The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

Voted Worlds #1 Most Loonatic Fanbase

Moderator: Andrew

Postby nolippin » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:17 am

No.

conversationpc wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:On Drudge...


Obama's Kenyan aunt found in a Boston slum... Developing...


Am I the only one that's thinking "Who cares???"
nolippin
8 Track
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:12 am

Postby SteveForever » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:18 am

conversationpc wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:On Drudge...


Obama's Kenyan aunt found in a Boston slum... Developing...


Am I the only one that's thinking "Who cares???"


no dear.....
SteveForever
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:37 am

Postby Voyager » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:26 am

AlteredDNA wrote:
Voyager wrote:Who's watching Obama's infomercial?

8)


When is it on?

;)


Right now - on several major networks.

It's not as bad as I thought it would be (infomercials are usually very dry). I can see where it will help people get to know him who don't have a clue about him.

I think he's going to win by a landslide.

8)
User avatar
Voyager
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: BumFunk Egypt

Postby treetopovskaya » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:31 am

"whore" went too far? you joking?

jana don't forget to add bitch, cocksucker & fluffer to your list. oh... and LIB!

(that WAS uncool steve cherry) }:C((

Jana wrote:Sorry Steve Cherry, you could have used anything but "whore" in addressing BJG. Some guys on here use derogatory terms like you said to each other, and they say not-so-nice things to the women on here like stupid, idiot, etc. You have to get a thick skin, true. But whore went too far talking to a female on here. And even if somebody else did it, do you want to lower yourself to that level?

Saint John called Obama's mother a whore, which meant I guess he was calling Palin's daughter a whore too. :shock:
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby Jana » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:37 am

Tree, if those words were said to you, then I feel the same way. There's certain sexually derogatory words that I don't feel need to be addressed to the females on this thread. Let the guys have at each other. Of course, I've been called a bitch before, just maybe not on here. :lol: Personally I would rather be called a bitch on here than stupid.
Jana
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8227
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Anticipating

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:38 am

Ehwmatt wrote:I just don't get how the leftists constantly deride conservatives for having the same tired talking points. How many times has Bush been presented as representing the views of every major Republican in America? It's haggard, tired, and most importantly, untrue.


Every major Republican in America merrily followed George in lockstep right over the precipice of political extinction.
The conflicts were few and far (Harriet Meyers, Dubai ports, and immigration).
Rewatch the primary debates...the GOP candidates were primarily cozying up to Dubya, not running away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_rbVVCZiVI
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby Jana » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:43 am

Factfinder, I could care less about any of these candidates' relatives.



I saw part of the Obama infomercial. It was okay. I didn't see the need for it, but what do I know. I wonder if they're going to have low viewership, though.
Jana
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8227
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Anticipating

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:44 am

Tito wrote:Not sure about the Reagan Democrats, the amnesty plan probably killed that for him. Had he been a true conservative, he would have those voters no problem.


Amusing, considering Reagan pushed for amnesty with the Immigration Control Act.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby Lula » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:50 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081029/pl_ ... lin_future

:shock: she'll be back, if she doesn't go way :shock: :lol:

did anyone think she would just disappear? palin for prez :?
Until we meet again, may God
Hold you in the palm of his hand.

for Dean
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:01 am

Jana wrote:Factfinder, I could care less about any of these candidates' relatives.



I saw part of the Obama infomercial. It was okay. I didn't see the need for it, but what do I know. I wonder if they're going to have low viewership, though.


we watched it. i can't imagine huge numbers in viewers. i like obama. not sure of the effect the infomercial will have, we shall see. i liked it, but like i said- i like obama.
Until we meet again, may God
Hold you in the palm of his hand.

for Dean
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby SteveForever » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:02 am

I'm not trying to offend because I can be objective, but it was really corny.
SteveForever
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3177
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:37 am

Postby Jana » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:14 am

Lula, ol' Sarah Palin has stars in her eyes. If she's the Republicans' answer for the next election, God help us and them. And what do you think about Joe the Plumber on the campaign trail? I understood them using the reference at first and it was effective for their message, but it's overkill now. It smacks of desperation.


I just saw McCain on Larry King. He was good.
Jana
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8227
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Anticipating

Postby Enigma869 » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:03 pm

Jana wrote:Lula, ol' Sarah Palin has stars in her eyes.



And rocks in her head!


John from Boston
User avatar
Enigma869
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 11:38 am
Location: Back In The Civilized Part Of U.S.

Postby Lula » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:05 pm

Enigma869 wrote:
Jana wrote:Lula, ol' Sarah Palin has stars in her eyes.



And rocks in her head!


John from Boston


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Until we meet again, may God
Hold you in the palm of his hand.

for Dean
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby RedWingFan » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:10 pm

7 Wishes wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
The "ozone layer"? Rush's point that humans have no effect on the ozone layer that's hardly ever talked about anymore, that it's been discovered that the hole shrinks and the sun creates ozone only proves he was right all along and you and Al Gore were wrong. Same with global warming. Next!

The fact that you actually believe this tripe...contrary to what actual scientists know...is just appalling.

Man-made global warming has no more been refuted than Dieter Brock has been named the starting quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts through 2016.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... -poof.aspx

Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland

In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.

Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.

On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.

Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.

Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.

But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.

Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."

Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."

While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.

For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.

It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby treetopovskaya » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:29 pm

she's not the only one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hZtW_q_6Ug

(is that really biden at 1:00???)

"joe biden ~ the drunk uncle you want to lock in the closet"

Lula wrote:
Enigma869 wrote:
Jana wrote:Lula, ol' Sarah Palin has stars in her eyes.



And rocks in her head!


John from Boston


:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby Skylorde » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:58 pm



Hard to dispute this. The red indicates solar activity. The black indicates average global temperatures.

Image
Image
Skylorde
45 RPM
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:03 am

Postby Don » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:01 pm

From what I understand, the next 10 years are going to be a long cold spell, because of the solar winds dying down over that period.
Don
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 24896
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:01 pm

Postby treetopovskaya » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:03 pm

ah ha haa! this is funny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9AOYacPmBw
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby Jana » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:57 pm

Obama is kicking ass in Orlando right now. And Bill Clinton was great. :D
Jana
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8227
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Anticipating

Postby Lula » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:01 pm

ya got that right jana! 8) apparently mccain must win florida or he's got no chance.
Until we meet again, may God
Hold you in the palm of his hand.

for Dean
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby brywool » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:19 pm

just watch the Obammercial.

How can you NOT like this guy? At least he's spreading hope.
NO. He's NOT Steve F'ing Perry. But he's Arnel F'ing Pineda and I'm okay with that.
User avatar
brywool
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7688
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:54 am

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:47 pm

Whatever.

Actual SCIENTISTS know otherwise - not fucking Rush Limbaugh and the Bush Administration.

Go ahead and sleep like babies as the world burns...

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:51 pm

Whoops! There's this...

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:52 pm

This is a slam-dunk...

In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[10]

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:53 pm

Whoops, fellas! I know you're all brilliant amateur scientists in your own right, but the REST of the world thinks you're full of shit:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[46]
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:55 pm

Good Lord, guys...and tree...

Stop buying EVERYTHING your party tells you to.

You're just dead, 100% completely wrong on this...
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:55 pm

But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:57 pm

Fact check:

Misrepresenting Conclusions

The CEI ad "Glacier" quotes two studies in Science magazine, one as saying " Greenland’s glaciers are growing, not melting" and the other as saying "The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." That drew quick objection from an editor of Science and from the author of the Antarctica study.

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor at Science, complained in a May 19 news release that CEI was misrepresenting both the studies and also the general state of scientific knowledge:

Hanson: The text of the CEI ad misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers and our current state of knowledge by selective referencing.

The lead author of the Antarctica study, University of Missouri professor Curt Davis, said in the same release that CEI was twisting his findings deliberately to mislead the public:

Davis: "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate. They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public.
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

Postby 7 Wishes » Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:59 pm

Two new Public Service Announcements released by the Ad Council say global warming could produce irreversible changes as soon as 30 years from now, and they urge individual citizens to take action.

The ads correctly summarize the bulk of scientific opinion, which holds that the earth will warm by 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) sometime in the next 20 to 54 years, and that this warming will be accompanied by severe weather events.

Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice
But around town, it was well known...when they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives
Would thrash them within inches of their lives!
User avatar
7 Wishes
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Journey

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests