Here's what scares me about that answer, and a potential deal-breaker for me on Carson: it sets him up to be a puppet. He's all but admitted to lacking the experience and knowledge to make those huge decisions, and his immediately reliance on advisors as an answer to the question makes me think he's lacking in confidence as well. I do not want another George W. Bush, who will respond to an advisor saying "jump" by asking "how high?".


I like the way the other candidates reacted because their answers recognize that Cruz's plan is buffoonery. For one, the President cannot unilaterally "tear up" a treaty. That requires Congressional approval, and that certainly takes longer than one day to accomplish. Two, they displayed an understanding of how diplomacy works in the real world that Cruz has yet to demonstrate.


Believe it or not, there is one, one possible situation in which I would have to consider voting for Cruz in the general election, but much as in your case with Kasich (who's probably my second choice amongst the Republican candidates right now), it would be a tough call between reluctantly checking the box next to Cruz or casting a write-in ballot for Deez Nuts.


I don't think Trump or Fiorina will take it. I don't think that Trump is going to be a big draw for supporters as guys like Paul, Walker, Christie and Kasich drop out. I also think that once the public realizes that a vote for Fiorina is a vote for a train wreck of a businesswoman who wants to nuke the world, her support will tank. Those supporters of failed candidates that I mentioned above will, imo, flock to Carson or Bush, and one of those two will likely overtake Trump by the time of the convention.


If it did come down to those two, I'd have little choice but to go with Trump. Fiorina is just a walking disaster waiting to happen. How a CEO who was fired after crashing the USS Hewlett Packard into the rocks, then backing up and crashing into them again over and over can represent herself as a successful businesswoman qualified to run the country is beyond me.

Then you would have a problem with all presidential nominee. (Past and present)They all surround themselves with experts and are advised. They use the experts to help make decisions. Nothing about that makes them puppets or lacking in confidence.

---

Formerly known as The Real Joker

Then you would have a problem with all presidential nominee. (Past and present)They all surround themselves with experts and are advised. They use the experts to help make decisions. Nothing about that makes them puppets or lacking in confidence.

When someone with no experience in the field is asked how he intends to govern, and his response is "advisors", then yes, I have concerns about that.

---

He is denying science. You are giving him a pass for denying science all while getting upset that someone called him out on science denial. Slow clap? 

 

Call me crazy but I don't think someone who can't separate his faith from logical analysis should be leading a country. You clearly are ok with that. I am not. 

 

okay sir, you're a biggot who disdains those who believe in a deity that's fine.  That's your prerogative, but just say that.  

 

Show me one instance where Ben Carson or any other candidate disputed the half life of carbon or any other element.  Because that's what you're accusing them of denying.  

 

I'm going to be honest, this shouldn't affect me as much as it does but i just can't help it.  Can't separate his faith from logical analysis?  Are you kidding me?  so when the guy goes into an operating room and prepares to remove a brain tumor or separate twins or do fetal surgery i suppose you think the solution that he comes up with is to just sprinkle holy water on them right?  He just hoodwinked the AMA the state licensing board Yale Michigan school of medicine and all those dopes right?  he doesn't actually operate on anyone using his vast knowledge of biology he just sits in a room and lays hands on them right.  

 

Unbelievable.  This kind of ignorant self serving caricature of someone you disagree with is symptomatic of just how intolerant and extreme certain elements of the left are in this country.  You don't care who you disparage, you don't care who you disrespect, you don't care how many millions of people of faith their are diligently contributing to this society across the professional spectrum you're just content so sit here and spew your ignorant hate filled insults because you're too lazy to actually respond to a position that disagrees with yours.  That's fine, that's your prerogative and ill be damned if im not going to call you out on it.  

---

 

This is what I was getting at. The point isn't that I "know a guy" (or a couple dozen meteorologists that I spend about a third of the year in constant contact with, but whatever), it's that candidates aren't looking at climatological data, and it seems that none of them have bothered to consult with an actual atmospheric scientist. I, on the other hand, have had lots and lots of discussions with atmospheric scientists, some of them heated (no pun intended), about climate change, how severe it is and how much humanity had to do with it. Is it too much to ask that a candidate pick up the phone and call the superstar teams at Oklahoma, Colorado, Colorado State and Penn State before going on national TV and saying that climate change is insignificant and not our fault?

 

And I'm with you on energy consumption, Pat. My A/C stays off unless it's warmer than 85 outside, lights are turned off when not in use, and we have our fireplace turned off at the valve from April through October to completely eliminate gas usage.

 

First of all, the data says that its insignificant.  We're talking about less than two degrees of average surface temperature over the last two centuries.  I would make the argument that we can't even account for the accuracy of thermometers over that period of time.  

 

Second, no one on the stage said that we didn't have an impact.  Show me the pull quotes if you don't believe me.  

 

the response of the candidates was two fold.  

 

a.) We should not adopt any solution that is going to cripple the economy and not fix the proposed problem.    If everything the EPA recently proposed is fully implemented and everything goes according to their plan we are talking about less than a 100th of a degree over the next century and meanwhile sustained economic decline and skyrocketing energy costs.  True adherence to he scientific method isn't running around like a chicken with your head cut off just so you feel like you're doing something.  

 

b.) follow models that work.  Chris Christie simply said that he has reduced carbon emissions through market based solutions and that the only sustainable way to curb fossil fuel emissions is to make renewable energies an attractive business model.  

 

that's a long way from sticking your head in the sand and DENYING SCIENCE.  

 

The problem that i have is that the actual responses of the candidates is being cast aside for some slapstick caricature that doesn't fit the actually policy positions that are being espoused and that's not even counting my own personal skepticism about the underlying premise.  

 

The even bigger problem that I have is that whenever we get into these discussions its always those on the left that scream "deniers, heretic, anti-science" but then don't bring a compelling mathematical argument to the table.  the only response we ever get is that its all too complex for us to understand we should just trust the people who only have a job if climate change is as they say it is.  

---

Nevermind.

---

First of all, the data says that its insignificant.  We're talking about less than two degrees of average surface temperature over the last two centuries.  I would make the argument that we can't even account for the accuracy of thermometers over that period of time.  

 

Second, no one on the stage said that we didn't have an impact.  Show me the pull quotes if you don't believe me.  

 

the response of the candidates was two fold.  

 

a.) We should not adopt any solution that is going to cripple the economy and not fix the proposed problem.    If everything the EPA recently proposed is fully implemented and everything goes according to their plan we are talking about less than a 100th of a degree over the next century and meanwhile sustained economic decline and skyrocketing energy costs.  True adherence to he scientific method isn't running around like a chicken with your head cut off just so you feel like you're doing something.  

 

b.) follow models that work.  Chris Christie simply said that he has reduced carbon emissions through market based solutions and that the only sustainable way to curb fossil fuel emissions is to make renewable energies an attractive business model.  

 

that's a long way from sticking your head in the sand and DENYING SCIENCE.  

 

The problem that i have is that the actual responses of the candidates is being cast aside for some slapstick caricature that doesn't fit the actually policy positions that are being espoused and that's not even counting my own personal skepticism about the underlying premise.  

 

The even bigger problem that I have is that whenever we get into these discussions its always those on the left that scream "deniers, heretic, anti-science" but then don't bring a compelling mathematical argument to the table.  the only response we ever get is that its all too complex for us to understand we should just trust the people who only have a job if climate change is as they say it is.  

Climate change is not insignificant, but I'm not going to beat my head against that wall anymore. It seems that you've heard so many people say that climate change is nothing to worry about that nothing I could say or do would sway you. Two degrees is a big deal. The even bigger deal is that human activity is accelerating that. I laugh a little every time someone wonders aloud what a one-meter rise in the sea level would really do. It would turn most of Jacksonville beach into a sandbar, for starters.

 

I'm pretty sure I've never called anyone a heretic. Like, ever. Just putting that out there for the record.

 

And, for the record, climatologists have a job whether there's global warming or not. Their job is to study the climate, not sit around fabricating evidence of global warming. And meteorologists? Are you kidding? You really think they wouldn't have a job if global warming wasn't happening?

 

I'll leave this behind then walk away: the data is too complex for you or I to understand. I've seen sheets and sheets of it. I've spent four years learning how to understand and forecast weather on the small scale, and I can barely make heads or tails of the first few lines. If you want to go back to college and take four years of calculus, three years of advanced physics, two years of discrete mathematics, two years of high-level chemistry and four years of meteorology classes that are, for the most part, glorified differential equations on a map, then please, come back in here and tell me how insignificant climate change is. Until then, I'm going to stick with the opinions of the people I know who have taken four years of calculus, three years of advanced physics, two years of discrete mathematics, two years of high-level chemistry and four years of meteorology classes that are, for the most part, glorified differential equations on a map.

---

When someone with no experience in the field is asked how he intends to govern, and his response is "advisors", then yes, I have concerns about that.

So in other words you don't want change. Or the exchange of new ideas to solve issues.... You prefer experiencing the same old cronyism, gotcha

---

Formerly known as The Real Joker

Lol. I literally tell you how ur goong to make ur argument and u still go that route? Ok.


1.) you dont build credibility by telling someone how complex a method of prefiction is. You build credibility by telling someone how accurate that process is over time. In the short term prohections about weather routinely have to be adjusted and long term climate models have been proven wrong, theyre still confounded by the last couple of decades.


2.) u guys need to prove 3 things. A.) human technology is a significant contributor to climate change. B.) that change will be catastrophic. C.) the solution you porpose will solve the problem. For me u guys are still working on point a.


3.) here is some simple math for u. 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by naturally occurring water vapor. We are responsible for less than 10% of total co2 emissions. It is estimated that when u weight those two factors we are responsible for about .26 of the greenhouse effect.


4.) in the ice core samples we see that there have been increases of co2 while surface temps remained constant for centuries and temperature increases that had no causal increase in co2 levels.


5.) the giant fusion engine responsible for all energy on earht doesnt have static output.


And please, since uve already disqualified yourself from the conversation please have one of your meteorologist friends u let intellectually intimidate u respond.

---

Lol. I literally tell you how ur goong to make ur argument and u still go that route? Ok.

1.) you dont build credibility by telling someone how complex a method of prefiction is. You build credibility by telling someone how accurate that process is over time. In the short term prohections about weather routinely have to be adjusted and long term climate models have been proven wrong, theyre still confounded by the last couple of decades.

2.) u guys need to prove 3 things. A.) human technology is a significant contributor to climate change. B.) that change will be catastrophic. C.) the solution you porpose will solve the problem. For me u guys are still working on point a.

3.) here is some simple math for u. 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by naturally occurring water vapor. We are responsible for less than 10% of total co2 emissions. It is estimated that when u weight those two factors we are responsible for about .26 of the greenhouse effect.

4.) in the ice core samples we see that there have been increases of co2 while surface temps remained constant for centuries and temperature increases that had no causal increase in co2 levels.

5.) the giant fusion engine responsible for all energy on earht doesnt have static output.

And please, since uve already disqualified yourself from the conversation please have one of your meteorologist friends u let intellectually intimidate u respond.

If you are genuinely interested, you can simply read about it: <a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>

---

See what i mean. No real understanding and interaction just links and talking points.

---

So in other words you don't want change. Or the exchange of new ideas to solve issues.... You prefer experiencing the same old cronyism, gotcha

I do want change. I just don't believe that a neurosurgeon with exactly zero experience that would qualify him to run a nation is the kind of change I want.

 

And please, since uve already disqualified yourself from the conversation please have one of your meteorologist friends u let intellectually intimidate u respond.

"Intellectually intimidate" lol. If hearing evidence from people who know what they're talking about and making your own decisions based upon it is "intellectual intimidation", I'd hate to think of what you call it when all of your "evidence" comes from right-wing bloggers and Republican talking points.

 

If you are genuinely interested, you can simply read about it: <a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming</a>

See what i mean. No real understanding and interaction just links and talking points.

Hey, you wanted evidence. Don't shoot the messenger.

---

Lol. Its no fun being me. Life holds no suprises.

---

Lol. Its no fun being me. Life holds no suprises.

U r so smart


S-m-a-t


Smart!

---

Lol. Its no fun being me. Life holds no suprises.

Believe it or not, I did have an opinion on climate change before meeting all of these guys, who have increased my knowledge about atmospheric processes far beyond what I'd ever imagined I could grasp without four years of calculus. I don't just sit around and let others "intellectually intimidate" me.

 

"Intellectually intimidating" lol. Keep digging, Tex. You'll strike oil someday.

---

Believe it or not, I did have an opinion on climate change before meeting all of these guys, who have increased my knowledge about atmospheric processes far beyond what I'd ever imagined I could grasp without four years of calculus. I don't just sit around and let others "intellectually intimidate" me.

 

"Intellectually intimidating" lol. Keep digging, Tex. You'll strike oil someday.

 

so when are we gonna get another ice age i want to do more snowboarding

---

Go Jags!
*To stay up for atleast 2 years 3/6/17
2016 draft players I think will be good

• On the Fournette train, will be best back of his class 3/6/17
  
• Lattimore please,  Lockdowns on both sides would be nice
  
• Engram at TE and the MJD clone Samaje Perine
  

 

so when are we gonna get another ice age i want to do more snowboarding

Speaking as someone who messed up his knee for life snowboarding, trust me, it's overrated.

---

lol, Obama was a sitting US Senator.

An appointed senator that won re-election.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

An appointed senator that won re-election.

So a sitting US senator then.

---

So a sitting US senator then.

A guy who won because Jeri Ryan is a prude. To think all this hell happened because of her.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

A guy who won because Jeri Ryan is a prude. To think all this hell happened because of her.

What hell exactly?

---