Paul, with all due respect, it appears you mixed up the names of the speakers. Indeed it is Dessler who own the argument/debate.
Dessler makes a very clear case based on a multitude of data. Moreover, in his rebuttal, Dessler demonstrates that Lindzen has (in the published scientific literature, mind you!) for arbitrarily cherry-picking data sets for data that support his case for doubt while discarding the multitude of other data that don’t fit his position of doubting climate change. Now Lindzen does state in his reply that he later corrected the errors in his previously published articles (e.g., LC09), but the point Dessler makes is that skeptics and politicians are using those articles (containing the incorrect data) to support and justify their skepticism of the essential consensus among credible climate scientists. This, in turn, perpetuates the erroneous impression of equivalency between the views of supporters and skeptics of climate change in the same manner that creationists/intelligent design believers purport to enjoy the same level of credibility that evolutionary biologists enjoy (the latter have earned their respect and credibility, whereas the former rest on the position of respect afforded to religion). Not every opinion deserves respect just because it is different. The truth is that some opinions or views stand on the basis of accumulated evidence, and this is where Dessler’s position stands and Linzen’s fails.
This bottom line is evidence — data — to support one’s views, and Dessler bases his view that climate change is real on a multitude of evidence accumulated by numerous climate scientists around the world. Lindzen simply tries to find a few isolated incidents where he can cast a measure of doubt on some of the evidence, and relies instead on the listener to extrapolate that doubt to the multitude of other evidence and on the hope of false equivalency (outlined above).
While Lindzen can point to isolated incidents of doubt, there is simply insufficient evidence to doubt the reality of climate change.
A Bush aide once ridiculed a New York Times reporter for belonging to “the reality-based community”, which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality”. “That’s not the way the world really works any more,” he said. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Dr Lindzen made some valid points but I think his style of delivery could be improved. That aside, the most notable point that appeared to be absent from Andrew Dessler’s talk, and to an extent Dr. Lindzen, was a proven causal correlation between CO2 and global warming. Unless something has changed significantly as I understand it all the temperature records show a distinct lag between CO2 levels and temperature changes. Unless someone can demonstrate a few million years where CO2 was obviously the driving force, i.e. CO2 changes preceded a proportional change in temperature the case for AWG is non-existent.
I’ve read about this before and I think Matt brings up a very important point. Doesn’t CO2 lagging temperatures indicate a negative feedback? If there was a positive feedback to rising CO2, then rising CO2 during previous oscillations would have never decreased and temperature would have continued to increase.
So, which Bush aide said that? Or was it a Bush advisor, or a senior Bush advisor? According to the accounts that use this paragraph (and it has been used quite a bit by a lot of different writers) it seems to change from writer to writer.
You really need to get over your hatred for George Bush. He has been out of office for 22 months now. Let it go.
Besides, the quote you use above is not only irrelevent to the Lindzen/Dessler debate, it only amounts to hearsay without a source. And I don’t believe anyone that was an advisor to GWB would say, to a NY Times reporter no less, that “we’re an empire now”. I just don’t believe it. It is exactly what you want to hear though, isn’t it?
It’s a well known statement. How do I know it’s likely true? It was never refuted. And it just sounds like something a Republican in the Bush Admin would say. It meshed with many other things said by them at the time. If I were you I’d be upset with the kind of people who would say and believe such rubbish, not those who remind you about them and their alarming and demented beliefs. But I know, denial is a wonderful thing… a gift that keeps on giving.
What an excuse!!! It was never refuted? That is weak. Very weak.
“And it just sounds like something a Republican in the Bush Admin would say.”
Wow that totally backs up what I meant when I said “It is exactly what you want to hear though, isn’t it?” It’s rubbish. As far as it has never been refuted goes, I can easily counter that with it has never been confirmed either. And because a bunch of people have regurgitated it over and over is not a confirmation.
Besides it is completely irrelevent. It is beyond irrelevent. It’s irrelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelvent. Bush is gone!!! Get over it!!!!
Not refuting something is the same as admitting it as fact. Where you been for the few decades… Siberia? It happened… it was said… and you can’t handle the truth. Here’s some more truth for ya:
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Some of the banks that got bailed out during the financial crisis of 2008 are backing Republican candidates running on an anti-bailout platform. The Republican National Committee is running attack ads against Democrats who voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), better known as the bank bailout, but as Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly notes, Republicans were for TARP before they were against it:
But the details matter here. The financial industry bailout was passed in October 2008. It was requested by a conservative Republican administration (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney). It was enthusiastically endorsed by the House Republican leadership (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Roy Blunt), the Senate Republican leadership (Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl), both members of the Republican presidential ticket (John McCain and Sarah Palin), and assorted, high-profile conservative voices (Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck).
Running against the bailout is meaningless. The payouts have already happened. The Republican candidates who retroactively oppose the bailout are also opposed to tougher financial reforms that would prevent a repeat of the 2008 debacle. This is typical of the incestuous relationship between corporations and politics. These banks were saved by the bailout and having been restored to solvency by U.S. taxpayers, proceeded to funnel money to political candidates who rail about the last bailout without lifting a finger to prevent the next one. Talk about redistribution of wealth. Always upwards. Aided and abetted by ignorant voters who continue vote for these criminals year after year.
Another telling quote from the Right- this time Sharron Angle reveals more than she wants you to know—“Angle said, ‘We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer, so that they report the news the way we want it reported.'” Don’t think that’s all of “the way we want it”, Angle and the rest of the Tea-Partiers will also govern the way they “want it” by elimanating Social Security, Medicare, the VA, the Dept.of Education, Dept. of Energy, the EPA and on and on and on! Voting Republican is a vote against yourself, and a vote against democracy.
Rob. Where do you get the idea that GCS is your forum to promote your point of view on a myriad of political topics that have little to nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming? I know you want to drag us into an idealogical debate, but I’m not going to fall for it….. again. If you can tie this into the Lindzen/Dessler debate then more power to ya’. If not, can you find an issue that is germain to this website? Please? And talk about that?
Because if I want your point of view on these issues that you bring up, all I need do is tune into NPR, CNBC, CNN, etc. etc….. Or, I can surf the web and read your favorite websites like buzzflash! I obviously don’t, and that may or may not be to my detriment, but that is my choice!
I have chosen this website to frequent because it is about an issue of which I am very passionate. There are other things things in my life that I am passionate about, yet none of them I bring up here. And do you know why that is Rob?
Well Paul, the reason is obvious. There are no car chases, explosions, or cleavage!!! Unless this is a subject in which an observer is keenly interested, it is rather dull to watch. I even had trouble keeping my eyelids from permanently clamping shut, but I was interested in the material so I forced myself to watch.
Seriously, if this debate was judged on presentation alone, Dessler won by the sheer fact that he was on his feet for his presentation, and was much more animated than Dr. Lindzen who, God bless him, sat like a bump on a log for the entire thing. And he’s got that droning monotone professor voice down pat too!
Not exactly prime-time entertainment.
Sounds pretty subjective to me Neil. Kind of like your criticism of my post above. “He was on his feet and animated”… And that wins a debate? Hypocritical? You bet.
BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama’s energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.
An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.
The report used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe’s biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: “The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people.”
And how about that Rand Paul official/supporter stomping on a peaceable MoveOn sign carrier? Not to mention the guy who pulled her down and the other guy who stepped on her leg to keep her down… if it walks (or stomps) like fasicsm and talks like fascism… it just might be.
Do you understand English as it is written? A fourth grader with a shard of glass in their eye could see what I meant.
If;
1. a. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
b. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
c. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.
2. Although possibly; even though: It is a handsome if useless trinket.
3. Whether: Ask if he plans to come to the meeting.
4. Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish: If they had only come earlier!
“>If< this debate was judged on presentation alone, Dessler won by the sheer fact that he was on his feet for his presentation.”
How do you not get that?
I am not saying Dessler won the debate because the debate was not judged on presentation alone! I dare not continue for I have nothing else to say to you that is civil.
Neil, Oh well, back to the reality of Robbie Boy. Never changes. By the way, visually the video may have been boring but I was amazed with the information both covered. Long? depends on what they said which I enjoyed hearing. Now back to deal with Rob! Can hardly wait for November 3rd.
Did the Paul Rand supoorter have a “Don’t Tread on Me” button on when he stomped that MoveOn protester?
Very very apt, wouldn’t you say? Only in a bizarro world like this one…
Nothing will change following another round of worthless elections. Our one party system will continue much the same no matter the results.
It should be understood that O’Donnell, Miller, Angle, Buck, Johnson and the rest of the Tea Partisans who might be senators are not talking about the Constitution as it was written or as the founders intended it. Rather, they are talking about the Constitution as they would like to see it rewritten and reinterpreted—with the help of the most activist Supreme Court in American history. While their intents are radical, their prospects must be seen in light of the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative majority have already reinterpreted the First Amendment’s free speech protection in a manner that extends the natural rights that the founders reserved for human beings to multinational corporations.
Impeach Justice Roberts! He is an enemy of true American values and democracy.
It ain’t crazy- it’s an unfortunate reality… and so if you think IT’S crazy then maybe you are the one who is crazy. Do you really believe that the things coming out of their mouths makes sense and is reasonable and even preferable?! Do you really hear what they say? I mean really… cuz it’s some scary crazy stuff.
We’ve had that discussion already. My desires for the country are complex and not as one-sided as you make believe it is.
A common theme from the Lamestream Media is that white, working-class Democrats who tended to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 are prepared to vote for Republicans.
But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.
This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.
That’s never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.
More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people i.e. those that are NOT the upper 1-2% rich who basically own both parties.
But wait… there’s more to that article…… and less! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2619267/posts
“More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people.
That is the “promise†of the grass roots tea party movement. If the Republican party wishes to maintain and build upon the victory projected for tomorrow they better understand why they won. Not because they are the GOP but because they are promising what the American people are demanding, smaller government, a cut in government spending, a walk-back of the progressive policies shoved down our throats during the past two years and most importantly, listen to the American people rather than telling us what we should think. If they don’t, 2012 may see political tsunami in a different direction.”
I totally agree with Rob with regard to there being a rejection of both parties since neither represents the vast majority of Americans. That’s why the Tea Party has become so popular!
Wrong. After the next two years of the Party of Nope dishing out nothing new, nothing will change, only get worse probably. Have you noticed the Dow Jones index during the last two years? It’s way up there- funny you don’t notice that. If it was down we’d be hearing about it every damn day, and that it was Obama’s fault… In two years things will probably swing back, and some more Dems will be elected.
The GOP is pretty much the exact copy of the Tea Tard Movement. The GOP just has a smoother veneer. Or in other words the GOP will not give up their power even to it’s ugly cousins the Tea Tards. It will co-opt them, one by one, or use them, like they use Saruh Flaylin’.
Think third party, or rather several different parties, to be the only chance to break the two party (one party) system we have. Trust me- the GOP will break your heart. Probably anyway- if you pay attention. Both Reagan and Bush II increased the size of government more than any other presidents in my lifetime, taxes too, especially under Reagan.
And who will you all blame for your “woes” in two years? Not yourselves or the newly energized Right? Might as well start blaming Obama and the “Liberals” right now. As if there are any real Liberals left. Never fear, Fox will make up some for ya.
The rich will be getting richer thanks to the Teatards. Whew! Relieved? Now, back to bidness as usual…
Ok, so I have this right…the Dems have had control since Bush’s last term, so the reason the economy went into the toilet is… Bush. Now that the repubs take control of just the house, who’s fault is it if the economy doesn’t turn around? Of course…repubs and Tea Party’s! When does Barry get to take the blame? This is ridiculous! It has been the Dems the whole time Rob and you know that!
Hal, Paul that is not what I said. The Dow’s been going up for months now. Not since election day. So who ya going to give credit for that? Let me guess who you won’t….
Bush had 8 years and a lot of power given to him and taken by him, and Cheney, and they more or less ruined this country. Obama’s had two years, barely, and you have the gall and stupidity to blame it all on him? That is irrational and illogical and just plain dumb.
And I was right, as stated above. You are already blaming Obama for the mess we’ll still be in two years from now (predicted based upon the huge and deep hole we are in now). BUT wait! If things ARE better in two years you can take ALL the credit!! Neato!
Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney recently quoted a confederate sympathizer who brazenly suggested that President Obama is the second coming of Lincoln—brazen because he said the current president’s policies, such as universal health care, finance reform laws, and climate change legislation, harken back to an overreaching federal bureaucracy of a century and half ago. That’s utter nonsense, of course, yet listen to Grayson Jennings, first lieutenant commander of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. He told McCartney that today’s Tea Party warriors are the resistance troops just as ol’ Jefferson Davis and the other rebels were in the 1860s. “They were fighting for the same things that people in the Tea Party are fighting for now,†Jennings said, apparently without a trace of irony. That’s not a history that we Americans should be proud to repeat.
Lindzen won the argument/debate.
Paul, with all due respect, it appears you mixed up the names of the speakers. Indeed it is Dessler who own the argument/debate.
Dessler makes a very clear case based on a multitude of data. Moreover, in his rebuttal, Dessler demonstrates that Lindzen has (in the published scientific literature, mind you!) for arbitrarily cherry-picking data sets for data that support his case for doubt while discarding the multitude of other data that don’t fit his position of doubting climate change. Now Lindzen does state in his reply that he later corrected the errors in his previously published articles (e.g., LC09), but the point Dessler makes is that skeptics and politicians are using those articles (containing the incorrect data) to support and justify their skepticism of the essential consensus among credible climate scientists. This, in turn, perpetuates the erroneous impression of equivalency between the views of supporters and skeptics of climate change in the same manner that creationists/intelligent design believers purport to enjoy the same level of credibility that evolutionary biologists enjoy (the latter have earned their respect and credibility, whereas the former rest on the position of respect afforded to religion). Not every opinion deserves respect just because it is different. The truth is that some opinions or views stand on the basis of accumulated evidence, and this is where Dessler’s position stands and Linzen’s fails.
This bottom line is evidence — data — to support one’s views, and Dessler bases his view that climate change is real on a multitude of evidence accumulated by numerous climate scientists around the world. Lindzen simply tries to find a few isolated incidents where he can cast a measure of doubt on some of the evidence, and relies instead on the listener to extrapolate that doubt to the multitude of other evidence and on the hope of false equivalency (outlined above).
While Lindzen can point to isolated incidents of doubt, there is simply insufficient evidence to doubt the reality of climate change.
Of course he did. What else would you say?
A Bush aide once ridiculed a New York Times reporter for belonging to “the reality-based community”, which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality”. “That’s not the way the world really works any more,” he said. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
And your point is??????
Dr Lindzen made some valid points but I think his style of delivery could be improved. That aside, the most notable point that appeared to be absent from Andrew Dessler’s talk, and to an extent Dr. Lindzen, was a proven causal correlation between CO2 and global warming. Unless something has changed significantly as I understand it all the temperature records show a distinct lag between CO2 levels and temperature changes. Unless someone can demonstrate a few million years where CO2 was obviously the driving force, i.e. CO2 changes preceded a proportional change in temperature the case for AWG is non-existent.
I’ve read about this before and I think Matt brings up a very important point. Doesn’t CO2 lagging temperatures indicate a negative feedback? If there was a positive feedback to rising CO2, then rising CO2 during previous oscillations would have never decreased and temperature would have continued to increase.
But…. wait… this doesn’t fit the model!!
So, which Bush aide said that? Or was it a Bush advisor, or a senior Bush advisor? According to the accounts that use this paragraph (and it has been used quite a bit by a lot of different writers) it seems to change from writer to writer.
You really need to get over your hatred for George Bush. He has been out of office for 22 months now. Let it go.
Besides, the quote you use above is not only irrelevent to the Lindzen/Dessler debate, it only amounts to hearsay without a source. And I don’t believe anyone that was an advisor to GWB would say, to a NY Times reporter no less, that “we’re an empire now”. I just don’t believe it. It is exactly what you want to hear though, isn’t it?
Neil, nothing changes with this guy does it. I assume the “Fall Harvest Moon” we just had was caused by Bush? At least it was pretty.
It’s a well known statement. How do I know it’s likely true? It was never refuted. And it just sounds like something a Republican in the Bush Admin would say. It meshed with many other things said by them at the time. If I were you I’d be upset with the kind of people who would say and believe such rubbish, not those who remind you about them and their alarming and demented beliefs. But I know, denial is a wonderful thing… a gift that keeps on giving.
What an excuse!!! It was never refuted? That is weak. Very weak.
“And it just sounds like something a Republican in the Bush Admin would say.”
Wow that totally backs up what I meant when I said “It is exactly what you want to hear though, isn’t it?” It’s rubbish. As far as it has never been refuted goes, I can easily counter that with it has never been confirmed either. And because a bunch of people have regurgitated it over and over is not a confirmation.
Besides it is completely irrelevent. It is beyond irrelevent. It’s irrelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelvent. Bush is gone!!! Get over it!!!!
Not refuting something is the same as admitting it as fact. Where you been for the few decades… Siberia? It happened… it was said… and you can’t handle the truth. Here’s some more truth for ya:
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Some of the banks that got bailed out during the financial crisis of 2008 are backing Republican candidates running on an anti-bailout platform. The Republican National Committee is running attack ads against Democrats who voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), better known as the bank bailout, but as Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly notes, Republicans were for TARP before they were against it:
But the details matter here. The financial industry bailout was passed in October 2008. It was requested by a conservative Republican administration (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney). It was enthusiastically endorsed by the House Republican leadership (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Roy Blunt), the Senate Republican leadership (Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl), both members of the Republican presidential ticket (John McCain and Sarah Palin), and assorted, high-profile conservative voices (Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck).
Running against the bailout is meaningless. The payouts have already happened. The Republican candidates who retroactively oppose the bailout are also opposed to tougher financial reforms that would prevent a repeat of the 2008 debacle. This is typical of the incestuous relationship between corporations and politics. These banks were saved by the bailout and having been restored to solvency by U.S. taxpayers, proceeded to funnel money to political candidates who rail about the last bailout without lifting a finger to prevent the next one. Talk about redistribution of wealth. Always upwards. Aided and abetted by ignorant voters who continue vote for these criminals year after year.
Another telling quote from the Right- this time Sharron Angle reveals more than she wants you to know—“Angle said, ‘We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer, so that they report the news the way we want it reported.'” Don’t think that’s all of “the way we want it”, Angle and the rest of the Tea-Partiers will also govern the way they “want it” by elimanating Social Security, Medicare, the VA, the Dept.of Education, Dept. of Energy, the EPA and on and on and on! Voting Republican is a vote against yourself, and a vote against democracy.
Rob. Where do you get the idea that GCS is your forum to promote your point of view on a myriad of political topics that have little to nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming? I know you want to drag us into an idealogical debate, but I’m not going to fall for it….. again. If you can tie this into the Lindzen/Dessler debate then more power to ya’. If not, can you find an issue that is germain to this website? Please? And talk about that?
Because if I want your point of view on these issues that you bring up, all I need do is tune into NPR, CNBC, CNN, etc. etc….. Or, I can surf the web and read your favorite websites like buzzflash! I obviously don’t, and that may or may not be to my detriment, but that is my choice!
I have chosen this website to frequent because it is about an issue of which I am very passionate. There are other things things in my life that I am passionate about, yet none of them I bring up here. And do you know why that is Rob?
Neil, Agree. Why isn’t debate such as the video on National TV? We have discussed that in the past and I believe we both know the answer.
Well Paul, the reason is obvious. There are no car chases, explosions, or cleavage!!! Unless this is a subject in which an observer is keenly interested, it is rather dull to watch. I even had trouble keeping my eyelids from permanently clamping shut, but I was interested in the material so I forced myself to watch.
Seriously, if this debate was judged on presentation alone, Dessler won by the sheer fact that he was on his feet for his presentation, and was much more animated than Dr. Lindzen who, God bless him, sat like a bump on a log for the entire thing. And he’s got that droning monotone professor voice down pat too!
Not exactly prime-time entertainment.
Sounds pretty subjective to me Neil. Kind of like your criticism of my post above. “He was on his feet and animated”… And that wins a debate? Hypocritical? You bet.
BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama’s energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.
An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.
The report used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe’s biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: “The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people.”
And how about that Rand Paul official/supporter stomping on a peaceable MoveOn sign carrier? Not to mention the guy who pulled her down and the other guy who stepped on her leg to keep her down… if it walks (or stomps) like fasicsm and talks like fascism… it just might be.
Do you understand English as it is written? A fourth grader with a shard of glass in their eye could see what I meant.
If;
1. a. In the event that: If I were to go, I would be late.
b. Granting that: If that is true, what should we do?
c. On the condition that: She will play the piano only if she is paid.
2. Although possibly; even though: It is a handsome if useless trinket.
3. Whether: Ask if he plans to come to the meeting.
4. Used to introduce an exclamatory clause, indicating a wish: If they had only come earlier!
“>If< this debate was judged on presentation alone, Dessler won by the sheer fact that he was on his feet for his presentation.”
How do you not get that?
I am not saying Dessler won the debate because the debate was not judged on presentation alone! I dare not continue for I have nothing else to say to you that is civil.
Neil, Oh well, back to the reality of Robbie Boy. Never changes. By the way, visually the video may have been boring but I was amazed with the information both covered. Long? depends on what they said which I enjoyed hearing. Now back to deal with Rob! Can hardly wait for November 3rd.
5 days and a wake up!!!!!!
Two words for you mister- Anger Management.
Did the Paul Rand supoorter have a “Don’t Tread on Me” button on when he stomped that MoveOn protester?
Very very apt, wouldn’t you say? Only in a bizarro world like this one…
Nothing will change following another round of worthless elections. Our one party system will continue much the same no matter the results.
Saying “I dare not continue for I have nothing else to say to you that is civil” is anger management!!!!! Because I know you are not worth it.
It should be understood that O’Donnell, Miller, Angle, Buck, Johnson and the rest of the Tea Partisans who might be senators are not talking about the Constitution as it was written or as the founders intended it. Rather, they are talking about the Constitution as they would like to see it rewritten and reinterpreted—with the help of the most activist Supreme Court in American history. While their intents are radical, their prospects must be seen in light of the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative majority have already reinterpreted the First Amendment’s free speech protection in a manner that extends the natural rights that the founders reserved for human beings to multinational corporations.
Impeach Justice Roberts! He is an enemy of true American values and democracy.
You post the craziest things Rob. Thanks! I got a really hearty laugh out of that one.
Settle down, It’s almost over. November 2nd is just around the corner. Life will then go on. My God, you get your shorts in a knot!
I like the odds this Tuesday, I don’t think I will be up too late. I will for sure be dropping by the ‘ol climate site to throw out a tease to Robbie!
It ain’t crazy- it’s an unfortunate reality… and so if you think IT’S crazy then maybe you are the one who is crazy. Do you really believe that the things coming out of their mouths makes sense and is reasonable and even preferable?! Do you really hear what they say? I mean really… cuz it’s some scary crazy stuff.
Freightening to you because it is not the way you want the country to go, which is down a road towards socialism, so boo hoo.
We’ve had that discussion already. My desires for the country are complex and not as one-sided as you make believe it is.
A common theme from the Lamestream Media is that white, working-class Democrats who tended to vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 are prepared to vote for Republicans.
But none of this means that Republicans are winning. The reality is that voters in 2010 are doing the same thing they did in 2006 and 2008: They are voting against the party in power.
This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.
That’s never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.
More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people i.e. those that are NOT the upper 1-2% rich who basically own both parties.
But wait… there’s more to that article…… and less!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2619267/posts
“More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people.
That is the “promise†of the grass roots tea party movement. If the Republican party wishes to maintain and build upon the victory projected for tomorrow they better understand why they won. Not because they are the GOP but because they are promising what the American people are demanding, smaller government, a cut in government spending, a walk-back of the progressive policies shoved down our throats during the past two years and most importantly, listen to the American people rather than telling us what we should think. If they don’t, 2012 may see political tsunami in a different direction.”
I totally agree with Rob with regard to there being a rejection of both parties since neither represents the vast majority of Americans. That’s why the Tea Party has become so popular!
Neil, you are on point.
Wrong. After the next two years of the Party of Nope dishing out nothing new, nothing will change, only get worse probably. Have you noticed the Dow Jones index during the last two years? It’s way up there- funny you don’t notice that. If it was down we’d be hearing about it every damn day, and that it was Obama’s fault… In two years things will probably swing back, and some more Dems will be elected.
The GOP is pretty much the exact copy of the Tea Tard Movement. The GOP just has a smoother veneer. Or in other words the GOP will not give up their power even to it’s ugly cousins the Tea Tards. It will co-opt them, one by one, or use them, like they use Saruh Flaylin’.
Think third party, or rather several different parties, to be the only chance to break the two party (one party) system we have. Trust me- the GOP will break your heart. Probably anyway- if you pay attention. Both Reagan and Bush II increased the size of government more than any other presidents in my lifetime, taxes too, especially under Reagan.
And who will you all blame for your “woes” in two years? Not yourselves or the newly energized Right? Might as well start blaming Obama and the “Liberals” right now. As if there are any real Liberals left. Never fear, Fox will make up some for ya.
The rich will be getting richer thanks to the Teatards. Whew! Relieved? Now, back to bidness as usual…
Ok, so I have this right…the Dems have had control since Bush’s last term, so the reason the economy went into the toilet is… Bush. Now that the repubs take control of just the house, who’s fault is it if the economy doesn’t turn around? Of course…repubs and Tea Party’s! When does Barry get to take the blame? This is ridiculous! It has been the Dems the whole time Rob and you know that!
Look at today’s Dow. As stated before, the easy part is done now the party elected has to “earn it.” Enough said.
Hal, Paul that is not what I said. The Dow’s been going up for months now. Not since election day. So who ya going to give credit for that? Let me guess who you won’t….
Bush had 8 years and a lot of power given to him and taken by him, and Cheney, and they more or less ruined this country. Obama’s had two years, barely, and you have the gall and stupidity to blame it all on him? That is irrational and illogical and just plain dumb.
And I was right, as stated above. You are already blaming Obama for the mess we’ll still be in two years from now (predicted based upon the huge and deep hole we are in now). BUT wait! If things ARE better in two years you can take ALL the credit!! Neato!
Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney recently quoted a confederate sympathizer who brazenly suggested that President Obama is the second coming of Lincoln—brazen because he said the current president’s policies, such as universal health care, finance reform laws, and climate change legislation, harken back to an overreaching federal bureaucracy of a century and half ago. That’s utter nonsense, of course, yet listen to Grayson Jennings, first lieutenant commander of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. He told McCartney that today’s Tea Party warriors are the resistance troops just as ol’ Jefferson Davis and the other rebels were in the 1860s. “They were fighting for the same things that people in the Tea Party are fighting for now,†Jennings said, apparently without a trace of irony. That’s not a history that we Americans should be proud to repeat.
Denial of truth is a wonderful thing isn’t it?
On your part? Must be… that’s all you do.