JerrySeinfeld

is indefensible. where any of that first applies to Global warming is just here: "As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases." Thus we see, the body of knowledge on Global warming has begun bringing predictability and confidence --- it is at that same place that science was at after the return of Columbus --- the evidence for a round earth was there and all but incontravertable --- all that's left is clearing out the last of the flat earthers --- and of course, over 500 years later, there are still flat earthers, just as there are Global Warming deniers Given that there is plenty of SCIENCE and evidence that the earth has continually warmed and cooled for thousands of years IN THE ABSENCE of any help from humans, I'd say your comparison to "flat earthers" is, at best, a big stretch, and at worst, another obvious attempt to demonize anyone who presents an alternative viewpoint - a technique commonly used in dictatorships and cults.

With all of this hullaballoo about the EFFECTS of global warming, shouldn't we be paying a little bit more attention to the CAUSES of Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or Climate Change or whatever they're calling the frequent and historically common changes in global temperature trends. I stole this from Wikipedia (but I don't think it's copywrited anyway ). It's the SCIENTIFIC METHOD used for proving or disproving hypotheses. Read it carefully and decide for yourself whether we're using the Scientific Method in our massive fearmongering. In particular, read about the part about Falsifiability. Science only advances by disproving theories, not by proving them. Therefore the squashing of ALTERNATIVE POINTS OF VIEW on climate change is, in fact, NOT SCIENTIFIC. Which begs the question about climate change non-scientists: Why are you so adamant about silencing alternative viewpoints. Is this a religion that we must all believe or else? Or is it Science, which not only has the RIGHT to be questioned, but it is required to do so. In other words, trying to silence climate change skeptic scientists because of WHERE they recieve funding is not only an ad hominem argument completely ignoring the science they put forth, it also ignores the SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY that scientists have to present alternative viewpoints. People who try to shut us up are just EcoNazis.

My snickering responses to these retards: Does this mean women can gain from the experience fo being raped, oh wise Ms. Comin? Marilyn, were you raised in Afghanistan, by any chance? "The institution of Marriage is anti-Male" - anonymous "You're about to get f**cked "Leb-Style" " - Convicted Australian Muslim Gang Rapists Translation: Men don't cry at work. Can you spell: c-o-m-p-l-e-x ? HEAR HEAR - thank god. In this new found "liberation" I presume we won't be seeing any asset-splitting or alimony demands? Music to the ears of men everywhere. "I can't come with you to the pub watch the Superbowl - we're picking out curtains and paint tonight" - anonymous oppressed married man. The gays would be heartbroken... You're right - the ass is the only way to truly please a female....

Because nuclear weapons are hella expensive and hella complex. It's highly unlikely that Iran would go through the cost and effort of building a nuclear program only to hand over the results to Hizbullah. And even if they did, the deterrant factor would apply: after all, if Hizbulah suddenly whipped out a nuke, everybody and their dog would know where they got it from and who would be on the recieving end of the inevitable retaliation. Possibly but not necessarily. (a) We are not dealing with a sane dude here and generally a group of people who like to blow themselves up. ( The problem with retaliating might be the $500 per barrel of oil it would create. © Armegeddon is the necessary precursor for the coming of the 12th Imam, something in which Ahmedinejad believes strongly.

Uh no. In a perfect world, Iran would not get nukes. But in the real world, there's not much we can do to stop them without totally upseting the wobbly apple cart that is the region. And, troubling as proliferation is, a nuclear-armed Iran is not likely to pose the threat the Chicken Littles of the right claim. Iran provides weapons to Hexbollah through Syria, which Hezbollah continues to launch into Israeli civilian areas unprovoked. Hezbollah has continually used the maximum amount of technology provided to it by Iran. It used to use much less powerful and accurate missiles. Then, when Iran and Syria upgraded the supply to Kityusha (spelling?) rockets, THAT is what Hezbollah began using (still somewhat inaccurate but still an upgrade). What makes you think this continued willnigness to use the most damaging weapon available to it would not conitnue with Nukes? We ARE takling about people who blow themselves up for funsies.

Whoa, dude. Lighten UP Some might say the higher the percentage of revenues a pro-athlete makes, the more Marxist the concept. Why? Because the worker is getting a bigger piece of the pie. Besides that though, sometimes you lefties just gotta sit back, relax, take the propellers off your heads and enjoy a good ballgame. I was big time pulling for Brady and the Pats - to me they are the epitome of achievement in team sport. Preparation, preparation, preparation. Execution, execution, execution. But Manning pulled it out and good for him. The colts should mop the floor with hapless Rex Grossman.

If it wasn't the ballsy retarted left, I'd think this thread to be unfathomable. But these days - when it comes to the left - everything is fathomable. The left is the same group of ninnies who could bear the prospect of a single additional nuke being built by anyone under the sun in the 1980's...now seems completely comfotable with an Armageddon nutjob holocuast denier getting his hands on them. It's unthinkable that the left's complete and utter irrational hatred of the US and all thing Bush, that they're willing to construct entire websites, articles, and political ideologies dedicated to the hair-splitting of anti-jew hate speech. Incredible.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was the president of Harvard Law Review, received a Ph.D. from Harvard, and was a law professor before he was elected to the Senate. In other words, he's more than qualified and quite intelligent, and I think the American people, more than anything, want an intelligent president this time around. And I'm surprised you are so contemptuous of the American voting public to imply that they are so stupid that they wouldn't vote for someone just because of the similarity of a candidate's name to bin Laden. I think they are aware of the issues and aren't stupid at all. Bush's current approval rating is testament to that. Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't. The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world. But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country. Part of this tendency comes form the basic need of all lefties to ...well...literally, control the country. Lefties want small groups of smart people to legislate the rest of us - because they naturally think they're smarter than everyone else. I mean, what would YOU know about whats good for you. Unfortunately, this philosophy completely ignores that leadership requires much more than the number of letters behind your name. Perhaps that's why so FEW people with letters behind their name actually run anything other than a classroom in the real world. Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale. Every line of this completely ignores the reality right in front of us. It completely ignores the reality of total republican/right-wing failure. You speak as though you're speaking from the alter of political wisdom, when in fact, the right-wing has failed at everything and the Bush Administration will be remembered as the worst administration in our (America) history. And you talk of "leadership"??? The American people have thoroughly rejected right-wing "leadership" and ideology, and republicans now find themselves scrambling to the left and jumping off the ship of Bush as if it was on fire. No, the last thing we need are more IDIOTS running this country and it doesn't take more than just a casual look around to see that the American people agree with that. .. and so do many republicans. Bush is so much smarter than the average politician whose stance changes with the political winds. Bush is a dedicated, long-term thinking foreign policy genius, the likes of which we haven't seen since Reagan (the last time we had willy nilly lefties telling us how dumb this "uneducated reckless cowboy President" was going to ruin the world - only to find out he saved it._ It's not Bushes fault people have the attention span for war of a newt. Two years in a democracy, THAT's what the Attention Deficit Disorder public will give you in a conflict. Then they get bored and change their tune. Reminds me of a stock market investor who can't wait to sell just because the stock is down a few points. Patience is a virtue most war-ninnies obviously don't possess. This is a ten year struggle minimum. It's like the new cold war. And people don't get it. They want to go back to inflated dot-com stocks, sexy presidents and cigars. Sure enough, the public will get their wish...and when the Dems elect a willy nilly euro tolerant "whats popular this week" President, we'll pull out of Iraq, ignore Iran and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda...Iran will get it's nukes...and the conflicts between Israel and HAMAS, Hezbollah, Iran will get bigger and bigger as the weapons capabilities of those nations expands.... Then we'll all look back on GW Bush and remember that we could have made the decision to fight these fuckers NOW or we could wait ten years and fight 'em when they've got the nukes and the stakes are alot higher than 3,000 US troops and a bored american public. Just as with Reagan, who had so much more vision and resolve than the willy-nilly anti-cold-war-nuke activists marching down main street, history will be alot kinder to Bush than the present day is.

You obviously have an obsession with how much money someone has. Are you insinuating that only poor people are smart? THAT's a joke. You're just mad because Ivy league name dropping hasn't placed Obama any higher on your ridiculous "Presidential Grading system" than GW Bush.

It showed up three different times for three different accomplishments. But it helps to have LAWyers making laws. I wouldn't paint all right-wingers as being anti-intellectual. There are many intelligent right-wingers, just not the one who's president. He won't cop to how he got in or the marks he received though. hahahahaha. Typical. The big bad right winger cheated on his tests but the earnest do-gooder lefty did it honestly. GIVE ME A BREAK. Just as the voting machines and elections were rigged all the while the GOP was winning, but now that the Dems won some seats, the voting process gets the A-OK thumbs up. What a joke. SOme of the dumbest people alive have harvard degrees. All it means is that you can study. That's not difficult, it's just time consuming and safe.

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School, was the president of Harvard Law Review, received a Ph.D. from Harvard, and was a law professor before he was elected to the Senate. In other words, he's more than qualified and quite intelligent, and I think the American people, more than anything, want an intelligent president this time around. And I'm surprised you are so contemptuous of the American voting public to imply that they are so stupid that they wouldn't vote for someone just because of the similarity of a candidate's name to bin Laden. I think they are aware of the issues and aren't stupid at all. Bush's current approval rating is testament to that. Um - I see you used the word "Harvard" three times in one sentence which I'm sure is supposed to impress us all, which it doesn't. The last thing we need is more LAWYERS running things in the world. But you've revealed a basic truism about lefties - you think the number of years someone spends with their nose in a book is correlated to the level of their qualification to run the country. Part of this tendency comes form the basic need of all lefties to ...well...literally, control the country. Lefties want small groups of smart people to legislate the rest of us - because they naturally think they're smarter than everyone else. I mean, what would YOU know about whats good for you. Unfortunately, this philosophy completely ignores that leadership requires much more than the number of letters behind your name. Perhaps that's why so FEW people with letters behind their name actually run anything other than a classroom in the real world. Besides, President Bush has an MBA from Yale.

A recent statistical dead heat would be more worrisom for the Libs, I would think, who SHOULD be celebrating a big surge during the Honeymoon phase with Dion. Unfortunately for the Libs, if this is the Honeymoon, I'd hate to see the hangover....

Is Norway third world? Northern country, lots of oil, and only 2/3 of the GHGs. Most of Europe produces 1/2 as much GHGs as Canada and how many European countries are 3rd world? Give it time, friend - it's happening slowly.

Speaking of unserious, silly people.... This is horseshit on a number of levels. First: there's no reason to belive that the unrest in French slums is a predicator of larger civil strife. Indeed, to the eyes with brains behind them, it appears as little more than gang warfare writ large-certainly all the hallmarks are there. That's not to say that there isn't some caus efor concern: widespread crim is, in and of itself, a Bad Thing, and disaffected youth are mor elikely to fall prey to radical ideologies than those in comfortable middle class situations. But civil war? Again: horseshit. Second: the idea that "native europeans are too lackadaisical" is totally false. Compared to North America, Europeans are downright militant. Our radical nativists are on the fringe of public discourse: their's are vying for political power (France's upcoming presidential elections demonstrate this phenomenon ably). Europeans, traditionally, have been extremely xenophobic and extremely intolerant. There's little to suggest that much has changed and, in the face of an actual threat, you would most certainly see those traits reemerge. No. It's a very specific group of unassimilated Muslim immigrants and their families behaving as if they're still back home - and as the population of these groups grows so too will the unrest. You're partly right - in the face of THIS actual threat, european right wing parties have become very xenophobic and intolerant (see new laws banning burqas in school or VERY intolerant parties in Austria and Czech Republic).

And don't forget India (which will soon be larger than China in population.) Not only that - but only about 2% of the world's GHG emissions are human made. The bulk comes from the oceans, volcanoes etc. I'm not sure why the greenies are attacking western industry to fix the "problem". Should we be talking about teaching billions of Chinese to breathe less, handing out condoms to Indian couples and changing the ocean's chemistry to suit our latest "crisis"? It would certainly take a bigger bite out of GHGs and might even be cheaper!

What I think is that Bill Clinton took the American annual budget from an extreme deficit expense to a surplus - and began paying down the debt --- Shrub took the national debt and spent it up over thirty percent higher in less than 6 years. He has given America more debt and more crooked political deals than any other president in history. You guys can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. Deal with it. Clinton had peacetime and falling interest rates. Deal with it.

You are about 12 years and a ratification late. Isn't "Kyoto" the Japanese word for "continued pollution combined with massive wealth transfer to third world"?

If that's satire, it's clearly the unintended kind. Sadly, though, the people using the term "civil war" wrt to France's catankerous slum-dwellers are being serious (evn though they are objectively unserious people). Seriousness is stupidity sent to college - PJ ORourke. The civil war won't happen for another few years - and native europeans are too lackadaisical to do anything about it anyway - I suspect lots will leave or die. Maybe the young ones will move here and wake up Canada to the perils of excessive tolerance.

this is a misrepresentation of what I have said on both sides of your little circle jerk debate Bush couldn't, 'single handedly,' balance a checkbook. It took a lot of avaricious corporate slugs all surrounding him and kissing his pansy ass, to accomplish ALL of the precipitous drops in America's position, economically, structurally and diplomatically. Nor is a single president going to undo all of them - that national debt is going to be around a lot longer than anyone who, today, walks the face of the Earth. but you clowns can't see a thing except through the filter of extremism -- exactly the kind of misdirected view that created this Iraq quagmire which has cost America so much If you think America's most pressing economic problems just happen to materialize over the past 6 years - you have no understanding of economics at all. I can confidently say that, even if a presiding President WANTED to INTENTINALLY single handedly ruin the economy, he'd have a hard time of it. The huge trade deficit and current account deficits which have contributed to the depreciation of the US dollar have been mounting for decades, and are not controlled by the President in the first place. The "tech-wreck" brutal correction in the stock markets, if anything, was a hangover from years of excess and bloated prices (and sexual cigars) of the clinton era. One could even reasonably argue that the 9-11 attacks were planned, by and large, during the Clinton years and only executed during the Bush Presidency. Whether it's dot-com wrecks or long-ignored terrorist threats, it seems the Democrats love to have a feel-good party, and the conservatives have to come along and clean up the mess left behind. Kind of sounds like the general personalities of lefties and righties don't it? As far as Obama is concerned - his name sounds too much like OSAMA to run for president. He'll get crucified on the dirty attack ad circuit. Pray tell, can someone please articulate for me this man stands for and what qualifies him for being President, other than being black, hanging with Oprah and having a nice smile?

I find it hilarious that the lefties of the world are all looking to Jimmy Carter, a failed one-termer who got walloped by Reagan, for direction. Sad, actually. Wasn't Carter in Power when the Iranians stormed the US embassy in Tehran? And what did he do? A book tour? The talk show circuit? The last thing we need in the middle east is another appeaser.

Canadians are the 3rd worst polluters in the world. The Chinese are far behind producing only one-seventh as much pollution. WTF are you talking about when you say that were are on the forefront of restricting pollution? We are on the foreftront of polluting, not of restricting pollution. Are you saying China as a country produces less CO2 than Canada? Cite?

I can confirm that this is absolutely true. If you are capable of metabolzing, you're hired. There are several fast food joints in my community near Edmonton that are fully or partly closed due to lack of staff. Burger King (nearly new) is closed, KFC severely restricted, one A&W restricted hours, and so on. Thses businesses also suffer because they operate on volume and smallish margins. Labour costs are a significant component. When you have to pay everybody at least $10,50 instead of $7.25, you still have to offer that gutbusting combo meal for $3.99 plus GST. Tough times for some..... That's what I've been saying all along. If you're less than skilled, or want to earn an extra $20k per year as a tradesman and live in a shithole, Alberta is the place for you.

I love use of that term "civil war". It's great a great satire of the people trying to find new ways to lose in Iraq.

hahahahaha - that post is the buzzer-beater. GAME OVER. sums it all up quite nicely.

Agreed about the AFC game. Tom Brady turned it around in the second half of the Chargers game. I'm going with the Pats. Head's up in a pressure game he has done it and Manning hasn't. The adjustments they made at half time were great. The composure he showed under pressure proved to me his healthy and in teh right state of mind. I think you are 100% right about the Bears. Rex Grossman??? The Seahawks did not play very well at all and the Bears just squeaked it out. I heard Hasslebeck just revealed he played the last 2 weeks of the season with broken digits.