I think many people in the world support (ad love him) him because of his charisma, leadership, and peace initiatives in the world, what is very different from his predecessor President Bush, who started a few very useless wars and created more instability and chaos in the world.
I think that most people outside of the USA don't really understand why anybody want to start legal process against Obama in the US Congress.
Because he's a liar and a cheat. |
|
|
|
I'm actually sorry to tell you this. But this "experiment" is fraudulent. Hmm how so anyways I'm curious enough can you provide proof of this experiment being fraudulent Different gases retain and reflect heat at different rates so I can't see where the fake part came from unless I am missing something. Unless you meant the affordable clean energy alternative part then I can see what you meant. Its Global warming potential Spendulus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potentialCarbon dioxide has a GWP of exactly 1 (since it is the baseline unit to which all other greenhouse gases are compared). Methane 12.4 86(20 years) 34 (100 Years) Note that a substance's GWP depends..... man, if he ends up typing 10 words and you end up typing a thesis as an argument.. it might have been a troll attempt. if that were the case, i'd find humor in that  LOL that is a point. No troll, though, simply facts. http://my.firedoglake.com/metamars/2012/12/11/al-gorebill-nye-climate-101-video-found-to-be-fraudulent-how-you-can-replicate-the-experiment-yourself/Note an important distinction. The experiment is a hoax. This does not prove or disprove global warming, etc. That these guys thought they could put over on the public a hoax like this does show a bit of what they think of you and me. It is also interesting that it seems to take "deniers" to actually critically examine the "experiment", attempt to replicate it and find the fraud. "Believers" seem to just take it all on faith. This is an essential proof that Deniers are Believers best friends... One does not take science on faith. |
|
|
|
.....
And no, Islam isn't "just as violent", others have violent behaviors, but Islam is violent from its doctrine up. The only place Islam should have by now was in Hollywood for a couple of movies, like the Greek or Nordic ancient religions.
Well, Sayyd Qutb would likely agree with you.... |
|
|
|
New Emails Show Lois Lerner Called Some Conservatives ‘A**holes’New emails uncovered by the House Ways and Means Committee indicate that former IRS employee Lois Lerner has a strong dislike of some conservatives, and at one point called them “assholes” in an email exchange. The committee released an email Lerner received in November 2012 complaining about the “whacko wing of the GOP.” The person mocked conservatives for believing there are “too many foreigners sucking the teat” and that it is “time to hunker down, buy ammo and food, and prepare for the end.” The person added that the “right wing radio shows are scary to listen to.” Lerner replied, “Great. Maybe we are through if there are that many assholes.” The other person then wrote, “And I’m talking about the hosts of the shows. The callers are rabid.” Lerner replied, “So we don’t need to worry about alien terrorists. It’s our own crazies that will take us down.”http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/30/new-emails-show-lois-lerner-called-conservatives-aholes/ Haha, good thing she's watching out for us Americans. I remember when she ran for office and I voted for her....oh wait.  She is the face of cancer. No other could have played her any better. Today I retrieved email from a server after a email system on the laptop got messed up. Not possible. Your back up tapes only last 6 months...... Actually I was only interested in the last couple days of emails. But the email backups on the server went back to when I started that account ten years ago. They are all there. Including even every spam received. |
|
|
|
Ever been to a meeting of atheists? In large part they are pro Clinton, pro Obama, pro socialist anything, pro Marxist, etc. Rather ridiculous and boring actually.
Certainly doesn't mean one is equal to the other.
You got it wrong, you didn't went to an Atheist meeting, you went to a Communist meeting, who happens to be also atheists. You can't have atheist meetings, because there's no mass, no church, no associations, no nothing, Just plain people going around their business and not caring about worshiping any imaginary friend. You most certainly can have an Atheist organization. It's just Non-Prophet. |
|
|
|
Atheism doesn't mean that you are Republican or Democrat, pro-Choice or pro-Life or anything else...
Atheism means that each individual is able to think for himself and act accordingly.
Idk where came that idea that atheists are Communists. Communists are atheists, the inverse can be true or not.
Ever been to a meeting of atheists? In large part they are pro Clinton, pro Obama, pro socialist anything, pro Marxist, etc. Rather ridiculous and boring actually. Certainly doesn't mean one is equal to the other. |
|
|
|
New Emails Show Lois Lerner Called Some Conservatives ‘A**holes’New emails uncovered by the House Ways and Means Committee indicate that former IRS employee Lois Lerner has a strong dislike of some conservatives, and at one point called them “assholes” in an email exchange. The committee released an email Lerner received in November 2012 complaining about the “whacko wing of the GOP.” The person mocked conservatives for believing there are “too many foreigners sucking the teat” and that it is “time to hunker down, buy ammo and food, and prepare for the end.” The person added that the “right wing radio shows are scary to listen to.” Lerner replied, “Great. Maybe we are through if there are that many assholes.” The other person then wrote, “And I’m talking about the hosts of the shows. The callers are rabid.” Lerner replied, “So we don’t need to worry about alien terrorists. It’s our own crazies that will take us down.”http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/30/new-emails-show-lois-lerner-called-conservatives-aholes/ Haha, good thing she's watching out for us Americans. I remember when she ran for office and I voted for her....oh wait. She is the face of cancer. No other could have played her any better. Today I retrieved email from a server after a email system on the laptop got messed up. |
|
|
|
Kind of scary to see a country filled up with religion fanatics to held such many weapons as USA does... Hope "God" doesn't unleash them! , in the US, Muslims vote as a block democratic. Quoted for the lulz. LOL....some athiests are not. For example, those who lean toward Ayn Rand may be athiests who are pure capitalists. And I've certainly met some, let's say from Muslim origins, whom I respect highly. But they weren't exactly, "Muslim".... Those who lean toward Ayn Rand are the objectivists, which is kind of cultish, it's not about capitalism... I believe the vast majority of people in this forum are atheist and/or anti-theist not only because of education/skepticism but also because of anti-authoritarianism, and I don't see many commies around.  As best as I know I would generally agree with your comments. Although I guess you could sort of say that people posting here from communist countries are, well, communists. But that doesn't mean much about their attitudes and beliefs, which is this question. |
|
|
|
Kind of scary to see a country filled up with religion fanatics to held such many weapons as USA does... Hope "God" doesn't unleash them! , in the US, Muslims vote as a block democratic. Quoted for the lulz. LOL....some athiests are not. For example, those who lean toward Ayn Rand may be athiests who are pure capitalists. And I've certainly met some, let's say from Muslim origins, whom I respect highly. But they weren't exactly, "Muslim".... |
|
|
|
Kind of scary to see a country filled up with religion fanatics to held such many weapons as USA does... Hope "God" doesn't unleash them! About 80% of atheists are pure socialist/communist/collectivists, in the US, Muslims vote as a block democratic. Therefore (not that the PEW foundation is unbiased, they are very biased) correlation does not prove causation. |
|
|
|
Even the notion of "illegals" is a bit misinformed to me. Many people are within the arbitrary boundaries of a political entity without documents through no fault of their own (for example, the borders of the country have changed, or the parents brought a minor child who is now an adult). Sweeping all folks without documents into the class of "illegals" borders on xenophobia, for me.
You mean, we can't call people without passports "illegal"? Why? |
|
|
|
You know, this thread was supposed to be about H.Obama's illegal, arbitrary and unjustified executive order and it has now turned into something else entirely.
Why do you guys do that?
Oh, by the way, in case you haven't noticed, H.Obama is now enforcing the terms of international treaties on individaul American citizens who had no vote in the matter.
You know, in the context of sanctions, I have no problem with including a popular export product, the AK47 family of rifles. They aren't exactly a sole source, those things are made all over the place. If the ban on Kalishnikov remains in place after the sanctions are lifted, you've got a point. I'm not even in favor of sanctions and I'm way to the pro gun side, by the way. |
|
|
|
Just another incentive to begin harvesting extra-terrestrial resources... Our Solar System has plenty to go around...
There isn't really a finite amount of resources but rather a finite amount of energy... New resources can be created given enough energy and the right technology to fuse/fizz atoms effectively...
The question isn't whether we will run out of resources on our planet. The question is whether we'll have adequate resources to sustain ourselves until an alternate source of materials can be found and exploited...
One square km of lunar dirt, a couple of meters deep, contains more easily extracted aluminum and titanium than is produced in a year on Earth. |
|
|
|
I may be opposed to global warming scaremongering nonsense, but i still consider myself something of an environmentalist. There is definitely a case to be made for how humans are having a devastating impact on the environment through overconsumption due to tragedy of the commons problems created by government and the rampant externalization of the cost of pollution resulting from legislative interferences in market processes.
I believe this to be the most common sense way of understanding the situation. IMHO. Personally I think the AGW stuff has just about ruined environmentalism, not sure it can recover. Sad really. |
|
|
|
I'm actually sorry to tell you this. But this "experiment" is fraudulent. |
|
|
|
FYI, i watch both the colbert report and the daily show.. and i've also been watching last week tonight with john oliver. i think it's actually better than the daily show, and almost as funny as the colbert report.. and overall, i find it to be more substantive in bringing the topics to the audience.
I'm convinced the daily show and colbert are nothing but propaganda machines, as well as most any other TV media productions. |
|
|
|
Airplanes are at around 80 MPG per seat.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
I must agree with the bolded above, therefore I stick with my 100mpg comment previously made and request comparables not be made between.... airplane as is today with partial seating vs FUTURISTIC BULLSHIT CAR WITH ALL SEATS LOADED Well, it's not quite as futuristic as you think it is. http://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/specifications/engine/43 mpg on the highway. With only the driver inside. And that's not even the most efficient car available today. Irrelevant, you are not comparing future aircraft to future car, you are comparing present or past aircraft to future car. That's nonsense. Anyway, I had cars that got 48mpg back in the 1980s this is nothing new. |
|
|
|
Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests
A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed......
FNC viewers will deny this reality, thus rendering themselves uninformed about the fact that they're uninformed
TV watchers will deny the reality that they are uninformed about the fact they are uninformed. Compared to people who read Instapundit and Drudgereport. |
|
|
|
....
IF artificial global warming is a hoax, then who would benefit from these taxes (other than the guys who make the solar panels/windmills etc.)?
The government can "spend" money on green energy and do nothing more than line the pockets of their donors/friends. Look at Solyndra, half a billion spent on a company that went under. No green jobs, no green energy being produced, only money wasted. And the gvt will profit from these taxes, by funneling the money through the EPA, spending probably 10-20x more than the solar panels/windmills should cost if done by private organizations. This. The most likely proof that they have been just lining their friends' pockets is the lack of useful results from the spending. |
|
|
|
if you are a denier, then you are just flat out wrong. an overwhelming majority of scientists say that climate change is man-made, and the science backs it up. something like 90%+ agreed on it.
the one who deny it.. i wouldn't be surprised if they were schills for the energy/oil industries.
also, i used to watch CNN.. when i started to notice how bullshit it was, was when they kept on running those exxon mobil commercials.
For anything you say that's true, you would first have to be able to define denier. If you couldn't do it without creating strawman arguments, tough. Having made that minor note, bolded statement above is enough of an exaggeration to be a lie. how else could you interpret a denier? someone who says that burning fossil fuel, coal, and other energy forms is absolutely NOT causing the heat to be trapped by our ozone layer.it's not an exaggeration. take a look at wikipedia, or listen to a vast majority of scientists speak. the only reason why there is any form of "dissent" is because companies worth billions of dollars are profiting from it, so they have a lot of money leftover to spread misinformation. i mean, shit, you probably can't watch any cable news channel without seeing an exxon mobil commercial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-studies-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/Well, first of all, the ozone layer is not where or what "traps heat." So go look your science up on that. Secondly, there are no people that claim that "someone who says that burning fossil fuel, coal, and other energy forms is absolutely NOT causing the heat to be trapped by our...<<insert proper term for atmosphere>>" ...thus this is a classic example of a strawman argument, isn't it? Then you say... the only reason why there is any form of "dissent" is because companies worth billions of dollars are profiting from itBut that's ridiculous because there is dissent on windmills due to their appearance, their killing birds. There is dissent on electric cars because of battery disposal issues. There is dissent on corn based ethanol because it's plain stupid. There is dissent on "global warming" because it hasn't warmed for two decades. In other words, there are many, many real world issues where people can and should speak the truth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
