quote:

Mike would like to limit our freedoms.

Wrong again Bob, I support less goverment. And I find it very sad that you have some much hatred for anyone. No joke, you really should talk to someone about it. And I really mean that from my heart its just not healthy

quote:

Originally posted by ihrabob:
would like to limit our freedoms.

Unlike what your liberal buddies want to limit.

Gun Control, Freedom of speech ("McCain Fiengold")
Education (No Vouchers)
Increased taxes, Healthcare, ect, ect...

Dave

Plus what type of vehicle you can drive, how much certain people can earn, take your property, where you can smoke, and coming, what you can eat and on and on!!!!!!!!!!

Proving their scare tactics are wrong again.



http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/

Hey Mike, if there are so many scientists waiting in line and so many websites dedicated to debunking global warming, how come you feel the need to use the same website over and over? Are there in fact not as many websites out there as you thought? Or do you just keep spewing the same garbage over and over without actually checking more than one source?

BTW, how bout them Sabres tonight eh? They lose 3 all-stars in less than a year, yet they're still gonna make the playoffs as the highest scoring team in the league!

Jeremy, I dont believe I've posted that website before but its no different than the same old stuff from you.



You even talk the same old shyt about hockey(LOL) The Ducks are playing awful good right now.


Can you believe how bad the Kings are this year?

Yeah, but you've posted the test on that site several times.

I think the Ducks have fighting, I mean playing well. If he wasn't dead I could have sworn I saw Burgess Meredith behind the bench their last game, lol.

What I can't believe are how many teams are still in playoff contention with less than 10 games to go.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/chunk-of-antarctic-ice-she...20080325175109990022

Summer's ending there, why not investigate how cold it has been in the Arctic????????

Pentagon Climate Change Report.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/.../09/360120/index.htm

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil1934,

Just check todays news, the vaunted left-wingers at the un have now admitted there has been no global warming since 1998, which has been widely known else where, and then engage in a bunch of double talk about (whatever??????????????)

Good article Phil.

Phol, right out of the Clinton News Network. Scare tactics at its best.

You guys need to contact your president, it seems he figured out how to turn on the light...or at least sees one now!

Bush shifts stance on global warming

BY DELTHIA RICKS | delthia.ricks@newsday.com
10:31 PM EDT, April 16, 2008

Shifting his long-held stance on global warming, President George W. Bush Wednesday laid down a new goal -- the year 2025 -- for halting growth in greenhouse gases, but a local climate expert who last year shared a Nobel Prize said the proposal is far too vague.

During a Rose Garden speech, Bush called on some of the world's other big polluters, such as developing nations like India and China, to set restrictions of their own, adding he would include U.S. limits in a binding international agreement only if they would agree.

Critics pounced on the new plan, questioning why it took Bush until the final year of his presidency to unveil a more far-reaching proposal than his effort in 2002. Some predicted other countries would simply run out the clock on the Bush presidency instead of signing on to what Bush wants now, in meetings starting this week.

Edmund Chang, an associate professor in Stony Brook University's department of marine and atmospheric sciences, said the president's new stance on global warming is commendable but still leaves too many unanswered questions.

"This is a positive step," said Chang, a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the Nobel Peace Prize last year with other climate scientists and former Vice President Al Gore.

"My reservation is that there are no concrete steps proposed," he said of the Bush proposal, which he called vague. "European countries have stricter automobile emissions standards. Obviously, we should be able to reduce the emissions of automobiles because other countries have been doing this for years and those are the kinds of concrete suggestions that are missing."

Other experts were equally critical.

"In his eighth year, the president has just proposed a path on global warming weaker than the campaign pledge he made in September of 2000 and broke three months into office," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said the administration felt pressure to propose a reduction in greenhouse gases. " The White House sees the handwriting on the wall and knows that regulations are coming one way or another."

Despite the criticism, some observers yesterday called the proposal more far-reaching than Bush's previous efforts to tackle climate change, coming in the face of congressional efforts to put even more stringent restrictions in place. Bush believes those moves could stymie economic growth at a time when the economy already is struggling.

Chang and other scientists Wednesday underscored strong measures are needed because the world's temperatures may increase by 3.2 to 7.2 degrees by the year 2100, which means sea levels will rise by seven to 23 inches.

The past decade, he emphasized, already has been warmer than the previous 100 years. "There is an overall trend. The world is getting warmer and warmer," Chang said.

At 2:30 p.m. Thursday, Chang joins professors Robert Cess and Minghua Zhang in a panel discussion on global climate change at Stony Brook. The meeting features world-renowned oceanographer Hans-Peter Plag of the University of Nevada and will be moderated by Stony Brook journalism dean and former Newsday editor Howard Schneider.

Washington Bureau Chief Craig Gordon contributed to this story.

Let see, in the 60's it was the bomb, if it didnt kill you the radiation would so build a bomb shelter, then in the 70's its the freeze. we were all going to freeze to death. Then it was the nuclear power. Good old Jane Fonda and all her friends sure saved us from that. Now it global warming. nothing but that illness called alarmisms that use scare tactics and shove down our throats that they can save us from doom.

quote:

You guys need to contact your president

I think you live in america so it would be your president to. Besides, it just Bush showing what a true liberial he is.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:

quote:

You guys need to contact your president

I think you live in america so it would be your president to. Besides, it just Bush showing what a true liberial he is.

I believe Mike you have shown your support for Newt on his issues and his knowledge.

Newt must have "liberal" in him also.

You far right wackos don't have a clue......

http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/pelosigin

Koski, you're are so right. Some people will turn to the goverment to fix everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:
Koski, you're are so right. Some people will turn to the goverment to fix everything.

There's a difference between turning to government to fix everything and blaming the government for ****ing everything up.