Mitt Romney... Speech.

Good speech from Romney! It's been said right since he finished: best speech of his political career. There were some bad lines, sure, the oceans rising and the Putin stuff and the 12 million jobs is all pretty bad. But overall he was energetic, great delivery, some fantastic moments and everyone probably likes Mitt more now. He just plain came off like a good dude. So well done him. Was it great? No, but this isn't his forte, and he exceeded the low expectations in a big way.

Now, Rubio? That speech was just fantastic. That dude could legitimately be president in, say, 2020 or so. Really well spoken, great message, and well delivered. He is basically a guaranteed win in Florida. That is an election, folks. Rubio is, at some point, a future in-the-bag win, if they play it right.

Unfortunately, none of this matters. Because the campaign fucked it up. They let an 82 year old non-politico go on stage without a script and act like a crazy, babbling wacko. And that's all anyone's going to remember about tonight. That was terrible, unforgivable, and anyone who thought that was the way to go should be immediately fired from the campaign staff. Worst. Convention. Speech. Ever.
 
I agree with that to some extent, weather patterns do change annually, but change is happening faster than most people think and it is accelerating. My main point is that climate change ties into other issues as well and that we can't just keep putting it off because it seems distant.
 
couldn't agree more. well put. Only problem i have with Rubio is apparently he is way more conservative than he let on in this speech and actually aligns with the tea party in most of his views and i don't see someone that conservative being elected. Also apparently Clint had a script and went off it. also he wa supposed to talk for 5 minutes and took 12. Romney is apparently pretty pissed and rightfully so. Clints speech is getting as much press as his and Romneys speech was pretty amazing.
 
but but but he was in so many old movies and an oscar winner he has to know something....right!?!?! ha ha

Reminded me of the Dave Chapelle skit about asking Ja Rule about 9/11.

America needs to stop looking at celebrities for answers and decide for themselves. I have no problem who people vote for but PLEASE dont vote for stupid reasons because a person endorses them.

 
ive been trying so hard to not reply to your incessant ridiculous posts about climate change, but i just cant anymore. You are very misguided. Climate change is real, and is being caused by human activity, and is increasing at a rate that is incredibly alarming and is accepted by those capable of using logic.
 
See the problem with Ryan is that he was basically instantly revealed to be completely and utterly full of shit. I thought Mitt's speech was much better.
 
So what Obama says is the truth than right? He really has proven himself to put his money where his mouth is.
As for the kid who posted the stat about jobs, your argument is irrelevant. Correct me if Im wrong but Bush isn't running for the presidency now is he? the fact of the matter is that Obama's policies have proven them self to be ineffective when it recovering from a recession. I also wanted to note that your chart is a inflated statistic because most of those jobs are either a.) part time jobs, or b.) temporary jobs (aka an ineffective way to stimulate the economy).
 
How was Clints speech bad for a guy who's not even a politician. I think it is a good strategy by the Romney campaign because it forms a lacking connection between those who vote for Obama because hollywood votes for Obama. Sure it wasn't the best speech ever, but then again Clint isn't a politician.
Just wait for the DNC because they have Eva Longoria of all people speaking at their convention. Clint over Eva all day every day haha/.
 
It was a bad speech because it was absolutely crazy and now the headlines for all the news stories are about how crazy clint is not how good of a speech Romney gave. Basically it just made it so Romneys speech was fairly irrelevant in the eyes of the news and the american people when in reality Romney gave an amazing speech that if in the headlines could have gained him some serious votes.
 
see this does make sense, but considering Romney's running competitor is black...you have no case of white power.
 
Yeah Clintscore one for the party of rich gun totin batshit crazy angry white men

bwwwaaaaaahhhhhh

romneynomics we are gonna create 12 million jobs

right after we fire 13 million of ya

 
Not gonna let that go!! Oil seepage from the sea floor does occur naturally.... Ever been to La Braer (sp?) tar pits in LA? What do you think that is? Also-natural hydrocarbon seepage supports deep water chemo synthetic communities. Don't make statements until you have a degree or two. Source: I'm a chartered marine engineer.
 
Whoa! Can't let this one go my friend....You are partially right, yeas climate changes are natural phenomena and there is evidence in the geological record. However there is also evidence (not pseudo science rhetoric) that the climate is changing at an unatural rate unparalleled in the geological record. Moreover extinctions have also occured, but never at the rate we are facing presently.
Please go inform yourself, and I mean this in the nicest way possible....you like myself are a skier and everyone who enjoys snow have got to be on the same page on this one.

 
It was a simple question, I don't see the funnay.

It was kinda hard to tell what you were getting at with your previous statement.
 
Too bad you skipped common sense class and humor 101 though... I was making fun of the way that republicans downplayed the seriousness of the BP oil spill by saying that the thousands of gallons a day are no big deal since "this happens naturally all the time" which took an actual factual thing like trace seepage and applied it to a fucking disaster, much like saying "pfff, cuts bleed all the time, this will heal" to a severed femoral artery.

 
Being one of the engineers that actually worked on fixing that particular incident, I can say their is an element of truth to what they are saying, but like all politicians, they take something with an "element" of truth and spin it up, or simply do not really know what they're talking about.

That being said - trace seepage is hardly what i'd call it - it equates to thousands and thousands of barrels of OE. Once you descend beyond 100m there is zero light, therefore zero potential for photosynthesis.

Chemo synthesis supports pretty much the whole ecosystem in deepwater environments, and as i said these chemicals are hydrocarbons.... they are consumed and used for energy by these organisms, which form the base of the food chain in deep oceans. Chemosynthetic communities are also protected by the government, you cannot simply lay a pipeline through them.

Like any substance, even water in humans, in large quantities become toxic. The gulf has been remarkable in it's recovery, and the scientific community has learned a hell of a lot about the way these ecosystems work.

Again, it was a huge disaster - should never, and hopefully will never happen again - BP has paid a huge price.... and still are paying, and will continue to do so. rightly so.

If that oil spill had occurred in the shallow, cold waters of the arctic, it's impact would have been 100 times worse. However, shallow water is the key - you would never see a similar incident in shallow water due to accessibility.

It's not common sense, and there's not much funny about it.... it's basic facts. Don't try and mix science and politics - you become no better than the idiots trying to do it on those podiums.

I didn't even watch this speech - my main issue again is who's going to sort the economy and remove this debt.
 
whats your take on those deep oil wells that companies were sucking dry and then coming back to a year or so later and finding the wells completely full again??

 
Not sure what you're talking about, do you have a link?

But anyway - oil wells don't run dry as you put it. In fact, the average recovery from a lot of reservoirs is less then 25%. Improved techniques in enhanced oil recovery and now being developed to improve that. But the problem is pressure.... i.e. the natural energy and drive from the reservoir to mobilize the liquid hydrocarbon (gas is obviously the easier one - usually reservoirs have a gas cap).

Most reservoirs get their drive and pressure from aquifer water pushing up from below. This pressure builds up over thousands / millions of years... once a well is drilled, this pressure starts to drop. Shut the well in again and it will build again to it's maximum (called shut-in ressure - used for design).

In mature wells, where this depletion means the pressures are getting to low to sustain production, they can be shut in for a period of time and then production can begin again.

This might be what you are referring too. Remember though, wells do not really run dry - especially not offshore. Enhanced oil recovery is the future...
 
i seriously cannot believe there are still people who deny climate change. the scientific community is hardly split on it, it's like.. 97% to 3%. it's really depressing to read people in 2012 being so purposefully ignorant for ulterior motives
 
In an economy as shitty as ours is now, let's focus solely on the economy and not worry about trying to dictate social issues. If you advocate limited government, keep to that, don't dictate the confines in which we can live out our life. (i.e. abortion, marriage, drugs). Economic freedom and social freedom should go hand in hand. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Especially since he would have my vote in an instant if he were still sayin' shit like this:

Also, I agree about Rubio's speech, he did a fantastic job.
 
How is Global Warming Propaganda? If the government wanted to send out a fake message to its people, surely they would have some sort of gain to peoples reaction to it. You know, something called an incentive. Information on Climate change encourages people to conserve, and become less dependent on oil, domestic or foreign. That doesn't help out any politician, or anyone with a significant amount of power in this nation (Goldman Sachs, Oil Companies, etc)... so why would they fabricate it? Just doesn't make sense. If anything, they would try and convinse people like you that Global Warming is fake, and that we should all keep living our lives per the status quo, and keep throwing our money into their pockets.

And quite frankly, The amount of fallacies in every one of your posts thus far is quite amusing, please continue.
 
How is it not propaganda? Lobbyist for alternative energy companies use it to get politicians to create legislation that favors their resources over other resources. Politicians use it to evoke fear in the eyes of the public by saying things like the weather is going to get more extreme as a result (which is funny because if the earth was getting warmer than it would be quite the opposite in fact). Its like you guys have the mentality that natural disasters are new to

humanity and you found something/someone to blame them on based upon data and research

that has been PROVEN to been manipulated and scewed on multiple occasions to

favor the agenda of not only the people doing the research, but the people paying

for the research as well (aka the alternative energy companies). Obama has even given tax breaks to companies that have green jobs, even though some of these jobs have literally no correlation to being good for the environment in any way what so ever. If thats not propaganda than I don't know what is. Lastly, Im not saying the homogenous carbon emissions are changing the climate and Im also not saying that the climate isn't changing at an above average rate (which is very debatable). What I am saying is that we simply do not have the scientific technology and accurate records on the history of the Earths climate to make these assumptions as an automatic fact. The people that claim this phenomenon as a scientific fact in turn go against the scientific paradigm of accurately interpreting data at an increasing rate.
 
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hfYJsQAhl0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5hfYJsQAhl0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 
Seems logical to me. Those jobs being created is the direct result of Obama raising the debt ceiling which in turn allows the government to make more and more money so they can create new jobs. This would be great if it actually stimulated the economy in a efficient way, but it is actually does quite the opposite because it results in things like decrease the value of our currency, inflation, etc... If we want this economy to recover than we need both job creation and a reduction in the national debt. Its the only way.
 
StartFragment. Isn't it funny how icehouse periods here on Earth last onaverage for less than 1 million years. FYI, an icehouse earth is when there areicecaps present on the poles so we are technically an icehouse earth right now.Permanent ice is actually a rare phenomenon in the history of the Earth,occurring only during the 20% of the time that the planet is under an icehouseeffect. This means that the earth has had a much more significant amount of CO2in its atmosphere at one point in time than we do now. There is even evidencethat the Earths icehouse-greenhouse cycle during the Permian period had CO2levels that fluctuated between 250 parts per million to 2,000 parts permillion. The burning of fossilized fuels is not thought to be the cause for theperiods CO2 fluctuations, which kind of makes sense seeing as how humansweren't around during that period. So the CO2 fluctuations have to be related to eithera.)something that the Earth naturally does by itself on a cyclical basis,b.)the Earths eccentricity cycle (orbiting the sun), or c.)by a combination ofthe two. My best bet is that it is a combination of the two simply because ofthe incredible difficulty at assessing what causes the transition between anicehouse earth to a greenhouse earth and vice-versa. The history of everyglobal system here on Earth, the history of the suns solar output, and thehistory of the Earths eccentricity path would have to be accurately recordedbecause all of these things can contribute to the rise and fall of carbonlevels and global temp.(associated with the transition between the two states).And I’m not talking thousands of years or even millions; I’m talking about thetime when the Earth started to develop an atmosphere 4.6 Billion years ago. Conductingall of this data at pinpoint accuracy would virtually be impossible to do rightnow because the technology to do so simply does not exist. If you don't believeme than go find me the history of the suns solar output and where the Earth wasat on its eccentricity path in relation to the suns solar output at any giventime and if their is any relation to the two (hint...probably no relation atall, but then again we have know idea). Note that you would also have to tiethis sun-earth data into all of the data representing the history of thesystems here on earth... Only when we can do all of this, than we can start todraw conclusions because we will then be able to tell what factor/factors mademajor contributions to the transition between greenhouse and icehouse statesand to all of the changes attributed with these transitions (melting ice caps,shift in geological processes, temp variations, etc...).EndFragment
 
Okay...hold on I am trying to follow you, but I can't understand your rational....On the first page of this thread you can recite the carbon content of the atmosphere during the Permian age, but now you are claiming that we don't have suitable technology to establish an accurate record of the Earth's climate. We can generate plenty of data on the climate of our planet, and you seem to know this too since you are able to refer to it at will. There is heaps of research to the rates of extinction and climate change. It is part of the geological record (literally in stone) and it is in the ice. Carbon dating and spectral analysis is awesome stuff.
 
Thats not the point. The point is we ARE altering the environment (over 90% of climate scientists believe that we have impacted the climate) and climate by adding aerosols to the atmosphere. We put way more pollutants in the air than volcanoes or wild fires. Even if change a little bit it is a cause for concern because it isn't natural and we need to be aware about what we are doing to the earth and need to focus on the impact we have on her. Even if we change something a little bit it can put something of kilter and start domino effects if we are too late. I think taking care of the environment is a step in the right direction. I don't see why people don't want to live on a healthy planet or make it a better place to live. Pollution from china effects the US and pollution from the US effects Europe and so on. We are all interconnected and should be focused leaving the smallest foot print we can so we can last another couple hundred or thousand of years on this earth. We are already choking the planet from using resource, like mining, deforestation, over fishing, ect. the list goes on.
 
Shredanator, I am very aware that we have stacks upon stacks of data relating to our climates history, Im not disputing that. What Im disputing is how that data correlates to each other. Every system here on Earth is essentially connected so a change in one system will in turn change all the others. So think of it like a math equation. We have all the data we need to figure out the equation, what we don't have though is a formula to fit all that data into. So we can in have all the data in the world but it is essentially useless until we come up with the EXACT formula to calculate how man made carbon emissions affect the change of our climate. We can only speculate at this point in time and history has proven that speculation can be highly inaccurate of whats really going on.
Lastly, I have never said that I want our Earth to be a polluted environment and would very well like to see a renewable energy source that is a.) cost efficient and b.) not harmful to our climate. The fact of the matter though is that the cost of renewable energies puts a drag on our economy because it simply cannot afford the cost of the transition to this energy. Think about all the different parts of our economy that rely on petroleum to operate. It would be incredibly cost deficient to have all these different parts convert to another resource and would extend the range our economic recovery by a drastic amount. I am all for this conversion though once our economy recovers because we then will be able to not only afford it, but benefit from investing in it.
 
RocksintheHead, I hear what you have to say, and I fundamentally disagree. Just because certain interest groups try to undermine the work of legitimate science doesn't mean we don't have a very good understanding of climatology, in fact are systems of climate analysis are incredible sophisticated. There is a defined difference between speculation and theory, to call various scientific disciplines that study mass extinction and climate change speculators is insulting.
Just because refuses to understand Global Warming doesn't me you don't have to....We have ways to connect multiple sources of data for analysis they are call charts, if Mitt romny check a few out he would have to acknowledge what most Scientists know.
I think the economy and the environment are heavily intertwined to try to fix one without respect to the other is counterproductive. When we rely on a finite resource to run or economy and the typical plate of food has to travel 15,000 km to get to your table you gots problems. Especially when that fuel starts cost $1.50 a liter. living gets to be expensive. Trying to maintain this kind of energy consumption and remaining dependant on non-renewable resource is simply delaying the inevitable. I expect my government to be more open minded to multitask and address both issues. As you say, think of it as a mathematical formula.....that Romney knows the answer to but keeps getting the equation wrong....
 
First off, I applaud you for trying to have a decent argument with RocksforBrains. +K for your extreme patience. I completely agree that economic recovery and responsible environmental policy should come hand in hand over the coming decades. Regardless of anyone's stance on global warming/climate change, there is absolutely no disputing that we are significantly, and in some cases irreversibly, harming the environment. You hit the nail on the head with your food example, people don't realize that the environment plays a major role in many consumer good industries. What good is simply creating jobs if we allow our natural resources to be wantonly depleted, causing prices of everything from corn to freshwater to skyrocket?

The only thing I might concede to RocksforBrains is the power of lobbyists in DC. I hate corporate power in politics just like everyone else, but wouldn't you rather fall on the more cautious side of something we so dearly depend on, ie the Earth? RocksforBrains calls it propaganda (which is absurd), but fuck if care what you call it as long as it gets the average rockhead's attention. Will the transition to alternative energy sources be long and costly? Yes it will, but the jobs that will be created within the expanding industries will also be just that, longterm. The economy is not going to recover instantly, we've never had to deal with a recession like this one before and the road to recovery is going to be long. So I say we hunker down and start doing things right from the beginning, instead of looking for a quick fix, like Mr. Romney's mysterious 12,000,000 jobs plan or Ryan's flabbergastingly unfeasible budget.

Sorry for the environmental tangent. As for Willard's speech, it was exactly like I predicted....straight up wonderbread. A wonderbread speech from a wonderbread candidate that is simply out of touch from the not-so-wonderbread world.
 
The climate change issue can go somewhere else.

Problem with Rubio is that he is not a naturally born citizen (unless I am wrong, which is very possible).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top