Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Uses for bubble wrap | Fear of Teenagers Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Uses for bubble wrap | Fear of Teenagers Next »
Fail
and first
From Wikipedia
A try is the major way of scoring points in rugby league and rugby union football. A try is scored by grounding the ball in the opposition’s in-goal area (on or behind the goal line). Rugby union and league differ slightly in defining ‘grounding the ball’ and the ‘in-goal’ area (see next section).
The term try comes from try at goal, signifying that originally, grounding the ball only gave the opportunity to try to score with a kick at goal.[1]
A try is analogous to a touchdown in American and Canadian football, with the major difference being that a try requires the ball be simultaneously touching the ground in the in-goal area and an attacking player who is in the field of play or in-goal. (Oddly enough, the official name of the extra point in American football according to NFL rules is the try.) In the laws of both forms of rugby, the term touch down formally refers only to grounding the ball by the defensive team in their in-goal. Although occasionally people refer to a try as a ‘touchdown’, the correct usage for the action is ‘grounding the ball’.
nope. WIN
“nope. WIN”
@DH:
Argument FAIL.
(“An argument is more than simple disagreement! You can’t just say the opposite of everything I say!”)
I’ve come here for an argument and all I’m getting is contradictions.
Look, if I “argue” with you, I must take up a contrary position!
“Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.”
A: No it isn’t.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
Does it count as using him as a scapegoat if he’s actually responsible for the things you blame on him?
No. A scapegoat is somebody who takes the blame for somebody else
Can you answer a rhetorical question?
Apparently some people can.
I can! x]
can you?
nope.
Hear, hear. How long is the President going to dine out on “this situation, which I inherited”? It’s already the middle of June. “Eight years of failed policies” is beginning to ring hollow.
Right on! It’s been almost 5 and a half months, and we’re still living with the repercussions of the 96 months before that! What gives?
“what do you mean, ‘it can’t be built in a day’? we want our empire NOW.” — the Romans.
And it was so.
Bwahahaha!
awesome
So really, it won’t be until Obama’s third term that we see the Hope and Change?
he only has 2 terms (if he gets re elected)
*WHOOSH*
no kidding
He’s got mostly everyone’s hope and change.
It’s the folding money he really wants.
are you serious? of course it takes more than 5 months to fix a 100 month mistake. economics, like physics, are a slow moving machine. You have to overcome the inertia created by previous forces before you can make a significant change. Not to say that Obama’s policies are correct, but yes, he can’t change the last 8 years that quickly. Ugh. You ppl make me ashamed to be american.
So when’s the cut-off? Name the date after which the President is responsible for what happens to the country. Will it be at the beginning of His third term? Democrats now control the House, Senate, and Executive branch. How long until they actually have to bear responsibility?
Also, it warms my heart to know that I make you ashamed to be American (there’s a capital ‘A’ there, it’s a proper noun). To know that your pride in your country is so weak and flimsy as to turn to shame when people disagree with you makes me feel great to be someone who disagrees with you.
Well, according to the last administration, it’s at least September 12 of the first term.
ooh wow that was a touchy statement
Baa-zing!!! Exactly what I was going to say!!
If you want to be fair to the Democrats, you’ll give
Congress 6 years, and two full terms for the President, like the Republicans. I do seem to recall that in the last 6 months Obama has:
-Initiated (no more no less,) Guantanamo Prisoner reform
-Brought reasonableness to foreign policy, improving relations with Europe and allowing Iran to become more progressive (less of a US boogeyman)
-Banned Torture
-Raised CAFE Standards
-Began a Military Drawdown in Iraq, reenforcing Afghanistan (which we Canadians appreciate)
-Passed an effective Stimulus Package (the Bank Bailout was Bush’s, and although there are a million horror stories like with any bureaucracy all I know is the DOW has been doing pretty well since about Febuary, hmm..)
-Lifted the ban on Stem Cell funding
-Opened the idea of Trade with Cuba
-stopped federal raids on State Authorized Medical Cannabis producers and dispensaries
I will admit to being a little petulant, but i seriously like to know how conservatives come up with almost exactly the wrong response to everything.
Is this list supposed to be good things Pr. Obama has done?
9 FAILS
I happen to agree with the list above as being full of win but I can buy that intelligent minds can disagree on some of these points. But are you really going to get up here and defend torture as a good thing? Bad relations with Europe (how the right cried like baby kittens when Obama supposedly “slighted” our BFF Britain)? A more belligerent Iran? The treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo? Cold War era policies against a Cuba? Are you saying we shouldn’t listen to the sovereign government of Iraq by drawing down when they asked us to? Re-enforcing Afghanistan is a bad thing?
I’ll defend waterboarding as a good thing, considering one of the high ranking masterminds of 9-11 let it be known that there was going to be a large scale attack on L.A. and when asked the details with “non-torture” interrogation methods, laughed at the interrogators and said basically “Wouldn’t you like to know”. It was only after more than 100 sessions of waterboarding that he finally divulged the information and the attack was prevented.
Yup. Torture is bad. Oh, and consider also the fact that the worst thing that waterboarding would give someone is PTSD, not say… any form of physical damage, or even crippling mental damage.
Yup. Real torturous when you consider what other nations use as torture.
“It was only after more than 100 sessions of waterboarding that he finally divulged the information and the attack was prevented.”
Citation? Attrition? Quote of some kind?
>> Yup. Torture is bad. Oh, and consider also the fact that the worst
>> thing that waterboarding would give someone is PTSD, not say…
>> any form of physical damage, or even crippling mental damage.
*picks up slacked jaw*
From Wikipedia:
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[2] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[6]
L2Research. Waterboarding can cause everything you said it can’t, and death. And just because other countries do it or worse, doesn’t make it ok for us to to do it. That’s why we’re better than the bad guys, remember? We don’t stoop to their level? FFS.
When it is applied properly, there is no physical damage whatsoever. Which is why well trained interrogators are important.
But more importantly… When a high ranking enemy (yes, enemy, they do exist) official has made it known that he has information that could save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of Americans… I would hope that we would force him to tell that information in the most “humane” fashion possible, but if he doesn’t tell the information with the torture of the soft cushions or the comfy chair, I really hope we won’t just give up and say we’ll never get that information.
And what’s to prevent the government from doing this to you if, through false or misinterpreted intelligence, they decide that YOU have information that could save hundreds of lives?
It’s easy to imagine a situation in which a guilty person, in an attempt to shift blame or negotiate, points a finger at you or an innocent loved one of yours. How many waterboardings would you want your parent, spouse, or child to endure? How confident would you be that the alleged well-trained interrogators would cause no lasting damage?
It’s much easier to approve of waterboarding (or any method of torture) if you allow yourself the illusion that it absolutely, positively would never be applied to an innocent person by accident – and that that innocent person couldn’t possibly be you or a loved one.
Not to mention the fact that torture, including waterboarding, has also caused people to admit to things that never even happened, because they’ll tell their torturers whatever they want to hear just to stop it.
Physical torture is NOT reliable. Psychological methods? Go for it. The police do all the time. But there are reasons why torture violates the Geneva Convention.
Thank you. I was essentially going to say this, but you’ve done a much better job.
p-diddy thinks PTSD does not have the capacity to be severlely impair someone’s ability to function productively in society.
He said PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) is not even a “crippling mental disorder”.
Wow.
re-read my post. Crappy formatting aside, I was quoting the parent’s post (hence the >>). I KNOW PTSD can be crippling. I think PTSD is the least of someone’s that been waterboarded’s worries. My point was that waterboarding CAN cause all the damage that Lillith was saying it couldn’t and worse.
Lillith then said “I would hope that we would force him to tell that information in the most ‘humane’ fashion possible, but if he doesn’t tell the information with the torture of the soft cushions or the comfy chair, I really hope we won’t just give up and say we’ll never get that information.”
I want to know what Lillith considers humane. If we “know” the enemy has information that could save lives, should we start cutting off fingers? I mean, the enemy (and let’s call him that to distance ourselves from the fact they are human) can live without fingers, right? And we’re comparing fingers to lives. I mean, it’s ok then, right? And then if we know he has info but still isn’t giving it up, maybe cut off an arm, or shock him. I mean, as long as we’re being “humane” about our torture, it’s ok, right??
Torture is torture. We don’t do it. Period.
WE don’t stoop, we bow.
You think you can invalidate his statement with a wikipedia article?
Why not go with an STD as opposed to an PTSD?
IT’s easier and way more fun.
your life is a fail if you disagree with all 9 of those. stem cell is a touchy subject, but will you honestly support people dying and destroying america’s image among all foreign nations over saving all lives of us, our allies, and our enemies as well and improving relations thus avoiding possible future conflicts that you and your most likely republican interests deem important.
Not Republican…. guess again.
Libertarian? Or perhaps you are on the other end of the spectrum. Are you by chance a Fascist?
you are correct, sir. Libertarian FTW.
That explains a lot.
Well, while I’m pleased to be regarded as the furthest from a Fascist as possible, that does not mean LP is ultra right-wing. It’s just different.
It means I am in favor of smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom. That is why the list of 9 items above are Fails.
The priorities are completely screwed up. And the government has no business in most of them, in the first place.
BTW, I am not a crack pot, or survivalist, or wacko. I’m just a working person who wants to keep what’s mine and let others keep what is theirs, without government interference.
@mamarosa
“More freedom”
Like the freedom of the government prevent stem cell research?
Or the freedom of the government to prevent trade with a no-longer-so-unreasonable Cuba?
I have no idea what you (or many right-wingers) mean when you use the word “freedom.”
Sir/madam, you seem to be harshly contradicting yourself.
RS-
Government FUNDING of stem cell research is the FAIL. It should be left to the private sector.
Free trade is fine. But it is a priority FAIL.
Is that one of major concerns at this point in time?
You’re in favour of more freedom, but you’re pro-torture and against better foreign policy?
First, i’m flattered that my comment has added to this discussion so well.
Second, I will not denounce any belief out of hand, but having looked at Libertarianism i’ve reached these conclusions: It espouses more “freedom”, but this is A-B freedom, meaning that practically it will lead to Plutocracy and Corporate pillaging.
Being that the only reliable drive of private business is to make more money, and in a loose regulatory environment this naturally leads to the rich individuals getting richer and companies taking “liberties” counter to the public good.
Regulation and gov’t control (in appropriate situations) is needed to keep capitalists from getting carried away and forgetting that their role is to drive the improvement of our civilization and improving the lives of our people, not dominating it.
This brings me to explain my A-B freedom statement, under plutocracy and corporate governance the majority of the population is still being oppressed – just not by the government. A-B-C freedom is giving up a superfluous freedom to grant true freedom – I give up the freedom to shoot random people in exchange for the freedom to not get randomly shot. There is a net gain of freedom.
Similarly, I give up the freedom to MAYBE, ONE DAY, “IF THINGS TURN OUT” become a Trillionaire Oligarch in exchange for a far better chance of becoming a Millionaire Douchebag with a cottage and a Mercedes. This is only achieved through a very purposeful and delicately balanced gov’t system of Progressive taxation, Universal services and aid, resulting in the most net freedom for all on account of having a level playing field.
In short, I don’t mean to disrespect you, you are probably a fine individual, I merely offer that you aren’t looking deep enough at the realistic facts.
P.S., for a real life example, come to Toronto! We still have rich people, they live mostly in Rosedale and Oakville, just slightly less rich (but still PRETTY rich), but way less poverty (like 1/10th the shootings of Chicago, no offense)
snippet: “Regulation and gov’t control (in appropriate situations) is needed to keep capitalists from getting carried away and forgetting that their role is to drive the improvement of our civilization and improving the lives of our people, not dominating it.”
Torus2112: Wow, well-analyzed. Well said, all of it. TY.
Hey, Is this Ed McMahon?
Boy, those are *some* dumbass-colored glasses you got there Bub.
well said.
- You mean releasing them into the US against the will of the American Citizens.
- You mean the same Iran that is about to start making Nuclear weapons and ran a rigged election. Or perhaps his “better” relations with N. Korea. How many nuclear tests did they do under GW’s watch?
- Waterboarding is not deemed torture, and actually Obama has allowed it to continue.
- Let’s make cars more expensive to build and maintain in a downturned economy that is crushing the car market (yeah that’s smart)
- Gave the “Freedom Fighters” (as the left loves to clal them) an actual date of when to resume take over of IRaqi government. Draw down in South Vietnam worked wonders for the South Vietnamnese didn’t it?
- Effective?!?!? The money is being continually wasted time and time again. GM still went under. People are still losing jobs, where are the 3 million jobs promised under this bill? At least four have been “Czars”.
- The federal government should NOT be funding Stem Cell research. It should be a privatized business.
- Sure let’s trade with Cuba, that way it’s EASIER for Illegal Immigrants to get stateside.
- Since when has enforcing the anti-drug laws being enforced a BAD thing. This “State Authorized Medical Cannabis” producers were known to “lose” product to the street.
So tell me how this is wrong:
- Protection of your allies and citizens
- Not forcing people to be taxed for social programs that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Free market vice Socialistic Government. (Why do Canadians come to the US to PAY for Health Care when they get free in their country?)
- Freedom to defend oneself (gun ownership) Where else in the constitution do we need a license or permit to enjoy our rights?
“Where else in the constitution do we need a license or permit to *enjoy* our rights?”
I’m sorry, but feeling the need to carry a gun does not strike me as something that stems from enjoyment of any kind. No, that feeling stems from fear. No one is trying to take away that freedom, though, by-the-way.
Stem cell research should be a privatized business? Then we’ll really have to watch out for man-bear-pig, won’t we? No, I think the government should have some regulatory hand in that.
I disagree….but man-bear-pig ref FTW.
Peanut Butter-
I like you….mostly.
Your response is nothing but a stack of rightwing talking points that have utterly no basis in reality and never did. Please. Stop.
For you, I will be less kind, but please listen to what I have to say:
-No, I mean giving them due process. If they are guilty, and not just random kidnapees some militia captured for the bounty, they will be released into their HOME COUNTRIES, not just dropped in downtown (insert OMG, that’s MY CITY!!!! here)
-No, I mean the same Iran currently being rocked by Progressive activists empowered by a calm, open, non-boogeyman US that the Theocratrs can’t use to scare the populous (hmm…) and as for NK, “GW” presided over the first nuclear incident ultimately caused by Bush SUDDENLY CANCELLING THE AID NK WAS RECEIVING IN EXCHANGE FOR ABANDONING IT’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM :0 , which Clinton had negotiated, so I guess we’re 1 for 1. if anybody COULD improve relations, it’s Obama, but I don’t think he’ll have a tough time pushing the button if things get ugly (I just think he feels he can be patient, what with his 5,000 odd nukes with WORKING ICBMs compared to NK’s, so far, 2 or 3 locomotive-sized 5 Kilotonne science experiments
-Actually I’ll give you this one, but the point is he signed an unequivocal ban on things that are “deemed” torture, something Bush “fail”ed (ha!) to do
-First, the companies always bitch when you raise standards, it’s easier than you think. Second, any inconvenience they encounter will not make them less competitive because *everybody* has to do it.
-Can’t speak with real authority on this, but I feel that Iraq itself is stable enough, being free this long has moderated enough of the populace that the militants can’t gain support politically (Hey guys, Democracy just kicked in!), I’ll say it, Bush was right, he gets the credit. He stuck with it and we are in the home stretch, i was just saying that Obama is the one to run the drawdown, i.e. that’s “something he did,” which was my original argument.
-I told you, there are going to be horror stories with a project this big, in fact it might not me the actual package at all, the point is things have gotten steadily better almost to the month he took office. I have no evidence, as Palin would put it, “i’m just sayin’…”
-nothing against Business, it’s just that sometimes the public good contradicts profit incentive, that’s what gov’t funding is for.
-Last time I checked, the problem was not Cuba. But even if it was, it will actually probable be just as hard. It will however be EASIER for Legal immigrants, which should actually ease Illegal Immigration.
-, but in this case the DEA acted contrary to State Law, so this was a violation of states rights by a callous Federal Government, right-wingers should appreciate that. At any rate It’s a nonissue as I support Legalization, all bad things stemming (lol) from Cannabis are a result of it’s illegality: Gateway effect by association with the “underworld”, violent disagreements, funding criminal organizations
Finally:
-No, but think about what that means
-Like?
-Socialism includes Capitalism when beneficial/Rich Canadians do because, i’ll admit it, it’s better to get US healthcare IF you’re rich, but then why do most of us love our Healthcare? Because it is fundamentally right. There may be wait time horror stories but they are a specific problem to fix, and they are nothing compared to the US deaths from NEVER having any hope at all for treatment, or bankruptcies from health costs stemming from the fundamental structure of your system.
-Finally I am actually against banning any guns. This is not typically liberal, and they can be used by bad people but that comes from the bigger issue of crime. It’s not the gun’s fault (cliched, but true). The simple fact is they are fun, and there are plenty of legitimate enthusiasts (collectors/sportsmen), so I agree with you. I do support regulation though. Come on, if you’re not a con, psycho, terrorist, or really impatient, what’s a couple forms and a couple weeks for a $500-$5000 piece of hardware?
Look, Obama “fixed” many of Bush’s inadequacies the day he took office. He listens, he’s intellectually curious and well-rounded, a Constitutional scholar, Harvard graduate, culturally aware…etc. The list goes on and on. Bush was none of those, unless you want to count being grandfathered in and through Harvard, which was essentially a birthright by his namesake and the way he “accomplished” anything in life.
Regarding American pride, it’s not that “liberals” don’t have it, it’s that we see America as an adult should – recognizing its faults along with its merits. So-called “conservatives” or right-wingers look at America like a 4-year-old, as if it can never do any wrong, which is simply not true (Franken). Plus, it was founded by a group of white slave owners who claimed all men are equal…go figure.
You credited Franken there, but didn’t bother to credit George Carlin for your closing sentence.
Carlin said:
“This country was founded by a group of white slave owners who told us ‘all men are created equal’…”
Touché.
I think you’ve missed Reverend Loki’s point. Which was the same as yours.
Nope, his actually opposed mine.
I get the feeling Ninja wasn’t replying to you, Perry.
America need a collective therapy.
America needs an enema.
::meh:: I’m tired.
and also where is my McFlurry? I ordered it, like, fifteen seconds ago and it is not yet cooling my fat hand.
LOL.
You want fries with that?
All right. That wasn’t very original of me. Not at all. I plead tired.
I see. Before the election, Obama supporters were accused of acting like he would be a miracle worker. And now you’re pissed that he hasn’t worked miracles?
Economy takes long time to fix. Not so long to screw up. You think that 8 years of blunders can be fixed in less than half a year? Naive. I want to live in your dream world.
Bring on the hate….
Or at least the screaming. You knew it would happen.;)
yea, I never knew that screaming was equal to politely correcting someone of his ignorance.
Main Entry: 1scape·goat
Pronunciation: \ˈskāp-ˌgōt\
Function: noun
Etymology: 1scape; intended as translation of Hebrew ʽazāzēl (probably name of a demon), as if ʽēz ‘ōzēl goat that departs—Lev 16:8(Authorized Version)
Date: 1530
1: a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur
2 a: one that bears the blame for others b: one that is the object of irrational hostility
Merriam-Webster invariably gets it right.
I could add something about the left’s ideology being composed primarily of Judeo-Christian heresies, but that would probably go right over most of your heads.
sigh
well.. if by being composed of heresies you mean that the majority of atheists are left or left of center then i suppose all of them could be considered heretical simply based on their lack of belief in the almighty…
of course, i’m only guessing at that statistic from people i’ve met who are athiest in my personal life, so could just be a demographic thing that the one’s i’ve met are also the ones left-leaning.
nice use of the merriam dictionary, suprisingly few people refer to it these days
I think sisyphusredux may mean by “composed primarily of Judeo-Christian heresies” that they prescribe to belief systems that were taught within the Juedo-Christian context, but then deemed heretical – such as Gnosticism, Docetism, and Marcionism. Would you say that’s accurate, sisyphus?
Well, no, but 2 points for fairly accurate use of big words.
Actually, I’m referring to the basic tenets of such things as socialism and environmentalism. Cardinal Newman, for example, referred to communism as “the last great Christian heresy”-think the original tenets of Christianity. And extreme environmentalism, with its personification of man as the source of all things evil, its demand that all adopt a monastic existence, and its apocalyptic vision of our all burning in hell and destroying the earth, is really quite fascinating, and sort of depressing, in its lack of originality.
Point being that religion seems to be a very real human need, and that the left, many of whom have rejected traditional religious belief, are simply recycling the myths and/or religious beliefs of their ancestors.
BTW, has anyone else noticed that people are referred to as “believing” in environmentalism, Obama’s policies, etc?
Whatever happened to knowing? Or are these ideologies belief systems, akin to religion, rather than ways of accomplishing concrete tasks?
I really don’t think it’s just a question of pedantic semantics.
*bows*
I should hope I used those words correctly, having just finished a year of Church History (early Christianity through modern European). But thank you for clarifying what you meant; I believe I understand now.
” . . . with its personification of man as the source of all things evil,”
According to the Bible–the first book of it–humans are evil, right out of the starting gate. What about the concept of “original sin”? What about the fact that we can only be “saved” from this sin by accepting Jesus?
” . . . the left, many of whom have rejected traditional religious belief, are simply recycling the myths and/or religious beliefs of their ancestors.”
I reject YOUR notion, your generalization. I need no myth . . . we have SCIENCE to answer our questions. If it can’t–yet–I’ll wait for the answer. I’m not that desperate for a crutch.
Science can – though on very few relative occasions – explain the “how”…science has NEVER been able to explain the “WHY”…and guess what…I’m a physicist…
Poor, poor physicist, if you think that science has never been able to explain the WHY of something.
@ Snommelp: be wary of praising people already overconfident in what they believe. Sisy, up there, in the very next post after yours took you compliment while knocking you, “Well, no, but 2 points for fairly accurate use of big words.” -implying your use of “big words” was impressive in much the way you would refer to a child, but also, since i didn’t notice anything overly complicated with what you said, makes me wonder why she would refer to what you said with the “big words” comment.
Now, that said – extreme belief in anything can lead any cause awry – extreme environmentalists, extreme christians, extreme gamers, etc. usually ends up for the worse. Everything in moderation and all that.
@ sisyphusredux: “BTW, has anyone else noticed that people are referred to as “believing” in environmentalism, Obama’s policies, etc?” I have an issue here in that you can believe anything you like, but believe in something does not imply deification of that idea or person. I believe my neighbor and his wife aren’t happy, I’m not basing this on any religious context but simply on observations of their interactions and how it’s changed over the last few months. Many believed Pres. Bush did the right thing and was a superb president, yet you don’t make this argument for them. Be careful of your word choice in your arguments.
now, to continue along those lines (and please ignore the erratic nature of capitalizations, i have a stubborn shift key) – religion does have its place. I could be wrong, but my observations have been that throughout history religion has served to explain the unexplainable, to organize and maintain coherent societies and to generally bring people together. it has also been used to manipulate, control and subjugate. Your christian religion is no more innocent than the islamic (I only use them as an example since they’ve been a point of argument lately) and, in point of fact, is quite a brutal religion wholly intolerant of opposition. however, this need has been diminishing and replaced more and more with a new one: science. this is concurrent with historical evidence as shown with the polytheistic religions that existed prior to christianity. In those religions the gods and beliefs changed many times, often due to political shifts in various city states or empires. Christianity functioned in much the same way, in fact stealing many beliefs from these polytheistic religions in a desire to persuade barbarians into joining their religion.
Why I say this, is because it’s wonderful to take a religious history course, or a years worth of it, but you need to take an objective approach in addition to this because in any religious course that’s biased by that religion, you’re going to get that religion’s version of history.
I’m just sayin’.
P.S. Hutch – the why is elusive or not depending on how deep you get. Q: “Why does TNT explode?” A: Because of the volatile nature of the compound. Q: Why was it volatile? then, far enough down, asking why quarks and hadrons and electrons function that way. The ultimate why of anything is never known (it’s too complicated for us to understand at this point), or it’s already known (and we’re just over complicating it). Usually, it just comes down to how you word the question.
Can I be a fly on your wall?
Sorry, I quoted you by accident!
I’m just sayin’…
i enjoyed your posts above, by the way, very insightful
“Believing” in Obama’s policies means that in your opinion, they’ll work.
I’m not going to respond to the rest of the post, as many people do seem to “need” religion- I like when people believe in something because it makes them feel better, especially if something terrible happens like a loss of a loved one- the problem is, the crazy killer types will always use it as motivation.
justification* not motivation.
Actually, Tyler, I think both words work within this context. It just depends on how crazy these “crazy killer types” are.
What a bunch of gobbledygook. Religion is a human need? LOL, thanks, Maslow. Don’t think so. It’s man-made and therefore a fallible system, no matter the type, that fleeces the masses for the benefit of the few. If something exists there’s no need to believe in it.
Why not treat environmentalism like Pascal’s Wager? What do we lose by being better stewards of the Earth?
Need? Perhaps not.
Personally, I see it as a crutch to lean on, but–it should be as apparent to you as it is to me–obviously, lots of people seem to want/need that crutch.
Call it a need for *many*; some not at all.
“Why not treat environmentalism like Pascal’s Wager? What do we lose by being better stewards of the Earth?”
Sure. Or how about simply making wise CONSERVATIVE use of our resources? Any simpleton can see they’re not ENDLESS. We haven’t interstellar flight yet, so this is the only planet that can sustain our puny, fragile human lives . . . let’s make decent use of it, not act like a scavenging virus (although it’s a poor simile, since we’ll not kill the host, only ourselves). Let’s collectively think beyond the next couple of years . . . for a change.
Marry me? (if you’re female, of course.)
I’m female. And, TY; I’m flattered. ::blushes:: But I’m engaged.
Lucky guy.
I’ll tell him you said that.
interesting since all atheists i’ve met were also republicans. but i do not judge all republicans to be atheist based on that!!
oh, people and their simple blanket statements!
I am a gay/atheist, republican. All the other atheist I have ever met are Republicans, aswell, although I know there is a large population who are liberals.
I hate people that try to use Bible versuses to make a point. It tells me they have no brain to do it themselves. God is just a made up being to give people reasons not to try too hard. They think everything will be God’s will and things just happen because he makes them.
This also leads me to think that Obama is almost worshipped. I love the videos floating around that compare him to Hitler because they are, indeed, so much alike.
Godwin ftl. They’re “alike” in the same way that Hitler and Abraham Lincoln are alike.
You do know that fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology, right? Add to it all of Hitler’s claims to be “doing the will of God” and twisting Christian beliefs to justify what he did… but then, it’s not because he was right-wing. It’s because he was an evil, racist nutter. (Obama is not evil, racist or insane, so far as anyone can tell.)
As for Obama being “worshipped,” the same could have been said about Bush. He has some scary fans in the deepest parts of the Bible Belt. It’s just how some people react to leaders. Sad, but true.
You and I agree, though, on using Bible verses to make a point – or worse, to “prove” something. Eesh.
Rings true in some ways. He does get the blame for all the people that failed in his name, under his presidency. As for Obama he doesn’t seem quite the miracle worker he was set up to be.
I sort of feel sorry for both of them. Governing the most influencial nation in the world can’t be easy.
Note: This is the perspective of a non-American who has not studied global politics deeply for the past ten years, but merely made a couple of observations.
Meh, I still like Obama. I mean, it’s only been 5 months, and you can’t fix an economy *that* fast. If I gave someone the power to fix the economy, I’d give them at least two years. Also, he’s probably discovering the sad sad reality that he cannot fill all promises or make everyone happy, or always do what he thinks will help, because it isn’t logically possible. :/
At least in his current occupation I don’t have to listen to him talk.
Yah, the current guy sounds SO much better: “uh, uh, uh…yeah…listen okay? Uh…uh.”
V. eloquent, Obama.
Not gonna try to defend Obama, but be honest; there aren’t going to be six editions of Obamaisms.
pie chart? Seperate parts equalling 100%? Yep, sounds like half a fail. Meh, let’s go all fail. I’m being generous today
I concur, should be a pie chart.
This graph is full of fail not because of a political reason but in presentation. First off, yes, it should be a pie chart. Second, this sort of implies he hasn’t done anything else with his life other than president, hello, gov. of Texas anyone? Did Bush fail so hard at other things that they’re 0% or was he a bum until he became president? Third what do the percentages mean? Bush is only 20% president material? Effective president 20% of the time? If it’s about his time as president, 20% would mean that he’s 40 years old.
I don’t want to sound all nit-picky, but the graph seemed “off” when I first saw it. I understand the joke of how Bush gets blamed for everything, but this graph is just fail.
No doubt, there is still those who blame him for hurricane Katrina.
Oh, he certainly didn’t *cause* the hurricane. No one rational thinks that.
It’s the response (or lack thereof) that earns one of many EPIC FAIL awards.
i heard he caused Katrina when we invaded atlantis without a clear cut exit strategy
And don’t forget that we claimed atlantis had WMD’s and was harboring Al-Queda trained terrorist sea lions and Whales, and was in cohoots with Posiden.
DAMN YE, POSEIDON!
the louisiana governor initially rejected aid, and them FEMA went and botched the situation when the response came.
yep, and then bush publicly commended the head of FEMA for what a great job he was doing
“George Bush doesn’t care about black people”- Kanye West
And you spelled it wrong, it’s escapegoat.
Um… No.
It’s scapegoat, definitely NOT “escapegoat”
Right, and I’m the Queen of the Ottoman Empire.
… I love the smell of ignorance in the morning.
…. It’s funny that you’re right.
“I love the smell of napalm in the morning” Famous quote from Meet the Parents.
Good job, you know basic movie trivia.
Now learn to spell scapegoat.
Actually that quote is from Apocalypse Now, so this is a definite quote knowledge fail.
“Why So Serious?”-
Wanye Gretzky in “We Are Marshall”
Nobody fails that much in two quote-posts, do they? You’re lame on purpose, aren’t you?
Yes, I do believe this is the case, hence the name, Poop Guy. Seriously? You’re gonna have an argument with that name?
Nope, Devy, I have NO argument w/that name. That name is “spot on”.
He started out being a complete moron because, well, he just is.
Then he realized this and acted completely stupid so it would make his first few posts seem reasonable.
Until you said the word “posts”, I thought you were talking about the subject of the graph. Silly me.
About the graph:
He started out being a moron because, well, he just is.
However things just haven’t changed, even after 8 years of sending your country through crap.
“I love you, James”
RJ Lowe in “Gay Guys”
Total scapegoat, he didn’t do bad things himself. He only:
*Opposed the Kyoto Protocol
*Introduced the Military Commissions Act of 2006 denying enemy combatants access to habeas corpus (lawyers) and allowing ‘torture’ to be legally defined by the president.
*Withdrew U.S. support for for the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia (we changed our minds, we want the right to fire missiles at you?!)
*Authorized Warrantless Surveillance of American citizens
*Declared of a “global war on terror”
*Invaded Afghanistan (Tens of thousands of civilians killed)
*Invaded Iraq (resulting in between 91,000 and 99,000 civilian deaths)
I would not support the leader of any country who did these things.
P.S. Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed a guy. No charges were made. Just a little general knowledge there while we’re on the knowledge boat. Might come up in a pop quiz some day. =P
Kyoto protocol vs. all the volcanoes in the world spewing toxic gases= Volcanoes WIN.
There is little or nothing that can be done to control the greenhouse gasses that a volcano can’t contradict in an instant.
The UN is completely worthless.
Volcanoes don’t change the fact that humans contribute to greenhouse gases and what the hell is the harm in reducing our output of carbon and our dependency on fuel that is going to run out soon?
Futility win!
The harm? Crippling businesses and economies with regulations.
I’m all for stopping the dependence on fossil fuels, but not for ecological reasons.
Volcanoes are natural, and greenhouse gasses are man-made. Just as there are
natural lightning borne forest fires and others are caused by man.
If we put out only man-made fires, does it mean there are no natural fires still polluting and causing damage?
I think I follow your argument, but for the purpose of clarity, would you agree that this is what you’re saying:
Volcanoes put out greenhouse gasses naturally, so there is no point in regulating the additional greenhouse gasses humans put out artificially
?
That argument is as flimsy as “everybody else is doing it, why can’t we?”
What I am saying is that volcanoes produce far nastier emissions (such as: sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride) than the gases the Kyoto protocol are concerned with (such as carbon dioxide and methane- both naturally occurring as well as man-made)
Why aren’t we going after those volcanoes!!!
I see. Thank you for clarifying.
LOL!
“What I am saying is that volcanoes produce far nastier emissions (such as: sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride)”
Okay, get ready for a little chemistry lesson. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is produced in industrial processes and by automobiles, because almost all coal and crude oil have sulfur compounds in them. Burning them combusts the sulfur compounds as well, resulting in the emission of SO2.
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is released during the refinery of petroleum. While only about 12% of H2S emission is caused by humans, we could effectively eliminate our 12% by ceasing our dependence on petroleum.
Hydrogen (H) is an element, and is not harmful. In fact, you breathe this constantly. Without it, nothing on this planet could live, and there would be no sun. It constitutes more than 75% of the elemental mass of the universe (and since it is the lightest element, that means there is a LOT of it). It is almost comical that you have listed this as a “nasty emission” (or maybe it’s just sad).
Carbon monoxide (CO) is only present in trace amounts in our natural atmosphere, and very little of that is from volcano activity (at most, 2% of a volcano’s emission is CO). Significantly more CO is produced by humans as exhaust from (you guessed it) internal combustion engines.
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) are present in volcanic emissions only in trace amounts.
The vast majority of gaseous volcanic emissions are water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2), and either SO2 or H2S, depending on the temperature of the emitted gases. Your argument that “volcanoes produce far nastier emissions” is ludicrous. There are maybe 50ish volcanic eruptions worldwide per year, and those produce a tiny fraction of the harmful gases in our atmosphere. Conversely, there are something like 600 million vehicles worldwide burning fossil fuels every day. And that doesn’t even begin to include industrial emissions. I’d say we produce far nastier emissions and in far greater quantities than any volcano. Maybe, just maybe, we should re-evaluate what we are doing to this planet and work to find ways to make our lifestyles more sustainable so that future generations can live here? Is that so horrible? Just my (extremely long-winded) 2¢.
Well,
Volcanic SO2 ( or Vog) is nasty when it converts into H2SO4 sulfuric acid which condenses into sulfate aerosols. It poses many health hazards that I have not experienced even with ALL of the man-made emissions considered.
Example:
A bluish haze of sulfur aerosols all over Iceland destroyed most summer crops in the country; the crop failure led to the loss of 75% of all livestock and the deaths of 24% of the population (H. Sigurdsson, 1982). The bluish haze drifted east across Europe during the 1783-1784 winter, which was unusually severe.
I am convinced that the effects of Vog have a bigger impact on human health than the greenhouse gases covered in the Kyoto protocol.
SO2 and H2SO4 are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol. The greenhouse gases covered are: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and SF6. And, the gas groups of HFC’s and PFC’s.
Sulfate aerosols are not entirely a bad thing, as they reduce the warming effect by allowing the reflection of solar radiation back to space.
I am not a chemist, just a thinker. I accept your expertise, if you are indeed a chemist, and your last name is simply not Chemist.
I appreciate you not LOL’ing or talking down to me, I would not do so to you if you ventured into my areas of expertise.
I apologize for my misuse of quotes, etc. My source is the USGS.
You can consider everything I say as being my opinion.
Sure there is, We can invade the volcanos and set up a democracy.
Do you even know how much of the air is carbon dioxide?
LESS THAN 0.005%!
…and people think it’s going to end the world.
And do you know how much all of the species on Earth are accustomed to being in the air?
LESS THAN 0.005%!
wow you are right I am not accustomed to being in the air. I cannot fly nor is my body composed of 100% gaseous materials.
Can I put 0.005% your body weight of ricin in your next meal?
…and don’t forget that humans inhabit probably about 10% of the SURFACE of the earth on top of the billions of tons of lava.
That’s just common sense.
The sun is the only thing that could really change global temparatures.
Oh, yes . . . SO MUCH of the surface of the Earth will support human life, I’m surprised we’re not inhabiting a lot more of it!!
Oh . . . wait. 75% is water, so that would be difficult . . . I think about 15% of it is Antarctica–property values are low, but I can see why no one really wants to make that move . . . that leaves 0%, just going to WASTE, apparently! Shame on us!!
“The sun is the only thing that could really change global temparatures.”
::giggles:: Really? Are you serious? Have you had any science classes . . . ever?
Really, the question is have you ever had any /unbiased/ science classes. And the answer to that is no. The facts are always skewed, wether you take a science class taught from Creation/Evolution/Flying Spaghetti Monster. So one teacher will teach that the sun /is/ the only thing that can change global temperatures and another will teach that greenhouse gasses, carbon emissions, etc can. In other words, do the research yourself, don’t rely on your teachers.
Sorry, small rant there. ^^
Actually, I have had multiple teachers who presented both sides to the global warming argument and my own curiosity has caused me to pay attention to experts since the topic of global warming was originally introduced to me. Apparently, the pigs are now flying and hell is freezing over simply because I had good, unbiased teaching in the public school system and because I have done my own research. (I’m saying this in order to make a point: you do not actually know [unless he said so in a comment that I have not yet read] where his background knowledge came from, so do not assume he has only heard from biased evidence simply because he shares ideas with other people.)
Now, here are my opinions based on my observations over the past 9 years:
Yes, you can argue that the gases present themselves naturally. The Earth has many cycles that exist in nature that gave us what we live in. The issue comes in when we screw up the cycle. The smallest upset in a cycle can have disastrous consequences. In the case of the O-Zone layer, the gases and emissions that we have introduced (what I mean by that is we have created objects that emit them and many people use such objects enough to create a significant amount of emissions and gases that would not be around if the objects did not exist [even tiny percentages that we see as insignificant can make huge changes in nature, btw]) have helped to deteriorate the layer (there are actually sattelite images to prove this). This layer helps to reduce the rays produced by the sun that actually affect the Earth and humans. We see this mainly in the weather patterns. The layer deteriorating has been linked to increased temperatures in many parts of the world. Weather also moves in cycles, so the term global warming is actually a misnomer. So while some places have experienced greater temperatures, other places experienced decreased temperatures and extreme weather (which can ruin the ecosystem because some species can only exist in certain temperatures).
Yes, while the Earth has gone through similar upsets in the weather systems, some evidence may suggest that this may be the worst upset and we do not know how it will affect all of the world’s ecosystems. We’re already seeing the deterioration of one ecosystem with the poles melting (which, btw, adds more water to the oceans and can change the make-up of the water, which changes both weather and what types of species can depend on the water). We need to regulate what we add to Earth’s natural cycles before more cycles and systems can be screwed up.
And since when will ensuring the health of the Earth cripple businesses and economies? For example, telling car companies that all the cars they make in the future have to have certain MPG ratings just might be a good thing. That saves money spent on gas, so people should be more willing to spend the money on a new vehicle. Yes, this gives less to OPEC, but they actually charge too much for a barrel of gas. They can afford to slightly lower the prices so companies that provide us gas can slightly increase the amount that they receive from a sale in order to make up for the fewer gallons of gas bought.
Remember, we also do not know that this will really affect the car companies negatively. Only those running the company know what will really affect their company and we have learned in recent times that we cannot always trust the heads of companies simply because they make a statement saying it will hurt the company if passed.
Thank you very much for pointing that out and thank your teacher for teaching non-biased. I have never come across one who has. And I’m not saying it’s intentional. It is simply natural. What I meant in my comment was not that his opinions where biased. I was saying that when Naoyusimi said, “::giggles:: Really? Are you serious? Have you had any science classes . . . ever?” they were incorrect because it depended on the type of science class, the bias of the teacher, and the information given. Of course I did not take into account that there could be unbiased teachers. I apologize if I was incorrect.
Secondly, could you give me some sources? In my own research I have come across different answers, and would like to check mine against yours. Just purely for my own knowledge. ^^
“The facts are always skewed, wether you take a science class taught from Creation/Evolution/Flying Spaghetti Monster.”
Fail. Sorry, but science class and “creation” are mutually exclusive.
Science deals with facts.
No, most of science deals with theory’s. Evolution is not a fact, it’s an unproven theory. Creationism is a theory. I believe it’s a fact, but it’s also an unproven theory. The entire point of science is looking at and dealing with theories.
Sorry, those sort of statements really irritate me.
No it’s “proven” fact that global warming is real. Don’t you know last years average temperature was higher than last years, oh wait no I’m sorry it went down. But that’s b/c of Global Warming!!!!! I don’t get it.
Natural fluctuations will occur (still). It’s the overall perturbation of the system that supports human life that could be our downfall. The narrow band of temperature, rainfall, etc. that supports agriculture, for example, can be completely changed by an AVERAGE temperature increase of 2 degrees. Suddenly, one is planting wheat in a region where, before, one could grow soybeans & corn, for an imperfect example (off the top of my head). The region for corn production shrinks to a much-smaller band, and so on. Get it yet?
“No, most of science deals with theory’s. Evolution is not a fact, it’s an unproven theory. Creationism is a theory. I believe it’s a fact, but it’s also an unproven theory.”
You obviously have not had any science, if you think the meaning of the word “theory” can be used for a fantasy-belief like creationism.
“The entire point of science is looking at and dealing with theories.”
Back to basics. Here’s a good definition:
“Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system.”
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find.
The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
Ill-equipped people arguing things, about which they know little, irritate me.
Excellent points. I am insanely tired of “creationism is science” mantra. Science makes no supposition of the existence of god, ANY god and deals only with what can be objectively (and tangibly) examined. Without the belief that there is a god, creationism can not exist. I was educated in a faith-based school system. We learned about evolution in science and the idea that god created the world in 7 days in religion class. No one actually believed in the scientific accuracy of any of the assertions (stories) made in my religion classes.
Anyone who advocates the teaching of creationism in public schools is advocating the teaching of RELIGION in public schools. This is unconstitutional and unconscionable…Enough already…
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
“As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.”
Funny how can science prove that something was made from nothing? There is no way. I believe in evolution, I believe somewhat in the big bang, I believe heavily in science, BUT to sit there and say science is based on fact is nonsense. Science is based on speculation. PERIOD! Some speculations can be proven some can not. Sciencetists “proved” the dinosaurs became extinct b/c of a meteor, no wait then it was “proved” it was a super volcano, no wat then it was “proved”…..
…those damned volcanoes…..
If science were based purely on speculation, then how is it we can make accurate predictions with it on a constant basis? How is it that we can use it for practical means such as vaccinations and computers?
You DO know we’ve actually witnessed new species evolve, right? Unless you want to shift the goalposts (like the people who think evolution is Pokemon or crocoducks or something), then you can’t realistically say that science is based only on speculation.
Have you ever worked in any scientific field? Do you not understand what experimentation, peer review, observation and falsifiable tests are?
Your claim that science tries to “prove something came from nothing” is laughable, and is a canard used by people who don’t actually understand it.
Evolution never states that “something came from nothing.” Quite the opposite, really.
The Big Bang theory (a misnomer; it’s actually the Theory of Cosmic Expansion, technically) never states that, either. In fact, if you ask an astronomer what came from before the Big Bang, they’ll tell you:
“We don’t know.”
That’s it. Scientists don’t claim to have all the answers. They’re still looking for them. Creationists, on the other hand, say “we know the truth! Believe us, despite the fact that we don’t have any evidence or anything backing us up besides an old re-re-re-translated and oft-edited book of Bronze Age fables!”
As for the dinosaurs, who ever said we’d proven what drove them to extinction? It’s always been “current hypotheses state…”, not “we know for a fact…”
Whoever told you that scientists had “proven” what killed the dinosaurs multiple incorrect times was lying to you.
“Scientists don’t claim to have all the answers. They’re still looking for them. Creationists, on the other hand, say “we know the truth! Believe us, despite the fact that we don’t have any evidence or anything backing us up besides an old re-re-re-translated and oft-edited book of Bronze Age fables!”
Well said!
Yes, and they ALL spew toxic gases at once, doncha know! Every first Thursday of the fourth Monday of the Blue Moon, but only when it reflects the Venusian cloudcover.
Volcanoes have existed and will continue long after all of the species of intelligent and creative (yet not intelligent or creative enough) apes called humans become extinct, likely in some degree by their own hands. Whether it be through willingly contributing to gases and substances that poison themselves, their food, and their environment or by believing that their action or inaction can have any significant effect on climate change, the human species is blinded by pride and self-importance.
The Kyoto Accord would of of put the US into a new depression… And before you say anything the markets are now: I’m talking about roughly a 50% unemployment rate. The accords ended up stacked up so far against us, it was sad. They were changed from being about the environment to be all about $$$. The Top 3 green-house gas contributes are: China (exempt), India (exempt), and US. We not only have to cripple our industry, but we also have to fork over all the R&D to reduce greenhouse gasses. They allow countries to trade “Credits” for cash, and countries like Russia gets to pollute MORE (due to turmoil in 1992), and has plenty of credits to sell off. Companies find it easier to “Pay off” the fee than to reduce/upgrade.
The ABM was revisited, rehashed, changed, broken, and re-abided by every year since 1967…
Oh, and Laura Bush DID run a stop sign and killed friend of hers. She was 17 at the time.
Well said.
[Citation needed]
google borke?
Here’s an article on credit trading
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=546606
Here’s a bit on the changes to the accord… and how John Kerry even voted against it.
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=227262
ABM? I googled it and found a time line.
Laura? Googled that too… Snopes and USAToday had a bit on it…
There was also a study done not too long ago that indicates (believe it or not) that our farming practices have had an effect on greenhouse gases. Dating back many hundreds (thousands?) of years. Something to do with the way we remove the natural plants and the fertilizers and such. The article I read was quite a while ago so I can’t recall the precise reasons…. In summation: Kill the Farmers! Those bastards are making my sunburns worse!
Don’t forget: kill the volcanoes too!
yep he did all that while following orders from the people ACTUALLY leading the country, meaning people who are running the American economy. DOn’t get me wrong, in my mind Bush is a complete imbecile and he is in fact. He is one of the most unintelligent human beings, which is why he was the perfect candidate for being a president. He was spoon-fed ideas and orders and he never had to, nor did think with his own head.
He is, however, blamed for everything going wrong in the American economy. When truly the ones to blame are the major oil&gas industries all over America. They’re the ones opposing the Kyoto Protocol, they were the ones after the Iraqi oil and so on.
So yeh… from this aspect I completely agree with the chart.
Even if everything he did was because other people told him to (which I seriously doubt), he is still partially to blame. Doing something ignorantly instead of exercising your power to make your own polices (he could have gone public saying he didn’t agree with something, he could have used vetos, he could have not given an ounce of support without knowing all the facts) is just as bad as being the initiator. He is still to blame for many (but not all) of the policies that were initiated during his terms.
We’re not using him as a scapegoat. Well, at least the people I have discussions with blame EVERYONE involved and not just Bush. He actually agreed with the policies and even helped to push some of them (for example, Iraq and the Patriot’s Act). Blame is being placed where blame needs to be placed. If this chart was about anyone else responsible for what happened, then the attention would be on them and not Bush.
What’s with all this Global Warming nonsense!? Did you know China fuglies up the air more than any other place combined?!
Another funny fact.. I think it’s funny that everyone is like, “The polar bears will die because of Globa Warming!” No. They will die because SEALS will die out. Don’t focus on one animal.
Another thing: feeding starving children. Yes. It’s good to feed them. It’s better to teach their parents not to screw like crazy when they don’t even have food for themselves.
Anyway.. topics related to Earth Crisises.
Yes, we all know China is a polluting baddie.
Yes, people should not focus on one animal; most who are seriously involved in conservation do not.
Yes, it would be nice if women were empowered enough in some countries, because when women can make childbirth choices, family size becomes smaller–it’s a fact. (BIG SHOCK to you?) Oh, and Bush’s policies (and those he appointed), hurt world healthcare initiatives, including family planning; couldn’t even mention—gasp!—abortion. Remember the Global Gag Rule?
Agreed, Naoyusimi.
Bulbachu, no one is saying that America is the only country fouling up the air, or the only country that needs to change. Those of us arguing for sustainability, sensibility, and cleaner air are talking about everywhere in the world, not just the United States.
I don’t think “everyone is like, ‘The polar bears will die because of Globa Warming!’” In fact, I’d think that anyone capable of using their brain can understand that it will affect all life, not just one animal.
As for feeding starving children, it is good to feed them, and it is also good to have a choice when it comes to sex and procreation. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that a great many women in many countries have no say in the matter. At all. It isn’t just as simple as dropping a pamphlet in the village that says don’t “screw like crazy when you don’t even have food for yourselves.” That is a shortsighted, ugly statement.
What Kennedy hadn’t killed someone?
Don’t forget “decider.”
And “I’m the commander guy!”
I think I have an idea for a new superhero
Commander Guy with his super power of FAILURE
You forgot cheerleader.
So true…
I’m surprised this is only at 28 comments right now.
No bar for his current job? Brush clearer?
Isn’t that what he spent about half his presidency doing anyhow? Seems like all the pics of him when he was pres. were either in the oval office or on the ranch in Texas, or on Air Force One going to or from Crawford…
you forgot destroyer of the us´s economy and dignity.
Dignity, maybe, but the economy’s first and second quarters of recession were during Clinton’s term.
The US being in a deficit that was over 3 trillion dollars a few years ago is mainly because of the money spent on the war on terror that could have been spent on helping fix the problems within our country. The government documents reporting on our nation’s fiscal matters increasingly became more invovled since Bush took office and since I am not an economist, I do not understand them. I found that the deficit lowered to around $200 billion, but that is still a very large deficit.
According to the government’s publication of the nation’s budget and previous economic situations in 2002 (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/browse.html)(I‘m terrible at html…), the government had a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 and was $125 billion in 1999 (these are determined at the end of the year before, so the surplus in 2000 is before policies could have affected it during 2000). He had created a surplus that we could have worked with to help fix the economy. He also helped lower the unemployment rate. So you can’t blame our problems on Clinton.
Clinton is not responsible for all the money that was a surplus becoming the amount we need to be stable. While Bush is not completely responsible, a lot of his decisions were costly and took up a lot of the money that could have been better spent.
This graph is totally inaccurate! It left out “Clearing Brush.”
“Scapegoat” implies that he’s being blamed for things he didn’t do.
Very good!
Oh I get it, if you feign ignorance and pretend that Bush is actually to blame for everything, then the graph sucks, and makes no sense.
Where did that poster say he was to blame for everything? AngryCat, please wiki the phrase “strawman argument.” Apparently, you are in need of an education of what things mean, just like the OP of this graph.
Bush is responsible for the wrongs he committed in office. The OP of this graph is absolving Bush of alot of his responsibilities.
Please wiki the phrase “read between the lines”. Are you so anally literal that someone has to literally say what they mean for you to figure out what they mean?
Scrape Goat?
Get the fur off so we can BBQ it.
Sometimes people who buy all their meat in the market would not survive a nuke, terrorist incident or “natural disaster”….
Don’t show up at my house, I ain’t sharing my stuff.
LOL Liberals.
lol “republican’ts”
Wow. So true.
“Gas prices are really high, i guess it’s Bush’s fault.”
yep. blame it on someone who wanted to drill for more oil. yeah, a lot of sense.
Gas prices are high because of Bush’s war in the middle east, you retard.
::shrugs:: I dunno. Some would blame it on speculators. Some on greedy oil execs. Some blame it on the fact that new refineries haven’t been built in 30 years. Some on the different, numerous grades of gasoline the refineries have to make & transport, so secondarily, on the varying state laws; some on the different levels of taxes each state has on gas (again, government, therefore, is to blame). Some blame it on a couple of hurricanes. Some (conspiracy theorists) blame it on our Saudi ass-kissing . . . or something like that.
I’m not sure, myself. I just notice that the price of gas seems to go up in ADVANCE of actual demand. It went up before, in PREPARATION for supply issues that didn’t materialize. It dropped an amazing amount AFTER the price squeeze was hurting the American public so badly that consumption DID drop . . . yet it dropped nearly to a level the oil companies have said they couldn’t afford anymore, to way below pre-Katrina levels. But the huge drop did seem to give the economy a bit of a boost. Aww, maybe they’re altruistic after all . . .
Is that not the job of any president? Leader of the freeworld, ha, national scapegoat is more like it. I’ve been saying that one since WELL before the election. One side is always not going to be happy with the swiftness of change that is occurring. That’s the beautiful thing about a two party system.
Shouldn’t the red part read “Warmonger.”
Wanna know why I love this graph? It’s so very topical and original. I’m glad people do things like this, it makes me giggle so.
“LOL wat u mean ‘buck stopz heer?’”
IMO, he was crap both terms. Congress was crap during the Bush years. Obama sucks too, and Congress is worse now than in Bush’s two terms. So basically, D.C. sucks and has sucked for a long time. Maybe I just can’t stand politicians……
Well, people should know modern politicians lie
Refreshing graph is refreshing! WIN!
george W Bush was a great president, the slander campaign that was weileded agnest him coupled with the factr that he was a bit inarticulate, caused him to aquire a illdiserved reputation.
Why is it that the person who supports bush seems to do so only because they are republican… and they type the way Bush speaks?
OMG!!! It’s Bush trying to make a comeback and he’s starting on Graphjam!
How was he a great president?
I can hardly believe that you speak English.
“weileded agnest him coupled with the factr that he was a bit inarticulate”
I love that part.
[citation needed]
See, Bush already spent us into the ground, then prevented us from paying back OURSELVES by cutting taxes, virtually guaranteeing we’re going to be trying to pay ourselves back for DECADES–and due to all the borrowing from China, just to keep functioning–well, we’re in deep, deep S&(T if they call in their markers.
People should be tarring, feathering, and running Bush the latter out of the country, with torches & pitchforks . . . but too many are apathetic, clueless, complacent, or spoon-fed doublespeak, in which the sky is green and white is black.
Very mature. “TARRED AND FEATHERED.” There was no need for that. Besides, people are going to be saying that about Obama once he gets out of office (odds are, likely, they’re already saying that).
So far, Obama’s given me NO reason to trust him. He’s gone back on everything he promised during his campaign, he’s spent more money than all the other presidents combined, he receives support from illegal immigrants (let alone a racist preacher), he’s sending money to China so they can impose abortions among its citizens, and he supports a quasi-racist judge for the Supreme Court. And yet, the majority of ignoramuses who voted for him still believe he’s leading us to success.
I don’t think he’s helping our country, and everyone who says he’s a “savior” are in for a rude awakening.
The people who left comments on this page contrary to my political position are MORONS!!!!! LOLOLOLOL how silly and ridiculous your arguments are to me!!! They are all fallacies based on these uncited statistics:
100% of my noxious emissions are correct!
So, are you Pro or Anti volcano?
I’m still anti-farmer. The volcanoes can help build some more landmass for us before I try to destroy them. I need more solid ground for my stem cell research and development team consisting of cloned “missing links” to work on my sinister plot to destabilize the U.S. by building a satellite in Soviet Russia using Japanese technology to launch German Islamic converts working for Osama from space to kill you all with biological weapons…. Also, illegal immigrants fund my work with all the high paying jobs they steal from “real” Americans. IE: Hotel Maid, Janitor, and Lawn Mowing.
(If you can’t figure out the point of this statement… its just that much funnier for me.)
OMG!
It’s Dr. Evil
(& Mr. Bigglesworth)
Don’t forget picking fruit! Average annual salary there: $192,000. And not one red-blooded American left doing it because all the illegal immigrants stole the jobs right out from under us!
True story!!
Go ahead and be a Republican… but don’t pretend that George was a great (or even good) president. He was a willfully ignorant, greedy little rich kid who was on vacation too often to be bothered to run a country.
That’s all true but he’s not at fault for the coming of Satan (which many people say he is).
Actually, he could have probably intervened and had Sarah Palin removed from the Republican election campaign…
Zing!
well, there’s been worse presidents… andrew johnson and richard nixon are two examples…
He’s responsible for a boatload of problems, possibly the demise of the entire country. So he’s not a scapegoat, because he was personally responsible for screwing so many things up.
If he’s responsible for a boatload of problems, and possibly the demise of the entire country, then please explain to me how the past four months’ worth of Obama’s rampant spending has equated to more than twice what was spent on the war in Iraq? If anything, Obama turning GM into Government Motors is the beginning of the end for this country. Communism Fail. (And before you say it’s not Communism, every taxpayer has a non-voting set of shares in GM now. Meaning every taxpayer now owns part of GM. Meaning it’s owned by the people. Meaning it’s communist. Suhweet! Chè wins! Fatality!)
Um… That would be a Communism Win. I suppose if you are anti-Communist then it is a Fail for you. In that case, I suggest you stop being such a sore loser and come join the side of the collective good.
Yes, it certainly would be a Communism Win if you’re a Communist, but it didn’t work for the USSR, I doubt it will work for the USA, either.
History Fail. USSR was more totalitarian than anything else. Some say their economic system worked fine, until they way overextended themselves with a war in Afghanistan . . . hmmm . . . overextended themselves with a war . . . wait a minute, that sounds familiar. Maybe another country that loaned them huge amounts will call in their marker. Hmmm. That would be bad if they were reeling from overspending on foreign wars—er, I mean, “a war”–trying to get back on their feet. Maybe that’s what happened.
It would be bad if China called in their markers on the U.S., now, wouldn’t it?
You mean an economic system that gets stagnant b/c there is no need to excel atone’s job. Whether you’re flipping burgers at McDonalds or desigining Ballistic missles you get paid the same. Yeah, that’ll definitely work wonders. Why is it the US has most advanced Medical Research and most advanced weaponary, it’s called free market. If there’s no chance of advancement, no chance of pay raise, no chance of anything but the same thing time and time again, WHY would I want to excel? There’s no benefit for me or my family in it. Sorry give me greed and capitalism over Socialism or communism. Yeah I am selifsh and greedy, but I bet I give more to charity than any liberal.
Now I like you a lot, PB
Hits the nail with the hammer FTW.
“I bet I give more to charity than any liberal”
Really, now?
I give all of my spare income to charities every other month. That leaves me with no extra cash after bills & groceries, but it does mean that Planned Parenthood, Child Welfare and other such organizations get the money they need.
I also volunteer regularly. Do you?
I also don’t generalize “liberals” and “conservatives” the way you do. Relying on stereotypes is for the weak-minded and willfully ignorant.
Seriously, why can’t people on both sides stop with the insults and grow up?
“eed to excel atone’s job. Whether you’re flipping burgers at McDonalds or desigining Ballistic missles you get paid the same. Yeah, that’ll definitely work wonders. Why is it the US has most advanced Medical Research and most advanced weaponary, it’s called free market. If there’s no chance of advancement, no chance of pay raise, no chance of anything but the same thing time and time again, WHY would I want to excel? There’s no benefit for me or my family in it. Sorry give me greed and capitalism over Socialism or communism. Yeah I am selifsh and greedy, but I bet I give more to charity than any liberal.”
Again with the HISTORY FAIL. Were you born post-1989, or what?
The USSR was our most formidable opponent on the planet. It didn’t accomplish that using a free market. Yet, there we were, two superpowers (that’s what they called ‘em back then), each ready to bring the earth to the brink of destruction. They were in the space race with the US–their technology rivaled ours. Medical advances? Guess who invented external fixators, used for fixing broken bones (rather than casts)? Guess who invented corrective laser eye surgery? But all that aside, you don’t have to convince me their economic system was in any way better than ours–that was not my point. So knock down the strawman all you want.
Pure capitalism, unchecked, is like moving back to the Bronze Age (BTW, this country has never experienced such an economic system): those with strength bully the weak, use them to advance, and devil-take-the-hindmost. No, we’ve ALWAYS had checks and laws in place to restrict the market in some way. The amount of restriction is what determines one’s placement on the politico-economic spectrum.
Which, I’m sure you know. Anyway, I (believe) my original point was that the economic system in place in the USSR is not what brought it down–but it’s popularly believed to be true. Oh, and nor did Ronnie Ray-Gun.
Yeah, you know, Peanut Butter: How can you say you’re selfish and greedy and then say you give more to charity than any liberal? Was the first half what someone is supposedly accusing you of, or is it an admission? If the latter, you know you’re contradicting the first half of the sentence, right?
And how can you say something like you give more to charity than “any liberal”? How the hell can you possibly know anything like that? What an argument that is . . . it’s what I call, “WCOTI”: Wild Claims On The Internet. Worth their weight in dog feces, is what they are . . .
I should have said, “contradicting the second half of the sentence.”
Second half.
Carry on.
WCOTI: I’m George Soros. I gave 500 trillion dollars to various charities last year. You gave more than I did, huh?
(See? Difficult to refute, but extremely lame, anyway.)
I totally understand what Peanut Butter is saying in the last sentence.
If it were me, I would have worded it:
Yeah I am selifsh and greedy, but I bet I give more to charity than most.
I believe the point (and Ayn Rand’s point) is that we should be able to keep what we earn. We owe it to no one. We have the freedom to contribute to the charities of our choice, and it should not be taken from us to support social causes.
For me greedy is: the more that I can earn, the more that can go to my causes.
Yes, I volunteer, and I’m closer to Libertarian than anything else.
I understand, too, but it’s still WCOTI, intended to justify the idea of being “greedy”. Greed has a far different meaning than you’re trying to attribute, above; however, I understand your point–and Ayn Rand’s–not that I agree with it. But we’re not going to solve that here; the question of how much should one be able to keep and how much of it should be taken in taxes for the good of society is debated all the time. This started because Eddie dribbled: “. . . it didn’t work for the USSR, I doubt it will work for the USA, either.” The first part of the statement is a common misconception and the second part is a wild untruth. I try to correct misconceptions and outright lies whenever I’m presented with them.
China also has a different society as a whole. Because of the number of people in the nation, personal worth is left in the dust in favor of a collective mentality. Sorry, I’d rather keep my individuality. kthxbai.
Not like it matters. I’m going to rule it all in a few years anyway.
you have to spend money to make money, right? and Obama is spending money trying to fix the nation, while Bush was essentially burning money and dumping americans into a spike pit called iraq
“you have to spend money to make money” just because that applies for one thing doesnt make it true for another. Capitalism will cause the market to correct itself. It may seem bad if we lose a major business, but long term a better, more worthy business will take its place, with absolutely no government intervention. It is communism (well actualy fascism, but similar enough)
“Capitalism will cause the market to correct itself.”
That old canard? Please, that’s been found false time and time again. Hoover & his advisors thought the market would “correct itself”, too!
I love how people say that Bush didn’t do anything… He COULDN’T have done anything! Look at the liberal congress! They vetoed every change he wanted to make..
Hmm….was that the Liberal congress made of Republicans?
Ya know, Pylon, if you’re going to make clever and accurate observations… I may want to be your friend
“Bush might have not been our best president”
Sorry…you must be using “best” in a way that no one has heard before.
I’m not a fan of the guy, granted, but I can’t believe ANYONE would say he’s the best. Not even his mom.
I disagree with most of what bush did, that being said;
The fact that what bush supposedly did so horribly wrong still hasnt been corrected is all the more evidence that he wasnt the entire root cause, and the people who used him as a scapegoat are still cauing problems.
You people need to put more thought into something before going off on a rant, dont be so polarised either.
Scapegoat for the policies of Cheney and Rove, yes.
As long as we all agree that he was only 20% of a president…
Also… pie chart would have been better. Perhaps whoever made this was a victim of the “no child left behind” education plan?
I don’t get it. What’s the difference between the two bars again?
And yet he got more done than Obama has and ever will.
THE RUSSIANS are laughing at us saying we are too communistic,
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
You don’t know what Obama will do.
And Obama’s done more in his first few months of office than Bush did in the same amount of time.
I don’t think everything is Bush’s fault, and I don’t think Obama is a godsend. But I really wish fanboys on both sides would stop humping their political party’s leg long enough to actually look at the facts.
I think the villification of Bush is way way way over the top in comparison to some other presidents we’ve had.
It’s also amazing that many of the things peole list as wins for Obama in his first 5 months I think have and will do more damage to our nation than perhaps all the previous presidents put together. You libs may hate me now but mark words when you check you net pay in a few months when his health care disaster gets passed.
if the average person wants socialism its probably because there a lazy bastard who isint getting paid in the first place D:
problem at fault
—————————
economy Bush
deficit Bush
iraq Bush
afghanistan Bush
wall street Bush and Clinton
xe Bush
halliburton Bush
Now one more time, tell me which problems Obama is responsible for creating?
And tell me what you would have done to fix each problem within 5 months.
Don’t be shy, step up and fix these issues your man created!!!
You know dear, there is more than one person responsible for the economy, the war etc. Thats kind of the point of the graph. You know the one you just commented on?
The sentiment of the graph is very true. Regardless of your stance on issues, it is undeniable that:
Bush was not entirely responsible for anything good or bad.
America voted him in office twice so the majority of the nation ratified and is responsible for his actions as president.
Obama is president now so there is NO POINT in continuing to mock and “Lol” him. It only is an embarrassment to websites like this that I usually find witty and accurate
The recession that started before Obama was even sworn in? Oh yea, totally Obama’s fault. [/sarcasm]
Before you drone on with your talking points for Obama go ask the gay community what they think of him now. Oh I think they’re organizing a big protest against him for lying to them. I’m glad they are finally waking up to this sham of a president. And it only too 5 months!
“to this sham of a president. And it only too 5 months!”
That’s a pretty wide-open accusation, there. Care to share exactly how he’s a “sham”? At least Bush had 8 years to EFF it up and not fix it . . . you give the new guy 5 months? How about letting the freakin’ eggs hatch? You’re not counting chickens, you’re doing a post-mortem on the little chicks . . . why don’t we find out how the eggs are doing, first, huh?
Wow, you are sooo intelligent and articulate. Dude, you’re trying to defend the WORST president in history and deflect his failings onto Obama. I smell your white privilege through the damn screen.
Scapegoating!? George Bush?! Thanks for that. I haven’t laughed that hard in a long, long time.
oh, silly me! and I thought he was a terrorist. nooo, really. . . duh.
To whoever made this chart,
EPIC WIN
Really enjoyed the comments, opinions and contradictions. Do most/all of you comment on this website all the time? I’d enjoy reading more and possibly entering the fray!
Thank you for this graph.
I like how the people that say “Give Obama a chance” are the same people that never gave Bush a chance. Ignorant.
No, “that guy” I am afraid that they are not the same people.
Not everyone is a bitter, frustrated, tight-assed Republican.
epic fail