DescentBB

Seems the blessed EPA has determined CO2 is a toxic gas and must be controlled. So who here will be the first to help reduce CO2 by removing yourself from this worldly realm? Every living biologic exhales CO2 so where do you think the new world order socialist govt. of Obama on high will start? Perhaps all those pesky right wingers that showed up at the tea parties would be a good place to start. So everyone take a deep breath...and hold it. No more poisoning our planet please.

Must obey.......!!

Is it just me or has the overall thread quality dropped a few grades in recent months? I know that the conservatives have a lot of good ideas, because I've read them here on the DBB, but threads like these are just not cool. I know you have a better understanding of greenhouse gases and reality in general than to post nonsense like this woodchip. Please hold yourself more accountable.

Ha…Ha…Ha…and Ha, I thought you liberals were supposed to have a sense of humor?

But I guess that video Ferno posted a while ago, that ended with the desire to see the Lily white Republicans floating dead in the water, is more your style.

Jeff, you really need to get a sense of humor.

Jeff250 wrote:Is it just me or has the overall thread quality dropped a few grades in recent months? I know that the conservatives have a lot of good ideas, because I've read them here on the DBB, but threads like these are just not cool. I know you have a better understanding of greenhouse gases and reality in general than to post nonsense like this woodchip. Please hold yourself more accountable.

x2, totally agreeable...

You too Dak

Which forefather did you dress up as at your tea party woodchip?

Edit: Ronald Reagan is my first guess

Does the co2 thing mean no more Rosarita refries? Bummer.

woodchip wrote:Jeff, you really need to get a sense of humor.

Typically liberals are the ones who satirize conservatives, but I'm glad you're not above self-deprecating humor.

Jeff250 wrote:Is it just me or has the overall thread quality dropped a few grades in recent months? I know that the conservatives have a lot of good ideas, because I've read them here on the DBB, but threads like these are just not cool. I know you have a better understanding of greenhouse gases and reality in general than to post nonsense like this woodchip. Please hold yourself more accountable.

except for the fact that there are some people who are actively promoting the idea that we MUST reduce the population to solve the "climate crisis".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 950442.ece

Jeff250 wrote:Is it just me or has the overall thread quality dropped a few grades in recent months?.

Crap. That's when I joined.

dissent wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Is it just me or has the overall thread quality dropped a few grades in recent months? I know that the conservatives have a lot of good ideas, because I've read them here on the DBB, but threads like these are just not cool. I know you have a better understanding of greenhouse gases and reality in general than to post nonsense like this woodchip. Please hold yourself more accountable.

except for the fact that there are some people who are actively promoting the idea that we MUST reduce the population to solve the "climate crisis".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 950442.ece

This was posted before and does not address what Jeff said. In fact, it dodged the statement that was important here: "I know you have a better understanding of greenhouse gases and reality in general than to post nonsense like this woodchip. Please hold yourself more accountable."

While us liberals have for sure a sense of humor, it's just that these recent threads are, just not thought provoking enough. This thread has the idea of killing yourself to drop CO2, when obviously the control was taken into place due to the waste often produced by factories and other large industrial buildings. It does not discuss the issue at all, and instead is just to rile up rage against Obama for this action. Another example includes this thread. Many of these threads are often just right wing nutjobbery, that rabble on and on with almost conspiracy-like rabble, comparing Obama to Fidel Castro. While in the Bush years, yes, some of us compared Bush to Hitler and his government as fascist, in every other thread Obama is compared to creating a Socialist state with him and the democrats as the rulers of said country. This might be funny the first time, but gets really old really fast, not to mention kills any form of credibility.

Dakatsu wrote:....While in the Bush years, yes, some of us compared Bush to Hitler and his government as fascist, in every other thread Obama is compared to creating a Socialist state with him and the democrats as the rulers of said country. This might be funny the first time, but gets really old really fast, not to mention kills any form of credibility.

I agree there is no credibility in implying Bush was like Hitler but if you want to say Obama isn't moving our government towards a Socialist model you have to ignore a lot of things he's done.

Don't you know that all conservatives who don't believe in the ways of the liberals on global warming, the Obama way of life, illegal immigration gun control, abortion, and/or if they served in the armed forces suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome therefore we need to be ever watchful of people on the right side who dare believe we should have freedom to think and say the the things we believe.

Dakatsu wrote:This was posted before and does not address what Jeff said. ..."

While us liberals have for sure a sense of humor, it's just that these recent threads are, just not thought provoking enough. This thread has the idea of killing yourself to drop CO2, when obviously the control was taken into place due to the waste often produced by factories and other large industrial buildings. ...

Sorry Dak, but that last part is incoherent. Care to flesh that out a little more.

Clearly it's an oversimplification to say that more people are the sole cause of global warming, but it is not oversimplifying the case to say that more people wanting more energy (given our current technological and industrial capacity) is part of the cause for increasing levels of CO2 going into the atmosphere.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochu ... apter1.htm
See the chart in Figure 5 in the linked report. (if you don't know what is OECD vs. non-OECD is, click the link under the chart, or just click here.
It's pretty clear from the chart that the bulk of the increased rate of estimated CO2 emissions between now and 2030 is expected to come from China, India and the southeast Asia region. It's not so much that their populations are increasing that rapidly as it is that the affluence of their populations is increasing very rapidly. That affluence is the source of the increasing demand for transportation fuels and electric power.

So maybe we should just encourage the rich people to off themselves. (Can anybody say - class warfare? oh yeah, dude, the poor are poor just because they wanna be ...) Or maybe we should all just go "back to the land" and give up all our modern toys and technology (bbye internet ...(among many others more important)). (Green Acres is the place to be .....)

Or maybe we should just start ramping up nuclear power construction. Other renewables may be nice, but there are no guarantees in technology innovation, and we already know how to do nuclear. All that is missing is political will.

Insurrectionist wrote:Don't you know that all conservatives who don't believe in the ways of the liberals on global warming, the Obama way of life, illegal immigration gun control, abortion, and/or if they served in the armed forces suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome therefore we need to be ever watchful of people on the right side who dare believe we should have freedom to think and say the the things we believe.

This is what I am talking about - total nonsense. Obama Derangement Syndrome? Seriously? You have the right to say what you wish, and I can't stop you, but I'd just like it to be so there is at least a discussion.

dissent wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:This was posted before and does not address what Jeff said. ..."

While us liberals have for sure a sense of humor, it's just that these recent threads are, just not thought provoking enough. This thread has the idea of killing yourself to drop CO2, when obviously the control was taken into place due to the waste often produced by factories and other large industrial buildings. ...

Sorry Dak, but that last part is incoherent. Care to flesh that out a little more.

Clearly it's an oversimplification to say that more people are the sole cause of global warming, but it is not oversimplifying the case to say that more people wanting more energy (given our current technological and industrial capacity) is part of the cause for increasing levels of CO2 going into the atmosphere.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochu ... apter1.htm
See the chart in Figure 5 in the linked report. (if you don't know what is OECD vs. non-OECD is, click the link under the chart, or just click here.
It's pretty clear from the chart that the bulk of the increased rate of estimated CO2 emissions between now and 2030 is expected to come from China, India and the southeast Asia region. It's not so much that their populations are increasing that rapidly as it is that the affluence of their populations is increasing very rapidly. That affluence is the source of the increasing demand for transportation fuels and electric power....

...Or maybe we should just start ramping up nuclear power construction. Other renewables may be nice, but there are no guarantees in technology innovation, and we already know how to do nuclear. All that is missing is political will.

Thank you Dissent, this is what I am talking about; a post that deals with something, and does not spew totally nonfactual stuff.

Firstly, there are a few problems that if dealt with would make nuclear a wonderful option. Those would be meltdowns and the waste. The chance for a meltdown, albeit small, needs to be further controlled and the plant needs to be far away from large population centers. We also need a more effective way to deal with the waste created. Otherwise, nuclear would be an excellent option. I think solar is still the best, the main cause of concern being that they have a high initial cost, but they do pay for themselves.

I do acknowledge that we are not the strongest emitter, but I think putting steps to lower our emissions and find new sources of clean energy will not only help in cutting the emissions, but also allow breakthroughs that can be easily crafted for use in other nations. These breakthroughs could make it quite cheap to produce clean energy, and hopefully curb the expenses of getting to the cleaner energy.

So maybe we should just encourage the rich people to off themselves. (Can anybody say - class warfare? oh yeah, dude, the poor are poor just because they wanna be ...) Or maybe we should all just go "back to the land" and give up all our modern toys and technology (bbye internet ...(among many others more important)). (Green Acres is the place to be .....)

I didn't quite understand this paragraph, except I don't think "back to the land" is a viable option for society, especially if we want to reach out into new frontiers.

Dakatsu wrote:I didn't quite understand this paragraph, except I don't think "back to the land" is a viable option for society, especially if we want to reach out into new frontiers.

yeah; I could have put a /sarcasm at the end for emphasis.

oh, and France has been doing a reasonable job managing nuclear for electricity generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
(edit: though some people don't think so)



Dakatsu, every technology is going to have potential negative impacts. We, as a society, have to make some decisions about which impacts we are willing to try to live with.

dissent wrote:oh, and France has been doing a reasonable job managing nuclear for electricity generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
(edit: though some people don't think so)

reading a little into those, I still think nuclear is a viable option, and the job opportunities in not only the reactor, but an increase for uranium mines would be large.

dissent wrote:Dakatsu, every technology is going to have potential negative impacts. We, as a society, have to make some decisions about which impacts we are willing to try to live with.

I realize that, and I know nothing is perfect, but we can become close, or be able to manage the negative impacts

Will Robinson wrote:I agree there is no credibility in implying Bush was like Hitler but if you want to say Obama isn't moving our government towards a Socialist model you have to ignore a lot of things he's done.

Yes, and every time a conservative president cuts a program, he moves us closer to anarchy. That doesn't mean that bringing up observations such as these are useful for discussion.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I agree there is no credibility in implying Bush was like Hitler but if you want to say Obama isn't moving our government towards a Socialist model you have to ignore a lot of things he's done.

Yes, and every time a conservative president cuts a program, he moves us closer to anarchy. That doesn't mean that bringing up observations such as these are useful for discussion.

A little perspective is in order to examine your point...
Republicans voted to increase the school lunch program by a factor less than the democrats wanted to increase it by and that is reported as "Republicans cut school lunches"!
So, yea, technically I guess you can say they moved us closer to anarchy...er...ummm... by a fraction of a fraction....but on the other hand Obama has taken control of financial institutions and other major private sector industries, nationalizing banks and firing a CEO of a major corporation...that is a giant step that rocked the global markets and will have deep impact across the economy not just a fractional change in government funding of some welfare program!
So you trying to imply 'both sides do it' is more than a little disingenuous!

McCain would have done the same. If you think otherwise, you have probably drowned in the cool-aid.

Jeff250 wrote:Yes, and every time a conservative president cuts a program, he moves us closer to anarchy.

Yes, because the government must control every aspect of our lives, or people would just run amok in the streets.

Did you forget a smiley?

woodchip wrote:So who here will be the first to help reduce CO2 by removing yourself from this worldly realm?

You filthy right-wing conservatives REALLY hate the environment, don't you?!? You know full well what you are suggesting here. Don't pretend it was an accident, I can read you like one of Pat Buchanan's books!

Your devious, EVIL plan is obvious. Right wingers don't CARE about the environment, so they will simply ignore your advice. But loving, sensitive liberals, they CARE. They care enough to do something about it. They care enough to make a sacrifice for you, and everyone else.

Yes, you know that the results of your advice will be environmentally conscious liberals committing revolutionary suicide to save the planet.

That's only a LITTLE bit evil. The REAL evil is that you are FULLY aware, are you not?, of how much CO2 a decaying body gives off?

Yes, thats right folks. The full EVILNESS of the plan is revealed. Millions, perhaps even BILLIONS of liberals make the ultimate sacrifice to save the planet. And THEN, their dead and rotting carcases pump the atmosphere FULL of CO2, bringing on full scale global warming and turning their deaths into the ultimate mockery as their noble sacrifice brings about the very event they were trying to prevent!!!

You right-wingers will just turn up the air conditioner and LAUGH!

Evil. EVIL. I'm ASHAMED of you!

Well, we could just quit BREEDING so much and solve the problem less painfully. I'd have more respect for environmentalists if they practiced that one.

Kilarin wrote:

woodchip wrote:So who here will be the first to help reduce CO2 by removing yourself from this worldly realm?

You filthy right-wing conservatives REALLY hate the environment, don't you?!? You know full well what you are suggesting here. Don't pretend it was an accident, I can read you like one of Pat Buchanan's books!

Your devious, EVIL plan is obvious. Right wingers don't CARE about the environment, so they will simply ignore your advice. But loving, sensitive liberals, they CARE. They care enough to do something about it. They care enough to make a sacrifice for you, and everyone else.

Yes, you know that the results of your advice will be environmentally conscious liberals committing revolutionary suicide to save the planet.

That's only a LITTLE bit evil. The REAL evil is that you are FULLY aware, are you not?, of how much CO2 a decaying body gives off?

Yes, thats right folks. The full EVILNESS of the plan is revealed. Millions, perhaps even BILLIONS of liberals make the ultimate sacrifice to save the planet. And THEN, their dead and rotting carcases pump the atmosphere FULL of CO2, bringing on full scale global warming and turning their deaths into the ultimate mockery as their noble sacrifice brings about the very event they were trying to prevent!!!

You right-wingers will just turn up the air conditioner and LAUGH!

Evil. EVIL. I'm ASHAMED of you!

Nice.

Spidey wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:Yes, and every time a conservative president cuts a program, he moves us closer to anarchy.

Yes, because the government must control every aspect of our lives, or people would just run amok in the streets.

Did you forget a smiley?

Well, I think the sentence that you left out of my quote counts for as much. I think that comparing conservatives to anarchists for cutting government programs is just as deceitful as comparing liberals to socialists for creating government programs.

Will wrote:So you trying to imply 'both sides do it' is more than a little disingenuous!

No, making such a comparison is always invalid and not used by someone who wants to discuss the merit of any one policy but by someone who just wants to incite people's emotions.

Pandemic: Limbaugh's Obama Derangement Syndrome spreads through conservative media

http://mediamatters.org/items/200904100033

Obama derangement syndrome

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... d=13496418

Obama Derangement Syndrome Hits Beck

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090427/g ... _mediaband

Jeff250 wrote:No, making such a comparison is always invalid and not used by someone who wants to discuss the merit of any one policy but by someone who just wants to incite people's emotions.

very well said.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I agree there is no credibility in implying Bush was like Hitler but if you want to say Obama isn't moving our government towards a Socialist model you have to ignore a lot of things he's done.

Yes, and every time a conservative president cuts a program, he moves us closer to anarchy. That doesn't mean that bringing up observations such as these are useful for discussion.

oh, c'mon Jeff, this is a pile of manure and you know it. Are you seriously going to argue that conservative attempts to restrain the growth of the federal government are attempts to enshrine anarchy as the model for American government? A little Obama-esque fear-mongering, eh? Most conservatives I know don't have imminent plans to dump the Constitution.

So what we really need to do is install this socialist paradise for the sole purpose of protecting ourselves from anarchy. um, yeah ... you go first.

Jeff250 wrote:...

Will wrote:So you trying to imply 'both sides do it' is more than a little disingenuous!

No, making such a comparison is always invalid and not used by someone who wants to discuss the merit of any one policy but by someone who just wants to incite people's emotions.

Except I have discussed the merits of policy in detail and welcome you to bring up any issue you think I'm not addressing.
Your assertion that Obama's recent moves are an equal and opposite of conservative policy...a yin and yang of socialism vs. anarchy as you tried to paint it, is laughable and I'd gladly dive into the discussion of comparing the two!

*******************

Krom, It's not likely McCain would have to do the same because he offered alternatives to many of these Obama solutions and more important, when Obama was voting in Acorns favor to approve poisoned mortgages to unqualified borrowers McCain was one of the few who was sounding the alarm that Fannie and Freddie were out of control and about to sink our economy! Also he offered an alternative to the health care system that Obama is about to unveil that would have avoided the government run socialized model Obama is about to try and force feed us.
So, no, I reject the premise of your assertion that Obama had no choice in these matters and McCain would be doing the same. Obama is from a socialist mindset of education and government and everyone should look long and hard at Chicago and Illinois as an example of just how well his team does at serving the everyday civilians!

Dakatsu wrote:This is what I am talking about - total nonsense. Obama Derangement Syndrome? Seriously?

“Obama Derangement Syndrome” care to explain how that is “total nonsense”?

Your side made it up.

You're dreaming in color Will. Yeah McCain wouldn't have done exactly the same things at exactly the same times, but the end results would end up looking a lot alike.

Also, have you ever been to a country with socialized healthcare? I've spoken at length with citizens and doctors from countries with socialized healthcare on the subject, I've even visited the countries. Somehow the current healthcare system in the United States scares me far more than anything I've seen or heard about any socialized healthcare system.

In any of these countries if I had a major accident or serious illness, I would feel much more confident I would receive the care I need without having to give up everything else. In the US, I honestly do not think I would be better off because the only way I could afford something major is to become homeless and be declared destitute. Here in the states half the time you are better off dead than seriously injured or ill. Quite frankly the \"healthcare system\" you guys are trying to protect is pathetic and embarrassing.

After returning from Costa Rica (which has socialized healthcare btw), as I was driving through town I noticed something: an overwhelming majority of Americans I see walking down the street right here in the midwest simply do not look even remotely as healthy as the Costa Ricans I saw walking down the street in Costa Rica. Costa Ricans in general have better color, have drastically superior muscle tone, and very few of them are overweight. I know a fair amount of that has to do with the lifestyle and types of jobs that most people in Costa Rica have to work, things aren't as easy as they are here because it is a third world nation and the population gets much more of a workout than here in the states. But the people definitely looked more healthy and they also looked more happy than Americans walking down the street.

The dirty little secret about Health Insurance is that many people are paying thousands of dollars a year for their Insurance, but still go without care, because they can’t afford the deductibles. (and other reasons)

The Health Industry, Government and Insurance Companies are Lying to you!

Having Health Insurance to cover day to day health issues is total insanity. The solution would be to get rid of insurance for these needs, and only have insurance only for catastrophic care. Health Insurance is the number one reason Health Care is so expensive in the first place, and for the love of god, can’t see how it will solve the problem. Unless you consider a huge price tag and unjustified profits a solution.

And if you believe that the Government is going to institute “Socialized” health care, and the cost controlling measures that will be required to keep premiums to a reasonable level…well I have some swamp land for sale.

You may be more “worldly” than me, but I have Diabetes Mellitus. (meaning, I have studied this very issue extensively)

dissent wrote:oh, c'mon Jeff, this is a pile of manure and you know it.

That's my point. At the risk of sounding redundant, calling a conservative an anarchist is just as dumb as calling a liberal a socialist. I think that if you're trying to argue that claiming one is slighting more dumb than the other, then, while you might be right, you're not getting my point. Claiming either is still just dumb. (I didn't think that this would be so controversial, but I tend to underestimate the controversialness of my claims, so meh. )

Will wrote:Your assertion that Obama's recent moves are an equal and opposite of conservative policy

No, I don't think that that's right either. In fact, Republicans have had a role in increasing government size in their last term as well, so perhaps my example of an equally bad argument involving conservatives should have been comparing them to socialists too.

Will wrote:Except I have discussed the merits of policy in detail

I know, which is why I am curious why you are trying to defend other people when they try to get out of doing this!

Krom wrote:....

After returning from Costa Rica (which has socialized healthcare btw), as I was driving through town I noticed something: an overwhelming majority of Americans I see walking down the street right here in the midwest simply do not look even remotely as healthy as the Costa Ricans I saw walking down the street in Costa Rica. Costa Ricans in general have better color, have drastically superior muscle tone, and very few of them are overweight. I know a fair amount of that has to do with the lifestyle and types of jobs that most people in Costa Rica have to work, things aren't as easy as they are here because it is a third world nation and the population gets much more of a workout than here in the states....

Do you expect me to believe that Obama's socialized health care system will change those people or even their life style?!?

I have some anecdotal data regarding people from those other countries where they have socialized medicine...I met them after they traveled here for proper care instead of waiting too long for an MRI for it to be of any help in their home country. It isn't an isolated case either it is quite common.

McCain's health care solution was within a few dollars cost to Obama's plan to the end consumer but the big difference you are trying to disregard is it kept the government out of the management of the doctors and hospitals. Have you enjoyed how the government spent that emergency trillion on economic stimulus?!? They only managed to waste 95% of it on non stimulus.....

Yea I can't wait until they run the health care industry it's bound to help us all look better and have more muscle tone

Jeff250 wrote:...

Will wrote:Except I have discussed the merits of policy in detail

I know, which is why I am curious why you are trying to defend other people when they try to get out of doing this!

I don't know what your saying there. It isn't my intent to defend anyone with my comments.

My only point, my initial post, was fueled by the realization that, although it is common for either side to toss rhetoric around like the Bush=Hitler comment that I was responding to, in this case, thanks to Obama's bold step leftward, I could in all sincerity point out that Bush was no Hitler but Obama has proven calling him socialist is more than just right wing rhetoric. He really is quite socialist in many of his motives, beliefs and policy goals. Maybe I'm not making the best use of the word 'socialist' but it fits him like a glove when comparing it's use there to the use of Bush and anarchist in the same sentence.

Will Robinson wrote:I have some anecdotal data regarding people from those other countries where they have socialized medicine...I met them after they traveled here for proper care instead of waiting too long for an MRI for it to be of any help in their home country. It isn't an isolated case either it is quite common.

If you can afford to fly all the way to the United States to get a prompt MRI, then good for you since you are one of the very few that don't need socialized medicine. Welcome to the top <1% of the global population. Who cares in the slightest if wealthy people can afford high medical expenses? What about the other >99% of the population?

Yeah, you can get pretty much anything you want done and fast if you are willing and able to pay a FORTUNE for it. The problem is not the quality or the speed of the service, its the insurmountable price.

Will Robinson wrote:McCain's health care solution was within a few dollars cost to Obama's plan to the end consumer but the big difference you are trying to disregard is it kept the government out of the management of the doctors and hospitals.

Because they have done a brilliant job of self regulation so far?

Will Robinson wrote:Have you enjoyed how the government spent that emergency trillion on economic stimulus?!? They only managed to waste 95% of it on non stimulus.....

The 700 billion that Bush spent went poof just as quickly and just as pointlessly. If this whole meltdown had happened two years ago instead of last year, Bush still would have ended up burning even more money in much the same way Obama has. It isn't like the bill didn't go through congress first. Any time congress tries to react quickly to a situation, bad things happen and quite often the situation only gets worse as a result. And it really doesn't matter which party is dominant or who the president is. The legislative branch of our government is a lowest common denominator type of system, meaning the dumbest people in it will set the bar for what it produces.

The three socialist leaders of Germany, Russia and China used their national influence to crush all opposition under the banner of \"patriotism\" while ushering their nations toward dictatorships during national economic crisis. Integral to their scheme to grab power were several components:

1. A national compulsory youth organization in which young people were indoctrinated to report family members and neighbors who voiced opposition to the national agenda;

2. Confiscations of firearms, banks and money management institutions;

3. Ridicule and prosecution of clergymen, intellectuals, editors, capitalists and industrialists; accusations against Christianity as \"the opium of the people\" and an \"intolerant threat to national interests;\"

4. Unionization of factory workers and government employees to force local business employers to implement government economic policies;

5. Identification of a particular segment of society (capitalists, and conservatives) as the cause of all economic ills;

6. Nationalization of education, churches and media to ensure political correctness and \"appropriate reporting\" on government agendas.

To my dismay, those very components are being proposed by the U.S. Congress and White House! Yet the typical American citizen waves it off with, \"They would never let that happen here.\" Ironically, and sadly, that is exactly the response of German citizens in 1938! And it did happen! A wise man warned, \"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.\" God help America if U.S. citizens do not aggressively demand that our elected officials put a stop to current Washington efforts to implement tactics and schemes that would sew the Stars and Stripes on uniforms of men and women, and then compel them to enforce socialism in America!