General discussion



By Jaqui ·
That there is HUMAN caused GLobal Warming.
BBC news:

The US Government has acknowledged for the first time that man-made pollution is largely to blame for global warming....

The EPA:

Global Warming for Kids:

maybe now that GWB has ADMITTED that pollution is causing global warming Maxwell will have to retract his comments saying it's all BS. after all his hero the president admitted that us lunatics that have been mentioning it are correct.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I've addressed this before

by maxwell edison In reply to NEW US GOVERNMENT REPORT ...

First of all, jaqui, when people make such a silly comment such as suggesting that President bush is my hero, it only shows your lack of understanding. It's a shallow and meaningless charge, and only serves to discredit the person making it. For the record, and this is something I'm getting very tired of repeating, I probably disagree with President Bush on more issues than those on which I agree with him. I could enumerate them, but I don't feel like doing it AGAIN right now.

Having said that, my position on the human-caused global warming myth remains unchanged. I don't care who disagrees with me (or vice versa).

Okay, on second thought, I will list some of them.

President Bush is dead-wrong, and/or in disagreement with me on the following issues:

- Human-caused global warming.

- The death penalty.

- Legalizing recreational drugs.

- He capitulated on the Social Security problem and dropped the ball. (And what he was proposing was pretty insignificant.)

- He's expanding the role of Medicare, not reducing it.

- He's expanding the role of government, not reducing it.

- He should have vetoed and number of spending bills.

- He has fallen short in articulating our true mission in our war against Islamo-Fascism.

- He is failing dismally in the illegal immigration issue.

- He is failing dismally in securing the U.S. borders with Mexico.

- He is being to "nice" with Mexico President Fox.

- And he should challenge the stupid attacks on him, his policies, and his character. It just irks me that he doesn't fight back against his political enemies. He might think that he's above it all, and that the office should be above it all, but it's only detrimental to remain silent.

I could list more, but that should do.

All of my positions and opinions are based on principle and reason, not blindly following any one person. In the very least, I should be given credit for that, as I am VERY consistent with my positions.

Come on, jaqui. Can't you rise above that stupid and silly crap? People who spew it only show their own ignorance.

As for your global warming comments, I've said it before as well. The "global warming" issue is a political issue, not a scientific one. And just like I consider today's Republican Party no more than baby Democrats when it comes to social spending issues, they are being forced to accept this political position in order to compete in the political arena and keep their elected jobs.

Get politics TOTALLY out of the global warming question, and you'll have a much better chance of changing my position. And until every scientist and climatologist in the world is in total agreement, I'll remain skeptical.

In the mean-time, I subscribe to the following:

And I agree with the following scientist:

And if this puts me in disagreement with President Bush, then so be it.

Collapse -

May I segue?

by Oz_Media In reply to I've addressed this befor ...

Max, I noticed when you were listing differences that one was legalizing recreational drugs.

I have two questions (not baiting you or anything);
1) What is GWB's stand on recreational drugs, I asumed it was against legalization.

2) If the above is true, and you feel that recreational drugs should be legalized, what exactly would you deem a recreational drug? Do you accept marijuana but reject heroin etc.?

I ask with sincere interest, I know the thread here was a bit old and whack so this may be an interesting segue.

P.S. While you are sick and tired of explaining what you don't agree with Bush on, rest assured it works the same for me too. Do you know HOW many times i have explained WHY I object to the initialization of the Iraqi conflict? Every day there was someone new asking what I would do if my family was threatened or terrorized. Then they accused me of supporting terrorism. You should know by now that while I feel the war on terror is imperative, the rapid move to Iraq was my objection.

I was thinking about you this morning when watching young lefty wingnuts handing out papers from the college antiwar group. You told me some time ago that people's views change from right to center to letf and then back to right as they age, you were dead right on that.

Collapse -

Yes, please segue - and my answer

by maxwell edison In reply to May I segue?

What is GWB's stand on drugs, you ask? Well, I won't speak for him, but he's in favor of tough drug laws and expanding our stupid and failed "war on drugs". That about says it all.

This is a good site to get a general idea of issues and/or people's positions on issues:

Drug-Bush specific:

- Aggressive drug education, treatment & enforcement. (Jan 2004)

- $23 million more for drug-testing in schools. (Jan 2004)

-Use of performance-enhancing steroids sends wrong message. (Jan 2004)

-$600M plan help 300,000 addicts via vouchers. (Aug 2003)

-Use faith-based programs for addicted Americans. (Aug 2003)

-Turned from alcoholism by power of prayer. (Jun 2003)

-$2.8B more for Drug War, for state treatment & abroad. (Oct 2000)

-Clinton-Gore drug policy is inconsistent and has failed. (Oct 2000)

-Feds must help border counties fight drug traffickers. (Jun 2000)

-Supports military package to Colombia to fight drug supply. (Mar 2000)

-Stronger penalties for first time cocaine possession. (Mar 2000)

-Full background checks on drug use for all appointees. (Aug 1999)

-Parents make up for past by warning kids against drugs. (Aug 1999)

-Supports tough drug laws as well as drug education programs. (Dec 199

In a nutshell, I'm against just about any law or program that infringes on an individual's liberty, privacy, or right to live his/her life as he/she sees fit as long as nobody else is hurt or otherwise infringed upon. That puts me at odds with both the Democrats and Republicans, including <sarcasm> "my hero" </sarcasm>GWB, on a variety of issues. I realize that a couple of my positions seem to contradict this premise, and those issues are abortion and gay marriage. But come up with both a legal and medical definition of when life begins, and I'll readdress the former (abortion) position; and I could probably be swayed on the latter (gay marriage).

What would I consider "recreational drugs"? Well, marijuana to be sure. Other than that, I'll admit to being unsure. But open it as a possibility first, and let's talk about the details later.

(More on your other comments later.)

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Yes, please segue - and m ...

I didn't really know your stand on this issue, I am not really surprised though.

While I mainly agree, how do we stop some drugs from being legalized while we legalize others. It's like the decision to legalize alcohol and tobacco, more than a few headaches there. I think the fear is that as soon as they legalize marijuana, they will be under constant pressure to legalize other drugs. The scary part is that herion actually does have a valid casem I couldn't see it happening for coaine but heroin, that's a nasty one to have to deal with.

The only problem I see with gay marriage is that we chose to use an English word that has a specific religious definition. If we can remove such direct relationship between the word and one specific choice of faith (gay people believe in God but have a different definition of marriage, as do many other cultures and religions globally, but we all commonly see a coupling as being marriage)then it is much easier to accept variety ni the definition.

Really it's not about money and taxes as many thing, gay people just want to have the same recognition as a contributing part of society as anyother couple.

If two other people can commit to life together and have that recognized by the government and more importantly the community, why can't they?

What possible harm or negative impact can this have on mankind?

Collapse -

"Marriage" is derived from Latin, with NO religious conotation.

by deepsand In reply to Fair

Main Entry: mar?ry

Pronunciation: 'mar-E also 'mer-

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): mar?ried; mar?ry?ing

Etymology: Middle English marien, from Old French marier, from Latin maritare, from maritus married

As originally used, it meant to be joined "according to law or custom."

Religious "blessing" was not a prereguisite.

Collapse -

My point exactly

by Oz_Media In reply to "Marriage" is derived fro ...

The definition as used in North American culture is derived from Christian faith though. If we referred to marriage as just a word, as other countries do, then the gay marriage issue woul dnto BE an issue. But because people have equated a descriptive word as being the religious acceptance of marriage into government, now we are stuck with religious zealots saying it is unChristian.

If they had used any other word (coupling, legal bonding or whatever), it would not be an issue.

Collapse -

What do Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc call it

by JamesRL In reply to My point exactly

They call it marriage. And since all of those religious groups call it marriage, and their ceremonies are recognized by the government (as non-religious ceremonies are as well), then it isn't any one religion's domain to define marriage.

Indeed there are "Christian" churches both Gay centred and non gay centred(United Church of Canada) that recognize a broader definition of marriage which includes two adults of any sex.

So do where does that leave us?


Collapse -

It's not where it leaves us

by Oz_Media In reply to My point exactly

As much as, "Where does it leave them?"

I think MOST Canadians I have discussed this with feel it should be okay for same sex couples to marry, most feel that if hetero couples can 'committ' themselves to a life sentence, why shouldn't gay couples suffer the same 'misery by choice'.

The opposition ALWAYS seems to be the religious zealots who CLAIM that the word marriage defines opposite sex as per their bible. Even GWB made such comments when he addressd it. He said that he supports a couple's right to marry despite sex, BUT then he really goofed, he said that he feels that people of opposite sex should be entitled to the benefits and breaks for being married, but not same sex couples. So while trying to appear accepting, he also condemned them as well.

I think the government should accept people's choices and allowe them to reap the exact same benefits as any other married couple.

Collapse -

Nah, the Christians would have laid claim to whatever word was used.

by deepsand In reply to My point exactly

It's the nature of religios zealots to claim to be omniscient.

Witness the persistent claim that the US was founded as a "Christian" nation. Talk about revisionist ********.

For them, any word employed at law for the personal union of two persons, that failed to otherwise specify, would mean "man & woman."

Collapse -

re: the bible and homosexuality

by plusaf In reply to My point exactly

i'm a VERY bad student of history and such, but a very bright friend of mine says that the real injuntion in the bible was intended to stop the military troops from stealing young men and using them to fulfill their sexual desires, and not really anything other than that.

as described elsewhere in this thread, the "powers that be" stole THAT concept, too, and expanded it to include any two folks of the same gender under ANY social or private [no ten inpunded] conditions!

WWJSay? he'd agree that stealing young boys by the military for sex is a bad thing. but that's apparently all that they really meant, back then. a lot has been lost in translation.

Related Discussions

Related Forums