Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30923 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31212 Jan 26, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If his science is so much different from the "consensus", and if it were right, he'd be more suited for a few Nobel's rather than just changing entries in Wikipedia.
If he so damn sure he's right, he should go for the $1M rewards, instead of trolling Topix boards.
Oh that's so FUNNY!

Everybody in their "right mind" knows that Cold Objects DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Objects.

"The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROHIBITS heat flow directly from COLD to HOT systems, but with the aid of a heat pump external work can be used to transport internal energy indirectly from a
cold to a hot body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
----
“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...
------
Heat Radiation

"RADIATION is HEAT TRANSFER by the emission of ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES which CARRY ENERGY away from the emitting object."

P = e*BC*A(T^4 - Tc^4)

Where P = net radiated power (Watts), e = emissivity, BC = Stefan's constant, A = area, T = temperature of radiator and Tc =
temperature of the surroundings or another body.

..when rearranged gives

P/A = e*BC*T^4 - e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/th...

This is a VECTOR subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields.

P/A (watts/m^2) is the Magnitude of the Resultant EM field Vector and the direction of propagation is from the Hot Body to the Cold Body, ALWAYS!

There is ZERO watts/m^2 that can even propagate from the Cold Body to the Hot Body as the Heat Transfer Equation shows, the 2nd Law shows and ALL MEASUREMENTS CONFIRM.
----------
Why DON'T YOU POST a LAW OF SCIENCE or a REAL PHYSICS LINK that says Cold Objects CAN HEAT-UP Warm Objects?

And WHY CAN'T YOU POST:

- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT?
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH?

Come on, ANSWER the SIMPLE QUESTION.
----------
"Needless to say, I PREDICT that this AGW IDIOT will continue to POST more AGW BABBLE with NO MEASUREMENTS....AGAIN.

The AGW CULT rules of behaviour embedded his "brainwashed" CULT MIND is SO PREDICTABLE.

Watch and LEARN.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31213 Jan 26, 2013
More cut and paste scientific science fiction useless babble.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31214 Jan 26, 2013
factologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What a hoot. Look at Stupo's 3 points.
1st point:
Stupo says, "Heat is ENERGY IN TRANSIT, NOT "MOLECULAR MOTION".
Of course, you idiot.Everyone here knows that. The thing that matters, is how "heat" takes place.
*Conduction- Heat conduction occurs as rapidly moving or vibrating atoms and molecules interact with neighboring atoms and molecules, transferring some of their thermal energy (Kinetic Energy) to these neighboring particles.
*Convection- Convection is the transfer of thermal energy from one place to another by the movement of fluids or gases.
*Radiation-Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter.
**Electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy emitted and absorbed by charged particles, which exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space. If this energy is absorbed by another charged particle,it can be transformed to other forms of energy, for example, to thermal energy.The opposite occurs if this energy is emitted.
**Absorption of electromagnetic radiation is the way in which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an atom.
Key points here:
-All particles above absolute zero emit electromagnetic radiation.
-This occurs because some of the particles' K.E. is used to create an EM energy wave called a photon. The propagation of this photon reduces the K.E.(temperature) of the object.
(Recognize however, a photon is not really "thermal energy", it's thermal energy that has been converted to EM energy. The 2nd law is safe.)
The reverse happens when a photon is absorbed. The photon causes an increase in the object's K.E.(temperature).
2nd point:
Stupo says,"Heat is NOT EVEN DEFINED for movement from COLD to HOT, it is only from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object."
A misunderstanding by Stupo, perhaps.
One must recognize heat is a process, not a state. That process is the spontaneous transfer of thermal energy from a warmer body to a colder body. Period, no substitutes.
3rd point:
Stupo says,"Once the Heat ENERGY IN TRANSIT is absorbed by a COLDER Object it increases the Objects INTERNAL ENERGY to produce
HEATING."
Tripe covered in bullshit.
His sentence displays a complete misunderstanding of terms.
The sentence should read " Once heat occurs between a hotter object and a colder object, the internal energy of the colder body increases." Duh!
Stupo goes on to say"(Internal energy is defined as the energy associated with the random, disordered motion of molecules)"
Bullshit!
Internal energy is defined as the total energy contained by a thermodynamic system. It is the energy needed to create the system, but excludes the energy to displace the blah blah
You must be a AGW Science Denier.....oh wait, ALL the AGW CULT MEMBERS are Science Deniers.

That's why I can POST Laws of Science and Physics Links to prove that AGW is a FRAUD and what can you POST?

- No Laws of Science
- No Physics Links
- No Measurements
- All YOU can Post is AGW BABBLING.

HAHAHA....HAHAHA....What a HOOT!
-----
Like All the AGW Cult, "factologist" shares these common Traits:

1. A room temperature IQ
2. Has a "Green Brain"....a symptom of a severe infection.
3. Always loses battles of wits because they are unarmed.
4. What they lack in intelligence, they more than make up for in stupidity.
5. Have nothing to say, but delight in saying it.
6. Have a speech impediment ... their foot.
7. Would still be a virgin except for what nature did to their mind.
8. They are not complete idiots -- some parts are missing.
9. When confronted with the Truth they use their only skill....LYING.
10. When they are confronted with their Lying...they will continue to LIE

Factologist has now reached Step #10 and will continue his Lying FOREVER.

How Pathetic but not surprising for AGW Human Garbage.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31215 Jan 26, 2013
More scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble. Will it ever end?
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31216 Jan 26, 2013
PHD wrote:
More cut and paste scientific science fiction useless babble.
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>From your posts you seem to be black. You know, with an IQ of about 59.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, white but not a RACIST as you seem to be.
Do you walk upright or are you still Four-On-The-Floor?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>"Four-on-the-floo r"? Oh so now you`re the one calling me a nayger monkey? You`re the reason why slavery should be reinstated, Toby.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a "nayger monkey", more like a RACIST Gerbil with an IQ to match.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

So PHD, have you been a RACIST all your life?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31217 Jan 26, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet a Phd can be wrong. History has scores of such examples. While I have watched Fox and read the Drudge report it is not my only sources. I also watch and read other sources to see competing views and question all that all say.
As for education, history is also full of those who have educated themselves. After all, who was going to teach the Wright Brothers how to fly a plane or Fulton to operate a steam boat. Who was going to teach Henry Ford how to make an assembly line a sucess.
At some point they had to educate themselves and they are not the only ones. Others have educated themselves about any number of subjects from auto mechanices to quatuum mechanics. Thanks to the internet it is now possible to not only do so but to the same level as that PhD on any number of subjects. Courses from places like Harvard, Yale, MIT. One reason why those schools would offer such for free is that once one has taken all those courses they are going to want a degree and will pay for it. If they have already done the course work then the school can just charge them a nominal fee for each course and test them to certify that they know the material.
"But, Governor, which specific magazines do you read?"

"Oh, all of them."

Yes, we can tell.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#31218 Jan 26, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"But, Governor, which specific magazines do you read?"
"Oh, all of them."
Yes, we can tell.
GOOD AGW NEWS.....Now you can watch Al Gore's Current TV on Al Jazeera.

Al Gore is now richer than Mitt Romney – and it’s all thanks to big oil

"The headline news might be that Gore is now richer than Romney, but the real difference between these men is on the question of integrity. One is honest and the other is a hypocrite. For all his faults, there was no distance between how Romney made his money and the policies that he campaigned on. He's a capitalist who loves capitalism. For Gore the environmentalist, however, the distance is wide enough to be called a gulf. Perhaps as wide as the Persian gulf, from which his icky riches flow…"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/...

To You AGWers.... There's a sucker born every minute.

What a HOOT!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#31219 Jan 26, 2013
Man take off those blinders and look in the mirror you will dicsover the biggest sucker born out there. Oh yes you are a HOOT!!!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31220 Jan 26, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
EMR CARRIES ENERGY—sometimes called radiant energy—through space continuously away from the source (this is not true of the near-field part of the EM field).

Heat Radiation
"RADIATION is HEAT TRANSFER by the emission of ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES which CARRY ENERGY away from the emitting object."

The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS PROHIBITS heat flow directly from COLD to HOT systems, but with the aid of a heat pump external work can be used to transport internal energy indirectly from a cold to a hot body.

- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT, EVER DONE DONE, IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT
- EVEN "ONE" MEASUREMENT WHERE THE COLDER ATMOSPHERE HAS "HEATED-UP" A WARMER EARTH
Because THEY DO NOT EXIST.

I am once again shown to be a CLUELESS AGW-denying IDIOT and a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
See SUXObama? I fixed your last sentence for you!!!

You really are good for a belly laugh, you know? And your repetitions are remarkably humorous. I love it when you call me names & attack me in all caps. Particularly funny was your attack on factologist, who clearly DOES understand the science, unlike you.

You are confusing heat transfer by conduction with heat transfer by radiation. The former involves "direct" contact when heat energy ALWAYS flows from a warmer to a colder object & does not use electromagnetic radiation (EMR) as a medium.

Infrared (IR) EMR, as you (correctly, for a change) point out, can transfer heat energy through a vacuum, without need for an intervening material. This is heat transfer by radiation.

I'm glad you FINALLY admitted that spectroscopy works because low energy transitions (which people call "changes in electron 'orbits'" even though they're really different energy states, as you - again, correctly, for a change - point out) occur at frequencies that do NOT change with temperature. The frequencies at which materials absorb (& re-emit) IR & VL EMR do NOT change with temperature.

As you also correctly (it's amazing that you're right again!) point out, matter above absolute zero emits EMR, & at earthly temperatures, this is in the IR spectrum. That process works in reverse, too, where IR EMR warms objects.

So, the warm earth emits IR EMR, & you admitted that the frequencies at which matter aborbs (& re-emits) EMR DO NOT DEPEND ON TEMPERATURE. You do realize what that means, right?

Atmospheric scientists, factologist & I are RIGHT!!! The earth emits IR EMR, & GHGs in the COLD atmosphere absorb & re-emit it, some back to the earth, further warming it.

This is heat transfer by radiation, not conduction, so colder objects CAN heat up warmer objects. The Second Law is not violated.

Let's try this another way. Imagine that the earth & its atmosphere are separated by a vacuum (of whatever convenient thickness you want), the boundaries of which are completely permeable to all frequencies of EMR. The point is that conduction can't occur, but radiation can.

The sun warms the earth by EMR in the UV, VL & (a bit of) IR. The earth re-emits IR EMR. which passes thru the vacuum. The atmosphere can be very, very cold (as long as it's still warm enough that its consituents are gases), but can still absorb & re-emit IR EMR, further WARMING the earth.

Why is a cloudy night warmer than a clear night? The answer is that water in the clouds is a greenhouse gas, & radiative transfer warms the earth.

You can scream in all caps all you want, but the Vinnikov is ABOUT temperature measurements & how to interpret them. No more, no less. Those measurements confirm radiative forcing as a correct mechanism.

Hey - since you're SO smart & know the REAL temp of the sun's surface, what are you doing wasting time on a silly blog? You should be on your way to see the King of Sweden to pick up that Nobel.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#31221 Jan 26, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a AGW Science Denier.....oh wait, ALL the AGW CULT MEMBERS are Science Deniers.
That's why I can POST Laws of Science and Physics Links to prove that AGW is a FRAUD and what can you POST?
I notice you didn't argue any of the points I made. I can only believe you are too stupid to understand the Science and Physics Links you have posted. Further, you haven't given any Science and Physics Links that prove AGW is a fraud. You only keep harping about an example of "WHERE ANY COLD OBJECT HAS EVER "HEATED-UP" A WARMER OBJECT.(WTF does "HEATED-UP" mean to you any way. Heat, as defined by http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hf... , is, "Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess "heat"; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object - this is properly called heating." "HEATED-UP", has meaning only to someone who doesn' understand the concept of heat. Of course, we all know hyperphysics is physics for dummies.
A better definition is available from wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat ; In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions. The transfer of energy can occur in a variety of ways, among them conduction, radiation, and convection. Heat is not a property of a system or body, but instead is always associated with a process of some kind, and is synonymous with heat flow and heat transfer.)
Can you understand the key term here, Stupo? It's ENERGY TRANSFER. Not "hotter to colder shite, but ENERGY TRANSFER.
You have previously cited links EM radiation so you must know that ALL objects, with a temperature- you do knomw what temp is, don't you, Stupo or do you need a citation?- above absolute zero, radiate ENERGY, SPONTANIOUSLY; EM energy called a photon- need a citation, Stupo?. The radiation can be in any direction. If something is in it's path, the photon will strike it. One of three things will happen. The photon will be reflected, pass through or be absorbed, depending upon the wave length and energy level of the photon. If the wave length is correct and the energy level is high enough ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/so... ) the photon will be absorbed.
Now, just for your pea-brain, we're talking atoms and molecules here. Since an objects measured temperature is a measurement of the average kinetic energy of the object, that means some of it's atoms electrons will be at a higher energy state than others. If the photon hits an atom of the correct energy state, it will be absorbed. Of course this is simplified, but then, you have a simple brain.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31222 Jan 26, 2013
SUXObama,

BTW, you need a grade-school level site from CalTech because you have a grade-school understanding of the science.

You should read factologist's post more carefully. He/she understands the science.

Do you finally understand that heat transfer by conduction & radiation are 2 different things?

Erratum: When I said "...the Vinnikov is ABOUT temperature measurements..." I actually meant "...the Vinnikov PAPER is ABOUT temperature measurements..."
2 manygoats

Albuquerque, NM

#31223 Jan 26, 2013
This Thread has worn thin.......
the verdict is in

If you are not taking global warming seriously
you should be taken

and recycled
into something useful

otherwise STFU
town idiot

Albuquerque, NM

#31224 Jan 26, 2013
Uh, duh
I be serious bout gums dough
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31225 Jan 26, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
GOOD AGW NEWS.....Now you can watch Al Gore's Current TV on Al Jazeera.
Al Gore is now richer than Mitt Romney
Could watch Al Jazeera on Link TV.

Also, mitt is poor because he shot all his wad on purchasing the 'kinghood of the United States'. That's why mitt was bad-mouthing all the citizens of the U.S. He didn't think they counted for anything. The only people who voted for mitt were re-pubic-lick-uns who like to be hit over the head with 10 Wall Street Journals, while licking their pubics.

Anyhow, someone took off with all mitt's money before he found out there 'ain't no kinghood'!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#31226 Jan 26, 2013
2 manygoats wrote:
If you are not taking global warming seriously
you should be taken
and recycled
into something useful......
toxic topix conservative, business, re-pubic-lick-un (Grumpy Outdated Party) AGW deniers are always beyond recycling technology.
factologist

Huntsville, AL

#31227 Jan 26, 2013
Did you know that:
(since Stupo is in love with hyperphysics, I'll cite it as a reference for what I'm about to discuss-http://hyperphysics.ph y-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html #c4 the entire section)

1. Radiation is quantized such that for a given frequency of radiation, there can be only one value of quantum energy for the photons of that radiation.
2. That value, in electron volts, is given by
E = hc/&#955;,
&#955; = wavelength in meters (m)
c = the speed of light (299792458 m/s)
E = energy in electron Volts (eV)
h = Plank's constant (6.626068 × 10-34 m2kg/s)

3. What 1 & 2 taken together say is that the energy contained in a photon of a particular wavelength emitted by a substance is NOT dependent on the temperature of that substance.

4. It has been empirically determined that both the Earth and the atmosphere radiate the same IR wavelength.

5. IOW, the warmer Earth and the colder atmosphere both radiate IR photons of the same wavelength at the same energy level.

ALSO: Again from hyperphysics
1.The energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain quantized values.

2.Transitions between these quantized states occur by the photon processes of absorption, emission, and stimulated emission.All of these processes require that the photon energy given by the Planck relationship is equal to the energy separation of the participating pair of quantum energy states (E1 (upper energy state of electron) and E2(lower energy state of electron)
a.absorption-absorption of a photon can only occur when
Eproton= E2-E1
That is, an upward transition in energy state of the electron.An associated gain of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
b.emission-emission of a proton of the same energy will occur during a downward transition. An associated loss of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
c.stimulated emission- I encourage you to read this yourself.

What all this says is
1. The radiation of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause a decrease in it's temperature.
2. The absorption of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause an increase in it's temperature.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31228 Jan 26, 2013
factologist wrote:
Did you know that:
(since Stupo is in love with hyperphysics, I'll cite it as a reference for what I'm about to discuss-http://hyperphysics.ph y-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html #c4 the entire section)
1. Radiation is quantized such that for a given frequency of radiation, there can be only one value of quantum energy for the photons of that radiation.
2. That value, in electron volts, is given by
E = hc/&#955;,
&#955; = wavelength in meters (m)
c = the speed of light (299792458 m/s)
E = energy in electron Volts (eV)
h = Plank's constant (6.626068 × 10-34 m2kg/s)
3. What 1 & 2 taken together say is that the energy contained in a photon of a particular wavelength emitted by a substance is NOT dependent on the temperature of that substance.
4. It has been empirically determined that both the Earth and the atmosphere radiate the same IR wavelength.
5. IOW, the warmer Earth and the colder atmosphere both radiate IR photons of the same wavelength at the same energy level.
ALSO: Again from hyperphysics
1.The energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain quantized values.
2.Transitions between these quantized states occur by the photon processes of absorption, emission, and stimulated emission.All of these processes require that the photon energy given by the Planck relationship is equal to the energy separation of the participating pair of quantum energy states (E1 (upper energy state of electron) and E2(lower energy state of electron)
a.absorption-absorption of a photon can only occur when
Eproton= E2-E1
That is, an upward transition in energy state of the electron.An associated gain of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
b.emission-emission of a proton of the same energy will occur during a downward transition. An associated loss of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
c.stimulated emission- I encourage you to read this yourself.
What all this says is
1. The radiation of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause a decrease in it's temperature.
2. The absorption of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause an increase in it's temperature.
We have been through this a hundred times but old Gordhead's head is too thick to get it. Either that or he just wants attention.
SpaceBlues

United States

#31229 Jan 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been through this a hundred times but old Gordhead's head is too thick to get it. Either that or he just wants attention.
Or gets paid. However, I'm pleased to find out that Gord is not a racist.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31230 Jan 26, 2013
factologist wrote:
Did you know that:
(since Stupo is in love with hyperphysics, I'll cite it as a reference for what I'm about to discuss-http://hyperphysics.ph y-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod5.html #c4 the entire section)
1. Radiation is quantized such that for a given frequency of radiation, there can be only one value of quantum energy for the photons of that radiation.
2. That value, in electron volts, is given by
E = hc/&#955;,
&#955; = wavelength in meters (m)
c = the speed of light (299792458 m/s)
E = energy in electron Volts (eV)
h = Plank's constant (6.626068 × 10-34 m2kg/s)
3. What 1 & 2 taken together say is that the energy contained in a photon of a particular wavelength emitted by a substance is NOT dependent on the temperature of that substance.
4. It has been empirically determined that both the Earth and the atmosphere radiate the same IR wavelength.
5. IOW, the warmer Earth and the colder atmosphere both radiate IR photons of the same wavelength at the same energy level.
ALSO: Again from hyperphysics
1.The energy levels of atoms and molecules can have only certain quantized values.
2.Transitions between these quantized states occur by the photon processes of absorption, emission, and stimulated emission.All of these processes require that the photon energy given by the Planck relationship is equal to the energy separation of the participating pair of quantum energy states (E1 (upper energy state of electron) and E2(lower energy state of electron)
a.absorption-absorption of a photon can only occur when
Eproton= E2-E1
That is, an upward transition in energy state of the electron.An associated gain of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
b.emission-emission of a proton of the same energy will occur during a downward transition. An associated loss of thermal energy (temperature) will occur.
c.stimulated emission- I encourage you to read this yourself.
What all this says is
1. The radiation of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause a decrease in it's temperature.
2. The absorption of a photon at a given wavelength is not dependent on the temperature of the substance but will cause an increase in it's temperature.
I strongly doubt that SUXObama/Gord will accept this, but thank you anyway for saying this in a more scientifically accurate way than my attempts in simple English.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31231 Jan 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Or gets paid. However, I'm pleased to find out that Gord is not a racist.
He's a pretty lousy paid shill if he is one. Most of the others I've suspected of being paid are considerably more subtle & clever. They say something untrue, get refuted by someone with scientific knowledge, then go away for a while. When they come back, they'll try to say the same thing but in different language, or from a slightly different angle.

SUXObama/Gord isn't nearly that smart. He just keeps saying the same things, in caps, calling people names. It's not likely to impress those on the fence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min flack 1,480,557
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Rogue Scholar 05 234,112
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 26 min TRUMP a PUPPET 3,617
News Woman sues Trump in New York for defamation ove... 55 min Dee Dee Dee 21
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Limbertwig 256,414
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 2 hr Eagle 12 200
News Levine: Schools should teach children about Rus... 3 hr Rick 1
More from around the web