personal feelings aside, even if the scientific consensus is wrong isn't it still prudent to proceed as if it were correct? Why not just reduce our carbon emissions anyway? What harm does it do? Better safe than sorry.

But anyway, it wasn't so much Cavanaugh's disbelief of global warming/climate change that sparked this thread. It was the fact that she believes that the recent Mid-Atlantic region snowstorms were somehow God's punishment upon people who do believe it!

And as far as fear-mongering goes, both sides are guilty of that. Depending on who you believe, either the weather will get us or the terrorists will!

[Gangsta White Boy]

Why not just reduce our carbon emissions anyway? What harm does it do? Better safe than sorry.

Because carbon emmision caps will ruin our economy. There is no proof the C02 does any harm. The earth has been at much higher levels in its long history. Have you noticed how it went from global warming to climate change?
THATS BECAUSE THE EARTH HASN"T WARMED OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS!!! That completely contradicted the models....

[Timtacious]

Yeah, we accidentally turned up our "Earth-heating machines" too high in 98, and havn't been able to maintain it enough to keep everyone happy.

[Ptricky]

Let's see how this goes

"Imma let you finish but Bush was the worst president ever.

In all seriousness, I respect your opinion, disagree but would like to , after reading several posts of your members, encourage you to take more time to formulate your thoughts and use proper grammar. Many of you have great opinions and arguments but the ignorant minority really do hurt your cause.

I'd be happy to debate respectfully with any of you as long as the respect is mutual."

I posted this on that facebook group, I love debating.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

It has gone from "global warming" to "climate change" because the situation is more complex than mere warming. Warming trends cause more moisture to be evaporated into the atmosphere, which in turn creates larger storm systems and, in winter, more snow. Because climatology is complex and difficult for those who haven't spent years studying it, this at first seems counter-intuitive. But when you understand the interrelationships of a complex system it makes perfect sense.

There are many, many models and studies that show the rise in overall global temperatures. Now, these trends are over very long periods. Within those long periods it will always be possible to select small periods of temperature decrease, but the overall trend has been irrevocably upwards.

A good -- if monumentally boring -- analysis of this by the Goddard Institute can be found here.

But again, data is only valuable if you are willing to look at it without a pre-set position. So that brings me back to the idea that we are better off to play it safe.

Because carbon emmision caps will ruin our economy.

I don't believe that for a second. Many industrialized countries have higher emissions caps than we do, and their economies are doing just fine. Hell, the new technologies that would be developed in an economy geared to reduce emissions would probably be a huge BOOST to the economy. For example, the United States has an incredible potential to manufacture things like solar panels and wind turbines. I'd rather take the lead on new technologies than cling to old ones.

The only people who stand to lose by taking such a path are the established old-tech industries and mega-corporations. But they are dinosaurs. I'm sure the horse-drawn carriage industry was strongly against the coming of the automobile, too!

[Thrash]

Typical lefty, attack the messenger, and not the message.

[Shotgun Willy]

Obligatory: