ChangoLanzao

Hannity's not even close on 2009 temperatures "In three separate instances over two weeks, Sean Hannity has baselessly asserted that "this is one of the coldest years on record" to claim that climate change is a "hoax" or not "real." In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and Britain's Met Office have stated that to date, 2009 is among the warmest years on record."

It doesn't matter; the firetrucks will have a very hard time making it past the roadblocks and the land mines that the Republicans have been placing ever since Ronald Regan was appointed.

I know that you didn't ask me directly, but I think it's an excellent question. For me, at least, if the broad consensus in the scientific community reversed it might change my mind. The scientific method doesn't work that way. Theories are not proven. Instead, hypotheses are tested. If the results of the test are consistent with a theory, that theory gains strength and credibility. If the test is not consistent, then the theory is modified. A theory is not disproved by hacking emails and taking what some scientists say out of context.

Go start a new thread. This one's about slamming FIX News.

But will it be less expensive? Afterall, the name of the bill talks about affordability. It will be more expensive than it is now, whether the HC bill is enacted or not. If there is no health care bill enacted with a public option included, the rate of increase will be maximized to benefit the insurance industry. Has it occurred to you that our health care is more expensive because we demand and received more medical services, by far, than any other nation? Yes it has. One of the things we will have to do in the long run is ration services. This will be necessary whether or not the HC legislation is enacted. What is most important right now is to take the insurance companies, who add nothing to the quality of our medical care out of the middle and get everyone covered.

Show one Govt program that was run BETTER after the Govt took over. Go start a new thread.

Name ONE program that the Govt took over and saved money or did it cheaper? That's an endless argument waiting to happen Sometimes it's also important to do it BETTER. If the government takes over health care, it will cost more than it costs now. If we stay with the current system, however, health case costs will rise even more, and availability of basic health care (for middle class and lower income people) will decrease. No matter what we do, health care costs are going to increase. We are not going to find a solution which actually lowers the cost in the short term; insisting that we do is tantamount to insisting that we do nothing.

I totally respect the fact that you have direct experience over there. To me this last statement illustrates why the decision whether or not to escalate is right. If we think our troops now are just walking around waiting to get shot at, then it's possible that sending more troops just means that we will have even more troops over there just walking around waiting to get shot at. Sending in more troops may also be a much more expensive way, in terms of money and lives, to find the enemy, but not win anything.

Simple... you made statements.. Now back them up or admit you are a liar. Not that hard to grasp. You sound just like Glenn Beck! You just lost Sure, whatever. Congratulations.

Nice sarcasm. So, how would it hurt them? If you really have to ask that question then there is no reason to make the effort to answer but, In a war zone, would more man power or support increase or lower the deaths? Go from there my friend...... All thing being equal, more men = more deaths.

Simple... you made statements.. Now back them up or admit you are a liar. Not that hard to grasp. You sound just like Glenn Beck!

When we finally adopt a single payer system, I suspect.

No, I just expect people to stand by the comments they make. You said, "I've watched Beck and listened for myself to what he says. EVERYTHING Quade posted is true", you then said, "The riot is in the process of being incited", You compared him to a guy yelling fire in a crowded theater... I and others have asked you SEVERAL times to back up your statements.... You have failed to do that.... So yes, you are lying. Then back up your statements if you can. So far you are just making up things and yes, that is lying. You make no sense.

To bad you think that an op/ed show is 'fact'. That doesn't mean everyone else does, though - you know that, right? You lost me here. I guess that was the point.

Would that be the scientists LYING about the data (you know - the AGW adherents), or the scientists that the lying ones have kept from being published (you know, the 'deniers')? All of them.

Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. Well, being the frauds that they are, nobody will listen to them anyway don't you think Other scientists will. They don't care what your interpretation is. That's kinda how science works

Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU.

The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Nice misdirect - now, do you want to post to what I actually WROTE, or keep going on your own tangent? Thanks for giving me a choice! I have decided to stick to my own tangent. OK?

Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy?

On the other hand, it is true that intelligent satire plays an important POSITIVE role in public discourse. What Glenn Beck does is neither intelligent nor positive. He is a buffoon who substitutes dangerous propaganda in the place of facts in a completely illogical and disingenuous manner. Ok, post where he is wrong!! Dont generalize but be specific please. He tells anybody he will give them an hour to come on his show (or email him and he will read it) and show him to be wrong. I wont hold my breath. I also am positive you get your opinions about him from some pro government left wing web site and you have listened a little, if any to him. So, we have here another example of some one have an opinion given to them. The key words here are "illogical" and "disingenuous"

The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh!

There. I fixed that for you Lets see which group has more power? Businesses which are controlled by the consumers (meaning if the consumer believe AWG is happening will stop using exxon and such and those business fail) or the government which needs AGW to gain ultimate power over the business and consumers and has already taken the power to take a business such as GM and do as it pleases with it and controls the consumers with inflation, "stimulus", cap and trade, etc? Consumers won't do a damned thing. You know that. Business has the money and they will prevail at the expense of Science. We are screwed.

As far as I can tell, your panties are all bunched up because I said,"I've watched Beck and listened for myself to what he says. EVERYTHING Quade posted is true." Then you called me a liar.

The decision should be a medical decision, not a financial (based on insurance) decision. A single payer system would be best Insurance should not be a consideration. The insurance provider has nothing to offer medically; they are only there to take a cut.