'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate

[poot]

dang, man.............

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

SPLC wrote:

Ed Henry:Fox has never denied that prime-time stars like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are opinionated. Daytime hours and programs hosted by Shepard Smith and Bret Baier are set aside for news, although it's naive to suggest there's no point of view.
Three recent episodes illustrate the point. Fox aired 27 minutes of Obama speaking during four days just before the election – compared to 168 minutes of Republican challenger Mitt Romney Blah!

...and so so "One" openly Pro-America Cable News network is "MORE THAN Fair" to Conservative points of view and Candidates; how does that compare with the "LAME STREAM MEDIA" and those dozens Liberal/Progressive Pimps of Poverty?

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

Jay wrote:

<quoted text>
*********
I know that you served your time in the Marine Corp. I'm sure you know how - and the rules and responsibilities that go along with it.
There are two men in my household who have a right to carry. One was formerly in the USMC also. As you know, you are well scrutinized before they even consider you. You must pass government testing, and those who scrutinize you take you back as far as your records go to make sure you have nothing in that past record that would prevent them for okaying your right to carry. As you know, they do not hand them out like candy.
And then there comes the renewal fee and another check on your record before they renew it. So anybody who thinks it's easy to get a permit....go try and buy a gun and get yourself a card --- legally.

http://www.military.com/video/specialties-and...

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

The Brainwashing of American Children:
N Summit: Transforming Your Kids into “Climate Change Agents”

Try this experiment: Take half a glass of water and mark the water level with an erasable marker or crayon.
Place one large ice cube in that half glass of water...mark the new water level.
Allow enough time for the ice to melt...now look at the water level, and notice the water is at the same level as before the ice melted!
The ice simply displaced it's own volume, there are NO RISING SEA LEVELS! Beach erosion is a NATURAL Phenomena!

http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/138...

[ILoveitHere]

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

The Brainwashing of American Children:
N Summit: Transforming Your Kids into “Climate Change Agents”
Try this experiment: Take half a glass of water and mark the water level with an erasable marker or crayon.
Place one large ice cube in that half glass of water...mark the new water level.
Allow enough time for the ice to melt...now look at the water level, and notice the water is at the same level as before the ice melted!
The ice simply displaced it's own volume, there are NO RISING SEA LEVELS! Beach erosion is a NATURAL Phenomena!
http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/138...

When floating ice melts, does the water level rise?

http://www.planetseed.com/posted_faq/50440

Water expands when it freezes, so you might think that when it melts and reduces in size, the water level will go down. Alternatively, because part of the ice floats the water, you might think that when it melts, the water level will rise.

Neither is true, as explained by Archimedes principles.

When an ice cube (or an iceberg, which is a big ice cube) floats in water, then by definition the weight of the ice cube is exactly equal to the buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of the displaced water.

When the ice cube melts, its volume changes, but its weight is conserved (law of the conservation of mass). So the melted water from the ice cube has exactly the same weight as the water that was displaced by the ice cube when it was frozen -- therefore the volume of melted water fits exactly in the previously displaced volume -- and the water level stays the same.

Note that this argument applies only if the ice cube is made of the same water as the water that it is floating in. This is true, for example, with the Arctic ice pack, which is made of frozen sea water. However, it is not true for Antarctic icebergs, which are blocks of fresh-water ice from the continent that are floating in salt-water sea. In this case, we must take into account that the salt water is denser than the fresh water. The fresh-water iceberg still weighs as much as the weight of the displaced salt water, but because of the difference in density, the volume of melted fresh water will be slightly greater than the displaced volume of salt water -- so when the iceberg melts, the water level will rise, although the difference is very small.

If the ice is melting due to a rise in temperature of the water, then the water level might rise because of thermal expansion - related to, but not because of, the ice melting.

If the ice was totally or partly supported on the bottom of the vessel (or sea), then when it melts the water level will certainly rise. In the limit, if there was no water in the vessel at the start of the experiment, there clearly will be at the end, and it is obvious the water level has risen. This is a key problem resulting from global warming – melting ice that was covering land areas such as Antarctica and Greenland is adding to sea levels.

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

ILoveitHere wrote:

<quoted text>
When floating ice melts, does the water level rise?
http://www.planetseed.com/posted_faq/50440
Water expands when it freezes, so you might think that when it melts and reduces in size, the water level will go down. Alternatively, because part of the ice floats the water, you might think that when it melts, the water level will rise.
Neither is true, as explained by Archimedes principles.
When an ice cube (or an iceberg, which is a big ice cube) floats in water, then by definition the weight of the ice cube is exactly equal to the buoyancy force, which is equal to the weight of the displaced water.
When the ice cube melts, its volume changes, but its weight is conserved (law of the conservation of mass). So the melted water from the ice cube has exactly the same weight as the water that was displaced by the ice cube when it was frozen -- therefore the volume of melted water fits exactly in the previously displaced volume -- and the water level stays the same.
Note that this argument applies only if the ice cube is made of the same water as the water that it is floating in. This is true, for example, with the Arctic ice pack, which is made of frozen sea water. However, it is not true for Antarctic icebergs, which are blocks of fresh-water ice from the continent that are floating in salt-water sea. In this case, we must take into account that the salt water is denser than the fresh water. The fresh-water iceberg still weighs as much as the weight of the displaced salt water, but because of the difference in density, the volume of melted fresh water will be slightly greater than the displaced volume of salt water -- so when the iceberg melts, the water level will rise, although the difference is very small.
If the ice is melting due to a rise in temperature of the water, then the water level might rise because of thermal expansion - related to, but not because of, the ice melting.
If the ice was totally or partly supported on the bottom of the vessel (or sea), then when it melts the water level will certainly rise. In the limit, if there was no water in the vessel at the start of the experiment, there clearly will be at the end, and it is obvious the water level has risen. This is a key problem resulting from global warming – melting ice that was covering land areas such as Antarctica and Greenland is adding to sea levels.

How much of the earths surface is covered by water?
How much covered by land actually has significant glaciers?
Not enough to cause "Global Change"!
About those rising sea levels: they have been rising for 18,000 years, and there is no evidence that the current rate of rise is affected by temperature; 20th-century data show no acceleration.
Have you seen Man-Bear-Pig?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

Have a Merry Christmas everyone!
See your house in a Snow Globe... CLICK ON THE SITE BELOW, PUT IN YOUR ADDRESS AND WATCH IT!

http://www.draftfcb.com/holiday2011/

[wtf]

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

<quoted text>
...and so so "One" openly Pro-America Cable News network is "MORE THAN Fair" to Conservative points of view and Candidates; how does that compare with the "LAME STREAM MEDIA" and those dozens Liberal/Progressive Pimps of Poverty?

Faux is propaganda you silly dipshit.

[wtf]

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

The Brainwashing of American Children:
N Summit: Transforming Your Kids into “Climate Change Agents”
Try this experiment: Take half a glass of water and mark the water level with an erasable marker or crayon.
Place one large ice cube in that half glass of water...mark the new water level.
Allow enough time for the ice to melt...now look at the water level, and notice the water is at the same level as before the ice melted!
The ice simply displaced it's own volume, there are NO RISING SEA LEVELS! Beach erosion is a NATURAL Phenomena!
http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/138...

You simple minded dumbass now go watch your Faux.

[Hmmm]

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

<quoted text>
...and so so "One" openly Pro-America Cable News network is "MORE THAN Fair" to Conservative points of view and Candidates; how does that compare with the "LAME STREAM MEDIA" and those dozens Liberal/Progressive Pimps of Poverty?

so you're saying that a conservative group become liberal with their views?

thats an oxymoron.

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

Hmmm wrote:

<quoted text>so you're saying that a conservative group become liberal with their views?
thats an oxymoron.

...and a very fitting reply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

wtf wrote:

<quoted text>Faux is propaganda you silly dipshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

wtf wrote:

<quoted text>You simple minded dumbass now go watch your Faux.

Allow me to reiterate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Hmmm]

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

<quoted text>
How much of the earths surface is covered by water?

all water covers the earth surface, or core. That isn't the problem. The problem is the geographical displacement of that water and those people living on the coastal plains.

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

<quoted text>How much covered by land actually has significant glaciers?

it isn't just significant glaciers. it's all those glaciers. greenland is no longer covered yearly in snow. it's actually farming/cultivating some of it's own. Hay for it's livestock, that it used to import.

It is all being displaced. It's the amt of water displaced constantly from one place to another. The water has to reach an equilibrium between what is melting at the poles and in the mountains and what is already in the oceans. For instance the great lakes are drying up because of displacement in weather patterns. The on going drought in the midwest.

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

<quoted text>Not enough to cause "Global Change"!

This is where you're confused. It is the increase of carbon emissions in the atmosphere that is creating a rise in temps; which creates a change in the weather patterns. Carbon traps heat; just like a thermal blanket traps it. With the melting of the snow methane is being released at an even greater rate.

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

<quoted text>About those rising sea levels: they have been rising for 18,000 years, and there is no evidence that the current rate of rise is affected by temperature;

and land masses rise and fall, the problem lies in the coastal plains and estuaries. The large number of people who live in those coastal plains and estuaries are the problem. It is estimated that 60% of the worlds population live in these areas.

[BIG_STEVIE]

ILoveitHere wrote:

Every couple of days, I will have a person complain to me that I’m too aggressive or mean. I’m told,“You catch more flies with honey.”“Why do you belittle conservatives?”“You won’t change their minds that way.”
We didn’t win the 2012 election by being nice and trying to compromise. We won by making sure the country knew what it is that Republicans truly believe:
Rape is not rape if the woman gets pregnant. Or if she didn’t fight hard enough. Or if she was wearing sexy clothes.
Women who use birth control are sluts and whores.
Black people on food stamps are lazy.
Muslims are all terrorists.
Homosexuals are just like pedophiles.
Evolution is lies from the pit of hell.
This is who they’ve allowed themselves to become and we should try and reason with these people? I don’t think so. Rather, we should hold them up for the public to see and ridicule.
Moderate conservatives should be shamed for their continued support of the GOP. Independents should be horrified by the bile that spews forth from the right. And just to reiterate: THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT ON THE LEFT. Liberals do not actually say,“we love abortion!” or that Christianity should be banned and Sharia law instituted. The craziest fringe of the left says that we shouldn’t eat meat and all guns should be outlawed. When was the last time a liberal lawmaker even jokingly tried to pass a bill like that? For god’s sake, one Republican suggested that the law should be changed so abortion doctors could be legally murdered! These are disturbed people trapped in an echo chamber that only drives them further to the fringes of the right. They just lost an election that they had every opportunity to win. Why? Because they opened their mouths and the public heard what they stand for. The public recoiled from their extremism. What has the GOP and the right wing media decided to do? Double down on the extremism.
So, no, I won’t be catching more flies with honey. I will continue to show others the intellectual and moral vacuum that exists in the Fox News bubble. I will continue to heap scorn on them and treat them like the sick joke they are. I will arm other liberals with the knowledge of how to tear conservative “facts” apart like wet tissue paper. I will show independents and moderates the ugliness that underlies the modern conservative movement. Being polite and “taking the higher road” got us George W. Bush and 8 years of global bloodshed and economic ruin. If you think I’m only “sinking to their level” and I should be more accommodating maybe conservatives aren’t the only ones incapable of learning from their mistakes.
I took this from the blog Proud To Be A Filthy Liberal Scum. Spot on.

I'm not gonna get caught up in an endless exchange of useless words, hoss, but you're full of shit. Purely, and simply, that's the bottom line. You actually believe that crap. Well, if you choose to spend you life wallowing in ignorance, have at it. I'll pray for you. Have a nice day!

[thirdwurldamerik a]

why does obozo look like curious george with a banana shoved up his ass

[Hmmm]

thirdwurldamerika wrote:

why does obozo look like curious george with a banana shoved up his ass

when all other reasoning, feign indignation?

[Uncle Tab]

Just cause its fun to take jabs at republicans here.... I'm gonna throw this out there and let you all do everything you can to avoid answering it... It's what you tools do best!

Now try to keep up and stay on subject here.

How many jobs has those tax breaks for the wealthy given us?? And please remember, you idiots go on and on about how Obama has such high unemployment rates. How could this possibly be a good plan to give people who don't even create jobs huge tax breaks??

What are you idiots smoking??

On another note, seems like the Repubs are tossing out Teabaggers left and right.... It's a clear message that GE tea party was a flash in the pan! Goooood riddance!!

I don't believe the republican pparty will last much longer. You dolts will have to reinvent yourselves once again and try to make idiots such as yourself believe that they are actually for the working class (as they go on and on and steal your retirement)

Btw..... Have I mentioned Karl Rove and dick Morris were canned at fox? LMAO That's just funny to me!

[positronium]

Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:

<quoted text>
Your "Critical Thinking" beat you there!

It's been gone for quite a long time. I hope it returns with him/her. LOL.

[Aristocles son of Ariston]

Hmmm wrote:

<quoted text>all water covers the earth surface, or core. That isn't the problem. The problem is the geographical displacement of that water and those people living on the coastal plains.
<quoted text>it isn't just significant glaciers. it's all those glaciers. greenland is no longer covered yearly in snow. it's actually farming/cultivating some of it's own. Hay for it's livestock, that it used to import.
It is all being displaced. It's the amt of water displaced constantly from one place to another. The water has to reach an equilibrium between what is melting at the poles and in the mountains and what is already in the oceans. For instance the great lakes are drying up because of displacement in weather patterns. The on going drought in the midwest.
<quoted text>This is where you're confused. It is the increase of carbon emissions in the atmosphere that is creating a rise in temps; which creates a change in the weather patterns. Carbon traps heat; just like a thermal blanket traps it. With the melting of the snow methane is being released at an even greater rate.
<quoted text>and land masses rise and fall, the problem lies in the coastal plains and estuaries. The large number of people who live in those coastal plains and estuaries are the problem. It is estimated that 60% of the worlds population live in these areas.

X Wrong answer!: all water covers the earth surface, or core. That isn't the problem. The problem is the geographical displacement of that water and those people living on the coastal plains. HOW much(as a proportional percentage is actually H2O?
Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:
<quoted text>How much covered by land actually has significant glaciers?
X Wrong Answer!:it isn't just significant glaciers. it's all those glaciers. greenland is no longer covered yearly in snow. it's actually farming/cultivating some of it's own. Hay for it's livestock, that it used to import.
Historical Data dos not exist to prove this “theory”.

X Wrong Answer!:It is all being displaced. It's the amt of water displaced constantly from one place to another. The water has to reach an equilibrium between what is melting at the poles and in the mountains and what is already in the oceans. For instance the great lakes are drying up because of displacement in weather patterns. The on going drought in the midwest. The atmosphere of our planet uses condensation and evaporation in a never ending cyclic process…”What goes up must come down”!
Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:
<quoted text>Not enough to cause "Global Change"!
X Wrong Answer!: This is where you're confused. It is the increase of carbon emissions in the atmosphere that is creating a rise in temps; which creates a change in the weather patterns. Carbon traps heat; just like a thermal blanket traps it. With the melting of the snow methane is being released at an even greater rate.All emission rom the internal combustion engine since the time they were invented to not equal the emissions of one natural forest fire in Yellow Stone National Park in one season!
Aristocles son of Ariston wrote:
<quoted text>About those rising sea levels: they have been rising for 18,000 years, and there is no evidence that the current rate of rise is affected by temperature;
Wrong Answer!:and land masses rise and fall, the problem lies in the coastal plains and estuaries. The large number of people who live in those coastal plains and estuaries are the problem. It is estimated that 60% of the worlds population live in these areas. Historical data does not exist to prove that “Theory” a theory is just a theory…until proven.
You FAIL!
Soylent Green is People!
Global warming is for SHEEPLE!