JerrySeinfeld

Mitt's gonna be just fine. What does one have to do with the other? SImply that no one vetted the current sitting President. When it was revealed that Obama sat in the pews of a racist America hating preacher for TWENTY YEARS!!!, the press all took a vacation up to Wasilla to search for dirt and concerned themselves with which magazines Palin reads. Obama was a very left wing student of critical race theory during his college years, and his buddies at Harvard don't want America to see what his real ideas were as a college student, because they know it would destroy him. In his own words, President Obama has "become good at being what I think people want me to be" - ie. a liar about himself. Mitt Ropmney, on the other hand, has spent his life creating businesses, jobs, fixing problems, helping the needy and just generally being an upstanding guy. So what do the two have in common? The only reason Obama wants more taxes is because they will find something - anything - to conjure up more bullshit to lie about in an ad. Same goes for Obama's college records. Everybody has a past. If the Obama camp demands more fodder to crucify Romney, it's only fair that Obama cough up some of his secrets of the past as well. Don't you find it strange his college records are sealed?

I suppose you might have a point. But what was the Debt to GDP ratio of Russia? The USA's is roughly 100%. More importantly, what's relevant is that Medicare and Social Security are both near insolvent and the President has no plan. You gotta be some crazy kind of stupid to keep driving a bus that's clearly headed off a cliff and instead of steering off course, continue promising the same old lollipops that got you into this mess in the first place.

Race is an issue because the Democrats want it to be an issue. We've tried the Democrat dependency programs for 50 years. FIFTY YEARS. Go to Detroit or a Chicago ghetto. How's that been working' out for blacks. And now you're saying we need MORE of the SAME? Wow.

And the civil rights movement was over half a century ago, so you too would have a point if this were 1962. It's not. It's 2012.

The United States is the brokest nation in the history of the world. The non-partisan CBO says if they continue on the current path, the economy shuts down in 2027. That's not that far off. So let's go through your list above line by line: Medicare. WIthout serious reform, the program is insolvent by 2020. Obama has no answer for this. Social Security. See medicare above. Obama has no serious answer for this. Expiration of tax cuts? This is a political game. Raising taxes on the wealthiest gives the USA an extra 40 billion each year. So instead of a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, now you have a $1.56 trillion dollar deficit. Yay! The earth has warmed and cooled many times. Obama hasn't done a thing to help or hinder this natural fluctuation, nor will he ever. Oh, besides giving money to his buddies at fake companies like Solyndra, of course.

First, the republican party was founded on the basis of abolishing slavery, and thousands of republicans fought and died on that principle. It was the Democrats who founded the KKK and fought to keep slavery alive and well. Second, I reject your theory that dependency created by the Dems has worked out well for blacks. Just as with the first nations people in Canada, giving people handouts hasn't resulted in a "hand up" at all. To the contrary, it has created a culture of dependency within the group. A perpetual culture which feeds Democratic party power: we keep you dependant upon us, you keep voting for us. Like a pusher and a junkie. Don't believe me? Look at the cities in parts of the country that have long been under Democratic rule: Detroit, California, Chicago. These are places with huge government programs and massive Democrat control. And they are also bankrupt, in a shambles, and worse. Your entire premise is based upon the principle that people without white skin need the government to give them something. Without even getting into how racist that attitude is, I do agree that this is what the Democratic party truly believes in, and it hasn't worked and isn't working. What poor people need most is jobs. Jobs are created by businesses. Businesses invest under low regulation and low tax environments. The Democratic party has increased all of the above. Hence, it is the Democrats who are anti poor, because all they have to offer the poor is more dependency. The single worst thing you can do to a person is rob them of their independence. Unfortunatey, the entire Democrat platform is based upon dependence.

It seems unfathomable, but he could. Let's be honest, the next president of the USA will not enact one iota of abortion law. So, that out of the way, give me three good reasons to vote for this clown again?

Romney advocates a 20% across the board income tax cut and a reduction in business taxes. This is good for business and hence good for unemployment. All your other bullshit about Romney being a robber baron stealing from the poor to give to the rich is pure Obama boilerplate, so give it up.

Mitt should release more taxes when we can all see Obama's college papers.

So what? I like families that build things. What's wrong with your dad doing something and then teaching you and passing it on? Many successful businesses are multigenerational. It makes sense to me: Dad built something, want's son to carry on. The only people who don't get this are those that think government should take Dad's place.

I thought this was a thread on gay marriage. Anyway, some people favour gay marriage and others don't. So far, by referendum, the majority of people in the US do not favour gay marriage. Something in the neighbourhood of 6-10 states recently voted against it, including california. Although some judicially active judge I believe tried to kill the peoples' will. It's kind of tyrannical when a small group of people think they can impose their will on a large group. Gay marriage isn't liked in the USA. So just get on with your lives.

Its pretty much impossible to disagree that the Democratic Party never wins another election without a huge percentage of the black vote. So let's be honest. The party with the most interest in racial divide is the Democrats. If African Americans begin to see themselves not as a block of dependent voters but as individuals with personal goals and a desire for freedom, then they, by definition, become republicans. Is there any disagreement that racial divides in politics exist and are perpetuated by Democrats? Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton A couple of examples.

Obama is a collectivist at heart. Everything he ays about supporting business is a lie. He approves of business - business he approves of!

Exactly. Follow the traffic. Millions of Islamic women move to western secular democracies every year. How many western women move to Yemen? 14?

Yea I like that. There is some radical mosque in Germany called the "multicultral centre" or some shit. They certainly know how to play our identity politics games well, don't they.

Thank you. This is finally one of the smartest things I'vee heard you say. Why? Because your analogy is perfect to climate change. If an earth quake is coming, we should all prepare, because wee can't stop it and we can't control it, so better to adapt than to run around trying to weld fault lines together like a bunch of ninnies. Same goes with climate change. The earth has warmed up a bit. Perhaps sea levels go up a small amount. Now, should we prepare? Absolutely. Why not build an extra inch or two on the seawall or a dyke. A lot cheaper than crippling the world's economy with taxes and stifling third world growth by demonizing, taxing and limiting the use of valuable and excellent energy sources such as fossil fuels.

Is that so? Perhaps you should read this peer reviewed study, not only providing evidence that the earth is cooling, but that your point on aerosols is completely backward and incorrect. Please provide said evidence. I have told you the IPCC "2500 scientists" consensus is diengenuous, relying maybe on the work of a few dozen scientists. Your side is the one proposing trilling dollar global tax regimes, economically crippling regulation and massive global governance. Therefore the onus is upon you to provide irrefutable evidence, not just the work of a few dozen scientists, dipping their beacks in the massive trough of climate research grants. Don't you dare compare your pet theories to gravity. Your consensus and level of knowledge of carbon/temperature correlation is hypothetical at best. So does the colour black. Shall we ban that too? Carbon is life, my friend. Quit demonizing it. Interesting,similarr correlations have been made between solar activity and climate. example. But you can't tax the sun, so the lefties hooked onto the far from proven carbon theory. As Barack Obama oncesaid, never let a crisis go to waste. I hope the warmth stays! Mercifully we live in a warm period! Imagine living in the ice age - yuck!

Hey bub - it's the climate hysterics who seem unable to grasp this. It's those of us on the objective unbiased side who have been saying this for years. Exactly. Nobody knows. False. Good. Then there's nothing to worry about! Exactly. Neither is 30. Why don`t you start looking at the earth`s history. Climate changes frequently and dramatically. Over thousands of years trends. Face it. The earth slightly warmed from 1900-1940. The slightly cooled from 1940-1960. The slightly warmed from 1970-1998. The has beeen about constant since then. Why don`t you take a big breath of CO2 and calm down One guy`s opinion. Plenty of scientists who disagree. There you go cherry picking again.

Weird. Based upon your theory, there should have been an increase in temperatures from 1940-1970. But there wasn't. Global temperatures declined during this period, seemingly impervious to the invention and mass production of the automobile, the industrialization of the world. By the way that was a typo: humans do emit plant food...er, I mean, CO2 into the air. Yes. CO2 is food for trees. Speaking of grade seven science. Yet no one has made a cause effect relationship. There is no scientific certainty at all on the matter. Those who claim "the science is settled" are afraid of debate. More and more scientists, including reams of solar scientists, are coming out now, less afraid of scientific ostracization as your pet theory becomes more and more discredited each and every day. Happy to provide examples. Tell that to the millions of schoolkids who are forced to watch Al Gore's movie each year, as a part of the curriculum. Speaking of grade seven science. Odd. In the past, both CO2 levels, and temperatures, have been far higher than they are today. Since it has since cooleed down from those warmer periods, your pet theory is quite obviously flawed. In your example, the feedback loop would lead to continuously rising temperatures. This has clearly not happened. Have you ever heard of an ice age? What about the midi-evil warm period, or various other massive historical fluctuations in global temperatures, long before the invention of the SUV. Give me a f*cking break. If you took off your green coloured glasses, stopped drinking Al Gore's kool-aid and used a critical eye, you would have realized the sham of these "objective bodies". Not a single one of the reports even bothered to investigate thee pertinent problems with climategate, and were headed up by biased people to begin with. Do you eveen know who "Lord Oxburgh" is, or what kind of questions were actually asked? Wow. That to me sounds like treehugger speeak for "the temperature hasn't changed in ten years". Oh I seee, so in your world it's OK for corrupt climate research-funding whores to cherry pick dates and data? LOL!!! Not only is it fraudulent, it's laughably so, which is why the IPCC stopped using it in it's report on climate in 2004. You sound like you'e spent too much time studying "environmental science" in an incubated, biased and unobjective world, and not enough looking at the real world.

Please provide eveidence of this. I challenge you to. There have not been "hundreds upon hundreds" of studies showing man caused CO2. In fact, there have been exactly zero which have produced a cuase and effect realtionship. There have been a handful that have shown some kind of correlation between CO2 levels and climate, however Al Gore had it completely wrong: CO2 levels have gone up AFTER climate has warmed, suggesting not that carbon drives climate, but quite the opposite: climate drives carbon. In addition, the IPCC UN report suggesting that "2500 of the world's leading scientists support the theory of AGW" is disengenuous. The vast majority of these scientists never once did research into the human effects on climate. At most, a couple of dozen scientists reached these conclusions based upon cursory and very vague scietific correlations - not on direct causation. Look it up. Read the IPCC reports. Not to mention the fact that many of these scientists conclusions were based on faulty tree ring data. Leading IPCC contributors, Michael Mann and Phil Jones at the CRU and university of pennsilvania, are on record publically as being extremely selective in deeleting the data from tree rings which did not support their pre-conceived conclusions about carbon and climate. As well, scientists have also been caught in climategate emails as colluding to eliminate data that "hides the decline| in global temperatures, not to mention diliberately ignoring the "heat island" effect which can falsely indicate a "global" rise in temperature simply by measuring temperatures in locations where urban areeas are growing around the thermometer. You may also be interested to learn that, despite dirre prredictions in 2000, the earth has had no significant warming since 1998, making past predictions of major warming incorrect. But don't ask me: Ask Phil Jones, at the Climatctic Research Institute, who is one record as admitting that therre has been no significant warming since 1995, "unfortunately" he adds - which is an odd comment coming from someone who is supposed to be an objective scientist, with no dog in this fight. Of course, if there isn't any warming, then the millions in research grants' tap gets turned offf, doesn't it? Convenient when someone used freedom of information and asked for the data he used to create the famously fraudulent "hockey stick graph" showing a dramatic increase in global temperatures, he deleted the data. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark. Michael Moore said Bush used "fear" to induce americans into supporting a false war. It's plainly obvious these guys are using fear to move us to global governance, high taxes, more social control over your lives (after all, if you control carbon, you control virtually every activity of your citizens), and, of course, big bucks in research grants for their little academic fiefdoms. Ugly. But the most insipid part of this lie is what it does to the little pople, ie.: YOU. People love this story, and willfully eat up the lie. Why? Because all of a sudden you matter. We live in a world where you can't even finish a sentence in a conversation before someone checks their smartphone for another email. Nobody pays attention to anyone anymore. Now, all of a sudden, you proclaim yourself green, buy into the suspect "science", hop on board with the thugs at the UN, chuck some bottles into a blue box, buy a biodiesel car and PRESTO: YOU'RE SAVING THE PLANET! Doesn't get any more important than that, now, does it? I feel sorry for those who have bought in, but I do understand their need to matter.

Climate has always changed. Warmer winters for a few years doesn't equal human induced warming. The earth will get by with or without carbon tax. Believe it: thinking you control the climate is egotistical and self absorbed.

The US federal grants for climate research grew from $200 million in 1995 to $10 billion in 2005. Al Gore is a billionnaire and stands to get even richer through Obama's draconian climate legislation. Everyone and their dog including the UN, city governments, provincial governments, federal governments of virtually every jurisdiction in the developed world is hell bent on taking "action on climate change", and taxing citizens to pay for it. As a direct result of this massive social and biological enginneering project, the amount of dollars invested by governments, NGOs, Universities, the UN IPCC measures in the billions and even trillions of dollars. I would like to see the accounting of "oil funded" climate deniers that comes even close to the astronomical numbers in play on the "climate warm mongering" side of the debate. It's quite clear to anyone without some kind of eco-axe to grind where the real money is being made. I think it's such a joke that warm mongers have such blinders on they can't see that people on their side are profiting big time from this whole climate hysteria. Michael Mann, one of the world's leading warm-mongers, has parlayed his fraudulent hockey stick graph of mid-90's fame into millions in research grants for himself and his department. Same goes for Phil Jones of climategate fame at the University of east anglia's climate Research institute. To not be able to seee that your side is a profiteering group, such willful ignorance stinks of religion, not of science. Open your eyes, fellows. Open your minds!

Here's a start (credit to Chris Booker at UK's telegraph):

Wow. Warmer than Siberia. What an impressive claim to fame. Well, every city's got it's strong points. Maybe calgary could finally get over 1988, lose the kitchy red vests and white cowboy hats at the airport and change the sign at the entry to the city: "Welcome to Calgary: Warmer than Siberia!" Trust me dude: Calgary is coo-ooooold! LOL! funny shit. I love it when small time prairie towns try so hard to tell you how big and important they are. You know when a city becomes truly a first rate city? When the residents take a deep breath and stop trying to convince you how first rate their city is. How can you tell when there's a Calgarian at your party? He'll tell you. Ever go to a national conference or a resort and see the New York City guy running around like a pant-wetting gradeschooler panting at the chance to tell everyone how GRRRRREAT life in Manhattan is, how things are "Just so crazy there!"? Of course not. Because people from real cities don't carry with them the napoleon complex of constantly having to prove to the rest of the world just how great their city is. Everyone already knows. Dude you need to lighten up. You live in a cold city. Freaking cold. Get over it and move on. Chinooks are a merciful break. But they are generally short interruptions stuck between 6 months of misery. Unless you enjor running for your life from the mall doorway to your car because of the cold, scraping ice off your windshield, shovelling snow, shivering to near death while waiting for your car to warm up, huge winter heating bills, ice fog, and nosebleeds from the ultra dryness caused by a combination of zero humidity, sub zero temperatures and cranked up heaters. Here's a good ideaq of a typical Calgary winter day. It can be beautiful, but it's freaking cold! Oh wait, I've got a better sign yet: "Welcome to Calgary: Warmer than Siberia, and some good car dealerships too!" LMFAO!

If you look up climate data for central and eastern and west coasts of Canada, you'll find that's simply a false statement. Calgary has brutally cold winters. But as I said, it's comparitively warmer than some other prairie provinces, for what thats worth. But again, that's not saying much in a region known for it's Siberian winter temperatures. If you're coming from the midweest US, you're used to cold. But Calgary is even colder. Don't believe a Calgarian. They have an overinflated and distorted sense of what Calgary is. Especially those who have moved to Calgary from some other frozen wasteland in Canada's prairies - of which much of Calgary's swelling population is comprised. I remember once visiting a Calgarian who had moveed to Calgary from some frozen Alberta town. He couldn't stop talking about how warm Calgary's winters are. Being from the west coast, as we walked down a deserted frozen tundra of a downtown street, I was wondering if I'd ever be able to move my toes again. I nodded knowingly, secretly wondering where they kept the indoctrination clinics. If you're from Chicago, then you're used to a short winter, perhaps 2.5 months, with temperatures hovering in and around freezing (32F-40F, 0C to 5C). You won't get that in Calgary. There will be extended (5-10 days) periods with morning temperatures below -25C and mid-day highs below -15C, and somtimes much colderd. Yes you will get the mercy of the odd chinook, and it may even last more than a day or two. But do your research on Wikipedia - Chinooks rarely last more than a day or two, before temperatures plunging again to their base level (-20C). Most Calgarians will take the one examplee in their lifetime when a chinook came, drove temps up to 18C and it stayed like that for seeven straigt days, and then tell everyone they meet that's what every winter is like, all the time. Don't believe it. It CAN happen, once in a blue moon, but it's more of a once every 5 or 10 years kind of a thing. Great when you get it, but hardly the norm in this icicle of a city. Leave it to the residents to speak of the exception, rather than the rule. Calgary is a nice city compared some of the other desolate prairie cities, but that's not saying too much. They have a hockey team there and I think a symphony and a museum or two. They probably have an art gallery. There is also an annual rodeo. The mountain town of Banff is a couple hours drive once you factor in traffic out of town. You'll get the chance to go there for a ski. That's a great benefit of Calgary. Calgary is also becoming an air-travel hub for the small Canadian airlines (Air Canada dn Westjet, and a handful of charters). This means you will be able to escape the lengthy winter quite easily for a good price. And you will need to. In Calgary, you go months on end where you wake up and go to work in the dark, and then go home from work...in the dark. Did I mention it's deathly cold? LOL. Most of the well priced winter getaway tours from Calgary are to Mexico (Cancun, PV, Cabo) and the down-market Caribbean islands (Dominican Republic, Cuba). You will usually pay through the nose to get to Florida or the nicer islands (Barbados, St. Thomas, St. Maarten), so the pickings are a tadd slim, but getting better all the time for this prairie outpost community. If you're from the chicago area, you're probably used to a lot more choice when it comes to air access, but remember, you're moving to a city that is about 16 times smaller and a lot further up and to the left on a map of north america. The decent air routes are important living here, because, aside from a couple of rocky mountain towns, there really isn't anything else nearby worth driving to. Calgary is pretty much smack dab in the middle of nowhere. If you want to get some clothes or other shopping items you could drive a couple hours north to Edmonton they have one of the world's biggest malls there. You'll find it funny in the summer. While Chicago has roasted in humid 30C+ conditions for the past two months in a row, the residents of Calgary consider it a special occassion for celebration when temperatures breach the 30C mark, and it will on a couple of occasions during the short, two month summer. Radio DJs go off their rocker: "today we're getting a HIGH OF ALL THE WAY UP TO 30C!!!! WOW!!!!" Calgary is a cute town, with a large portion of the population originating from somewhere else. If I had to hazard a guess, it's about 30% "native born", 50% from central and eastern Canada, and 20% from the prairies frozen tundra, which is why you'll get such a large contingent of residents intent on convincing themselves they live in some kind of tropical wonderland despite the realities on the thermometer.