magekillr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjPgnDT-2Sg I'm an atheist, but I'll quote a Bible verse that matches this video: ~Matthew 18:3-4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSKcq5U_MLs YAY!

Did... Did you even read his posts? *sigh* If you're just going to post to accuse him of being a far-right radical without actually addressing his post's content you're worse than he is. Never mind that the original thread isn't about some Republican president, either. It's Obama extending the patriot act. Of course I read his posts. He supports Obama extending the Patriot Act, and has said, and I quote: I addressed this in my post. They're not using it just for terrorism, and are in fact using it far more when it comes to law enforcement. Besides, as MLK once said: These are basic civil liberties, and they extend to not only me, but to our enemies as well. No one should cheer lead the erosion of our Constitution. Does it look like I care who extends it? I vote for ideology, not party. I can't wait until the Democrats lose a lot of their people in the House and the Senate. Sure, the Republicans are bat [cabbage] insane and far to the right barring a select few (Olympia Snowe is center-right, like a lot of Southern Democrats, for example), but maybe they'll realize what Ted Kennedy said is true and has always been true: I voted for Obama, but he lost my support a long time ago; he barely had it to begin with, he's a conservative. The only area I can even commend him is foreign policy (and I'd give him an A+), and a lot of people on my side hate him for that (I think it's wrong to leave Afghanistan, just as I thought it was wrong for Reagan to leave them in the 1980's. It's his fault the country is in such a mess). The man trashes the Constitution just as much as Bush. He's not quite as bad, but his civil liberties record has been appalling. He's a chicken weakling who backs down at the slightest bit of controversy. And when it comes to the current Republican party, that includes anything he wants to do. This trial balloon makes me want to throw up: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/05/obama/index.html Yeah, he hasn't backed down yet, but just the mere act of throwing up a trial balloon shows weakness. Why the trial balloons? Why not fight back against these idiots in Congress, and take it straight to the American people...bring families who had victims involved to fight with you, I'm sure they want justice.

Once again, radical-right wing nationalists like 321Ownage talk about "big government" and how much they love small government, yet they love gigantic defense budgets, and they love giving the executive power that violates their own rights in the Constitution. You don't know anyone is a terrorist until after their trial when the judge/jury says they are, but here he is, saying only terrorists have something to worry about. Never mind the fact that the Patriot Act isn't only used for terrorism, and is used in regular police work: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/09/doj_admits_abuse_of_patriot_ac.php Never mind the fact that Sprint just handed over information to the government regarding their geo-tracking system, where 50 million customers were tracked 8 million times: http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html Never mind the millions of abuses regarding emails... The list is getting rather large, and here the small government conservatives are, cheering this government abuse on. This is why whenever I hear some Republican talking about small government, I know they're full of [cabbage]. What they mean by small government is "lower the tax rate to zero, but spy on me all you want. oh, and ramp up the police state to overdrive with more military funding." White male suburban bubbles, they're really hard to pop.

The climate "debate" is snake oil salesmen versus scientists. Just thought I'd point this out: FACT: U.S. Agency for International Development United States Department of Agriculture National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration National Institute of Standards and Technology United States Department of Defense United States Department of Energy National Institutes of Health United States Department of State United States Department of Transportation U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Environmental Protection Agency University Corporation for Atmospheric Research National Center for Atmospheric Research National Aeronautics & Space Administration National Science Foundation Smithsonian Institution International Arctic Science Committee Arctic Council African Academy of Sciences Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias Cameroon Academy of Sciences Royal Society of Canada Caribbean Academy of Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences Académie des Sciences, France Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy Indian National Science Academy Science Council of Japan Kenya National Academy of Sciences Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academia Mexicana de Ciencias Nigerian Academy of Sciences Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences Russian Academy of Sciences l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Academy of Science of South Africa Sudan Academy of Sciences Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Tanzania Academy of Sciences Turkish Academy of Sciences Uganda National Academy of Sciences The Royal Society of the United Kingdom National Academy of Sciences, United States Zambia Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Science American Academy of Pediatrics American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American College of Preventive Medicine American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Medical Association American Meteorological Society American Physical Society American Public Health Association American Quaternary Association American Institute of Biological Sciences American Society of Agronomy American Society for Microbiology American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Botanical Society of America Crop Science Society of America Ecological Society of America Federation of American Scientists Geological Society of America National Association of Geoscience Teachers Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations Society of American Foresters Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America Australian Coral Reef Society Australian Medical Association Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Engineers Australia Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of Australia British Antarctic Survey Institute of Biology, UK Royal Meteorological Society, UK Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society European Science Foundation International Association for Great Lakes Research International Union for Quaternary Research International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change World Federation of Public Health Associations World Health Organization World Meteorological Organization FRAUD: American Petroleum Institute US Chamber of Commerce National Association of Manufacturers Competitive Enterprise Institute Industrial Minerals Association National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Great Northern Project Development Rosebud Mining Massey Energy Alpha Natural Resources Southeastern Legal Foundation Georgia Agribusiness Council Georgia Motor Trucking Association Corn Refiners Association National Association of Home Builders National Oilseed Processors Association National Petrochemical and Refiners Association Western States Petroleum Association Again, economically it is sound to act even WITHOUT global warming. Climate change with respect to the oceans and the air are an unbearable cost alone! However, when we bring in global warming, statistically, it is also economically sound to act. It's like saying you have a 10% chance of living if you fly on an airplane, but a 90% chance of living on a train; you can ride the airplane, I prefer that we all ride the train.

No president will ever have the humbleness to revoke power given to him/her voluntarily by another branch of government. Oh well...maybe next year we'll get lucky?

I think people just don't like the amount of money put into it when the money could be better invested with a problem that we're sure of. I don't know whether global warming is real or not, but you raise a good point about developing greener methods regardless. Going on that point, as a polluted atmosphere was talked about, I've read studies that say the effects on one's health, especially the development of asthma, from the carbon we emit costs us more in health care than it would to invest in green technology to get rid of the carbon emissions. I've definitely found something newer than this but for some reason cannot find what I was looking for, but here's a 2002 article from USAToday regarding that: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-11-12-pollution-health_x.htm Medical spending is very expensive, and with less polluted air, that's less people with lung defects, asthma, cancer, etc. Then there's ocean acidification and its effects on tourism, the fishing industry, and hell, people's food is on the line.

And this is why a carbon tax WOULD work. Not only would these companies avoid the tax by going green, but they'd get a refund from the government for cleaning up their act. Some companies are doing it right now, and I think they'd do it even faster with that financial incentive: http://www.grist.org/article/when-the-big-guys-want-to-do-the-right-thing/ Money talks.

Here's why even though the future is uncertain, and the climate models can't predict what the temperature rise will be, the probability is 100% in favor of action: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21view.html

Obviously you didn't even read the emails yourself, and relied on fat mouths like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck yelling about them "making it up." The emails don't do anything to the climate science, but to an amateur skeptic, they do look revealing, don't they? Why not actually inspect what they mean? http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html There's one thing that bugged me about the emails, it's something that should be investigated, and that's if there was any fudged data in the paper. This is highly unethical, and if there was anything that was fudged, then the scientists should be reprimanded appropriately. No matter what the outcome, it doesn't really say anything about climate science in general. However... Did the media report this email from the list with a climate scientist yelling at an environmental group urging the scientists to sign their letter to enact a carbon tax, and in doing so would be signing a letter that misrepresented the science? Of course not, because that doesn't fit the media narrative: The email continues here: http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=40

Why not actually read the scientific literature? And what is "unbiased?" http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Me either. We need to act. Now. And the millions/billions who will die is not something I want to have happen, especially when it will come from us being the ones who caused these imbalances. I don't know what's going to happen, no one does. I don't want to risk it. Especially with the oceans doing what they're doing. 10x faster than any time in 55 million years? Evolution can probably cope, but I don't know if humans can. Remember, there was a point in history where we as a species didn't make it. Subsequently, it was caused by a drastic change in climate. And, generally, all economists are in agreement: a carbon tax is the best way to spur innovation. Even right-wing groups who don't want the government involved in markets at all. It's not comparable to cigarette taxes whatsoever. Yes, we in a sense have a carbon addiction, but taxes can be used to push the public in a certain direction; just look at bag fees/taxes in Europe. Plastic bag use has come down tremendously. What's unfortunate is that even countries in Europe aren't doing enough, while the US continues to debate when the science was settled over a decade ago. China's just not that interested, but given their heavy investments into new technologies, they'll probably ween themselves off of coal/oil before we do. India is the same, although they've shown some interest in international agreements. And then this damned blizzard isn't helping things. We have Senator Inhofe with his grandchildren making igloos in Washington DC, calling them Al Gore's new home. Idiots. What's ironic is that a blizzard is exactly what we'd expect when there's more moisture in the air due to a warming climate and it mixes with the cold air of winter. one edit: I do not by any means advocate that "the world will end!" The scientific literature doesn't say this. I don't think humans will go extinct either, or anything close to it. Just want to point that out, because I think some people who wish to save a lot of lives use hyperbole to make their case. I don't want to be in the same camp. All I can say is, read the literature and the scientific papers.

A very very sobering article about climate change. So even if you deny the overwhelming evidence of global warming, I'm sure you'd agree to the effect that CO2 has on our oceans and the need to cut it down to zero: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2241

Haha: New Law Would Ban Marriage Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

You know, homophobe, not every gay male has sex, and not every homosexual is male.

Uh, yeah, no, they don't have equal opportunity for these things. Neither do women, white or otherwise.

Ah, if only you would have also put some thinly veiled misogynistic "women are shallow, self-absorbed vacuums of dead neurons" comment into your post you'd fill all the stereotypes of the Internet Male. Haha, well done, Azvareth. You're one of my favorite posters. Well done, well done.

Jimmy Carter doesn't sound so radical now, does he?: http://progressiverealist.org/blogpost/retractionist-retentionist-discourse-israel

Oh god, here we go. The "RAUN PAUL REVOLUTION" never stops when it comes to the internet. Of course we shouldn't return to the gold standard. The only people who wish to do this are Austrian Economists, who are more or less comparable to "New Age Medicine" doctors when compared to Western medicine; they're the quacks of their field. I shouldn't even call them economists, or their school a form of economics; none of it relies on any math, modeling, or evidence...just praxeology. The beauty of fiat currency is that you have control over money supply, and can respond to shocks, recessions and depressions in a timely manner, if used appropriately. Here's a good link: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html And most of all: why would you want the dollar to be "valued" what it was all those years back? Our trade deficit is very high right now, and the cause for this trade deficit is an overvalued dollar, and inability to sell more than we produce. If the dollar was at that price, who would we trade with? No one, as no one could afford our products. This gold-bug [cabbage] needs to end.

Uh, why? Uh, why not? Why shouldn't they be able to marry even if they love each other? The "ew that's gross" factor doesn't apply here; it really doesn't matter if people find it gross. There's also levels and degrees with which this needs to be discussed. For example, an adult/child relationship, even when the child is of age, could in fact be the result of abuse and forced coercion without the son/daughter even being aware of it. I am skeptical of it being legal in this type of relationship, specifically because the odds are on the side of it being forced coercion and not the result of true consent, and is therefore a form of rape.

There's no "snowball" effect. You're not going to marry your keyboard, you're not going to marry a 12 year-old, and you're not going to marry your cat; none of these objects or animals or people can consent to a relationship, let alone a marriage. A marriage is a contract. The only other area would be incestuous marriage, and I support legalizing that as well.

But church recognized marriages is where a lot of the benefits come from... What? No it's not. The benefits come from the state, not the Church. That's what this entire debate is about: recognition by the state. Couples could get married right now in a UCC, but they wouldn't be looked at equally under the law. It's about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and due process of law. As arc_druid stated, not every religion is hostile to gay marriage, what about THEIR religious freedom? Aren't you infringing on their beliefs?

Why wouldn't I? Only a homophobic bigot wouldn't support it. Let's be real: this has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage; it doesn't even really have much to do with the Bible or the Koran. It has everything to do with the fact that a lot of humans on this Earth are disgusted by homosexuality and see it as perverted. Of course they use their Holy Books to justify their disgust, but that really doesn't change where the original disgust came from. They say it's only in the name, but they're hiding their homophobia behind this just like libertarians hide their "f u I got mine" mentality behind buzz words like liberty and freedom. If we agree to everything-but-the-word, they’ll go to work on the “everything.” There can be no compromise on this. Just look at the debate about DADT. All of these made up excuses about why it can't be repealed. Thank the universe for honest people like Peter Sprigg who exposed himself for what he really is: someone who is just disgusted by homosexuality. The hate group the Family Research Council really exposed itself for what it is. I think it's great, and it shows exactly why free speech should reign supreme: these bigoted asshats just can't resist themselves, and eventually, will be so honest that all sane people will feel nothing but contempt for them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN8D40qRWW4

It's pretty funny, warri0r, that the supposed free-market types are the ones who don't want a carbon tax to combat it. In fact, as most economists will tell you--new Keynesian, neo Keynesian, Chicago, libertarian--a carbon tax is the best way at offsetting climate change. Cap and trade is alright, but a carbon tax is much better. I mean, what happened to personal responsibility and letting the market solve it? You do that by taxing carbon so that its negative externalities are out in the open for all to see. Then rather than subsidizing industries with government money, the market finds ways so that they don't have to pay the carbon tax. It's pretty simple, it's pro-free market. Of course I'd like government subsidizing of clean energy on top of this tax, but if they really praised and loved the free market as much as they say, they'd support a carbon tax and no government subsidization of any industry--be it nuclear, clean coal, oil, solar, wind, or hydroelectric. Nuclear wouldn't survive without government backing, as it's a very risky investment (something like 50% default on their loans; no Wall Street investor is going to bet on a 50% chance of losing). All of this talk about leaving our children with debt, which is ridiculous in the first place as poverty and unemployment are concrete whereas the "burden of debt" which has been conjured out of their imagination is...imaginary, yet they're perfectly willing to leave them with a barren world with acidified oceans, starvation and without enough water, all on the premise that they don't want to pay extra taxes. It's why when you get right down to it, they're doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes; denial of the economics, denial that they support socialism for oil and other fossil fuels so they can pay less, and flat out denial of the science of climate change.

Troops have come home from Iraq, actually; a more apt question would be how many is he sending to Afghanistan, but as the author of The Kite Runner will tell you, our troops are welcomed and needed there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8487841.stm I also called out my own government for its torture regime and indefinite detention policies; that includes Obama and Bush. I don't know where you got it in your mind that I'm just attacking Israel. Not to mention that Israel is allowed to carry outs its crimes because of my government's funding and backing in the UN; make no mistake, they only do what they do because we're the most powerful country in the world and they know we have their back. Peace could happen right now if America wanted it to. So high horse? Please.

More GOP hypocrisy and grinding the Senate to a halt over something that they attacked on the campaign left and right? Say it isn't so. The Senate has, as John Marshall says, jumped the shark. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama has now threatened the Senate with extortion: "give Alabama earmarks, or I will put a hold on every appointment." I thought Republicans HATED earmarks: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php