U.S. Tax Rebate Schedule 2008

[KitFisto]

I don't look at conservative as a bad word so to speak or moderate. I think the way Liberal is used now though is meant as a slam as is right wing.
.

Well I can;t say I agree with that. The terms Conservative/Liberal have been around for YEARS and they desacribe a persons political leanings. I have heard right wing and left wing and they are usually used as a dig. If Liberal's are taking offense to the term Liberal, I am sorry, but it's hardly fair to say well "I am offended by the word that's been used for years to describe me, but Conservatives should not be offnded by the counter word."

 

[KitFisto]

... yeah, its possible it is a normal cycle. but sitting around hoping its not won't help anything if it is indeed real. Just seems like an excuse to be lazy and not do anything to help out in the event it is real.
Theres way more data that supports it than denies it ....

The thing that bothers me about it is how so many want to come down on the US alone for this ( if it's real which I still don't buy ). It's as if the US is alone in causing pollution in the world. What a joke. It's like saying we are the only ones to use oil while ignoring the HUGE growth in use of countries like China and India. How do you plan to get them to fall in line or is it ok to continue to say that the US alone needs to act? ( not that you personally are saying that ).

 

[Bannister]

Whether or not Global Warming is real is not the issue. We all should be focused on finding and destroying Manbearpig:

 

[occulum]

saying its the US alone would be total BS.
After all, much of what they say contributes to it are manufacturing plants. Most of which are located outside of the US.

The thing i hate more than anything else, is all the the companies trying to cash in on things labeled "Green". I recall things that are now labeled "green" cause theyre made from recycled material being the cheap alternative, now the cost of such green items have skyrocketed due to people cashing in on the trend, not caus they care about the environment...

 

[The ill Jedi]

Yep, isn't there an old saying Two thing you never discuss with people are religion and politics. I am learning not to do both from these boards.

 

[The ill Jedi]

Whether or not Global Warming is real is not the issue. We all should be focused on finding and destroying Manbearpig:

Thank you Banny for being the voice of reason.

 

[Bannister]

Thank you Banny for being the voice of reason.

"I'm totally serial."

 

[The Josh]

Yep, isn't there an old saying Two thing you never discuss with people are religion and politics. I am learning not to do both from these boards.

Yup, thats why its time for me to become an onlooker in this discussion. I wasn't offended by anything said but this discussion has the potential to get nasty, and it probably wouldn't be due to those of us chatting right now. Teemu or someone like that will really get things going and I'd rather just end it now.

 

[KitFisto]

Yup, thats why its time for me to become an onlooker in this discussion. I wasn't offended by anything said but this discussion has the potential to get nasty, and it probably wouldn't be due to those of us chatting right now. Teemu or someone like that will really get things going and I'd rather just end it now.

You said that once..leave already!

Just teasing you Josh. It's not gona get nasty from my end. I even tried joking with the sun going supernova anyway remark

 

[The Josh]

You said that once..leave already!

Just teasing you Josh. It's not gona get nasty from my end. I even tried joking with the sun going supernova anyway remark

I'm trying but you jerks keep pulling me back in.

No, I know. I didn't take it any other way. I just know how some folks are and for all the flame wars I might start I'd like to not start anymore than I already do.

 

[The Chaver]

Yeah, he's a dolt. I voted for him in 2000 only because I couldn't abide by another 4 years of the Clinton Justice Dept. I figured they had destroyed the lives of enough Americans already (and there was no way I was helping the high priest of the church of global warming into the Oval Office).

Then 9/11 happened and he said he intended to eliminate the governments of states that sponsored terrorism. I thought we had someone who actually understood the problem in there, and someone who would finally do something about it. Half a century is a long time for people to sit around with their thumbs up their *****, talking about being diplomatic. Obviously, it was two zipcodes worth of skyscraper too long.

But he didn't do what he said he would. He was just another jihadi asskisser. Now, I'm all for the most radical leftist available to do the job. Go Obama. He'll screw it up beyond all imagining, but atleast he'll be honest about what he's doing. He'll call it what it is. Then people might learn that the military force part of Bush's foreign policy is what he got right. It was the diplomacy, multilateralism and generosity at the expense of American money and life that he got wrong.

We need an extremist in the White House to show Americans what the two sides are again. Because if anyone sees McCain as fundamentally different from Clinton or Obama, an education is exactly what they need.

I don't care who get's in the whitehouse really,just as long as they don't make me sware and throw stuff at the TV screen when they speak in press conferences.

 

[The Chaver]

hey. since we're questioning things for the helluvit, lets go ballz out.

maybe man isnt even meant to love his brother. Maybe murder, death, rape, pillage is the way meant for the earth. Hell its a practice the animal world takes part in naturally.

Maybe all the murderers are the ones going to heaven and all the Christians are going to hell.
Maybe we have it ALL wrong .......... and maybe there is no global warming .... this is cool ....

I could eat that! And I do think the whole global warming thing is a hoax.Not to say that the earth isn't warming but that it's being blown out of preportion.

Plus all the money that needs to be spent in order to prevent global warming,just another way to tax people and make a profit.I'm sure it's a natural cycle.Hell our pale blue dot has been through worse ^^^^ than this.

 

[Bannister]

I don't care who gets in the whitehouse really,just as long as they don't make me swear and throw stuff at the TV screen when they speak in press conferences.

 

[The Josh]

There's gonna be a whole new section in Websters Dictionary just for Chavez.

 

[The Chaver]

C'mon a-holes,that's all you got is to screw with me on my grammar!?


Well strap this on your soar *****!!

Fark you!!!!

 

[devilof76]

The term "global warming" doesn't just imply that there was a rise in the mean temperature of the planet. It now also means that the rise will be progressive with catastrophic consequences, and that it is caused by human consumption of fossils fuels. The two words themselves imply none of that, but the phrase as it is being put forward today is a package of all three concepts.

The warming of the planet is absolutely nothing special. So that covers the alleged 'inherent' danger of global warming.

As far as an ecological apocalypse goes, it is under-reported common knowledge that none of the models used to predict global warming trends have ever been able to produce an accurate prediction. Ever.

That just leaves oil. The burning of which increases the CO2 content of the atmosphere, potentially trapping dangerous levels of solar radiation within the atmosphere, scorching the skies and boiling the seas.

Current reasearch (as opposed to the research which supported the Kyoto Protocol 16 years ago in 1992) is finding that the risen CO2 volumes of the past century are actually a consequence of the warming itself. What's more, any warming increases the evaporation of oceans, thereby placing more water vapor (the greenhouse gas that composes about 98% of all greenhouse gases; carbon dioxide registering less than 2%) into the sky, creating more clouds.

Any guesses as to what more clouds in the sky do to the temperature of the surface of the earth?

It is a falsehood that more evidence exists for the man-made environmental end of the world by globalcidal overindulgence of petroleum exploitation. It's a falsehood that there is no evidence of the absence of such a scenario. The truth is that there is no evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and there is very much evidence for the cyclical warming and cooling of the planet's surface according to the cycles of the sun's surface, and that CO2 levels rise when ocean's evaporate.

If it didn't do that, the planet would have no way of keeping itself in balance in the face of a sun that constantly changes the amount of heat energy it releases.

And just for ^^^^s and giggles, at the end of the day, the planet is a carbon processor. It thrives on the availability of CO2. Why do you think we haven't all suffocated yet?

Look up Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It's important to have both sides clear in your head before you advocate giving the government (or the U.N.) that much control over the resource most necessary for the survival of the greater population of the globe.

Isn't it bad enough that we've already given as much control over it as we have to the most fanatically amoral predators in the world? (Hi OPEC. )

 

[ProgMatinee]

Whether "global warming" is A) wholey caused by humans and B)catastrophic is pretty irrelevant to the point that doing at least a little would be somewhat advantageous.

Basically what I get from all the people that claim global warming is utter myth is that they're going to continue to flush the toilet unneccessarily, leave the lights on when they feel like it, dump polutants into the water, cut down trees and cover green fields with concrete.

I can't see why they can't at least accept that doubling up your paper plates wastes.

Yes yes, the earth goes through cycles naturally blah blah blah, but that doesn't mean that humans haven't at least PARTIALLY been to blame.

Dev, your stance, to me at least, reads that "if humans aren't proven to be completely responsible then humans might as well continue in the most aggregious wasteful and dangerous manner until it is proven".

Edit: Anyway, I recon the truth is in the middle somewhere and if it takes legislation to BEHAVE in the middle, rather than recklessly whipping the dog till the whipping proves to be the cause of death, then I think it needs to be done.

If the legislation proves to make the dog our master, then we push the otherway. But for the sake of my children's children I think its better to be safe and suffer economically than be wrong and kill my grandchildren so I can enjoy a $.50 ride across town or lightbulb.

 

[devilof76]

Of course I'm not saying that humans should waste recklessly. It's to their own benefit not to.

But the effect on the planet's viability is grossly negligible.

What's important is that an arbitrarily speculated fear not drive people to give governments the power to be dictating what is to people's benefit.

Slobs will always be slobs. Global energy rationing won't change that. Though it might exacerbate it.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I have a lot of faith in people doing whats best for themselves, but very little faith in people doing whats best for other people's grandchildren or even their own children for that matter.

If there is anything a government is responsible for its to maintain or improve the way of life for its future citizens, as they have no control in their own well being, as opposed to its current peoples who are capable, responsible, and solely acting for themselves.

 

[Dusty]

(Sorry for the total off-topic post, but you guys sucked me in!!)

I don't see 'global warming' as a governmental issue, I see it as a HUMAN issue. It's something that we need to address as a species. If we don't realize what global changes that modern human life causes, even just ONE person, here are a couple National Geographic specials that spell it out scientifically: Aftermath: Population Zero and The Human Footprint (Note: They are NOT leftist. They make no judgement, just present the facts as they are.) Unfortunately, I don't see it being addressed unless it's legislated, thus making it a government issue on a global scale. I don't understand why it causes such anger among people!

We already know what happens when there is no legislature making it illegal to dump pollutants into rivers. The sad truth is that MOST (not all) big businesses only care about the bottom line, and the bottom line is that it's CHEAPER to dump it in the river. Chemically processed food is not the only reason 98% of us get cancer. It makes me cry and wonder how on earth I can consider bringing a baby into this world.

It's great to be optimistic and say, hey, let's leave it up to the people and private organizations, don't let government make decisions for us - I truly admire that and wish it worked. But history has proven time and again that that doesn't work, in these cases. (I'm not commenting on the free market or capitalism, only on social / environmental issues that cost money to implement - given the choice, many people would rather save their money than save the environment for the future, sadly.)

In another scenario, if there was no legislation making it illegal for buildings of a certain size to not have handicap accessibility, no builders would spend the extra amount of money to do make those alterations. Even such as it is, it totally sucks to be in a wheel chair. It sucks to even attempt to push a stroller around and around, trying to find a way up that isn't a staircase... I'm sure it sucks much more trying to open heavy bathroom doors - and go through them - while stuck in a wheel chair on your own, with bladder in need of relief.

We also have legislation going into place affecting our television channels and high-def digital signals. Why would it be so horrible to say all cars in every state have to be modified to be more environmentally friendly by the year ______? And all new cars being produced after that date must utilize the new energy type. We're gonna have to spend money to upgrade our televisions, which is not nearly as beneficial to the world as throwing less pollutants into the air. Oh yeah, I forgot - we LIKE our gas-guzzlers! Let's think of the now, not the later; who cares what the air quality is in 50 years? (Fact: many babies born in Los Angeles now have BLACK mucus for the first few weeks breathing the air here - healthy mucus is clear.)

Or, to start small, light bulbs. All light bulbs produced after the year ____ have to be the more energy-efficient type. What is so horrible about that? Yeah, they cost more initially, but I LOVE not having to change the light bulbs every few months, knowing that I'm also saving energy as well is just icing on the cake. Sadly, most people are still refusing to change, I think because they are put off by some of the 'blue glow' bulbs out there (solution: simply buy the ones with the lumens in the 'soft white' range, rather than the 'daylight' range - Energy Star has a wonderful guide: CFL Light Guide)

Call me a tree hugger if you will, I will gladly accept that 'stigma'. I do love trees and the benefit that they provide - not just paper and cardboard, but shade, cleaner air, and beauty. I applaud the government's actions to keep certain lands free from destruction. Where would we be without the 'tree hugger' government decision to keep the National Parks / State Parks/ Forests sacred? I doubt any private organization could save them from destruction if not for the legislation. And I, for one, want my grandchildren to experience nature, not just miles and miles of concrete.

/environmental rant - back to regularly scheduled political bashing