Search results

Please read through the thread and examine the graphs that I've posted, and posted links to. The first details the breakdown of what expenditures the deficit consists of, and the second link to the CBO details by simply clicking on the expenditure changes, how the deficit projections change...

Huh, and that even after I agreed with Trader666 that affairs are irrelevant. How much do I have to agree to pass the "honest discussion" litmus test?

You're absolutely correct that many Democrats voted for war funding after the troops were in Iraq. However, again, that was not introduced by the Democrats, nor introduced by congress, but by the Republican party. I'm sorry that my credibility is hurt by stating facts, but I'm not surprised.

Not to argue with the respected information source "Wikipedia" but the numbers there are entirely incorrect. Once again, the calculation methods for unemployment in particular changed massively (twice) since Carter. Using the same calculations Bush II easily exceeded Carter's misery index with...

Both parties supported the TARP and automaker bailouts, however as you can see from the graph that I posted previously that was only part of the massive deficit expenditures -- the Republican catastrophe was that the Republicans got everything they asked for -- tax decreases, wars on the other...

Because there's a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit that the Republicans are attempting to pin on them, would be my guess. Naturally the Republicans are claiming this has never happened before, even though this procedure (or very similar) happened in 1999, 2003, 2005 and 2007.

I agree with that -- I believe the public is more forgiving on irrelevant stuff like this than many realize. However, I would find it entertaining simply because the Republicans endlessly trumpet morality, family values and other superficial, fake "issues" which detract from real policy debate.

So you don't care if the facts are correct, you want them rush into this without verifying the details and running it by their legal department? What if they find out that it's false?

What's been diverted? The story is about the New York Times (supposedly) writing an article about Boehner's alleged affair. Republicans posting here are outraged, OUTRAGED, that the New York Times is covering this when they did cover McCain, but they say covered Edwards "too slowly." What's...

It absorbs it, then re-emits it in random directions. That heat then gets taken in by another CO2 molecule, and re-emitted. The problem with that is that heat is captured in the atmosphere and thus warming of the atmosphere occurs.

Sorry about that, I posted the wrong link -- here's the link to the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/BudgetOutlook2010_Jan.cfm

Well Hermit, it's because Jesus loves the little children but can't give them a science education.

LOL. Okay, how could adding a greenhouse gas, that you already conceded absorbs heat, to the a cycle of excess CO2, REDUCE heat absorption? :) Say, when you add gas to your car do you get fewer miles out of it? When you add food to your dinner plate do you lose weight?

Or here's another thought: after the McCain issue they wanted to wait for a confirming source. But since we're discussing anecdotes and how Republicans feel the NYTimes should cover the Boehner scandal up and not report it as long as possible (which I don't really agree with) -- remember...

LOL. I have done nothing to show CO2 causes warming except given you a graph of the actual energy absorption spectrum of CO2. To try and deny that CO2 causes warming is to deny the energy absorption spectrum of CO2. You already conceded that CO2 absorbs energy as per the graph. If...

Um, okay, so you want the NYTimes to cover it up and ignore the story as long as possible?

Here's an excellent answer to your first question -- the CBO has created a graph where you can click on various policy alternatives to see their effect on the budget deficit (higher lines are better)...

Not quite, no. Congress didn't jack up spending except for items that the Republicans demanded, such as wars and tax breaks (all unpaid for, of course). Take a look at this: <img src="http://www.goiam.org/images/articles/imail/latest-imail/July-2010/07_27_2010_deficit_graph.jpg">

It's wrong to expose adulterous affairs now, such as John Edwards' affair? Just off the top of my head, the New York Times ran articles about Edwards' affair with titles like "Edwards' admits paternity" and even interviewed his mistress "She Speaks." Apparently the rules oscillate wildly.

If you concede that CO2 absorbs energy, and you have, then adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases temperature, simple as that. If your theory that we are coming out of a cold low (false) and are "destined" to accumulate CO2 (entirely made up) was true then we are in trouble due to increasing...