A question about Dungy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Well its about that time, I am heading home for the night and wont be back till tomorrow so if i dont respond its not cause i think you smell or anything lol catch you on teh flip side i got zombies to kill! lol see you guys tomorrow.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]“Moron?  Basis?  Is it because she’s a woman and conservative?
    This is what  was talking about when I said I thought you were trying to poke me with a stick and unleash the beast lol no she is a moron because she is a f*cking moron. Unless you have been living under a rock for the last year this shouldn’t be up for debate. She was running for VP and she didn’t even know that Africa was a continent![/QUOTE]
    If you do a google search on this story, you will see that there never was a McCain aid named “
    M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. M. Thomas Eisenstadt is a hoax.”  MSNBC was had and it looks like you were too.  But since we’re taking shots at our least favorite politicians:

    Obama claimed his birth was a result of his parents conceiving him at the Selma, Alabama civil rights march. Only problem is, Osama Obama was born in 1961, the march was in 1965.

    An Obama quote about tornadoes in Kansas in May of last year, "“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.”
    The actual death toll was 12.

    In Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

    Obama took a swipe at the Bush administration about the lack of translators in Afghanistan:
    "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

    Obama told a Portland crowd: “Iran does not pose a serious threat to us. Tiny countries with small defense budgets can’t do us harm."  Then the very next day he states: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

    Obama told a French 
    Canal Plus reporter that the US is one of the world's largest Muslim countries. 

    Obama said our constitution was written "20 centuries" ago!!!

    “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” Gaffe alert: A German invented the automobile.

    In the first appearance ever by a sitting president on late-night television, Obama cracks wise with host Jay Leno about his poor abilities as a bowler. Obama remarks his bowling is “like Special Olympics, or something,” and soon issues an apology for his insensitive remark.

    Obama Says The U.S. Senate Banking Committee Is "My Committee." Obama: "Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill…" (Obama Press Conference, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008).  Obama Is Not A Member Of The U.S. Senate Committee On Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs. (U.S. Senate Committee On Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs Website,
    banking.senate.gov, Accessed 7/23/08)

    Obama: "My father served in World War II, and when he came home, he got the services that he needed." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The NALEO Conference, Washington, DC, 6/28/08)
    His father never served in WWII.

    In March 2008, Obama Falsely Claimed He Won The Michigan Democrat Primary When He Was Not On The Ballot

    In July 2008, Obama Said "Israel Is A Strong Friend Of Israel's"

    In February 2008, Obama Said He Was Running For "Commander Of Chief"

    And if you want to talk about geography:

    During the primaries, Obama explained to a Kentucky newspaper that Clinton was doing better in state because she was from the "nearby state of Arkansas" -- despite the fact that Illinois is closer to Kentucky than Arkansas.

    On May 23, Obama Mistakenly Says He's In "Sunshine" At Rally in Sunrise, Florida.

    On May 16, Obama Mistakenly Says He's In Sioux City At Sioux Falls, SD Rally.

    Obama Called Rapid City Grand Rapids.

    In March 2008, Obama Mistakenly Thought He Was In Wisconsin When He Was In Wyoming

    And don’t even get me started on Joe Biden…………………

    [QUOTE]In every single interview she did it was clear to pretty much everyone including the right wing…[/QUOTE]
    Incorrect.  I don’t know who you’re talking to or what you’re reading.


    [QUOTE]…So for you to sit here and just act like “oh I don’t know what you mean” is just you being obtuse on purpose…[/QUOTE]
    I have put on some weight, it’s true….

     

    [QUOTE]…if you live in America and followed the election you would clearly know she is a stupid person. So stop trying to make me out to be some bad guy for saying it by implying I only think she is dumb cause she is a female because that is not it, I think she is a moron because she is a moron. You might be the only person I have met to debate this everyone else has fully acknowledge that she is a f*cking idiot.[/QUOTE]
    You obviously did not listen to what she said.  And of course you are going to think she’s stupid because you don’t agree with anything she says when you did listen.  You don’t like the conservative viewpoint.  Just admit that you think she’s stupid because you don’t agree with her. 

     [QUOTE]See you have already made up your mind that is the difference between the two of us. 8 years ago when Bush got elected I gave the man a shot, after 9/11 I gave him loads of credit for the speeches he was given I loved that he was so gung ho about getting after anyone who harbored terrorist and I gave the man a shot but you and the people on your side have already made up your minds.[/QUOTE]
    I made up my mind during the run up to the election.  It was obvious to me he was a fake then, and nothing has changed.

    [QUOTE]If Obama was a republican you would be sitting here defending him I am sure of it…[/QUOTE]
    No I wouldn’t!!

    [QUOTE]…All this party VS party c rap is what is ruining this country. You made up your mind about Obama before he even had a chance and that is just sad…[/QUOTE]
    It’s not too hard to figure out which policies will be bad for the country.  But unfortunately, the USA has to learn the same lessons over and over… Carter, Clinton and now Obama.  Although I will agree if Republicans would stop acting like Democrats, we probably would never lose the White House…..

    [QUOTE]…I think this country could use a little switch up right about now and I think someone from the green party would be just the bit of fresh air we need but that’s just me…[/QUOTE]
    If it wasn’t for Palin, I would have voted Constitution Party.  She was McCain’s best attribute, even though you say differently.

    [QUOTE]Its this simple 347, if there was no evidence to support my side of things it would be against the law to abort a pregnancy...[/QUOTE]
    You keep saying evidence, but haven’t provided any or given me a link.  It’s not that simple.  SCJs gave opinions.  They were not evaluating facts.

    [QUOTE]If you had any evidence to prove them wrong then you could make it against the law in no time but clearly they have a leg up on you. I mean if you want to delude yourself into thinking that the Supreme Court is just pandering to the National Organization for Women then you go right ahead but clearly they had evidence to support their argument or else your side would have beat them out years ago.[/QUOTE]
    The SC decision was made when there was a majority of liberal judges on the court.

    [QUOTE]”If you go rob a bank and kill someone in the process, does the State have a right to come in and take your son and put him to death for your crime?”
    Its not the same thing and you know it. Someone very close to me was r aped and its not the same thing so please choose your next response very carefully because I am not going to sit here and let you down play r ape. I know this is a debate and you are trying to make your point but seriously you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
    I’m not downplaying r ape.  You are downplaying murder!  I know it’s not the same thing. I know it’s a difficult situation.  But you don’t fix a bad crime with a worse crime.  Plain and simple.  

     [QUOTE]“Of course not.  But that’s what we’re doing.  Killing a child for the sin of his father.”
    First of all how many women do you think would kill themselves if they HAD to spend 9 months being reminded day in and day out that they were carrying the offspring of the man who r aped them? Cause I think the numbers would out of this world. I don’t agree with you but even I could say that if I lived in a world where abortion was against the law I could live with it but not if r ape victims were not given the choice because that is a different situation all together. If you want to sit here and say that its selfish for women who “just want to run around and s crew” to get an abortion fine I can listen to you make that point but for you to say that a women should HAVE to keep the baby after she is forced against her will to have sex with a complete stranger is not only wrong but its sick.[/QUOTE]
    I feel the same way when people insist that fetuses are just pieces of tissue.  BTW, most abortions (I won’t give a percentage) are done for birth control.  Google it yourself and look at the data yourself.

    [QUOTE]It literally makes me sick to my stomach to think that someone would actually believe that. If a woman is r aped she should have the choice to abort. As I said before please choose your next reply very carefully as I have no tolerance what so ever for r apist in fact if I had the chance to straight up murder a r apist I would in a heart beat they are the scum of the earth.[/QUOTE] 
    I have no tolerance for them either.  However, you know those Supreme Court Justices you adamantly defend for supporting abortion?  Check out this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html  
    These same Justices say the death penalty for r aping a child is unconstitutional!  Kind of puts things in a different light doesn’t it.  The despots you defend don’t agree with you (BTW I agree with you) that r ape is a capital crime!  They neither defend babies in the womb nor children out of the womb.  But you’re willing to bow to them on the issue of abortion because “they have all the facts”.  Something is missing here………..

    [QUOTE]…the law doesn’t consider it murder so its not murder. Not to anyone that counts anyways. And by that I mean the law.[/QUOTE]
    Yep, and if you killed a r apist, you’d be tried for murder and put in jail for life.  So the law is always right, isn’t it?

    [QUOTE]Don’t take what I say out of context, post the whole thing if you are going to do that. It has nothing to do with whether I think its moral or not I do not question it what so ever, it is a women’s right to chose whether or not she wants to keep her baby, not yours and not your churches but hers.[/QUOTE]

    Right now anyway.  I’m wondering what excuse people will give when God asks them to give an account.

    [QUOTE]”Let’s get it out of the courts and see.”

    You would love that wouldn’t you? You know that there are more dumb people out there that would let their vote be influenced by one of your religious pro life commercials rather then take in all the facts…[/QUOTE]

    I’m still waiting for you to list these facts you’re talking about. Are you talking about these facts?

    Day 1 – fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins

    Day 6 – embryo begins implanting in the uterus

    Day 22 – heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mother’s

    Week 5 – eyes, legs, hands begin to develop, major organs start to function, heart beats at 150BPM

    Week 6 – brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming

    Week 7 – eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming

    Week 8 – every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form; baby can respond to touch and other stimuli

    Weeks 9 and 10 - teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown, move arms and legs, s uck thumb, all toes are formed

    Week 11 – baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation

    Week 12 – the baby has all of the part necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus; the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester, can coordinate movements

    Week 17 - baby can have dream (REM) sleep

    Week 20 – the earliest stage at which partial birth abortions are performed

    Week 22 – viable outside of the womb


    Which one of these facts determine personhood?


    [QUOTE]…and make an unbiased and educated choice.[/QUOTE]

    Just because the choice is different than you would like, doesn’t mean it biased or uneducated.

     

    [QUOTE]People make gut reactions, people don’t take in all the facts, people let their personal beliefs get in the way of the case at hand and that’s why people should never be entrusted with such a huge decision.[/QUOTE]

    Your personal belief that it is not a person would get in the way as well.

     

    [QUOTE]I would agree that we should let the people vote only if everyone was forced to take a class and get the facts and pass a test proving that they paid attention and didn’t go in with their minds already made up, if that was the case then I would be all for it but its not and people make stupid decisions everyday. The common American is an uninformed moron with no clue and who could be talked into making the wrong choice rather easily. Whether you think the wrong choice is pro life or pro choice is irrelevant the point is the common American could be talked into making a choice with out knowing all the facts. So I am way more comfortable with the SCJ making the call since they at least have to take in all the facts before making a decision.[/QUOTE]
    Did they have to take a class on abortion prior to making the decision?  Do they know when a baby’s heart begins to beat?  Do they know when brain waves are detectable?  I don’t think so.  Your opinion of the SC is overrated.

     [QUOTE]”Wait a minute.  If it’s not a person, why is it so tough?  You’re trying to have it both ways.  Foul!”

    Now you are just acting thick headed, even if I do not believe it is a baby at that stage in the pregnancy we are both clearly aware of the fact that one day it will grow into a living breathing being and that is what makes the choice hard for people. When its aborted it’s a fetus not a baby and the law supports this but when making the choice you are not just thinking about the fetus in your belly you are thinking about the baby it will grow into and that is what makes it tough. No one ever said that the fetus doesn’t grow into a baby that is clearly a fact and that’s what makes it tough. Its not murder because if you abort it in the early stages it’s a fetus and not a baby quite yet. Now if we were debating people getting abortion way too late into their pregnancy I would be with you because at some point it does become a baby and not just a fetus but if you follow the law and do what they tell you to do you are not murdering a baby you are aborting a fetus.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, Hitler said it was lawful to round up Jews and send them to gas chambers.  People followed the law then too.  So it’s a tough choice, but has no responsibility with it?  I don’t think you’ve done any research on the amount of women that go into severe depression after aborting a baby.  There are a lot of consequences to abortion to the mother as well.  Pro-choice advocates sweep that one under the carpet because of the almighty dollar.  They don’t tell women the whole truth because there is so much money in abortion.  No abortion, no money.  Planned parenthood is a money making death machine, nothing more.  They don’t care a lick about women.  Here is a telling quote:

        "Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer on how to cure.”
    -- Harrison Hickman, pollster for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights  Action League

     

    [QUOTE]”Are you calling on the name of the Lord or using His name in vain?”
    In vain.[/QUOTE]
    Well, you probably don’t care, but that is offensive.  Isn’t it funny how many words we have to a d j u s t  to get by the moderators, but the Lord’s name isn’t on the radar scope?


    [QUOTE]I have told you I believe in a higher being but I don’t believe in everything that you might believe. I don’t always buy into the whole Jesus is the son of god thing. Sometimes I take it into consideration but ultimately I think he was just a gut with an idea and a very good con man (lack of a better word) but like I said sometimes I think about it but in the end I don’t think I will be denied entrance into “heaven” because I swore too much or took the lords name in vain.[/QUOTE]

    You’ll be denied because you didn’t let him take away your sin. You’ll let the devil con you into thinking Jesus was a con man.  But there is still time………..


    [QUOTE]“Are you actually questioning the authenticity of those pictures?  Those are MiG fighter jets buried in the sand.”

    You are correct but what those pictures aren’t? WMDs buried in the sand. No evidence to support Bush’s claims have ever been found. He lied about why he wanted to go to war and until you can show me evidence of the WMDs he said he was sure they had he is a liar and a piece of sh*t. But if you have pictures of WMDs buried in the sand then please do show us all as I am more then willing to call CNN and break the story.[/QUOTE]


    March 1988 – Kurds massacred by Sadaam with chemicals




    Do you think he misplaced the technology????????  Ok, now please go tell CNN because they seemed to have ignored this fact.

    [QUOTE]“How can anyone be fair to all
    Pretty simple, by being fair to all. Are you implying that they should only be fair to some? And anyone else that doesn’t fall under their umbrella of whatever doesn’t count? Are you seriously suggesting that we should not expect elected officials to be fair to all? That is just ridicules of course they should be expected to be fair to all.[/QUOTE]
    You’ve got to be kidding me.  Can you name one politician that was ever fair to all?  Everyone of them has an agenda.  We want them to have an agenda.  We vote for those who have the same agenda as we do.  We vote for the people that have the same outlook as we do.  Even you vote for the person that thinks like you do.  Someone will always be disenfranchised.  That’s the democratic way.

    [QUOTE]“I want someone that basis his judgments on Biblical principles.  You don’t.  Why should your desire take precedence over mine?” 
    You don’t get it, if they would leave their religious beliefs at the door then no one is taking precedence over anyone. They are not elected to represent you and only people like you they are there to represent everyone. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Jedi’s whoever! I am not saying they can’t go to church I am saying that must consider all when making a decision and not just what the people in their church think. If its done right and its done fair no one takes precedence over anyone.[/QUOTE]
    What I think you’re missing is that religious or a-religious beliefs go down to the core of a person.  They make him who he is.  You can’t excise it out of them, unless they don’t really believe them.  You are asking for people to be fake when you make statements like that.  Let me ask you.  What beliefs would you have to put to the side if you were elected to office?

    [QUOTE]So the only way you ever think is in a biblical way? There is no room for compromise so that everyone can be represented fairly? You can’t just look at things in what is best for everyone you have to only look out for yourself and your own agenda? That’s sad. You are right I am not a cheap lib I am just some who expects things to be fair for all and not just for the people who talk to the same god.[/QUOTE]
    Politicians are elected to do what they think is right, but they don’t have to be atheists to do it.  They should care for all, but do the right thing even if constituents don’t like it. That’s what should be fair.  But asking them to leave their beliefs at the door is inexcusable.  Libs want cons to leave their views at the door, while they parade theirs down the isle.


    [QUOTE]…I could have sworn he was Christian so what’s up with this secular humanism that you keep referencing?[/QUOTE]  
    Matt 7:
    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Have a good day.  Looking forward to your response.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Sorry
    A couple of your quotes didn't make it into the boxes on that last one.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimnagle. Show jimnagle's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]If you do a google search on this story, you will see that there never was a McCain aid named “ M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. M. Thomas Eisenstadt is a hoax.”   MSNBC was had and it looks like you were too.   But since we’re taking shots at our least favorite politicians: Obama claimed his birth was a result of his parents conceiving him at the Selma, Alabama civil rights march. Only problem is, Osama Obama was born in 1961, the march was in 1965. An Obama quote about tornadoes in Kansas in May of last year, "“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll was 12. In Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” Obama took a swipe at the Bush administration about the lack of translators in Afghanistan: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages. Obama told a Portland crowd: “Iran does not pose a serious threat to us. Tiny countries with small defense budgets can’t do us harm."   Then the very next day he states: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Obama told a French  Canal Plus  reporter that the US is one of the world's largest Muslim countries.   Obama said our constitution was written "20 centuries" ago!!! “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” Gaffe alert: A German invented the automobile. In the first appearance ever by a sitting president on late-night television, Obama cracks wise with host Jay Leno about his poor abilities as a bowler. Obama remarks his bowling is “like Special Olympics, or something,” and soon issues an apology for his insensitive remark. Obama Says The U.S. Senate Banking Committee Is "My Committee." Obama: "Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill…" (Obama Press Conference, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008).   Obama Is Not A Member Of The U.S. Senate Committee On Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs. (U.S. Senate Committee On Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs Website, banking.senate.gov , Accessed 7/23/08) Obama: "My father served in World War II, and when he came home, he got the services that he needed." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The NALEO Conference, Washington, DC, 6/28/08) His father never served in WWII. In March 2008, Obama Falsely Claimed He Won The Michigan Democrat Primary When He Was Not On The Ballot In July 2008, Obama Said "Israel Is A Strong Friend Of Israel's" In February 2008, Obama Said He Was Running For "Commander Of Chief" And if you want to talk about geography: During the primaries, Obama explained to a Kentucky newspaper that Clinton was doing better in state because she was from the "nearby state of Arkansas" -- despite the fact that Illinois is closer to Kentucky than Arkansas. On May 23, Obama Mistakenly Says He's In "Sunshine" At Rally in Sunrise, Florida. On May 16, Obama Mistakenly Says He's In Sioux City At Sioux Falls, SD Rally. Obama Called Rapid City Grand Rapids. In March 2008, Obama Mistakenly Thought He Was In Wisconsin When He Was In Wyoming And don’t even get me started on Joe Biden………………… Incorrect.   I don’t know who you’re talking to or what you’re reading. I have put on some weight, it’s true….   You obviously did not listen to what she said.   And of course you are going to think she’s stupid because you don’t agree with anything she says when you did listen.   You don’t like the conservative viewpoint.   Just admit that you think she’s stupid because you don’t agree with her.     I made up my mind during the run up to the election.   It was obvious to me he was a fake then, and nothing has changed. No I wouldn’t!! It’s not too hard to figure out which policies will be bad for the country.   But unfortunately, the USA has to learn the same lessons over and over… Carter, Clinton and now Obama.   Although I will agree if Republicans would stop acting like Democrats, we probably would never lose the White House….. If it wasn’t for Palin, I would have voted Constitution Party.   She was McCain’s best attribute, even though you say differently. You keep saying evidence, but haven’t provided any or given me a link.   It’s not that simple.   SCJs gave opinions.   They were not evaluating facts. The SC decision was made when there was a majority of liberal judges on the court. I’m not downplaying r ape.   You are downplaying murder!   I know it’s not the same thing. I know it’s a difficult situation.   But you don’t fix a bad crime with a worse crime.   Plain and simple.      I feel the same way when people insist that fetuses are just pieces of tissue.   BTW, most abortions (I won’t give a percentage) are done for birth control.   Google it yourself and look at the data yourself.   I have no tolerance for them either.   However, you know those Supreme Court Justices you adamantly defend for supporting abortion?   Check out this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html    These same Justices say the death penalty for r aping a child is unconstitutional!   Kind of puts things in a different light doesn’t it.   The despots you defend don’t agree with you (BTW I agree with you) that r ape is a capital crime!   They neither defend babies in the womb nor children out of the womb.   But you’re willing to bow to them on the issue of abortion because “they have all the facts”.   Something is missing here……….. Yep, and if you killed a r apist, you’d be tried for murder and put in jail for life.   So the law is always right, isn’t it? Right now anyway.   I’m wondering what excuse people will give when God asks them to give an account. I’m still waiting for you to list these facts you’re talking about. Are you talking about these facts? • Day 1 – fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins • Day 6 – embryo begins implanting in the uterus • Day 22 – heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mother’s • Week 5 – eyes, legs, hands begin to develop, major organs start to function, heart beats at 150BPM • Week 6 – brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming • Week 7 – eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming • Week 8 – every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form; baby can respond to touch and other stimuli • Weeks 9 and 10 - teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown, move arms and legs, s uck thumb, all toes are formed • Week 11 – baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation • Week 12 – the baby has all of the part necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus; the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester, can coordinate movements • Week 17 - baby can have dream (REM) sleep • Week 20 – the earliest stage at which partial birth abortions are performed • Week 22 – viable outside of the womb Which one of these facts determine personhood? Just because the choice is different than you would like, doesn’t mean it biased or uneducated.   Your personal belief that it is not a person would get in the way as well.   Did they have to take a class on abortion prior to making the decision?   Do they know when a baby’s heart begins to beat?   Do they know when brain waves are detectable?   I don’t think so.   Your opinion of the SC is overrated.   Yeah, Hitler said it was lawful to round up Jews and send them to gas chambers.   People followed the law then too.   So it’s a tough choice, but has no responsibility with it?   I don’t think you’ve done any research on the amount of women that go into severe depression after aborting a baby.   There are a lot of consequences to abortion to the mother as well.   Pro-choice advocates sweep that one under the carpet because of the almighty dollar.   They don’t tell women the whole truth because there is so much money in abortion.   No abortion, no money.   Planned parenthood is a money making death machine, nothing more.   They don’t care a lick about women.   Here is a telling quote:     "Probably nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer on how to cure.” -- Harrison Hickman, pollster for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights  Action League   Well, you probably don’t care, but that is offensive.   Isn’t it funny how many words we have to a d j u s t   to get by the moderators, but the Lord’s name isn’t on the radar scope? You’ll be denied because you didn’t let him take away your sin. You’ll let the devil con you into thinking Jesus was a con man.   But there is still time……….. March 1988 – Kurds massacred by Sadaam with chemicals Do you think he misplaced the technology????????   Ok, now please go tell CNN because they seemed to have ignored this fact . You’ve got to be kidding me.   Can you name one politician that was ever fair to all?   Everyone of them has an agenda.   We want them to have an agenda.   We vote for those who have the same agenda as we do.   We vote for the people that have the same outlook as we do.   Even you vote for the person that thinks like you do.   Someone will always be disenfranchised.   That’s the democratic way. What I think you’re missing is that religious or a-religious beliefs go down to the core of a person.   They make him who he is.   You can’t excise it out of them, unless they don’t really believe them.   You are asking for people to be fake when you make statements like that.   Let me ask you.   What beliefs would you have to put to the side if you were elected to office? Politicians are elected to do what they think is right, but they don’t have to be atheists to do it.   They should care for all, but do the right thing even if constituents don’t like it. That’s what should be fair.   But asking them to leave their beliefs at the door is inexcusable.   Libs want cons to leave their views at the door, while they parade theirs down the isle.   Matt 7: 21   Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Have a good day.  Looking forward to your response.  
    Posted by 347pg[/QUOTE]

    Nice work, 347.  I was out tonight and caught it late.  Very strong defense of the pro-life position..
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TarheelChief. Show TarheelChief's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    One would hope people would gain perspective on the entire issue.
    PETA has recently filed a suit against the Seattle Market where the vendors throw the fish around the shop.They said it was an indignity to the fish.
    The NFL has had cases where players assaulted their wives or other women.
    The NFL has dealt with manslaughter cases and allowed players to continue playing.
    The NFL has permitted former steroid users back into the league without penalties.
    The NBA has thrown one referee into prison while never finding one player who could called into question regarding gambling infractions or illegal substance abuse which was included in the collective bargaining agreement.
    Donald Fehr defended MLB players who were taking steroids and grieved many cases in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    This wis why I do not see why everyone decided Vick was the most evil person in the NFL.I understand Dungy,I do not understand professional sports and fans.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    347, Its been fun debating this whole pro life vs pro choice part of things but i think this debate has run its course. I cant keep going back and forth with these insanly long posts lol You wont change my mind and i wont change yours so its pointless. I love debating with you though so maybe we just change the subject. Where do you stand on the whole global warming thing? they are trying to pass a bill right now to help with green house gases from factories and the like, how do you feel about this subject?

    Also could you please provide a link to each of those Obama quotes you posted? Anyone can make someone look stupid so if he really said and did all those dumb things please post a link. I post from work so I cant spend all day gathering proof that Sarah Pailin is a moron so I guess if you think she is a smart person then you havea right to think that. Personally i think she is a dumb sh*t, it seems like everytime i call someone dumb whether it be Pailin or the American people you argue with me, so let me ask you, you do realize that there are in fact stupid people on this plannet? Now before you go off and say "just becaus ethey dont think like you doesnt make them stupid" let me say you are right, just because everyone doesnt think like me does not make them stupid.....being stupid is what makes them stupid. I am just saying you are right some people are smart but some people are also plain stupid. So like i said you do realize there are dumb people in this world right? Even if she was running for VP doesnt mean she is not a dumb sh*t. You are still the ONLY person i have talked to who has debated whether or not she is a moron everyone including my republican friends has fully addmited she is a moron except for you.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from timesedge. Show timesedge's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I think I can respond to the idea of how prevalent life might be in the universe. We live on a planet where life exists in a completely startling array of environments. From the deep pressure of miles beneath the surface in the deepest oceans (the bottom of the Marianna trench), to bacteria living in the upper levels of the atmosphere; from the coldest places on the planet to the hottest volcanic eruptions; from the dryest areas of the antarctic to the oceans themselves. When all of this is taken into account it seems perfectly reasonable that life could have evolved in a lot more places in the universe, maybe is even MORE common than what Z has suggested. Who knows, there may still be life in our own solar system - we have a long long way to go before we can prove otherwise.

    It seems perfectly rational to believe that once life had evolved, it would follow a fairly Darwinian evolutionary path, as life competed against life; thereby mutating and evolving into better adapted forms. Given enough time it seems not only reasonable, but very likely that this would lead to evolution of an intelligent being.

    So, in terms of arguing that humanity is special or that humanity "inherited" the earth, I personally don't believe that. I actually do not feel that God would discern humanity from any other creature that was created or evolved. Hell, we know for a fact that HUMANS ARE EVOLVING! We are not the same as the humans who existed 2000 years ago - we're taller, more muscular, maybe even brainier. Compared to the humans from 50,000 years ago, or 600,000 years ago, we've evolved quite a bit. Oh yeah - another proof? We have blacks, whites, asians, latinos, etc... all extremely different. Evolution is in action!

    What people of faith should realize is that the stories of the Bible, of the Torah, of the writings of Buddha, or the Koran, or anything were all written by men in terms that they understood during their lifetimes. They were stories that helped people have hope, entertainment, live together peacefully, and in some abusive cases to make people do what the people in power wanted them to.

    Whether you believe in God or not should not come from what other people have told you. As in all things, usually what other people tell you serves that persons purpose - they tend to leave out that which doesn't.

    Religion is too often an excuse for control and manipulation of people, but it is not the fault of the belief in God - it is the fault of the belief in the people recognized to be "in power" of that religion.

    I like the idea of humanity having to accept the responsibility for its own actions. I also think that God does not care whether you believe in him/her or not. If God is good, then God cares about people doing the right thing and living in harmony with each other and all of life.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Very good post Timesedge, I hope you stick around long enough to respond to teh sh*t storm you have called on from all the right wingers lol But I like the post and agree with your points.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]Very good post Timesedge, I hope you stick around long enough to respond to teh sh*t storm you have called on from all the right wingers lol But I like the post and agree with your points.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]
    Killa
    You're cracking me up. lol.  I don't know if I'll get to your other post today.  I agree, we can move on to global warming.  I hope I wasn't overly offensive in my last post.  Abortion is an emotionally charged issue for me and I may have gone over the top.  if so, I apologize.  I would actually vote for a Democrat (now pick your jaw up off the floor) if they would nominate a pro-life candidate.  S c rew the economy, just stop killing babies.  I don't think it will ever happen though.  Get back to you as soon as I can.  You too timesedge.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

         -- "You are still the ONLY person i have talked to who has debated whether or not she is a moron everyone including my republican friends has fully addmited she  (Palin)is a moron except for you." -- 

    Killa, my man, I don't know who you've been talking to, but clearly, this woman is a genius . . .


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    By the standards of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, she's an attractive woman.
    Then she opens her mouth and she's just a hideous beast.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    347 - how many republican presidents have we had since Roe v Wade and how many supreme court justices have they nominated and how many of those justices have done anything to overturn Roe v Wade?  Has it ever occurred to you the Republicans like Roe v Wade because they know a good portion of the population will vote for them just for the sake of their supposed desire to overturn it?

    You make some good posts but it seems like you are a republican party loyalist and I just don't understand how anyone can be loyal to any political party - they are all scumbags. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    THANK GOD! FINALY SOME OF YOU SPEAK UP! LOL yes she is a dumb sh*t thank you for finaly coming to my aide lol
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "347 - how many republican presidents have we had since Roe v Wade and how many supreme court justices have they nominated and how many of those justices have done anything to overturn Roe v Wade?  Has it ever occurred to you the Republicans like Roe v Wade because they know a good portion of the population will vote for them just for the sake of their supposed desire to overturn it?

    You make some good posts but it seems like you are a republican party loyalist and I just don't understand how anyone can be loyal to any political party - they are all scumbags.  " - Mighty


    Very good point Mighty, as long as there is abortion there will be someone running for office saying they are pro life and that gets them votes so why would they overturn Roe VS Wade if it helps get them elected year after year? Very good point Mighty wish i had thought of it myself.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]347 - how many republican presidents have we had since Roe v Wade and how many supreme court justices have they nominated and how many of those justices have done anything to overturn Roe v Wade?  Has it ever occurred to you the Republicans like Roe v Wade because they know a good portion of the population will vote for them just for the sake of their supposed desire to overturn it? You make some good posts but it seems like you are a republican party loyalist and I just don't understand how anyone can be loyal to any political party - they are all scumbags. 
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]
    Mighty
    I have to agree with Killa.  That is a very good point and one I hadn't considered.  I'm a Republican and loyal to it when they act like Republicans and not Democrats. I've voted Constitution Party though and almost did last election.  Yes, there are scumbags but IMHO, less in the GOP.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RJG33. Show RJG33's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I have a question: when was Tony Dungy named the Conscience of the NFL? I'm sorry his kid died too, but c'mon...

    Vick is a scumbag. Dungy is an enabler. There are a lot of people who have done and do the right things (ie, don't smash dog-fight losing dogs' heads into walls to kill them) who are more deserving of opportunities than Vick.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    347,

    Stick with the Constitution Party.  Anyone is better than the goons running the show now.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kmaxx. Show Kmaxx's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    [QUOTE]...Where do you stand on the whole global warming thing? they are trying to pass a bill right now to help with green house gases from factories and the like, how do you feel about this subject?[/QUOTE]
    Well I know there are parts of the polar ice cap that are melting, but there are other parts that are thicker than they've ever been.  So until there is definitive evidence one way or the other, I'm going with cyclical weather patterns.


    [QUOTE]Also could you please provide a link to each of those Obama quotes you posted? Anyone can make someone look stupid so if he really said and did all those dumb things please post a link.[/QUOTE]
    The link to the site I used is at work so I won't have it until Tuesday.  However, if you google "obama gaffes" you will see tons of sites that explain the ones I mentioned.  Do the same for Palin and you will find a lot more for Obama.

    [QUOTE]...so let me ask you, you do realize that there are in fact stupid people on this plannet?[/QUOTE]
    I do realize this.

    [QUOTE]...You are still the ONLY person i have talked to who has debated whether or not she is a moron everyone including my republican friends has fully addmited she is a moron except for you.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]
    Well I don't pretend to speak for all Republicans or Conservatives,, however, the people I talk with seem to like her and her brain just fine.
    Hope you had a good weekend.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]By the standards of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, she's an attractive woman. Then she opens her mouth and she's just a hideous beast.
    Posted by Yapple[/QUOTE]
    Hideous beast????
    I think we need to save that descriptor for the annointed one himself!!
    lol
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]I think I can respond to the idea of how prevalent life might be in the universe. We live on a planet where life exists in a completely startling array of environments. From the deep pressure of miles beneath the surface in the deepest oceans (the bottom of the Marianna trench), to bacteria living in the upper levels of the atmosphere; from the coldest places on the planet to the hottest volcanic eruptions; from the dryest areas of the antarctic to the oceans themselves. When all of this is taken into account it seems perfectly reasonable that life could have evolved in a lot more places in the universe, maybe is even MORE common than what Z has suggested.[/QUOTE]
    Remember, evolution bases itself on natural selection, a cosmic coin flip.  Where are all the mutations that went wrong?  Where are all the bad probability flips?   If it is so natural for species to take the best DNA route, than you are bordering on inntelligent design.

    [QUOTE]Who knows, there may still be life in our own solar system - we have a long long way to go before we can prove otherwise. It seems perfectly rational to believe that once life had evolved , it would follow a fairly Darwinian evolutionary path, as life competed against life; thereby mutating and evolving into better adapted forms. Given enough time it seems not only reasonable, but very likely that this would lead to evolution of an intelligent being.[/QUOTE]
    I've mentioned this before, but eco-systems would have to evolve together.  This with the thousands of things that have to line up all at the same time, are so remote that it boggles the mind.  It's possible that the monkey could type out the dictionary if given a typewriter, but not probable.  Seems to me that when people reject the creation idea, they abandon probable for possible.

    [QUOTE]So, in terms of arguing that humanity is special or that humanity "inherited" the earth, I personally don't believe that. I actually do not feel that God would discern humanity from any other creature that was created or evolved.[/QUOTE]
    Unless we were created in His image

    [QUOTE]Hell, we know for a fact that HUMANS ARE EVOLVING! We are not the same as the humans who existed 2000 years ago - we're taller, more muscular, maybe even brainier.[/QUOTE]
    These are examples of micro-evolution, which I do not argue.  There are no examples of macro-evolution that I know of. 

    [QUOTE]Compared to the humans from 50,000 years ago, or 600,000 years ago, we've evolved quite a bit. Oh yeah - another proof? We have blacks, whites, asians, latinos, etc... all extremely different.[/QUOTE]
    I wouldn't say extremely.  Skin color and maybe a few other small details.  Children of blacks and whites (or other mixed race children) can have children themselves.  A cross between a horse and a donkey (mule) cannot have offspring.

    [QUOTE]Evolution is in action! What people of faith should realize is that the stories of the Bible, of the Torah, of the writings of Buddha, or the Koran, or anything were all written by men in terms that they understood during their lifetimes. They were stories that helped people have hope, entertainment, live together peacefully, and in some abusive cases to make people do what the people in power wanted them to.[/QUOTE]
    Most Conservative Christians believe that the Bible is inspired, i.e. that God insired the men who penned the words, with the actual words in their own language and venacular.  Can't speak for Muslims and the Koran.

    [QUOTE]Whether you believe in God or not should not come from what other people have told you.[/QUOTE]
    Actually, Christians are required to tell others about God and give a testimony of what He's done for them.  Then point peole in the direction of God's word.

    [QUOTE]As in all things, usually what other people tell you serves that persons purpose - they tend to leave out that which doesn't.[/QUOTE]
    That's why it must be backed up by what the Bible says

    [QUOTE]Religion is too often an excuse for control and manipulation of people, but it is not the fault of the belief in God - it is the fault of the belief in the people recognized to be "in power" of that religion.[/QUOTE]
    There are a few current examples of this, I admit.  However, people have to be able to recognize when this is happening and leave the bondage.

    [QUOTE]I like the idea of humanity having to accept the responsibility for its own actions.[/QUOTE]
    I agree, if fact God will require it of us.

    [/QUOTE]I also think that God does not care whether you believe in him/her or not. If God is good, then God cares about people doing the right thing and living in harmony with each other and all of life.
    Posted by timesedge[/QUOTE]
    Why would He not care?  Why make all of this in the first place if He didn't care?
    He knows that we can't do the right thing which is why He sent His Son to save us from our sin
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]I have a question: when was Tony Dungy named the Conscience of the NFL? I'm sorry his kid died too, but c'mon... Vick is a scumbag. Dungy is an enabler. There are a lot of people who have done and do the right things (ie, don't smash dog-fight losing dogs' heads into walls to kill them) who are more deserving of opportunities than Vick.
    Posted by RJG33[/QUOTE]

    Can you provide some link to your question?  I did not know there was an award for conscience of the nfl. 

    Can you explain why he is an enabler?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Underdogg you are being stupid, anyone who watches the NFL knows that when Tony Dungy speaks people not only listen they follow suit. So him comign Vicks aide might as well been the NFL anouncing Vick is back in the NFL. As soon as Dungy gave Vick his blessing everyone knew Vick was comig back to the NFL. Roger Goodel and the NFL might as well marry Dungy since they s uck on his d*ck 24/7
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "Well I know there are parts of the polar ice cap that are melting, but there are other parts that are thicker than they've ever been.  So until there is definitive evidence one way or the other, I'm going with cyclical weather patterns." - 347


    OK so let me ask you a question before I start posting my links and what not. Why do you need proof? Why do teh right wing even have this "prove it" attitude? Shouldnt we all want to protect our plannet? I mean its the only one we got, all of us so why are we not all in agreement that we should take care of it? I am no treehugger by any means but it just seems really greedy to me that there are peiople fighting this. Even if it turned out to be false what was the harm? We took care of the plannet? oh no we did a really good thing! boo! where does this come from? Its like "why should we stop making money off of ruining this plannet with out proof?" and I just dont get it. Why fight it? Why not just as you said with abortion lean on the side off caution and make sure we are not causing the distruction of our entire plannet. (That was not an invite to reopen the abortion debate either so please dont go off on that again) I am just saying it is a good thing if we clean up our act so I dont know why there is all thsi fighting. Its just scared people afraid of change thats all it is, people who dont want to stop doing what their doing and its selfish. We have to leave this plannet behind for our kids so i dont see why there is even a debate. But you wanted proof so i will give you proof. This is about to get long and boring lol so those of you who dont want to make your brains hurt might want to check out now. haha



    POWERFUL evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US Government, demolishing the chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real.

    A new analysis of satellite data has revealed that temperatures in a critical part of the atmosphere are rising much faster than previously thought, strengthening the scientific consensus that the world is warming at an unnatural rate.


    The discovery resolves one of the most contentious anomalies in climate science, which has often been invoked by the Bush Administration to question whether man-made global warming is happening.


    While it is generally accepted that surface temperatures are increasing by an average of 0.17C (0.31F) per decade, satellites have been unable to detect a parallel trend in the troposphere — the lowest level of the atmosphere, extending 7.5 miles above the ground, in which most weather occurs


    This lack of tropospheric warming has long puzzled scientists, as it is predicted by all the major models of climate change. It has also been seized on by a small but vocal minority of scientists, who have used it to raise doubts about whether global temperatures are rising at all. The enigma, however, has been explained by a team led by Qiang Fu, of the University of Washington in Seattle.
      His research reveals that the troposphere is warming almost precisely as the models predict it should: by about 0.2C (0.4F) per decade. Satellites have not previously detected the trend as they have been confused by colder temperatures in the atmospheric layer above.  The findings, details of which are published today in the journal Nature, provide one of the final pieces of proof that global warming is taking place, and that it is a human-induced phenomenon. Sceptics have often argued that if temperatures are rising at all, this is down to natural variation in the climate as the world emerges from a “little Ice Age”. The tropospheric trend, however, is precisely what scientists would expect to see if man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were causing it to heat up.  “I think this could convince not just scientists but the public as well,” Dr Fu said. Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: “It will become that much harder for people to claim that the world isn’t warming and that the warming isn’t caused by greenhouse-gas emissions.”  In their study, the Washington team examined atmospheric temperature data collected between January 1979 and December 2001 from satellites operated by the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration.  These satellites used instruments known as microwave-sounding units to measure microwave radiation emitted by oxygen molecules, and thus to calculate the temperature. The raw data for the troposphere, as measured by the instruments’ channel 2 setting, showed no pronounced warming trend.  Dr Fu realised, however, that about a fifth of the signal picked up on channel 2 in fact originated in the stratosphere — the higher level of the atmosphere between 10km and 50km above the Earth’s surface. This had skewed the data, as the stratosphere is known to be cooling rapidly.   “Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming, so the channel 2 measurement by itself provided us with little information on the temperature trend in the lower atmosphere,” Dr Fu said.


    His team then used measurements from weather balloons and from another channel on the microwave units to determine precisely how much of the channel 2 signal was coming from the stratosphere.


    Once this stratospheric error was eliminated, the remaining data showed that the troposphere had indeed been warming, by about 0.2C (0.4F) a decade.


    “This tells us very clearly what the lower atmosphere temperature trend is, and the trend is very similar to what is happening at the surface,” Dr Fu said.


    The new tropospheric data does not suggest that the pace of global warming is increasing or decreasing. The research was funded by the US Government, through the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and Nasa.


    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global temperatures will rise by an average of between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.


    Dr Hulme said that while the results further confirm the overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made global warming is a proven phenomenon, he would be surprised if it were accepted by critics.


    “I’m under no illusions that it will knock down the critics altogether,” he said. “In some quarters, people hold almost fundamentalist beliefs that are immune to carefully reasoned argument. A new paper that seems to take the legs away from one of their critiques may unfortunately not make much difference to their arguments.


    “It is the totality of the evidence that has convinced the vast majority of experts that the planet is warming: surface temperature recordings, rises in sea level, retreating glaciers, shifting species domains.


    “The compendium of evidence from all these different sources means the overwhelming majority of scientists feel justified in warning society about this.”
     http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/threat/threat6.htm







    Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.


    The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.


    Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"


    The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."



    He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.


    "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."


    America
    produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.



    Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.


    The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.


    They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.



    "Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."



    Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.


    Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.
     http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm









    Global Warming Preventing
    Anyone who believes there has not been proof for global warming has had their heads stuck somewhere recently, and it might not be in the clouds! Don't get me wrong – I'm not one of those starry-eyed liberals. For a long time, I myself didn't believe the proof of global warming. I had read all of the conservative documents against global warming proof, you see. There are a wide variety of creative attempts to discredit evidence of global climate change. For example, many people cite studies done more than a decade ago that suggested that we might actually face global cooling as a result of human activities. If they were wrong then, the skeptics ask, how do we know they're not wrong now?




    The answer is simple. Global warming proof is everywhere. The science has gotten better, and even if there is a small chance that global warming isn't as severe as almost all scientists today agree it is, we can't afford to risk it. No matter where you live, you have probably noticed the strange weather recently. In many parts of the world, there have been heat waves, unusual floods or droughts, and even severe storms. What happened down in New Orleans was only the tip of the iceberg. And speaking of icebergs, had you better get a look at them while you have the chance. they might not be around for that much longer!



    The moment I stopped doubting global warming proof was when I returned to our childhood ski resort. We used to go skiing every winter, and one of the highlights of the trip was a trek up to a magnificent glacier. Today, barely more than a decade later, that glacier has all but disappeared. The snow that used to stick all winter now only lasts a few weeks at a time, and many of the resorts in the area have closed permanently. We may not understand all the facts, but something is happening to our environment and it is up to all of us to become involved.



    There are many ways to become involved in helping to stop global warming. Writing your congressman is one of the most simple, straightforward, and effective ways. If you want to go a step further, you can try to write opinion pieces in your local paper, attend protests, and most importantly, curb your consumption. Use less electricity, plant more trees, and try to use alternative modes of transportation. We have all the global warming proof we need. Now is the time for action!
     http://global-warming-preventing.blogspot.com/




    I gave you a link to each story, I did not use wiki as that site can be wrong. There were plenty of other proof related storys for global warming so if you need more i can always go back but this is all i felt like posting as it takes a lot of time to look all this up from work hahaha


    As for Pailin I wont go looking for quotes and stuff cause i simply dont have the time right now. If you think she is a good represenitive for the republican party then you go right a head and put all your eggs in that basket and see how you do. I would say about 90% of American's think she is stupid and not the right person for the job. That is off teh top of my head of course so dont hold me to it as its a guesstamation. Like I said you are the only person I have found who debates whether or not she is dumb everyone else seems on teh same page that she was a bad choice.



    I am glad you do realize that there are stupid people on this plannet, as you have seemed to come up with an excuse every time i have called someone dumb so its good to know taht you at least realize there are in fact stupid people on this plannet. Sarah Pailin is a prime example (couldnt resist)


    But ok I will let you get to reading all this research I have posted for you. I can not wait for your response.






     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]Underdogg you are being stupid, anyone who watches the NFL knows that when Tony Dungy speaks people not only listen they follow suit. So him comign Vicks aide might as well been the NFL anouncing Vick is back in the NFL. As soon as Dungy gave Vick his blessing everyone knew Vick was comig back to the NFL. Roger Goodel and the NFL might as well marry Dungy since they s uck on his d*ck 24/7
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    So Roger Goodell takes orders from Tony Dungy?  And I am the one being stupid? 

    If he had that much power he could have had Belichick suspended a year for cheating.  

    You know as well as anyone that Dungy sees an opportunity for a guy (VICK) with a HUGE amount of exposure to turn his life around and become a positive influence for a lot of people - kids in particular. 

    Ultimately,that is only what this is about where Dungy is concerned. 

    As many fans as there are here that bich about Dungy, you would think he was the one with 3 rings.  Listen folks, Belichick will never be the media darling that Dungy is.  Belichick goes out of his way to do as little for the media as he can.  That is his choice.  Dungy's stature should bother no one here.  Your coach has chosen a role as a media hermit.  Don't bich about other coaches just because you are jealous about the attention they get. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share