The Pelosi premium...

[jreeves]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5UYNX_XGQA&feature=related]YouTube - The Pelosi Premium[/ame]


Now she's decided she's going to save the planet...
Pelosi: 'I'm trying to save the planet' - David Rogers - Politico.com
With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”
And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.


“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

 

[editec]

Saving the planet does seem like a good idea.

After all, we might need it someday.

 

[DiamondDave]

Kind of egotistical to think that we have the power to destroy this planet... this planet will go on with like and continue to cycle itself long after we're gone... the planet don't need "saving"

But then again... uber-libs like Pelosi are so big headed with delusions of grandeur, this is actually not a real shock

 

[Ravi]

Destroy the planet? Perhaps not. Make it uninhabitable, easily.

 

[editec]

Kind of egotistical to think that we have the power to destroy this planet... this planet will go on with like and continue to cycle itself long after we're gone... the planet don't need "saving"

But then again... uber-libs like Pelosi are so big headed with delusions of grandeur, this is actually not a real shock

Kind of childishly pendant of you to pretend that you thought that when nancy used the term "saving the plant" in that context, they implied anything other than saving it from becoming uninhabitable for us and our way of life, isn't it?

Or were you just trying to be ironicly amusing?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Kind of childishly pendant of you to pretend that you thought that when nancy used the term "saving the plant" in that context, they implied anything other than saving it from becoming uninhabitable for us and our way of life, isn't it?

Or were you just trying to be ironicly amusing?

Well except for the whole concept that there is no evidence we are doing any such thing as making the planet uninhabitable. But do drone on and advocate we all move into caves after we find a way to kill off about 5 and half billion people.

 

[busara]

Well except for the whole concept that there is no evidence we are doing any such thing as making the planet uninhabitable. But do drone on and advocate we all move into caves after we find a way to kill off about 5 and half billion people.

maybe not uninhabitable, but thousands of species have gone extinct or are close to it due to human activity. so humans are having a negative impact. probably not as much as the environuts would like us to believe, but still an impact. i wish christians would take a stand on environmental sustainability. it is what God called on them to do

 

[DiamondDave]

maybe not uninhabitable, but thousands of species have gone extinct or are close to it due to human activity. so humans are having a negative impact. probably not as much as the environuts would like us to believe, but still an impact. i wish christians would take a stand on environmental sustainability. it is what God called on them to do

1) MILLIONS upon MILLIONS have gone extinct without man
2) Every living thing will have a negative impact on it's environment... the only way to have no impact is to be non-existent

 

[busara]

1) MILLIONS upon MILLIONS have gone extinct without man
2) Every living thing will have a negative impact on it's environment... the only way to have no impact is to be non-existent

"That's sort of a 1 million to 4 million year process, and yet we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster," he says.
MPR: Species extinction rate speeding up

and 2 is completely false. ecosystems are sustainable. to say otherwise makes you look a fool. the exception is when invasive species or something outside the system interferes and changes it. like humans overfishing, or Nile Perch being put in lake victoria.

 

[sealybobo]

YouTube - The Pelosi Premium


Now she's decided she's going to save the planet...
Pelosi: 'I'm trying to save the planet' - David Rogers - Politico.com
With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”
And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.


“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

Republicans shut the Dems out of the process for 6 years. Fuck em. And they don't have any alternative policies. They just obstruct progress.

 

[DiamondDave]

"That's sort of a 1 million to 4 million year process, and yet we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster," he says.
MPR: Species extinction rate speeding up

and 2 is completely false. ecosystems are sustainable. to say otherwise makes you look a fool. the exception is when invasive species or something outside the system interferes and changes it. like humans overfishing, or Nile Perch being put in lake victoria.

the only way to not have a negative impact is to not exist.. just because something is sustainable does not mean it does not have a negative...

And you do not know the historical extinction rate, but nice try... kind of hard to say when you don't know all the species, the exact times they went extinct, etc... the only fact is that millions upon millions went extinct without us.. extinction continues with us... and extinction will continue long after we are gone

 

[sealybobo]

And she'll be in Ann Arbor this afternoon signing her new book. I'm going.

 

[Bern80]

maybe not uninhabitable, but thousands of species have gone extinct or are close to it due to human activity. so humans are having a negative impact. probably not as much as the environuts would like us to believe, but still an impact. i wish christians would take a stand on environmental sustainability. it is what God called on them to do

Thousands of animals have gone extinct long before man, probably as a result of other animals as well. It's called evolution.

 

[busara]

the only way to not have a negative impact is to not exist.. just because something is sustainable does not mean it does not have a negative...

And you do not know the historical extinction rate, but nice try... kind of hard to say when you don't know all the species, the exact times they went extinct, etc... the only fact is that millions upon millions went extinct without us.. extinction continues with us... and extinction will continue long after we are gone

your negative impact statement sure sounds stupid. would you like to elaborate? i ask because nature is in a state of balance. if everything had a negative impact, nature would be destroying itself. or are you saying something different?


youre right, i dont know the rate. i let the scientists do that work for me. and yes, extinction happened before us and will happen after us, but the scientists say it is happening a hell of a lot faster due to the actions of humans. i dont dismiss what the phd says because i dont agree with it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

your negative impact statement sure sounds stupid. would you like to elaborate? i ask because nature is in a state of balance. if everything had a negative impact, nature would be destroying itself. or are you saying something different?


youre right, i dont know the rate. i let the scientists do that work for me. and yes, extinction happened before us and will happen after us, but the scientists say it is happening a hell of a lot faster due to the actions of humans. i dont dismiss what the phd says because i dont agree with it.

Yet they have no SCIENTIFIC method to prove the claim, so much for it being science. Just because some scientist says something doesn't make it scientific.

 

[busara]

Thousands of animals have gone extinct long before man, probably as a result of other animals as well. It's called evolution.

the obvious award as well as the 'i can repeat what someone else has said' award goes to bern80!!

the link i posted was scientists saying that we are causing a massive increase in extinction. not just saying it is happening.

 

[busara]

Yet they have no SCIENTIFIC method to prove the claim, so much for it being science. Just because some scientist says something doesn't make it scientific.

yes, im sure theyre just pulling numbers and figures out of their ass without any evidence whatsoever backing it up

 

[Ravi]

It seems kind of obvious to me that air pollution is a health hazard. So is deforestation. So is water pollution.

The goal of keeping the planet habitable is keeping it habitable for US.

Why cons are so resistant to conservation is one of lifes biggest mysteries.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yes, im sure theyre just pulling numbers and figures out of their ass without any evidence whatsoever backing it up

Find the actual Scientific theory and how it has been tested and shown to be viable. OR admit it is just a bunch of guys in white smocks talking out of their ass.

You are aware how the Scientific method works right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It seems kind of obvious to me that air pollution is a health hazard. So is deforestation. So is water pollution.

The goal of keeping the planet habitable is keeping it habitable for US.

Why cons are so resistant to conservation is one of lifes biggest mysteries.

We aren't you loon. We are very much for Conservation. We are not, however, for cutting our economic throat on the say so of idiots, loons and retards.

Lets take a look at pollution shall we? It has steadily gone DOWN every year since the 70's. We put out less and clean up more. And we continue to work on ways to lower it EVEN more. We continue to look for old sites that we polluted before we wised up ( you know back when the dems ran everything) and clean them as well.

Meanwhile the loons do not want us to actually USE the technology we have. Or did you miss where they are against the CO2 scrubbers developed from being used?

Now the developing nations are a problem , but unless you advocate aggressive wars against them for pollution you really haven't a leg to stand on.