See other Immigration Articles
Title: How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
Source:
www.dvorak.org
URL Source: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/06/ ... n-a-part-of-the-united-states/
Published: Jun 6, 2010
Author: Dvorak
Post Date: 2010-06-06 11:50:16 by Mind_Virus
Keywords: None
Views: 5306
Comments: 283
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States? Published on June 6th, 2010 California’s white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state’s largest population group, according to newly released state figures. Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes – a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared. The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state’s largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said. A University of New Mexico Chicano Studies professor predicts a new, sovereign Hispanic nation within the century, taking in the Southwest and several northern states of Mexico. Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-92) not displayed.
.
.
.
#93. To: Original_Intent (#91)
Are you a real live queer? Because I am not interested in homosexuals (as you admit you are in publick soliciting for some kind of thrill.) Now, let's take a peek at the rest of your most recent response ... I pulled the questions right into the thread topic, wherein you have consistently played around like a child or some flamer. Once again ...... here is the hard to answer question(s)from post #72: "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
To get attention? To be annoying?
Let the record show that Buckmonster Fullofit is unwilling and unable to refute the points contained in my post to farmfriend and thus finds is necessary to engage in disinformation tactics in an attempt to wipe the egg off of his face. I again repeat the post to farmfriend: Unfortunately you are arguing with people to whom facts are irrelevant. Over and over and over again the validating data keeps coming in that an increase in global CO2 levels would be a net benefit. However, since the "true beeeelieeeeeeevers", like any other rube taken in by some huckster, have totally accepted the falsehoods of the PsyOps selling Glowbull Warming from (((((shudder))))) (Cue scary theme music) antropogenic CO2, and any and all data contrary to their irrational fixations is rejected. They have a fixed idea predicated upon false data and so reject true data which is contrary to their false fixations. An old aphorism from toxicology is appropriate here: "The dose makes the poison." The argument that CO2 is increasing global temperatures, while founded upon multiple fallacies, is also predicated upon a false assumption that a change in CO2 level will have only the effects predicted by the Glowbull Warming hypothesis and no others. In other words it is a self limiting hypothesis that excludes all other known affects of an increase in CO2 levels while exaggerating its importance as a greenhouse gas. Methane, such as is coming out of the Gulf Oil blowout and rupture is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but you don't hear the Glowbull Warming Mouthpieces talking about that. (Interesting datum that.) When Algore starts talking about Methane Credits, which he won't because it gores too many profitable activities, I might listen (but truthfully not likely as he is a proven liar and phony). However, we do not live in a static environment and an infinity of equilibrium states exist. As you rightly point out an increase in atmospheric CO2 also acts as a growth stimulant for plant life. And what do plants do with CO2 - they respirate and use it to metabolize nutrients. And what do they give off as their "waste" product from respiration? Hands please. Yes, that is correct they give off O2 otherwise known as free oxygen and upon which all animal life depends for their metabolic functions. In other words an increase in CO2 results in accelerated plant respiration which removes an increasing amount of CO2 from the atmosphere while at the same time boosting the availability of free oxygen. In addition to being at historically low levels of CO2 we are also at historically low levels of O2. Funny how that works out. The key point here is that levels of free oxygen are in direct relationship to the availability of carbon dioxide for a plant's normal respiratory cycle. As well humans evolved n not only a higher mix of CO2 but a higher level of O2. So, the Chicken Little Brigades who have been led down a wrong path with CO2 as a deadly greenhouse gas, with their supposed mitigation efforts (which are highly profitable to those trading in "carbon credits), are also mitigating the levels of O2 available to animal life. As J.E. Lovelock pointed out, before he was brow beat into joining the Glowbull Warming Hysteria, the planet operates in its normal range as a self stabilizing system i.e., you knock the system out of equilibrium in one direction and it reacts globally to reestablish an equilibrium state returning to a balance point. However, science, true science, is irrelevant to the ignoratti of Glowbull Warming, and as we saw with the Climate Research Unit e-mails, the top scientists pushing Glowbull Warming KNOW that it is a fraud being perpetrated for political reasons not environmental. We have many more pressing environmental issues that CO2 which is nothing more that a political distraction established to divert from the real problems. We are not seeing the die off of Bees, Snakes, Bats, Frogs, etc., due to an increase in CO2 and those are much stronger indicators of problems in the environment. The Glowbull Warming caused by Antropogenic CO2 is a false paradigm and the suckers who have bought on to it are just that S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
To get attention? To be annoying? To get paid by the people running the PsyOp?
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I wonder if BP will be able to "hide the decline"?
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Which decline? Please expand and clarify.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
O_I believes in infinite growth and therefore natural resources are sustainable through management. He won't answer the question posed because if he did... he would look ridiculous with all his fucked Bilderberg/Rothchild/Bankster/BIG_GOVERNMENT conspiracies. O_I is a laffingstock.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
No buck, you're a laffingstock. Hunnert.
Oh, just GREAT ... the chemtrail conspiracy theorist rears his ugly head....
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Where is my little buddy answering my two days old question?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Where is 4um's little flamer, O_I, answering a simple post from way up the thread from two days ago? Are you out dancing on the streets because you are gay and beg to come out of the closet? "we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Uh, Buckie? If you think you have been flamed you're wrong. I have restrained myself, and will continue to do so as I learned sometime back that flame is counterproductive. However, when you insist posting flagarantly puerile pathetic inanities pulled from the dim realm of your gaping sphincter and then crowing like you have laid an asteroid you can expect that you will receive, if only tepidly compared to what I could do, a "suitable" response. That is, should I deign to even respond. Have a nice day. P.S. Blow me.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
You are a queer .. there is no question about it.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
What a fucking faerie you are.... you can't even get your head up out of your own local ass to answer a few simple questions.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Metaphors are not your strong suit are they? Of course neither is sound argumentation free of false assumptions so it really comes as no surprise. And that is about all the time I am willing to waste on responding to your ankle biting.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
You are a lamer. You tell me to blow you when I have asked for a response to my earlier questions. What is your response? You are a fucked upped, little queer unable AND incapable of answering direct questions.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Had you asked one intelligent question relevant to the discussion I likely would have answered. As for now ... ...Go Fish.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
You are, indeed, a queer.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
Excellent post O_I.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank you.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable.
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable. The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method to the understanding of a problem that also requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines which we have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not. Accepting or rejecting data based upon ones preconceptions is NOT science. At this point we have a substantial data set which as it continues to build demolishes the "CO2" as a greenhouse gas threat. The chief advocates of the theory have been caught lying, cooking the data to make it fit the theory rather than adjusting the theory to fit the observed phenomena, etc., ... The chief environmental groups supporting the theory (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, etc.,...) are all largely recipients of Historical studies, based on ice core analysis, have shown that CO2 is a lagging indicator in planetary warming and tends to lag increased temperatures. In other words the warming occurs before the increases in atmospheric CO2. While proponents of Glowbull Warming have tried various means to explain away the inconvenient ice core data the data is what the data is. CO2 levels in the paleoclimate record show CO2 as lagging significantly behind increases in global temperatures. As well are the affects of increased CO2 on plant and animal life. Increases in CO2 (and again actual studies using real scientific method approaches have been done). What occurs? Plants grow faster and larger and they absorb a greater volume of CO2 while giving off O2, Oxygen, as a byproduct. So, while CO2 may be a poor greenhouse gas, methane as being released in great volume in the gulf - which the bought off major environmental groups are silent on - is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, it is a great growth stimulant for plants - they love the stuff and when more is available they absorb more and increase the richness of the atmospheric Oxygen content with their respiratory byproduct - oxygen. And then we look at the record of scientific honesty. Over and over and over again the proponents of Glowbull Warming have been caught lying, cheating, and fudging data to force it to fit the model rather than developing a model that accommodates the data. You are welcome to believe in any fairy tale you wish, but do not try to call it science. Anthropogenic Glowbull Warming from human created CO2 is not selling. The science does not support it and the body of data validating that view is growing. Now that the CRU and their attempts to prevent the publication of data injurious to their "pet" theories have been exposed we can see how the climate debate has been manipulated, with contrary data excluded, data cherry picked and perfectly valid data (such as selected continental readings taken in Russia) thrown out because it does not fit the theory. You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid. In real science it means they have to be accommodated in any theory and the theory revised to accommodate the data - not the data thrown out because it doesn't fit the theory which is bass ackwards as far as true science goes. As for me I believe I'll have another cup of coffee.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method to the understanding of a problem that also requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us.... OBIE WAN KANOBIE .... at his best...... What is Original_Intent's response to serious questions? You can't answer questions because you are afraid of the truth and yet YOU have the audacity to lecture others? Again, here is my question(s)... Answer the questions.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Yes, facts are stubborn things, eh? No less an authority than John Adams said so. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Your questions are diversions, are irrelevant, and bear no relationship to the issues under discussion. You are behaving as a petulant little child and seeking attention, and only to derail the discussion which you lost about 80 posts ago. In short not only do your stupid questions deserve no answer they merit only derision. You are engaging in nothing more than false logic and disinformation. So, do us all a favor and go fuck yourself.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Yes, facts are stubborn things, eh? No less an authority than John Adams said so. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770 US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826) Good quote and most apropo. As I am sure you've noticed I love a good quote. They are condensed nuggets of wisdom which spice debate and force us to think. Thinking is a good thing contrary to what the advocates of Glowbull Warming contend.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial even though the body works day and night to get rid of. If you cannot get past this first piece, all subsequent claims are irrelevant. Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it. Let me know whether you've been "sold" that ingesting CO2 or any other waste product is beneficial for people. Not trees, not algae, but people. You really have a horrible mental/emotional block about physical bodily reality. Try living in the physical world, instead of intellectual/emotional conceptual concepts.
I said: The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies. All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy. Nevertheless it still moves - as Galileo is reputed to have said under his breath at his forced recantation. I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..." You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale? Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way. I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data that you cannot. And please no statistical trickery and b.s. such as the, now infamous, "hockey stick". I said: "... Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it." Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed. It has what to do with the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 (which is at best a minor greenhouse gas, and of which only 3% is produced by human activity)? The rest of your blather is unworthy of comment as all you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn. In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues while repeating over and over the same mantra that has evidently been programmed into you - the intellectual equivalent of 2+2= 12.1926. So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot. I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef. "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Yes it is. You have been throwing "hissy fits" all along.... below are a few samples..... Why do you even bother to post? You won't answer any questions because you are always right even when you are wrong. And then you accuse others for your own wrong doing. You are contemptuous AND deceitful.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Sticks and stones will break my bones ... Which is about the level at which you are posting. "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Yes, indeed, I have noticed.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Yes, and the plants use the CO2 and in return for it give us OXYGEN. A good trade I think. The CO2 we breathe out is what they need to live and the OXYGEN they give off is what we need. Convenient, don't you think?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Arguing with buck is like arguing with a ..... no, I can't say that. It's pointless anyway. ; )
Is this close? "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Why do you even bother to post? You won't answer any questions because you are always right even when you are wrong. And then you accuse others for your own wrong doing. You are contemptuous AND deceitful.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Because I nailed Original_Intent .... EVERYTIME.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Not even once Buck. You cannot be trusted to keep score. We need an objective score keeper........like me. : )
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
You again and again sidestep the main point which that to anything living above the level of vegetation, CO2 is a poison. More apt descriptions of your "respiratory byproduct" are "waste," and "poison." Look them up if you are unclear of their meanings Yes, good and bad are complementary also. So are health and sickness. You choose the ones that benefit you and minimize those that do not. Prima facie evidence of your own confused, emotional hissy fit. People should not be promoting large scale increases of toxic substances in their environments. And to humans CO2 is toxic. World class weaseling with 50 cent words trying to obfuscate the simple English statement that CO2 is toxic to human beings and even animals. How many times have you repeated your "hissy fit" mantra now while sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly to yourself to try to blot out my statement that CO2 is poison? Breathing is not "credible data?" "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." Hold your breath for 5 short minutes and we'll see how much of a "relevant issue" respiration is, blowhard. Or if you prefer, inhale pure CO2 for the same length of time. Like you've been doing throughout this thread Don't quit your day job.
In the grand scheme of things, everything gets recycled. However for individual life forms there are things they can consume that benefit them, and things they can consume them that don't. Furthermore, plants themselves need oxygen to respirate and intake the energy to photosynthesize. Gas Exchange in Plants The wilful ignorance of the thread hissy fitter in completely disregarding the needs of even plants for oxygen is getting to the level of some sort of emotional psychosis.
Invalid. CO2 is not poison. CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not.
Comments (134 - 283) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBlow me.
Your [buckeroo] question then, as now, was unresponsive and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In short your question is naught more than a childish and ignorant attempt to divert the discussion and play "gotcha".
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
#94. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#93)
Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico?
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#95. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, farmfriend, abraxas, James Deffenbach (#93)
(Edited)
#96. To: wudidiz, bucket-a-goo, buckeroo (#94)
Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico?
#97. To: Original_Intent (#95)
However, science, true science, is irrelevant to the ignoratti of Glowbull Warming, and as we saw with the Climate Research Unit e-mails, the top scientists pushing Glowbull Warming KNOW that it is a fraud being perpetrated for political reasons not environmental.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#98. To: farmfriend (#97)
#99. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#97)
#100. To: buckeroo (#99)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#101. To: wudidiz (#100)
No buck, you're a laffingstock.
#102. To: Original_Intent (#95)
#103. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, all (#102)
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, two days ago.
#104. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, farmfriend, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, all (#103)
#105. To: Original_Intent (#104)
P.S. Blow me.
#106. To: Original_Intent (#104)
... should I deign to even respond.
#107. To: buckeroo (#105)
#108. To: Original_Intent (#107)
(Edited)
And that is about all the time I am willing to waste on responding to your ankle biting.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, two days ago.
Blow me.
ankle biter
#109. To: buckeroo (#108)
#110. To: Original_Intent (#109)
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, two days ago.
#111. To: Original_Intent (#87)
#112. To: Original_Intent (#84)
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#113. To: James Deffenbach (#112)
#114. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#90)
(Edited)
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
#115. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#114)
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
bribes grants from the people who benefit financially from pushing CO2 as a greenhouse gas and Glowbull Warming from anthropogenic CO2 (which is about 3% of the planetary CO2 production).
#116. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#115)
The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?"
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
#117. To: Original_Intent (#115)
You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid.
John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#118. To: buckeroo, abraxas, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#116)
#119. To: James Deffenbach (#117)
You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid.
#120. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#115)
The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?"
Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method
Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines
We have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not.
#121. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#120)
(Edited)
even though the body works day and night to get rid of.
#122. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#121)
The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies.
fuck yourself.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
#123. To: buckeroo (#122)
#124. To: Original_Intent (#119)
Good quote and most apropo. As I am sure you've noticed I love a good quote. They are condensed nuggets of wisdom which spice debate and force us to think. Thinking is a good thing contrary to what the advocates of Glowbull Warming contend.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#125. To: AGAviator (#120)
The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial even though the body works day and night to get rid of.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#126. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#123)
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
#127. To: wudidiz (#126)
#128. To: buckeroo (#122)
Why do you even bother to post? You won't answer any questions because you are always right even when you are wrong. And then you accuse others for your own wrong doing. You are contemptuous AND deceitful.
#129. To: abraxas (#128)
Why do you even bother to post?
#130. To: buckeroo (#129)
Because I nailed Original_Intent .... EVERYTIME.
#131. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#121)
You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial
Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies.
All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy.
I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..."
You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? ..Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale?
Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way.
I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data
You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it."
Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed.
All you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn.
In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues
So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot.
I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef.
#132. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#125)
Yes, and the plants use the CO2 and in return for it give us OXYGEN. A good trade I think.
In order to carry on photosynthesis, green plants need a supply of carbon dioxide and a means of disposing of oxygen. In order to carry on cellular respiration, plant cells need oxygen and a means of disposing of carbon dioxide (just as animal cells do).
For people, consuming CO2 does not benefit them. That's why people going into intensive care get pure oxygen to increase their survival chances. That's why people undergoing athletic training attempt to incease the circulatory and oxygen-carrying capacity of their bodies.
#133. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#131)
my statement that CO2 is poison
“It has been said, 'time heals all wounds.' I do not agree. The wounds remain. In time, the mind, protecting its sanity, covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens, but it is never gone.” ~ Rose F. Kennedy
.
.
.