DescentBB

I really need to thank my brother for posting this link on Facebook, because it's kind of hilarious. I knew there was a reason that you couldn't pay me enough to watch televised debates.

It's ok. We know you're going to vote for Obama anyway.

Hmmmmmm. Debate crib notes. Nice!

ThunderBunny wrote:It's ok. We know you're going to vote for Obama anyway.

Just like I voted for Obama in 2008, right?

Oh wait...

(Seriously, can't we just celebrate stupidity for stupidity's sake without having to go all defensive about it?)

Top Gun wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:It's ok. We know you're going to vote for Obama anyway.

Just like I voted for Obama in 2008, right?

Oh wait...

(Seriously, can't we just celebrate stupidity for stupidity's sake without having to go all defensive about it?)

i'm suprised he didn't call you a muslim apologist

Okay, if I am going to rip on one person from this debate in particular...woooooooow. That's...that's real presidential material right there. Yessiree.

(And I swear if anyone gripes because Keith Olbemann pops up at the end of that video I will have an aneurysm because who gives a ★■◆●.)

ThunderBunny wrote:It's ok. We know you're going to vote for Obama anyway.

Rumor has it you have pictures of Obama in a bikini posted all over your house.

Fruit cake!

Carbon debate has gone around and around and around and around........................... So just throw out the fact that Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs. Because it's so deadly of a gas.

Heretic wrote:Carbon debate has gone around and around and around and around........................... So just throw out the fact that Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs. Because it's so deadly of a gas.

Carbon dioxide is not super mega deadly by itself; it's what carbon dioxide does in the upper atmosphere that's a problem:

I watched about 15 minutes of it and then fell asleep.

The non-anwsers are just painful..

"I will tell you exactly what I am going to do, I would cut wasteful spending..."
"I am for common sence solutions..."
"What we need to do is get government off our backs..."

I just so wish I could do that with my boss...

agreed Goob,
The answers were the standard talking points. here's my observations.

1. given that they only were allotted 30 seconds to respond doesn't give them allot of time to really expound on any answer given, so they stick to the talking points.

2. it's the first debate, the candidates are more worried about screwing up then that are about delving into any real debate. they just want to make sure they don't hurt themselves as many feel Ron Paul did. that "should" change after a few more debates and they start feeling either more comfortable or the heat of the polls.

Debates won't be good until they start ripping each other instead of all pointing at Obama,

The way things are going we may soon see who our president is determined by a network TV show.
Survivor: The D.C. Election Elimination Series

Heretic wrote:Carbon debate has gone around and around and around and around........................... So just throw out the fact that Carbon dioxide is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs. Because it's so deadly of a gas.

This goes beyond the global warming issue, though...it's flat-out ignorance of grade school science. As some of the comments said, go sit down in a room that's full of 10% or so carbon dioxide gas for a few minutes, and then come back and tell us if carbon dioxide is deadly to animals (last time I checked, we're not plant life). And as Olbermann pointed out at the end of that video, there are a hell of a lot of "natural" things that are plenty deadly. Like a volcanic eruption, for instance.

woodchip wrote:Debates won't be good until they start ripping each other instead of all pointing at Obama,

That's a good point too, though from what I've heard, early primary debates tend to go like that, since the prospective candidates are trying to grab people's attention as much as possible.

And hell, Will, that way might work as well as any at this point.

Top Gun wrote:As some of the comments said, go sit down in a room that's full of 10% or so carbon dioxide gas for a few minutes....

There are people who, IMO, overplay the danger associated with CO2 because they want to scare people, so they call it a pollutant and a poison and a harmful substance on top of being a greenhouse gas. But it's not really very dangerous in the quantities it's normally found in. It becomes dangerous if you overexpose yourself to extreme quantities, say by sucking on a tailpipe, hanging out near one of those lakes with an underground CO2 vent, not having proper scrubbers in your SCUBA gear, or sitting in a room with thousands of times the normal air concentration. It is similarly dangerous to overexpose yourself to water, say by sticking your head in a bucket with thousands of times the normal air concentration for a few minutes. Realistically, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air in your city, home, school, or office is not dangerous unless you have a serious ventilation problem and a significant source of the stuff.

The primary concern with carbon dioxide is not as a "pollutant" or "harmful substance"; it's as a greenhouse gas. Those who insist on calling it "dangerous" as a scare tactic do a disservice to that whole discussion. And their approach, IMO, leaves the door open for people like Bachmann to score cheap points by mentioning that CO2 is all around you and not hurting you. So the scare tactic ends up backfiring, or at the very least not being very effective.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone framing CO2 as a "poison" that represents a direct personal health risk, certainly not to the extent that would lead to a response like Bachmann's. The calls to limit emissions in the future have been centered around its effects as a greenhouse gas, not as the potential build-up of toxic levels in the atmosphere. Regardless, the fact that an elected official could stand in front of Congress and spout something as mind-destroying as, "Natural things aren't harmful!" is enough to drive one to drink.

One round of liquid nitrogen for me please…

*burp*

Goes down smooth...coming out's another matter, though.

Top Gun wrote:I don't think I've ever seen anyone framing CO2 as a "poison" that represents a direct personal health risk

I have.