President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[JBlake]

Is Hillary going to throw Barrack under the bus?

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-o ... 10915.html

Yeah and all the rest of the dems are doing the same only because 2016 election is coming up.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Is Hillary going to throw Barrack under the bus?

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-o ... 10915.html

Yeah and all the rest of the dems are doing the same only because 2016 election is coming up.

Doubtful. Expect Dems to run on Obamacare and for Obama to speak at the convention.

[JBlake]

Is Hillary going to throw Barrack under the bus?

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-o ... 10915.html

Yeah and all the rest of the dems are doing the same only because 2016 election is coming up.

Doubtful. Expect Dems to run on Obamacare and for Obama to speak at the convention.

Notice how Dems never think they make mistakes or are ever wrong about anything?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Notice how Dems never think they make mistakes or are ever wrong about anything?

Thats funny. Pretty sure Clinton has openly discussed how he regrets never getting Bin Laden. Didn't LBJ grow out his hair, have a quasi- breakdown and live to the end of his days regretting Vietnam? And of course, JFK regretted the Bay of Pigs immensely. Ever notice how Repubs don't know jack shit about anything they comment on?

[JBlake]

Before becoming President in 2009, here are berry's thoughts on Presidents and Vacations...

You have to understand that if you seek that office, then you have to be prepared to give your life to it. Essentially, the bargain that I think every President strikes with the American people is, ‘you give me this office, then in turn my fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure, is gone. I am giving myself to you.’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsB1iX5T504

Yeah, sort of like the "I'll pull it out early" lie. And his wife fell for it at least twice that we all know of.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Quit twisting words...

How am I twisting words?
You just said: "Hmmmmmmm, is this anything like the bad intelligence W got from everyone in DC (including, CIA, Clinton,Clinton,Kerry,Kennedy,Pelosi et al..) about Saddams WMD???"
As if Bush relied on the counsel of Junior senators and Nancy Pelosi before deciding to invade? Get the hell out of here. He is the fucking president, and throughout history, the decision to go to war originates within the Oval Office.

and denying facts..."

I'm not denying facts. It was WIDELY reported that Hillary, among others, shirked on their duty and did not read the NIE. See the links below. Unlike you FF, I don't have any need to lie or to deceive people on here to prove a point. Life is too short for that dumb silly shit.

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/arc ... ng_for_war
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign- ... d-iraq-nie
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/ ... eref=onion

3/28/08

In a conference call with reporters, Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, offered a mild defense of Clinton from accusations that, by not reading the intelligence estimate, she did not properly prepare for her vote on Iraq.

"It really depends frankly on what the total exposure to the intelligence is," said Kerry. "You don't have to read the NIE, honestly, if you've been briefed, if you sat in on hearings, if you have some familiarity with the topic."

Clinton has said she was thoroughly briefed on the National Intelligence Estimate despite not having read it herself. Kerry, meanwhile, read the summary of the report and got much of his intelligence straight from senior administration officials.

On Monday, the Massachusetts Democrat declined to take what he deemed a chance to score political points against Clinton over the NIE.

"It really depends on the total picture and I'm not familiar with the total picture of what her due diligence was in this regard," he said. "It is helpful [to read the NIE] but it doesn't really tell you the whole picture. I think Chet would agree with me on that.

That would be Congressman Chet Edwards, an Obama supporter also on the call.

"Absolutely," Edwards replied.

Using logs of who entered the secure room where the classified NIE was kept, The Washington Post reported that only six senators read it. When The Hill newspaper later polled senators, 22 said they had.

Clinton has never claimed to be among them. When asked directly on Meet the Press in 2008, she sidestepped the question, declaring, “I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that.”

As Michael Crowley has reported, most of Clinton’s top foreign-policy advisors—Richard Holbrooke, Madeleine Albright, James Steinberg, William Perry, Jamie Rubin, Kenneth Pollack—were sympathetic to giving George W. Bush the authority to use force. Like them, Hillary had grown increasingly comfortable with military action during the 1990s, when Bill successfully went to war in Bosnia and Kosovo (in the latter case, without United Nations approval). And like them, she had grown increasingly militant on the subject of Saddam Hussein, whose ouster Bill had called for in 1998, and whom he had bombed for four straight days that same year in Operation Desert Fox.

Would reading the classified NIE have changed Clinton’s vote? Maybe not. Even after reading the classified version, Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein still voted to authorize war.

Perhaps most importantly of all, Clinton’s own national-security confidantes—including Iraq expert Kenneth Pollack—believed the WMD claims. It’s hard to imagine she would have overruled them, even if the classified NIE had given her pause.

Thanks for proving my point, FF. Hillary couldn't even be bothered to read the NIE and much of the intelligence she and other senators were briefed on came rite out of Cheney's asshole in the WH. Yet you claim that Bush got bad intel from Senator? What kind of tipsy turvy ass backwards planet are you living on?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Liberal/Progressive Talking Points 1960 to Present
1440 KEYS AM Radio ^ | July 28, 2006 | Jenni Vinson Trejo
Posted on 7/28/2006 10:19:37 AM by jennivinson

Liberal/Progressive Talking Points 1960 to Present
By Jenni Vinson Trejo
July 28, 2006

It might seem a daunting task to catalogue anything over a span that encompasses six decades, but Liberals have made it easy since not much has changed in their Agenda and Talking Points over the past six decades. The only major change we’ve seen from them is that they used to be just Liberals and now they want to add Progressive to their title

This era of Liberal/Progressiveness began as a counter culture revolution to the Vietnam War. The younger generation, unwilling to fight and possibly die in a war mired by politics, had taken to the streets in rebellion against the government. Democrats saw the energy and momentum of these young Americans and opted to ally with them in hopes of solidifying a stronger voter base and in hopes of ushering in social changes.

The alliance proved overwhelming for the Democrats. The revolutionist would not be satisfied until the fabric of the country would completely torn, burned away and replaced with their own.

According to NARAL, Move-0n.org, The CRIT Society, ACLU, Green Peace, Sierra Club, the DNC, the National Organization for Women, Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and a host of other Liberal sites, writers and publications, the Liberal/Progressives exist to:

1.To oppose the Constitution because it is based on a belief in God Almighty.
2.To eradicate marriage which they see an institution of slavery to men, women and to children.
3.To free women from the confines of marriage and the domination of men.
4.To free children from the confines of parents. They established through the court systems that the government is the ultimate parent in any given household and not mom or dad. Government can and will intervene in the raising, disciplining, education and even medical treatment of any and all American children.
5.To break down the conventional family unit because Anything conventional and or normal needed to go and because of the afore mentioned slavery issues.
6.To allow free sexuality in all forms. The epitome of Liberal expression and definition can be found in what happened in the muddy farm field at Woodstock when the enlightened and freed souls rolled in the mud in various states of drunkenness, engaging in sexual activities with whomever. From the combined need to break down families, marriage and to allow for all expressions of sexuality comes the Liberal/Progressive notion towards same sex marriages. Ironically, they hate marriage but they fight for Gays to have it!
7.To make drug use legal.
8.To establish equal rights for men and women in all aspects, with the caveat that you can be equal but you are not allowed to exceed anyone. That would alter the balance of their socialism. Still this didn’t keep the Feminist Liberals from demanding rights for women at the expense of men and children.
9.To provide freedom of choice in reproduction so long as the woman has all the choices and all of the rights and men get left out of the matter (after conception that is) and children are, of course, killed.
10.To protect the environment from humans even if some humans have to die so the trees and the owls and the bugs can live. Michael McCloskey of the Sierra Club explained that it is okay if thousands of Africans die of malaria and other mosquito born diseases because their deaths help the environment.
11.To thwart population growth. Their goal is ZERO population growth. They would like humans all around the world to stop producing offspring.
12.To establish civil rights for all mankind in America. No matter where your citizenship is, you will be treated to all civil rights as an American even if you aren’t American.
13.To defend a person’s right to die. What they really advocate is the right to kill. Most euthanasia cases require that someone else kill a person. They don’t advocate suicide, they want assisted deaths.
14.To eradicate religion. Any expression of faith in Judeo-Christian values is deemed to be fanatical. But Judeo-Christian religion has to move aside for their Humanist religion.
15.To commandeer the public school system as a means of indoctrinating Americans.
16.To ensure that Universities remain a breeding ground for Liberal notions, no matter how radical or how lacking in educational value.
17.To usurp the judicial/legal system. Many of the Counter Culture Revolutionists opted to go into Law so they could change the system from within.
18.To evermore be against the norm and status quo. No matter how much they accomplish—they is still so much to be against.
19.To be suspicious of all government— even theirs.
20.To thwart the spread of capitalism. Corporations are the enemy. Money is a means to an end. The value of a dollar is measured only in what they can accomplish with it.
21.To ban handguns. Self protection is not necessary when you can call on them. And hunting is just wrong. Kill the unborn babies, but leave Bambi alone!
22.To modernize the U.S. military—not with weapons but through social engineering, like gays in the military and co-ed barracks.
23.To care and direct the lives of Americans from the cradle to the grave. They tell when if you can be born and when you should hang it up and die.
24.To keep a culture of entitlements. The only way to keep the masses beholden to them is to supply them continually with what they "need".
25.To ensure an atmosphere of fear and dire consequences to any and all who disagree with their assessment. The sky is always on the verge of falling in the Liberal Camp. It’s Global Cooling one day and then Global Warming the next. The trees are all about to die and the tsunamis will wash us all away. The animals will all go extinct while we all die because the cows passed gas and coupled with our BBQ fires and aerosols, the ozone got depleted. Liberal/Progressives are such a fun group!
I’m sure I missed a few of the Liberal/Progressive Talking points. There is no one place where they are outlined, except for now that they will reside on my web page. Liberals and progressives don’t want America to see what they stand for. They are a scary bunch. This is why Conservatives talk about them so much. We try to shed light on what they want for our lives and for the lives of your children and grandchildren.

Liberal/Progressives were not just summarily dismissed. America gave them a shot. It’s been sixty years and they didn’t prove that their way was better, compassionate or even logical.

So, I’m Jenni Vinson Trejo. Liberal/Progressive Talking Points 1960- Present is My Opinion. Thank you for listening.

Since Vietnam, the majority of US Presidents have been Republicans. This woman sounds truly disturbed.
Liberals hate marriage and population growth now? I'd be embarrassed to post this.

[ebake02]

It's a talking point. you seem to always miss that. I agree with you that Johnson died a miserable, regretful man as he should. After having Kennedy murdered so he could make insane proffits off vietnam should have made him suffer. Johnson by far, was the worst President we ever had.

I think Bush II would give Johnson a run for his money, a lot of the problems facing this country today can be traced to his policies (or lack of).

[JBlake]

It's a talking point. you seem to always miss that. I agree with you that Johnson died a miserable, regretful man as he should. After having Kennedy murdered so he could make insane proffits off vietnam should have made him suffer. Johnson by far, was the worst President we ever had.

I think Bush II would give Johnson a run for his money, a lot of the problems facing this country today can be traced to his policies (or lack of).

If Obama had any real experience he would have been able to succeed regardless. Point is, he's a joke and was only voted into office because people saw a specific color and wanted to make history with a vote.

Why didn't Reagan have a problem after Jimmy fucked away America during his term in office? That's right, because Reagan was voted into office based on a real game plan. Not the shuck 'n jive "hope" and "change" bullshit.

[The_Noble_Cause]

It's a talking point. you seem to always miss that. I agree with you that Johnson died a miserable, regretful man as he should. After having Kennedy murdered so he could make insane proffits off vietnam should have made him suffer. Johnson by far, was the worst President we ever had.

I think Bush II would give Johnson a run for his money, a lot of the problems facing this country today can be traced to his policies (or lack of).

If Obama had any real experience he would have been able to succeed regardless. Point is, he's a joke and was only voted into office because people saw a specific color and wanted to make history with a vote.

Why didn't Reagan have a problem after Jimmy fucked away America during his term in office? That's right, because Reagan was voted into office based on a real game plan. Not the shuck 'n jive "hope" and "change" bullshit.

Reagan had all sorts of problems. Recession, mini wars in Grenada, Lebanon, Iran-Contra etc. Wow, do you sound like an ignorant asshat.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I don't know what you read,TNC, but here is the qoute from "The Atlantic".

"Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said."

Hillary is a neocon in heels. Dont care what she says.

[Boomchild]

Doubtful. Expect Dems to run on Obamacare and for Obama to speak at the convention.

Great! Can't wait to hear this speech. I'm sure he'll touch on all the jobs his administration created, how peaceful and safe the world is now as well as how many middle eastern countries are on the road to democracy!

[The_Noble_Cause]

Doubtful. Expect Dems to run on Obamacare and for Obama to speak at the convention.

Great! Can't wait to hear this speech. I'm sure he'll touch on all the jobs his administration created, how peaceful and safe the world is now as well as how many middle eastern countries are on the road to democracy!

Maybe. And then the Dems will win again and the GOP will act like sore losers and hold the debt ceiling hostage blah blah.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Ya TNC, it's a terrible thing to try to stop the SPENDING.

By downgrading the nation's credit rating and announcing to the rest of the world (and our creditors) that one of the US's two major parties resorts to hostage-taking if they don't get their way? Yea bro, great idea.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Strange (vaguely homo) PM from JBlake -

"Let's hook up
Sent: Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:35 am
From: JBlake
To: The_Noble_Cause

I really want to meet you face to face. Next time you're planning to be at a public event, please pm me and let me know when and where we can "hook up". Seriously.

Jon"

I'm not really a fan of making private messages public, but if you send me crap like this, I am going to post it.

[Monker]

Doubtful. Expect Dems to run on Obamacare and for Obama to speak at the convention.

Great! Can't wait to hear this speech. I'm sure he'll touch on all the jobs his administration created, how peaceful and safe the world is now as well as how many middle eastern countries are on the road to democracy!

He'll probably touch on the FACT that the Republicans in congress are the most obstructive this nation has ever seen...and if the nation wants real change, they need to be fired.

Whether you admit it or not, the economy is not in a free-fall as it was when W left office.

Whether you admit it or not, the US can NOT be the world's army propping up weak governments that the people being governed do not seem to appreciate or even want.

Democracy being forced on the middle east was a STUPID idea. It is NOT what the people want...they want theocracies based on whatever their Islamic beliefs are. Then the "other" fundamentalists get pissed and demand things change to their views. Religion and politics can NOT mix in a democracy...not over there, and it really doesn't mix well here either.

[Monker]

Reagan tore down the BerlinFuckingWall, just a minor detail.

No he didn't. Reagan asked Gorby to do it, and he didn't do it either. Berliner's did.

What Reagan did was to continue the financial battle with the USSR and kicked the spending up a notch, and added a huge amount to the deficit because of it. To give Reagan all the credit ignores the contributions of DECADES of leadership of the USA in keeping communism in check.

[Monker]

I don't know what you read,Monker, but here is the qoute from "The Atlantic".

"Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the "failure" that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said."

Now to me, I would think Obama hears a well deserved bus heading his way. I hope TNC is correct and Democrats do run on Obama care. By the way, breaking on the news NOW, Robin Williams just died.

Yeah, a few sentences out of a HUGE 9 page article. THAT is my point. She is defining herself as an expert in foreign policy. That used to be a Republican strength...but not now. She is not throwing anybody under the bus...that implies intent. She is positioning and defining herself.

[Boomchild]

Doubtful. Expect Dems to run on Obamacare and for Obama to speak at the convention.

Great! Can't wait to hear this speech. I'm sure he'll touch on all the jobs his administration created, how peaceful and safe the world is now as well as how many middle eastern countries are on the road to democracy!

Maybe. And then the Dems will win again and the GOP will act like sore losers and hold the debt ceiling hostage blah blah.

Sure. Basically the same thing over and over and over again. All the while nothing ever really changes no matter which party holds the oval office. This = we are f@cked.

[JBlake]

Strange (vaguely homo) PM from JBlake -

"Let's hook up
Sent: Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:35 am
From: JBlake
To: The_Noble_Cause

I really want to meet you face to face. Next time you're planning to be at a public event, please pm me and let me know when and where we can "hook up". Seriously.

Jon"

I'm not really a fan of making private messages public, but if you send me crap like this, I am going to post it.

I'm interested in having the same conversation face to face with you. The pm system is meant for such planning discussions. I know you've met up with others on this forum before. So I want that same opportunity.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Strange (vaguely homo) PM from JBlake -

"Let's hook up
Sent: Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:35 am
From: JBlake
To: The_Noble_Cause

I really want to meet you face to face. Next time you're planning to be at a public event, please pm me and let me know when and where we can "hook up". Seriously.

Jon"

I'm not really a fan of making private messages public, but if you send me crap like this, I am going to post it.

I'm interested in having the same conversation face to face with you. The pm system is meant for such planning discussions. I know you've met up with others on this forum before. So I want that same opportunity.

Go "hook up" at a highway mens room toilet, loverboy.

[Monker]

Since MONKER seems to have forgotten this and repost the LIE that Republicans are the obstuctionist in Congress......

The numbers never lie. Currently, 352 bills that passed the House are awaiting action on Harry Reid’s desk. Of these bills:

- 98% passed with bipartisan support
- Nearly 70% passed with 2/3rds support or more
- Over 50% passed with no opposition at all
- And 55 were introduced by Democrats

And still, Harry Reid refuses to bring them up for a vote.

Oh, please, you only cut/paste this from some propaganda site or Email. When I looked up the source, it came from Republican at a leadership conference or some such. As far as I know, these are just made up lines of crap to get Republicans to feel all giddy inside. It seems to have worked on you.

[Monker]

They are just WRONG. There is NO "natural" cause of climate change. The affects of all of the things stated below (the sun cycle, vulcanism) are MINISCULE compared to what man has been doing to the climate by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. Sorry, but that is just a simple FACT.

JBlake, good luck with that. Shall we go back to the fraud of global Warming?

Skeptical Scientists Debunk White House Global Warming Report

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Judith Curry, climatologist and chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[28]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Tim Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
Arthur B. Robinson, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
Murry Salby, former chair of climate at Macquarie University
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
George H. Taylor, former director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
Keith Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

[AR]

They are just WRONG. There is NO "natural" cause of climate change. The affects of all of the things stated below (the sun cycle, vulcanism) are MINISCULE compared to what man has been doing to the climate by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. Sorry, but that is just a simple FACT.

There was a little thing called Th Ice Age that happened without the evils of civilization and then it warmed up.

I am not discounting man made effects to the climate but saying that things such as the sun cycle only have a miniscule effect isn't something I can buy into. Mother nature trumps man everytime.

[Monker]

They are just WRONG. There is NO "natural" cause of climate change. The affects of all of the things stated below (the sun cycle, vulcanism) are MINISCULE compared to what man has been doing to the climate by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. Sorry, but that is just a simple FACT.

There was a little thing called Th Ice Age that happened without the evils of civilization and then it warmed up.

I am not discounting man made effects to the climate but saying that things such as the sun cycle only have a miniscule effect isn't something I can buy into. Mother nature trumps man everytime.

And, you would be absolutely WRONG. There are dozens of studies on the sun cycle, sun spots. The truth is that from 1970 to today that on average the sun has had a alight COOLING AFFECT on the over-all climate. It is NOT causing any warming. Is is MINISCULE compared to the trillions of tons of green house gas man put into the environment.

You are living in a fantasy if you honestly believe man can not affect nature. The very concept of 'civilization' is to remove the wilds of the natural world from your daily life. Americans have NO CLUE what it is to live their life in the natural world. Humans deforested most of North America. Killed off the American bison to almost extinction. Created the dust bowl by trying to farm in the 'great American desert'. Many, many species have become extinct as a direct result of man's influences around the world. We build dams to control rivers and kill off migrating fish. There are so many examples of this that you have be wearing blinders to not recognize and acknowledge it is happening. And, burning fossil fuels is making the planet hotter. It's a fact.

[steveo777]

All of those experts in the field mentioned are wrong because Monker says so. What horse shit. The info about Bills that Ried won't even read was a qoute from a Female republican Senator, but again, Monker knows more.

As long as Reid and Pelosi hold their positions, congress will remain dysfunctional. Harry Reid is the #1 obstructionist and the main reason congress has such a low approval rating. Nothing can get done because of these partisan do nothings.

[ebake02]

All of those experts in the field mentioned are wrong because Monker says so. What horse shit. The info about Bills that Ried won't even read was a qoute from a Female republican Senator, but again, Monker knows more.

As long as Reid and Pelosi hold their positions, congress will remain dysfunctional. Harry Reid is the #1 obstructionist and the main reason congress has such a low approval rating. Nothing can get done because of these partisan do nothings.

What about Ted Cruz and his cronies? The House can't even bring simple matters to a vote because that asshole wants to play tea party politics. I would argue that he is a bigger reason that congress is dysfunctional and can't seem to get along.

[AR]

They are just WRONG. There is NO "natural" cause of climate change. The affects of all of the things stated below (the sun cycle, vulcanism) are MINISCULE compared to what man has been doing to the climate by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. Sorry, but that is just a simple FACT.

There was a little thing called Th Ice Age that happened without the evils of civilization and then it warmed up.

I am not discounting man made effects to the climate but saying that things such as the sun cycle only have a miniscule effect isn't something I can buy into. Mother nature trumps man everytime.

You are living in a fantasy if you honestly believe man can not affect nature.

I never said man couldn't affect nature as I stated in my original post. However man also didn't cause an ice age and the subsequent warming. You are dismissing nature itself.

[Monker]

AR, I posted how many experts names doing the reaserch, and Monker comes back and says, "They are just wrong". Now how can you debate that? After all, they were just experts that did the reaserch. Monker is a progressive.

I absolutely said that. I Googled five names...and they are not "experts". They are quacks. Out of the random names I took, two of them were fired from their universities and investigated for fraud. None of them had any peer reviewed papers published. These are not "experts" commenting in any scientific way about climate change. They cherry pick 'facts' to prove a point...and intentionally ignore mountains of facts and evidence that show they are wrong. In fact, one name I looked up analyzed atmosphere temperature and concluded it had not warmed therefore global warming was not happening...but when the data was reviewed by others, it was found the atmosphere was warming at the exact same rate as the ground temps. Even though he KNEW he was LYING, and his peers knew he was LYING, he continued to spread his misinformation. These are not scientists...they are people like you with an opinion and are looking for any way possible to back it up...even if they have to commit fraud or lie.

[Monker]

Funny, just two months ago I'd read about all the researchers who were fired , or not even considered by the IPCC because they would not do research to back up "Global Warming", only do real research that was what it was. In other words, here's the script, make it work.

Oh, please...

The "scienteists" in this list that I am talking about were committing FRAUD. They were setting up companies that they owned and were the only employee of, then using grant funds to pay that company to do research...basically writing themselves a check. Another instance was a professor who is PAID TO TEACH but did not teach and was fired because of that. This list is riddled with crooks and liars.

You are a complete hypocrite.

The IPCC has been audited not once by several times to verify their research is credible and not tilted. By INDEPENDENT auditors they were found to be acting completely within the scientific method.

Quit being a whining baby and claiming multiple, MANY, fields of scientific study are wrong and these defamed and politically motivated skeptics are in the right. it is completely stupid and wrong.

If you want to prove a point - do a study and have it 'peer reviewed'. Or, find a study that has been peer reviewed that supports your claims. You can't do it. Instead it is easier to try to attack and score points that way.