You will find if you compromise and come up with suggestions, liberals will gladly go along.

What would that be. Certainly not fusion. Fusion produces just as much radioactive waste as fission.

It's one of the things I never quite get about the climate change debate. At a certain point debating whether humans are the cause of climate change or not misses the point. If the climate is moving in a way that severely damages human life, who cares whether it's our fault or something beyond our control...let's do all we can to work against it.

What would that be. Certainly not fusion. Fusion produces just as much radioactive waste as fission.

Certainly not fusion. Fusion produces just as much radioactive waste as fission.

You know this isn't going to happen, right? Cap n' Trade was the conservative alternative.

To be fair, the press were throwing out some, ummm, non-neutral questions, such as:

, "Governor Romney, are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip."
"Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the Palestinians?"
"What about your gaffes?"

If that ####### alcoholic ####### whoremongerer Tony ####### Stark hadn't destroyed the arc reactor, this whole problem would have been solved by now.

It's hard for me to see how these are 'unfair' questions -- Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and plenty of other GOP friendlies and operatives have gone on the record and off calling them precisely that.

It's not that they are "unfair" questions, it's that they were deliberately confrontational and thrown out not so much to get a nuanced reasoned response, but to provoke an undiplomatic knee-jerk reaction (which in this case they did).

Now, his gaffes and his staffs gaffes seem to be spiraling, if I had to pt a finger on it, I'd say that some of his people are simply cracking/choking, they have been essentially running non-stop for years now, the have finally reached the finals and...
some of his people probably badly need a vacation.

This is not true. Really really not true. I would lecture on fusion energy (wow are there a bunch of myths out there about it), but I am a bit busy at the moment. I will try to get back to it later though.

I will, you are dishonest. You have been dishonest repeatedly in this post. When called on your dishonesty you accuse others of lying. You are a class A troll. It'd be more useful discussing things with RossCW.

What about the free neutrons interacting with the reaction chamber materials and making them radioactive?

Hey now, why no blame for Bruce Wayne? He refused to allow Fusion even though he had a working prototype, all because it might be used for evil. Unlike the unalloyed good present in our current energy infrastructure. God that plot point in TDKR was beyond dumb.

I'm still waiting for you to post the evidence that I said climate change was a "liberal conspiracy." Until that point, you're just a liar.

Usually Ray is technically correct and in this instance I bet he never used the exact formulation "liberal conspiracy" but that is such a sideshow

Well, a part of that is that press availability has been near nil on this trip -- which is unusual (Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc -- generally held pressers in previous sorts of trips).

Clinton would try to do an interview a day. He'd be on public access by October.

Romney has had an extremely low amount of press availability in general this season. You have to wonder if O is going to be able to take advantage of it. O is at his best speaking to large crowds, not doing 1-1's.

I think a lot of the "antagonism" in the US press pool this week is a direct result of spending the last week hanging out with the Brits last week and seeing how real journalists do there jobs.

Some posters argue merits, Ray jumps to the personal attacks, though I admit often in response to other's personal attacks on him.

It does avoid an actual discusion on the merits of arguments though. Usually Ray is technically correct and in this instance I bet he never used the exact formulation "liberal conspiracy"

Good news for Republicans! We have a case of actual voter fraud! Except, in this case the fraudster was a candidate for Republican county supervisor who kept requesting, filling out, and submitting absentee ballots for a life-companion who had died five years prior. By my count, that makes two actual cases of voter fraud* in the last year or so, both by Republican politicians, neither of which would have been prevented by a voter ID requirement.

*slight digression - this guy in Indiana is actually the brother in law of one of my best friends. He's pretty much exactly as slimy as he appears.

It was simply their worldview that got them to the point where they insist that something (instead of nothing) Must Be Done.

They're essentially betting that base motivation + bad economy will be enough, and that he won't need to actually campaign to win independents in the traditional sense.

It's a game/tactic of his, and for some reason it was really starting to get me infuriated, and so I started acting like he does, so I guess that means he wins or something.

Otoh, even a top ranked radio show like Rush, and a top ranked cable news show (like anything on Fox), reaches a smaller audience than the traditional "msm."

For instance, Fox News may crush MSNBC and CNN (hell sometimes Fox beats MSNBC, CNN, HLN and CNBC combined)

but many days John Stewart's Daily Show clobbers Fox, sometimes Colbert does too

each of the 3 traditional broadcast network news shows has 2 to 3 times as many viewers as Fox (after literally decades of decline too).

seeing how real journalists do there jobs.

Ray wouldn't use the words "liberal conspiracy" but he calls global warming/climate change proponents a cult populated by liberals, calls the science worthless and driven by liberal money,

His kerfuffle about the term "liberal conspiracy" is a complete dodge, because that's what precisely what he's describing.

I've agreed that there has been, on balance, warming over the past 100 years. What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game.

But I am more concerned with doing a cost-benefit on the proposed solutions than arguing about the problem.

I don't ever use personal attacks, or call people names, or anything like that. I don't think calling someone a liar is a personal attack, but rather a statement of what the person did. When Johnny says "Ray said X" and Ray never said or even implied X, Johnny is lying. If it's a personal attack to then point out that he was lying, so be it.

Doing "all we can" to work against something that is "beyond our control" doesn't make us smarter than the giraffes and chimps. It makes us dumber.

And what you wrote is fear mongoring.

I've agreed that there has been, on balance, warming over the past 100 years. What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game.

2705. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4187682)

Bitter Mouse: you are a troll.

But I am more concerned with doing a cost-benefit on the proposed solutions than arguing about the problem.

I've agreed that there has been, on balance, warming over the past 100 years. What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game.

The suggestion that the evidence for AGW is entirely just the last 100 years of warming suggests Ray has not done even the most cursory examination of the actual work of climate scientists.

I think that's a little much. We can survive in some of the most hostile environments: the tops of high mountains, deep below the surface of the ocean, on the moon, in Antarctica... humanity will adapt to pretty much anything.

That's an article of faith, not a statement of fact. Any number of homo species have died out due to evolutionary shocks.

I think the evolutionary shock that did in the last few Homo Species was... us.

Bitter Mouse: you are a troll.

Ray not engaging in a personal attack or calling anyone a name.

Liar.

It's a compelling enough argument to say "lots of people will suffer and die, and huge numbers of other species will become extinct." I think you do your argument a disservice with apocalyptic suggestions.

Civilization as we know it would end, but some people will live and find the few pockets of survivable land, and continue to reproduce.

All the deniers have is Oil money, and everyone knows there is no money there.

I'm very confident that we'd survive that too, as a species.

I'm very confident that we'd survive that too, as a species. Civilization as we know it would end, but some people will live and find the few pockets of survivable land, and continue to reproduce.

You're missing my point pretty badly here.

1) There is overwhelming scientific evidence that global temperatures are trending upward.

2) There is overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity contributes significantly to this upward trend.

3) There is strong scientific evidence that a continuation of this trend will cause significant problems for life on this planet: disruption of our food production, rapid extinction of a number of species, increasingly extreme weather patterns, and submersion of coastal territories.

If someone rejects any of these, there is literally nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. They're flat-earthers.

Talking about human extinction is a distortion of the evidence.

I think we've gotten far enough above the next closest species that exists on this planet that we can respond (technologically or biologically) long before they're capable of knocking us off the top of the hill. Natural selection can't run its course because we're too aware of the process to allow it to replace us as the dominant species.

The next dominant species on this planet will either be an evolution of us, or something extraterrestrial.

I don't ever use personal attacks, or call people names, or anything like that

As to Romney, I don't think this stuff will affect the election, as I said.

“I don’t know what the law says,” Aichele said under questioning, according to CBS.

Aichele also couldn’t provide any evidence that 99 percent of voters already have a valid form of ID, as the state has claimed.

And, just because the EC system is favoring my guy in this election doesn't mean the EC system isn't a trainwreck and shouldn't be deposited in the ash can of history.

Make no mistake, there is a factional fight under way in Texas. But the self-presentation of the Tea Party faction as a hardscrabble crew, representing "the people" against "the elites" is facially absurd. American politics generally, and Republican politics in particular, is a highly elite game, dominated by small groups of people who are very well-educated, very wealthy, or (as often as not) both.

Ted Cruz's looming success confirms that truth, and reminds us that it's time to retire this language of "establishment" and "insurgency." We need a new language to describe a new politics, in which it is precisely the most strongly established political forces that are also the most radical and uncompromising.

It would be an interesting hiccup of history of an apoplectic GOP base pushed to overturn the EC because they won the popular vote but lost the EC.

It's beyond ridiculous that the nation's largest states are effectively made bystanders in the Presidential campaign.

I believe the EC is in the Constitution, so it would take an amendment to eliminate. Well beyond the power of either party to enact alone.

But how EV's are apportioned is left up to the states. New Jersey passed a law a few years back stating that when a majority of other states pass similar laws, they would apportion their EC votes in proportion to the popular vote, I believe.

While 1, 2, and 3 cooled their heels on the sidelines. Give me a break.

We can't possibly know, which is the entire point. If California or Texas *wasn't* a given, 100% in the bag for either party -- indeed, if the concept of "how XYZ State votes" was an irrelevance, and all that mattered was the national popular tally -- then without question the campaigns would be conducted in entirely different ways, money spent differently, resources deployed differently, etc. etc., with consequences aplenty (intended and non-).

A couple of states are already apportioning that way, yes? Which ones? (I'm too inept with the internets to quickly find out for myself.)