magekillr

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/05/hottest-january-in-uah-satellite-record-roy-spencer-global-warming/ This is a thread to discuss climate change, especially for the deniers. So those who deny climate change, just come on out of the woodwork.

No you didn't, you bombed their villages and what's left of their schools and hospitals. Massive war crimes were committed, and white phosphorus was used. Stop being apologetic to your war criminal government; not like the US is any better with our torture regime not being investigated in favor of political expediency, though.

Yep, to help give the Kadima party's poll numbers a boost before the election, and to test Barack Obama to see if he would be any different before he was in office; they got in what they could before his inauguration. It's so nice to see you justify the slaughtering of nearly 1,000 civilians in a region where over a third are children 14 and younger. And don't even tell me that Hamas broke the ceasefire first: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050426.html and another: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050460.html And even if they attacked first, 3 civilian deaths compared with nearly a thousand; that's a stark difference. As Zbigniew Brzezinski stated, if you can't minimize civilian casualties in a region with these sorts of population densities, then you don't do what Israel did.

Lol, well now that the discussion has changed, I'll be happy to join in: What tripe. Israel has long supported security and imperialism over peace. Their government that is essentially headed by a fascist POS, Avigdor Lieberman, is not interested in peace. Israel is an oppressive government that is occupying land which does not belong to them; this includes the land circa 1967, and their illegal settlements. Their nation is essentially an apartheid state that should be rebuked by the world over, not supported or praised. Their war crimes are growing unbearable, and the fact that they never face punishment for them is probably worse. How people continue to defend their government after the siege on Gaza last December and January is beyond me. It doesn't matter, though, because they're only delaying the inevitable. Either the Israeli government can stop their settlements and make peace with the Palestinians, following the two-state solution and achieving their "Jewish state," or they can continue their expansion of settlements, boxing themselves in to be the only apartheid state in the region; so much for being the only democratic state in the region, eh, Lieberman? They're trying to do what China did with Tibet: send their settlers into the land and defacto annex it. One problem: the Palestinian demographic represents the region by overwhelming margins, and unlike the Tibetans with Hahn Chinese in their lands, the Palestinian culture and demographic cannot be overtaken by Jewish-Israeli settlers. I don't like to say Jewish when I talk about Israel because they're not synonymous, but most of the settlers are extreme Zionist Jews. So you have two choices, Israel, and this is not a false dichotomy: peace, or apartheid.

It's because of the Arctic Oscillation. http://ww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122649916

Yeah, this is more or less where I stand regarding this entire topic; the Abrahamic religions are extreme. I don't know why we're discussing the religion's extremism itself when the topic "religious extremism" seems to refer more to its extremist believers. I suppose it's applicable to the discussion, though, as the religion itself generates the extremism, but ultimately seems a bit off-topic to me; especially the topic as to whether or not religion is fictitious or not--I happen to believe it is. Oh well, if people wanna debate it they can have at it, but I have no interest in doing so unless my schools are threatened, or people's rights to worship or marry are in jeopardy.

War can be justified, in my opinion, for the following things: 1.) Mass violence and human catastrophe, such as to prevent or stop a genocide. 2.) In self-defense. 3.) If another country has intervened already, and you're trying to balance the scale; the Spanish Civil War is an example of this. 4.) Pre-emptive war. This should not be confused with preventive war. The Iraq War was a preventive war. A pre-emptive war would be if Canada lined its troops on the border, ready to invade America, and if America started bombing Canada first. However, just because one of these four may JUSTIFY a war, it doesn't mean that we should actually engage in it. Number 3 in particular is very important to note, because following that to the dime is what led to World War I. So just as I said, even if it's justified, it doesn't mean it should happen.

Seeing as I have had this debate on how 'religious' America is time and time again, I have remarks already prepared from a friend of mine:

This is a bad way to ask a question, but it's an important one. Religious extremism is a problem in Christianity, but it's obviously a bigger issue in Islam. I'm empathetic towards a lot of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because they don't have secular educations but religious ones; a majority are below the poverty line; they're plagued by war after war and invasion after invasion. Mix all of this together and you get a populace educated in ignorance with no way to form a better life for themselves, and constantly seeing your brothers and sisters marred and your villages destroyed. This leads to hopeless and desperation, and well, extremism. However, there's still something there that's causing the problem, and I lay it at the feet of a religion that has not yet had its enlightenment; it's going through its own Dark Ages. This is what I see because I see the US intervening constantly in South America, an area where a lot of the same conditions apply, and yet we don't see extremist groups bent on taking out the West. This is sad because Islam used to be a religion that embraced learning and was the pinnacle of enlightenment; without this religion and its contributions to science during the Christian Dark Ages, humanity would have been set back even further. I'm not saying the US' interventions and meddling in the region isn't to blame, it is. What I am saying is that our meddling isn't unique to the ME and South Asia, yet their extremism is unique to the world. So I think this period is just Islam's own Dark Ages, so to speak; I don't see an enlightenment happening until the poverty issue is taken care of, and more war will only exacerbate it. The other problem is that Muslims seem to be in denial, and Pakistani people in particular want to blame everything on India for their problems. They need to take back their religion from the extremists; before that can happen, they need to admit that it's a problem. Christian extremism is a whole other ball game, and reveals its ugly head from time to time like with the killing of George Tiller, and the Westboro Baptist Church.

Lol, dude, get real and own up. The GOP got their [wagon] spanked like little children who had done something wrong, and even the people over at Free Republic will tell you so. He did talk about unity; he showed just how far he's willing to go, and how much the GOP is uninterested. That was the purpose of this exercise. What we had was an adult in the room, willing to talk honestly about policy, while little children GOPers tried playing gotcha; they invited him, and Obama invited the cameras. They accepted, he accepted. The GOP seriously thought they could outsmart him, they seriously thought he needed a teleprompter. Make no mistake, they only did this because they thought they'd make him look foolish; they will not make this mistake again (they're never going to invite him again). Because sabre rattling doesn't get you anywhere, and sabre rattling isn't standing up to anyone; it makes an appearance that you are big and strong to make up for areas that you're weak, while accomplishing nothing. It's kind of like macho [wagon] with small penises. Oh, and just like I predicted, you're a far-right loon. It's so easy to spot ;)

Ok, so I saw the State of the Union, and I was pretty impressed with it; he didn't run from his policies, he embraced them. This was good. The highlight of the week, however, was certainly NOT the SOTU, but it was his question and answering session with House GOP members. There was lone Obama, entering the cage of 170 or so angry, feisty lions, armed with nothing but his wits, intellect, and yes, without the fabled teleprompter, and he tamed them. This was an absolute decimation of every Republican talking point, without note cards, without anything but his own head. No self-respecting observer will ever again say that Obama cannot operate without a teleprompter. This was the Obama I voted for, great show, Mr. President. Oh, and if you want to see how much hackery and [cabbage] that Fox is peddling, they cut away from the Q&A 20 minutes before it was over; no one talked about it for the rest of the news day. There was no attempt to spin it, dice it, or make it look good for Republicans; they just eliminated it from their memory as if it never happened. That's when you know you dominated every POS Republican talking point out there. And now, The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/jan/29/barack-obama-republicans

Adding more, I'll quote Andrew Sullivan, a conservative I LOVE and who I would be willing to work with if I were a member of Congress. Andrew is sensible, he sometimes accepts failed conservative positions, but I can respect differences when they're not completely out of whack. I disagree with Andrew plenty, but I read his blog religiously; he is someone I disagree with, and he's certainly not "far right." He understands where government is necessary, even if he disagrees ideologically, and wants to solve the problems we have without repeating right-wing talking points (tax cuts while balancing the budget, for example, is something that he detests, and he understands the need for fiscal stimulus). Needless to say, I disagree with his opening line about the spending freeze (it is NOT something to be giddy over, from a political standpoint or an economic standpoint). Anyway, without further ado, Andrew Sullivan: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/obamas-test-tonight.html Preach it, brother Andrew. If Obama fails on this issue, he's a failure as a leader.

Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that. Typical that you'd say I hate America; it's obvious you're a far-right winger with your "if you hate America so much why don't you get out" sloganeering. I could say that you hate America, given that dissent is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, and that the right wing embraces torture and Guantanamo, two things that only serve as a recruitment tool to bring more attacks on our land. However, I won't, as saying someone "hates America" for being pissed off at how far-right wing it has become is not healthy for debate. Couple of things: 1) You seem to have completely missed the point of the quote. What s/he meant was that there are many places that are worse. 2) Not healthy for debate. In spite of your black/white view of nationalism and politics and the way you assume that anyone that disagrees with you must be far right is probably worse than saying that you're taking your country for granted. Let's be honest here, as bad as you say it is, you still have the luxury to post about it on the internet without being punished. I say this as a left winger who thinks both sides need to grow up... I understand perfectly well what he meant. It's why people say, "If America sucks so bad, why don't you leave and go live in Mexico?" It's annoying as hell. I live, breathe, and work in politics every day of my life, and have for the past 5 years. I've heard every talking point. I'm not assuming anyone who disagrees with me is a far-right winger, but I've been involved for far too long to pick up the dog whistles. You can tell when someone is far-right based on how they talk, what they say, and where their talking points are coming from. I listen to Rush Limbaugh everyday, I listen to Beck everyday, I hear what they tell their drones to peddle out. I hear someone say "Obama is dithering on his Afghanistan decision," I know exactly who they got their talking point from: [bleep] Cheney. It's common trends that you pick up as you move along and are in the process. Kind of like a guitarist who hears a bad note, when to the untrained ear, you wouldn't hear a difference. I'm fully aware of my own luxuries compared to other countries, but I live here, so I work to make things for the better here. I don't wallow in my possessions, telling people who work for progress in this country to get a life because others have it worse; it's a given others have it worse, just look at Haiti (which is also in the state that they're in because of American/French/Spanish imperialism and overthrow). It does us no good to say "Look at the other countries!" That doesn't get progress here, where I live, where I fight for change. Both sides need to grow up, hmmm, yeah, that'd be nice; it's not going to happen, though. Obama tried that, look what it's gotten him. He's living in a fantasy land, just as every supposed "independent" is. Giving in to right wing memes in this country only fuels it, they grow hungry for more. It's been seen time and time again. "Single payer!" "No no, that's too far to the left. Let's offer a public option!" Conservatives say no. "Public option with a trigger!" Conservatives say no. "Medicare buy-in!" Conservatives say no. "Uh...national based exchange forcing people to buy private insurance?" Conservatives say no. "Ok, state-based exchanges, force people to buy private insurance, no government plan, no government negotiating of drugs, no drug reimportation...good?" Conservatives say no. This video is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtKkyrZtUaM

Yeah, you get farther to the right of Bush by listening to the people who NO ONE in the sixties and seventies listened to: the tea party crowd. You guys think this Tea Party movement is new? Original? Think again. These crazies have always been around, but they were always ignored as the fringe; William Buckley, as crazy as he was, worked his [wagon] off to make them irrelevant. Now they're given a microphone on FOX (which isn't a news station, it's a propaganda pusher), and people like Marco Rubio are pushing people like Charlie Crist out. You can't get much further right than Bush; you'd have to start more wars, take away Social Security, take away Welfare, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, and institute a flat tax. Lol, nationalism IS a horrible thing. Sorry, I see no reason to be proud of where I was born. Nationalism breeds wars, hatred and division; sorry, I'd like no part in that. Typical that you'd say I hate America; it's obvious you're a far-right winger with your "if you hate America so much why don't you get out" sloganeering. I could say that you hate America, given that dissent is the most patriotic thing anyone can do, and that the right wing embraces torture and Guantanamo, two things that only serve as a recruitment tool to bring more attacks on our land. However, I won't, as saying someone "hates America" for being pissed off at how far-right wing it has become is not healthy for debate.

No one could have predicted that the GOP would do this :roll: Lol, and now Obama has adopted Republican talking points about the deficit. Everyone knows the real problem with the deficit is health care; fix the health care crisis, you solve the deficit problem. Of course, the GOP won't hop on board to solve this issue--although about 10 of the Democrats aren't much better because they're just as moronic and corporate--and the two ideas they do have, state-competition across state lines and tort reform, are both fail ideas. Even if you adopted those ideas, they still wouldn't support anything the Democrats want to do, and the Democrats continue to get rolled. Maybe they want to continue it on like this, at least blue dogs like Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh. They want more power, and the Republicans' continuous use of the filibuster makes them important, as they have more leverage. Now that we're going reconciliation (like I said to do in the beginning), they're announcing how much they hate it. Why? Because their widdle feelings are hurt, as they're now irrelevant to the process. The GOP: the bat[cabbage] insane, far-right nationalist party, and the Democrats: the party with no spine. It's been this way since Ronald Reagan, except by now Ronald Reagan would probably be too liberal to be in the Republican party (he's against torture, after all, and he raised taxes). Anyway, prediction of what will happen unless the Democrats grow a f***ing spine and call the conservatives out (this includes the conservatives like Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and the other blue dog corporate hacks in the House): GOP blocks everything Obama wants to do Democrats lose their majorities in 2010-2012 due to bad unemployment and nothing coming from Congress Obama loses in 2012 to someone who is farther to the right than George Bush Person that's farther to the right than George Bush increases the debt by another couple trillion to the point of doubling it Person that's farther to the right than Bush gets ejected from office by 2016 or 2020, and we repeat the cycle again until Democrats stand by their principles and stop adopting Republican ones Time and time again, Republicans only get into office because the Dem base's enthusiasm is deflated because our party lacks a spine to embrace liberal policy. Grow a back bone. I'll be watching the SOTU, watching Obama become the best Republican president since Bill Clinton.

I'm already doing what I want to do. I am an aerospace engineer. One more year until graduation.

There's my contribution to this thread. (I like Partners in Health ;))

Separate but equal has been ruled unequal by the Equal Protection Clause, so it's not "semantics." Civil unions are not recognized in every state, and because of DOMA, they're not recognized federally; neither are marriages. They also don't have the same rights and benefits, so they're not even separate but equal; they're plain unequal all around. The only way they'd be truly equal is if everyone, heterosexuals included, were all state-recognized by civil unions. This isn't the case, and it's not what the anti-gay marriage crowd argues for. If someone says, "I have no problem with gays, BUT..." it's obvious that they do have a problem with gays, and are trying to mask their own homophobia with some bs qualifier. If you "protectors of marriage" don't want the law to recognize marriage, then start lobbying for that. Oh, right, you don't do that, you lobby against people's rights. It's the same thing with the pro-lifers. You never see them lobbying in favor of things that will reduce abortions--things scientifically proven like contraceptives and condoms and sexual education--you see them lobbying for abstinence only education. Actions speak louder than words. The fact that you'd put your dogmatic beliefs ahead of what truly reduces abortions says you don't care about fetuses, but about controlling women and their bodies. So to that, Lenin sums it up in this sentence: Just come out and say it already, and stop hiding behind some fake gilded refuge of "marriage is teh sacred!" Just say you hate and fear gay people, and would rather enjoy the continued practice of discrimination against them. You have no argument. Sorry, the Bible says so doesn't make it in a court of law in a secular nation.

This isn't about marriage, this is about being viewed equally under the eyes of the law; it's called the 14th amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause. Lol @ "The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman." Bollocks, its definition has changed throughout history time and time again:

Is this thread snark? Or are global warming deniers getting dumber by the minute?

I hate New Years. However, this particular New Years has been perhaps the worst New Years of my entire life. My sexist pig of a father is verbally, and possibly physically (not sure), abusing my mother. Whether or not his qualms with her are of merit, everything that has come out of his mouth for the past 3 hours has been unwarranted, disgusting and I have the right nerve to call 9-11. I'm not going to unless it gets really serious, but I want to get out of here and go back to college. Something has to be done; I'm calling his church pastor tomorrow, I'm sick of this [cabbage].

Looks like I wasn't that far off. Good ol' Joe Lieberman can't find any money for health care, but he can send freedom bombs over to Yemen to start another war: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/27/lieberman-the-united-stat_n_404241.html And like Nadril said, enough of the false dichotomies between "you can either be safe, or you can die." We knew this guy was a danger with what we have in place right now. It was incompetence that allowed for him to get by. Upping security doesn't fix idiots who are asleep at the wheel.

Ugh. Let's just enact Patriot Act 2 because some guy from Yemen failed to blow the plane up! Better yet, send in the troops to invade Yemen so they can't harbor terrorists! This was clear cut incompetence, plain and simple. No amount of increase in regulations is going to fix that. The guy wasn't allowed to travel to Britain, his father warned the US of his extremism, he's been on the terror watch list for 2 years. Come on, guys... At least it wasn't politicized like it would have been had it happened a year ago.

Wrong on a few counts. First on the fine aspect, it's not that high no matter which bill you're talking about. Second, that's not how the fine would be imposed. Third, we don't have a bill yet; they have yet to be merged. I'll agree with the last part of your post, though: our country is simply not governable anymore. The sad reality? This is more or less the bill I was expecting, although I did expect a public option with a trigger. Take away the triggered PO, and it's more or less the best bill I saw possible in the Senate. When you're required 60 votes to pass anything, and you have 40 members not interested in governing, any one of those 60 has veto power. Just wait for climate change legislation, that should be fun! (I hope that they'll go through the EPA rather than try and impose Cap and Trade...just tax carbon, it's better economically and environmentally).

Ronald Reagan is probably the most misidentified brand in American history. He's known for tax cuts and less government, when he increased taxes, merged government and corporate power more than any leader in US history, he increased the deficit/debt more than anyone other than George Bush II, he made our trade deficit to what it is today, fueled modern terrorism, etc etc. I could go on and on about the worst President in history, but I'll stop there.