RSS
finance

The Other Shoe: BlackRock to Get the $700 Billion Bailout

By Beau Friedlander
Flickr: Creative Commons by asecondhandconjecture

Now that the bill is passed, Bloomberg reports:

The Treasury will choose five to 10 money managers to help it acquire troubled assets from financial firms, officials said today. In the past few weeks, Treasury officials sought out executives at BlackRock, Pimco and Legg Mason's Western Asset Management unit for guidance, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions were private. 

Been saying it since the start: this bailout was only for the people who caused it. 100% pork. 99.9% corrupt. 98.9 % the end of the world as we knew it.

Comments

(124)

frist to say...

oi vey.

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 3, 2008 - 6:44pm

We need more than dumb

This is a way bigger disaster than people realize.

First: Bin Laden knew he couldn't fight our military, so his goal was to bring down our economy. Bush has been worked over like the dunce that he is.

Second: We don't have the money to do anything.

Third: People don't understand that Bushes touch hasn't been just the government, the military and the Justice Department, but all across every part of government. It has been reported in Science and Engineering magazines for the last 7 years that this administration has attempted to force scientist to change their data to match policy. This has resulted in a flight of the highly educated and qualified from our government. Since Republicans believe that science is a religion, they don't see this a s a bad thing. These people will not easily be replaced.

Let me point out, for a country that wants to build "Nuclear" power plants, it's not enough to have the physicists and nuclear engineers that we don't have which are needed to build such plants. We also need scientists in the government to verify that safety regulations are being met, building codes followed (and even written). These people can't be regular bureaucrats.

By deanrddOctober 3, 2008 - 11:43pm

Bin Laden knew he couldn't fight our military ...

Bill Maher and his panel discussed this very thing on "Real Time" last night. And, since bin Laden's goal was to cripple us financially, I'd say the terrorists have won and we have LOST. No amount of war in Iraq will change this fact, either. However, the tools in the Oval Office will still try to blow smoke up our asses that we're 'winning' ... fuck, me. We're TOAST.

Well, look at it this way, a mission was accomplished, just not Monkey Boy's and Darths.

"She's Cheney in drag." Me

By Pookie2112October 4, 2008 - 8:03am

worse comes to worst

we start local barter/scrip economies, and work our way back up. Usually, the biggest problems for a community are resources and a form of cheap power. I can help with the cheap power.

Kind of ironic: the financial empire that was the USA is in danger of tanking, and it's the Liberals who show the greatest chance of fixing it. (The militia weirdos will be so upset.)

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 4, 2008 - 8:43am

Liberals get too busy picking up after upset military weirdos

...to ever finish utopia.

By aaazzz111October 4, 2008 - 9:34am

then I guess it's a really good thing...

that our liberal cause has a few people like me running around.

1.) list the current problems in the USA
2.) blue sky solutions for these problems
3.) follow the SMART model for screening the solutions
4.) create "sticky" baby-step actions to implement these solutions
5.) link the baby steps with a larger farmework of habits
6.) make solution-finding into a parlor game
7.) repeat as needed

You're welcome.

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 6, 2008 - 1:37pm

Bin Laden lost too.

He wouldn't have to be hiding in the mountains if he had figured up front that Bush and the incompetent American business leadership would have done his work without him.

By aaazzz111October 4, 2008 - 9:35am

Cave????

The Iranian journalist who made the show with the five former secretary of states said Bin Ladin is living in a villa in Pakistan.

By deanrddOctober 4, 2008 - 11:34am

That doesn't surprise me one

That doesn't surprise me one bit. He has enough money to pay lots of bribes to local officials and be left alone.

By MichtouOctober 4, 2008 - 1:49pm

The " bomb everything" crowd is looking dumber every day.

The military is making itself obselete by being too expensive. There aren't enough light infantry to handle a war longer than a couple of years. And the Raptor may look pretty but it can't hold ground.
We need to stop these useless foreign adventures, abolish the professional military, and go back to the militia system.

By thaelmann37October 4, 2008 - 9:39am

One: there is no bomb everything crowd. That's just leftwingnut

propaganda.
Two: That's what Rumsfeld tried to do. Streamline the military, and bring it into the 21st century.
Three: Exactly what would that accomplish? The Militia thing? How would militias stop missiles? Totally absurd.

Back to our discussion regarding Communism. Marxism has been tried, repeatitly, by many nations. They call it communism. So, please, refrain that sort of misdirection. It don't fly with me. We were discussing the merits of this fatally flawed system. You keep trying to redefine it. There is a vast difference between theory and practice. Marxism is the theory, communism is Marxism as practiced. It has shown to be an abject failure, in practice.
Regarding Cuba. Do you know that the embargo is trade? That is what effects Cuba the most. Apparently you seem to think embargo means, as practiced, something else?

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 1:06pm

Pssst

John McCain, 2006: "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran!" (to the tune of the Beach Boys' 'Barbara Ann') 'Nuff said.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith

By nonexistent manOctober 4, 2008 - 1:22pm

McCain and Obama's Iranian stratergy is very similiar.

Except, Obama's way would actually put more American troops in harms way.

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 1:56pm

Fuck off, Hatey

You're not banned yet? Get your lazy ass off that library pooter and go on home to yo mama.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastOctober 4, 2008 - 2:46pm

Accuracy fixxy

Except, McCain's way would actually put more American troops in harms way.

No one ever died from talking.

McCain/Palin '08: the also-rans.

By nonexistent manOctober 4, 2008 - 2:57pm

bush is also sending sandwiches to georgia...

mccain hugs bush.

mccain is praying for georgia.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 3:09pm

No more debate momo.

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORATIUM

By thaelmann37October 5, 2008 - 5:41pm

Hey, hatemoron - eat shit and die, jockey.

"She's Cheney in drag." Me

By Pookie2112October 6, 2008 - 9:13am

They will just import the nuclear power plants from China.

And the engineers to build them.
Think of that and tremble.

By thaelmann37October 4, 2008 - 9:32am

So, Bin Ladin used Clinton's cronies to make bad loans?

And by the way, you are lying. Republicans do not believe science is a religion. If anything, republicans believe it is you leftwingnuts who believe science is a religion, as you seem to take any and every scientific theory as fact. (if it supports your agenda).
And no, it is only some in this country who wants to build nuclear plants. You,.the leftwingnut side of the democratic party, have opposed them for over thirty years.

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 2:03pm

Holy shit

That made no sense even for you.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastOctober 4, 2008 - 2:47pm

Republicans do indeed believe "science" is a "religion".

Republicans believe a worldwide flood covered the earth. The science of Geology proves this has never happened.

Republicans believe the Flintstones was a documentary. Paleontology proves this to be a fantasy.

Republicans believe the foundation science of biology, physiology and botany is only a "theory", meaning a "guess" instead of a "scientific theory" similar to the "theory of gravity".

Republicans believe millions of animals, including dozens of species of beaver and termites lived on a "wooden boat" two thirds the size of the Titanic (which only held a couple of thousand people), common sense says this is not true without an ounce of "evidence". For some things, common sense is enough, you don't need proof.

Republicans believe being "gay" is a choice, even though not a single Republican will admit in public that they ever had to personally make that choice.

Republicans will "pray" and 99.99999999% of the time, their "prayer" will not be answered and they will call it "the will of God". 00.000000001% of the time, it seems to come true and they will say it's "proof" that God exists. Statistically, praying and not praying have equal chance of happening.

By deanrddOctober 4, 2008 - 10:24pm

why can't i post anymore?

aar ran out of money?

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:31pm

from the epa i guess...

Human Activity and Global Warming

Kevin Langdon

Published in Gift of Fire (the journal of the Prometheus Society) #140, July 2003

On its site on climate change

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that:

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases–primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth's climate responds to them.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:36pm

Hummm

Seems to me, that the entire world knows about the great flood. That does not seem to be in dispute. Even geologists agree that it did occur, via geological footprints. Look it up. The cause is unknown. Get your facts straight. http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/puck.htm
http://science.howstuffworks.com/great-flood.htm
Summary of Theory

A large comet or asteroid impact in a glacier ice sheet produced the Biblical Great Flood which brought the last Ice Age to an abrupt and sudden end.
The Great Flood was a very unusual and singular event. Because of the magnitude of the destruction, it would have left an indelible and permanent mark on the minds of any survivors. This story would have been told and retold, passing down from generation to generation. And so it was. The story of the Great Flood is embedded in many cultures and beliefs. Over 600 of these stories throughout the entire world have been carried down to the present age.
According to Plato, a Pre-Flood civilization existed. The civilizations had massive fleets and armies and large cities. They knew the art of writing. They had divisions of labor (artisans, husbandmen, warriors, carpenters, rulers, shipbuilders, stone quarry workers, metal workers, merchants, and sailors).

According to Plato, the Pre-Flood civilization existed in a great island nation in the Atlantic Ocean called Atlantis, and in distant nations around the Mediterranean (including a pre-Greek and a pre-Egyptian civilizations) and in Asia.
According to Plato, few people survive the cataclysm. The only survivors dwelt in the mountains. They were herdsmen and shepherds. They were ignorant of the art of writing and had very little education. http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Flood.htm

The rest of your post is nonsense. You confuse one belief system for another, without understanding either. As a Christian, it can be said that Obama holds the same beliefs. Your problem is that you treat "science" as a religion, in that you seem to feel that its answers are absolute, just as some believe the "interpretation of religious" texts are absolute. And, just like religion, you seem to "crucify" those who don't share your beliefs.

By momofukuOctober 5, 2008 - 9:50am

Can I get off my knees?

Man, you are such an idiot. If you feel that "answers" in science are "absolute", then you know NOTHING of science. NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.

Stop talking about science because it makes you look more and more ignorant. I swear. My stomach muscles are starting to ache from the nonsense you write. I just laugh and laugh.

The sad part is that you could actually go get an education. Seriously.

I have heard Obama talk about the "spiritual" aspect to religion, but I know for a fact that he understands and accepts the "foundation science" of biology, botany and physiology, which is evolution.

Not every Christians is an ignorant hick who literally believes in fantastic stories such as Samson and Noah's Ark and Jonah and the Whale and the Serpent and the Garden and the sun stopping and on and on....

Me, I don't subscribe to a primitive Middle Eastern Religion which, along with Islam, devolved from Judaism.

Good luck on that.

By deanrddOctober 5, 2008 - 12:34pm

Science is, well, science.

From what you are saying, it appears that you may be one of those that want to build nuclear power plants which is a hoot. Because from the rest of your comment, it's clear that you don't believe in science.

Psssst, let me clue you in. The same science that builds nuclear power plants, understands physics, understands electricity, also uses the same methods which discovered evolution, studies genetics, paleontology, biology, physiology, botany. It's all science. You can't pick and choose.

It's not like "mysticism, supernatural, ghosts - holy or friendly, angels, devils and spooks". You can choose which of those to believe in and the evidence is EXACTLY the same.

For that matter, even for fairies, gnomes, leprechauns, pixies, vampires, werewolves, yeti, Bigfoot and fire breathing dragons, the evidence is exactly the same.

By deanrddOctober 4, 2008 - 10:35pm

In case you missed it, lawn jockey ... drop dead.

"She's Cheney in drag." Me

By Pookie2112October 6, 2008 - 9:14am

repubs don't believe the scientists...

regarding global warming.

palin dodged that question.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 2:37pm

Global warming?

Try global cooling. The earth's temps have not risen, but have fallen, since they peaked in the 30's. That's according to science.
You mistake climate change for global warming. And what in dispute is the cause. Some believe it is totally man made, some believe it is a natural occurrence. Some believe it may be a combination of the two.
And no, Palin did not dodge it. She stated very clearly that polluting the earth is not a good thing, and we should try to do what we can to become better stewards of this planet.

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 5:16pm

hey hatey...

Any chance of you posting PEER REVIEWED FACTS?

didn't think so.

Holy cow, but you are one sad little troll.

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 4, 2008 - 5:33pm

Facts:

Greenlands ice loss has reversed itself.
Greenland was losing only 0.4 per cent of its ice per century, at its peak.
The UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change states that at most, the earth's sea levels will rise by only 8 to 17 inch's by 2100.
Where is your peer review data?

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 6:58pm

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 7:58pm

Scrolled the nonsense...

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

By Guy FawkesOctober 4, 2008 - 7:19pm

oi vey

Let's try this again.

You make statements. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Where are your sources? Are they even remotely related to the scientific method?

Could you please tell me just why ALL of the non-coal affiliated scientists categorically state that global warming is a FACT?

As for my side:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26214&Cr=weather&Cr1=warmin...
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/webArticles/011907_stern.htm
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21429&Cr=climate&Cr1=change

As for that "only 8 to 17 inches" bit...
You forgot to mention the part of the report that mentions that most coastal cities will flood out, storms will increase in frequency and severity, more areas will suffer crop loss, and there will be massive fresh water shortages. Not to mention the catastrophic losses that would cause all of the low lying islands.

Do you get some sort of sick thrill fro being proved WRONG all the time? I've been spanking you for so long, I'm starting to feel like your father. (Mind you, I'd consider castration and ECT, if this proved true.)

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 4, 2008 - 7:22pm

I have more if you'd like:

Cool it: The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming

Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag
By John Marchese
Phillymag.com
October 18, 2007
Full Article
Killer Cow Emissions
Los Angeles Times
October 15, 2007
Full Article
Gore Gets a Cold Shoulder
The Sidney Morning Herald
By Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007
Full Article

Judge Attacks Nine Errors in Al Gore’s ‘Alarmist’ Climate Change Film
Thisislondon.co.uk
November 11, 2007
Full Article

Schools Must Warn of Gore Climate Film Bias
The Daily Mail
October 3, 2007
Full Article

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
By James M. Taylor
Chicago Sun Times
June 30, 2007
Full Article

China Overtakes U.S. as World’s Biggest CO2 Emitter
John Vidal and David Adam
Guardian
June 19, 2007
Full Article

Local Scientist Calls Global Warming Theory Hooey
Samara Kalk Derby
Capital Times
June 18, 2007
Full Article

Ban the Bomb
Investor's Business Daily
June 19, 2007
Full Article

Click HERE and select the Skeptic's Global Warming Presentation. This is a Power Point presentation, it may take a half hour or longer to download.

A Google video about global warming passing the “stink test:” Click Here

NEW: ARTICLES DEBUNKING THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING CLICK HERE

Ban the Bomb
Investor's Business Daily
June 19, 2007
Full Article

China Overtakes US as World’s Biggest CO2 Emitter
By John Vidal and David Adam
Guardian UK
June 19, 2007
Full Article

‘Green’ Energy Source a Major Polluter
By Jeff Golimowski
CNSNews.com
June 13, 2007
Full Article

High Price for Load of Hot Air
Courier Mail
June 18, 2007
Full Article

Growing Number of Scientists Reconsidering Global Warming Fears
US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
By Mark Morano
Full Article

ERAU Professor Seeks Balance in Global Warming Debate
By Mark Harper
News Journal Online
May 12, 2007
Full Article
Not the End of the World as We Know It
By Olaf Stampf
Der Spiegel
May 7, 2007
Full Article

A CEO with a Spine
By Alicia Colon
The New York Sun
April 3, 2007
Full Article

Business of Global Warming Feels a lot Like Inquisition
By William F Buckley
Real Clear Politics
April 3, 2007
Full Article

Perspective on Climate Change
By Bjorn Lomborg
March 21, 2007
Full Article

Gore’s Sunburn
Investor's Business Daily
March 13, 2007
Full Article

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
By William Broad
New York Times
March 13, 2007
Full Article

(Video Link) The Great Global Warming Swindle
Presented by the BBC

Scientists Threatened for ‘Climate Denial’
By Tom Harper
Telegraph UK
March 11, 2007
Full Article

Polar bears ‘thriving as the Arctic warms up’
By Fred Langan
Telegraph UK
March 9, 2007
Full Article

Green Groups Grumble Over Film Questioning Global Warming
By Kevin McCandless
CNSNews.com
March 9, 2007
Full Article

The Heat’s in the Sun
By Lawrence Solomon
Canada.com
March 9, 2007
Full Article

A Flood of Bad Immigration Numbers
By Daniel T. Griswold
CATO Institute
July 11, 2006
Full Article

Global warming labeled a ‘scam’
By Al Webb
The Washington Times
March 6, 2007
Full Article

A Warming World: China about to pass U.S. as world’s top generator of greenhouse gases.
By Robert Collier
SFGate.com
March 5, 2007
Full Article

GlobalWarming.org – articles skeptical of the dire consequences of Gore-bal Warming and some that are direct responses to “An Inconvenient Truth.”
www.globalwarming.org

Allegre’s Second Thoughts
By Lawrence Solomon
Canada.com
March 2, 2007
Full Article

Gore’s ‘carbon offsets’ paid top firm he owns
World Net Daily
March 2, 2007
Full Article

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 9:44pm

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 10:44pm

Scrolled the list of headlines that explained absolutely nothing...

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

By Guy FawkesOctober 4, 2008 - 9:50pm

You're wrong, it explained a lot.

Mo mo fah cue could have listed articles from such magazines and publications as:

21st Century Science and Technology
American Scientist
Discover Magazine
New Scientist
Popular Science
Science Daily
Science News
Science Base
Scientific American
World Science

Instead chose headlines from “Real Clear Politics” and “Investor's Business Daily”

The fact that it didn’t explains a lot.

By deanrddOctober 5, 2008 - 12:03am

What a CLEVER little pussy you are!

You can spout all the radio talking points just like the big boys!

Fucking cunt. Get some courage or get off this blog.

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastOctober 4, 2008 - 11:32pm

Missed it again, hatemoron? Get AIDS and die.

"She's Cheney in drag." Me

By Pookie2112October 6, 2008 - 9:15am

Hey wrenchboy

Every thing you post from now on, by your standards, better be peer reviewed. Question: Why do you only listen to one side of the debate?

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 9:50pm

HA! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT PEER REVIEWED MEANS.

Ha ha ha ho ho tee hee.

You don't know what "peer reviewed" means. That is so funny.

I know you won't "believe" this, but I'm going to explain it to you anyway.

When scientists talk about "peer review", they don't mean the "guy up the street" who works in the same field looks over what they have.

Scientist will send their findings, experiments, data, to scientists in other countries because they have found a "cultural bias" can sometimes color their theory and they want their theory to be as unbiased and supported as possible. Peer reviewed doesn't mean they "review" the data given, but rather perform their own "experiments" and "studies" and collect their own data and compare it to the data given by the original scientist.

You are such an idiot. Why don't you go back to kindergarten and let the adults talk?

Now turn over and go back to sleep.

Buh bye.

By deanrddOctober 4, 2008 - 10:49pm

um...

Shouldn't we refrain from telling hatey to go places where he'll never meet the qualifications?

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 4, 2008 - 11:56pm

The Graduate

Your right. I'm sorry. Even Jethro was a 6th grade graduate.

By deanrddOctober 5, 2008 - 12:05am

I know what it means.

It is sciences way of stifling innovative thought. Sorry to burst your bubble, little one, but true science usually conflicts with what is conventionally known by science to be true.

By momofukuOctober 5, 2008 - 9:59am

Wowie Kahzowie!

Peer review weeds out sloppy experimentation. I've always wondered just why the badly edumacated constantly keep harking back to their plaintive cry against Peer Review... Could it be that that's the only thing they've got, when aced with REAL science?

Go back to your tinfoil hats and UFO-spotting.

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 5, 2008 - 12:11pm

You are so funny

Yea, oh man. Scientists want to "stifle" innovative thought???????????

HA HA HA HA HO HO HO HA HA TEE HEE TEE HEE.

Oh man. Good one.

All of the "innovative thought" that has come from science in the last 50 years has come from, get this, "scientists". HA HA HA HO HO. You didn't know that? HA HA HA HA

You said, "Science usually conflicts with what is conventionally known by science to be true".

HA HA HO HO HA HA.

Man, you are an idiot. Nothing in science is "true". Everything is a "theory". That is the only thing that is "true".

Only in the world of mysticism and the supernatural are things "black and white".

And I have news for you. There was never a "great flood". Never. Science didn't prove it because it never happened. IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!!

Man, you need to quit while you are way behind.

No, on second thought, don't quit. You are way too entertaining. I needed a good laugh and I don't feel bad laughing at you. You keep me laughing for hours.

By deanrddOctober 5, 2008 - 12:22pm

Even Dog wants you to die, lawn jockey.

"She's Cheney in drag." Me

By Pookie2112October 6, 2008 - 9:16am

HA HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA HA

By MichtouOctober 4, 2008 - 5:44pm

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 6:16pm

Shouldn't you be at the mall?

Support the Troops.
End the Occupation.

By Guy FawkesOctober 4, 2008 - 6:37pm

Hey Guy.

You are one ugly Negro. Question: Why are you posting a picture of yourself on this site?

By momofukuOctober 4, 2008 - 9:47pm

I'm surprised you restrained yourself

Liberal Holocaust.

By MichtouOctober 4, 2008 - 9:52pm

Git on now, BOY

Yo massa need a negro like Hatey fo to play de banjo and say "Yassuh!"

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastOctober 4, 2008 - 11:33pm

I really don't understand how you racial intolerance

is considered acceptable behavior on this site. You are a racist. Your intolerance of others is passe'. But hey, you consider yourself a democrat, so I guess that explains your racism. It's ingrained in the parties platform.

By momofukuOctober 5, 2008 - 10:26am

Hey, momofuku

No response.
Thought so.

By MichtouOctober 5, 2008 - 7:14pm

Buck off, Fuckwheat

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastOctober 5, 2008 - 1:25pm

You're gettin' just a mite UPPITY, ain't you?

Considering that you've opened just about every thread you've been on by playing the "racism" card, you don't have a lot of room to talk.

Psychologists call it "projection." It's defined as accusing others of the same faults you yourself possess in the hopes that you can show yourself as normal. It's a typical RepubliCANT failing, and it seems to make its presence felt more and more often as an election approaches.

Oh...and Obama's STILL leading. And Anna Nicole's STILL dead. And Scooter Libby is STILL guilty. Three facts you can't change by projecting your racism onto everyone else.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

Obama/Biden '08: the cure for electile dysfunction.

By nonexistent manOctober 5, 2008 - 2:39pm

You know...

Watching the Neo-cons, and their attendant trolls getting increasingly pathetic, in their plaintive (and yet painfully shrill) cries to be in power, important, or even the vain attempt at being relevant.

There is obviously a great deal of internal spiritual/existential crises going on in the land of the Gross Old Perverts. The money guys have lost Billions, stand to lose FAR greater numbers of Billions, and yet they backed the guys that tanked the economy. The Religious Right (that some of us call the Religious Reich) have realized that the Gross Old Perverts have been making fun of them, as the Faithful have dutifully supported said perverts (even at great personal expense to the Faithful.) Joe and Mary Sixpack KNOW that something's wrong: they've lost their manufacturing jobs to out-sourcers, their houses to bank-speculators, and their main chance of advancement from the cuts in the public schools. The people on the TV who look and act like them seem to be doing pretty well, and yet keep blaming the problems that the Sixpack's have on some group called the Liberals.

So, the neo-cons stand to lose the moneyed folk, the Faithful, and Joe and Mary Sixpack.

It must suck to be in a rubber raft, and hear the sound of the Waterfall...

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 5, 2008 - 8:00pm

Well Well Well

It seems you have a problem with me taking offense at you neo-coms overt racism.
Uppity, my ass. That, again is a racist statement.
If you don't like me commenting on your racism, change your racists behavior.

By momofukuOctober 5, 2008 - 8:50pm

sigh...

Every day, I think you've hit bottom...

and everyday, you sink to a new low.

Hatey, you pathetic little turd...
No one wants to play with you in this one.

I'm surprised you don't mention the 6 pages of republican sex scandals, or the fact that McCain was one of the Keating 5.

Care to comment about relevant political information? Didn't think so.

It must suck to be in the neo-con troll-boat, when you can HEAR the waterfall.

give me lever, and a place to stand...

By wrenchboyOctober 5, 2008 - 10:02pm

Bite me, you insignificant little man, lawn jockey.

"She's Cheney in drag." Me

By Pookie2112October 6, 2008 - 9:17am

bush is talking to iran...

mccain hugs bush.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 2:38pm

i think cows only account...

for about 17% of global warming.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:14pm

I think it's pretty silly to

I think it's pretty silly to blame cows. If we didn't raise them for meat, we wouldn't worry about their farts. It's a pretty cruel way to obtain protein, IMHO.

By MichtouOctober 4, 2008 - 10:40pm

from nasa...

Global Warming

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:19pm

Rapid climate change occures

naturally, does it not? Are you saying that this phenomenon has always been a result of mankind? Or do you have the erroneous belief that there has never been "rapid climate change"?

By momofukuOctober 5, 2008 - 10:30am

You are a coward and a pussy

Can't win on the issues, so you revive the old christofascist bullshit about global warming. Poor little chickenshit, you're going to lose. Then will you get on some medication and stay the hell off our blog?

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury

By LiberalIconoclastOctober 5, 2008 - 1:28pm

Shutting that massive hole in your face will go a LONG

way to alleviating methane gas spewing into the atmosphere. Take comfort in that after you've sucessfully killed your insignificant, punk-ass, you'll have helped to save the environment.

"She's Cheney in drag." Me

By Pookie2112October 6, 2008 - 9:20am

it won't let me post my nasa link...

damn.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:37pm

ok, let's see if i can post this link...

global warming is mainly caused by humans.

http://www.polymath-systems.com/pubpol/globwarm.html

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:44pm

the national academy of sciences says...

global warming is mainly caused by humans.

http://www.polymath-systems.com/pubpol/globwarm.html

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:46pm

it just won't let me post the nasa link...

for some odd reason.

http://www.polymath-systems.com/pubpol/globwarm.html

from the promethius society. that is a group for scientists, isn't it?

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:48pm

livestock only causes 18% of global warming...

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

from the csmonitor.com

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:54pm

livestock only cause 18% of global warming...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 10:59pm

but tom hartman makes a good point...

perhaps we need to regulate agri-business also to help alleviate global warming.

By scottso360October 4, 2008 - 11:01pm

Even your post states the obvious:

Larger warming changes, from about 2 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit, are predicted for the present century. These projections are based on scientific models which, like all scientific conclusions, are tentative, and they contain significant uncertainties.
Scientific understanding of these other factors–most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols–remains incomplete.

Doesn't sound conclusive to me. By the way, scientific findings are not built on consensus, political results are. .

By momofukuOctober 5, 2008 - 10:37am