Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize

[MJZiggy]

If Roe is overturned, the decision on whether to have abortion legal will likely return to the states. It is anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe would not outlaw abortion, but allow state governments to decide if abortion will be legal in their state. Therefore, a governors view on abortion will be crucial if Roe is overturned.

Why the governor's and not the state legislatures. The gov may have veto power, but he can be overruled as well and I don't think he introduces legislation.

[Joemailman]

I mentioned the governor because of veto power. Certainly the state legislature races would be important too.

[Deputy Nutz]

If Roe is overturned, the decision on whether to have abortion legal will likely return to the states. It is anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe would not outlaw abortion, but allow state governments to decide if abortion will be legal in their state. Therefore, a governors view on abortion will be crucial if Roe is overturned.

Umm, I don't think it is going to be overturned for a while regardless of what Ron Paul thinks.

[MJZiggy]

I don't think so either which is why I thinks it's ludicrous to base your vote entirely on this one issue.

[Freak Out]

Was someone talking about abortion? How about birth control?
What the hell kind of name is Chytoria? Something her family pulled from an old issue of Fangoria?

Woman convicted of using baby as weapon during fight

October 11, 2007

ERIE, Pa. -- A jury has convicted a woman of swinging her 4-week-old son at her boyfriend during a fight and fracturing the infant's skull.

Chytoria Graham, 28, fell into the fetal position when the judge told her she faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence after she was convicted Wednesday of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, simple assault and child endangerment.

''Oh my God,'' Graham cried. ''Oh my God, Oh my God. No, no, no.''

Graham and her boyfriend, DeAngelo Troop, got into a fight Oct. 8, 2006, after Graham came home from a night of drinking, according to prosecutors. They said Graham grabbed the baby, Jarron, by his feet and swung him, hitting Troop and fracturing the infant's skull.

Graham had pleaded guilty in March to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child, but withdrew her plea in June.

Jarron recovered and is living with Graham's family. Graham will be sentenced Dec. 12.

AP
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[LL2]

Was someone talking about abortion? How about birth control?
What the hell kind of name is Chytoria? Something her family pulled from an old issue of Fangoria?

Woman convicted of using baby as weapon during fight

October 11, 2007

ERIE, Pa. -- A jury has convicted a woman of swinging her 4-week-old son at her boyfriend during a fight and fracturing the infant's skull.

Chytoria Graham, 28, fell into the fetal position when the judge told her she faced a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence after she was convicted Wednesday of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, simple assault and child endangerment.

''Oh my God,'' Graham cried. ''Oh my God, Oh my God. No, no, no.''

Graham and her boyfriend, DeAngelo Troop, got into a fight Oct. 8, 2006, after Graham came home from a night of drinking, according to prosecutors. They said Graham grabbed the baby, Jarron, by his feet and swung him, hitting Troop and fracturing the infant's skull.

Graham had pleaded guilty in March to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child, but withdrew her plea in June.

Jarron recovered and is living with Graham's family. Graham will be sentenced Dec. 12.

AP
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Stupid people! I remember watching the news a long time ago and someone was trying to escape cops and in the process slowed down to open the door and put his/ her (don't remember if it was a man or woman) baby on the road while still in the car seat. People like that should be beaten with a baseball bat!

[RashanGary]

Since this is a political thread, you knwo what annoys the piss out of me?


When people spend half of their day's thinking about and talking about who is more patriotic than who, and who supports the troops and who doesn't.

If you have some core beliefs that you believe this country should be founded around, GREAT. Support those. Abortion, civil libertys, immigration, ecomomic efficiency and how to achieve it, ect. . . .

YOu know what everyone sits around and gets all worked up about? They all sit around and go boo hoo, so and so undermined the president. So and so doesn't support the troops because they don't think we should be in war.

Then you have libs sitting around saying "President Bush want kids to die" "President Bush wants to oppress the little guy so the rich can stay rich" and so on. . . . . .

It's all a big mind game that is no more complex than the mainstream voter. It's a cluster fuck of rediculous debate that radio hosts use to stir up emotion, gain ratings and eat up 3 hours of radio per day.


Just once, I'd love to hear people with creative, somewhat original thought that pertains to the core issues of our time instead of rehashed, regurgetated bull shit from an entertainer who's job is to stir up ratings. HH comes close. myrand or whatever his name is seems to from time ot time. The majority just bitch about stupid little word games that are no where near the core of the problem, but are just interesting and emotional enough to interest the mainstream adience. Yawn. . . .

I listen to talk radio, but I pride myself on making my own ideas and maybe piecing things together to really mean something, rather than just repetitively pounding at the shallow surface of a deeper topic. I'm sure there are people here who'd knowledge of the last 20 years of current events puts mine to shame. I'm sure there are some who know more about the threat of radical Islam than I. I dont' think I'm the all knowing anwer to everything, but I know we can get a little deeper than Jimmy Carter isn't patriotic because he disagrees with the president. I know we can do better than that.

Newt Gingrich is pretty inspiring with his ideas of how to strengthen our economy. I thought that was very interesting. I brought it up once and people just sort of went on to the next political cat fight.


I think the world economy is like a big pie. There are haves and have nots. Those who can produce the best products will strive. Those who's prodcuts are too expensive or not advanced enough will falter. We're getting to a point where we have to advance our companies on a world wide basis and the politician that focuses on that will be the politician that I believe will allow all of us to financially flourish. A strong ecomonmy makes everything else possible. I just can't believe it's not a bigger issue.

[Freak Out]

I guess when the Indians and the Chinese have added a couple of billion automobiles into the oil/food chain all the bases that were building in Iraq will have turned out to be money well spent.

I was digging for some investment info and came across a story about Indian and Chinese car companies that were producing $2500 vehicles and had to do a double take when I saw some of the numbers these guys were throwing out there as far as future sales figures. If people think were pumping a bunch of crap into the air now just wait!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gore Derangement Syndrome
PAUL KRUGMAN, October 15, 2007

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

[swede]

Is this topic still going on?

The bestowing of the Nobel Peace prize upon Al Gore was simply a politically motivated gesture by a politically motivated organization.

It was predictable and more amusing than annoying.

I'm having an enormous amount of fun with it.

The Wall Street Journal was making its own politically motivated point, and liberals like Krugman screech foul play. You see, it's not enough that Gore has been given the Nobel Peace prize. We're all supposed to concede that the granting of this award now legitimizes the "we're causing global warming" movement.

Sorry. I think Al Gore is an opportunistic attention-seeker, but I'm not outraged. I think it's hilarious that he won the coveted award.

[swede]

I shall now "Krugmanize" myself:

The swede is smarter than all of you liberals and it drives you all crazy.

[Zool]

I'd like to know what exactly a liberal is vs a conservative. I personally think all of you are fucked in the head for certain things. Does that make me independent? Do you really feel better knowing that 50% of the populace disagrees with you out of principal and what you're supposed to think being one faction or the other? Are the Dem and Repub senators seated on opposite sides of the senate so they can tell who's who? I find it all mind numbingly boring.

[MJZiggy]

I'd like to know what exactly a liberal is vs a conservative. I personally think all of you are fucked in the head for certain things. Does that make me independent? Do you really feel better knowing that 50% of the populace disagrees with you out of principal and what you're supposed to think being one faction or the other? Are the Dem and Repub senators seated on opposite sides of the senate so they can tell who's who? I find it all mind numbingly boring.

Yes, you're an independent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The bestowing of the Nobel Peace prize upon Al Gore was simply a politically motivated gesture by a politically motivated organization.

Sweden, you never responded to my question. (shocking) You said that the Nobel Prize is no longer prestigous. This means it used to be prestigous: when was that? Back when Kissinger got a Nobel prize?

The international standing of the Nobel Prize has not diminished a bit. What has happened is that we have been divided into our little echo chambers. I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio, and they are all saying exactly the same thing about this Nobel. And the liberals have their own seperate reality.

The Nobel is indeed VERY political, but not in a liberal-conservative way. It is often intended to contribute political momentum to a hopeful process. Which is why Kissinger got a Noble . And OF COURSE Arafat got a Noble (along with Israeli partners) when a peace initiative was looking so hopeful. If he was a terrorist (as were Israeli leaders, incidentally) that is almost besides the point.
IT DOES NOT MATTER A BIT IF GORE IS A POLITICAL HACK OR PHONY OR PEDOPHILE!! He received a Noble because the committee wanted to give a political boost to a cause they deemed important to peace and stability. And secondly, they respect Gore's work.

I think this latest dust-up over the Nobel is fucking fascinating. It shows how truly out-of-step the conservative movement is in this country, relative to the rest of the world. That's not to say they are unimportant, or even wrong, but they are on their own planet. Planet Limbaugh.

And By The Way: I was roundly criticized for ripping Kiwon a new asshole; some of that criticism even came from foreigners of questionable motives. I was not doing any rectal ripping, it was more in the form of a kick in the butt. I was not saying I know more than Kiwon about the Noble winners, I wouldn't expect anybody to know about those winners off the top their heads. But before you criticize a decision, like the choice of a Nobel committee, you really ought to know WHY they made their choice. Otherwise its just shallow demagoging.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We're all supposed to concede that the granting of this award now legitimizes the "we're causing global warming" movement.

that movement is not wanting for legitimacy, other than in some increasingly isolated circles.

the political consensus to actually do something about the problem is not there, probably won't be there for years or decades. This Noble prize is a modest political endorsement.