Jim When has Iraq attacked us? dah.....


Nice post crafty.. :D

I find it more than ironic that Conservatives are the first to cheerlead the Bush Doctrine as necessary in the post 9/11 world, when it's built on a radically liberal idiology.

The real threat to the American people, today, is the growing position of non-democratic states who are s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g the wealth of this country dry, and Russia is certianly among them.

Sometime in this century the %$%$%$%$ is going to hit the fan and we will simply lack the money and influence to do much about it.

-spence

Do you mean Kansas, Kent, Tenn, SC, Wy, ND, SD, etc.?

Nation states :whackin:

-spence

OK, otherwise I was going to have to go back and throw Alaska in there.

[QUOTE=scottw;620372]This really should be another thread, buthere we go..

More than a few scientists is not the consensus.
Show me the science. I don't have the time or desire to dig through boks and references in scientific journals and post it. You would just accuse the authors of being communists anyways :fishslap:

Sunspot was in vouge to argue against climate change a few years ago. Pretty well proven it does not account for the changes measured in recent (century scale) changes. Prior to anthropogenic CO2 forcing solar may have had a measurable impact, but that is overwhelmed by the present CO2 effects.

Climate change has always been the term I've preferred BECAUSE global warming is too simple, the earth does not 'have a fever' but it will cause significant changes in temperature, precipitation and other climatatic events. It is larger and much more complex than that.

The 'Hockey-stick' was refuted (by a mathematician who worked for an oil consulting firm) and then further supported by the original Author (Mann) and other studies.

Go to URI 23 Sept. Mike Mann will be talking all about climate change.
Ask him about the hockey-stick then.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten.../nasa-2007.jpg

Where is the trend of global cooling??

Show me the science Scott.

getting back to Crafty's post, I wish there was an independent organization to analysis on all the "conclusions" noted by Crafty and other voices of the Democratic party. Is anyone familiar with Six Sigma techniques? Its data bases analysis and can be used to determine cause and effect. Its used in analzing business and engineering processes. I would love to see it applied to all the "symptoms" of Bush's policies to really determine what the true source of the problem is. There are no independent voices when it comes to the current economic situation. I think an un-biased, data driven cause and effect analysis would shed a lot of light on our situtaiton. As Crafty and many others feel strongly about their opinions, I wonder how much is based on fact and not perception. personally, I doubt the impact of Bush's policies on our current situation. for example, Obama is blaming the Lehman and Merrill issue on Bush. I doubt anything Bush said or did had any influence whatsoever on any decisiosn made by the management of those two companies. We need independent analysis.

The Bush administration housing policy promoted "homeownership" over affordable rental housing. While on it's face it appears to be a noble aim "the american dream" of everyone owning a home, the fact is that most major housing organizations felt that this was impractical. Many people are not ready or able to afford the responsibilities of homeownership. Low downpmt. requirements, reduced underwriting standards, failure to monitor lending practices, pushing Fannie & Freddie to purchase all these "questionable" loans. These were all driven by the administrations housing policies. While nobody was making some of these "fools" refinance their houses multiple times, policy makers and regulators should have realized that the "housing bubble" would self correct eventually and cause this mortgage mess that is in fact the major factor in the failure of the investment banks. Lots of blame to pass around...uninformed borrowers, predatory lenders, $ blind investors and the administration that let it happen without 1 effort to reign in the problem before it was too late.l

But yet, many on this board were saying a few months ago that Bushs policy is what drive housing prices up and thus made it impossible for new homeowners to buy a house. So which is it? You cant have both.
BTW - if the administration tried to reign in the problem, it would have been to STOP loans to people less qualified for loans. Want to wager who that might be? You'd have the NAACP and La RAZA all over them. Next time you read " We're an equal opportunity lender". Think about what that means!

By comparing neighborhoods with similar median income levels in New York City, researchers discovered that homeowners in predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods were more likely than those in predominantly white neighborhoods to receive their mortgages from a subprime mortgage lender.

As many homeowners know, subprime mortgages are more difficult to maintain because of adjustable interest rates, and higher fees and penalties. Thus, they are more likely to lead to foreclosure. Additionally, credit card companies often target subprime borrowers because they often have poor credit histories that prevent them from qualifying for more desirable credit lines and interest rates.

toss in Alabama too

Intersting, yup...all Bush's fault

The government-sponsored company is reworking its accounting back to 2001 in the wake of the scandal that forced out Mr. Raines and the former finance chief J. Timothy Howard, and brought a record $400 million fine in a settlement with regulators.
Mr. Howard and Mr. Raines, who was a White House budget director under President Bill Clinton, were among some 30 current and former Fannie Mae executives and directors under review for possible disciplinary action or termination.

I don't blame Bush, I blame greedy banks, lenders and borrowers!

There's no such thing as independent analysis. The scientific community and the academic worlds are not populated by conservatives so any analysis or facts they offer can be refuted as "liberal" views.

Stop stirring %$%$%$%$ :smash::jump1:

I know a lot of conservative scientists.
Hell,
I know a young earth creationist who is a paleontologist...
figure that one out....

People need to push climate change PAST politics.
It is a bigger, separate issues.

Well, I guess that's exactly the problem. This entire debate is a political one, when it should be a scientific one.

The irony of it all, is that Conservatives typically see the climate debate as an inhibitor of business growth, while those on the Left (and us smarter than you Independents) see the response to climate change as a vehicle for business growth via new Energy Technologies.

But Conservatives have been in charge the past 8 years and have effectively killed the debate. Yes, Gore should have pushed for more when VP, but the country was fat dumb and happy and China wasn't consuming nearly as much coal and oil as they do today.

If this nation doesn't wake up and embrace energy tech as the next revolution...your children are not going to enjoy the same quality of life we have today. And the denials from the Right will be largely to blame.

-spence

The problem is, there's been no variation in Bush Policy. Incompetence, dishonesty, cronyisim, etc... have all been pretty consistent thoughout both terms :hihi:

More interesting would be to use QFD to choose the next President!

-spence

Oil company geologists don't count - neither do tobacco addiction tweakers. A stirring aside, I have a great deal of respect for scientists and academics.
You, know, there was a time when people were recruited from the academic community to work with the government to solve problems - when thier opinions held weight. There's this notion now that if you don't work in traditional business, or you don't come from the military, you really did not work for a living.
What separated this country from others - what made us great, was that in the 19th century, while european nations were investing in social welfare programs, the US was investing in education. Education brought about upward mobility and the rise of a middleclass.

"But yet, many on this board were saying a few months ago that Bushs policy is what drive housing prices up and thus made it impossible for new homeowners to buy a house. So which is it? You cant have both"
Jim - You need to read and understand the post before you respond. Housing prices are indeed driven "up" by easing credit standards....a simple function of the market that even a layman should understand. Fannie/Freddie and the entire secondary market are major factors in todays crisis. Purchase of risky mortgages by these institutions and investment banks is the reason were all in this mess today...and their policies have been driven by big money, hedge funds, unregulated investment firms....who until now have been making a killing....and who has been the champion of this hand off approach? I'll let you figure that out. Regarding your NY comment...yes..."lower income" neighborhoods are the hardest hit because of their inability to qualify by traditional morthgage standards. The fact that foreclosures are now striking hard at middle class America shows the extent of this problem. I won't even comment on your "veiled" racist comments.

Figures you pink panty wearing liberal pussy.

Acedemics simply are the product of Liberal universities, they all have an agenda, and it's not to do God's work.

But the scientists who work for big business are another breed entirely. They get paid a hell of a lot of money. Logic would dictate that only the best and brightest would see such compensation.

And you DARE question their findings?

By that measure alone I have much more faith in the guy from those Exxon commercials working to save the world, than I would from a Rev. Wright humping libber like RIROCKHOUND.

-spence

Maybe, in light of the fact that we are now teetering on the brink of financial collaspe, in retrospect, more government regulation of the lending industry might have been a better course.
One good thing, most of the windows on Wall St don't open, so we don't have people jumping.

Well, we actually fought against Russian pilots flying Red Chinese MIGs during the Korean War - that's been confirmed by Soviet pilots who defected. That's certainly more than never...

Actually, some of the history books I have are more than 100 years old and accurate as well - but I shudder to think of anyone viewing the '80's as "Yesteryear" - :hs:

Eeeeee cooodeesh.

" Just curious, when has Russia attacked the US, when have Russian soliders fought US soliders? Try.....never. "

Obviously.................. you have never seen a Rambo movie!! ;-)