Who is stupider: Palin, Bush, or Bachmann?

reply to post by mugger


Funny quotes...but I wouldn't rate them as "grave" as Bachmann's given that she did it in public making ridiculously false claims (misleading her followers) while Biden gave a personal opinion to 1 single person. And his opinion wasn't even a lie. For some people, a train arriving 1hr late isn't all that bad, and for some people the HCB was a "f****** big deal". It's an OPINION...not a false claim

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Oh, I DID delve...deep

The thing is, I thought posting that website's name would be enough to point out what a RIDICULOUS source you used.

But I guess it isn't...

So let me make it even clearer why I believe your source is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE:

If you go to the "about" section, you can read up about the site's founder...his name is H. Leighton Steward. I strongly suggest you google that name and start reading, because it should be blatantly obvious why Mr Steward (who's served in MANAGEMENT and not any scientific roles) isn't a credible source. He's being paid by the oil and gas industry, the very same industry he tried to develop for years by accessing more oil and natural gas fields.

In short, I suggest you properly research your sources in the future

Item 1: It wasn't "my" source, but I did at least dig into it far enough to find the science involved, and didn't simply stop looking at a URL or an individual's name. You obviously did not.

Item 2: Mr Steward is NOT the source, he is only the delivery boy. You would have known that had you bothered to dig a wee bit.

Item 3: Just because Mr Steward was involved in the oil and gas industries doesn't in any way invalidate the science presented, just as the fact that YOUR sources depend upon funding and grants from the other side of the fence invalidates THEIR findings. What invalidates findings is a failure to fit the model, a failure to account for some very important variables. we can debate THAT, if you like, but this isn't the thread for it. Start one on the validity of anthropogenic global warming as a function of CO2 levels, and I'll come running. I promise to shred your argument there, using actual science, as opposed to sponsored pseudo-science, which is in fact found on both sides of the argument.

In short, I suggest you actually get TO the sources to research them in the future, rather than stopping at the delivery boy to try to invalidate an argument without ever even approaching it.

reply to post by TupacShakur


None of them are actually stupid - consider that they are at the top of US politics, and you can't get and stay there by being stupid. Not really stupid

the voters who put them there, OTOH.......them I despair of!!

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Most 'conservatives' are just hard working white folks who don't believe personal morals are a national issue.

It does not mean they are evil corporate henchman.

Extremism on both sides is degrading any helpful debate.

Lefties are not uber callous citified intellectuals, nor are all righties racist, greedy a$$holes.

We must end the idea that our political affiliations are represented by the worst amongst us.

The middle ground gets things done, the rest is just childish name calling.

Most liberals I know are disappointed with the Democrats -- but at least what these leaders "say" is somewhere in the ballpark of reasonable.

However, I almost never hear thoughtful ideas about economics, security or much else from Republicans leaders. And I have talked to many a Republican, and they repeat the same corporate PR I hear on the news.

>>> So what am I to think? I think that the propaganda that has ruined this nation, and filled people with mis-information, has been effective. Fox News is merely the extreme example -- but rarely in our media is there much truth, nor even the right topics being debated.

I'm really tired of this equivalence. Global Warming is screwing up the weather on the globe -- there is the CORRECT side and the wrong side. The War on Terror and War on Drugs is a complete failure. The tax breaks for Billionaires ruined our economy and ended up being invested overseas.

ON all of the important topics of our day -- the Republicans are wrong, wrong, wrong. It used to be, there were nuanced debates about how much regulation and free market. If there is any absolutism -- it is from a Libertarian or Christo-fascist perspective. I'm not trying to use hyperbole when I say, I feel like I'm living in a land of crazy people.

Sure I know a lot of "nice", hardworking Republicans -- but I don't know of any Republicans or Conservatives I consider a hero or setting the right examples. All my heros are treated as a threat by the establishment.

reply to post by nenothtu


You can't be that naive to think a guy who spent his life for the oil industry won't be biased when talking about oil-related issues

Common'...and to claim there's "science behind" Steward's website...laughable

My vote goes to Palin.
Reasons ? I could write a book about this.

reply to post by Alxandro


Nice try, Mr.Deny Ignorance.

You'll let your hatred for Obama blind you to the fact that there are politicians 10x worse than he is.

Where are all the angry Palin and Bachmann cheerleaders on here to back you up?

Great post, VitriolAndAngst.

There really is no real debate it seems anymore among politicians. They all repeat the same points over and over again like puppets and the news decides what is worth talking about (ie, cuts are all about medicare and SS and nothing else, etc.). I really hope people stop watching the "news" for actual news, it's all scripted and very slanted.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you kidding? An increase in atmospheric CO2 is GREAT! Plants LOVE it, and flourish! More plants= more oxygen production for us!

Sorry but this is not true. Plants can only actually process so much CO2 and when that limit is exceeded, it stunts that plants ability to "breathe" in and out. Too much CO2 on plants suffocates them.

During the Carboniferous era, CO2 levels were so high (roughly 5 times what they are now) that the entire planet was rain forest - wouldn't have to worry about that pesky Amazon deforestation if the whole damn planet was rain forest!

Anything else that was different about the planet at that time? How about the plants themselves? You should look into it.

The down side of that was that atmospheric O2 was much higher than it is now (35% as opposed to the current measly 21%), and because of all that extra oxygen, forest fires were endemic. Didn't take much to spark one off.

maybe we ought to put a cap-n-trade on oxygen producing stuff, too. that stuff is DANGEROUS!

Sounds like you read a very interesting and very short article once. When is the last time you saw any kind of produce being grown in 100% CO2 environmnent? Never you say? There is a good reason for that.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You can't be that naive to think a guy who spent his life for the oil industry won't be biased when talking about oil-related issues

Oh, I have no doubt that his avocation has everything to do with his setting up the site, but that in no way negates the science presented. the science speaks for itself, he only delivered it. As I said, he's the delivery boy.

Common'...and to claim there's "science behind" Steward's website...laughable

Yup, there absolutely is. I note from that comment that you STILL haven't looked beyond the face of the delivery boy, or you would already known that...

OR...

you are simply trying to shoot the messenger in an effort to conceal the message...

No matter, really. A simple look at the site will verify what I am saying, and refute what you are saying. It actually works against your argument, since it makes it abundantly clear that you can't refute the science presented, and so try character assassination against the delivery boy instead.

In technical terms, that is called an "ad hominem attack", and is a fallacy of logic..

Faulty reasoning, on display, for the entire world to verify.

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you kidding? An increase in atmospheric CO2 is GREAT! Plants LOVE it, and flourish! More plants= more oxygen production for us!

Sorry but this is not true. Plants can only actually process so much CO2 and when that limit is exceeded, it stunts that plants ability to "breathe" in and out. Too much CO2 on plants suffocates them.

Perhaps you can tell us how much CO2 is "too much" in that context, then? I note that there can be "too much" oxygen as well, since both O2 and H2O are corrosives in large amounts... Evidently 5 times our current level is still not "too much" CO2.

During the Carboniferous era, CO2 levels were so high (roughly 5 times what they are now) that the entire planet was rain forest - wouldn't have to worry about that pesky Amazon deforestation if the whole damn planet was rain forest!

Anything else that was different about the planet at that time? How about the plants themselves? You should look into it.

The plants themselves were largely Lycopods, Calamites ("Horse Tails"), and fern varieties, both "true" ferns and the now extinct "seed ferns".. They grew in vast rain forest biomes, with some of the lycopods (notably Lepidodendron and Sigillaria) reaching heights of 130 to 150 feet. These formed the basis of the biological material which formed the vast coal fields we have today,

Insects, due to the much higher O2 levels, reached sizes unheard of in the modern day. Meganuria was a dragon fly with a wingspan of around 30". Cockroaches originated in that period, and routinely reached sizes of 4 to 6 inches, with some species reaching a foot long.

Planetary temperatures were, as I recall, around 12 degrees F higher than at present, averaged out globally, even at CO2 concentrations like that. Life thrived, and was abundant.

Anything else you'd like to know about the Carboniferous? Ask away. I'm not as ill-informed as you suggest.

The down side of that was that atmospheric O2 was much higher than it is now (35% as opposed to the current measly 21%), and because of all that extra oxygen, forest fires were endemic. Didn't take much to spark one off.

maybe we ought to put a cap-n-trade on oxygen producing stuff, too. that stuff is DANGEROUS!

Sounds like you read a very interesting and very short article once.

As I said above, I'm not as ill-informed on the time period as you suggest. Ask.

When is the last time you saw any kind of produce being grown in 100% CO2 environmnent? Never you say? There is a good reason for that.

A very good reason. a 100% CO2 environment exists nowhere in nature, and never has. It's an argumentum ad absurtium.

I note that I don't see anyone suggesting that a 100% oxygen environment is a good idea, either. Seriously, if you're going to try to argue the point, try to stay within the realms of the practical and possible. Venturing into the absurd doesn't help your case.

reply to post by nenothtu


thanks, you saved me from a t&c violation.


star!

reply to post by fooks


I've actually researched it fairly extensively over time, and am currently engaged in a reconstruction of a Carboniferous forest. Here's a detail from a preliminary reconstruction I did:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/21f18aa5afac.jpg[/atsimg]

It's a mangrove environment from that era, and is actually too sparse. According to current research, the Lepidodendrons (that's the tallest trees in the detail) had a population density of around 2500 individual plants per hectare. That's just ONE species, the upper "canopy" of the rain forests. The "forked" trees are Sigillaria, and the lower canopy are tree ferns, 15 to 30 feet tall.

I'm going to have to increase the population density and add in the fauna, so that's why this one is just a "preliminary".

I'm looking forward to getting "educated" about it here, but I'd prefer another thread be started to be closer to the topic.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

oh my god doesnt matter what you want to call yourself liberal or "progressive"
taking a 2x4 to people who you disagree with yep alot of liberal "progressives" think like that.
that same old tune about the so called surplus that was stolen straight from social security.
your an ideolog doesnt matter what label you want to slap on yourself
over 100 million people are on the government dime that side destroys the very people the supposedly try to "save"
and if you really want to look at suicidaly stupid look at every policy you condone.
the current state of the union exists and yep yep sure nough you blame conservatives.
is all the hate for conservatives is that the majority of them doesnt need nor want and is even on the government dime unlike the liberal democratic progressive left of this country.
hate the right all you want feel free but the right finances all your "morality" in this country.

>> I call myself a Progressive, because I seem to find myself agreeing with political thinkers and bloggers that call themselves Progressive -- it surely doesn't really explain how everyone thinks -- but its a good place to start. I think of the Liberal-Democrats as people who are still sipping tea with Mussolini. A Progressive is someone who is ticked off at Glenn Becks coded messages and Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the corporate funded gaggle issuing Fatwas.

The other day, Glenn Beck said that they 72 kids who were bombed in Norway were at the equivalent of a "Political camp for Nazi youth." By extension, I suppose, not worthy of life. He throws around the Nazis label -- because the attacker in this case was a Christian Fascist ... so it's best to paint EVERYONE with the same sins as Glenn Beck.

If you think that NPR is "the left" -- then why are they funded now by Monsanto, ADM and DuPont -- companies that they cost millions of dollars in the past with investigative reporting? So what you THINK is the Left in this nation, is just another Commercial message with a softer pitch.

>> I don't want to take a 2x4 to people I disagree with -- I'm frustrated with people who KEEP listening to pundits after they know they are lying. With people who will not admit their motivations. With people who know nothing but mis-information but are truly, in the back of their minds, OK with that.

I cannot really follow the rest of your reply... because I cannot parse the "suicidal stuff I condone" -- what, not torturing? Just like Global Warming -- first they accusers were called liars. Then they were ridiculed. Then it was a "few bad apples". And after everything came out -- "even if we did torture -- it's necessary!" Just like Climate Change can be good for you .... which I think is a pretty suicidal opinion.

hate the right all you want feel free but the right finances all your "morality" in this country.
... it's hard to argue with someone who believes stuff because they just want to believe it. The "red states" in this country get more from the government than the blue states -- they are NET users of government largess. Michele Bachmann, gets farm subsidies and MediCare for her clinic -- the darling spokesman of the Tea Party no less.

But I'm not here to keep score. Just another phony, corrupt politician.

Meanwhile, Obama offers up cuts on Social Security -- even when Republicans were not demanding it .. and somehow he is still a Socialist when he is to the RIGHT of the Republican party...

The Progressives AND Democrats that I know, are totally frustrated with the media and their leadership ... yet Conservatives and Republicans, seem to defend the moves of the Republican leadership as if they made some sense.

To me, I see clear evidence that the Government CAN actually stimulate the economy by hiring people. The parks, bridges, train tracks and many things we've taken for granted for 50 years were created by the WPO and other "government" work projects. Homeland Security and the TSA is another "make work" program -- but it produces nothing of value... George Bush lost a net 50,000 a month when we need about 250,000 a month to break even -- without the war and the war on terror -- he'd be about 2 million short of his dismal record.

You can only conclude that CONTINUING the Bush tax breaks for the top 1% is a sound policy, if you are deluded, lied to, or actually interested in destroying the economy.

>> And I am absolutely positive, I cannot make YOU see reason -- that's why I talk about my frustration -- but I'm really addressing other FRUSTRATED people to let them know they are not alone. One person who is crazy is ostracized, but if you have a group of them, you can call it a Religion. The Republican party, and they people who are "happy" to align themselves with that group -- are crazy. Evangelicals are part of a death cult. And just because a few corporate pied pipers get on TV in nice suits to echo these same crazy thoughts -- doesn't mean I accept it.


So when you ask; "where is all the civility..." -- I'd have to say; that's kind of like a Bully whining about bruising his fist on your face. I think the Liberals have turned more than the other cheek for 30 years now.

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
George Bush isn't stupid, in my opinion, you don't accidentally get Billions to fall into your pocket and steal a few elections by being a fool. He has some mental damage from Cocaine and Alcohol abuse, and that affects how he forms sentences -- however, I think he got Congress to do almost everything he wanted, while he PLAYED the fool. I'm sure that Dick Cheney's NSA spying didn't hurt. So in a sense -- it doesn't MATTER how smart or not he was -- he accomplished everything he set out to do; weaken the United States middle class and set us up for financial ruin while making Oil, Banking, and his friends who profit from war very very rich. His family, has been fans of fascism for some time.

That's one way of looking at it, but I think you're giving GWB way too much credit. He comes from a very powerful family. His father was president and what are the odds of a son of a president also becoming president? It completely defies the odds. That's a good indicator of a corrupt political system, especially when you look at GWB's background, which isn't exactly impressive.

IMO, GWB, like Reagan, was a puppet president for the neocon movement. Nothing more, nothing less.

IMO,

Sure, we just got a HUGE news story -- that apparently isn't worthy of being covered on TV -- that the Anonymous Hackers have uncovered tools and designs on voting machines that shows they were designed to be hacked. At 9 PM on November 2nd, 2004, the entire database used to count the votes was transferred to a Republican controlled group and the network administrator was sent home.

So, clear evidence that in at least one state; the vote was flipped. Kerry won in Ohio and the nation by at least 3% -- if you assume ONLY one abuse. But we know that there were many other states with voters in Liberal blocks being removed en masse for spurious reasons and electronic vote switching that would switch Kerry and Bush if the votes went to far the "wrong way."


>> America got hijacked by these NeoCons and I'm tired of pretending we have to worry about some CIA-backed spooks living in caves in Afghanistan. We got taken over by Bankers, Oil Cartels, the Military and Fox News. And I'm not going to pretend that I've been fooled.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Crapspackle

Originally posted by nenothtu
Are you kidding? An increase in atmospheric CO2 is GREAT! Plants LOVE it, and flourish! More plants= more oxygen production for us!

Sorry but this is not true. Plants can only actually process so much CO2 and when that limit is exceeded, it stunts that plants ability to "breathe" in and out. Too much CO2 on plants suffocates them.

Perhaps you can tell us how much CO2 is "too much" in that context, then? I note that there can be "too much" oxygen as well, since both O2 and H2O are corrosives in large amounts... Evidently 5 times our current level is still not "too much" CO2.

....

>> The PROBLEM with the "more is better" type of thinking -- is that you cannot know ALL the variables until you see an entire ecosystem changed. Putting a crop of beans in a tent and pumping in MORE CO2 isn't going to really tell us what is going to happen.

For instance; there is what is called N3 and N4 based plants -- has to do with Nitrogen fixing when Photosynthesis occurs. The N4 plant, other than Soy Beans, is mostly what we consider a "weed."

Most of our crops are N3 plants -- and they do better with COOLER NIGHTS. Because when the sun energy gets stored, they need the temperature difference to chemically lock carbohydrates and exhale Oxygen. When you have warming nights -- less energy gets stored and less Oxygen exhaled and eventually, the N4 plants outcompete.

So, if you simply note what levels of CO2 are ideal -- you miss the fact that if nighttime temperatures are about 90 degrees, many of the plants we eat will simply die. If it takes a few days or a month -- I don't know.

>> And that is just ONE extra variable. Basically, I would say without much worry of being wrong; future crops will have to be hydroponic or in controlled environments if the Climate Change rate goes any faster... outdoor crops producing enough food, unless they are genetically engineered to work as N4 plants -- is a thing of the past.

"natural" diets may not even be an option in 30 years.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

None of them are actually stupid - consider that they are at the top of US politics, and you can't get and stay there by being stupid. Not really stupid

the voters who put them there, OTOH.......them I despair of!!

While I marginally agree with you,... I'm afraid I've watched Congress on C-Span one two many times....
Sure, this may be an act so they can replay it for Constituents back home (as you can tell, most of the time Congress only has about half a dozen people ranting away to put things "on the Congressional record" -- and none of their colleagues are even listening). But we can tell that John Boehner's brain is pickled and he merely has to read the teleprompter and a FAXED speech from Rush Limbaugh with a bit of massaging from an intern.

Half of these wackos, merely have to show up and vote the right way, based on their sponsors wishes, and the real power and thought that comes out of their mouths, comes from the same "advisor teams" that have been around Washington for decades. As long as they can find someone with a weak will or a shady past that isn't known and who can play the part -- they've got a "candidate." Park benches have fewer people ranting at pigeons for this very reason.


>> That said; Palin, Bachmann and Bush may have a few obvious "mental disabilities" but they have high "social" intelligence and know how to manipulate and make government work for them. And if we HAVE to rate them, I'd say the intelligence goes; Bush, Bachmann, and then Palin -- but none of them would be worth a damn teaching High School Civics class.

reply to post by nenothtu




Actually you seem far more uninformed than you suggest I suggested. I actually asked you why you had to use extinct plants to make your point. Apparently you do not understand why you need to do that.

Sorry but your claim there can not be too much CO2 for plants is absurd. There is a very good reason you are going back to plants that no longer exist.

Still, when carbon dioxide level are too high, the greenhouse gas causes the pores (stomata) that the leaf transpires through to shrink, and thus not to release its normal water amounts. A study performed by scientists from the Carnegie Institute for Science shows that more than a quarter of the warming from increased CO2 levels in some areas of the world is due to this effect.

too much CO2

Symptoms of too much CO2 in greenhouse
I live in the year 2011 with the plants that exist now. Your place sounds awesome.

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
George Bush isn't stupid, in my opinion, you don't accidentally get Billions to fall into your pocket and steal a few elections by being a fool. He has some mental damage from Cocaine and Alcohol abuse, and that affects how he forms sentences -- however, I think he got Congress to do almost everything he wanted, while he PLAYED the fool. I'm sure that Dick Cheney's NSA spying didn't hurt. So in a sense -- it doesn't MATTER how smart or not he was -- he accomplished everything he set out to do; weaken the United States middle class and set us up for financial ruin while making Oil, Banking, and his friends who profit from war very very rich. His family, has been fans of fascism for some time.

That's one way of looking at it, but I think you're giving GWB way too much credit. He comes from a very powerful family. His father was president and what are the odds of a son of a president also becoming president? It completely defies the odds. That's a good indicator of a corrupt political system, especially when you look at GWB's background, which isn't exactly impressive.

IMO, GWB, like Reagan, was a puppet president for the neocon movement. Nothing more, nothing less.

IMO,

>> Granted. I don't want to EVER give a Bush family more credit than they deserve... but yes, Reagan was Bush's puppet for MOST of his time in office. Heck, the guy who shot him was Bush's roommate -- and it was the Bush family that pushed for and GOT his early release. Funny how that wasn't covered in the media -- but go ahead and Google it. It's just fricken' amazing how FACTS of this nature, never register, and could be called "conspiracy theories." I mean -- of all the people to lobby for as if the Bush family had empathy....

... anyway, George Bush Jr. at least had the insight to glom on to the Religious Right. It was HIS idea to take notice of the "Left Behind" folks and find a way to make his "conversion" to Christianity convincing. It helped a lot to give him a total pass on his drug-filled frat boy past.

And I'd say MOST of the rest of his success, was from friends in high places, and from good advisors. The ONE consolation I got from watching him as President, is when he'd accidentally let an internal thought escape his lips, and some advisor or PR Pundit on TV would have to jump on the grenade.

>> This idea of a brilliant and orchestrated NeoCon plot, gave way to the reality of Keystone Cops that merely failed upwards because other, more powerful crooks, liked the damage they were doing. Cheney managed to get damages from Asbestos limited to $250 per claimant via the Supreme Court for his Haliburton company... and continue the war profiteering he always enjoyed. Karl Rove got the entire Congress on his pet hackers database (including the Democratic party) -- and this guy eventually got killed or something. 2004 voting databases got sent to the same company that LOST Bush's emails...

The Pentagon and CIA were helping as well -- and got a lot of LOVE from the Bush Crime Family in the form of more appropriations and increased powers.

>> The problem is, that this alliance, requires MORE AND MORE -- and there isn't anyone in leadership in a position of power with a backbone to stop it. This isn't the tail wagging the dog -- it's the parasite eating its host. Perhaps the Gulf of Mexico will die from a massive red tide next year... that is GOING to effect military contractors who lined their pockets during the Iraq occupation. Unless these people have an underground lair somewhere that will allow them to wait out a few decades -- they have to breathe the same air.

The Cancer in America has metastasized, and it has to run it's course. I do not look forward to the next two decades as this dying empire sorts this out, and the world suffers in its wake.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by fooks

 

I've actually researched it fairly extensively over time, and am currently engaged in a reconstruction of a Carboniferous forest. Here's a detail from a preliminary reconstruction I did:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/21f18aa5afac.jpg[/atsimg]

Pretty picture of plants that do not exist. I actuall grow real plants for real in the real world.

How Much Carbon Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?

How Much Carbon Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?
Experiments have shown that plants can handle up to 10,000 PPM of CO2 with no ill effects. At very high light densities, indoor plants have a maximum CO2 uptake of just over 2,000 PPM.

Light intensity increases with closer distance, so the CO2 level around plants needs to be increased respectively:

Lights Distances CO2 Needed for
from Plants Sugar Production
HID Lamps 4ft (120 cm) * Ambient
3 ft (90 cm) 400 PPM
2ft (60 cm) 1,000 PPM
1 ft (30 cm) 2,000 PPM

This is with maintaining all plant resources at MAXIMUM and at a temperature NOT EXCEEDING 30°C (86°F).
* Ambient CO2 in the cities is between 400-500 PPM.
* Ambient CO2 in the country is about 300 PPM.

Note: Any time your indoor garden temperature goes above 30°C (86°F), start shutting down the CO2

When you pump too much CO2, you have to so completely over respond with drastic temperature and light shifts just to come to what turns out to have been a vain attempt to grow a super plant now in the form of a shriveled and oddly stunted little dead end.

I do wish I had your 3D artistic talents though. Unless you just used VUE or something that is very impressive.
Look, the only "scientists" that say plants can handle endless supplies of CO2 in the atmospher work for the energy company. None of them happen to be farmers, botanists, or you know, people in the "plant" industry.