Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

JerrySeinfeld

Members
  • Content Count

    2,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About JerrySeinfeld

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Not sure where I stand on this. It's debatable whether or not Romney was right in criticizing the (Obama's) diplomat position about "respecting religion" above freedom of speech. Should that statement be attributed to the Obama administration? Maybe. But it's a stretch. Romney was probably wrong to try to attribute that statement directly to Obama. In fact he was certainly wrong. But the spirit of what he said was correct. Obama thinks the same way most of the people on this site think: that America had it coming.
  2. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/offset:-0.16/plot/rss/from:1997 where's that warming?
  3. Nah I disagree. It's only the Dems who sell dependency to blacks. It's tougher to be a republican, because you're not selling goodies like Dems do. In any debate, the deck is always stacked against a republican, because when the stupid dude from the media asks "what are you gonna do about education/health/etc?", Dem guys always have an answer: they're gonna take someone else's money and give you some goodies. Republicans, on the other hand, believe in freedom. So the republican answer is (or should be), "what am I gonna do? nothing." When you believe people should take care of themselves, the politics game is always stacked against you. Dems always have something to sell. Republicans are selling independence. Tough sell.
  4. haha. I think my guys will lose. But hope is still with me! As for Bush, the best thing I ever read about him was this: "If Bush is stupid, how stupid do you have to be to be constantly outsmarted by him." LOL!
  5. Aww - you're cute. Silly me. If only I had focussed on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity maybe that darn global warming would've happened, and then my life's work of taking core samples from glaciers in Tuktoyuktuk would have been worthwhile after all. Or wait, that'd be you.
  6. Speaking of "cherry picking" - convenient how you and you'r buds in the science department picked 1970. It;s cute how angry these guys are. "2000-2009 is warmest!!!" Haha. A little touchy? Being warm doesn't a trend make. Just because the world got warmer in the 90's and stayed that way in the Oughts doesn't a trend make. To say nothing of causality. These dudes are grasping at straws. And so are you. Have you ever considered, even for an instant, that you are wrong? If you haven't, then you aren't a scientist, you are a religious zealot, which I think we all knew all along.
  7. Energy is important - no, VITAL. It's an agreed upon idea that the few may have to suffer from time to time so that the many may thrive. Oil is the reason our standard of living is as high as it is. People like to decry oil, but oil is seriously the source of so much good in our world. Travel, medicine, warmth...all of this is thanks to oil. Have you ever driven or walked past a car accident? A fatality? Bloody horrible. Mangled bodies and blood everywhere. It's ugly. But we all, as a society, accept that this will happen. Nobody tries to ban cars because of accidents. Because we accept the cost benefit. Again, oil is messy stuff. But our lives are all so soooo much better because of it. This is why we accept the odd spill.
  8. It truly is amazing isn't it? Most rivers are cleaner than they were a decade or two ago. The country has way more trees than 20 or 30 years ago. The environment is truly in great shape! As for the oil sands, isn't it fantastic that we have this resource? We are truly blessed in this country.
  9. You actually make some sense here, and to be honest, I'm not sure where I come down on this issue. Obama would have us believe CDOs only existed because there was no regulation, but lets be honest, the securities industry is one of the most regulated industries on the planet, even before the 2008 crash! Look at the CDOs. The problem wasn't lack of regulation. It wasn't. Be truthful. How do I know this? Because both Moody's and S&P had these things as AAA paper. Trust me, if the ratting agencies didn't understand these things, there is no way on God's green earth that some watchdog with an arts degree from Syracuse did. Have you seen the reports from Moody's or S&P? It's pure gibberish. I say it again, the problem was not lack of regulation. There was plenty of regulation. If you want to be brutally honest, the problem was probably that there is no money in bond rating or regulation. The money's at Goldman. So these dummies at the SEC were frankly in over their heads. And apparently so was Moody's and everyone else!!! More regulation won't save the financial world from another bubble. Let the market be the market.
  10. Really? Are you really debating whether or not the predictions were incorrect? I thought even the most ardent warmist accepted this obvious fact. But since you have your head in the sand, here you go.. Wait, let me quote: "The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." I kind of feel sorry for you in a weird way. You're still clinging to something that is obviously false. Pretty much everyone knows this now, which is why climate change has been relegated to somewhere between the hovercraft and giant tomatoes on the national priority list. It's kind of sad but I love rubbing it in your faces. Mostly because you were all such liars and so adamant about your belief. Religious is the word I would use,. Hateful of those who disagreed. Truly hateful. That's the thing. I used to just not like liberals. Feel sorry for them. Recognize that maybe, just maybe, they wanted what is best. But look at the global warming thing. Look how venomously they came after people. Normal scientists who only sought truth. Pure venom. Liberals, I hav discovered, aren't nice people. They are leeches. Vampires. They suck off of good people. And they use good intentions as a disguise to do it. Liberals are truly awful, disgusting, vile individuals. Global warming isn't a "problem". It's a reason to take your money away from you. It's a reason to control people. Liberals are the most disgusting vile creatures on the face of the earth, because they use "the greater good" as a reason to suck your blood, even when "the greater good" is a complete and utter sham.
  11. What argument, that the world is fine? Go outside, buddy. You (or should I say the warmongers) are the ones trying to make an argument. So the onus is upon you to prove your case, not on me. So far, your results (ie. the accuracy of your predictions) are pretty shabby.
  12. No, you had it wrong. Both are hormonal, crazy emotional nut jobs. One just happens to have a male as her counterpart to balance the kid's upbringing. Kids need a man in their life to provide structure and leadership. Women generally aren't equipped to teach boys about how to be a man. Why? because women don't know what it is to be a man. Women complain. Women demand. Women whine. Men do not. What kind of man is this kid gonna grow up to be if he has TWO people who constantly complain abobut how it's somebody else's fault that their life is so shitty? Women don't know how to teach a boy what every man needs to know: that nobody owes you anything. That the only thing you get in this world is what you EARN. Women don't understand this. Only women use the word DESERVE. There is no such word in a man's vocabulary. The poor boy is gonna grow up thinking he DESERVES things, because that's how women view the world. He will not be a man.
  13. I can see where you are trying to make sense, and I give you kudos on that. But remember, the banks failed (or almost did but didn't thanks to TARP - Bush by the way, not sure why Obama keeps taking credit for saving the world). So your premise is false. If the risks were passed on to others, then why did they need a bailout?
  14. Wow. we decided to completely ignore the child in this discussion, didn't we? This is quite common among feminists. Me me me me me. I I I I I. Screw the baby. Kill it. It's "health care". Certainly women are happy as moms. And I think I see where you are going with this: as long as the two lesbian moms are happy, who gives a shit about the kid, right? This is the basic premise of all feminists: I can kill a baby if it inconveniences me and call it "health care", and I can ruin a boy's life because I feel like being a lesbian parent. Me me me me me.
×
×
  • Create New...