The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[Enigma869]

This should be a fun story, come next Tuesday!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/10/30/voti ... index.html


John from Boston

[RossValoryRocks]

Palin was really hammering away at this supposed LA Times tape last night. But of course only Fox aired a segment of it. Everyone else was airing the prelude to the terrorist wannabe and his new found friendship with Billbilly Clinton. Man, I really want to see if it's true that Obama toasted with a bunch of radical fucks that were calling for an end to Israel.

Uhh, the "radical fuck" who was being "toasted," Rashid Khalidi , was given millions in grants by McCain.
Good luck getting campaign mileage out of that.

You know what I am going to ask right? Show me the proof.

[Behshad]

Palin was really hammering away at this supposed LA Times tape last night. But of course only Fox aired a segment of it. Everyone else was airing the prelude to the terrorist wannabe and his new found friendship with Billbilly Clinton. Man, I really want to see if it's true that Obama toasted with a bunch of radical fucks that were calling for an end to Israel.

I dont think its nearly as bad as George W kissing the bin laden family goodbye before they leave for Saudi , 9/12/01
He shouldve given exclusive photo rights to LA Times ONLY

[The_Noble_Cause]

You know what I am going to ask right? Show me the proof.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... Times.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79441

[RossValoryRocks]

This should be a fun story, come next Tuesday!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/10/30/voti ... index.html


John from Boston

I can walk to my polling place...thank God...hopefully the voting machines will be working. I will be at the polls when they open.

[RossValoryRocks]

Palin was really hammering away at this supposed LA Times tape last night. But of course only Fox aired a segment of it. Everyone else was airing the prelude to the terrorist wannabe and his new found friendship with Billbilly Clinton. Man, I really want to see if it's true that Obama toasted with a bunch of radical fucks that were calling for an end to Israel.

I dont think its nearly as bad as George W kissing the bin laden family goodbye before they leave for Saudi , 9/12/01
He shouldve given exclusive photo rights to LA Times ONLY

Right because the whole family should be made out to be criminals because of the actions of one member!

For their own SAFETY the were moved, because the name alone could have (and probably WOULD HAVE) gotten them killed in the days following 9/11.

[Behshad]

Palin was really hammering away at this supposed LA Times tape last night. But of course only Fox aired a segment of it. Everyone else was airing the prelude to the terrorist wannabe and his new found friendship with Billbilly Clinton. Man, I really want to see if it's true that Obama toasted with a bunch of radical fucks that were calling for an end to Israel.

I dont think its nearly as bad as George W kissing the bin laden family goodbye before they leave for Saudi , 9/12/01
He shouldve given exclusive photo rights to LA Times ONLY

Right because the whole family should be made out to be criminals because of the actions of one member!

For their own SAFETY the were moved, because the name alone could have (and probably WOULD HAVE) gotten them killed in the days following 9/11.

Who gives a fuck about their safety, when their son/cousin/whatever just killed bunch of our people? so tell me this, Would you care about Hitlers family's safety ?

You stereotype ME as a islamicfacist, because of my background, yet you defend the bin laden family ??

[RossValoryRocks]

Palin was really hammering away at this supposed LA Times tape last night. But of course only Fox aired a segment of it. Everyone else was airing the prelude to the terrorist wannabe and his new found friendship with Billbilly Clinton. Man, I really want to see if it's true that Obama toasted with a bunch of radical fucks that were calling for an end to Israel.

I dont think its nearly as bad as George W kissing the bin laden family goodbye before they leave for Saudi , 9/12/01
He shouldve given exclusive photo rights to LA Times ONLY

Right because the whole family should be made out to be criminals because of the actions of one member!

For their own SAFETY the were moved, because the name alone could have (and probably WOULD HAVE) gotten them killed in the days following 9/11.

Who gives a fuck about their safety, when their son/cousin/whatever just killed bunch of our people? so tell me this, Would you care about Hitlers family's safety ?

You stereotype ME as a islamicfacist, because of my background, yet you defend the bin laden family ??

Yup and Yup. Bin Laden's family disowned him long long ago.

It isn't right to attack a whole family because of one bad apple. PERIOD.

And I call you islamofacist out of friendship...just like you calling me cracker and whitey.

[Saint John]

Fuck the world stage. That has very little meaning to me.

Jim Peterik might disagree with you.

[Saint John]

Palin was really hammering away at this supposed LA Times tape last night. But of course only Fox aired a segment of it. Everyone else was airing the prelude to the terrorist wannabe and his new found friendship with Billbilly Clinton. Man, I really want to see if it's true that Obama toasted with a bunch of radical fucks that were calling for an end to Israel.

Uhh, the "radical fuck" who was being "toasted," Rashid Khalidi , was given millions in grants by McCain.
Good luck getting campaign mileage out of that.

There's a bit of difference in the cause. "A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank." <--- That seems like a good cause. Calling for the end of Israel doesn't. Get your fuckin' head out of your ass. There's a qualitative difference and you know it.

[Behshad]

Palin was really hammering away at this supposed LA Times tape last night. But of course only Fox aired a segment of it. Everyone else was airing the prelude to the terrorist wannabe and his new found friendship with Billbilly Clinton. Man, I really want to see if it's true that Obama toasted with a bunch of radical fucks that were calling for an end to Israel.

I dont think its nearly as bad as George W kissing the bin laden family goodbye before they leave for Saudi , 9/12/01
He shouldve given exclusive photo rights to LA Times ONLY

Right because the whole family should be made out to be criminals because of the actions of one member!

For their own SAFETY the were moved, because the name alone could have (and probably WOULD HAVE) gotten them killed in the days following 9/11.

Who gives a fuck about their safety, when their son/cousin/whatever just killed bunch of our people? so tell me this, Would you care about Hitlers family's safety ?

You stereotype ME as a islamicfacist, because of my background, yet you defend the bin laden family ??

Yup and Yup. Bin Laden's family disowned him long long ago.

It isn't right to attack a whole family because of one bad apple. PERIOD.

And I call you islamofacist out of friendship...just like you calling me cracker and whitey.

Im just messing with ya, Cracker

[Tito]

This should be a fun story, come next Tuesday!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/10/30/voti ... index.html


John from Boston

Get rid of voting machines. Those things are bad news.

[Tito]

Fuck the world stage. That has very little meaning to me.

Jim Peterik might disagree with you.

I was going to allude to that but I don't think too many would've got that here. If it were the Survivor forum I would've.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There's a bit of difference in the cause. "A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank." <--- That seems like a good cause. Calling for the end of Israel doesn't. Get your fuckin' head out of your ass. There's a qualitative difference and you know it.

Attending a farewell bash isn't equatable with "calling for the end of Israel" or cutting checks, as McCain did.
As BOTH candidates felt the need to fling themselves at the feet of zionist superlobby, AIPAC, your worries are unfounded.

[RossValoryRocks]

There's a bit of difference in the cause. "A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank." <--- That seems like a good cause. Calling for the end of Israel doesn't. Get your fuckin' head out of your ass. There's a qualitative difference and you know it.

Attending a farewell bash isn't equatable with "calling for the end of Israel" or cutting checks, as McCain did.
As BOTH candidates felt the need to fling themselves at the feet of zionist superlobby, AIPAC, your worries are unfounded.

Zionist??? Wow...zionist has a rather checkered these days connotation don't you think?

It is almost perjorative in it's use lately.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Zionist??? Wow...zionist has a rather checkered these days connotation don't you think?

It is almost perjorative in it's use lately.

So does the word "liberal," - both are valid.

[RossValoryRocks]

Zionist??? Wow...zionist has a rather checkered these days connotation don't you think?

It is almost perjorative in it's use lately.

So does the word "liberal," - both are valid.

Or conservative for that matter.

But as Dan pointed out to you, it is much different. Using the words zionist has an almost racist feel to it, given what the Iranian leadership has said over and over a over.

[RedWingFan]

Whatever.

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

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

And you go ahead marching behind Al Gore like a good little sheep opening your wallet.

This is from scientists at MIT not Limbaugh.

http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113.html

Trendwatch
By Rick C. Hodgin
Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Methane - powerful greenhouse gas

The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.


More study

Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."

The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years.


Project funding

Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.

[Tito]

There's a bit of difference in the cause. "A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank." <--- That seems like a good cause. Calling for the end of Israel doesn't. Get your fuckin' head out of your ass. There's a qualitative difference and you know it.

Attending a farewell bash isn't equatable with "calling for the end of Israel" or cutting checks, as McCain did.
As BOTH candidates felt the need to fling themselves at the feet of zionist superlobby, AIPAC, your worries are unfounded.

I got agree with TNC for once. Israel has too much influence over our foreign policy. I prefer a neutral stance. Ron Paul had it right.

Everyone, regardless of ideology or agenda, has said AIPAC is the most influential lobby in Washington.

[RossValoryRocks]

There's a bit of difference in the cause. "A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank." <--- That seems like a good cause. Calling for the end of Israel doesn't. Get your fuckin' head out of your ass. There's a qualitative difference and you know it.

Attending a farewell bash isn't equatable with "calling for the end of Israel" or cutting checks, as McCain did.
As BOTH candidates felt the need to fling themselves at the feet of zionist superlobby, AIPAC, your worries are unfounded.

I got agree with TNC for once. Israel has too much influence over our foreign policy. I prefer a neutral stance. Ron Paul had it right.

Everyone, regardless of ideology or agenda, has said AIPAC is the most influential lobby in Washington.

I disagree completely with both you and TNC (surprise surprise!). Isreal is currently the only stable democracy in the middle-east (Well Turkey, but they have become more Euro-centric) and if we didn't given the level of support we do they would quickly be wiped out by the like of Iran and Syria.

[conversationpc]

Zionist??? Wow...zionist has a rather checkered these days connotation don't you think?

It is almost perjorative in it's use lately.

So does the word "liberal," - both are valid.

Or conservative for that matter.

But as Dan pointed out to you, it is much different. Using the words zionist has an almost racist feel to it, given what the Iranian leadership has said over and over a over.

To me, the word "Zionist" is linked to racism. It's not meant to convey anything positive.

As far as "liberal" vs. "conservative", I don't think the use of the two terms is necessarily similar. Liberal, when used by a conservative, is generally a pejorative term. On the other hand, conservative isn't normally used that way by liberals. They will generally use the term "neo-con" in the same way we use "liberal"

[Tito]

Zionist??? Wow...zionist has a rather checkered these days connotation don't you think?

It is almost perjorative in it's use lately.

So does the word "liberal," - both are valid.

Or conservative for that matter.

But as Dan pointed out to you, it is much different. Using the words zionist has an almost racist feel to it, given what the Iranian leadership has said over and over a over.

To me, the word "Zionist" is linked to racism. It's not meant to convey anything positive.

As far as "liberal" vs. "conservative", I don't think the use of the two terms is necessarily similar. Liberal, when used by a conservative, is generally a pejorative term. On the other hand, conservative isn't normally used that way by liberals. They will generally use the term "neo-con" in the same way we use "liberal"

I don't have to worry as I'm a paleocon.

[Tito]

There's a bit of difference in the cause. "A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank." <--- That seems like a good cause. Calling for the end of Israel doesn't. Get your fuckin' head out of your ass. There's a qualitative difference and you know it.

Attending a farewell bash isn't equatable with "calling for the end of Israel" or cutting checks, as McCain did.
As BOTH candidates felt the need to fling themselves at the feet of zionist superlobby, AIPAC, your worries are unfounded.

I got agree with TNC for once. Israel has too much influence over our foreign policy. I prefer a neutral stance. Ron Paul had it right.

Everyone, regardless of ideology or agenda, has said AIPAC is the most influential lobby in Washington.

I disagree completely with both you and TNC (surprise surprise!). Isreal is currently the only stable democracy in the middle-east (Well Turkey, but they have become more Euro-centric) and if we didn't given the level of support we do they would quickly be wiped out by the like of Iran and Syria.

I think Israel could handle it fine by themselves.

[Behshad]

Zionist??? Wow...zionist has a rather checkered these days connotation don't you think?

It is almost perjorative in it's use lately.

So does the word "liberal," - both are valid.

Or conservative for that matter.

But as Dan pointed out to you, it is much different. Using the words zionist has an almost racist feel to it, given what the Iranian leadership has said over and over a over.

To me, the word "Zionist" is linked to racism. It's not meant to convey anything positive.

As far as "liberal" vs. "conservative", I don't think the use of the two terms is necessarily similar. Liberal, when used by a conservative, is generally a pejorative term. On the other hand, conservative isn't normally used that way by liberals. They will generally use the term "neo-con" in the same way we use "liberal"

I don't have to worry as I'm a paleo-con.

I thought you were a palin-con / paleo-cain.

[RossValoryRocks]

There's a bit of difference in the cause. "A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank." <--- That seems like a good cause. Calling for the end of Israel doesn't. Get your fuckin' head out of your ass. There's a qualitative difference and you know it.

Attending a farewell bash isn't equatable with "calling for the end of Israel" or cutting checks, as McCain did.
As BOTH candidates felt the need to fling themselves at the feet of zionist superlobby, AIPAC, your worries are unfounded.

I got agree with TNC for once. Israel has too much influence over our foreign policy. I prefer a neutral stance. Ron Paul had it right.

Everyone, regardless of ideology or agenda, has said AIPAC is the most influential lobby in Washington.

I disagree completely with both you and TNC (surprise surprise!). Isreal is currently the only stable democracy in the middle-east (Well Turkey, but they have become more Euro-centric) and if we didn't given the level of support we do they would quickly be wiped out by the like of Iran and Syria.

I think Israel could handle it fine by themselves.

I don't. Without our aid and weapons systems they would be over matched in short order...right after they nuked Tehran and Damascus.

[The_Noble_Cause]

To me, the word "Zionist" is linked to racism. It's not meant to convey anything positive.

I don't care about connotations.
Zionism lies at the heart of Israel's claim to survival.
It's very existence is founded on it.
That is a fact.

[conversationpc]

To me, the word "Zionist" is linked to racism. It's not meant to convey anything positive.

I don't care about connotations.
Zionism lies at the heart of Israel's right to survival.
It's very existence is founded on it.
That is a fact.

Who cares? I'm not talking about the root word as it was intended to be used but how it is mostly and currently used.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Who cares? I'm not talking about the root word as it was intended to be used but how it is mostly and currently used.

It's used by people who have objections to Israeli policy.
Some legit, some not.

[RossValoryRocks]

To me, the word "Zionist" is linked to racism. It's not meant to convey anything positive.

I don't care about connotations.
Zionism lies at the heart of Israel's claim to survival.
It's very existence is founded on it.
That is a fact.

Yeah and the N-word came from the word for black in spanish and portuguese. That is fact too...and just as racist.

It is interesting your "claim to survival" comment. It sounds like you don't like Isreal very much.

[The_Noble_Cause]

It is interesting your "claim to survival" comment. It sounds like you don't like Isreal very much.

I don't believe in geographic birthrights based on fairy tales. That's all.