Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Global warming is a crockFollow

#102 Dec 04 2006 at 10:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, much more credible. Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Dec 04 2006 at 10:23 AM Rating: Decent
Devil-tongue,


The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is, according to their website, "a small research institute that studies biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."

Not exactly what you would call relevant in the climate change debate, is it?

Or is it because I left out the part that says they also market a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools", and which promises to "Teach your children...to acquire superior knowledge as did many...in the days before socialism in education".

Hmmm.

Then you talk about Father & Son, Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson (22 years old when he signed the petition).

They are quite famous for signing the anti-Kyoto petition and publishing a book about it. The dad is also famous for being a Christian Fundementalist, and of course being an expert on "research on protein chemistry and on nutrition and predictive and preventive medicine", as it says on the OISM website.

So an "expert" on climate change? The guy who writes about vitamins and nutrition?

Come on man, even Gbaji is more challenging than this...

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#104REDACTED, Posted: Dec 04 2006 at 10:39 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As opposed to an op-ed piece from an associate professor from one of the most liberal institutions in the US?
#105REDACTED, Posted: Dec 04 2006 at 10:59 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) ok more information from Dr's who obviously don't know what they're talking about
#106 Dec 04 2006 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Going back to the article in Science, I would be interested in hearing which peer-reviewed papers these gentlemen have submitted and had published on the topic of global warming. Finding individuals to take a certain point of view isn't all that difficult -- take the professor who had "proved" that the WTC was taken down by thermite, for example.

I don't have the time nor inclination to research every name the forum can find on Google. I am, however, more easily convinced by research which has been vetted and published by the scientific community.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Dec 04 2006 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
*
58 posts
Quote:
That's patently untrue. CO2 was 20 times greater during the Krakatoa eruption and everything turned out fine.

Totem


"Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program15, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times)."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#causes
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

Volcanoes are not a constant addition to C02, they blow up and then they stop. This is a flawed argument.

I <3 the internet
#108 Dec 04 2006 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
There is this theory, I forget what it's called and who made it, but in the universe, when something is out of balance, something changes to correct the balance. It's similar to "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" in that, say a rock is teetering too far off a cliff's edge, the rock falls, and the balance is corrected. So, if the planet is warming, and humans are the cause, then one could say that after the planet warms, it will cool just as rapidly, and kill all life, correcting the problem. Now, that's a little drastic, but it could happen that way. OR, instead of this balancing act happening all at once, it may be happening as we speak. The planet's temperature is rising, but at the same time, we get bigger storms, bigger blizzards, longer droughts, warmer temperatures. If you understand what I'm trying to say, is that the planet is trying to balance, it just so happens that we can't live on such an extreme balance, so yes, global warming is happening, humans probably are a factor and as a result will die. But who's to say this global warming won't happen anyway?

Say we spend all this money to cut back on resources and then the temperature continues to rise, (which I believe will happen,) and we end up in another ice age (which I also believe will happen), either way we're pretty much doomed, right?

This is what makes most sense to me, that the temperature is going to steadily rise, then rapidly fall, even out, and steadily rise again, and again, and again, whether or not humans are speeding up the cycle. I think it's the earth trying to find a balance. Yep, talking like the earth is a conscious thing.

^ Jumbled compilation of thoughts. Sorry if it's hard to understand.
#109 Dec 04 2006 at 2:38 PM Rating: Decent
True Neutral druids unite!
#110 Dec 04 2006 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
alyxandres wrote:
Quote:
That's patently untrue. CO2 was 20 times greater during the Krakatoa eruption and everything turned out fine.

Totem


"Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program15, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times)."


Reading comprehension is kinda key here though.

That's not saying that human activities produce 150 times as much CO2 as the ancient volcanoes did. It's saying that human activities produce 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes do *now*. Not 150 times as much as they did back then.


The point your argument ignores is the *fact* that CO2 levels were higher back then they they are today. Period. Where that CO2 came from is somewhat irrelevant. It was higher. Thus, the natural environment produced higher total CO2 levels then exist today. Where or how is absolutely unimportant. What matters is that nature managed to accomplish this feat without any assistance from man at all. Thus, it's absurd to assume that increases in CO2 levels a) can only occur as a result of humans mucking things up or b) that the levels of CO2 we're seeing today are even "bad" for the environemt as a whole at all.


It's another in a long line of psuedo-science surrounding this issue. The science will reveal certain facts. That's not the problem. It's when the activists read the science fact and re-interpret it in ways not supported by those facts that we get ourselves in trouble.

Ask a bunch of climatologists if "global warming" is real, and they'll all say "yes". Ask them if we're experiencing a warming phase "right now", and most of them will say yes. Ask them if the chemicals that human activities put into the air contribute to that global warming, and most of them will also say yes. If you stop right there, you might easily conclude that we must stop/curtail our human activities that are producing those chemicals that are causing the earth's climate to change. However, that's not *actually* what any of those scientists said. If you ask the next question: "Are the activities of humans significantly affecting the earth's climate and making it warmer", you'll suddenly get something like 1% of climatologists to say yes.

But that's the same thing, right? Wrong. Global warming "exists". The theory is sound. It's happened before. It presumably can and will happen again. The earth is warming right now. It's a short term trend, but it is (we were in a cooling phase for about 600 years, right up to the start of the 20th century btw). And yeah, those chemicals contribute to greenhouse gases and contribute to "global warming". However, what scientists cannot tell you is if the global warming modeled process is actually happening right now. They can only look anectdotally and record temperatures and speculate. They absolutely cannot determine to what extent the chemicals we are putting into the environment are significantly affecting this one way or another. In fact, none of them could tell you for sure whether the next 100 years will be hotter, cooler, or stay the same. Some will. But they'll pretty much be guessing.


It's not the science that's wrong. It's the connection between the science and the action that is. Most of the arguments about global warming and the things we should be doing to fight it bear no more then semantic connection to the original science. Just enough to fool most people who don't pay much attention...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Dec 04 2006 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
If you ask the next question: "Are the activities of humans significantly affecting the earth's climate and making it warmer", you'll suddenly get something like 1% of climatologists to say yes.
Cite?
Quote:
n its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
[...]
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
[...]
The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear.
Which 1% are you talking about?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#112 Dec 04 2006 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
ahhh but gbaji has left himself a loop hole with the word 'significantly'.

By significantly he means Day after Tomorrow significantly. If it isn't that significant it can't really be significant can it?
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#113 Dec 04 2006 at 8:45 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
The one single thing that made me interested in the whole man-made/caused global warming debate in the first place was this -

Every time I would hear an item on the news, or read something in the papers about 'global warming', I was always told as fact that CO2 emissions were rising in the atmosphere causing it to retain the heat that was being radiated from the sun. What finally occured to me as the reason that 'something was a bit odd about this' was that CO2 is heavier than air.

The molecular weight of air is 29. The molecular weight of CO2 is 44. If CO2 wasnt as heavy as it is compared to air, fire extinguishers wouldn't work. (CFC's mw. is 100).

CO2 dissolves in seawater. (I even remeber hearing about some hare brained scheme to pump CO2 into the seabed somewhere to 'store' it).

So, bearing that in mind, it would be reasonable to question the theory that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising 20 miles up to get above 99% of the atmosphere and significantly increasing the constant water (mw 18)-vapor-dominated greenhouse cover.

In fact 99.9% of all the world's CO2 is at ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans.

So, that was my initial concern over this CO2 causing global warming argument in the first place.

If that bit of basic science was being ignored by the experts, why on earth should the rest of their theories and scary predictions be any more correct.

If you are going to try and predict the long term outcomes of a complicated system, such as global warming trends, using shonky initial data, then your equations, and following predictions are going to be worse than useless.


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#114 Dec 04 2006 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol the Flatulent wrote:
If that bit of basic science was being ignored by the experts
How do you know it's being ignored? I've read numerous stories and studies mentioning the carbon sinks provided by the oceans and, to a lesser extent, vegetative material on land. In fact, the amount of additional CO2 being absorbed by the oceans is an indicator of increased CO2 emissions and is another area of concern as it causes biological shifts. See, for instance, "Simulated response of the ocean carbon cycle to anthropogenic climate warming" in the May 1998 peer-reviewed journal Nature

Regarding global warming itself, the Oct. 2005 journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* stated:
Quote:
Climate change is expected to influence the capacities of the land and oceans to act as repositories for anthropogenic CO2 and hence provide a feedback to climate change. A series of experiments with the National Center for Atmospheric Research-Climate System Model 1 coupled carbon-climate model shows that carbon sink strengths vary with the rate of fossil fuel emissions, so that carbon storage capacities of the land and oceans decrease and climate warming accelerates with faster CO2 emissions. Furthermore, there is a positive feedback between the carbon and climate systems, so that climate warming acts to increase the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 and amplify the climate change itself.


If you look beyond the "news stories", there's obvious recognition of where CO2 goes on the planet once released.

*They sure can name 'em, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115 Dec 04 2006 at 9:48 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Codyy wrote:
There is this theory, I forget what it's called and who made it, but in the universe, when something is out of balance, something changes to correct the balance. It's similar to "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"

A self-correcting system. This is the stance that I've been trying to push. It's like the theory that some species can spontaneously change gender when one becomes extinct to further the species. Or if one species of animal gets wiped out, another evolves or adapts to fill its niche in the ecosystem. Large-scale freezings or meltings can develop conditions which would eventually reverse the situation.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#116 Dec 04 2006 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
If you look beyond the "news stories",


Exactly. Thats what I did. I went and poked around the interweb, and wound up wondering why it would be that if CO2 sinks in the atmosphere, then how come it is causing problems in the upper atmoshere?

Heres an excerpt from a news article I found in 30 seconds on google that just annoys the hell out of me, but illustrates the source of my cynicism.

Quote:
The level of carbon dioxide, one of the most potent greenhouse gases, has leapt from 280 parts per billion to 380 parts per billion in the past 150 years, absolutely unprecedented in the history of the Earth, Frumkin said. The average temperature has crept up two degrees Farenheit over the past century, and sea levels have risen at least a few centimeters.
Link

"one of the most potent greenhouse gases," Says who? The same people who say its rising 20 miles up into the atmosphere to cause warming by causing retention of heat?? But it sinks in air......


"has leapt from 280 parts per billion to 380 parts per billion". Well excuse me if i don't get too worked up about an extra 100 parts per billion over the last 150 years!

"The average temperature has crept up two degrees Farenheit over the past century". Bloody hell! That much? What and 'we' did that? bit presumptious of us to assume that we are 'important enough to have had that effect on the planets temperature really. Especially considering we only inhabit 1.8% of the planets surface, the remaining 98.2% being ocean, ice caps, desert etc. Of course it had nothing to do with most measurements being taken in or near cities or towns wich have a lot more asphalt than they used to have 150 years ago. Asphalt being the good heat absorber/radiator as it is.

"and sea levels have risen at least a few centimeters." Well blow me down and call me Trevor! A few centimetres!! Twice a day, every day, the sea near my house goes up and down about 5 1/2 metres!! Its called a tide. hasn't forced anyone to move inland for fear of inundation as far as I know.

And thats just one paragraph out of one story.

My point is, I think theres a problem. Unfortunately we are all concentrating, as usual, on the wrong one. And hysterical (or otherwise) reports of islands sinking and Ice caps melting and catastrophic weather anomolies are not helping to save us from the garbage dump we are turning this planet into.


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#117 Dec 05 2006 at 2:12 AM Rating: Decent
pausol,

Quote:
and sea levels have risen at least a few centimeters." Well blow me down and call me Trevor! A few centimetres!! Twice a day, every day, the sea near my house goes up and down about 5 1/2 metres!! Its called a tide. hasn't forced anyone to move inland for fear of inundation as far as I know.


I sincerely doubt the scientists are so stupid as to not consider the tides when measuring sea levels.

All these measurements may seem small, but it's a chain reaction effect. That's what some people are trying to prevent at the moment. The signs are here. They're undeniable. The only question is whether it's because of us, or not. And on that point, it is so much safer, cheaper and healtier to assume it is. If we act early, we can prevent it from ******* us up, or at least delay it.

The alternative is to do nothing, and wait for the **** to hit the fan. That's usually how the human race works: do nothing, wait for the catastrophy, and then play the blame game. And if the people who don't want to act win this debate, then its likely that's what will happen.

I can't understand your position, to be honest. Even if global warming is not man-made, wouldn't it better anyway to change our way of life a little in order to make the planet cleaner? How can it be a bad thing to lower carbon emissions, and for people to become more conscious of the environment?

It's my previous point again.

If we act, we win whether global warming is man-made or not. Its a win-win situation.

If we don't, we either win nothing, or lose everything.

It's as clear-cut as a transparent emo.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#118 Dec 05 2006 at 5:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I went and poked around the interweb, and wound up wondering why it would be that if CO2 sinks in the atmosphere, then how come it is causing problems in the upper atmoshere?
And I just gave examples of the fact that you didn't think of anything that modern science didn't think of first. People studying it know that CO2 sinks. Regardless, just as the amount of CO2 in the oceans has been rising, so has the amount in the atmosphere. Go read some actual studies on the matter rather than someone's blog before you act as if you found the Achille's heel in the whole debate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#119 Dec 05 2006 at 9:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
My ideas are rather eloquently put forth by one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century.

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#120 Dec 05 2006 at 10:38 PM Rating: Decent
I read that the US has about 5% of the world population and use about 30% of the worlds energy.....
#121 Dec 06 2006 at 4:08 AM Rating: Decent
George Carlin wrote:
Lots of funny things


What he says is funny, but it's not serious.

Assuming the planet will do just fine on its own, just because, is not a great policy.

A lot of the things he says are true, notably the scale of human existence in comparaison to the planet's, but his conclusions are just silly. Which is fine, since he's a comedian.

Seriously though, eventhough the theory that the planet is an organism on its own, the Gaia theory, is great, it doesn't mean it's a conscious organism that can fight off everything it creates. If we try hard enough, and we are trying pretty hard, we can kill this planet.

Not only that, but complaining that humans are only concerned about themselves and their habitat, is not that incredible. The opposite would be a lot weirder.

The main problem is that global warming is not affecting us directly yet. Therefore, most people are a bit "meh". but, if most scientists are right, by the time it affects us directly we'll pretty much be fUcked. Not only that, but "us" acting is only half the problem. The other half comes from China and India, and that's a whole new kettle of fish.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#122 Dec 06 2006 at 10:42 AM Rating: Default
Kenzofeis wrote:
I read that the US has about 5% of the world population and use about 30% of the worlds energy.....


Yeah and I read that Ugandan children hack each other to pieces with machetes...what's you're point?

Ya know, according to these boards I'm either going to die from some huge ecological catastrophe due to our influence on the planet, die from war beacause we could never possibly win one *ever* and we only make people pissed at us, be stolen away by my government and tortured to death, or die playing dodgeball.

How do you all not wake up in the morning and kill yourselves, it's one big pessimism party. A frolicking fear festival of the frivolous.
#123 Dec 06 2006 at 11:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
From what I heard, Islamic terrorists will force us all to convert to Islam which is good because it'll free up the churches for gay marriages until 7:30pm, at which time they'll convert the altars over to abortion tables. The White House will be turned into Section 8 housing for welfare queens and illegal immigrants will be flying the Mexican flag over Congress. Also, they'll cancel Christmas.


Hey, I too can make up overblown crap when I don't have any real factual arguments!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124 Dec 06 2006 at 11:10 AM Rating: Default
Jophiel wrote:
From what I heard, Islamic terrorists will force us all to convert to Islam which is good because it'll free up the churches for gay marriages until 7:30pm, at which time they'll convert the altars over to abortion tables. The White House will be turned into Section 8 housing for welfare queens and illegal immigrants will be flying the Mexican flag over Congress. Also, they'll cancel Christmas.


Hey, I too can make up overblown crap when I don't have any real factual arguments!


Word that a bit more cryptically, and I may start calling you "Nostradamus the Sequel". Don't come right out with it, it ruins all the fun!


Edited, Dec 6th 2006 2:12pm by xtremereign
#125 Dec 06 2006 at 11:42 AM Rating: Decent
xtremereign wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
From what I heard, Islamic terrorists will force us all to convert to Islam which is good because it'll free up the churches for gay marriages until 7:30pm, at which time they'll convert the altars over to abortion tables. The White House will be turned into Section 8 housing for welfare queens and illegal immigrants will be flying the Mexican flag over Congress. Also, they'll cancel Christmas.


Hey, I too can make up overblown crap when I don't have any real factual arguments!


Word that a bit more cryptically, and I may start calling you "Nostradamus the Sequel". Don't come right out with it, it ruins all the fun!


Edited, Dec 6th 2006 2:12pm by xtremereign


Not all that cryptic but I'll translate for you.

Jophiel wrote:
YOU are a retarded aSshat.


That an accurate translation, Joph?
#126 Dec 06 2006 at 12:00 PM Rating: Default
BloodwolfeX wrote:
Something unorginal
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 12 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (12)