Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

So, are you saying that all that man made pollution, not just CO², is a good thing? You can't possible by that misguided, can you?

Or, do you subscribe to the Sara Palin phylosophy of, "Pump, baby Pump"!

I can get you into the Tea Party if those are your thoughts.

Maybe a slight over reaction on my part.

However, if one looks back over the last few million years, one will see many climatic variations from hot to cold and back again. These run at loosely 10,000 year cycles.

While we very well may be seeing an upward heating trend caused by forces beyond our control, to say that human emissions don't have an effect is not logical. Indeed to say, as some radicals have, that the earth is not warming at all is folly.

As I've said before, the earth will exist long after we humans have rendered it uninhabitable. We've got a good start on it already. Pump, baby, pump!

That is the thing that I feel needs to be honestly addressed; what portion of the Earth's changes are anthropogenic?

There are too many entities with a stake in that answer to get an honest answer. Just follow the money and you can see what I mean.

It is easy to see how a research establishment will sleep with the devil when the directors of those institutions realize that the funding they are about to receive keeps that institution alive and able to continue research in other areas. It's just the nature of the business.

So then, the question becomes what can be done to mitigate mankind's poisoning of the planet so that we can at least survive until the next mega-ice age, or perhaps Yellowstone.

Maybe by then we'll be living on the moon.

"or at least very little at this time if the anthropogenic portion of the problem is a small percentage".

Granted, if the only problem we have is "global warming". I think something else may kill us all first. I'm investing in water purification, myself.

Drill, baby, drill!

Or we may just wipe ourselves out by some other mechanism entirely (i.e. GMO foods resulting in super-bugs which we can't get rid of).

Right, we keep inventing evermore complex ways to do it.

Where's HAL9000?

or we could wipe ourselves out by "fowling up" the planet.. meaning to cover it with birds.... I think AH meant 'fouling up'.

:-)

Yes, you are correct. Damn new spell checker rides again.

s'allright.. I still gave you a ga.

"As engineers we should always try to first understand the problem before meeting out the solution."

That's a valid approach to simple problems like test and homework exercises. But real world problems are often highly complex and understanding them comes in stages. Thus solutions must also come in stages. To do nothing in the face of obvious climate change and retreat into a simple "black and white" belief system is the wrong path.

At this point the guiding philosophies ought to be "do no harm" and "strengthen our defenses". To which I might add "avoid long term commitments to waterfront property". .....Ed Weldon

"do no harm" should of course apply to the economy as well. The law of unintended consequences is always in play, but you have to wonder sometimes if the economic devastation these people are wielding is truly unintended.

Good points!

But is CO2 emission control just a random solution? No. There is plenty of science to support it. And there is a good amount of hyperbole regarding the economic effects of that control. I submit that the lethal economic effects would be fairly limited unless you are in the business of coal mining or building related equipment.

Is humanity capable of redirecting some of its productivity away from production and consumption of fossil fuels and toward other rewarding uses via a system of revenue neutral carbon taxes? I believe so and feel that this can be done without wrecking any broad economic entities.

We are not talking a rash "shotgun" approach. A lot of good science and careful analysis is behind proposals to limit carbon emissions. Remember, the environment we are trying to save is the one we touch and feel every day. This is not about some cute little animal off in some distant forest. It's about the air, water, wind and temperatures we live in or may no longer be able to live in as the case might be.

Ed Weldon

Doctors do their best to understand the problem... sure. But here's an analogy:

Doc: I think you have signs of lung damage - a precursor to lung cancer. You should definitely quit smoking.

Patient: Is the damage 100% definitely due to smoking?

Doc: Well, I can't say with 100% certainty.

Patient: Well, then I won't quit until you're sure. There are tobacco industry lobbyists who claim there are studies showing smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Doc: Well this is science, we can never be 100% sure... we just go by the evidence.

Patient: Well - don't waste my time - I'm not changing my lifestyle on your hunch.

Doc: (gives up exasperated)

That is a pretty good analogy, Robert.

However, smoking is something that one can do without (the addiction not withstanding) and does not negatively impact one's life by quitting. In fact the opposite happens.

Where the analogy really breaks down is that the things that cause CO2 pollution are essential to our lifestyle and our economy.

Perhaps a better analogy would be; instead of quitting smoking the doctor recommends not breathing in. It would fix the inhalation of smoke, but the side effect would be worse than the cure.

The problem in the real world is finding ways to reduce the root causes of environmental damages and climate change with the minimal disruption to our standard of living. Both the environment and our economic wellbeing are fragile.

Where the argument gets heated (no pun intended) is first, quantifying the threat and second, determining the urgency of the threat.

Furthermore, where the argument gets clouded is that the whole subject matter has been used as a political football as a means to control humans and accumulate power. The political infection is extensive and intentionally set up so that it is no longer possible to weed out what is truth and what is pretense. We just can't get a trusted answer from the leaders we are supposed to trust.

Now it is the "doctor" that is suspect and it is the "patient" that is exasperated.

But the problem with your response to my argument is that you have obviously bought the lie that smoking is harmful and your life will improve if you quit. Sure, just about every health expert in the world agrees that smoking is harmful, and the vast (vast vast) majority of peer reviewed studies have shown direct correlation between smoking and illness; but surely in the interests of fair and balanced reporting we have to give equal airplay and credence to that small group of researchers who, with or without tobacco industry funding, have produced counter-arguments.

Now, I don't know of a single expert who has claimed breathing is harmful, or that not-breathing is healthy. But of course if even one can be found then (in the interests of fair and balanced reporting) he or she should also be given equal airplay and credence in the world media, and the few million or so health professionals worldwide who claim we do need to breathe can then be revealed as the vile and economy-destroying conspiracy theorists they obviously are.

Incredibly, until I read some of the posts in this thread, I had no idea that every single climate scientist in the world who supported the hypothesis that the 26 gigatonnes of CO2 we send into the atmosphere each year (that's about 3.4% of the total CO2 emitted by all of nature every year, every scrap of which is reabsorbed by nature, so our contribution is a nett annual increase) might indeed be responsible for some amount of climate change was a communist in the pay of some mysterious green alliance. Now that I know that I will certainly stop believing in peer-reviewed science.

Now you are just being absurd.

First, the problem with your analogy is that the proof of anthropogenic climate change and the detriments of smoking are not equal nor related.

You are trying to show that because the science of smoking is well known to be harmful, therefore anthropogenic climate change must also true. That is a flat out fallacy of logic.

You can't prove what you are trying to prove by using an example of something totally unrelated.

I believe we have a better understanding of the amount of CO2 we are contributing to the atmosphere than we have an understanding of what that effect is.

My point has been consistently that we do not have enough understanding of the effect of CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) we anthropogenically introduce to even make a reliable prediction of that effect.

Regardless of the fact of the amounts of CO2 we contribute we can not predict our future. That fact has been established because all of our previous predictions have been shown to be historically false or incorrect or the spectrum of possible scenarios runs from one extreme to the other. Bottom line, we just don't know enough yet.

Robert, it is absolutely senseless to run off in a panic and order the world to shut down as Al Gore is trying to sell us.

A sensible plan is to improve our footprint on this planet, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As our understanding increases on the subject we will be better able to target fixes to the problem both short and long term.

Lastly, until we get the politics out of this we are doomed to paralysis on the subject. Frankly, I just don't know how we will do that.

There is so much that we don't understand. I think it's far too early to be blaming people, when we don't even undertand what this does completely.

This is an interesting read. Although, even with this, it's interesting to note that the authors are conflicted within their own heads. They point out sudden and dramatic climate shifts, (including warming), over the the last 130,000 years that occured without human input, and summarize this paper insisting that the current changes are man made.

So how are we supposed to figure out the truth????

These guys provide solid scientific evidence, (ice core sample data), to prove past warming events, and then arbitrarily blame humans for the current cycle, with nothing to back it up. I don't get it.

"These guys provide solid scientific evidence, (ice core sample data), to prove past warming events, and then arbitrarily blame humans for the current cycle, with nothing to back it up. I don't get it."

Generally people writing on matters of science do not cite references to science that is already accepted as fact (by an overwhelming number of peer reviews of many published papers). For this author to include a bibliography of references to support his position, as is the case for most formal published scientific papers or credible books, he would have had to add perhaps as many pages as the original paper.

If you have waded through these types of papers (in my case fairly blindly) you can appreciate why the writers of important works of this type will often try to distill their findings into something more readable for the layperson leaving out the footnotes, bibliography and endless data and computations.

If you really want to get the skinny on the validity of the writer's position go dig up the original paper(s) and scan through the peer reviews looking for critical comments. This is not always easy since publishers tend not to give these things away for free. And not all of us have ready access to the major university libraries where copies are available.

Ed Weldon

If there is credible scientific evidence that shows that human activity is directly related to the current climate shift...................why not make it easy to find? It sure would put a halt to a bunch of bickering.

There is evidence of increased CO2 levels that can be attributed to humans.

There is evidence that we are indeed in the midst of a climate shift................of which there have been many throughout history.

There is an amazingly giant hole in information that shows that humans are directly responsible for the current climate shift. That's where the problem lies.

Al Gore has done an incredible injustice to the actual science by crowning himself the poster boy of global warming, and then seeking to enhance his personal wealth through carbon trading schemes. He should be serving time with Bernie Madoff. Life in prison.

If I eat a cheeseburger and realize the next morning that I have an ingrown toenail, I can't automatically reach the conclusion that cheeseburgers cause ingrown toenails. That would make no sense. And yet this is exactly what we're seeing with climate change science. 1)There is more CO2 in the air due to human activity. 2)We are experiencing a climate shift....................................they must be related.

My question is..........................WHY?

I'm sorry. I don't believe the answer is buried in a major university library. In fact, I don't think there is an answer at this point.

"There is an amazingly giant hole in information that shows that humans are directly responsible for the current climate shift..... " -- Kramarat

What you call a giant hole is what others call "atmospheric sciences".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_sciences

It's an immense subject and like any other science the knowledge of it is not complete. Like other complex subjects (medical science is an example) very bright people endure long educations and spend entire careers mastering pieces of it. When these folks look at real evidence (good enough to wither the brutal peer review process) of both climate change and human contributions and let their perceptions be guided by their own knowledge of the rest of the science their majority agrees that humans are partly responsible for the climate change.

If you do not want to trust these people with their conclusions that's your choice. You might as well distrust doctors and civil engineers and a host of other professions. Because they are all influenced by the same human traits and frailties. But then who are you going to trust? Your Aunt Mathilda? Some fellow who tells you a nicer story followed by "Contributions are greatly appreciated." (so I can buy groceries)? Your own perceptions that perhaps come up a bit short in the critical skills and knowledge needed to the data in your viewfield (let alone the greater expanse and accuracy of scientifically gathered data).

As to the cheeseburger/toenail analogy .... that's one of the first filters any credible scientific conclusion must pass through. I do not fear that at the legitimate scientific analysis level of climate change research. But all too often people will trot out such anecdotes to support a position biased toward some personal gain or objective.

There have been plenty of books written on the subject. They are invariably distillations of data and conclusions into a form people will read and understand. In a legal sense they are not evidence. Only the raw data accompanied by all the details of how it was gathered and analyzed is evidence. We usually leave it to the trained legitimate researchers to deal with that.

Maybe there is a central repository available to the general public of all the major papers on this subject. I'm sure that is the case with government sponsored research like what NASA does. Maybe the rest also. I'm a layman here and have not gone looking for it. Nor do I have the skills to well interpret what I'd find. The little experience this mechanical engineer with paper reading in this field leaves me dazzled and mystified even by the abstracts and conclusions of the papers let alone the bodies of the papers.

What I have learned from 42 years of a mechanical engineering career is that you must trust the work of scientists and mathematicians whose prior work you use in your everyday efforts. To be otherwise would quickly make it impossible to work at a professional level because in your heart you would not trust the validity of the engineering work you produce. Further you would quickly lose the confidence of your professional peers if you exposed such distrust within yourself. Engineers who have been through a university engineering or science curriculum are acutely sensitive to evidence that a peer or anyone else for that matter has a belief system based on supposedly scientific information that is not valid. You've seen what happens when someone on CR-4 promotes some over unity scheme or violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I think the same type of culture exists in all branches of science including atmospheric sciences.

You can call that a conspiracy. I suppose it is a conspiracy of sorts. A conspiracy of dedication to provable truths is what I'd call it. You will find better and more complete definitions than that. That's what science is all about.

Ed Weldon

Ed,

Please provide me a link that proves:

A) CO2 causes warming.

B) Humans are responsible for the current climate shift.

Show me, and I will be shouting in the streets.

I'm not really confused about science.

I am confused though. Call me crazy, but I'd at least like to see something that indicates that taxing CO2 and destroying our economy is going to ease global climate change. I'm not comfortable with just trying it to see what happens.

Unlike thermodynamics, when science leads to laws being passed that impact my wallet and my life, I'd like to see a little more than, "This is our best hypothesis."

Taxing CO2 won't ruin the economy, it will probably be a benefit, creating jobs

it will change the winners & losers

increasing the cost of energy will benefit local & regional manufacturing

Just my opinion.

I don't think incomplete science and hypotheses should drive policy decisions within the government. I'm also not comfortable with the government determining who the winners and losers are.

Government doesn't determine the winners, or losers. Big business, who owns congress, does that.

Government always has & always will determine who the winners & losers are, your comfort level can be expressed at the ballot box & a few other ways

the moderate majority needs to speak with one more unified voice & stop letting the extremists divert attention from all the hard work that needs to be done

increasing efficiency of all things, using tried & true methods

failure analysis

more informed opinion

less sound byte

You wrote, "increasing the cost of energy will benefit local & regional manufacturing"

Yes, increasing my cost of operation is just what I need. Or did I miss something?

no idea?

things are going to change, energy is going to cost more [even without a carbon tax]

India & China are going to continue raise their standard of living which takes energy

more consumers, chasing their share of a pie, an energy pie that can't expand fast enough

So, explain why and how paying more for my electricity will benefit my company and employees?

How will a higher cost of operation benefit my customers?

AH -- Depends on your business. Most businesses strive to maintain their margins. If your business model is characterized by an inelastic demand you are fairly free to raise your prices commensurate with the increased price of materials PROVIDING all your competitors have to pay the same prices for their materials (in this case energy).

The net result is that your profits increase inasmuch as your fixed costs remain the same over small increments of increase. But watch out for the step functions in your overhead costs. An example of this is if the increase in energy cost exhausts your current supply of working capital and you have to go out into the credit marketplace for new working capital at higher interest rates.

Your customers face the same situation with the elasticity of their markets relative to demand.

Ed Weldon

It doesn't benefit my customers to pay more for their needs any more than it benefits you or me to pay more for food.

My business model is to provide the best solution/product I can at the best price I can and still earn a profit.

it may not have a direct benefit, you could be a loser

depends on what you manufacture, where your competitors are located & how much shipping adds to your costs

increasing the cost of your electricity will probably cause you to search for way to use less electricity, you never know what you may learn along the way

If I can save money using less electricity why wouldn't I do that now?

You might remember what happened when business saw their cost of operations go up; they laid off employees in droves (explains our 9.1% unemployment rate).

Essentially, businesses did more with less. What was the cost of that?

Despite all the anti-capitalistic rhetoric, business do not like to lay off employees. Companies have invested time and money to train people to work for them. They are valuable resources and "family".

Nothing causes managers and executives to lose more sleep than having to let people go. It's horrible to see people's lives turned upside down and have to go home to their families to explain they have no job now.

For all of us, when unemployment goes up, so do our woes.

While it may be true that every cloud has its silver lining, most of the time that silver is far outweighed by the downside.

deregulating the banks & other financial institutions, caused the panic which hobbled the economy.

rising demand & 2 wars of aggression [maybe the odd hurricane & oil spill] caused the spike in energy prices

despite all your free market rhetoric

we need to quit letting the mega corps outsource their profits, they need to pay their fair share of the up keep of the infrastructure, that makes one of the largest consumer markets in the world possible

I note that you want to complain about the impact of energy prices on your business, without going into any sort of detail, so there is no way to have any context to the larger market segment of which you are a part. who know the state of the buggy whip market...

your generalizations about the larger economy are equally vague as my own

The mega companies account for a small percentage of the employment sector. At least directly. It depends on what you define mega to be.

52% of those employed work for companies of 500 employees or less. 66% work for firms that are 5,000 employees or less.

We have been down this road before on CR4 and the current recession cycle primary cause has its roots in government social engineering. I really don't care whether it was paved with good intentions or not.

Outsourcing is not the cause or reason for the 9.1 % unemployment rate. It's actually 16.2% according to Sunday's Associated Press release.

But what reasons drive companies to outsource? It is the cost of doing business (labor, taxes, and other costs of operation).

There is just no reason to believe that raising operation costs on business will improve the outsourcing issue any more than legislating businesses to hire more employees will.

I contend that just the opposite will happen.

I do not want to complain and I am not. I am just stating that your premiss that raising energy rates for business is good for business is deeply flawed, in my opinion.

However, if you have convincing evidence to the contrary I would be happy to join you in adding an extra check to our respective energy companies each month and look forward to that return on investment.

the lowest tax rates in decades, coupled with 30+ years of trickle down economics have brought us to this place

sorry no pity for the oil companies, profits are up, even if the margins are small [10% or more]

there is no reason to believe, more handouts for the energy companies will help

political theater by the tea party have further damaged business confidence

you would have us join the developing world , where there are no protections

CR4 ADMIN: Modified Post

Vulgar/Rude/Improper Behavior: This post was modified because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Garthh,

You have exposed yourself as an ideologue and in the process destroyed your credibility by taking cheap shots.

Your dishonest stereotyping of millions of patriotic Americans and use of sarcasm in an attempt to discredit them is an indication that you would compromise your ethics to silence those people that do not share your philosophy.

Your act of name calling with derogatory sexual connotations may be a projection that such an activity secretly appeals to you but would be too embarrassing for you to admit.

So you've drunk the koolaid then?

on the surface TP [did anyone think at all about marketing] should be my dream come true. A somewhat viable 3rd party, I'm an independent & vote accordingly

the whole "back to the constitution" thing is a diversion

we are following the constitution,

don't like it roll up your sleeves build a consensus, change it

interesting that the TP solution involves special friends [blueribbon commitee] making unilateral decisions...

if you don't like what I have to say, mark it off topic, unsubscribe, find another forum, the choice is yours

funny you describe me as ideologue for noticing that the tea party movement is trying subvert the constitution

I await your next personal attack

CR4 ADMIN: Modified Post

Vulgar/Rude/Improper Behavior: This post was modified because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

I think you're giving the Tea Party far too much credit for the power that you imagine them having.

They are not going to become a viable third party for a long time............if ever. They sound big and powerful, but at this point, it's just a bunch of disconnected, non-organized, individual groups, spread across the US.

Some prudent, (fiscal and regulatory), decisions out of Washington would cause them to vaporize quickly.

In the meantime, any group(s) of people that are putting pressure on our corrupt political machine to stop screwing us is a good thing in my opinion.

I'm not a member, but I sure don't resent having them around.

I second that opinion.

The Tea Party has, if nothing else, raised the awareness of the problems in Washington and our state and local politics.

It has been a vehicle to get people involved in the political arena.

I think that it is the awakening and awareness that has generated all the consternation in the Democratic party and its followers. To that end the Tea Party has become the ideal straw man for attacks.

The intensity and frequency of those attacks tells us that the Democratic party sees this political awakening as a real and significant threat and they are right!

The Tea Party is like a ghost. It represents a set of tangible ideas, but does not have any solid form. So it makes for a difficult (if not impossible) target to hit. Ironically, I think the Tea Party has more power in this form than if they were to become a legitimate third-party in themselves.

The best result than can come out of this is a significant reform of both the Democratic and the Republican parties.

However, I would contend that the Democratic party has much further to go.

America needs both parties and I think people realize that. But like an alcoholic, I think neither has hit bottom yet, so the turn around is not likely to happen for some time.

Until then we just have to get used to the smell of sewage.

to counteract the brinksmanship of the TP I'm joining the Donner Party

the "debt crisis" is an example of a small group holding a process hostage, to the detriment of our credit rating & the economy

TP could also stand for Tipping Point & not in a good way

Why wasn't it called Brinksmanship when the Democrats were dointg this.

Under what part of the Constitution are the Democrats entitled to any and everything they want. Thats exactly the sort of thing that got us into the current mess. No checks and no balances for two straight years.

Last I heard, Republicans are the majority in the house. We had coequal brances of government, the President wasnt a King....and who appointed Harry Reid queen of the country anyway? He acts like he is.

We all know some in the the democrat party believe Obama is the Messiah. But constitutionally the office of president is not that of Emporor, King, Dictator, etc.

The Debt "crisis" is a fabrication of the Democrats....and only an issue due to complete and utter reckless spending since Obama took office that has quadrupled the national debt in a very short time.

You are right a "small group" is holding the process hostage....and that small group are the liberals. They aren't a majority in this country.

Odd that the liberals don't call it "taking a process hostage" when it was them "obstructing" it....

The process is you have to negotiate to get over 50% of the vote....so exactly when did that cease being how things were done. Perhaps since Obama took office?

When did the constitution change to allow governing by proclamation?

The true party causing problems are the democrats that are bent and determined to bankrupt the country so they can use that as an excuse to declare matial law...and throw out the constitution, Bill of rights and everything else to set up a socialist dictatorship so they can take everyones property and dole it out to the party members.

Like happened in the old USSR.

Bon Appétit.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the misguided notion that our "debt crises" and subsequent lowering of our credit rating was due to our debt............and inability to get it under control.

Now I get it.

our credit rating was lowered along with the subsequent drop in the stock markets from the uncertainty over the present political processes, government securities increased in value

the lot of em should sit down shut up & get back to work

And the fact they were so far in Debt they couldn't pay their bills and Prince Harry refused to allow a Bill passed by the House to cut spending to even see a vote had nothing to do with it?

Lets see what happens to YOUR credit score if you did that as an individual.

Its about politics all right....Obama thinks he is a King and can spend as much as he feels like spending....and the fact is he isn't.

The Bush economy was doing FAR better when he left office. And the reckless spending under Obama with two years of damn the torpedos full speed ahead on seeing how much they can spend how fast before he either gets voted out or a civil war starts.

Besides.....Obama started this because he STILL blames Bush for everything he has done himself the last nearly 3 years. THe day he was sworn in....this became HIS problem....and Obama has YET to admit any responsibility for the repeated wrong choices he has made.

Bush is retired....He's isn't running a shaddow goverment, its on Obamas watch...thus its Obamas fault.

And his much advertised speech last night was nothing but a campaign speech with 34 minutes of posturing and blowviating....with NOTHING new that hasn't already been tried and failed by him.

Isn't the classic definition of insanity being..... Trying something over and over again....expecting different results?

As opposed to Garthhs comments this is in response to?

Dude, I'm not mad. I'm just saying that mission control will shut down the thread if we get out of hand.

I've personally been the driving force behind several thread closures.

I'm just sayin'

The Bush economy was doing FAR better when he left office. And the reckless spending under Obama with two years of damn the torpedos full speed ahead on seeing how much they can spend how fast before he either gets voted out or a civil war starts.
part of the increase in debt is from 2 wars, which were off the budget, until the last couple of years...
some of your comments are inflammatory, notice Ed & Kram don't even bother to yell at me [they know it is pointless], admin won't shut the thread down unless someone starts pushing the report button

.... its not reality, but if you find it comforting to believe it...go for it.

so the wars were free then?

wait I remember the Vice President promised the oil was going to pay for it all

THe Obama administration since BEFORE the election was subverting the Constitution...from the multitude of unelected Czars....to ACORN....to OBAMACARE, which never even had a vote.

One violation after another.

Funny since the Tea Party isn't in power...the Tea Party can't be violating the constitution...the fact you completely ignore what the Democrats actually have done to focus on and pick on the Tea Party who are against big government and the sort of things YOU are accusing them of. That doesn't reak of Independent and particularly not of a Libertarian.

They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Vladimir Lenin is surely smiling from his grave over the statements of our friend Smoothy. Not that I have any agreement with Lenin's objectives. But his tactics such as the continual repetition of questionable "truths" certainly worked. ........ Ed Weldon

There is nothing in my belief structure or life...that Lenin would smile about.

I'm neither a Democrat nor a socialist.

What would be a correct statement is John F Kennedy would be spinning in his grave if he saw the Democrat party of today.

Garthh,

Perhaps you should re-read my post. I called you an ideologue for being untruthful and calling people nasty names. And you accuse me of personal attacks?

We are all anonymous

they are called Usernames

So what is your REAL registered username.....you aren't being cute, why aren't you using it to post?

I could post anonymously too, but I'm adult enough like most others here to use my real registered username. Not hide behind the username of Anonymous Poster #x to make swipes at others where only site admins and moderators know who you are.

is TP better?

You can look up what that means too, still gets the point across

do you have a point?

you feel free to toss about all manner of ad honimum attacks & slurs, am I supposed to be held to a higher standard?

you might take up the unbelievably bad choice in names with the TP leadership

oh I forgot there are no leaders, no plan, beyond vague grumblings about the constitution [breaking the government isn't a plan]

So I finally got my point across. Didn't like It much I see, now you can see where I was coming from...so NOW can we finally put an end to that?

Thank you, now we can debate....without hurling slurs...

However with that said....TP is fine...it does not have the vulgar meaning of the term I took exception to you had been using.

Well, first off....look at the democrat leadership....Harry Ried ( unilaterally refuses a vote on any bill passed HE personally doesn't like...which is NOT in his power to do....Nancy Pelosi....well, her excesses as house leader are infamous. And Obama.....the man who thinks if you repeat a mistake enough times its somehow going to stop being a mistake.... Thats a real bunch of winners there.....and they are actually part of a real Political party.....not a movement.

And incidently.....the Tea Party....is a movement...not an actual Political party you seem to believe. And that point alone proves every comment you made about them as being inaccurate. They aren't tied to the republican party...or any party....they align with the party that best matches what they believe in....it just so happens the Republicans are the closest to that at the moment. It is possible for that to change.

I always use TP after a movement

extreme republicans are not conservatives

as to debate, I don't think that's possible

something about an unarmed man...

mm, it's the little things that count

most legislators are guilty of diversion

I think the members here can judge for themselves, the source of the hate on this thread