Dallas Morning News reported this last weekend - 49K new jobs created in the state in June. Unemployment rate is 4.6%. 500 people (legal) are moving here per week. Almost like the great Michigan migration of 1979.
I live in Houston and housing is very very reasonable here compared to other places. My house is almost 3000 sq feet and I paid $150,000 for it new 9 years ago. Its current appraised value is $225,000 because of upgrades I have made to it. I can still buy my exact same house in a new development for $150,000. My sister's house is Chicago which is not nearly as large as mine cost them close to $300,000. My brother's house in a very ritzy suburb of Cleveland cost him $350,000 for 500 sq feet more than I have. It is a buyers market here in TX.
No lie. It's definitely pretty much name your own price, terms, etc. Lots of folks in foreclosure though... at least in the DFW area. All those balloons are starting to pop.
Also, keep in mind that Texans picked George W. Bush to be their governor.
That may be a plus or a minus to you, but it's a fact.
It's better than Massachusetts electing Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy and John "Golddigger" Kerry as Senators.
Hey, last I knew, neither of those guys were directly responsible for killing 4,000 US troops, and Kerry may have even saved a few.
I don't think Bush was "directly" responsible for killing 4,000 troups either, but I do know that Ted Kennedy was "directly" responsible for killing Mary Jo Kopechne.
Bush knew there was no reason to go into Iraq, so every troop who has died there has not only died in vain, but was killed by their commander-in-chief.
I know a simple majority in Congress doesn't get a law passed, but NOTHING WAS DONE.
really...perhaps you need to check the news about that.
as for Iraq...and then I will stop this TJ...democrats looked at the same intelligence and reached the same conclusions. They also voted to go to war. Period.
really...perhaps you need to check the news about that.
Yeah, well, my W could still get an abortion here in town, and it's as conservative as it gets here.
Originally Posted by medc
as for Iraq...and then I will stop this TJ...democrats looked at the same intelligence and reached the same conclusions. They also voted to go to war. Period.
Is that the "they did it, so I can do it too" argument? Does that apply to married people and affairs, too?
Don't forget that some of that "intelligence" was fabricated...Colin Powell even presented it to the U.N.
Anyway, Bush was Commander-In-Chief. He is ultimately responsible. There wouldn't have been a vote in the first place without that fabricated evidence, and taking advantage of the fear and anger caused by 9/11, which was in no way connected to Iraq at all.
I agree. The Republicans have relied on silly slogans and rhetoric for far too long.
"Mission Accomplished"
The "Mission Accomplished" banner, was, made by the WH, but it was made so, by specific Request of the USS Abraham Lincoln---> LINK
Quote
The "Mission Accomplished" banner was created to celebrate the return of the USS Abraham Lincoln to her home port in Everett, WA after an extended 11 month cruise. We were happy and proud to return to our families after such a long time away. The average cruise length for a naval vessel at that time was normally around 6 months. Our mission during Operation Iraqi freedom was accomplished with overwhelming success and thus this banner was created and proudly displayed to represent the USS Abraham Lincoln's individual accomplishments during the war. It certainly did not mean that the American mission as a whole had been accomplished in Iraq.
President Bush NEVER said "Mission Accomplished" or the War was "won" in Iraq. In fact, he said the exact OPPOSITE, that there was a long road ahead.
You are still eerily silent on your boy Ted Kennedy. Are you conceding that he got away with murder? If so, then why has he continued to be allowed to represent the state of Massachusetts in the Senate?
I agree. The Republicans have relied on silly slogans and rhetoric for far too long.
"Mission Accomplished"
The "Mission Accomplished" banner, was, made by the WH, but it was made so, by specific Request of the USS Abraham Lincoln---> LINK
Quote
The "Mission Accomplished" banner was created to celebrate the return of the USS Abraham Lincoln to her home port in Everett, WA after an extended 11 month cruise. We were happy and proud to return to our families after such a long time away. The average cruise length for a naval vessel at that time was normally around 6 months. Our mission during Operation Iraqi freedom was accomplished with overwhelming success and thus this banner was created and proudly displayed to represent the USS Abraham Lincoln's individual accomplishments during the war. It certainly did not mean that the American mission as a whole had been accomplished in Iraq.
President Bush NEVER said "Mission Accomplished" or the War was "won" in Iraq. In fact, he said the exact OPPOSITE, that there was a long road ahead.
Between the swift boaters and the completely fabricated "I invented the internet" phrase, plenty of crap flies from both directions...at least "Mission accomplished" didn't affect an election.
Besides, that was just one of many, many examples. That happened to be the first one that came to mind.
Let's please have a little respect for Betrayedhubby and not turn this into a political shouting match. He is going through the worst time of his life, and his thread has been turned into something which won't help him at all. There are plenty of other places on the worldwide web to discuss such. Let's support and encourage BH, please.
You are still eerily silent on your boy Ted Kennedy. Are you conceding that he got away with murder? If so, then why has he continued to be allowed to represent the state of Massachusetts in the Senate?
Murder? No.
Manslaughter? Probably.
He probably should not be a Senator, and only is because of his last name. I never cared for any of the Kennedys.
Does that have any bearing at all on the more than 4,000 soldiers who have died, and the thousands upon thousands more who have permanent physical disabilities and PTSD thanks SOLELY to the unilateral decisions of the Bush administration? No.
How the religious right could back such an administration is beyond me. It has done nothing but display the opposite of Christian values from day one...well, BEFORE day one thanks to Katherine Harris and the rest.
Let's please have a little respect for Betrayedhubby and not turn this into a political shouting match. He is going through the worst time of his life, and his thread has been turned into something which won't help him at all. There are plenty of other places on the worldwide web to discuss such. Let's support and encourage BH, please.
Sorry, done.
I hope BH75 sticks to his decision to D. It's easy to say as an outsider, but I really think he's making the right choice.
A ton of heartache now, to save a thousand tons of heartache later.
Folks, I tried and failed to move the political posts to the OT forum because of some mod alerts we received. Would you mind continuing the political discussion there so the thread can be devoted to BH? Thanks for your help! Revera
I am no means a Bush apologist. I think that he has done a piss-poor job. In retrospect, it was probably ill-advised to go into war against Iraq given the instability that would ensue. He also did a poor job of controlling spending in other areas, did nothing to improve social security, healthcare, gas prices, and the economy. However, the current set of candidates is no improvement.
What I can't stand is the stupid rhetoric. He is not responsible for the deaths of 4,000 soldiers. Last I checked, we have an ALL-VOLUNTEER armed forces, so they signed up for this kind of duty. The people responsible for their deaths are the roadside bombers that try and take them out. Is Bill Clinton personally responsible for the deaths of 3,000+ Americans on 9/11/01 because he refused to take OBL when Sudan offered him to us? No, but he did make a stupid mistake.
When will you guys just realize that Gore NEVER beat Bush in Florida in ANY recount, no matter how many extra votes they tried to give Gore. A dimpled chad? You have got to be kidding me. All Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court did was end the Democrats holding the country hostage while they tried to manufacture enough votes for Gore to beat Bush. Gore lost. Get over it. Would you really want Gore to be president? He's a nutjob, spreading his global warming scare tactics to swindle people out of money for his BS carbon credits garbage. Global Warming is to the Democrats what 9/11 is to the republicans. The only differences is terrorrism can actually be stopped. There is a reason that the ocean used to come all the way to Missouri at one time, and that at another time glaciers came all the way to Missouri. It's called natural climate fluctuations, and I don't think the dinosaurs were burning their fossils.
Oh, and Ted Kennedy at the VERY LEAST committed manslaughter. I seriously doubt though that he wasn't killing Kopechne on purpose. Regardless, manslaughter is just a legal term. A person who commits manslaughter is still a murderer. You don't call someone a manslaughterer.
And then you got Kerry who makes up atrocities that his fellow soldiers never committed to curry political favor with the Democrats. Then he leaves his first reach wife for another woman with more money (not to mention all the affairs he's had on his current wife, but hey, you can just ship them out of the country when you are running for president).
I am not a Dem or Repub...I am an independent that votes the facst and the issues. Krazy just can't seem to accept facts about his party that cast them in a bad light.
There is a reason that the ocean used to come all the way to Missouri at one time, and that at another time glaciers came all the way to Missouri. It's called natural climate fluctuations, and I don't think the dinosaurs were burning their fossils.
No, they weren't. But we are. So, here's the data: Global climate fluc2ations (with the last 400Ka being most relevant, while the ice sheets have been coming and going and tempera2res and sea level rising and falling) with increased greenhouse gases and soot and stale beer farts added 2 the mix in just the last 2ple hundred years.
Venus, here we come!
The primary defense against:
"we and our activities are a part of the environment that is 'new'"
seems 2 be:
"well, we haven't been measuring global climate long enough 2 know whether this is a blip or a trend".
Paleoclimatologists are getting better every year at improving the accuracy of our knowledge of ancient climate trends all the time.
But the skeptics might just be able 2 live full lives without having 2 deal with global warming. Let the kids and grandkids worry about it.
The earth's climate has gradually gotten cooler since 1998. Last year was the coldest year on record since the 1930's. We are we on our way to having another cold year this year. Why don't we try and examine the data a little longer while we work on conserving energy and alternative fuels before we enact strict regulations that will kill our economy.
James, according to the EPA...and I think they would know... eight of the warmest years on record (since 1850) have been since 1998.
You are right, but it has trended back down since 1998. 1998 was the warmest year on record. 2007 was the coolest since 1938. 2008 is a cool year as well. There is no proof that the planet is currently getting any hotter. In fact, we may have already peaked and are headed back down.
Glaciers melt and they grow. At one point in history they melted so much that the see level was 300 feet higher. At one point the glacers reached down to the central plains (that is why they are so flat). Ice melts and it freezes as the climate fluctuates. There are some glaciers that are growing, although not as many as are melting. However, some glaciers have started slowly growing again over the past two years. It's all cyclical.
Many theorize that solar storms cause fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. Others surmise that the earth's temperature slowly climbs until a major volcanic eruption sends enough debris in the air to cool it down again. Some theorize that ocean currents kick on and off to warm and cool the earth like a giant thermostat. We just don't know. It is ridiculous to frantically enact radical policies that may totally tank the global economy when many of those pushing the "science" stand to profit from those policies. Don't you think many politicians pushing "global climate change" are just trying to drum up votes from liberals and scare the rest of America into voting for them?
Did you honestly think the climate was never going to change? Ever hear of something called "ice ages"?
One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural processes at work which have caused most of that warming.
On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then.
Trends over time-scales of a few years, or even a few decades, are probably not sufficient 2 put a lot of stock in. For example, sunspot cycles are 22 years long, and have a noticeable climatic effect.
I found the concept of "global dimming" as a buffer (for now) 2 tempera2re increases due 2 greenhouse gases interesting. As an amateur astronomer, I have noticed a marked decrease in the percentage of truly transparent skies over the past 30 years or so.
Once again, we're doing things that critters on this planet have never done before, and the effects of these activities must be added 2 the na2ral short and long term climate changes.
Maybe we're okay. Maybe we're not. Heck of a gamble, though.
Ever been 2 the "most Earth-like planet" in the solar system? Antartica is far more habitable, and you don't see time-shares in Antartica.
There are fossils on Mt Everest, but their presence has nothing 2 do with cycles.
Similarly (though not as obvious), the coming and going of the Cretaceous seaway in North America (and similar events in earlier times and in other places in the world) is related 2 variations in the continental freeboard due to isostacy, which may have affected climate, but was not a result of it.
And once again, humans are doing stuff that has never been done before, that has an additional influence on climate that we don't yet understand. If we can cut back on things like pollution - things that are obviously hazardous 2 ourselves - without trashing our economies in the process, why not do so even if we don't yet understand the effects?
My point about the fossils, is that all this has happened before, and all this will happen again.
Our planet is four and half billion years old. There has been life on this planet for nearly that long. Three point eight billion years. The first bacteria. And, later, the first multicellular animals, then the first complex creatures, in the sea, on the land.
Then the great sweeping ages of animals -- the amphibians, the dinosaurs, the mammals, each lasting millions upon millions of years. Great dynasties of creatures arising, flourishing, dying away.
All this happening against a background of continuous and violent upheaval, mountain ranges thrust up and eroded away, cometary impacts, volcanic eruptions spewing tons and tons of highly toxic dust into the atmosphere, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving.
Endless constant and violent change.... The planet has survived everything, in its time.
It will certainly survive us.... Quote stolen by me and one sentenced changed to avoid plagarism heh
P.S. There is global warming on Mars too, someone should say something to them.
Man-made global warming is well beyond debate. The worldwide scientific community almost unanimously agrees that is it real, we caused it, and very bad things will happen if we don't fix it...assuming it's not too late already.
A few exceptions aside, only crackpots and members of conservative think-tanks dispute global warming.
Given the evidence, why would one dispute the existence of man-made global warming? Are you worried that Exxon-Mobil excutives will make fewer millions each year if we move away from fossil fuels? What's the deal?
Man-made global warming is well beyond debate. The worldwide scientific community almost unanimously agrees that is it real, we caused it, and very bad things will happen if we don't fix it...assuming it's not too late already.
A few exceptions aside, only crackpots and members of conservative think-tanks dispute global warming.
Given the evidence, why would one dispute the existence of man-made global warming? Are you worried that Exxon-Mobil excutives will make fewer millions each year if we move away from fossil fuels? What's the deal?
You're right, it's beyond debate.
The effects of runaway global warming are evident: Venus' surface temperatures average over 900F, day or night, and yet Venus is not that much closer to the sun than Earth and should have formed with a lot more water than it currently has (less than 1 precipitable meter globally). Also, the crater preservation record indicates that the entire planet was resurfaced catastrophically about a billion years ago. Whether this happens cyclically via swallowing itself through its belly button or just once due to a collision with another planet or its own large moon isn't important. What is important is that the catastrophic release of CO2 in2 the atmosphere made the surface so hot that water vapor won't condense. Even carbonate rocks melt at Venus tempera2res (and then become part of the greenhouse atmosphere).
One idea about Mars, based on observations over just a few Mars years, is that the planet is warming. But if it is, it's likely just a part of the normal Milankovic cycles, which are much more extreme for Mars than for Earth. And even if there is life there, it's not burning fossil fuels.
Man-made global warming is well beyond debate. The worldwide scientific community almost unanimously agrees that is it real, we caused it, and very bad things will happen if we don't fix it...assuming it's not too late already.
A few exceptions aside, only crackpots and members of conservative think-tanks dispute global warming.
Given the evidence, why would one dispute the existence of man-made global warming? Are you worried that Exxon-Mobil excutives will make fewer millions each year if we move away from fossil fuels? What's the deal?
You're right, it's beyond debate.
The effects of runaway global warming are evident: Venus' surface temperatures average over 900F, day or night, and yet Venus is not that much closer to the sun than Earth and should have formed with a lot more water than it currently has (less than 1 precipitable meter globally). Also, the crater preservation record indicates that the entire planet was resurfaced catastrophically about a billion years ago. Whether this happens cyclically via swallowing itself through its belly button or just once due to a collision with another planet or its own large moon isn't important. What is important is that the catastrophic release of CO2 in2 the atmosphere made the surface so hot that water vapor won't condense. Even carbonate rocks melt at Venus tempera2res (and then become part of the greenhouse atmosphere).
One idea about Mars, based on observations over just a few Mars years, is that the planet is warming. But if it is, it's likely just a part of the normal Milankovic cycles, which are much more extreme for Mars than for Earth. And even if there is life there, it's not burning fossil fuels.
-ol' 2long
Venus? Mars?
You might as well base opinions on Anarctica on what you know about the Amazon rainforest.
Man-made global warming is well beyond debate. The worldwide scientific community almost unanimously agrees that is it real, we caused it, and very bad things will happen if we don't fix it...assuming it's not too late already.
A few exceptions aside, only crackpots and members of conservative think-tanks dispute global warming.
Given the evidence, why would one dispute the existence of man-made global warming? Are you worried that Exxon-Mobil excutives will make fewer millions each year if we move away from fossil fuels? What's the deal?
You're right, it's beyond debate.
The effects of runaway global warming are evident: Venus' surface temperatures average over 900F, day or night, and yet Venus is not that much closer to the sun than Earth and should have formed with a lot more water than it currently has (less than 1 precipitable meter globally). Also, the crater preservation record indicates that the entire planet was resurfaced catastrophically about a billion years ago. Whether this happens cyclically via swallowing itself through its belly button or just once due to a collision with another planet or its own large moon isn't important. What is important is that the catastrophic release of CO2 in2 the atmosphere made the surface so hot that water vapor won't condense. Even carbonate rocks melt at Venus tempera2res (and then become part of the greenhouse atmosphere).
One idea about Mars, based on observations over just a few Mars years, is that the planet is warming. But if it is, it's likely just a part of the normal Milankovic cycles, which are much more extreme for Mars than for Earth. And even if there is life there, it's not burning fossil fuels.
-ol' 2long
you sound like John Scalzi.
I actually agree that humans are contributing to global warming and that we should take steps to slow this. I don't know how much of an impact it will have...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Man-made global warming is well beyond debate. The worldwide scientific community almost unanimously agrees that is it real, we caused it, and very bad things will happen if we don't fix it...assuming it's not too late already.
Well, then I guess someone ought to tell a a major unit w/in the American Physical Society the debate is over b/c many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate---> LINK
Until I acquire the faith that you have in global warming, I will remain one.
You see when I read pieces like this written by the rocket scientist, who built Australia’s compliance protocol for the Kyoto Accords, I have to conclude that the scientific community jumped to conclusions.
Quote
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Do you think that most Brits don't believe in GW b/c they just want to against the liberals? Or do you think there might be some greater reason?
Do you think they might be sick of oppressive restrictions on their freedoms and on high taxes that are forced upon them by their government b/c of GW?
No country can tax and restrict itself into prosperity, and the Brits are learning that first hand today.
