Sunday, February 24th, 2008
Global Warming and the big picture
|
Figure A is an illustration of the layers of the ocean.
Any life that exists, say, in the Abyssopelagic zone would die should it be subjected to the pressure and temperature change of being raised to the Epipelagic zone. Does that sound familiar about us humans? The same would happen to us should we be shot into space without the proper gear. So think about this. How much do we really know about the universe or even the galaxy that surrounds us? Lets say a Gulper Eel, which inhabits the space between the bottom of the Bathypelagic and Hadalpelagic zones, somehow devises a shell that enables him to visit the Epipelagic zone. That would be like us going to the moon. It was impossible once, but now it can be done with very special minimums being met. So does that mean that this Gulper Eel now knows everything about HIS universe? Of course not.
Think about the big picture here. Sixty percent of the Earth is covered in water and probably less than half of that is covered by land which is inhabited by people who frequently use combustion engines and every other type of product that members of the global warming religion shun. And yeah, you read that correctly. To me, global warming is nothing more than a wack job religious movement. How so? These are typically the same people who place themselves on this higher pedestal of understanding about how the universe and all life came to be while frowning upon and hurling insults at those of us who believe in a God. They say there is no proof one exists, they have NO proof that global warming exists. |
|
The constant cry of "look at the proof" is there but where is the proof? In case you need a reminder of how wrong scientists can be,CLICK HERE to read that famous Newsweek article from 1975 that warned of the coming ICE AGE. Or did all of you forget about that? Which brings me to another point, have you noticed lately how the term 'global warming' seems to be fading out and the new term is 'climate change'? Why could that be? Maybe because all of these so-called experts can't even agree with themselves and are starting to change their minds AGAIN? Wow, what a shocker! You mean the United States and a handful of other countries isn't going to cause the Earth to erupt in a ball of flames? What a revelation!
I was watching the news and some parts of the country are actually 20+ below their averages for this time of the year. We have inhabited this planet for less than a second in the larger picture of time and yet we think we know everything about it. To think we can have any impact on something such as its climate is the biggest illusion of granduer I've ever seen. That would be like the gulper eel starting to believe if it doesn't stop eating a certain type of fish, it's going to be responsible for the demise of the ocean. Seems ridiculous doesn't it? From modern use of stargazing equipment, we have already estimated there to be a billion galaxies in the universe just from what we have been able to see. How do we know we're not merely an air bubble of a galaxy in a vast ocean of a universe? We don't and we probably never will. Much the way the gulper eel can't even begin to grasp the concept that there is life above him on dry ground, we know nothing of the universe we inhabit.
But we're going to change the Earths entire climate. These are the same scientists who until recently always professed how life cannot exist without the sun and yet just from the ONE percent of the deepest regions of the sea we have been able to explore, we have already found coral reef that does in fact exist without drawing any energy from the sun whatsoever. We don't even understand the life that exists below us a mere 5000 meters and we think we know everything else? Put the bong down, quit being afraid and live your lives. We are constantly being bombarded by idiots like Al Gore and hollywood celebrities on how we need to change our lives while they drive around in limos, private jets etc etc. Why people are so blind to see this for themselves is beyond me.
You're the same people who complain about the price of gas, yet don't want any kind of drilling which would enable this country to be much more self reliant. I've seen people argue that "BIG OIL" should be investing in research for alternative fuels. Explain to me why in the hell they would want to do such a thing. Do you have no grasp whatsoever on how business works? Why would they want to cause themselves to go extinct? If you liberals are so concerned with it, why don't YOU find alternative ways? Because it's easier to cry and moan that the work should be done by someone else and you should have to do more than simply reap the benefits right? Of course, because thats how liberals think. It's the way they have always thought and thats why this country has become so limp wristed. It's easier to point blame and collect handouts right?
We are not changing the climate, scientists are always backpeddaling and global warming is a load of crap.
Hillary Face of the Day
This could be our future President. Good call!
Democrats change position on NSA
Basically what I gather is they finally saw the obvious and being typical liberals they wont admit they were wrong.
So what is the remedy? Pass an un-necessary law to 'make it better'.
This was taken from The Washington Post
|
Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order it done without getting congressional approval. Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program. At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Roberts said he could not remember Democrats raising questions about the program during briefings that, beginning in 2002, were given to the "Gang of Eight." That group was made up of the House speaker and minority leader, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees. At the briefings, Roberts said, "Those that did the briefing would say, 'Do you have questions? Do you have concerns?' " Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it." Harman countered that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, had voiced his concerns to Vice President Cheney in a classified letter in July 2003, but "if he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information." Harman said the briefings she received concerned "the operational details of the program," which she supported. "However," she added, "the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program." She said it was not until Bush publicly spoke about the program, after it was revealed in the New York Times in December, that she was free to discuss it with House staff and constitutional lawyers. Daschle said he wants the program to continue but maintained that the warrantless wiretapping of calls that came into the United States or calls made overseas, even those involving suspected terrorist sources, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He recalled that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Bush asked Congress to revise FISA -- to initiate wiretaps and get warrants after 72 hours -- to make it easier to use against terrorists. Those changes were made. But in the authorization to fight al Qaeda, Bush was denied language that would have covered activities on U.S. soil. Harman noted that the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed last week on domestic wiretapping. "We're only 36 members total that we're talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program." The three current intelligence committee members talked about the article in Foreign Affairs by Paul R. Pillar, the former senior CIA intelligence analyst on Iraq. He criticized the Bush administration for "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, while ignoring assessments that problems would emerge after Saddam Hussein was removed. Roberts said Pillar did not give his committee that kind of assessment. Hoekstra questioned why Pillar was speaking out now. Harman said: "He was trying to get everyone's attention. Intelligence was ignored. Yes, everyone agreed there was WMD in Iraq, but the weight of the [intelligence community's] recommendation was Saddam was contained and he wasn't going to use it. And that's the part that the administration never let us hear about." |
Saturday, February 23rd, 2008
Plagarizing and politics? Say it aint so!
Check out THIS ARTICLE which covers the Dems recent plagarizing of each other.
What I find so humorous about all this is of cource the total lack of creativity on their part but the fact that HILLARY is doing the finger pointing. Not only has she actually stolen some of Baracks material, she was even using false accents last year. Does anyone else remember that? Doing a speech in the south at a church? No problem, insert fake ass "black sista" Hillary voice and call it a day. And when confronted about it she laughed it off. Just another of the endless examples proving how fake and stupid this woman really is.
Friday, February 22nd, 2008
I went out and passed my emissions test today. Put that in your crack pipe, hippie.
I was so happy, I drove my pollution spewing, global warming V8 Camaro around town before coming back home and installing these.
Oh and the wife even slapped on some gloves and even helped me. Old tired stockers on the left, new upgrades on the right.
Sunday, February 10th, 2008
Race and sex divide Democrats whereas Ideology divides Republicans
Don't believe me? Watch the news sometime. You can't see a single report about any elections without being reminded that Hillary Clinton is a female (yeah, sure she is) and Barack Obama is black (though in his own book, he speaks of growing up without his dad and being raised by the white side of his family). And the liberal media seems to be infatuated with talk of how the Republican party is in trouble, a "great divide". The problem is, we're slightly divided because we want a conservative frontrunner, not John McCain.
Here are a couple of facts from various news sources.
"It was above all Democratic white women who powered Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to victory in the states she carried, winning white female voters by about a 20-point margin over Sen. Barack Obama."
"Sen. Barack Obama’s victories resulted from the coalition that has defined his candidacy: blacks, youth, and higher income voters. The Illinois senator also won eight in ten African Americans, the same portion he had in earlier races. "
"For Democrats and Republicans nationally, the economy was seen as the most important issue facing the country, with GOP voters holding a significantly more optimistic view."
And why shouldn't we Republicans hold a more optomistic view? This was the first month in FIFTY TWO months the country actually LOST jobs, yet if you've been duped by the left wing, agenda driven media for the past four years, you would be fooled into thinking that this is the worst economy and biggest depression this country has ever seen. Evert month for as long as I can remember, all you hear are the "experts" prediciting drastic job losses etc etc. Some "experts" huh?
"Though women and Hispanics drove her support, she also did better with middle-age voters and seniors, as well as low-income and
less educated voters."
She does well with "less educated voters". Wow, what a shocker.
My wife was speaking with someone the other day and he asked her "Why would you want to vote for the rich?". Seriously, is that what some of you people think? That question came from someone who voted for John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004. The last time I checked, John Kerry swooped in and married a millionaire and John Edwards was giving 50 thousand dollar speeches (about POVERTY, no less). Let me pose this question to those of you who are still blind enough to think there are financial borders associated with political parties. When was the last time a homeless person gave you a pay check? When was the last time a poor person paid your mortgage? When was the last time a poor person put food on your table?
You and I both know the answer. Never. So what exactly is with the hatred for the rich in this country? I am by no means rich and come from very humble beginnings. Now if I had the mentality of a worthless, spineless liberal I would merely accept it and vote for the govornment to give me handouts. unfortunately for blood sucking Democrat politicians, I have a pair of balls. I'd rather work for what I have. There's enough illegal immigrants sucking up all my tax dollars as it is, I wouldn't want to be part of that problem as well.
Anyway, back to the hatred of the rich. Another common misconception is that Bush gives "tax cuts for the rich". Again, put the kool-aid down and do a little research. Get a load of THIS ARTICLE. People whine that they don't get that much back as a rich person when these tax cuts are passed. I got news for you, RICH PEOPLE paid far more in taxes than YOU did. is that really so difficult to grasp? I remember these idiots on the news crying about it when they barely paid any taxes to begin with. What the hell kind of mentality is that? "I didn't pay anything, but I'm entitled to a truckload of free cash". NO, you're not.
These are also the same people who don't mind giving welfare and healthcare and everything else to everybody since the "govornment pays for it". Once again, where does govornment money come from? YOU, genius. Why should some low life drug addict be entitled to the same health care benefits I get from my construction job when he hasn't worked a day in the last ten years? Because we need to be compassionate? What about being compassionate for people like me who actually CONTRIBUTE to society and PAY taxes as it is. Go ahead and vote for Hillary or Obama because of their "Universal health care plan". And when they raise your taxes, blame yourselves for being so stupid.
Saturday, February 9th, 2008
Still worried about global warming? Dumbass.
I found a couple of articles I found quite interesting. This first one seems to have proof that we are actually headed towards an Ice Age. Read that by CLICKING HERE.
And then we have this piece here about ethanol and biofuels CAUSING global warming. Shove your e-85, hippie.
Read that article by CLICKING HERE
And lastly, this gem. JAIL politicians who are "global warming deniers"
Friday, February 8th, 2008
Been watching the debates as of late? Anyone else notice how backward ass and forgetful all of these democrats seem to be? I see non-stop talk of how we need to end this war in Iraq (which all of them voted FOR, in case you forgot) right now and not a second sooner. So I figured I'd dig up some old statements made by these hypocrite democrats. Also notice how many of these statements were made long before President Bush was ever in office. Funny how everybody seems to conveniantly forget these things, huh?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Saturday, February 2nd, 2008
Heres another sampling that I received concerning KB from the same local forum the other comments came from
"We looked at alot of home builders when we were buying, but were told to stay away from KB. We ended up buying a fixer-upper Mossman in the heights. We don't regret it one bit."
"I'd have to say that there are definitely somethings with KB that I would want to watch for if they were building me a house, but that over all the house that we're in now is built pretty well. My main complaint is that KB trys to be like artistic home and make it so that every room in the house is within 2-3 degrees of te other. The problem is that Artistic homes does this by using temp sensors and the central air unit. KB does it by not putting any insolation in the center of the home. The wall are pretty fucking hollow, I have found some sound deading material in the bedroom walls, but nothing else. Also the "free front landscaping" sucks my left nut. I actually have had to go down and steal a couple wheelbarrows full of rock from the front of other houses when it was dumped just to fill in the holes in my own front yard because when I complained about it they said that it was normal. I'd say the original landscaping of rock was maybe a half inch thick if you kicked it with your foot you'd find the gray ground cover when you picked your foot up. Everything else seems okay though.
Oh, and our house was built in the end of 05' "
"They are out of control. I wont even place a bid for paint/stain jobs on a KB at all. I would much rather work under a hardcore custom builder like Scott Patrick or Rolla Homes.
If the "painter" dont want nothin to do with them its a bad story.
Keep it coming.