timesjoke

There is word she will continue her show but on her own channel or something, it was vague but the idea was to get away from the current network and their influence.

Temperature will change how the oceans hold/release co2. That is why we see more co2 after temperatures rise and it declines after temperatures decline: [attach=full]1989[/attach] Now in this chart we see how temperatures go up, then co2 goes up and stays up. There appears to be a good correlation between the two but what happens if we compare other factors to temperature increases? [attach=full]1990[/attach] We see a closer correlation with solar activity than we do co2......but we have something else to look at: [attach=full]1991[/attach] Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) are combined to average together and compared to temperatures and again, we see a much closer match than with co2. [attach=full]1992[/attach] Co2 has a very low trend correlation. This is all shown in more detail here: Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 Watts Up With That?

IWS, that was just too funny my friend, and brutal too, lol. I was most likely banned during that exchange because I had always said it was the Liberal's contest to loose with all the bad feelings Bush attached to any people who would carry the Republican nomination. Even in the early days I said Hillary would win easily but when Obama started getting the "religious" following with people passing out just looking at him and such I knew he had a great chance to beat Hillary and once he had the nomination of his party, I knew he would win even though I hoped he would not. What I "DID" say was he was faking. I predicted he would turn his back on his centrist promises and become the radical liberal/socialist I knew he truly was but the people could not see because of the masterful "hollywood" campaign Obama ran. Not even a full year in office and all the promises of transparancy and "change" are tossed in the garbage. Obama has become the purely partisan politician that he complained about during his campaign that was ruining Washington and he was going to work for eliminating. Obama won because of the independents and centrists who believed he was going to be a completely different kind of politician, a different kind of President who would bring people together........suckers. Those same middle ground Americans who gave him the Presidency are now unhappy with him and Democrats in general because of their dashed hopes.

Chi, IWS is covering this very well, your trying to blur the difference between civilian law enforcement and military actions. KSM has always been kept in the DoD and military custody, he was never moved to the civilian sector or held by civilian law enforcement, there is your difference you were looking for. There cannot be a "better" chance for conviction Chi, KSM has already admitted guilt, under a military trial, his admission of guilt is allowed and you have an instant guilt finding. Under a civilian system, his admissions of guilt and everything that followed are not allowed. Only in the civilian system is there a good possibility of these men being found innocent because most of the evidence could be tossed out as fruit of the tainted tree.

Okay, I would like to narrow down a discussion about this trial for KSM and company. Is this a "real" trial or just for show? Obama has already guranteed a conviction. This is special because Obama is putting a lot of political clout on the line if they were to be found not guilty so why would he make that kind of promise? Sh!t happens in court cases and we all have heard of how truly guilty killers have walked out of courtrooms free men so what does this tell us? So why do it? Why make that kind of promise? I think it is in the bag, the fix is on and this is just a puppet trial for political gain. But what if it is not a sham and this is a real trial? Then we have to accept the fact that these guilty men could be found innocent and if that should happen......what then? Holder said in his hearing that these men would never be released to the public and enemy combatant rules would be used to contain them....... What? Why do this then? If they will not have any chance for freedom even if found innocent in civilian courts why have the trial? Is the "appearance" of fairness the only consideration? Then there is the cost. There are all sorts of numbers being tossed around but the most reasonable seem to show this trial costing from 75 million to 100 million a year and if their lawyer is good, this could easily take a couple years. Other costs could be a terrorist attack on New York because of this added new attention that will be drawn to it. This could bolden our enemies to know that they can get American rights too if they are captured. I don't like any of this.

IWS already covered it, none of your examples originated in another Country as an enemy combatant. This will be the very first time an enemy combatant on foreign soil was given full American judicial rights when they were not entitled to them. edit to add: KSM has already admitted to his actions so under a military tribunal he is already guilty before the first comment is made. Under civilian courts his confession is not admissable and nothing he has ever said while captured can be used against him........they will have a more difficult time convicting him than you might think.

Get with reality Anna, there is no such thing as man caused global warming. It is a business/political machine, nothing more.

Well good, we can agree on that much and so when a person makes a mistake in judgement, do you think their opinions or biases can be part of that decision? There must be "SOME" reason Obama is ordering something to be done that has never been done before.....right? To me each of us Americans "earn" our rights, we not only pay the taxes that go to pay for our rights but we have lost countless lives in the forming and defense of our way of life to earn what we have. In what way did the 9/11 terrorists "earn" American judicial rights?

It is not a new concept that looking weak invites attacks. There was a story about how young and inexperienced Presidents of the past were challenged early in their Presidency to see how they would react. The same is true for Obama who has seen a steady increase of agression from NK and Iran when they were not doing anything like that while Bush was in office. Clinton's refusal to take terrorist activities seriously and restricting the abilities of our intelligence gathering groups made 9/11 possible. Clinton was as much a behind kisser as you could ever find on the world stage and he al but handed complete control of our military to the UN but still the radicals hated us enough to play and execute 9/11 during most of Clinton't two terms of office. After Bush took direct action against these radicals and took the fight to their lands we didn't have any direct attacks on our soil but now we again have an appeasement President, suddenly we are getting more terrorist attention........coincidence? I don't think Obama's decision to persecute Bush era investigators and such is helping things either, I am sure most of the intelligence gathering community is scared they will be the next target of scapgoating from this administration so it is better to ease off a little and still be able to support their families instead of working harder to get information just to be cought up in a witch hunt.

Ever hear the term, "drinking the koolaid"? I am cool with that, I guess my biggest issue is he has done the things he has done, but so many people act like he has not done them. I might be inserting my own bias to come up with theories of "why" he has done these things like ordering Holder to give the 9/11 terrorists American judicial rights, but at least I am being curious enough to have these questions. Why is it so many other people are just blindly following Obama and assuming Obama could never have negative agendas or be making a mistake? I think your a very smart person but even you think Holder made this decision against Obama's will, and that is very nieve, Holder is doing exactly what Obama wants him to do. "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~ Albert Einstein

After more consideration I have to say, Senator Graham made some very good points. Under American laws everything said by the terrorists without maranda warnings and after what Obama has said was torture, is all inadmissable. A great deal of other evidence should also be eliminated because of more strict ruls of evidence gathering and if there is no clear chain of evidence records, it is not allowed. I believe we are blurring the lines and it seems like Obama wants the military to behave the same as a local police force. I still can't get past the idea of giving away American rights to people from other Countries who are at war with us, attacking us, killing our children as wrong.

I don't think a President should 'blindly' follow polls becuase there can be a lot of manipulation involved in the process but you can't compare the kind of things happening now (tea parties for example) to the basic polls of Clinton's era. People are a lot more energetic against things like cap and trade, and Government run healthcare, and giving terrorists from other Countries American rights.

Ya, the grape is very delicious Chi. I don't want to 'irritate' you chi and get things going down the ugly road again but your twisting things completely, the bowing happened, it is not made up by the press, Obama has a life long record of surrounding himself with radicals and anti-american people like his wife and pastor of over 20 years. The "change" that was promised never happened so he lied just to gain power, so why is it difficult to believe he lies in other ways Chi? Tell me Chi, how has Obama change the tone in Washington as he promised? He promised a new tone of cooperation and reaching accross the asile and ending partisan politics.......remember? Obama is the most partisan President America has ever had Chi, no room for comprimise, no room for alternatives, his way or your called a racist, is that "change" you can believe in"? If Obama says it, that is "your' gospel? You can't conceive of the possibility he might have alterior motives? I most of the time ignore words because of my personal saying "You can make your mouth say anything". I look at his actions and just about every action is to be very supportive of anyone who is not Christian. Now we can both make judgement calls as to why, but the fact is he is doing it, so why do you think he is time and time again behaving in these ways to show extra respect and difference to Muslims and even a couple other non-christian (or jewish) groups/leaders? Good post IWS, of course the President makes all of these decisions, the various appointments by the President are there to help him, not rule in his stead. They do what he wants them to do, and if they don't he removes them. If Holder was doing something Obama did not want to happen, Obama would remove him, so clearly this is what Obama wants.

I watched several exchanges with him on the news and I have to say, Eric Holder looked like a complete dumbazz. He could not defend his possition further than "I" make the decision.........no dipsh!t, Obama made the decision and your the idiot he got to take some of the heat off him for that decision, the scapegoat. This is a bad decision, and once again all the polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not want these attackers to be given American rights. But the people will once again be completely ignored.

Good point, interesting how under the politically correct world, not offending Muslims comes before pushing for women's rights. They will 'cuddle' with these Muslim leaders and turn a blind eye to the way they treat women. Even right here in America there are still "honor killings" (the completely rediclious nature of that name pisses me off by the way).

He refused to make a "timely" decision that would have saved lives. Is that better wording? And why is it bull Chi? Has Obama ever bowed showing extra respect to a Christian leader? He bowed to the emperor of Japan, but he is not a Christian either. Obama bowed his lowest and most profoundly to the Saudi King. Maybe Obama is just anti Christian and whites and not really "for" anyone, I could buy that theory also. When he is married to a woman who says she has never been proud to be an American until he was elected President, that also speaks to his core values as to who he keeps close to his heart. Most of his long time friends are radicals and they don't pay their taxes as good Americans. As I said, I don't think he has any belief in a higher power, but he is excessively politically correct to the point he is bending over backwards to protect people like this terrorist from being executed without directly giving him a pardon that would kill him politically....... And he refuses to call the Fort Hood terrorist a terrorist.... Why? If not showing a trend against Christians and for Muslims or at least "not christians" then why do these things? Eric Holder works for Obama, he would not go against the wishes of his boss so clearly this is ordered by Obama. I said the same thing about those who worked for Bush, they did what Bush told them to do, bush was the boss. In this case Obama is the boss and everyone appointed by Obama are doing exactly what Obama tells them to do, that is why they are appointed by him. If these possitions were intended to be independant of the President they would be appointed by congress.

I was actually trying to get less attention, not more, lol.

What does his parentage have to do with beliefs? Ever hear of John Walker Lindh? Besides, I never said he was a muslim, just that his loyalties are with them. There can be many reasons for this to include so many of his formative years living among them that has him respecting Muslims more than anyone else if given a choice. Ordering that trial for the terrorists in civilian court I believe shows it too. They would most likely get the death penalty in the military tribunal but that is not going to happen in civilian court, at least not for 20 years of appeals and such anyway and by then who cares? Concerning the troops, how many Americans died while he refused to make a decision? Could more troops have saved lives? I guess we will never know will we?

Exactly snaf, when Obama gave away American rights and protections to men who are not Americans and who were waging war on America, well let's just say that it bothers me a great deal. I can't think of a single positive thing that can come from giving away American rights to these war criminals but on the other hand, the list of harms are great and it even offers them a very good possibility of getting off where that was close to impossible under military tribunal. They get 100 times the publicity. They get the appearance of respectability. They get full American rights to challenge and dismiss evidence in a civilian court that they can't do in the military tribunal. Death penalty will not happen with the civilian court but was likely with the military tribunal and if you ask me, that is the biggest reason Obama will not allow them to be tried with the military tribunal, he does not want martyr deaths on his hands.

He also stated he was bringing "change" to the Whitehouse to include more transparancy but to date, his administration is less transparent then the two Presidents before him, I can go on for days at the lies Obama has told and promises broken but that is not my point. Obama is a career politician who "always" does things that he feels will further his career and agenda. He was amember of that anti-white church for most of his life because that is where someone wanting a career in public office (in Chicago) and is black had to go. Bill Clinton did the same thing, hell Hitler did the same thing to use the appearance of religious beliefs to gain political power when he was actually a life long Atheist. I see you backed off that a little bit but you still miss the point that Obama had no problem calling a white guy who arrested his friend a racist but if a Muslim screams praises to allah and kills a lot of infidels, he refuses to call that man a radical or a terrorist........why is it he is so fast to defend Muslims and put down Christians and even America who is at it's core a Christian Nation? Obama always seems to be in apology mode when speaking about America to anyone else in the world, that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sure, America has made mistakes but why is it Obama is only willing to speak of that and never speaks on the great things America does as well? Oh, don't forget how he refuses to send the requested extra troops to Afganistan to help fight the Muslim extremists there.

I really like bubles and glow bugs, they really speak out to me and remind me of my own childhood. I think she is very talented and it is too bad she lives so far away from me, I would love to see her work live and in person. Good luck Em, I am sure people will love your show.

Okay guys.....perfect, great shot, so we doing the same bet next year in the Florida/Georgia game?

So what will be the results of him being found innocent? The guy asked for a lawyer and to be taken to New York for trial when we captured him. I just do not see the point of giving away American rights to non-American attackers on our Country. Many people have been found innocent when the Government thought they had a good case so this is a possibiliy, a lot of evidence can be set aside in a civilian court for even the appearance of bad collecting where in a military court less of the games are allowed. So, if he is on American soil, and is found innocent, tell me, where does he go once we have to release him?

I also try to get as many in the corners as possible, I try making every shot off the side wall to have the balls moving at angles. Okay, tell the truth, when you see a ball comming back, have you tried helping it to stop? I know I have, a couple times I even said 'stop' out loud and had co-workers looking at me strange, lol.

WE always seem to see more of these kinds of activities when a weak looking President is in office. 9/11 was the result of 8 years with Bill Clinton who was very scared to offend Muslims, he was as well 'liked' as any President but for some reason, his bending over backwards to appease the world actually enticed these radicals to attack us. Now I will not pretend to understand the mind of these radicals completely, but the actions seem pretty clear that they are attracted to weakness and if you seem strong, they tend to back off more. Someone I know seems to believe we are entering into a time where our intelligence gathering people are scared to do their jobs because they know the administration will hang them out to dry for any excuse to 'look good' to other Nations. I think that may be part of it, stopping what is there is certainly part of the process but in my belief, there are more threats there is we look weak and will be more damaged by these attacks than we would should we have stronger leadership.