Bush supporters' aftermath thread

McTag wrote:

Bush the War President, the Great Uniter, decided to declare that the US use of fossil fuels had no meaningful effect on climate, and declined to do anything to tackle climate change, lest it have an adverse effect on his economy.
In so doing, he made contemptuous rejection of the considered views of most of the rest of the world.
Scientists advising him have apparently declared that global warming (which is measurable, and happening) has no effect on frequency and intensity of tropical storms.
Well, now we're running out of letters for storms this year, and storms K and R are two of the worst ever.
So to me, as a layman, at the very least the science should be urgently revised.
Ironic that much of the USA's oil refining capacity lies in the path of these very storms...a self-regulating effect?

BTW I don't blame Bush for being impotent in the face of natural disasters- I blame him for being a warmonger, an international criminal, a clueless puppet, and an unknowing and incurious fool.

he shrugged off the notion that global warming played a role, saying instead it was a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that fluctuates every 25 to 40 years.

Mayfield predicted several more named tropical storms this year. The latest, Hurricane Rita, is the 17th named storm of the Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June through November. Since record-keeping started in 1851, the record is 21 tropical storms, in 1933.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The "considered views" of Europeans do not constitute the views of "most of the world". There is no scientific case for a causal relation between theis hurricane and global warming.

I totally agree that the European view doesn't constitute the viewa of "most of the world".

The US journal Science published last week a research by US scientists that storms of the intensity of Hurricane Katrina have become almost twice as common in the past 35 years:
Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment

Today, but that is a minor European view, as you might see it, the (UK) chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sir John Lawton, says that it is global warming: As Hurricane Rita threatens devastation, scientist blames climate change [The Independent]

0 Replies

I am not persuaded. These folks are certainly free to say what they wish and even to regulate the lives of their own citizens. However I am not interested in their unsolicited advice nor do I wish to see them exercise any influence over my life or the policies of my country.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However I am not interested in their unsolicited advice nor do I wish to see them exercise any influence over my life or the policies of my country.

What exactly are your reasons against researches/researchers by the "School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta" and the "National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder"? Why are their researches 'unsolicited', and by - besides by you - by whom?

0 Replies

Those researchers of course are American so that aspect of my remark doesn't apply to them. However they represent a minority view of the scientific community in this country. Again the issue is not so much whether there is an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or even whether it contributes to warming. The issue instead is whether or not the phenominon is significant relative to other changes and cycles observable in the atmosphere and whether or not attempting to fix it would do more harm than good.

"Sir" John Lawton should restrict himself to worrying about problems in the UK. We haven't asked for his advice and don't need it.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

"Sir" John Lawton should restrict himself to worrying about problems in the UK. We haven't asked for his advice and don't need it.

Are you disputing his title with those quotation marks now, too? Professor Sir John Lawton was awarded that knoghthood for his contribution to ecological science in January this year.

Besides, this is a problem for the UK and other countries as well - it doesn't stop at your borders, unfortunately.
And something more: I only quoted that from a British newspaper. As published there, he was quoted as "cjairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution", with an by me added 'UK' in front of it. Lawton said such as head of that institution, so to say, as its spokesperson.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

"Sir" John Lawton should restrict himself to worrying about problems in the UK. We haven't asked for his advice and don't need it.

Since when does researchers expressing their findings or interpretations constitute "advice" that should be refrained from when "unsolicited"?

Isn't that rather a bizarre take on academia?

Imagine someone saying, even off-handedly on a web forum: "Yes, Mr Pipes, I realise you have written extensive books about Russian and Soviet history, but since Russian officials did not ask for your take on what's important in Russian history, could you refrain from expressing your unsolicited advice about it, even if it may be in newspapers in your own country?"

Wouldn't that be the most surreal thing?

George must be in a foul mood of sorts if he now requests scientists from other countries to no longer express views that concern anything to do with America... :wink:

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

The truth of the matter is that the Democrats have for to long relied on the minority vote and forgotten about the rest of the country. [..] They are out of touch with the rest of the country and until they realize that they will continue to lose.

This is also a pretty bizarre statement. The Democrats merely rely on the minority vote, they are out of touch with the rest of the country?

OK, common sense. Blacks constitute 11% of the voters (in the last Presidential elections), most of them vote Dem. Latinos/Hispanics constitute some 8% of the voters, a small majority of them vote Dem. Add the odd Asian vote and you get all of 15% of the voters. John Kerry, however, got some 48% of the vote.

Ergo, two-thirds of Dem voters are part of that "rest of the country". Over 40% of white Americans vote Dem, and according to the polls, the number is rising. Wonder how they feel about not existing, according to you.. ;-)

0 Replies

He only said they have "relied on the minority vote" ... he didn't say minorities were the only group that voted Democrat, and he certainly didn't say the other Democratic voters did not exist to the Democratic Party. He offered an observation on the focus of the DNC, explaining their dismal election results of late. If you are going to accuse someone of making a bizarre statement, you ought to not do so by making a much more bizarre response.

And I find the fact that you are responding to a post JP made 10 months ago quite bizarre.

0 Replies

Max Mayfield offered unsolicited advice that people should evacuate NO before Katrina. Who asked him? He should just keep his opinions to himself.

0 Replies

My unsolicited advice to you is you should switch back to your other avatar ... whatever it was you were just using .... please.

0 Replies

More proof that Jimmy Carter should never be taken seriously again ....

Quote:

Five years after the controversial 2000 presidential election, ex-President Jimmy Carter now says he's certain Al Gore defeated George W. Bush.

"Well I would say that in the year 2000, the country failed abysmally in the presidential election process," Carter told a panel Monday at American University in Washington, D.C. "There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president."

SOURCE

0 Replies

Quote:

Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005 11:15 p.m. EDT

President Bush: Clinton Weakness Led to 9/11

President Bush fired back at ex-president Clinton on Thursday, saying the weak U.S. response to terrorist attacks that took place mostly during the Clinton administration encouraged al Qaida to launch the 9/11 attacks.

"The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole," Bush noted, after getting an update on the war on terror at the Pentagon.

"The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us," the president added, in quotes picked up by United Press International.

Four of the six terrorist attacks cited by Bush took place on Clinton's watch, with the first two coming during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Bush's decision to invoke Clinton's poor record on terrorism comes just five days after the ex-president slammed him for attacking Iraq without just cause.

"The administration . . . decided to launch this invasion virtually alone and before the U.N. inspections were completed - with no real urgency, no evidence that there was any weapons of mass destruction there," Clinton complained to ABC's "This Week."

"I did not favor what was done," he added.

0 Replies

Not everyone here reads NewsMax Tico, it's good that you keep us abreast of their latest breaking news items.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Not everyone here reads NewsMax Tico, it's good that you keep us abreast of their latest breaking news items.

Nothing from Drudge today?

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Not everyone here reads NewsMax Tico, it's good that you keep us abreast of their latest breaking news items.

Nothing from Drudge today?

I haven't gotten to Drudge yet ... I'm too busy reading the National Enquirer.

0 Replies

There was a headline at Drudge that seemed interesting to the effect that a girl was kicked out of school for having gay parents. But it was a Christian school and in Canada.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Not everyone here reads NewsMax Tico, it's good that you keep us abreast of their latest breaking news items.

It is amazing that anyone would link a Newsmax article here without disclosing that it is a propaganda site and not a news source. Even the National Enquirer is a better source than these lying freepers. They don't have an axe to grind and are right more often than not.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
Not everyone here reads NewsMax Tico, it's good that you keep us abreast of their latest breaking news items.

It is amazing that anyone would link a Newsmax article here without disclosing that it is a propaganda site and not a news source. Even the National Enquirer is a better source than these lying freepers. They don't have an axe to grind and are right more often than not.

What's amazing is that you would come to this thread and claim that I shouldn't use a conservative news source for news. Laughing

0 Replies

News source? What is amazing is that I am starting to believe what others here have said. You are smitten. Smile

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know