PDA

View Full Version : 300 Years of Fossil Fuels in 300 Seconds.



Qtec
11-08-2011, 07:15 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ-J91SwP8w&feature=player_embedded)


Q

LWW
11-08-2011, 07:27 AM
My God I hope Luddites such as yourself never get total control.

Qtec
11-08-2011, 07:39 AM
I am not against technology, neither are any who are concerned about what kind of world today's children inherit.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rapid Spike in CO2 Emissions Shocks Researchers </div></div>

bad news (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,795978,00.html)

Q

Gayle in MD
11-08-2011, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not against technology, neither are any who are concerned about what kind of world today's children inherit.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rapid Spike in CO2 Emissions Shocks Researchers </div></div>

bad news (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,795978,00.html)

Q </div></div>

Every American should buy this book, This Used To Be Us:

This is one of the most important videos you'll ever watch.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BeUs

llotter
11-08-2011, 07:51 AM
Some of us that still believe in freedom think that the surest way to a healthy and prosperous future is to avoid central planners at all cost.

Qtec
11-08-2011, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of us that still believe in freedom think that the surest way to a healthy and prosperous future is to avoid central planners at all cost. </div></div>

So your plan is there is no plan! Just stagger along and see how things turn out?

The advantage that China has over the USA is that they CAN plan for the future, not just the next election.

When it comes things like to climate change, you have to look long term.

Q

llotter
11-08-2011, 08:12 AM
No, I believe everyone should plan for themselves and their families. The Constitution limits what the federal is responsible for and it doesn't include planning our economy or what fuels we should be using. We find ourselves in such deep dodo precisely because we have let the feds operate outside of their specific responsibility and it's time that we pulled them back into line...way back.

Gayle in MD
11-08-2011, 08:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, I believe everyone should plan for themselves and their families. The Constitution limits what the federal is responsible for and it doesn't include planning our economy or what fuels we should be using. We find ourselves in such deep dodo precisely because we have let the feds operate outside of their specific responsibility and it's time that we pulled them back into line...way back. </div></div>

"Provide for the common good"

Ever read the Constitution?

You should, you don't have a clue what's in it.

And when you read it, find me the place where it says the President has a right to launch pre-emptive war, and the VP has the right to engage in secret deals, to set our energy policies, with his oil cronies, behind closed doors, and break our Treaty Agreements, and our laws, like the FISA laws, without telling anyone what they are doing?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

Soflasnapper
11-08-2011, 09:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, I believe everyone should plan for themselves and their families. The Constitution limits what the federal is responsible for and it doesn't include planning our economy or what fuels we should be using. We find ourselves in such deep dodo precisely because we have let the feds operate outside of their specific responsibility and it's time that we pulled them back into line...way back. </div></div>

Perhaps you remember the phrase, 'Arsenal of Democracy'?

That was when the US was putting out thousands of ships, tanks, trucks, etc., for the war effort.

How was it done? Exactly by the kind of central economic planning and determination about fuels you say should not be done by the federal government. A command economy, top down, with one of the earliest czar type positions, a domestic economy czar. Semi-fascist, if not entirely fascist, and maybe that as well.

Do you argue that this was wrong, even though that is what it arguably took to win that war against fearsome foes who had attacked us, or declared war on us first?

llotter
11-08-2011, 02:50 PM
Normal thinking follows the admonition that it is the exception that proves the rule but the Left likes to find the exception to prove that there are no rules.

It is one thing to identify a cancer, as in the axis powers, and deal with it as rapidly as possible by killing it and it is another to make claims that everything is a cancer needing more central planners to cure. And, of course, foreign affairs, including war, is the main function of the federal government under the Constitution.

BTW, the 'success' of WWII effort had nothing to do with efficiency but a 'damn the torpedoes' thinking where cost was not a very high priority. The military is notoriously inefficient and for that reason alone, we should avoid putting anything beyond what is absolutely necessary under the care of central planners.

eg8r
11-08-2011, 09:19 PM
The plan is, there is no plan...that would drive me crazy. I plan out everything I do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The advantage that China has over the USA is that they CAN plan for the future, not just the next election.
</div></div>Is that a vote for communism?

As far as climate change and looking to the future, I agree. Let's start with obliterating all Chinese industry since they obviously are the biggest culprits behind all the farting cows. We cannot give up steak but I have no problem giving up cheap chinese crap. I don't want to give up my iOS products though, so maybe we could move those factories elsewhere (not the US, Apple products are already overpriced).

eg8r

llotter
11-09-2011, 04:38 AM
FYI Gayle, no where in the Constitution is 'provide for the common good' mentioned but I wouldn't be surprised if that redistributionist phrase is in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI Gayle, no where in the Constitution is 'provide for the common good' mentioned but I wouldn't be surprised if that redistributionist phrase is in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital. </div></div>

FYI....it's in the Preamble of the Constitution. Actually, it says promote the general welfare which means exactly the same thing.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

</div></div>


Do you think it's in the general welfare of women that they be put at risk to stand murder charges if they miscarry during pregnancy?

Is it in their personal interest that they be denied the use of birth control, or be forced to give birth to a child of a man who raped them against their will?

Since you are so againt the principles of our government, and the role of government in our lives, who don't you just leave this country?

You can't possibly read the Preamble, The bill of Rights, or The Constitution, in full, and then come away believing that every individual was meant to stand alone against any and all human threats and disasters, on their own, with no assistance or advantage coming to the citizens of a country by virture of living where there is no organized central government, to "promote" the general welfare of the citizens, provide for them what they cannot possibly achieve as an individual alone, completely on their own.

Liberty means having certain unalienable rights, incapable of being repudiated or transfered to another. Your wish is to repudiate the rights of women and remove her right to control her own body, which is the essence of freedom, relegating that hallmark of of freedom over to dictatorship, of one against another.

That's what you want to do, dictate your opinions and values, upon others, and remove the most important right any person has, which is their right to own their own body, make their own decisions, in their own pursuit of happiness.

You wish to deprive women those LIBERTIES, and remove their FREEDOM.

G.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 08:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think it's in the general welfare of women that they be put at risk to stand murder charges if they miscarry during pregnancy?
</div></div>When was this put on the table? Someone is trying to make miscarriages against the law?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think it's in the general welfare of women that they be put at risk to stand murder charges if they miscarry during pregnancy?
</div></div>When was this put on the table? Someone is trying to make miscarriages against the law?

eg8r </div></div>

Repiglicans are trying to legislate for that result, all over the country.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N4fknO_O4c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUr-yX7Cht0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOLF9TpoRjw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqOm8HwcRdU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl0n9bUqFUQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mACfuJWOsg&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUr-yX7Cht0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Q09EFgIcQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXPZAlgNMu0&feature=related

moblsv
11-09-2011, 09:46 AM
Getting used to it...

The mountains where I walk my dog have become a Libertarian paradise. We had a couple of rock slides during spring runoff this year. The solution was to gate off the ENTIRE mountain and post it as illegal to go up the road. shh... I walk the mountain anyway... The trails, the campgrounds the roads all look like they've been abandoned for years. Rocks on the roads, trees down on the trails... I guess this is the new normal.

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 09:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moblsv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Getting used to it...

The mountains where I walk my dog have become a Libertarian paradise. We had a couple of rock slides during spring runoff this year. The solution was to gate off the ENTIRE mountain and post it as illegal to go up the road. shh... I walk the mountain anyway... The trails, the campgrounds the roads all look like they've been abandoned for years. Rocks on the roads, trees down on the trails... I guess this is the new normal. </div></div>

What a tragedy!

The Repiglican legacy of destroying the planet.

The result of the authoritarian FASCISTS who don't care a whit about the environment.

Money is their only GOD.

I just watched a PBS documentary about what they have done to the Appalachian Mountains. It's tragic!


Bush pushed a lot of this through right before we finally got rid of him.

He has the lowest scores of any president, from historians, on the environment.


PIGS.

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think it's in the general welfare of women that they be put at risk to stand murder charges if they miscarry during pregnancy?
</div></div>When was this put on the table? Someone is trying to make miscarriages against the law?

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> If you would read the posts on here instead of just jumping on and spewing insults and your radical ideology of RW hate, you'd know about this.

I've posted about it before.... </span>


Tue Nov. 8, 2011 3:00 AM PST
Map: Is a personhood amendment coming to a state near you?
On Tuesday, voters in Mississippi headed to the polls to vote on an amendment to the state Constitution that would designate inseminated human eggs as legal persons from the "moment of fertilization." (Updated 9:30PT: The measure failed.) Its backers hoped to set up a challenge to Roe v. Wade and push toward outlawing many forms of birth control. In Mississippi, the proposed amendment created a political firestorm that's been closely watched by both sides of the national abortion debate. But this fight is not merely a Mississippi matter, and it is far from over: In Washington, House and Senate Republicans are pushing legislation that would do the same thing on the federal level.

The Mississippi amendment alters the state's Constitution so that "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." Nearly identical language appears in three bills that have been endorsed by scores of Republicans in Congress, including top House committee chairmen Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).



Like the Mississippi measure, these bills, which are not constitutional amendments, would extend the rights of legal personhood—including equal protection under the law—to a zygote, the single cell formed when a human sperm fuses with an egg. The national measures are "designed to achieve the same end" as the Mississippi effort, says Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert and professor at George Washington University who frequently testifies before Congress on reproductive rights issues. "The aim of the bills is to reclassify or to overturn…the fundamental constitutional fact on which Roe v. Wade rests," she adds. Opponents of abortion rights agree with Rosenbaum's analysis: The National Pro-Life Alliance, a group that backs all three bills, calls them "a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade" and sees them as a way of "legislatively overturning" the Supreme Court decision.







If the bills become law and zygotes are afforded the protection of legal personhood, abortion would be legally equivalent to murder, as would almost anything that interfered with the zygote's development. That could include the morning-after pill, which primarily works by preventing fertilization but which anti-abortion activists insist prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. (Many scientists disagree.) Intrauterine devices (IUDs), which can prevent implantation, would also be affected by the laws.

"It's not even abortion, it's not even pregnancy—that's how far back this reaches," says Donna Crane, the policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It's possibly the most extreme position you can take on this issue and far to the right of where most right-to-life individuals are."

Like the Mississippi amendment, none of the personhood bills being considered in Congress contain any exemptions for victims of rape or incest.

The fallout could extend beyond abortion and contraception. In Mississippi, some critics have questioned whether the passage of the amendment could affect laws unrelated to reproductive rights, such as those that regulate how many "people" can be on a bus or in a school gymnasium at a time. (Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard has more on other "personhood" bills being pushed in states around the country.)

Sixty-three House Republicans, or over a quarter of the GOP conference, are cosponsors of HR 212, Rep. Paul Broun's (R-Ga.) "Sanctity of Human Life Act," which includes language that directly parallels that of the Mississippi personhood amendment. That bill declares that "the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent…at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood." Five committee chairmen, including budget wunderkind Ryan, support the bill. "There is no greater protection that we as a government can give to protect human beings all the way from the time of fertilization until they have natural deaths," Broun says.

Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-Calif.) HR 374, an ever-so-slightly tweaked version that includes a clause that says it does not "require" (although it does allow) "the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child," has even more cosponsors—91, including Bachmann (R-Minn.). Nearly 40 percent of House Republicans back this bill, which, like HR 212 and the Mississippi amendment, has language saying that "human persons" exist from "the moment of fertilization" or from any "other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."

In the Senate, Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) has introduced S 91, a companion bill to HR 374. Wicker has said he hopes his bill will "settle this important life issue once and for all." More than a quarter of Senate Republicans back the proposal.

"These are the kind of measures, whether state or federal, that would end up at the Supreme Court eventually," Rosenbaum says. "I assume that's the next step."





http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/mississippi-personhood-zygote-federal-law



Personhood Amendments: Coming to a Ballot Near You? (Map)
—By Kate Sheppard

| Tue Nov. 8, 2011 3:00 AM PST
On Tuesday, Mississippi asked voters to decide whether or not to ban all abortions and many forms of contraception. The voters said no. But if anti-abortion groups get their way, there will be a host of similar measures on the ballot in 2012.

Efforts are underway in at least six states to adopt similar laws via constitutional amendments, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America, which is tracking the initiatives. The specific language varies from state to state, but all of the measures seek to redefine human life as beginning at conception. (And as my colleague Nick Baumann reports today, federal lawmakers are also circulating similar measures.)






and this:


The group California Civil Rights Foundation is trying to get an amendment on the 2012 ballot defining a "person" as "all living human beings from beginning of biological development as human organism." In Florida, the anti-abortion advocates at American Life League and Personhood USA have launched a signature-gathering effort for a similar initiative that would grant rights starting at "the beginning of the biological development of that human being." The Montana ProLife Coalition is also gathering signatures for a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to define "person" to encompass "the stage of fertilization or conception."

The Nevada Pro-life Coalition, meanwhile, has taken a slightly different tack that would nevertheless achieve the same end, with an effort to outlaw "the intentional taking of a prenatal person's life" via an amendment to the state constitution. The measure would guarantee the "unalienable right to life" of "every human being at all stages of biological development before birth."

In Ohio, the state's attorney general rejected an effort to get a personhood measure on the ballot in 2011, because he felt the summary of the measure offered by anti-abortion activists was not "fair and truthful." The activists have already pledged to try again for 2012 election. Similarly, the Oregon Human Life Amendment Committee tried to get a measure on the ballot for 2010 that would guarantee protection for "all human beings…including their unborn offspring at every state of their biological development, including fertilization." The measure got tied up in litigation, but anti-abortion advocates are trying again for 2012.

An anti-abortion activist in Alaska attempted to get a personhood measure on the ballot for 2011, one that stated that "the natural right to life and body of the unborn child supercedes [sic] the statutory right of the mother to consent to the injury or death of her unborn child." But the state's attorney general rejected it, finding that the language was "clearly unconstitutional." In Colorado, voters rejected a ballot measure to define human life starting "at the beginning of biological development" in 2010 by a 3 to 1 margin. Voters there also rejected a similar effort in 2008.

Map produced by Tasneem Raja

Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. She Tweets here. Get Kate Sheppard's RSS feed.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/personhood-amendments-state-map

eg8r
11-09-2011, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you would read the posts on here instead of just jumping on and spewing insults and your radical ideology of RW hate, you'd know about this.
</div></div>If you were not such a whiney, ranting 4 year old and acted like an adult every once in a while people would actually read your rants.

In my quick scan of your post I fail to see any mention of a miscarriage. What is your definition of miscarriage?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you would read the posts on here instead of just jumping on and spewing insults and your radical ideology of RW hate, you'd know about this.
</div></div>If you were not such a whiney, ranting 4 year old and acted like an adult every once in a while people would actually read your rants.

In my quick scan of your post I fail to see any mention of a miscarriage. What is your definition of miscarriage?

eg8r </div></div>

If you're not going to read them, don't keep asking questions.

It's all there.

G.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 11:20 AM
Come on gayle, quit being petulant brat. No where in your post did it mention miscarriages, you made that part up.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on gayle, quit being petulant brat. No where in your post did it mention miscarriages, you made that part up.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> HR 374, an ever-so-slightly tweaked version that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>includes a clause that says it does not "require" (although it does allow) "the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child,</span>" has even more cosponsors—91, including Bachmann (R-Minn.). Nearly 40 percent of House Republicans back this bill, which, like HR 212 and the Mississippi amendment, has language saying that "human persons" exist from "the moment of fertilization" or from any "other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."

</div></div>

As usual, you didn't read the story, nor view the links.

I gave you links to both clips and full editorials/opinions, which explain to you exactly what the Repiglicans are doing, how it would leave the option open for government to file charges against women who suffer a miscarriage, and other intrusions into her privacy, to make determinations about what caused the miscarriage, and the entire range of implications thereof.

Your usual rude and childish juvenile behavior and it's all because you're too damned lazy to do you're own research, even when someone tries to hand feed it to you.

Stuff it!

G.

eg8r
11-09-2011, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, you didn't read the story, nor view the links.
</div></div>So in an article about abortion you try and weasle in miscarriage. Typical gayle putting words in the mouths of others. Have you ever been able to comprehend the subject of anything?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-09-2011, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, you didn't read the story, nor view the links.
</div></div>So in an article about abortion you try and weasle in miscarriage. Typical gayle putting words in the mouths of others. Have you ever been able to comprehend the subject of anything?

eg8r </div></div>

No. You don't go to the link for the whole article. As usual.

Then you want to accuse others of lying, when you don't even bother to access the information.


You do this all the time.

You're a waste of time.

G.

Gayle in MD
11-10-2011, 08:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on gayle, quit being petulant brat. No where in your post did it mention miscarriages, you made that part up.

eg8r </div></div>


Petulant brat is a good descripion of you. I gave you links, which you didn't bother to check...then you go back to your usual attacks, calling people liars, when that's your forte'...

Here is another link! It was part of the ones I had already given you.

Yes, this misogynistic Repiglican wants to have the power to give the death penalty, to women who miscarry, potentially call them in for questioning as to the cause, with the possibility of charging them with murder if they can't PROVE they miscarried innocently.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia


If you would read the links, as I told you in the first place...you could have found this for yourself, but noooooo, that would fall second to your main goal, which is always to attack, argue and insult others, when you have no clue what you're talking about.

Moron!

eg8r
11-10-2011, 10:11 AM
Your links never said what you wanted them to say. I responded though to the thread you started on this subject.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-10-2011, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your links never said what you wanted them to say. I responded though to the thread you started on this subject.

eg8r </div></div>


You didn't watch any of them....

The very first one gave you the whole story.

As did this one, the second one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUr-yX7Cht0&feature=related

AGain, you prove you'd rather accuse others of being wrong, than just admit you didn't use the information that was provided for you.

That's why I usually go back to ignoring yur posts. You're a waste of time. You're rude, and you're too lazy to use what is provided for you.

Same ol' same ol' juvenile Eg., lashing out over what he is too lazy to view.

G.

Qtec
11-10-2011, 11:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that a vote for communism? </div></div>

No, just a fact.

If Obama had absolute power and would rule for the next 30 years, you might get something constructive done.

Q