Now, answer my question: Show me a single government funded study that concluded the less government intervention is required? Why would AGW be any different?
His "bias" is based on the best available scientific knowledge. AGW is pretty well-established at this point, funding research that suggests it's all wrong wouldn't be productive.
And there's the rub. Here's how I see it. 1) Greenies pay off government via campaign contributions, endorsements lobbying, etc. (Sierra club, Green Party, GreenPeace and so on.) 2) Laws get passed to "protect the environment" and reward the greenies by various public awareness campaigns that work to increase the donations to green organizations. 3) Greenies see that payoffs and protests work. They try harder. 4) Governments tax and fine on pollution. Create more laws. 5) Governments realize that environmental regulation gives them more power to reward their supporters and punish the opponents through targeted taxes and legislation. 6) Greenies make their way onto the NSF's board. (seriously, who likes pollution?) 7) With the NSB stacked, only scientists who support AGW get grant money. Only schools who employ "the good" scientists get funding. 8) Scientists who do not support AGW receive no government or education grants money. The only ones willing to fund their research are "evil corporations", which immediately discredits the scientist and the research. 9) The vast majority of scientific research shows a definitive link between man made CO2 and AGW. More legislation is required (return to step 5).
I understand taking a skeptical eye to scientists funded by oil companies. Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. What I don't understand is people NOT taking a skeptical eye to government funded research, especially when that research gives the government more power and rewards those who used to be in government (Al Gore) as well as their supporters (environmental PAC's). Show me a single government funded study that concluded the less government intervention is required? Why would AGW be any different?
Oil drilling is keeping old money rich. Nothing more. Even a 1980's car can easily be converted to use E85 or E100 fuel for very little money, so trying to use a "what about the poor" rant is already dead.
Very true. Unfortunately, it is physically impossible for the US enough ethanol to power all of our cars, even at E85.
Honestly, electric vehicles would work now if we had the infrastructure to support them. 15 minute charging stations, etc...
Sure, there's that. There is also the fact that a car that can be charged in 15 minutes to travel more than 100 miles safely has yet to be invented.
ships never even existed before oil
Actually, they did exist. They ran off of wind. A trip form Europe to the US would take months, if it made it at all. Good luck outrunning that hurricane in a sailboat.
Who pays for the mistakes? Who pays for the environmental impact? If BP were forced to shoulder the entire cost of this mistake, they would go bankrupt. And so, as usual, it is the rest of us who will have to pay. Socialism for the rich, paid for by the poor.
If you and I lived next to each other, and I ran a pipe from my toilet into your yard, you would be pretty pissed off, wouldn't you? You'd probably demand I stop shitting in your yard. And I would say, "Human civilization can not exist without environmental impact, shit happens, get over your knee jerk reaction and get used to it, hippie."
Are you SERIOUSLY comparing people who make money off of GREEN technologies to those who are on the PAYROLL of POLLUTERS like Big Oil? Wow, you need a nice, hot cup of Get Some Fukin Perspective.
Is it just me or does that look like a list of non-profit/governmental/academic groups? I recognize most of them as such (HENAAC is a nonprofit, even though it has "corporation" in it's name). Please point out which ones are for-profit corporations or associations that represent corporations and provide sources. I can't find any info on ACREAB or SCEIAP.
The question is not what the group's status is. The question is whether any of these organizations pay him for this. If he collects as much as air fair to go to Colorado, he is getting paid.
However, as another poster pointed out, whether or not he's on the payroll doesn't matter as it shows a preconceived bias. Now, it's one thing for FoxNews to have a bias as they are a for profit corporation. It is something else entirely for someone who decides which research projects and scientists will receive tax dollars. This is strong evidence that scientists who do research to promote AGW will get the dollars before the scientists whose research oppose it. This is why I believe so many support the "consensus". Because if they don't, they are out of a job and no longer called scientists.
People who disbelieved the mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change will put this latest piece of evidence in the same mountainous pile of ignored evidence.
Change is difference over time. Changes is dependent on historical data. If the historical data is flawed, then the "mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change" is wrong because it concerns change. Historical data is everything. If the temp was warmer 50000 years ago, then the climate is cooling. If the temperatures was cooler 50000 years ago, then the climate is warming. If the temps were the same 50000 years ago, then the climate is not changing at all. So, again, if the historical data is incorrect, then the entire "mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change" is also incorrect.
if scientists had wanted to have power and money they wouldn't have studied science over politics or finance.
No, they are scientists because they love doing science stuff. Unfortunately, that requires money. The board of the NSB is full of people with ties to "green energy" and have historical and/or financial ties to proving climate change. So if scientists want to continue doing science, they have to tow the line or else they end up being discredited and left to do nothing as the grant money dries up.
"Fox "News" are a bunch of partisan frauds who are paid to lie through their teeth, and they are very good at it."
Theres a few sites on the net that look at the corporate backgrounds of most of Fox's "Experts". Almost all of them are in some way linked to the corporations they comment positively on (Ie defense experts who get on recomending america should buy a certain missile, then it pans out they are being paid off by the missiles manufacturer, or health experts claiming cigarettes are harmless who pan out to be employed by a PR company working for tobacco firms, and so on).
Its like they don't actually hire anyone at all qualified to comment, but instead let their advertisers nominate "experts".
Fair and balanced my arse. Fox is an astonishingly biased news. Remember folks, these same people complain about "liberal bias", despite study after study demonstrating a conservative lean in american news reporting.
And if you look at the NSF's board who approves scientific grant research money, you will find that many of the have ties to "green" technologies and have a financial interest in AGW. For example, the first guy on the list, Dan E. Arvizu:
Arvizu serves on a number of Boards, Panels and Advisory Committees including the American Council on Renewable Energy Advisory Board; the Energy Research, Development, and Deployment Policy Project Advisory Committee at the Harvard Kennedy School; the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Alternative Energies; the Singapore Clean Energy International Advisory Panel; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III; the Hispanic Engineer National Achievement Award Corporation; and the Colorado Renewable Energy Authority Board of Directors.
So, if the talking heads on Fox can be discredited because of their ties to industries that would oppose AGW, then you have to throw out every scientist who has received American grant money because it too is tainted by corporate interests. That's only fair, right?
The Climate "Sceptics" will refuse global warming even when the Earth is burnt to a crisp. Denial is a powerful thing, and need a bit more than diplomacy to break through.
It's called "motivated reasoning" when you are emotionally attached to a believe.
Powerful stuff! As you absolutely cannot talk people out of an emotional state!
Allow me to point out that fear and guilt are emotions and they are the primary driver behind AGW believers.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited. Then he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
But, since you brought up the wars, let's look at how much they cost. According to the left wing Cost Of War.com site, the total cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is about $990 Billion. Obama's deficit spending had exceeded that in his first year in office. Now, keep in mind that the $900 billion was the total cost since 2003 when we invaded Iraq. So, unless Obama increased funding for the wars by more than seven times, your "wars kept off the books" as an excuse for Obama's deficits argument is total bullshit.
What a troll you are. First the graph only goes back to '95, which is just plain disingenuous. Second it doesn't take into account Bush keeping the cost of the wars "off the books". Obama simply added them back on. You *know* Republicans generated far more deficits than Democrats did. You know this because you've been told over and over, and been shown an endless amount of evidence. Yet your mind is so screwed up, so backwards and twisted, that you will do everything in your power to lie to yourself, and lie to others, just so that you don't have to face the truth. It's fascinating and yet disturbing watching you lead a life in a tiny bubble of fake reality.
Republican presidents or Republican led congresses? There is a difference. See, according to the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings. So when you say, "Republicans generated far more deficits than Democrats did", are you talking about the party that controls the White House or Capitol Hill? I think that if you consider that aspect of your statement, you'll find that your conclusion changes. This is why I don't blame Obama for the current deficit as much as I blame Pelosi and Ried. Although, when the same party controls the WH as Congress, Congress tends to go along with whatever the President wants as he is in control of the party. This is why Obama is not completely blameless.
Now that you know this, welcome out of your "life in a tiny bubble of fake reality." See, ignorance can be cured. I guess that I can overlook the insults as you really didn't know any better.
Cute graph, but the fact that he uses the term "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" indicates a bias.
But don't be insulted. This article tells it better than I can:
The truly unfortunate result of the constant carping on this trivial distinction between “Democratic Party” and “Democrat Party” is that it serves as a distraction; therefore, instead of addressing the issues, the aggrieved Democrat retorts that the offending Republican uttering the shortened form ”insults the party,” as partisan hack Paul Begala complained about Bush’s use. Other sword-swallowing partisan Democrats such as those of the DailyKos ilk like to pounce on any and every use of that term by conservatives, even when many times that use is inadvertent, as in Bush’s case, and therefore meaningless.
None of that matters as the graph was found at FreeRepublic.com. That is a right wing site. I posted it as full disclosure and I expected people to actually look at the sources and verify the data itself. Unfortunately, you fell for the "Attack the Messenger" and "Guilt by Association" fallacies. You seem to have a problem with that. Instead of looking at the data, you look at who is bringing it to you and throw it out with no consideration of its accuracy.
I haven't read the source link, but I'd assume that the question was probably asked in the context that McCain is likely to die before his term would be up. In that case, it's a very important question.
And even if that wasn't the context -- the belief that Palin is more qualified, when she can't answer hard-hitting gotcha questions like, "what newspapers do you like to read?" is hilarious. And there are people who really do believe this.
--Jeremy
And Biden telling a man in a wheel chair to stand up and take a bow was very telling as well. Not just because that Biden is a fucking idiot, but what kind of idiot picks him to make his campaign look better? And Obama was known for stepping on his dick every time he tried to speak without a teleprompter.
The point is that every politician stumbles on what should be an easy issue. On paper, both candidates, Palin and Obama have roughly the same number of years experience. The differences are that Palin's experience was executive at a local and state level while Obama's was legislative at the state and federal level. Which carries more weight, executive experience for an executive job or federal experience for a federal job?
I think of this way. You are hiring for an IT job. Who would you hire, a person from another company with IT experience or someone who already works for your company with no IT experience? Of course, that's my opinion. I'm sure yours differs. Either way, all experience weighted equally, Palin and Obama have roughly the same amount of experience. That's fact. Numbers don't lie. The difference, as I stated before, Obama was running for President. Palin was running for Vice President. I would say that Palin was more experience for her job than Obama was for his.
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.
So let me get this straight, a batshit crazy liberal is telling everyone what the "core" of the Republican party is, right? Like you have any fucking idea what Republicans want. Tell you what. How about if I, a Republican, say that Democrats are Stalinists who want to ban religion entirely, lock up religious leaders, arrest the leaders of any party they disagree with? Would that be fair? How about if I found sources that backed me up. Do you really think I would have a hard time finding prominent Democratic leaders that want to see the Pope arrested or "see Bush frogmarched"? Would that make me batshit crazy? You bet it would. So, go back and read your posts again and tell you are not batshit crazy! My God man! You linked to a poll by the Daily Kos as evidence. Don't you know those guys are batshit crazy too? Is that really who you look to for truth?
Strange. I don't remember Sarah Palin running for president. In order to be fair, one of the following questions should be asked: Do you think Barack Obama is more qualified to President than Sarah Palin is to be Vice President? or Do you think that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than John McCain? or Palin vs Biden
But to compare the top of one ticket's experience with the bottom of the other is kind of chicken shit. It's like two people arguing over which football team is better and one says, "Yeah, but our quarterback can throw the ball better than your kicker!"
You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a... wait for it... SACRED institution like Marriage.
MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.
But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.
Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).
Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.
I agree and even take it a step further. In order to not "break all sorts of "social programs"", the feds could convert all current marriages to civil unions. Problem solved.
I only say that because there are certain "benefits" that are afforded to married people like child custody, power of attorney, and so on. There needs to be federal and state recognition of the union currently called marriage. I believe everyone would be happy if you just changed the name. Civil Unions have no religious significance. If you want to get "married", go to a church, chapel or where ever you want and get married by whoever you believe is qualified to stand there and say, "You're married". It will just carry no legal weight.
More than Sarah Palin? Yes. And note that I'm very non political, meaning I don't subscribe to the US democrat/republican points of view. My country of birth has several political parties and I still don't understand how a country as big as the US can only have two.
Strange. I don't remember Sarah Palin running for president. In order to be fair, one of the following questions should be asked: Do you think Barack Obama is more qualified to President than Sarah Palin is to be Vice President? or Do you think that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than John McCain?
But I wasn't even talking about Republican Party members, but Republican officials. If you read the many supporting pages to which I linked about "American Taliban", you'll see that those officials are theocrats.
Yes! Because denying gays federal recognition of marriage is the exact same thing as hanging or stoning them.
I'm sorry. What were you saying about "False equivalence"?
Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.
Um, as a "Doc", you can read right? Go read The Constitution and report back to me with which branch of the government controls spending.
In the mean time, here is a graph showing the party in control of congress vs the deficit. It came from the article here (so you can check the references and data).
That time period you mention also happens to be Bill Clinton. With Bush on either side creating all time record deficits. Reagan before that terrible as well (obviously...). Jimmy carter didn't make anything better or worse. Ford sucked. Nixon didn't fuck anything up. Lyndon Johnson broke a bit above even.
First, in defense of Reagan, you obviously don't remember the absolute mess the country was in when he took office. Maybe you weren't born yet. I remember mortgage rates well over 18%. I remember unemployment and inflation at double digits. I even remember something called the "Misery Index". Reagan's spending brought this country back from brink of becoming another Greece.
Now, on to the rest of it. Congress controls the purse strings. Why not look at the deficit cross referenced by the party in control of Congress?
Also, I noticed that you conveniently left out the current administration that has the tripled the deficit spending of GWBush. It's incredibly staggering when you consider that it took Bush eight years to do 1/3 of what Obama did one.
First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989... President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.)
So, if you think Reagan was "terrible", then you must think Obama is Satan himself. I'm really surprised you didn't mention it. Unless, you don't want to make your side look bad by presenting all the facts. So much better to only cherry pick the stats that back up your side.
No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans, hyperbolically. Democrats (like all politicians) are bad, so Republicans, who are catastrophic, must be no worse than Democrats.
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.
No, this is not really hyperbole. The Republican Party is America's Taliban. And fallacies like false equivalency is keeping them at work on their theocracy.
Really Doc? I seriously hope you don't believe that. As a Republican, I can honestly say that no one wants to "send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work." Really, we don't give a shit.
Also I would like to ask you which party let the war against music lyrics that contained profanity? Let's see... I believe it was Dee Snider who pointed out that a member on the congressional committee grilling him was married to the founding member of Parents Music Resource Center. I believe that senator became Vice President at one point, but I could be wrong. I don't think he was a Republican either. Strange that you didn't bring that up.
Then, of course, let's not forget about all the Democrats that would gladly take everything you own and trow you in jail for not paying your taxes, but when one their own misses a few years of tax payments, why they make him United States Secretary of the Treasury.
So, to sum it all up for you: 1) You spew a bunch of bullshit and hyperbole about the party you don't like to justify your personal hatred. 2) You remain completely silent when the "other guys" truly would jail you for something they do themselves.
Your claim of Republican hypocrisy is dripping with hypocrisy itself. Does projection qualify as irony?
Slashdot Mirror
Please offer an example of a reputable scientist critical of AGW, who is not funded by fossil fuel companies.
I'm sure not all of these guys are funded by fossil fuels companies:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Pick one.
Now, answer my question:
Show me a single government funded study that concluded the less government intervention is required? Why would AGW be any different?
His "bias" is based on the best available scientific knowledge. AGW is pretty well-established at this point, funding research that suggests it's all wrong wouldn't be productive.
And there's the rub. Here's how I see it.
1) Greenies pay off government via campaign contributions, endorsements lobbying, etc. (Sierra club, Green Party, GreenPeace and so on.)
2) Laws get passed to "protect the environment" and reward the greenies by various public awareness campaigns that work to increase the donations to green organizations.
3) Greenies see that payoffs and protests work. They try harder.
4) Governments tax and fine on pollution. Create more laws.
5) Governments realize that environmental regulation gives them more power to reward their supporters and punish the opponents through targeted taxes and legislation.
6) Greenies make their way onto the NSF's board. (seriously, who likes pollution?)
7) With the NSB stacked, only scientists who support AGW get grant money. Only schools who employ "the good" scientists get funding.
8) Scientists who do not support AGW receive no government or education grants money. The only ones willing to fund their research are "evil corporations", which immediately discredits the scientist and the research.
9) The vast majority of scientific research shows a definitive link between man made CO2 and AGW. More legislation is required (return to step 5).
I understand taking a skeptical eye to scientists funded by oil companies. Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. What I don't understand is people NOT taking a skeptical eye to government funded research, especially when that research gives the government more power and rewards those who used to be in government (Al Gore) as well as their supporters (environmental PAC's). Show me a single government funded study that concluded the less government intervention is required? Why would AGW be any different?
Oil drilling is keeping old money rich. Nothing more. Even a 1980's car can easily be converted to use E85 or E100 fuel for very little money, so trying to use a "what about the poor" rant is already dead.
Very true. Unfortunately, it is physically impossible for the US enough ethanol to power all of our cars, even at E85.
Honestly, electric vehicles would work now if we had the infrastructure to support them. 15 minute charging stations, etc...
Sure, there's that. There is also the fact that a car that can be charged in 15 minutes to travel more than 100 miles safely has yet to be invented.
ships never even existed before oil
Actually, they did exist. They ran off of wind. A trip form Europe to the US would take months, if it made it at all. Good luck outrunning that hurricane in a sailboat.
Who pays for the mistakes? Who pays for the environmental impact? If BP were forced to shoulder the entire cost of this mistake, they would go bankrupt. And so, as usual, it is the rest of us who will have to pay. Socialism for the rich, paid for by the poor.
If you and I lived next to each other, and I ran a pipe from my toilet into your yard, you would be pretty pissed off, wouldn't you? You'd probably demand I stop shitting in your yard. And I would say, "Human civilization can not exist without environmental impact, shit happens, get over your knee jerk reaction and get used to it, hippie."
If your shit would power my car, I'd welcome it!
Are you SERIOUSLY comparing people who make money off of GREEN technologies to those who are on the PAYROLL of POLLUTERS like Big Oil? Wow, you need a nice, hot cup of Get Some Fukin Perspective.
There, fixed that for you. And the answer is yes!
Is it just me or does that look like a list of non-profit/governmental/academic groups? I recognize most of them as such (HENAAC is a nonprofit, even though it has "corporation" in it's name). Please point out which ones are for-profit corporations or associations that represent corporations and provide sources. I can't find any info on ACREAB or SCEIAP.
The question is not what the group's status is. The question is whether any of these organizations pay him for this. If he collects as much as air fair to go to Colorado, he is getting paid.
However, as another poster pointed out, whether or not he's on the payroll doesn't matter as it shows a preconceived bias. Now, it's one thing for FoxNews to have a bias as they are a for profit corporation. It is something else entirely for someone who decides which research projects and scientists will receive tax dollars. This is strong evidence that scientists who do research to promote AGW will get the dollars before the scientists whose research oppose it. This is why I believe so many support the "consensus". Because if they don't, they are out of a job and no longer called scientists.
People who disbelieved the mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change will put this latest piece of evidence in the same mountainous pile of ignored evidence.
Change is difference over time. Changes is dependent on historical data. If the historical data is flawed, then the "mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change" is wrong because it concerns change. Historical data is everything. If the temp was warmer 50000 years ago, then the climate is cooling. If the temperatures was cooler 50000 years ago, then the climate is warming. If the temps were the same 50000 years ago, then the climate is not changing at all. So, again, if the historical data is incorrect, then the entire "mountains of different evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change" is also incorrect.
if scientists had wanted to have power and money they wouldn't have studied science over politics or finance.
No, they are scientists because they love doing science stuff. Unfortunately, that requires money. The board of the NSB is full of people with ties to "green energy" and have historical and/or financial ties to proving climate change. So if scientists want to continue doing science, they have to tow the line or else they end up being discredited and left to do nothing as the grant money dries up.
But scientific misconduct? Where?
You honestly think that trying to block the publication of your critics is not scientific misconduct?
"Fox "News" are a bunch of partisan frauds who are paid to lie through their teeth, and they are very good at it."
Theres a few sites on the net that look at the corporate backgrounds of most of Fox's "Experts". Almost all of them are in some way linked to the corporations they comment positively on (Ie defense experts who get on recomending america should buy a certain missile, then it pans out they are being paid off by the missiles manufacturer, or health experts claiming cigarettes are harmless who pan out to be employed by a PR company working for tobacco firms, and so on).
Its like they don't actually hire anyone at all qualified to comment, but instead let their advertisers nominate "experts".
Fair and balanced my arse. Fox is an astonishingly biased news. Remember folks, these same people complain about "liberal bias", despite study after study demonstrating a conservative lean in american news reporting.
And if you look at the NSF's board who approves scientific grant research money, you will find that many of the have ties to "green" technologies and have a financial interest in AGW. For example, the first guy on the list, Dan E. Arvizu:
Arvizu serves on a number of Boards, Panels and Advisory Committees including the American Council on Renewable Energy Advisory Board; the Energy Research, Development, and Deployment Policy Project Advisory Committee at the Harvard Kennedy School; the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Alternative Energies; the Singapore Clean Energy International Advisory Panel; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III; the Hispanic Engineer National Achievement Award Corporation; and the Colorado Renewable Energy Authority Board of Directors.
So, if the talking heads on Fox can be discredited because of their ties to industries that would oppose AGW, then you have to throw out every scientist who has received American grant money because it too is tainted by corporate interests. That's only fair, right?
The Climate "Sceptics" will refuse global warming even when the Earth is burnt to a crisp. Denial is a powerful thing, and need a bit more than diplomacy to break through.
It's called "motivated reasoning" when you are emotionally attached to a believe.
Powerful stuff! As you absolutely cannot talk people out of an emotional state!
Allow me to point out that fear and guilt are emotions and they are the primary driver behind AGW believers.
You second sentence stands on its own.
Second it doesn't take into account Bush keeping the cost of the wars "off the books".
Let's explain it this way:
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
But, since you brought up the wars, let's look at how much they cost. According to the left wing Cost Of War.com site, the total cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is about $990 Billion. Obama's deficit spending had exceeded that in his first year in office. Now, keep in mind that the $900 billion was the total cost since 2003 when we invaded Iraq. So, unless Obama increased funding for the wars by more than seven times, your "wars kept off the books" as an excuse for Obama's deficits argument is total bullshit.
And you accuse me of lying?
What a troll you are. First the graph only goes back to '95, which is just plain disingenuous. Second it doesn't take into account Bush keeping the cost of the wars "off the books". Obama simply added them back on. You *know* Republicans generated far more deficits than Democrats did. You know this because you've been told over and over, and been shown an endless amount of evidence. Yet your mind is so screwed up, so backwards and twisted, that you will do everything in your power to lie to yourself, and lie to others, just so that you don't have to face the truth. It's fascinating and yet disturbing watching you lead a life in a tiny bubble of fake reality.
Republican presidents or Republican led congresses? There is a difference. See, according to the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings. So when you say, "Republicans generated far more deficits than Democrats did", are you talking about the party that controls the White House or Capitol Hill? I think that if you consider that aspect of your statement, you'll find that your conclusion changes. This is why I don't blame Obama for the current deficit as much as I blame Pelosi and Ried. Although, when the same party controls the WH as Congress, Congress tends to go along with whatever the President wants as he is in control of the party. This is why Obama is not completely blameless.
Now that you know this, welcome out of your "life in a tiny bubble of fake reality." See, ignorance can be cured. I guess that I can overlook the insults as you really didn't know any better.
Cute graph, but the fact that he uses the term "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" indicates a bias.
But don't be insulted. This article tells it better than I can:
The truly unfortunate result of the constant carping on this trivial distinction between “Democratic Party” and “Democrat Party” is that it serves as a distraction; therefore, instead of addressing the issues, the aggrieved Democrat retorts that the offending Republican uttering the shortened form ”insults the party,” as partisan hack Paul Begala complained about Bush’s use. Other sword-swallowing partisan Democrats such as those of the DailyKos ilk like to pounce on any and every use of that term by conservatives, even when many times that use is inadvertent, as in Bush’s case, and therefore meaningless.
None of that matters as the graph was found at FreeRepublic.com. That is a right wing site. I posted it as full disclosure and I expected people to actually look at the sources and verify the data itself. Unfortunately, you fell for the "Attack the Messenger" and "Guilt by Association" fallacies. You seem to have a problem with that. Instead of looking at the data, you look at who is bringing it to you and throw it out with no consideration of its accuracy.
Nice job dodging the issue.
I haven't read the source link, but I'd assume that the question was probably asked in the context that McCain is likely to die before his term would be up. In that case, it's a very important question.
And even if that wasn't the context -- the belief that Palin is more qualified, when she can't answer hard-hitting gotcha questions like, "what newspapers do you like to read?" is hilarious. And there are people who really do believe this.
--Jeremy
And Biden telling a man in a wheel chair to stand up and take a bow was very telling as well. Not just because that Biden is a fucking idiot, but what kind of idiot picks him to make his campaign look better? And Obama was known for stepping on his dick every time he tried to speak without a teleprompter.
The point is that every politician stumbles on what should be an easy issue. On paper, both candidates, Palin and Obama have roughly the same number of years experience. The differences are that Palin's experience was executive at a local and state level while Obama's was legislative at the state and federal level. Which carries more weight, executive experience for an executive job or federal experience for a federal job?
I think of this way. You are hiring for an IT job. Who would you hire, a person from another company with IT experience or someone who already works for your company with no IT experience? Of course, that's my opinion. I'm sure yours differs. Either way, all experience weighted equally, Palin and Obama have roughly the same amount of experience. That's fact. Numbers don't lie. The difference, as I stated before, Obama was running for President. Palin was running for Vice President. I would say that Palin was more experience for her job than Obama was for his.
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy [google.com] for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.
So let me get this straight, a batshit crazy liberal is telling everyone what the "core" of the Republican party is, right? Like you have any fucking idea what Republicans want. Tell you what. How about if I, a Republican, say that Democrats are Stalinists who want to ban religion entirely, lock up religious leaders, arrest the leaders of any party they disagree with? Would that be fair? How about if I found sources that backed me up. Do you really think I would have a hard time finding prominent Democratic leaders that want to see the Pope arrested or "see Bush frogmarched"? Would that make me batshit crazy? You bet it would. So, go back and read your posts again and tell you are not batshit crazy! My God man! You linked to a poll by the Daily Kos as evidence. Don't you know those guys are batshit crazy too? Is that really who you look to for truth?
Strange. I don't remember Sarah Palin running for president. In order to be fair, one of the following questions should be asked:
Do you think Barack Obama is more qualified to President than Sarah Palin is to be Vice President?
or
Do you think that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than John McCain?
or
Palin vs Biden
But to compare the top of one ticket's experience with the bottom of the other is kind of chicken shit. It's like two people arguing over which football team is better and one says, "Yeah, but our quarterback can throw the ball better than your kicker!"
Wow! I seriously replied to the wrong post. I wasn't even close!
That argument gets really old. We have plenty of guns as well. It's one the least well kept liberal secrets.
So, liberals are hypocrites?
You do realize that decrying homosexual marriage restrictions and claiming theocracy in the same post is hypocritical right? You realize that if it wasn't for a theocracy (Christian/Rome) the state would have no interest in a ... wait for it ... SACRED institution like Marriage.
MY view is that the state should have no laws either establishing or punishing people for their "marital status". It should not care one way or another.
But that would break all sorts of "social programs" (like the new Health Care Bill) liberal love so much and depend on.
Liberals, on the one hand, oppose the new Arizona law against illegal immigrants (no race specified in the law itself) because it is "racist", but on the other hand, they love to have all sorts of other laws that specifically account for race (Affirmative Action).
Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical twits. Just like Conservatives.
I agree and even take it a step further. In order to not "break all sorts of "social programs"", the feds could convert all current marriages to civil unions. Problem solved.
I only say that because there are certain "benefits" that are afforded to married people like child custody, power of attorney, and so on. There needs to be federal and state recognition of the union currently called marriage. I believe everyone would be happy if you just changed the name. Civil Unions have no religious significance. If you want to get "married", go to a church, chapel or where ever you want and get married by whoever you believe is qualified to stand there and say, "You're married". It will just carry no legal weight.
More than Sarah Palin? Yes. And note that I'm very non political, meaning I don't subscribe to the US democrat/republican points of view. My country of birth has several political parties and I still don't understand how a country as big as the US can only have two.
Strange. I don't remember Sarah Palin running for president. In order to be fair, one of the following questions should be asked:
Do you think Barack Obama is more qualified to President than Sarah Palin is to be Vice President?
or
Do you think that Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than John McCain?
But I wasn't even talking about Republican Party members, but Republican officials. If you read the many supporting pages to which I linked about "American Taliban", you'll see that those officials are theocrats.
Yes! Because denying gays federal recognition of marriage is the exact same thing as hanging or stoning them.
I'm sorry. What were you saying about "False equivalence"?
Republicans have spent much more of your money, and committed you to spend way more (in debt payments, in unfunded mandates, in catastrophic misadventures like wars and deregulation) than Democrats ever have.
Um, as a "Doc", you can read right? Go read The Constitution and report back to me with which branch of the government controls spending.
In the mean time, here is a graph showing the party in control of congress vs the deficit. It came from the article here (so you can check the references and data).
That time period you mention also happens to be Bill Clinton. With Bush on either side creating all time record deficits. Reagan before that terrible as well (obviously...). Jimmy carter didn't make anything better or worse. Ford sucked. Nixon didn't fuck anything up. Lyndon Johnson broke a bit above even.
Dems: 1 great, 1 good, 1 even
GOP: 1 terrible, 3 bad, 1 even.
http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/images/charts/bush_deficit_graphic.gif
First, in defense of Reagan, you obviously don't remember the absolute mess the country was in when he took office. Maybe you weren't born yet. I remember mortgage rates well over 18%. I remember unemployment and inflation at double digits. I even remember something called the "Misery Index". Reagan's spending brought this country back from brink of becoming another Greece.
Now, on to the rest of it.
Congress controls the purse strings. Why not look at the deficit cross referenced by the party in control of Congress?
Also, I noticed that you conveniently left out the current administration that has the tripled the deficit spending of GWBush. It's incredibly staggering when you consider that it took Bush eight years to do 1/3 of what Obama did one.
Consider the following:
First off, know these crucial facts: The deficit under Ronald Reagan increased 35 percent, from an inherited deficit (from President Jimmy Carter) of $104 billion in 1980 to a final deficit of $141 billion in 1989 ...
President Obama inherited a record Bush deficit of $400 billion, but is generating a far worse $1.8-trillion deficit in his first year. (Source: Congressional Budget Office, March 20, 2009.)
So, if you think Reagan was "terrible", then you must think Obama is Satan himself. I'm really surprised you didn't mention it. Unless, you don't want to make your side look bad by presenting all the facts. So much better to only cherry pick the stats that back up your side.
No, you're just wasting our time with the usual false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans, hyperbolically. Democrats (like all politicians) are bad, so Republicans, who are catastrophic, must be no worse than Democrats.
Republicans have indeed been working on a theocracy for years. It's a core value of their Party, and the core value of a large fraction of its remaining members. Their theocracy would indeed send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work. Both for the "morality" of the act, and for wasting your employer's time on nonprofitable activity.
No, this is not really hyperbole. The Republican Party is America's Taliban. And fallacies like false equivalency is keeping them at work on their theocracy.
Really Doc? I seriously hope you don't believe that. As a Republican, I can honestly say that no one wants to "send you to Puritan style stocks for a whipping for downloading porn at work." Really, we don't give a shit.
Also I would like to ask you which party let the war against music lyrics that contained profanity? Let's see... I believe it was Dee Snider who pointed out that a member on the congressional committee grilling him was married to the founding member of Parents Music Resource Center. I believe that senator became Vice President at one point, but I could be wrong. I don't think he was a Republican either. Strange that you didn't bring that up.
Then, of course, let's not forget about all the Democrats that would gladly take everything you own and trow you in jail for not paying your taxes, but when one their own misses a few years of tax payments, why they make him United States Secretary of the Treasury.
So, to sum it all up for you:
1) You spew a bunch of bullshit and hyperbole about the party you don't like to justify your personal hatred.
2) You remain completely silent when the "other guys" truly would jail you for something they do themselves.
Your claim of Republican hypocrisy is dripping with hypocrisy itself. Does projection qualify as irony?
...isn't an energy source. But thanks for playing.
Oh, and I forgot antimatter.