Fairweather

I never denied the climate is changing. But, hey, if you want to adopt the j_bot/libtard style of characterizing your opponents' positions to simplify the arguments you have to make, I can understand. It's a lot easier! Neither did I. I've just said it's unlikely that the unusually large quantities of CO2 coming from Dru's hole (or the uncorked CH4 coming out of his other hole) is causing it.

BTW, the "payroll tax cut" should be allowed to expire. Shame on both parties for promoting a free lunch at election time.

Unless you're casting your write-in vote for William Jennings Bryan, it's a pretty safe bet you're voting for these guys in November: http://www.workers.org/

Yet another great died yesterday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16236393 "Havel devoted his life to the cause of human freedom. For years, Communism tried to crush him, and to extinguish his voice. But Havel could not be silenced."

Very nice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16226580

Unlike your twisted version, mine isn't compulsory.

Forget Kyoto. It's the 7 billion people who are the problem. Time to offer disincentives for people willing to limit their "contributions" to the next generation. And offer incentives to those willing to codify it.

I'm gonna miss him. Completely immune to pigeonholing and absolutely brilliant. Our generation's version of George Orwell is now gone. Rest in peace.

A formally "declared war" (WWII) versus a vague premise (WOT).

agreed. occam's razor. would be nice to see conservative apply that elsewhere too, say to explaining global warming? I already have, you just weren't listening. Occam's Razor would ask us to look to history as the most likely explanation: solar output and Milankovitch Cycle.

Or, maybe, it was Lee Harvey Oswald. ©

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310 Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the minister of the environment has said. Peter Kent said the protocol "does not represent a way forward for Canada" and the country would face crippling fines for failing to meet its targets. The move, which is legal and was expected, makes it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty. The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming. "Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past, and as such we are invoking our legal right to withdraw from Kyoto," Mr Kent said in Toronto. He said he would be formally advising the United Nations of his country's intention to pull out. He said meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): "That's $1,600 from every Canadian family - that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government". He said that despite this cost, greenhouse emissions would continue to rise as two of the world's largest polluters - the US and China - were not covered by the Kyoto agreement. "We believe that a new agreement that will allow us to generate jobs and economic growth represents the way forward," he said. Mr Kent's announcement came just hours after a last-minute deal on climate change was agreed in Durban. Talks on a new legal deal covering all countries will begin next year and end by 2015, coming into effect by 2020, the UN climate conference decided. "The Kyoto Protocol is a dated document, it is actually considered by many as an impediment to the move forward but there was good will demonstrated in Durban, the agreement that we ended up with provides the basis for an agreement by 2015." He said that though the text of the Durban agreement "provides a loophole for China and India", it represents "the way forward". Canada's previous Liberal government signed the accord but Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government never embraced it. Canada declared four years ago that it did not intend to meet its existing Kyoto Protocol commitments and its annual emissions have risen by about once third since 1990.

Talk about hateful pandering to Christians... [video:youtube]v=N6K9dS9wl7U

Wow, that's a strong argument. I wonder if it was filmed back when Perry was a Democrat? Not likely. In fact, were this the case his virtually identical positions would be the subject of j_b's glowing reviews!

So on one hand you try to take the argument down to the level of zygote and pretend that this is where the "nuanced" debate lies--never mind that this was not even part of anyone's premise here. Then you turn around and cede that the picture I posted is, in fact, a candidate for abortion while you try to impress us all with your 9th grade Brennanesque legal mind and your 8th grade knowledge of biology? And just in case anyone here actually decides to take you seriously, you throw in some disparaging remarks about my wife and family. Wow, you really are a piece of work. Absolutely amazing. What an asshole.

What if the celebrity-perpetrator soiler of bowls turned out to be this guy?

Um, can't you tell? http://www.barackobama.com/obama-for-america-2012-campaign?source=OM2012_LB_G_Obama2012-search_barack-obama-broad_n3f&gclid=CM34vJng66wCFacZQgodUCMJJA

Damn you, Pat! I was gonna link to that same video in a second. I just wanted to get meseff another cuppa coffee before doing so... You made the mistake of putting your life before Spray. Sadly, our local moai is incapable of existing in both worlds simultaneously.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.” Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Can't stand either one. But let's face it: some of the 'tards around here absolutely need someone to hate.

Sooner or later you libtards are gonna run out of candidates you can use as mirrors to reflect your own self loathing and unfulfilled dreams. Well, maybe not.

True all that. My guess is that once Mississippians realized that birth control pills don't actually prevent conception and would be banned by the crazies they had second thoughts. I was just pointing out the irony in "MtnGuide's" (hereallyisamountainguidejustaskhim) idiotic premise. It's my latest thing.

Bill Clinton. "Welfare Reform." His idea. Just ask him.

Republican Congress starting in 1994. The tide rose once again. All boats were lifted.