SuperJerk

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You need to cite your sources. And according to your first chart, coal wasn't burnt until the 1860s, which is untrue.

Which means McCain wins with 53% of the vote.

In my opinion, either Hillary or Obama is likely to beat McCain. Once we move past trivia like Rev. Wright, Bosnia snipers, campaign finance violations, etc., and the focus of the election moves to the economy and war...McCain doesn't stand a chance. The ISSUES favor the Democrats this year.

The Roberts and Alito appointments to the Supreme Court were a step in that direction. The article seems to indicate that these Evangelicals were upset in being used to promote issues beyond just abortion and gay marriage.

1) The CO2 to temperature ratio isn't 1:1. There are other factors. 2) Can you really tell me what the average temperature on Earth was a billion years ago? Scientists can chart temperatures going quite a ways back using geological samples...but a billion years? 3) According to the best estimates, plants and animals didn't exist yet on Earth a billion years ago. Thus, the ecosystem was completely different and the affects of gases in the atmosphere would've been totally different because the gases weren't being balanced by other things. 4) Marney's point is irrelevant if her argument contradicts itself.

The article seems to indicate that rather than feeling betrayed on abortion or gays, they feel used because their support has been manipulated into an imaginary mandate for things like a capital gains tax cut, easing of consumer regulations, support for the Iraq War, and other things that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Indeed. And the temperature increases have been shown to predate increases in carbon levels. So your point would be? It is in fact precisely what I said.

Just pointing out that the criteria changed half-way through the argument. This whole "she wins big states" argument is flawed because it assumes winning the Democratic primary makes her more likely than her Republican opponent to carry those states in November.

So we're going back to who got the most votes overall?

Indeed. And the temperature increases have been shown to predate increases in carbon levels. So your point would be? 1) That's not what you said, though. 2) And I don't believe you.

People forget Obama won the Texas caucus.

Liberal pundits (both of them) are having a coronary of this, so I figured it somewhat noteworthy... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/03/mcc...q.ap/index.html

I think this has less to do with Bush specifically, and more to do with how many have wised up to how some conservatives have tried to turn their faith into a political action committee.

Has anyone else considered the possibility that in those two decades Obama attended Wright's sermons, the senator was only interested in Wright's views on religious matters?

Example?

Every reporter, no matter how ideologically biased, wants to make a name by bringing someone down.

China: Mainly did it to gain leverage against Soviets and North Vietnamese at the bargaining table. Vietnam: Expanded war into Cambodia and secretly negotiated deal that would have renewed the war that wasn't carried out only because he resigned. EPA: Political ploy. Haldeman was basically running domestic policy so Nixon could concentrate on foriegn affairs. Plus, Bush isn't covering up the activities of a political dirty tricks squad and using campaign contributions as hush-money or ordering the justice department to not investigate civil rights crimes in order to keep the support of southern political machines.

I stick by my earlier prediction.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...modern-history/ I honestly think Bush is doing a better job than Richard Nixon.

You know...When it comes to decadence, corruption, and general immorality, we're a bunch of angels compared to most of the rest of the world. If God is displeased with the rampant sin in America, he must be ready to incinerate Europe.

The bad news: Obama's support is slipping. The good news: No one else is doing better than him in the polls at the moment. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/dem.poll/index.html

My question was more along the lines of how does strip mining for materials to make a number of batteries cause more damage to the atmosphere than the emissions from the same number of Hummers? Pollution is inevitable, so the best choices available at the moment are to choose things that will create the least pollution. Does one hybrid car create as much pollution as one Hummer? I doubt it.

Wow...when did Ben Stein move to Nutjob Land? Anyone? Anyone?

Good observation, sir. I think the reason for her question would be because she, like many voters over the last few decades, has become bitter and given up on the government's ability to help them with their economic problems, and turn to things like guns, religion, xenophobia, and homphobia to base their votes on... ...wait... ...I think I've heard this before somewhere. Hmmm.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought ozone depletion was caused by CFCs, not carbon emissions from vehicles (such as the fuel a Hummer uses). And how would a working NiMH battery have any effect on the ozone layer?