quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Wow, what a treasure trove of misinformation here. None of this is true - none of it. The rate of extinction has not increased (there would be no conceivable way to prove this), we are finding new species all the time in all sorts of different places, the majority of life on earth is actually in the ocean, rainforests are absolutely not getting cut down at the rate you claim (almost all paper now comes from tree farms, not forests), that oxygen statistic is pure nonsense, and current evidence seems to indicate that warming and higher ocean levels of CO2 could actually be good for ocean life. What else you got?

You fool ... those are not "NEW" species. They've been around for quite some time, its just they have been spared from destruction by humans because humans have not gotten to their habitat. They've been lucky to have been out of our reach for quite some time, but now it seems that their luck has run out. Easy as that! Same with rainforests - so many species that we dont know about are lurking deep within them, but thats only for a short period of time ...

So you think you'll be able to breathe when the world's rainforests are all but destroyed? Climate change is already wiping out millions of acres of forest in British Columbia due to bugs, and loggers arent helping either.

I can quote you twenty thousand articles on human-driven extinction, but I'd rather not waste my time, so I'll post two random ones. You can continue living in denial, if you wish:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...20109074801.htm

quote:

Extinction Rate Across The Globe Reaches Historical Proportions AUSTIN, Texas -- Half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years, according to a botany professor at The University of Texas at Austin. Although the extinction of various species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of extinction occurring in today's world is exceptional -- as many as 100 to1,000 times greater than normal, Dr. Donald A. Levin said in the January-February issue of American Scientist magazine. The co-author is Levin's son, Phillip S. Levin, a National Marine Fisheries Service biologist who is an expert on the demography of fish, especially salmon. Levin's column noted that on average, a distinct species of plant or animal becomes extinct every 20 minutes. Donald Levin, who works in the section of integrative biology in the College of Natural Sciences, said research shows the rate of current loss is highly unusual -- clearly qualifying the present period as one of the six great periods of mass extinction in the history of Earth. "The numbers are grim," he said. "Some 2,000 species of Pacific Island birds (about 15 percent of the world total) have gone extinct since human colonization. Roughly 20 of the 297 known mussel and clam species and 40 of about 950 fishes have perished in North America in the last century. The globe has experienced similar waves of destruction just five times in the past." Biological diversity ultimately recovered after each of the five past mass extinctions, probably requiring several million years in each instance. As for today's mass extinction, Levin said some ecologists believe the low level of species diversity may become a permanent state, especially if vast tracts of wilderness area are destroyed. Other experts, in contrast, say breaking up today's vast ranges into smaller habitats could promote the evolution of new species. That's because populations of the same type of organism that are separated from each other may diverge over time. As populations are reduced in size, genetic changes may accumulate more rapidly. Another reason diversity may rebound -- as it normally does after a major extinction episode -- is that disturbances caused by human beings do not eliminate habitats, but merely change them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4563499.stm

quote:

Earth's species feel the squeeze If we continue with current rates of species extinction, we will have no chance of rolling back poverty and the lives of all humans will be diminished. That is the stark warning to come out of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the most comprehensive audit to date of the health of our planet. Organisms are disappearing at something like 100 to 1,000 times the "background levels" seen in the fossil record. Scientists warn that removing so many species puts our own existence at risk. It will certainly make it much harder to lift the world's poor out of hardship given that these people are often the most vulnerable to ecosystem degradation, the researchers say. The message is written large in Ecosystems and Human Well-being: the Biodiversity Synthesis Report. Biodiversity and human well-being just cannot be separated Dr Kaveh Zahedi, World Conservation Monitoring Centre It is the latest in a series of detailed documents to come out of the MA, a remarkable tome drawn up by 1,300 researchers from 95 nations over four years. The MA pulls together the current state of knowledge and in its latest release this week focuses specifically on biodiversity and the likely impacts its continued loss will have on human society. Even faster In one sense, and precisely because it is a synthesis, the new document contains few surprises. It is, nonetheless, a startling - and depressing - read. MA BIODIVERSITY SYNTHESIS The last 50 years have seen the biggest biodiversity upheaval in human history Over half the world's biomes (vegetation types) have experienced about 20-50% conversion to human use The rates of change have been greatest in tropical and sub-tropical dry forests Some 35% of mangroves and about 20% of corals have gone Across a range of taxonomic groups, species are in decline A third of all amphibians, a fifth of mammals and an eighth of all birds are now threatened with extinction. It is thought 90% of the large predatory fish in the oceans have gone since the beginning of industrial trawling. And these are just the vertebrates - the species we know most about. Ninety percent of species, maybe more, have not even been catalogued by science yet. "Changes in biodiversity were more rapid in the last 50 years than at any time in human history," said Dr Georgina Mace, the director of science at the Institute of Zoology, in London, UK, and a MA synthesis team member. "And when you look to the future, to various projections and scenarios, we expect those changes to continue and in some circumstances to accelerate. "Future models are very uncertain but all of them tell us that as we move into the next 100 years, we'll be seeing extinction rates that are a thousand to 10,000 times those in the fossil record." 'Invisible services' One feature that sets the MA apart from previous projects of its kind is the way it defines ecosystems in terms of the "services", or benefits, that people get from them. Some of these services are obvious - they are "provisional": timber for building; fish for food; fibres to make clothes. Most industrial fisheries are either fully or overexploited At another level, these services are largely unseen - the recycling of nutrients, pollination and seed dispersal, climate control, the purification of water and air - but without these "support" and "regulating" systems, life on Earth would soon collapse. And although we may be some distance away from an "end scenario", there is no doubt the rapid expansion of the human population and its high consumption of natural resources have taken a heavy toll on ecosystems and the organisms that inhabit them. "Biodiversity and human well-being just cannot be separated," said Dr Kaveh Zahedi, the officer in charge of the Unep World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, UK. "We are befitting from a whole range of services that up until now have almost been invisible; we haven't considered them. And then they suddenly pop up on our radar screens - we have a tragedy in Asia with a tsunami and we realise that those mangroves that were cut down had a value; they provided a service in terms of coastal protection." Similar picture Land-use (habitat) changes, climate change, pollution and over-exploitation - they are all pushing down on biodiversity and the pressure shows little sign of easing. "The magnitude of the challenge of slowing the rate of biodiversity loss is demonstrated by the fact that most of the direct drivers of biodiversity loss are projected to either remain constant or increase in the near future," the MA biodiversity synthesis report says. If you do things the right way, if you chose the right options for poverty alleviation, you can also maximise biodiversity and sustainability Dr Georgina Mace, Institute of Zoology Removing huge swathes of forest has a blunt and clear impact on biodiversity by taking out the habitat formerly occupied by plants and animals. But there are subtle changes taking place, too. The distribution of species around the globe is becoming more homogenous, as invasive creatures hitch a ride on fast human transport and trade routes. Genetic diversity, also, is declining rapidly. This is most obvious in domesticated plants and animals where the pursuit of high yields and the pressures of global markets have pushed farmers towards a limited range of cultivars and breeds. And so it is not simply that species are fewer in number, their changed circumstances may also have reduced their resilience and their ability to cope with future change. Possible tensions In 2002, world governments, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, set themselves the target of making a "substantial reduction in the rate of loss of biological diversity" by 2010. The MA illustrates just how tough it will be to meet that target. What is more, there may even be occasions when progress towards that target conflicts with the even loftier 2015 Millennium Development Goals of cutting into world hunger and poverty, and improving healthcare. BIODIVERSITY AND POVERTY Biodiversity and human well-being are inextricably linked Humans benefit from ecosystem services, but unsustainable use drives biodiversity loss People living in rural areas in developing nations are often most dependent on biodiversity And they are usually most vulnerable to ecosystem service degradation They cannot afford to move out or import new services A classic example is the development of rural road networks - a common feature of hunger reduction strategies - which are likely also to accelerate rates of biodiversity loss by fragmenting habitats and by opening up new areas to unsustainable harvests. This sort of thing has been well documented in Africa where the bushmeat trade that endangers many species follows the development of transport infrastructure. "This is a very important issue," said Dr Mace. "It's clear there are going to have to be trade-offs and compromises but it's not a simple relationship. It's not a case that you can have 20% poverty and 80% biodiversity. "If you do things the right way, if you chose the right options for poverty alleviation, you can also maximise biodiversity and sustainability." And Dr Neville Ash, another MA synthesis team member, added: "The bottom line is that you cannot achieve long-term poverty alleviation without sustainability. "In order to reduce hunger and poverty and increase access to clean water and sanitation, we need to have a strong base of environmental sustainability which is providing these services on which people rely for their well-being." Little time It is very evident, too, that we need to get a move on. The wheels of global governance turn slowly, as was seen with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change which finally entered into force in February after many years of negotiation. The MA has identified possible solutions - from significant shifts in consumption patterns and better education, to the adoption of new technologies and a large increase in the areas enjoying protection. And if some of the ideas sound "old hat", such as the abolition of farming subsidies that drive crop production to the detriment of field biodiversity - that is because they are. "Most of the approaches to achieving more sympathetic management of the natural environment and the conservation of biodiversity - I think we and governments know them already," commented Graham Wynne, the chief executive of the UK bird conservation group, the RSPB. "The real challenge is to deploy them more extensively and more intelligently. "And you can't get away from the fact that we simply need more money. "The sums of money we throw at the environment in the West are relatively modest; and the sums of money the West is prepared to devote to developing countries is pitiful."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.o...d_biodiversity/

quote:

Species extinction rate speeding up Scientists say wildlife extinction rates are soaring. The die-off, they claim, threatens the planet's web of life or biodiversity which sustains farming, forestry and oceans. At a Paris meeting last week scientists called on world leaders to catalog and save species. One of the speakers was University of Minnesota ecology professor David Tilman. He's known around the world for his research showing the effects of human activity on the environment. St. Paul, Minn. — The 1200 scientists and others at the international meeting sponsored by the government of France issued a statement at the end of the 5-day-long event. It said in part, "Biodiversity is being irreversibly destroyed by human activities at an unprecedented rate. . . (demanding) urgent and significant action." New plant and animal species are emerging, University of Minnesota ecology professor David Tilman says, but not nearly fast enough to make up for the toll caused by human activity. "That's sort of a 1 million to 4 million year process, and yet we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster," he says. Tilman says the rate of extinction is approaching what scientists assume happened 65 million years ago. That's when many believe a giant meteorite struck the earth, causing a dramatic climate change that led to mass extinction. grassland test plots"Thirty million years (later) things were pretty much back to normal, different species, dinosaurs were gone, mammals were here," he says. Unlike then, Tilman argues, we can't count on time to heal the earth's wounds. Scientists estimate there are 10 to 30 million plant and animal species on the planet, most of them unidentified. Each year as many as 50,000 species disappear. Most die off, Tilman says, because of human activity. "We take natural habitats convert them to agriculture, to suburbia, to roads, to monoculture forestry. We fish the oceans so heavily we literally have these trolling nets that scrape the bottom of the ocean clean," he says. Dave Tilman is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the country's top scientific body, the author of four books and more than 140 scientific papers. Unlike some scientists, he doesn't hesitate to give his opinion on what his research means. Tilman says human behavior is affecting the environment and that our treatment of the earth amounts to a form of theft. "What that means morally is that future generations will have a lower quality of life because we overexploited the habitat now," he says. Tilman cites meat production as one of our most wasteful practices. He says raising grain as feed for beef cattle requires vast amounts of land and uses up lots of petroleum to make fertilizer to raise the crops. "We're using an organism, cattle, that are highly specialized on living on low quality food, and we're giving them high quality food which their guts aren't able to handle very effectively," he says. A wiser practice which preserves biodiversity, Tilman argues, is raising cattle on grassland that resembles the prairie. Ten years of research by Tilman and others at the Cedar Creek Natural History Area 30 miles north of the Twin Cities shows pasture with plant variety is more productive, releases cleaner water and tolerates extreme weather better. Tilman argues saving the planet's biodiversity will require modifying human preferences for driving bigger vehicles, eating more meat and generally consuming more of everything around us. He says we can't count on the market place alone to send the right signals for preserving biodiversity. He says the next phase of his research will attempt to show ways for finding a balance. "Might we be able to not only produce more pulp in a more diverse forest for paper production but maybe have that forest provide other services, cleaner water, store more carbon so we can remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping get rid of some of our effects of burning fossil fuel. . . finding ways we can use biological diversity as a tool to help society have a more sustainable world?" he asks. Two specific proposals emerged at the Paris meeting he attended. One is a 25-year-long effort to catalog all of the earth's species, and another is to spend $25 billion to save the 25 most threatened environments including the Amazon forest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26472726/

quote:

Brazil admits Amazon deforestation on the rise 69 percent increase in 1 year reported; 20 percent of forest now cleared RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil - Amazon deforestation jumped 69 percent in the past 12 months — the first such increase in three years — as rising demand for soy and cattle pushes farmers and ranchers to raze trees, officials said Saturday. Some 3,088 square miles of forest were destroyed between August 2007 and August 2008 — a 69 percent increase over the 1,861 square miles felled in the previous 12 months, according to the National Institute for Space Research, or INPE, which monitors destruction of the Amazon. "We're not content," Environment Minister Carlos Minc said. "Deforestation has to fall more and the conditions for sustainable development have to improve." Brazil's government has increased cash payments to fight illegal Amazon logging this year, and it eliminated government bank loans to farmers who illegally clear forest to plant crops. The country lost 2.7 percent of its Amazon rain forest in 2007, or 4,250 square miles. Environmental officials fear even more land will be razed this year — but they have not forecast how much. Minc says monthly deforestation rates have slowed since May, but environmental groups say seasonal shifts in tree cutting make the annual number a more accurate gauge. Most deforestation happens in March and April, the start of Brazil's dry season, and routinely tapers off in May, June and July: Last month, 125 square miles of trees were felled, 61 percent less than the area razed in June. Environmentalists also argue that INPE's deforestation report wasn't designed to give accurate monthly figures, but to alert and direct the government to deforestation hot spots in time to save the land. The Amazon region covers about 1.6 million square miles of Brazil, nearly 60 percent of the country. About 20 percent of that land has already been deforested. Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/

quote:

Species disappearing at an alarming rate, report says Watchdog releases annual 'Red List,' warns extent is underestimated The world's biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate, the recognized global watchdog on endangered species said Wednesday in announcing its annual list of most vulnerable wildlife. At least 15 species have gone extinct in the past 20 years and another 12 survive only in captivity, the World Conservation Union said in a report that accompanies its annual "Red List." Current extinction rates are at least 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural rates found in the fossil record, the report stated. The data were released as 3,500 delegates gathered in Bangkok, Thailand, for a World Conservation Union conference focused on halting what's deemed an extinction crisis. The report concluded that humans are the main reason for most species' declines. "Habitat destruction and degradation are the leading threats," the union said in a statement, "but other significant pressures include over-exploitation (for food, pets, and medicine), introduced species, pollution, and disease. Climate change is increasingly recognized as a serious threat." 3,330 more threatened species The union, which is a coalition of leading conservation groups, called the report "the most comprehensive evaluation ever undertaken of the status of the world's biodiversity." Among the findings: 15,589 species (7,266 animal species and 8,323 plant and lichen species) are now considered at risk of extinction — an increase of 3,330 species since the 2003 Red List. The increase is largely due to the fact that scientists have finally been able to assess all of the world's amphibians. One in three amphibians and almost half of turtles and tortoises are known to be threatened with extinction, along with one in four mammals, one in five sharks and rays, and one in eight birds. The numbers of threatened species are increasing across almost all major taxonomic groups. Craig Hilton-Taylor, who managed the Red List compilation, noted that "although 15,589 species are known to be threatened with extinction, this greatly underestimates the true number, as only a fraction of known species have been assessed. "There is still much to be discovered about key species-rich habitats," he said in a statement, "such as tropical forests, marine and freshwater systems, or particular groups, such as invertebrates, plants and fungi, which make up the majority of biodiversity." Species that fared worse than in 2003 are the now-extinct St Helena olive, the Hawaiian crow, which has become extinct in the wild, and the Balearic shearwater and giant Hispaniolan galliwasp lizard, which are now both critically endangered. Where threats are concentrated The report found that threatened species are often concentrated in areas that are poor and densely populated, such as much of Asia and Africa. The union urged better off nations and international groups to step forward to help in those areas. "The good news is that we still have time to save the majority of (the species), if the conservation community, governments, other organizations, and concerned individuals commit a sufficient amount of resources immediately," said Russ Mittermeier, the head of Conservation International and chairman of the World Conservation Union's primate group. The entire Red List database is online at www.iucnredlist.org.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Last edited by Magnetonium on Sep-01-2008 at 19:59

People dont have to feel bad about all this bad stuff and dont need to uproot their lives for the heck of it to do something about it. They can do small things, small steps to make a difference. Most importantly, first step, people need to accept that this is a problem and act on it. Ignorance is part of the problem.

For God's sake, so many people cant even and REFUSE to recycle, for crying out loud, and you expect people to care about environmental destruction and pollution? I work with City of Hamilton and I get to see it all. People need to start making more responsible actions and choices. And these will add up. Thats all. No need to be a tree hugger or a hippie, this is not a contest. There are more important things at stake here.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

This was probably already mentioned here, didnt read the thread.... but McCain's VP's 17-year-old daughter is prenant.... the republican voters are gonna love this! There were rumours that Palin's youngest child was actually her daughters, but she shot that down by bringing up the fact that he daughter is actually now pregnant

quote:

Palin rebuts rumors, says daughter pregnant Module body Mon Sep 1, 4:57 PM ST. PAUL (Reuters) - The 17-year-old unmarried daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child. Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, according to aides of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, the aides said. The Palins, in a statement released by the McCain campaign, said Bristol "came to us with news that we as parents knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned" and that their daughter "has our unconditional love and support." "We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," their statement said. Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter's pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way. McCain officials said the news of the daughter's pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called "mud-slinging and lies" that have circulated on liberal blog sites. According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in April to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin's child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother. PRO-LIFE GROUPS OFFER SUPPORT Palin is staunchly anti-abortion, and pro-life groups welcomed the decision to keep the child. James Dobson, an influential Christian evangelical conservative, said his Focus on the Family group had always counseled young mothers to see their pregnancies through, "even though there will be of course challenges along the way." "That is what the Palins are doing, and they should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances," he said in a statement. Charmaine Yoest, head of Americans United for Life, said, "We join them in welcoming this new life." The McCain campaign was outraged by the blog rumors. "There's no doubt that liberal blogs such as one called www.barackoblogger.com and some in the mainstream media were pushing a false story about Gov. Palin's most recent pregnancy with fervor," said senior McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace. A senior McCain official said its camp had no evidence that the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama was pushing the story, but said the blog rumors circulating on websites that appeared to support Obama had the effect of being "a real anchor around the Democratic ticket." OBAMA OFFENDED Speaking to reporters in Monroe, Michigan, Obama said he was offended by the McCain aide's statement and that he considered people's families off-limits. "We don't go after people's families. We don't get them involved in the politics. It's not appropriate and it's not relevant. Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired," Obama said. Obama also said: "This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories." The news broke as Republicans gathered in St. Paul for their convention to formally nominate McCain and Palin as the party's candidates. Palin is only the second woman picked as a U.S. vice presidential nominee. In the short period since she was announced last Friday, Palin has helped to energize the Republican Party's conservative base, giving McCain fresh energy going into the campaign for the November 4 election against Obama and his No. 2 Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. (Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Ed Stoddard) (Editing by Howard Goller and Jackie Frank)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Haha jesus. Thankfully the people who go for that stuff are the people who don't bother showing up to vote.

What an ignorant comment.
It's hard to believe you (or anyone else) can so easily dismiss the power of a speech like that, as if you're too cool to be moved by anything. (which I'm starting to believe is true) Obama is an incredible visionary, and I think he's got an undeniable way of bringing hope for change to Americans. Just because someone was inspired by his vision and his passion doesn't mean they hand over their vote without examining the issues.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT With Palin, McCain probably just scored plenty more female voters. Hell, he might even score the undecided redneck vote who can stomach a female VP before a black president, lol!

I would agree with this if she weren't so blatantly pro-life. That alienates a lot of women these days. And she's not just saying she's pro-life, she continued her pregnancy even after finding out the child would be born with down syndrome. She is absolutely 100% for re-opening roe v. wade.

His incredible speech?

Obama - Hm... Um.. I need to write a uh... speech this week to help my chances of becoming uh... president... what should I uh.. talk about?

*thinks is over*

Obama - I know! Uh... I'll write a list uh..., what are uh... ALL the uh... things they keep griping at me uh... for... Hm... uh... Inexperience! I uh... need a good uh... one-liner for uh... THAT topic! Uh... Check! Hm... uh... what does it uh... say here in this uh... article... OH RIGHT! Uh... foreign policy, need a few uh... sentences on THAT topic! Uh... CHECK! *reading out loud* 'Obama too nice'!? This uh... can't be! UH... Zingers against McCain! CHECK! (You get the picture)

Obama seems great until he has to say anything of substance without the help of his precious teleprompter. His speech was great unless you're capable of discerning that it was nothing more than a point-by-point rebuttal of all the criticisms he's been taking. It's like he picked up a newspaper and made a checklist. He's given one moving speech in his life, he gave it in 2004, and hasn't come close since.

"We've got news for YOU Obama. The KKK votes, college students go out and party!"

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

lol. I'd like to see you deliver a better speech in front of 80,000 people.
Content aside, you have to give him credit for being an excellent speaker and having the ability to excite those he speaks for.

I can give him credit for THAT. He's definitely a gifted speaker. But the CONTENT is the most important part of a speech, all the grandiosity and rhetorical skills in the world won't fix the American economy or get them out of the two wars they're in. Even in his "substance" segments, the information he gave was hollow and vague (which, in all fairness, is no different from ANY other political speech ever in life). If his speech achieved anything, it was swinging undecided voters leaning democrat (see: Clinton Supporters), into the 'for sure' column, but not much else.

Things that are going to work in his advantage though... the RNC is being scaled down, McCain is still old, and Republicans might actually dislike women more than black people, so his VP pick might bite McCain in the ass.

I'm all for at least 4 years of Obama just to see what happens. But the Democrats winning an election in the States is almost as difficult as the Conservatives winning a majority in Canada. No matter what happens, the Republicans have millions of people willing to fight for their cause, and Obama needs to put on a fantastic showing in the debates and for the entire next two months for that matter if he wants a chance at winning the election. Because his poll numbers represent a large segment of people that, historically, have a hard time putting their money where their polling-answer is and 'forget' to go vote. Obama won caucuses, but lost the major vote-only states during the primary, and that same factor I see being a huge problem for him on election day.

___________________
Captain Planet is gey.
Water, Fire, Earth, Wind, Heart???
These forces are supposed to combine to create Captain Planet?
Bullshit.
Those forces combine to create a soaking, boiling mudstorm on Valentine's Day.

Political speeches - particularly at party conventions - are obviously to be taken in context.
The issues that are at the forefront of this election can't be properly examined in a convention speech, nor should they be - that's what debates are for. Conventions are all about getting people excited about x, y and z - and he did exactly that.

Successful politicians are typically great liars. Obama's speeches are mind boggling and beautiful - but how much of them are honest statements? Yeah, yeah, McCain looks evil with Rove shadowing him, I know. Too many politicians have said great things on their way to the throne and hardly live up to their hype.

Just like some men who would say the most beautiful things to a lady to get into her pants, power-hungry politicians will do the same to get to power.

Actions speak louder than words.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I would agree with this if she weren't so blatantly pro-life. That alienates a lot of women these days. And she's not just saying she's pro-life, she continued her pregnancy even after finding out the child would be born with down syndrome. She is absolutely 100% for re-opening roe v. wade.

I have no doubt that it alienates liberal, empowered women...but I bet a larger % of American women lean toward the pro-life side than we might think or at least see it as enough of a grey area that they wouldn't immediately vote against McCain because of her stance.

I would suggest that her pro-life position probably hurts her far less than if she supported some comparatively fringe liberal issue like medical marijuana or gay marriage. People would pounce...whereas here, she's adopting what is essentially at least a morally defensible position.