The Democrats will unite, except for…well, just watch the video.
May 31st, 2008 by JohnFeroce
The Democratic party will unify, so they say.
As I wrote in a previous post, Hillary supporters aren’t getting the memo.
Future Obama voter? I don’t think so: Watch Video here
This woman says “They want to do what THEY want to do”…hmmm…wow!
You wish, John!
The DNC RBC reached a compromise today, a feat that surpasses the understanding of neoconservatives, you included, in whose dictionary you will not find the word “compromise” listed.
The Dems, Independents and moderate Repubs will unite, because this coalition cannot stand the idea of a continuation of the Republican neoconservative brand that has gotten this country into such a mess. McCain in too many ways represents a continuation of this brand.
Then there are facts:
“If John McCain is elected President, 63% of voters say it’s at least somewhat likely that he will reach across party lines and work effectively with both Republicans and Democrats.
and
McCain is seen as the more uniting candidate by men and women, young and old, white voters, conservatives and moderates. Obama is seen that way by African-Americans, other minority voters, and those who are politically liberal.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mccain_seen_as_candidate_most_likely_to_reach_across_party_lines
That is exactly why McCain will be the next president regardless of the democrats nominee; however, I’d bet Obama has a damn good shot at it in 2012.
John, you should be the first person to admit that the general election campaign, Obama v McCain, has hardly begun, therefore the current poll results are not very helpful as predictors of our political future.
McCain will be running on the lousy record of the Republican brand under the control of the neoconservatives. He has inherited the war and the economy issues, both strong negatives. So far he has done little to dissociate himself effectively from this record. Notice that this Rasmussen Poll did not focus on the issues, rather more on the labels liberal and conservative.
Obama’s challenge will be to convince people that he represents change and can bring people to work together to make the necessary changes. He will also be challenged by those who say they will never vote for a black man, unfortunately.
When November comes, I think Obama will prevail; for the sake of this nation’s future, I certainly hope so.
For the sake of our nation’s future, I certainly hope the sake of our nation’s future doesn’t depend on the choice of any one person for any one office, especially not if that choice is Barack Obama.
I think the Obamatons would be well advised to check out a book called The Cult of the Presidency. Reason has a good synopsis written by the book’s author : http://reason.com/news/printer/126020.html
George Will recently got it right in a column recommending it. It is titled : Caesaropapism Rampant. http://www.newsweek.com/id/138505/output/print
Will begins : “Americans are not cynical about politics. They are presidential romantics. Hence they suffer serial disappointments.”
He goes on : “Barack Obama recently said, “I believe in our ability to perfect this nation.” Clearly there is something the candidate of “change” will not change—the pattern of extravagant presidential rhetoric. Obama is trying to replace a president who vowed to “rid the world of evil”—and of tyranny, too.
But then, rhetorical—and related—excesses are inherent in the modern presidency. This is so for reasons brilliantly explored in the year’s most pertinent and sobering public affairs book, “The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power,” by Gene Healy of Washington’s libertarian Cato Institute.
Healy’s dissection of the delusions of “redemption through presidential politics” comes at a moment when liberals, for reasons of liberalism, and conservatives, because they have forgotten their raison d’être, “agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility.” Liberals think boundless government is beneficent. Conservatives practice situational constitutionalism, favoring what Healy calls “Caesaropapism” as long as the Caesar-cum-Pope wields his anti constitutional powers in the service of things these faux conservatives favor.”
My own thought is that our country was founded by brilliantly insightful people who scoffed at the fantasy that man or nation could be “perfected”, any more than either can become as god. Our whole system is set up to keep power from concentrating in the hands of any one man or faction, specifically because human nature is what it is…imperfect and most certainly imperfectible. In a truly free society power and perfection are inalterably exclusive of each other, and woe betide those who believe that they can ever be handmaidens to each other.
I think many who want our country to be an Obamanation seem bent on skating just over the fine line between noble idealism and dangerous delusion.
That’s just what I want… crotchety old women like Harriet, who have one chance to vote for a woman president before they croak (regardless of who it is… these blue hairs would vote for Tammy Faye BAKER if she were running) controlling the political destiny of the nation.
Re: #5: Striving to perfect the nation IS a noble ideal; ridding the world of evil? THAT’S the dangerous delusion. And are you seriously saying that rhetorical excess is new to the presidency? Ever listened to one of FDR’s fireside chats? Rhetorical excess is practically on the presidential job description.
The most our founders ever stated as a goal was “a more perfect union”, not a “perfect nation”. First, who defines a perfect nation? Is it 100% Obamabots, chanting and swooning for “change we can believe in” (not exactly perfect English, to say the least). Second, by what power and force does such perfection come about?
Achieving a “perfect nation” is dangerous delusional utopianism, and striving for it is hardly noble idealism. Such an illusory undefined messianic goal has long in history been the most siren of propaganda tools for tyranny. Individual liberty is always in peril when a “nation” is viewed as a singular entity susceptible to being “perfect”, rather than an assemblage of millions of free human beings with free choices, nation or no nation, warts and all.
“And are you seriously saying that rhetorical excess is new to the presidency?”
Umm, I think the whole point of the article is that such rhetorical excess, like the delusion of a “perfect nation”, is anything but new. Thus the “serial disappointments”.
Tyler, you have set up a straw man based on your interpretation of Obama’s statement: ““I believe in our ability to perfect this nation.””
Then you attack your straw man.
It’s obvious. George Will does this all the time!
I suspect that Obama meant it in the sense of “a more perfect union”, since he presents himself as a candidate for unification and change. What is wrong with that kind of idealism. Granted, we must see more of how he will achieve his goals. The general election campaign will tell us more.
I will make two points. I’d like to see the context of Obama’s statement, #1. And #2, Obama is a political realist, as evidenced by how well he ran his campaign compared to Hillary.
As an aside, I’m not impressed with your choice of words, like “Obamatons” and “Obamabots”, as they are designed to stir emotions rather than to deal with the issues being proposed. We can do with fewer labels, not more.
I say this: Let us not prejudge either Obama or McCain. Neither has been in a general election campaign before. Let us observe carefully how the campaign unfolds.
I think you are prejudging, Tyler! Certainly you cannot be happy with the state of the nation today. Let’s see in more detail what solutions are proposed by these two candidates. That’s fair, isn’t it?
Fair enough. The reference to the ‘modern presidency’ is what prompted that part of my response.
However, I think you’re talking semantics. “A more perfect union” is an old, clicheed (one ‘e’? two ‘e’s? Not sure…) phrase. My suspicion is that he may have just been trying to make the old sound new, and stumbled a little in the process.
“…Obamatons…”
When we all know what that means, it’s a problem.
Obama quitting his church rather than insisting those doing harm leave should be a wake up call to the Obamatons.
When the going gets tough…he quits or doesn’t show up.
Perry, I respect your thoughtfulness but with all due respect I have been listening to Barack Obama for going on 16 months. I am not impressed in the slightest and, in fact, a bit weirded out by the whole “unification” theme long on slogans, short on substance. Sure, if all you want in a president is an inspirational cheerleader with deft skills as a political campaigner then undoubtedly you are easily pleased with Barack Obama. Sure if you want presidential power to be the linchpin of all your hopes and dreams for America, then Obama is surely tell you want you want to hear.
My whole point in commenting here was mainly that I don’t buy the exaltation of the presidency (or any president) as a worthy or realistic focal point for our “nation’s future”, much less that any one candidate’s lofty collectivist rhetoric is somehow so great and wonderful as to overcome my own inherent hostility to concentrated national power, especially vested in the hands of one person. Isn’t that what got us where we are in the first place?
I guess what I am saying is that I hardly believe that the lesson of Bush is that we need to coronate a better imperial president. This mania for executive power and the race for president, coupled with the seeming mania of many that we have stumbled upon a water-walker who will use it to make things all better is not what our country needs.
Not long ago, similar arguments were made for handing control of Congress to the Democrats. If they get Congress, the argument went, they will end the war and start fixing all that has gone so terribly wrong. Well, I am still waiting, as we all are. (Please don’t give me the Senate filibuster or presidential veto retort….the GOP Congress in ’95 faced the same hurdles but went to the mat over balancing the budget….if the Democrats can’t even do the same to end an illegal war, why believe them for another second that they now deserve the keys to the other end of PA avenue?).
All things equal, if the Democrats in Congress had even come close to doing anything they touted to grab control, I doubt you and others would have so quickly had to move on to the next messianic solution, namely Obama.
Worse, Obama comes out of this very same now-Democratic Congress that has totally and utterly failed its constitutional charge to assert itself as the most powerful branch of government and reign in, by any means, an out-of-control chief executive.
I have always felt, in keeping with our founding principles, that the surest way to avert abuse of power is not to confer it in the first place. Obama may talk a good game, but he is no holier than any other slick politician such that he should be given special deference or divination to really address this country’s problems in one fell swoop. That attitude is unthinking projection, at best, and dangerous pied-piper-ism at worst. The fact that Obama has so specifically and skillfully exploited and whipped up mass suspension of critical thinking and political realism only makes me more suspicious of what he really represents.
At best, Obama if elected might have (Bill) Clinton’s luck of stumbling into a period of upward economic reversal, while changing not a goddamn thing about what really ails our nation, which is that so much power and influence and national resource are concentrated and manipulated in Washington DC…not that it all lies in the wrong hands.
Let me begin by saying that, as a passionate HRC supporter, I genuinely appreciate the level of discourse here (with the possible exception of BadMon’s charactherization of Harriet) as opposed to what I see on other sites.
I am a 42-year old white female. While I never went to college, I consider myself to be at least as intelligent as most college graduates I know. I have a good family and I make a decent living. I will admit that, in the beginning, I was drawn to support HRC because she is a woman; however, over the course of the past six or seven months – in spite of her campaign’s numerous foibles – I have come to respect and appreciate her for her unbelievable strength. I am not only referring to her energy and her tenacity (which inspires me daily), but her strength on the issues as well. When I hear her speak off-the-cuff, I’m blown away. On the other hand, Obama off-the-cuff reminds me a lot of GWB; stammering, uninformed and unsure. She is the strongest candidate with the weakest campaign; Obama is the weakest candidate with the strongest campaign. I would choose the strongest candidate over the strongest campaign to run our country any day of the weak (again, GWB, anyone?).
I know this post isn’t about which candidate is stronger, but I wanted to make sure you understood that, in the end, my passion for my candidate has nothing to do with her ovaries (as BadMon implied of Harriet). It has to do with her qualifications. I will say, however, that it has become all too common for women to watch each other get pushed to the side for a weaker, less-qualified man. This is not a phenomenon limited to the political arena. That, I would guess, is the source of Harriet’s ire which has likely been perculating for decades (and rightfully so).
Senator Obama ran the most hideous campaign of character assassination in modern political history. Beyond labeling virtually everyone who disagreed with him a racist, he has portrayed his opponents’ supporters as old, stupid white trash. While it may well earn him the nomination, it has surely lost him my vote and many others’. His arrogance and the viscious, demeaning, personal attacks his supporters have launced against HRC, her surrogates and her supporters will not be forgotten – certainly not by November.
This election has changed me as a voter and as a person. No more will I choke back bile as I pull the lever for any candidate just for the sake of supporting the party. No more will I be blackmailed into voting for someone I do not admire or respect for a single issue (abortion, the war). No more will I sit back quietly when I am being attacked (not that I have been here, but I sure have been on other sites). No more will I allow anyone to mischaracterize my words and/or their meaning. No more will I sit idly by and tolerate sexism on any level. I no longer fear the label ‘feminazi’; I embrace it. What has happened in this election is appalling to me as a woman and as a citizen. I know dozens of women (and men) who feel the same way I do. Call us bitter. Call us cry-babies (yet another sexist remark). Call us whatever you want. We are angry and we have every right to be. We and our candidate have been treated incredibly disrespectfully throughout this campaign. I think it’s safe to say we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.
If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for McCain in the fall. I have NEVER voted for a republican presidential candidate, but McCain is a reasonable man with strength, fortitude and experience. I would rather see someone like that leading the free world, than someone with Obama’s credentials – long on charm, short on substance. Trust me, it would not wise for any Obama supporter to continue to arrogantly believe that he will skate to a general election win.
Dominique – home at last. Congratulations.
Tyler’s assessment is correct, and it is important to note that John McCain is even spookier with his neocon advisors and military Keynesian approach to foreign affairs. I wish Barack Obama had the courage to reign in the military industrial complex and recognize that when the Bush administration leaves office it is setting up a perfect storm of fiscal emergency for the democrats to inherit and blame on them. I have a feeling that the hand of ol’ “ruthless Rumsfeld” in Kissinger’s words, is behind that. I think when in a declassified 2003 memo he said that we should have a massive response towards all kinds of cleaning up, he meant it and that all the draconian laws we have seen in recent years reflect this view of suspicion rather than trust of the American people to solve problems in their states and in their own way without the political philosophy that puts the corporation over and above the rights of the citizens.
Well stated, Dominique. The probability that Hillary can turn the process around and win the nomination may at this point be vanishingly small, but I believe she’s in no way giving up on Wednesday, or next week, or at any time, perhaps, before the Convention. She’s been lied to, sucker-punched, and, now, kicked to the curb, and many of her supporters have felt every blow right along with her. She’s the democrat who can win in November, with a firm grip on the swing votes that will make the difference, but the “apparatchik” culture of the Democratic Party — buoyed by the media, who just love the idea of Barack Obama the Candidate — can’t help itself this year. They’re not just turning their back on the Clinton, but on Clinton’s voters.
.
Bottom line, at the end of the day — 53% McCain, 44% Obama. Barack will have to fight for the “safe” blue states, like New York and California, and will lose some of them. Much will be made in the media of how he’ll “have” the young demography, but, like always, in the end, the young vote won’t turn out, and he’ll lose in an electoral landslide.
FTR, I’m bookmarking this site. I think I might be bringing down the intellectual curve, but I feel very much at home here (thanks noman) and something tells me I’m going to learn a lot from you guys.
Tyler, I think you describe the problem well, an overly dominant Executive Branch, so power-grabbing, so powerful, so unlawful, that, in my opinion there was no way the Dem Congress in two years could do anything other than prepare for the next election cycle. They tried, and were obstructed at every turn by Senate cloture and Bush veto. Sorry, that’s a fact!
Your cynicism toward Obama, well frankly I don’t understand its origin unless it is ideological. If it is, then let’s discuss ideology.
I maintain that in the primary campaign so far, so masterfully conducted in taking Obama from an unknown to the nomination in six months, could not have happened without skillful leadership. This did not happen in a vacuum, for it was done against a formidable candidate.
I suggest you hold your cynicism until we have seen the general election campaign rolled out. I would also suggest ignoring the 527′s from both sides, instead, listening carefully to the debates between the candidates.
I sense that you, as I, feel badly burned by the state of this nation, projecting your distaste of Bush & Co. onto Obama, at least prematurely, I contend.
Let us see, for example, how Obama details how he will deal with our economy and energy issues, starting from here:
Economy: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Energy: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Hellary and her army of drone racist will absolutely insure that McCain is the next president!
Why is it that when anyone speaks against Obama, within 5 posts they are called racist?
Am I the only one that sees this?
Dominique: Glad you took my suggestion. I told you you’d be more at home with the Republicans.
“Bottom line, at the end of the day — 53% McCain, 44% Obama. Barack will have to fight for the “safe” blue states, like New York and California, and will lose some of them. Much will be made in the media of how he’ll “have” the young demography, but, like always, in the end, the young vote won’t turn out, and he’ll lose in an electoral landslide.”
Are you taking bets on this prediction? If you’re really giving Obama +9 points, put me down for the maximum.
“Call us cry-babies (yet another sexist remark)”
And Obama supporters overplay the race card? Since when did babies come in only one gender?
Christian: Well, only a small percentage could accurately be called a slimeball trailer-park landlord.
Perry’s favorite line:
What Obama meant to say was . . . . .
Sorry Perry, couldn’t resist, seriously as I said on a previous post. McCain wins, but the democrats will masacre the Republicans in state races. McCain will be justified leaning more to the left and will do so with ease.
Folks I am very concerned that no matter who wins we are screwed. The real choice we face as I see it is between imperialism and freedom. If we choose to follow the Anglo model, we will all be carrying our carbon emissions footprint tax cards, our national Id’s and our policy will be formulated by the banks not by the government.
It is misanthropic.
It is anti American and repugnant to our values as Americans. I am proudly an anti-imperialist becuase look you have it right there in your founding documents. Take the time to read them. I am proud my family helped write those. If you guys want to throw them in the dustbin of history, go ahead, but please let me know. And if we decide to change our values and follow the English model, please let me know. If you want imperialism you can have it, but I trust history will prove what a mistake those kind of power politics are. It always sounds better in the german “Machtpolitick” doesn’t it?
Imperialism is an unmitigated evil. And I am begging you not to follow that path. It has always been the dream of the English to grab hold of our insititutions and use us as a police force for the world. I am begging us all to reject that path. Might does not make right in the scope of history, imperialism always ruins itself from within and ruins foreign relations from without, it is the antithesis of the American system. Athens tried all the same policies and it did not work out well for them.
Human nature being what it is, I trust history will change this condition one way or another. I think we need a direct return to our consitutional foundations. All this talk about climate change and terrorism, those have always, let me repeat ALWAYS been with us. We need goodwill around the world to stop them together. I think the talk is a smoke screen for imperialism and control.
How to lose an election: Run an inexperienced, unqualified liberal. The dems are going to run the weaker of the two candidates as far as electoral college goes. Hillary’s supporters will take the safe pick and go with McCain over the risky pick of Obama.
Brian, what do you suppose is an appropriate response to the scientifically based warning about the rapid increase in greenhouse gases and concomitant warming of our planet since the onset of the industrial revolution?
I hope you don’t say: “Let the free market prevail.”
I also hope you don’t say: “The science is unconvincing.”
I certainly don’t want an imperialistic approach, but I do want a vigorous debate on the issue with a well backed, well reasoned, ongoing solution to this global warming challenge.
In other words I want a robust balance to be continuously adjucated, enforced and refined as we continue, most importantly thinking of our legacy left to those yet unborn. We have a serious responsibility here!
You’ve stated your fear based on your speculation of motivation, so I ask again: Just what is it that you propose?
Anon: I don’t think you are correct, mainly for one simple reason: The record!
I do not believe Americans, let alone Hillary supporters, will place McCain in office to basically add to the same dismal record.
On the positive side, Obama has promised a campaign based on change. He has just finished demonstrating that he can run a well organized campaign. Let us observe carefully the detailed changes and solutions he lays out as the general election campaign rolls on, including the Obama – McCain debates.
Perry. Talk is cheap. What change has Obama ever accomplished? McCain is the perfect candidate for the republicans, a centrist, maverick the far right hates who has crossed party lines. Obama is the only democrat the Party could run who COULD lose. He’s never run anything and has accomplished even less. The problem with liberals is they think policy wins elections. If that were the case, half of our presidents would never have been elected. Elections are about trust, experience, values and voter identification. Obama’s weakness with women and blue collar workers in swing states will ultimately spell defeat.
Anon: “Elections are about trust, experience, values and voter identification.”
I agree. My point: Let us see how Obama presents himself on the issues versus McCain. The primary campaign has not involved very many issues, because he and Hillary were not very far apart. Their contest was mainly on leadership capabilities and change versus experience.
Obama came from nowhere and squeaked out a victory, in six months. No one thought he could win. That’s quite an accomplishment!
He’s also done community organizing in South Chicago, was elected to the IL Senate and finally to the US Senate on the basis of his legislative record, participating in the legislative processes on both levels. That’s accomplishment.
McCain will be running on Bush’s record, whether he likes it or not. He has already signed up to the endless Bush Iraq War, and to the Bush Tax Cut favoring the wealthy, on which he flip-flopped. He inherits the state of the economy that Bush has produced. He has shown his confusion on certain issues, like Shite, Sunni and al-Qaeda, repeating the same mistake three times. He said the other day that we are back to pre-surge levels ==> not true. How do you think McCain will fare in the debates with this tendency toward confusion?
Let us see how this campaign rolls out before making rash predictions or decisions on these two candidates.
Perry, You’re asking a question and then eliminating your opponents logical answers. Great tactic, but it is much more effective if you just give your opponent a list of “pre approved answers.”
The United States has cleaned up her environmental mistakes far quicker than the other developed countries. Why? Free markets. Quite frankly, it is bad for business if you have a reputation for environmental disasters. Currently its bad for business if you don’t have a whole list of “Green” options on whatever goods/services you’re selling.
The “rapid increase” in temperature that you’re referring to was an average of 1 degree Celcius on average across the world for the last 100 years. Globally the temperature increase actually plateued in the 1970s.
Last year alone was the coldest winter on record in modern history and wiped out the last 100 years worth of “gains” in worldwide temperature averages. Furthermore, global temperatures are predicted to decrease for at least the next 10 years.
Walmart is actually rationing its customers globally from buying too much rice, as there are incredible shortages because of the horribly cold winter and immense blizzards that completely wiped out production of rice in rural China and the Far East.
I guess these huge temperature decreases across the entire planet are part of global warming.
Christian, your comments on global temperatures are anecdotal, therefore not part of the big picture. Moreover, you have not even documented your assertions, which are not shared by the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I call your attention to the following “summary for policy makers” which came out of the most recent meeting in November of last year:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting
of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
I suggest you read this summary carefully, especially pages 5 and 6, then see where you are on this extremely important issue.
Although anecdotal information like yours here is interesting, it does not approach the importance of looking at what is happening globally taking all the pertinent data into account. This is what the IPCC group of scientists have attempted to do.
Perry,
You state “…it does not approach the importance of looking at what is happening globally taking all the pertinent data into account.”
My commentary above was based on global patterns emerging.
Also of note is that the whole Global Warming scientific research was seeking a specific conclusion. If you seek a specific conclusion you will certainly be able to find it in the data every time.
Here’s my source on the Global Cooling phenomenon. I’m sure the using the New York Times as a source will pass muster as having a distinct lack of conservative bias…
The New York Times article on the next decade or so of Global Cooling: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html
“Last year alone was the coldest winter on record in modern history”
Really? The whole world over? Of course not. You really should read more than your conservative “news” sources if you want any credibility.
“and wiped out the last 100 years worth of “gains” in worldwide temperature averages.”
A statement that shows you know very little about either math OR science.
” Furthermore, global temperatures are predicted to decrease for at least the next 10 years.”
Conservative ignorance, however, is forever.
I had posted earlier, but it was somehow lost. I’ll do my best to replicate it.
Perry,
You state: “…anecdotal, therefore not part of the big picture… it does not approach the importance of looking at what is happening globally taking all the pertinent data into account.” when in fact I was referring to changes across the globe on average.
As for the comment about my sources, I’ll give you the source that is least likely to ever be challenged on the grounds of being “conservative” by Al Mascitti. The New York Times on Global Cooling for the next decade or so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html
Please note that when you research something looking for a specific conclusion, the data will always look like it is pointing to that conclusion. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies with this whole Global Warming Myth.
Al Mascitti,
Thanks for the earlier attempt to turn this from a logical discussion into a personal attack.
As for your more recent post: “Really? The whole world over? Of course not. You really should read more than your conservative “news” sources if you want any credibility.”
No, indeed, not the whole world over. I suppose I made too large of an assumption in that the readers of this blog would know to read the entire sentence before posting. That whole sentence of mine actually read “Last year alone was the coldest winter on record in modern history and wiped out the last 100 years worth of “gains” in worldwide temperature averages.” You seemed to have left out the part that made your argument strongest. I suppose you can just imagine I didn’t say it if it makes you feel better.
” Furthermore, global temperatures are predicted to decrease for at least the next 10 years.”
Conservative ignorance, however, is forever.
”
Please see my above link to the New York Times. Quite the “conservative” news source…
Your last sentence is quite hypocritical, considering your entire post appears to be ignorant.
I had posted earlier, but it was somehow lost. I’ll do my best to replicate it.
Perry,
You state: “…anecdotal, therefore not part of the big picture… it does not approach the importance of looking at what is happening globally taking all the pertinent data into account.” when in fact I was referring to changes across the globe on average.
As for the comment about my sources, I’ll give you the source that is least likely to ever be challenged on the grounds of being “conservative” by Al Mascitti. The New York Times on Global Cooling for the next decade or so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html
Please note that when you research something looking for a specific conclusion, the data will always look like it is pointing to that conclusion. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies with this whole Global Warming Myth.
Testing… it’s not letting me post my reply
go figure it posts that, not the good one…
Perry,
You state: “…anecdotal, therefore not part of the big picture… it does not approach the importance of looking at what is happening globally taking all the pertinent data into account.” when in fact I was referring to changes across the globe on average.
As for the comment about my sources, I’ll give you the source that is least likely to ever be challenged on the grounds of being “conservative” by Al Mascitti.
Please note that when you research something looking for a specific conclusion, the data will always look like it is pointing to that conclusion. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies with this whole Global Warming Myth.
Ahhh, it didn’t like the link to the New York Times!
The New York Times on Global Cooling for the next decade or so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html
Al Mascitti,
Thanks for the earlier attempt to turn this from a logical discussion into a personal attack.
As for your more recent post: “Really? The whole world over? Of course not. You really should read more than your conservative “news” sources if you want any credibility.”
No, indeed, not the whole world over. I suppose I made too large of an assumption in that the readers of this blog would know to read the entire sentence before posting. That whole sentence of mine actually read “Last year alone was the coldest winter on record in modern history and wiped out the last 100 years worth of “gains” in worldwide temperature averages.” You seemed to have left out the part that made your argument strongest. I suppose you can just imagine I didn’t say it if it makes you feel better.
” Furthermore, global temperatures are predicted to decrease for at least the next 10 years.”
Conservative ignorance, however, is forever.
”
Please see my above reference to the New York Times. It won’t let me post the link, but just google the following terms minus the quotes “new york times global cooling” It’s the one from May 1, 2008.
Quite the “conservative” news source…
Your last sentence is quite hypocritical, considering your entire post appears to be ignorant.
Just what is it that you propose?
Hi Perry,
I suggest we switch to alternbate sources of fuel. I have already given detailed energy strategy proposals on the subject both here and to the DSEU board. More than that, we open up the market to solar, wind, offshore, tidal, and renewable energy and to produce and buy sugar cane ethanol from Brazil, Cuba, and the South America. We could all do with less sugar in our diet. But we cannot do without corn and rice.
There is a twisted sense among the “geopoliticians” that this has to be done by a rationing system since WWII, this is not the right approach to create a peaceful multi-polar world where we make money and go to mars together. I’d rather listen to Confucious who discussed in detail how to build a peaceful society and world in the 5th century BC. It is surprising reading the clitamtological records in the “Histories” that there were warming and cooling periods every several hundred years. This is backed up by the records we have from the Quaker natural scientists c.1642-1799.
There is also so much helium 3 on the moon we could power the earth (and I mean for the next thousand years) and develop the moon within 25 years as long as we do not try to keep up some phony balance of power machpolitick and Anglo-American hegemony. Balance of power politics always leads to devastating war. It is European phenomenon, and it is not American, we firmly rejected that notion becuase we were a colonized people. If you read the founders you can see it all there, how to work through the difficulties of international affairs, how to act in concert with nations and not out of a profit motive, etc. There was a time in foreign affairs when this nation alone was really considered a beacon of leadership and anti-colonialism.
Al -
For a member of the Unity Party, I’m surprised you feel the need to lash out at members of other parties. Isn’t Obama’s message about crossing party lines and working together for a better America? I mean, look at his very rich history of doing just that…oh, wait…scratch that. Look instead at all of those times he took a stand and voted on controversial issues….uhhh…nevermind. Well, at least there’s all that time he spent as a community organizer. Umm…what exactly did he do in that role again? Whatever it is, I’m sure it prepared him to be a bang-up president!
Why don’t you scurry back to DelLib where your the smartest guy in the room. You’re really out of your league here.
Dominique and Christian, et al -
Thanks for your input which I appreciated. You may have noticed how civil most folks are when they post on this site, even when they disagree….then there’s our resident ELITIST SUPREME, al mashitti, who can’t post much of anything without resorting to his normal trash talk. But, that’s fine — I enjoy his exposing himself as the class-less…uh, whatever — good contrast for the otherwise civil discourse on this site!
Brian: “I suggest we switch to alternate sources of fuel.”
Yes, Brian, but that switch is going to take decades. So far I don’t see us moving robustly in that direction. The problem is that fossil fuels are here and now and cheaper at the moment. Moreover, we need to take the global warming issue into account and act on it, meaning reducing fossil fuel combustions starting now. I don’t see the free market, in our current context, responding favorably, therefore some form of rationing (like carbon cap and trade) will be required, I’m afraid!
Regarding your comment about the periods of warming and cooling, that is true. However, my understanding is that there is a longer range warming and cooling, cycling something like every 13,000 years, upon which the shorter period cycling is superimposed. At this time, the evidence is that we are superimposing a warming trend which correlates with man’s use of fossil fuels over the last 150 years and correlates with the quantity of CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere, doubling it since the industrial revolution. Look on it as taking carbon out of the inner-earth and putting it into the atmosphere. There is no significant short term cyclic process occurring, as our plant life on earth is not able to maintain a steady state atmospheric CO2, thus global warming!
As far as the details of our founders’ vision, or Confusious’ teachings, on both I am ashamed to say I am woefully ignorant. I would be interested in your giving me a starting point in order to explore the roots of some of your own current thinking.