AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

As an aside, I see that Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) voted FOR the so-called jobs bill today that the Senate passed 70-28. Did that leave some here disappointed.
(I think I - a lib Dem - would probably have voted against it, by the way).

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Thirteen Republicans voted for it. Ben Nelson voted against it...haven't read why yet. Brown will probably get some grief over it, although I think he did what he thought he had to do. He apparently thinks it will create jobs lol.

0 Replies

How conservatives fight a war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE&feature=channel

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I have provided a great deal of evidence showing that human caused CO2 emissions caused far less than 1% of the 1 degree Celsius or 1.8 degree Fahrenheit increase in the average annual increase in global temperature over the last 100 years. That evidence includes the opinions from a great many climatologists and other scientists competent to make this determination.

Furthermore, a great many climatologists and other scientists who formally claimed that human caused CO2 emissions caused far more than a far less than a 1% global temperature increase, have changed their minds. Many admitting that their former opinions were based on fabricated data. Some of them have even admitted that they fabricated some of that data!

AGAIN!
Perhaps you have "a great deal of scientific evidence suggesting that unrestrained human caused CO2 emissions could cause major problems with our climate patterns and overall Earth temperature (especially in the face of an ever-growing population), "

If you do have such evidence, then provide it here, or identify a link or links that reveal that evidence.

... Or admit you do not have that evidence!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I have already presented it. You didn't click on the link, did you?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Amigo,

Disciples of Saul Alinski, like Barach Obama, fight a war by blaming their failures on conservatives whose advice they rejected.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It's been proven you have no credibility.

0 Replies

I know this will be futile...but, Cyclop and Ican et all, there seems to be enough interest in global warming that one of yall could set up a brand new thread devoted to that issue.
Does that make sense? The rest of us will probably drop in.
Yall are drifting far afield from the topic here.
Thanks.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have already presented it. You didn't click on the link, did you?

This link you provided,
http://www.ipcc.ch/
says a fifth assessment by the IPCC is underway:

Quote:

The IPCC has started work on the preparation of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). We are currently looking for experts who can act as authors:

It also links to other links--for example,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
which provides the 4th IPCC assessment (2007).
There is little if any evidence here that hasn't already been refuted by some current and former members of the IPCC.

Clearly you have not already provided any evidence that human caused emissions of CO2 were more than an insignificant cause of the one degree Celsius increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 years.

So get with it, or admit you do not have that evidence.
...

0 Replies

Sigh.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Realjohnboy, the thread you suggested already exists. For current posts see:
Title: Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news
URL:
http://able2know.org/topic/44061-782#post-3917456
pages 782 and 783.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

That's great, ican. I respectfully suggest that yall move your debate about global warming to that site so that this thread can focus on the big political issues facing us as we move towards the November elections.
Specifically, in my mind, is the seeming surge in "Conservatism" in America.
How will that play out?

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

How will it play out? Hopefully, the silent majority of people that have common sense will arise out of their state of sleep and sweep this current bunch of losers out of office. Can you be counted on to help, rjb?

I was talking with a lady today about how bizarre this entire situation in America seems to us, that a few decades ago we would never have dreamed we would have a president with Marxist sympathies as we now do, and that we would have an administration so far to the left that some people have to pinch themselves and ask, is this really happening? Sadly it is, and it is up to us to vote these people out the next chance we have.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Here is the man you voted for, rjb. Question, are you going to continue to follow this man and his equally screwed up administration into confusion and alienation from common sense?

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure.We were alienated."

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Realjohnboy, I think it would be a mistake to remove all the debate about human caused global warming from this thread. Obama's proposals for limiting CO2 emissions--Cap and Trade-- is just as much a pertinent issue in this thread as is government paid health insurance--Obamacare.

The validity of Obama's proposed CO2 limitations depends heavily on how real is the accusation that humans are a significant cause of global warming because of the CO2 emissions they cause. "Conservatives in 2008 and beyond" oppose both Obama proposals based on evidence both of these proposals, if adopted, are bad for America's constitutional health as well as its economic health.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Realjohnboy, I think it would be a mistake to remove all the debate about human caused global warming from this thread. Obama's proposals for limiting CO2 emissions--Cap and Trade-- is just as much a pertinent issue in this thread as is government paid health insurance--Obamacare.

The validity of Obama's proposed CO2 limitations depends heavily on how real is the accusation that humans are a significant cause of global warming because of the CO2 emissions they cause. "Conservatives in 2008 and beyond" oppose both Obama proposals based on evidence both of these proposals, if adopted, are bad for America's constitutional health as well as its economic health.

How do you reconcile this with the recent SC decision allowing the EPA to do exactly what you say is bad for America?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

How do you reconcile your beliefs with the recent SC decision with respect to the financing of political campaigns?

The President's decision to have the EPA designate CO2 as a toxic gas under the law was, as you said, affirmed by the SC as permissable under the specific terms of the Air Quality act. However that same law also requires uniform and consistent EPA enforcement of its provisions. THAT would cripple numerous essential economic activities everywhere. Instead, the Administration has announced its intention of selectively applying the law to "major emitters" identified administratively by the government. Unfortunately the law does not permit such selective application of law by unelected government officials. That is the likely reason that, months later, the EPA has stiull not issued any "regulations" for the enforcement of its newly claimed authority. If such regulations are issued and if they call for selected enforcement, I'm sure you will see a successful challenge in the SC.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How do you reconcile this with the recent SC decision allowing the EPA to do exactly what you say is bad for America?

The Supreme Court's decision allowing the EPA to control human CO2 emissions is based on their acceptance of Obama's false allegation that human caused CO2 emissions constitute pollution. Those CO2 emissions are not toxic to human life. They are not even noxious to human life. CO2 in our atmosphere actually promotes plant growth which aids human life. Therefore, limiting those emissions goes beyond the EPA's constitutional authoruty, and violates the constitution.

Therefore, that Supreme Court decision is just as debatable in this thread as are several other Supreme Court decisions that in effect amended the Constitution. The Supreme Court was not and is not granted by the Constitution the power to in effect or any other way modify the Constitution.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, ...

Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

How can the SC decision be predicated upon anything Obama did, as they made the decision in 2007 - a year and a half before he took office as President? He had nothing to do with it and you don't know the first thing about what you are talking about.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

That is the likely reason that, months later, the EPA has stiull not issued any "regulations" for the enforcement of its newly claimed authority.

No, the reason would be the law requires a public comment period on proposed regulations. The regulations were proposed. The comment period has now occurred.

Some people have filed suit now that the regulations are ready to go into effect. They won't have much of a leg to stand on unless they can show that the regulations are based on bad science.

About the only thing the suits will do is make global warming official for the courts.

Quote:

However that same law also requires uniform and consistent EPA enforcement of its provisions.

There is no such stipulation in the law. Why on earth do you think so many environmentalist suits were brought against the Bush administration? There is no requirement under the law for consistent EPA enforcement. The EPA is free to enforce or not enforce and is certainly more than free to decide how to levy fines.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know