Power Shift 2009

posted by Peter Rothberg on 11/25/2008 @ 2:09pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (64)

Subscribe Now

In November of 2007 the Energy Action Coalition brought together more than 6,000 young activists for the first ever national youth conference to solve the climate crisis. Watch highlights from the historic and inspiring Power Shift.

This February 27, the movement is re-convening in Washington, DC for three days of training, strategy and action. More than 10,000 activists are expected for Power Shift 2009. Find out about and register for the conference and support Energy Action, a youth-led coalition of 48 organizations across the US and Canada, which has been instrumental in galvanizing youth action to save the planet.

Comments (64)

I'm all for green, but why are we exporting as much coal as we can mine? Where is the stuff going, Mars?

Posted by julien38 at 11/25/2008 @ 2:25pm
Posted by julien38 at 11/25/2008 @ 2:25pm

To try to keep our trade deficit down...and no, not Mars....just a wee bit east of Japan and a tetch north of Vietnam.

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 2:32pm
Watch the video LL. These kids are both smart and earnest. Not much hot air....

Posted by Peter Rothberg at 11/25/2008 @ 2:59pm
That Evon Peter kid had a particularly impressive voice.

Kinda funny how Pelosi loved saying "Power Shift" so much. Damn, I sure hope that I can find something to actually respect in her new tenure.

By the way, Maskot, China is west of Japan and they sit on vast mountains of coal of their own --which is particularly disturbing as they fire up a new coal burning power plant at approximately a one per week pace.

The excrement from all this filthy activity is headin' for the oscillating device at warp speed while we speak.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 3:12pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 3:12pm

I stand corrected. Actually most of it is going to FROSTY's homeland.

I was conflating it with our major trade deficit friend to the WEST of Japan. (again corrected).

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 3:50pm
I was looking up the data myself just now.

Pretty interesting and quite frankly, disturbing in regards to global coal consumption.

Global Hard Coal Consumption (in million metric tons):

1990: 3461 Mt 2006: 5164 Mt 2007: 5522 Mt

Note the precipitous rise of late.

Footnote:

U.S. exports go roughly 1/4 to Canada, 1/2 to various European nations, and the rest go all over the globe.

U.S. exports represent a small percentage of its total domestic production (40 Mt out of approx. 1,000 Mt produced annually).

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 4:13pm
It's freezing all over the world. Polar ice caps are 30% larger than last year at this time.

Gore's chief scientist just royally embarassed himself by demonstraighting his idealogical blindness. His organization proclaimed October the hottest on record when cold temp records were set all over the globe. His readings just carried over Sept data for Russia. Not only wasn't it the hottest October on record, it was the 70'th out of 114. (57 would be average and it was 13 below average.)

And Hanson proclaimed it hottest ever!

And you all are still prattling on about urgency? How many global warming protest have been canceled due to unseasonably cold weather?

Open your eyes people.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 5:23pm
Darin the dipshit,

You speak as a climatologist I presume?

Or you've got some powerful testimony from a slew of well regarded experts on the subject, no?

No?

Then go back to whatever mindless activity you were up to before you graced this space with your ignorant countenance.

I pity the fools.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 5:34pm
Darin the dipshit,

You speak as a climatologist I presume?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 5:34pm

No, I speak as a guy with a normal amount of common sense.

In the past... few decades?

Time magazine has proclaimed the sky is falling four different times. First it was cooling, then warming, then cooling again, and finally warming again. Now British scientists are claiming the sky is falling because we are rapidly entering the next ice age.

During the last iceage, glaciers protruded down as far as Iowa. How many weeks do you think it took for the glaciers to make the 1000 mile trek from the artic to Iowa? (Or is it measure in hours?)

When I was in college, I scared myself shitless with the dire warnings of a professor who convinced me that the sky was falling because the population of the world would continue exponentially. What do you know? It stoped. The UN no projects a maximum population in the next century.

Common sense says the same thing is happening to all the current kids scaring themselves shitless over the next story about the end of the world.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 5:54pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 5:54pm

Darin, you're free to keep denying MMGW (man-made global warming)....I only have one question-

What politician in power or who RAN for office a few weeks back....

supports you?

Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 8:39pm
Common sense says the same thing is happening to all the current kids scaring themselves shitless over the next story about the end of the world.

~Darin the Troglodyte

No question, there is no use in "scaring ourselves shitless" about any of the multitude of concerns that face our global civilization.

But the "common sense" you so casually refer to is in reality no such thing. Common sense never taught us the quantum mechanics of the atom and subatomic particles, common sense never gave us a hint of a universe where light is "bent" in the presence of a strong gravitational field.

Your common sense is no better than piss in the wind without a more rigorous basis for assessment. The evidence for human caused global warming at this point is overwhelming.

I kindly suggest you pull your head out........

and perhaps seek out a respected source for further info such as Scientific American for example.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 9:54pm
By the way, Darin, here is the real dope on your dopey post above:

You posted:

Gore's chief scientist just royally embarrassed himself by demonstrating his ideological blindness. His organization proclaimed October the hottest on record when cold temp records were set all over the globe. His readings just carried over Sept data for Russia. Not only wasn't it the hottest October on record, it was the 70'th out of 114. (57 would be average and it was 13 below average.)

And Hanson proclaimed it hottest ever!

Rebuttal --NOTE the final paragraph :

Global warming data blunder: Worth the fuss? --from SciAm Nov. 18, 2008

Reality check: GISS climate modeler Gavin Schmidt notes on the blog RealClimate.org that the problem occurred because a small but significant percentage of the hundreds of weather stations scattered around the globe mistakenly reported September instead of October temps. Hence, the seeming but erroneously higher global average. In an attempt to highlight the gaffe, global warming denier Chris Booker declared: "Across the world there were reports of unseasonal [sic] snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its 'worst snowstorm ever.'"

continued below...

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:32pm
What Booker fails to mention--apart from the folly of relying on anecdotal evidence--is that even the corrected figures show one of the hottest Octobers on record. (This fact, and many others pertaining to Booker's article, are neatly addressed by blogger Tim Lambert.) It's also worth noting that Booker was recently dubbed the "patron saint of charlatans" by the left-leaning Guardian newspaper for his views questioning both global warming and the documented health hazards of asbestos, a known carcinogen.

Booker claims that the flub "raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming." Fact: The error was caught and fixed within a matter of days by eagle-eyed bloggers and commenters (Schmidt credits one of Watts's readers with alerting him to the problem) and supports long-published data suggesting that the globe is warming dramatically and will have consequences if it is not slowed or reversed. It's always distressing to discover an error in scientific data, and GISS may consider implementing stricter oversight. The bottom line: these figures were but a minor part of the climate change picture--and did little to change the equation.

The fact remains that October was significant for its high temperatures relative to the historical record. In other words, the example that climate skeptics seized upon to poke holes in the evidence of climate change served only to confirm that the world is warming because of humans' actions.

End quote.

So Darin, that's a 10 minute game misconduct for you.

You've been punked.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:32pm
sure is cold out.

guess everything's gonna be o.k....

Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2008 @ 11:14pm
uh oh.

Posted by Benchrest at 11/25/2008 @ 11:17pm
Posted by Happy the Clown @ 11:35pm

You're a consummate schmuck and a witless chump.

It'd be sweetly poetic justice if you were to suffer a major blow in the near or not so near future as a direct result of the consequences of global warming.

By the way, now that Dubya's gonna be spending more than the ordinary inordinate amount of time at his "ranch" in Crawford, perhaps you can score a few extra Andrew Jacksons now and then as you stop over and offer up your services to the former commander-in-chief's "little chief" if you catch my drift.

;-)

Think of it as just doing your patriotic duty, while earning a little green to boot. Based on the bluster that you bring in here so often, I bet George'd even throw in a tip now and then for the notable quality of the suction applied.

Have a good one.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 11:57pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/25/2008 @ 11:35pm

How much of that BEFORE January 21st, HAPP?

Your pal Rush is already calling it an "Obama recession" and I'm sure guys like you believe that.

and that Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia.

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 07:16am
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 07:16am

Nah...it's more of a Carter-Clinton-Frank-Dodd recession...but who's keeping track?

Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 08:41am
Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 08:41am

Of course....it's those amazing "gaps in history" that occur whenever things are going badly.

All of a sudden, there was no "Reagan"...or "Bush-41"...or "Dubya".

Things going poorly in the US?....Why we went from Jimmy Carter straight into Bill Clinton (except the part with the prosperity and peace...which was due to Newt Gingrich) and as soon as Clinton left office in January 2001...

Barack Obama was sworn in.

And Limbaugh will convince you that it's true!

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 09:15am
BTW, if you actually want to discuss the GOP talking point....

you can start with telling us how many of the bad mortgage loans...were CRA loans? Given "CRA is to blame!!!"

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 09:16am
The solution is already here. Why does everyone insist on burying their heads in the sand? The Nation, if they really care about this issue, really needs to get behind us on this. The movement is gaining momentum and will soon swallow everyone up with its positivity and resolve for change. So, Nation, please get on board with this exciting opportunity to lead us out of the dark ages. Join the movement! NOW!

The SPGWR system--Join the Light!

Posted by dailycomfort at 11/26/2008 @ 09:27am
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 09:16am

That's a little simple-minded, even for you, Mask...It's well-documented, even with video of none other than Frank, Dodd, and Clinton crony, Franklin Raines, all claiming that everything was just fine...no need for ovesight and regulation of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac...I think some might have even claim "racism" to divert attention but I'd have to check...there's no doubt, no question that Carter set the table for the housing crisis/crash and Clinton supplied the turkey and stuffing. The fact that the crash occurred during Bush presidency doesn't change that the Republicans tried to crash the party with talk of responsibility and regulation...again, all on record, oncluding video.

This reminds me of Bush getting the blame for Enron, when all that shithappened during the Clinton years, and it was during the Bush Admn that they got caught...but everyone tried to say it was Bush's fault anyway.

Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 10:40am
Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 10:40am

Answer my question, usc.

How many of the bad mortgage loans were CRA loans? (Remember now, that IS the spin from Rush, Sean, etc. on "why the housing market collapsed"...those "no-account poor folks GIVEN loans they couldn't pay due to CRA".)

Then you can explain why if all this was known "years ago"...that a REPUBLICAN House and a REPUBLICAN Senate (2003-2006) and a REPUBLICAN President...

didn't fix it?

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 11:52am
Mask

I defer to my 10:40 post...particularly the first sentence.

Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:58am
Posted by dailycomfort at 11/26/2008 @ 09:27

AcronymBruce is back.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 12:14pm

Formerly Plain Bruce, at your service. I wish I could go back. I liked that moniker so much better. Can we rally the troops to pressure The Nation to stop their "blacklisting" of my name?

Posted by dailycomfort at 11/26/2008 @ 12:19pm
Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:58am

And I defer to my first question....

A. Do you blame the Community Reinvestment Act for the housing crises?

B. What percentage of CRA loans went bad recently?

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:20pm
"I wish I could go back."

Posted by dailycomfort at 11/26/2008 @ 12:19pm

You can. Wait about 4-6 weeks.

Posted by Benchrest at 11/26/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:20pm

And I defer to my 10:40 post...

How long do you want to go on with this pissing contest? I can go all night...like a lumberjack.

Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by Benchrest at 11/26/2008 @ 12:29pm

Nope. I just tried it. It's strange. When I post under the name plain bruce, the post appears on my computer, but disappears as soon as I log out. I'm assuming no one else can see it either.

Does anyone else have a post by plain bruce on their thread? It should be right after USC's.

Posted by dailycomfort at 11/26/2008 @ 12:58pm
b_kool_66:

You commented above "Darin the dipshit, You speak as a climatologist I presume? Or you've got some powerful testimony from a slew of well regarded experts on the subject, no? "

b_kool - here you go... plenty of articles for you to review, shown below:

One question I have: You could have pulled these up on the web yourself- Why didn't you? Are you using a new version of Google called Google-Lib, perhaps?

==========================

Open Kyoto to debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006 An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: http://www.financialpost.com /story.html?id=3711460e -bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_scientists_opposing _the_mainstream_scientific _assessment_of_global_warming

A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism

http://epw.senate.gov/ repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot %20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

June 03, 2006 An Inconvenient Truth: Exposing the Global Warming Myth http://everyman.mu.nu/ archives/179716.php

EXPLORE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING http://www.fdrs.org/ arguments_against_ global_warming.html

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears http://www.earthtimes.org/ articles/show/ news_press_release,176495.shtml

================

Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 1:20pm
b_kook_66,

As has happened many times, I notice that at least one of my links has a space that shouldn't be there, after I pasted them in and submitted my post to the server.

So if a link doesn't work or opens up a site that is not what it should have been, check the link for spaces.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 1:23pm
Typo,

I meant b_kool_66 not b_kook_66.... Honestly.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 1:24pm
One question I have: You could have pulled these up on the web yourself- Why didn't you? Are you using a new version of Google called Google-Lib, perhaps?

~SJ Chermak

Not much to say in response here.

Treating a gravely serious issue such as global warming as if it were somehow a partisan issue is sheer lunacy.

Whatever you may "think" in regards to global warming, if you actually take the time to consider the possibility that it is human caused and has the potential to wreak havoc on a scale not seen in human history, sobriety should be an integral element of any thoughtful response.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that substantive thinking apparently does not enter into the equation on your part, SJ.

In that light, I won't waste my time with a more lengthy response.

Mark these words though --post 'em on your fridge in you like:

Probably within 5 years, but certainly within 10 years (by 2018 in that case), there won't be any debating the issue of human caused climate change. We'll be too busy dealing with the fallout, and panic most assuredly will be in the air.

Remember where you heard it, Schmak.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:50pm

It's a simple question (well, two actually) based on the Right-wing talking point on the housing crises...

1. Do you blame the CRA?

2. What percentage of CRA loans went bad?

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 1:20pm

SJCHER, here's your simple questions-

1. Which Presidential candidate did you vote for 3 weeks ago?

2. What was his view on the idea of man-made global warming?

3. Who will you vote for in 2012 (and beyond) that will deny MMGW? And what are their chances of winning on that?

4. If nobody, who cares what a politically impotent group thinks?

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:10pm
End quote.

So Darin, that's a 10 minute game misconduct for you.

You've been punked.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/25/2008 @ 10:32pm

I didn't read read the article you posted. I was alerted to the error from a different article. The one I read mentioned that it was caught by the guy who debunked the hockey stick myth. You know, the program that took climate data and produced a hockey stick. It turns out that program takes random data and produces a hockey stick.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 2:10pm
To be fair, the fact that Hanson made an error doesn't mean that all of his conclusions are wrong, just conclusions base on the error are suspect.

But the article I read said October was below average in temperature.

Sometime last spring there was an article that showed a graph titled a century of global warming gone in one year. The was about the time that liberal eleites instructed their followers to stop referring to global warming and start referring to climate change (just in case.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 2:13pm
This was about the time that liberal elites instructed their followers to stop referring to global warming and start referring to climate change (just in case.)

~Darin the Trog

Again, any reference to global warming as a partisan issue is "wildly off the mark" to borrow an infamous phrase from a different context by a favorite neocon-artist.

The science is large and in charge on this topic. You are, of course, free to cherry pick from the sparse population of nitwits who cling to spurious claims of global warming as mythology, but the reality on the ground will not change.

At this point, events are beginning to unfold at such high speed that it will not be long before the debunkers are thoroughly buried in a tsunami of data and disaster that no one will remember these imbeciles ever existed.

As one who is trained in geology, I have some grasp of the idea of "deep time", and the last 2 million years that has been termed the age of glaciers represents only the last 4 hours of one year if the Earth's entire 4,550 million year history were scaled down to this length.

That we are now witnessing precipitous change over the course of just decades is truly remarkable --and frankly, unprecedented in the geological record.

But, you just go ahead and keep on with jerkin' off with your bad self there, Darin.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 2:37pm
b_kool_66

Okay, point made, point proven.

You say: "Treating a gravely serious issue such as global warming as if it were somehow a partisan issue is sheer lunacy. Whatever you may "think" in regards to global warming, if you actually take the time to consider the possibility that it is human caused and has the potential to wreak havoc on a scale not seen in human history, sobriety should be an integral element of any thoughtful response. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that substantive thinking apparently does not enter into the equation on your part, SJ. "

Okay... Okay... You say these things, as do others, and I guess that is it. You say there should be sobriety and thoughtful responses... Okay.. In other words, thoughts and responses that agree with you.

Okay... we are supposed to take drastic action now to save the planet...

But.. in the stuff I posted there are people who do not agree with you and a considerable number of those are scientists well qualified to have an opinion on the issue.

But those opinions are not in agreement with your opinion so they are not substantive thinking. Only that which agrees with you is substantive thinking.

So you say NO to any debate on the subject. WE MUST TAKE ACTION NOW!!

But what if the effects of "climate change" or even the amount of impact is not as you say?

I know, I know... do not even bring that up, it is irresponsible and not substantive thinking. Just do as you and other libs say! DON'T QUESTION YOU, just do AS ORDERED!

Now you question partisanship on this issue.... it appears that this issue falls along partisan lines. I didn't create the fact that it does, but since it does why is it wrong to comment on that?

I know THAT's wrong too, but why?

Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 2:47pm
That we are now witnessing precipitous change over the course of just decades is truly remarkable --and frankly, unprecedented in the geological record.

Correction:

That is not including the cataclysm of asteroid/cometary impact, or a mass event of vulcanism along the lines of the Siberian or Deccan Traps events.

Of course.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by sjchermak @ 2:47pm

It's not particularly fruitful to attempt to engage in a genuine back-and-forth with with someone who so bald facedly exemplifies the psychological symptoms of projection.

From Wiki:

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 2:53pm
"Now you question partisanship on this issue.... "

Posted by sjchermak @ 2:47pm

There are those like Oklahoma's dynamic duo of dimkopfs --i.e. Coburn and Inhofe-- who refuse to let science and reason get in the way of a good old fashioned medieval mindset.

Doesn't change the fact that the issue itself is beyond partisanship. Thankfully, many Repugs are seeing the light on the issue these days.

Perhaps you'd like to grow up and be like them someday?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 3:03pm
b_kool_66,

Also, and silly me for bringing it up, but back to your comment (about Global Warming) "has the potential to wreak havoc on a scale not seen in human history"

Now, WMD that would have been manufactured by Saddam if he had not been stopped could have done that, too.

Why was it wrong to do anything about that?

We are supposed to bring the world to a complete stop and immediately take Kyoto protocol like action and even more drastic I supposed to stop Global Warming that all scientists are not even in agreement is either happening, or will have adverse impact, or is man-made or man-caused to begin with,..... but we are not supposed to have done anything to stop Saddam!

Can you explain this disconnect. I know by your command and rule this is not supposed to be a partisan issue, but you libs are the ones that say STOP immediately and take drastic action to prevent or stop or cure global warming but you are the ones who also said we did not need to do anything about Saddam, or you are the ones who said we needed to stop Saddam but won't admit it now (most Democrats and Clinton admin. officials) or the ones who said you voted for it before voting against it or against it before for it or whatever (J.F. Kerry) and then of course you are the ones who say now after the fact it was wrong (stopping Saddam), so it does seem that you are inconsistent on this issue and owe me and other Conservatives and explanation.

Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 3:09pm
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:07pm

I blame Carter and CRA for setting the precedent of loaning to people who can't afford to pay it back...and Clinton and his cronies for opening the doors wide (setting the table and providing the turkey and stuffing, respectively)...Frank, Dodd, Raines et al deserve blame for keeping their heads up their asses and denying the man behind the curtain (i.e. force-feeding you until you choke on your own vomit, to keep with the Thanksgiving analogies).

The actuall number of CRA defaults is not the point and never was...it was the precedent that it set.

Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 3:19pm
Mask,

You ask irrelevant questions - what is the point?

I was talking about how there is not even a scientific debate and that there are scientists that are not on board with the global warming agenda.

You ask who I voted for for President. Gee, Mask, you seem to forget that I know full well what McCain said on the issue, but that if I had my choice McCain would not have been the G.O.P. nominee, so once I am in the voting booth this year (I wasn't in the voting booth at all this year I voted early at the Board of Elections) -but whatever, while I am filling out my ballot that has 2 libs running for President, but one of the libs is less lib than the other, and of the two the one more lib - lib has another lib on his ticket for V.P., whereas the less-lib lib has a Conservative on his ticket for V.P. ; and on top of that the more-lib lib is for capitualtion and surrender in Iraq, whereas at least the less lib lib promoted the surge and would have stayed the course in Iraq---- then if you were me who would you have voted for, global warming or no?

You know the answers to this, why are you bothering to ask me?

It seems I have asked that question before, of you, don't remember the matter at hand back then - but I do remember I got no answer then and probably will get no answer now!

Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 3:50pm
Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 3:19pm

So the actual FACTS don't matter...it's the "precedent".

Now why am I not surprised. Are you competing with SJCHER for "Truthiness King"?

And why is it if it's "CRA precedence"....that almost NONE of the CRA loans went bad????

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 3:50pm

The questions were perfectly relevant, SJCHER.

You had no choice.

McCain didn't either. Even DUBYA had "capitulated" on the idea of man-made global warming...how could "Maverick" then say "It doesn't even exist!" (as your mentor Rush still tries to pull off)?

And who in the FUTURE will deny it? Romney? Huckabee? The Exorcist from Lousiana? Caribou Barbie who started to backpedal as soon as she became Veep?

Ergo, to relevancy, who political leader is going to take up YOUR view on GW and oppose policies that seem to agree with the idea that it exists and is man-made?

Answer...nobody.

Relevance....you're a minority even in a minority party.

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 4:09pm
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 4:05pm

You still can't see the forest for the trees...

Fact...CRA started a process which required banks to give loans to people who were considered high risk and under normal lending practices, never would have been given loans.

Fact...this practice was expanded under Clinton which essentially threatened banks to give these loans or face lawsuits...

Fact...Frank, Dodd, and Raines all defended this unsustainable practice despite Republicans and regulators showing FACTS stating othewise.

Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 5:17pm
"b_kool_66,

Also, and silly me for bringing it up, but back to your comment (about Global Warming) "has the potential to wreak havoc on a scale not seen in human history"

Now, WMD that would have been manufactured by Saddam if he had not been stopped could have done that, too.

Why was it wrong to do anything about that?"

~SJ Cher @ 3:09pm

I don't know why I bother, but here goes........

1) You have a difficult time focusing on your initial "argument", SJ. A bit rattled perhaps?

2) This whole Saddam and his "weapons of mass destruction" thing is so damn tiring.

WMD was a catch-all category to make it appear that a two bit dictator was far more dangerous than he in fact was. His most infamous acts were the gassing of Kurds in Halabja and a few other incidents. WMD was an easy shorthand to make it appear in the minds of the weak here at home that "gassing Kurds" = "possesses terrifying nuclear weapons that can be sent to America via remotely piloted vehicles".

That's utter and complete nonsense.

And finally, short of a very sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons that can be delivered by rockets, it's exceedingly unlikely that a threat of so-called WMD has anything in common with global warming as a threat to the planet.

In closing, SJ, I suppose that I should be pleased to debate you on these topics, but frankly, I find it rather dull unfortunately. You're probably not a bad guy in person one could hope, but the quality of the arguments you propose on these Nation threads is substandard, dude.

Come back some time armed with a more nuanced and informed arsenal of ideas, and then maybe we'll see a real debate.

~Ciao for now

Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 5:35pm
Does anyone else have a post by plain bruce on their thread? It should be right after USC's.

Posted by dailycomfort at 11/26/2008 @ 12:58pm

All of your posts are probably gone everywhere, even old blogs. Like you are on a global ignore list.

Everything seems to come back after awhile. I beleive, you can then use your old name again. Mask and ibble did.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 9:27pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 4:45pm

John McCain is an "extremist"?!??!?!

Posted by Mask at 11/27/2008 @ 07:21am
Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 5:17pm

And you still can't answer a basic question...

How many of the evil, "precedent-setting" CRA loans....went bad?

Now how is it such a "rotten idea" that "caused" the housing crises (and let Dubya and the GOP Congress off the hook)....had lower failure rates than normal everyday NON-CRA mortgages?!??!!???

Posted by Mask at 11/27/2008 @ 07:23am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/27/2008 @ 11:06am

But he said it over and over, LVLIB.

So he was continually "stupid"?!??!?!?

heheh

BTW, given Obama and McCain were both supporters of the idea of man-made global warming...and most of the country is....most of the world is....

by sheer numbers, who're the "extremists" on the issue?

Posted by Mask at 11/27/2008 @ 4:55pm
... while I am filling out my ballot that has 2 libs running for President, but one of the libs is less lib than the other, and of the two the one more lib - lib has another lib on his ticket for V.P., whereas the less-lib lib has a Conservative on his ticket for V.P. ; and on top of that the more-lib lib is for capitualtion and surrender in Iraq, whereas at least the less lib lib ... Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 3:50pm |

Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 4:09pm just keep worshipping at the alter of the enviro wackos Mask. I don't care if 90% have been BS'd in believing this nonsense, it still won't make it true. When you extremists learn how to turn off the Sun, then you will have credibility, but not until then. I'll stick with science. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 4:45pm |

I guess they are good for a chuckle, eh?

Posted by marilynm at 11/27/2008 @ 5:23pm
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 4:05pm You still can't see the forest for the trees... ... Posted by usc1 at 11/26/2008 @ 5:17pm

Where do they find them? And how old are they?

Posted by marilynm at 11/27/2008 @ 5:28pm
As the left become more desperate the hysteria over climate change will increase. Truth seekers should check out Bjorn Lomborg, Julian Simon and mickysmuses.blogspot.com.

Posted by mikh at 11/27/2008 @ 8:23pm
Lost in all the Weather Changing, Economic Freezing, Terrorist Heat Seeking, Health and Education vs Military/Energy Industry Bait-Switch and Disappearing Trillions, we're left holding a bag of vacuous gripes acknowledging our own lack of control.

This election had to happen just the way it did or us isolated defensive individuals, especially the young, would've taken another step into self-awared meaningless.

The vast majority of youth 'won', they'll stick and know they will continue to win when they're unified and active as a whole-- and that will always trump this long and winding empty bag of twisting spiraling obscuring gripes.

Posted by hsuBfools at 11/28/2008 @ 10:43am
let's call for ralph nader to head the environmental protection agency *and* the federal trade commission!

Posted by erplus at 11/28/2008 @ 11:05am
As an observer and not a partisan I am being more and more impressed by the level headed centrist stance taken on economic policy as well as foreign policy by your president-elect as opposed to his earlier left-wing ranting campaign mode.

Some of those earlier suggested policies would have been a disaster not only for the US but for the rest of the world as well.

One can be pretty confidant that Obama, who appears to have a quick mind and much better discernment than his 20 year membership of Wright's Church had indicated, will not be led up the garden path by the sort of half-witted emotional crazies hamming it up in the above video.

And thus is just as likely to cautiously weigh up the GW evidence and come to a similar wiser position as he appears to have come to on Iraq /Afghanistan, than his uninformed campaign rhetoric on these issues indicated.

Our PM who is trying to save the world from the results of its fossil fuel burning profligacy, still seems to want to keep the Aussie federal coffers as full as possible, and the mining unions on side by doing nothing to reduce the massive volumes of our top export earner, "dirty" coal, being shipped to China and India and other places or for that matter the other great export earner, iron ore etc.

Being a lawyer Obama will be able to put a better public consumption spin on it than our Mandarin speaking, diplomat PM but he is smart enough to read the equation much the same way as all other industrialised nations and those on the way, do. Viz keep the video type crazies happy and pursue business as usual.

Of course he may one day look at it in the broader scientific way my old anti-creation science geology professor, once from Melbourne Uni, does in:

Beware The Church of Climate Alarm

http://tinyurl.com/64txhf

Posted by lrjones4 at 11/28/2008 @ 9:52pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/28/2008 @ 11:26pm

Maybe the extremists are not you or mask.

Mask believes in GW and wants to do something about it.

You do not belive in science, and hence want to do nothing.

Perhaps the true extremists are the 53% of people who want a better world, but are unwilling to expend the time, effort or money to make it.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/29/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/29/2008 @ 1:51pm

Yes. That would be a less precise way to say it.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/30/2008 @ 12:29pm
"I happen to prefer the vast majority of scientists including many climatologists, that disagree with the "man made causation" model."

Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/30/2008 @ 12:45pm

And what "vast majority" would that be?

Citation please.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/30/2008 @ 4:16pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/27/2008 @ 5:29pm

Kinda all over the place there, aren't ya, Larry?

First "believing in global warming is like supporting slavery"!?!?!?!?

Then saying "Who cares if it's a majority view, it's still wrong!"

Then "And it's not even a majority view...by much!"

It seems at once you want to be the "lone voice in the wilderness"....and "not that far out of the mainstream"....LOL

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 09:28am