Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.
The swine said:
How did the ice age come to an end? It was global warming, but man’s industrialization was not even a factor. Again, these are the MSNBC and Salon lunatics who want more government, less freedom, and more of your hard-earned money.
Eight of the states with the highest levels of gun violence were among the 25 with the weakest gun laws, said the report, citing a study last year by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
‘This report – as others before it – demonstrates a strong link between state gun laws and gun violence,’ it said, adding that this link didn’t imply cause and effect.
‘Factors such as gun trafficking across state lines, overall crime patterns, and other socioeconomic issues in a state all play a role in gun-violence rates,’ it said.
A short article that is short on facts, data, and common sense. For example, if you bother to read the whole article it stated:
“The United States had about 31,300 firearms deaths in 2010, with two-thirds of them suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Vital Statistics Report.”
So the numbers throw suicides into the mix. That’s always great when you want to skew your results. The article also starts off by saying, “Eight of the states with the highest levels of gun violence were among the 25 with the weakest gun laws.” What does that really mean? No numbers, no charts, no comparison, and not one word about contradictory data coming out of places like Chicago where guns laws are the toughest in the nation yet do very little to lessen gun related killings. DM throws up a headline that reads “gun-related homicides” when the numbers include suicides is simply aiding the gun-grabbing left with their propaganda.
Actually the total amount of what they don’t know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.
Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that’s too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.
In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with “knives or cutting instruments”; “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” killed 674; while “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)” were the choices in 869 homicides.
The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.
In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.
Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.
Hollywood hypocrisy is nothing new. The video simply demonstrates that these people have no problem glorifying violence when there’s a buck to be made. George Will sums it up:
A discerning citizen will agree that Mitt Romney won the second debate. Even when a Republican is surrounded by a hostile and biased crowd, they win because they have ideas rather than spin and rhetoric. Mr. Obama had more energy this second round, but no record to stand on throughout the debate. Romney did his job and exposed all the embarrassing flaws that defined Obama’s presidency–the 5 trillion deficit being the most damning consequence of careless and reckless leadership. People who think, pay attention to facts, and simply look around and see how things are in the country will certainly make the right choice. Mitt Romney is the simple and clear choice for our country.
We should fire Mr. Obama for his lousy record, his failed policies, and his blatant dishonesty. People had placed their expectations rather high for a man whose forte is community organizing. Well, at least Barry can point to two great works of fiction that he wrote. Oh, I forgot about that Nobel prize he worked so hard to earn. Excuse me while a gag!
Regarding the debate, I’m in the same corner with Dick Morris:
But the key reason for the Romney win was substantive:
1. Romney made very clear the case against Obamas economic record and Obamas rebuttal about 5 million jobs was pathetic.
2. Romney injected the China issue, big time, and tapped into a strong public sentiment on the issue.
3. Romney made the effective case that Obama is anti-oil, coal, and gas and that this has doubled gas prices.
4. Romney was very effective in differentiating himself from Bush-43 and in establishing that, unlike the GOP of the past, he was for small businesses not big businesses.
5. Romney rebutted the attacks on him over Chinese investments.
6. Romney explained his tax plan well and to everyones satisfaction.
7. Obama erred in trying to make us believe that he always felt Libya was a terror attack. We all heard him blame the movie.
Obama scored points over the 47% statement by Romney, immigration, and by his response to the accusation that he went to Vegas after the murder of the Ambassador.But this debate goes to Romney. It seals his momentum and will lead to a big win.
This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTHRemember the day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment… to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush.REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007….THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!
We’ll never get straight answers from the media when it comes to Obama. It was so easy to dump on Bush when society had a liberal media willing to spin facts, distort the truth, and give Barry a much needed leg up.
Here’s something to think about regarding the path that the empty chair wishes the rest of us to follow:
How worthy and moral can an ideal be that punishes achievement and criminalizes human nature?
Proponents of economic equality are either willfully blind, or are themselves sociopathic megalomaniacs, trying to create a restrictive system in which they envision themselves to be part of the powerful ruling elite. Both are willing to go to extremes in order to achieve their goal. As they spin their tale of an imminent paradise, they never say what it will cost us to get there — and, frankly, they don’t give a damn. Individual human sacrifice is never an obstacle for collectivists; their glorious end justifies any unsightly means.
It is up to us then to examine just what exactly we will have to give up for the promise of economic equality — something that has been proven to not exist.
At first we will have to accept restrictions on certain consumer choices and products in exchange for letting the government take care of our personal well-being. Then come restrictions on speech and activities: a price for maintaining the national well-being. Eventually all dissent is suppressed and criminalized, as the media falls under the government control, young people are indoctrinated in the “new ways,” businesses pay enormous taxes, more and more families descend into misery and live off government subsidies, the economy crumbles, and shortages create long lines at the supermarket.
The leaders shift the blame to “enemies of the people,” saying that this country would have been a dreamland if it weren’t for a few greedy reactionaries. With no one left to object, desperate citizens succumb to the hatred and accept the idea that eliminating the few is a fair price to pay for improving the lives of the many. Then they accept the idea that eliminating an entire class of people is a small price to pay. But despite all the bloodletting, the promised collectivist paradise never arrives and the misery only increases. By now the demoralized, destitute masses are fully separated from the ruling elites by an impenetrable wall of privilege.
The ultimate price — the relentless sacrifice of millions of people: their work, careers, ambitions, property, and lives — has been paid to reach an unattainable economic mirage, a phantom concocted in the feverish minds of a few maniacs obsessed with class envy.
In contrast, the price of living in a free and prosperous capitalist society is merely to accept economic inequality as a natural extension of human nature. Without doubt, it’s a small price to pay for remaining a free, productive, and moral people who live in harmony with objectively true moral principles, otherwise known as the natural moral law.