Yes! You made my point exactly

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

While I don't agree with your opinion 100 percent at least you can talk to us without making anything we say personal, A.W. and Carla cannot.

I'll agree that some had a visceral hatred of Clinton. I never did personally. I didn't vote for him, did not think he was a good president, but I didn't walk around everyday blaming everything bad in my life on him either. I disliked by his personal example that he lowered the morality level in our country several notches, and yes, I do think that he should have been thrown out of office for #1) having sexual favors performed just outside the oval office by someone other than his wife, and #2) then looking in the face of every American and lying about it (#2 being the damning impeachable offense).

At this point I haven't seen proof that Bush has done anything impeachable. I think Bush has done some good things while in office and has also done some things I don't agree with. However, if I support the president in any way then I'm accused of bowing down and worshipping at his feet by A.W. and Carla, and let's not forget the late-to-this-board gt. Their reactions are way beyond the rational although it is understandable why Carla may have these strong feelings given what she's gone through this year. I think she may be misdirecting some of her anger though.

*...most of us on the liberal board do not buy *impending doom* theory that you live by.*

I personally will be fearful of *impending doom* for the next 3 years. If I/we can get through that, then I'll be able to relax (a little) as hopefully more Americans will come to their senses.

You don't tolerate irresponsibility when it comes to pet owners (which I agree with, by the way), yet you seem to welcome it when it comes to your political party. One has to ask why you continue to sing the praises of and support the most irresponsible administration in US history, yet you express outrage about a cat owner. Just doesn't make sense.

And as far as you being tolerant, one only needs to take a quick look at the conservative board to see how laughable that really is. You and your cohorts post the most intolerant posts I've ever seen anywhere on the internet.

I do agree with you about pet owners being responsible. I am a pet owner and keep my pets under control simply because I love them and want to keep them safe.

decision without thinking about all she might miss with her kids. My mom was at a lot of the things I did in school. However, my dad was at work. He was supporting his family by making a living. He was making our situation better by working that overtime so we could afford stuff. Would I have liked my dad to be at my tennis match.....sure. But the reality is that even though he wasn't there watching, he still was literally the one supporting me and I appreciated and loved him for that.

As for Palin, did you ever think that maybe....just maybe she is willing to sacrifice time with her kids to make a better country for them as well as all of us? Have they asked Obama about sacrificing time with his kids? No....because we all just assume Michelle will take care of the kids.

And, yes, those dang whacko liberals like Robert F. Kennedy and those of his ilk should be ashamed of themselves for connecting the presence of thimerosal in vaccines and resultant autism and attempting to STOP it. Who cares about the children who are already here? The most important thing is that we make sure not to hurt those inanimate cells in a petrie dish.

And, yes, it's certainly has been proven that there can be side effects associated with the smallpox vaccine where a small percentage of people might get sick and die. We COULD maybe let the people CHOOSE whether they want the vaccine or not (if enough of it ever actually EXISTED to protect the entire country), but, no, free choice isn't a very "red" thing to do. So the only logical thing to do is make sure that we deny the vaccine to all Americans so we can ALL die if terrorists decide to use that as a form of bio warfare. (By the way, I truly doubt that lawsuits will be much of an issue if we're all DEAD.)

Right? I mean, you "red" guys know what should be allowed and denied in the life of every single American, don't you? You've got some kind of special "divine knowledge" where you know what I should be "allowed" to do with my own personal body, who I'm "allowed" to love, how I'm "allowed" to plan my family, when I decide I'm "allowed" to die, and which God I'm "allowed" to worship without being doomed to eternal damnation?

Title of you post is lifted straight out of TT112OldTimer's post responding to Free Speech Rocks. When spinning soooo out of control that the brain becomes blank, you can always resort to plagiary. Hello. Are you listening? Vitriol out, vitriol in. You might be shocked by how much respect you earn with just the simple gesture of extending some. Respect is NOT a 4-letter word.

Common sense is exactly what I used when I decided to attack my own bigoted tendencies back when I was still a teenager. I did not learn any of that from books or courses I took in school. I took it to the streets and reaped benefits beyond measure from those lessons.

Au contraire. The bluster of bigots is easy to bury under fact and logic. No need to be thwarted by that. Their reservoir of insults runs very shallow, but the intellect is a well that one can dig as deep as is necessary. Fact/truth is another arch-enemy of the bigot. You at least had the wisdom not to attempt to ridicule the context post since you knew you would be in way over your head and besides, you are allergic to the other side of the coin. As they say, if you can�t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It can�t be much fun to find yourself dumbfounded by your own narrow mind. Frustrating too...remember it well.

On the shortcut post: That was your snipe, not mine. Snipe begets tripe. Vtriol out/vitriol in. Garbage out/garbage in. Is there an echo in here?

Not the slightest bit interested in agreement, validation or vindication. I am secure enough by now not to need all of that. But in political contexts, the journey down the road to consensus will never begin in the absence of flexibility, open-mindedness and a good dose of patience.

What part of my posts reflect your tactics do you not understand? You absolutely refuse to look at yourself in the mirror, but you do know enough to be outranged when someone sends you your own reflection. It�s not a pretty sight and furthermore, you become every bit as enraged as you seem to think I am. You are constitutionally incapable of seeing what a spiteful little vixen you become when your brick-wall logic is thrown back in you face.

No surprise there. Bigotry is always blind. Here�s another example you are bound to ignore: You are so driven by your hatred of illegals that you would actually weigh in on the side of transnationals and cast your vote for the party who empowers them to outsource your profession overseas and drive your own wages into the ground.

Well shut my mouth! Could it be that you have finally run out of insults in the face of the realities of logic and have arrived on the threshold of the next level where most other right-wingers eventually find themselves...running for the hills and back into the open arms of the choir members? You are big on clich�. Here�s one for you...you can run, but you can�t hide. Have a safe journey and I am �sending up a prayer� that you find the sanctuary you seek.

Global Warming - Geo Engineering

More and more evidence is accumulating that global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions is occurring at an accelerating rate and that changes to the Earth's climate brought about by this warming are occurring much more rapidly than previously predicted. For example, the loss of permanent sea ice in the Arctic may now be on a trajectory to reduce the summer ice pack to zero by 2040, an outcome that only a few years ago wasn't supposed to happen before 2080. For a short explanation of the science behind the global warming greenhouse effect see Global Warming Science Basics

Along with the loss of habitat for polar bears and other Arctic wildlife that this wholesale melting of sea ice would bring comes the possibility of more rapid movement of glaciers held in check by the sea ice as well as climatic changes brought about by less reflection of sunlight and greater absorption of solar radiation by the exposed sea water.

At some point, the changes in the Arctic may lead to irreversible and unfavorable changes to the global climate such that even attempts at stabilizing or cooling the atmosphere may not be able to put Climate Humpty Dumpty back together again. For example, sea level rise due to a combination of thermal expansion of sea water and melting ice sheets may not be reversible in this century, leading to loss of coastal land and massive dislocation of coastal populations.

Global attempts to reign in man-made greenhouse gas emissions are not succeeding. Countries participating in the late starting and ill-planned Kyoto Protocol are finding it difficult to meet its modest emission reduction targets, while it is now clear that non-participating countries, like the U.S. have no real plans for reducing emissions.

There is also uncertainty as to the scope and requirements of any follow on treaty to Kyoto or whether any treaty or succession of treaties will achieve the desired reductions in emissions in time. Economic mechanisms like cap and trade emission programs have yet to be demonstrated to be effective in the short term for controlling greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of alternative technologies.

Technological changes that will be required to reduce emissions will take decades to implement, if not the rest of this century, due to a combination of lack of progress in developing new technologies and the installed and rapidly growing base of emission sources that run the gamut from 550MW coal fired power plants to rice paddies. Against this backdrop of melting ice, failed treaties, uncooperative governments and lack of replacement technologies, the nascent field of geoengineering has begun to receive attention from the media and policymakers.

Geoengineering or macro-engineering is the deliberate attempt by man to alter the global or regional climate by reducing the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed by the planet, the amount of carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas) that is in the atmosphere or by manipulating ocean currents to redirect heat already in the ocean-atmosphere system.

While geoengineering technologies are often viewed as science fiction or simply not doable in time to stop global warming, some can probably be developed and applied soon enough to hold off the coming global climate catastrophe and within 5-10 years.

Although unilateral action on the part of the U.S. or other nations could be taken, due to logistical and geopolitical issues, it is more likely and desirable that an internationally sanctioned and supervised effort be carried out instead.

Indeed, no single geoengineering technology should be considered as "The Solution" and instead, a portfolio of these technologies should be developed, since any one might have negative side effects or other limitations that would make it unacceptable as a stand-alone treatment.

These technologies should only be considered for use as delaying tactics, to give us time to develop replacements for technologies that produce greenhouse gases. They shouldn't and cannot be considered as alternatives to reducing emissions, since most either have a limit as to how much warming they can offset or they can only address one facet of the problem.

For example, plans have been developed to reflect or scatter sunlight to reduce the amount of solar radiation that is re-radiated as infrared radiation. Some of these plans like those involving aerosols or space borne reflectors and lenses can theoretically be carried out on a scale to match all future emissions generated warming or even to roll back previous warming, while others like the plan to cover parts of the world's deserts can only address a finite amount of warming due to a limited supply of land.

However, these proposals do nothing to stop or reverse acidification of surface ocean waters by carbon dioxide or to remove the threat posed by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in absorbing infrared radiation should the sunlight reflection/scattering scheme(s) be stopped. Removal of climatologically significant quantities of carbon dioxide from ambient air either by biological or chemical means is not possible with current technologies.

Various geoengineering technologies are discussed and analyzed here including those that attempt to reduce the amount of incoming sunlight that is converted to infrared radiation. Comments are welcomed.

http://www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org/