I will never EAT at Chck-F-Whatever?

While I appreciate the new spell checker, it doesn’t do the “grammar check”, which I also need, desperately!

Hello:
My name is Mike
And I watch Nova Science Now?

Given that he’s starting with a handicap like that, we might expect a carefully argued response that justifies all its conclusions and works them meticulously from beginning to end. His views are not the default here. No one’s going to believe mere assertions.

Instead, what we get is mere assertions.

OTH maybe the pleasure I take from this thread is a little ghoulish, like watching a car crash.

Another way AGW and SSM are related is the Koch Brothers and other big Libertarian PACs. The people supporting gay marriage on the left need to think about why they are in the same bed as the Koch Brothers and danfromwaltham and Eric Dondero. That’s a lot of gross dudes in your bed.

If we are serious about global warming, we have to prove it by making some major political concessions and lifestyle concessions, before expecting anyone who doesn’t even care about Global Warming to make any.

Of all the trade-offs, deals, compromises and accomodations to be considered there is no plausible connection between climate change legislation and gay rights. The reasons to couple these two issues is bigotry on the one hand and blackmail on the other.

You are a small person who is attempting to use bigotry to rationalize blackmail. If it was up to me you would be banned from this blog as a poison upon the commumnity

Or stated differently, this is about as convincing to a liberal as pig grunts.

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

But that solution to GW, though taking it very seriously indeed, infringes on basic human rights. We all have a right to marry and have fertile sex and procreate with our spouse, even if that means more people than if we contracepted and sterilized everyone and made people in Bokanovsky Groups. It doesn’t necessarily mean more consumption and more warming, because creating the Bokanovsky Process (metaphorically) is itself consumption and resource intensive. I think there is a way to preserve human rights and yet still reduce consumption and still guide reproduction wisely, through restoring a marriage culture that expects chastity and responsibility for children, instead of turning children into products themselves.

Oh! Cute!

That’s what got you! The cute doggy!

When people in the future look back at this period in history when we knew about AGW, they will ask why didn’t we do something, they will say “what the heck were you doing?” and they’ll see that our top priority was sexual liberation and gay marriage, and they will find gay people very easy to blame for the mess they’re in. But it doesn’t need to be that way, they could see gay people as the heroes who put the future ahead of their own immediate self-interest and gratification, and set an example for everyone else, leading the way.

I know you think, we can do both, but that’s not true. By spending political capital on gay marriage, it not only uses it up, but the mere fact that you are doing it is evidence that you aren’t serious about global warming.

Really, just imagine how things would change if the Democrats said, let’s just settle on Civil Unions and stop fighting for equal marriage rights (and sexual liberty and pornography), and put all our political capital into reducing global warming.

OMG

That character is Paul E. Singer, 67, a billionaire hedge fund manager who is among the most important Republican donors nationwide. In just one Manhattan fund-raiser last month, he helped to collect more than $5 million for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

He steadfastly supports conservative candidates [Bruni won't call them Libertarian candidates, but that's what they are, not conservative]. He also steadfastly supports gay rights in general and marriage equality in particular. Along with a few other leading Wall Street financiers, he contributed and helped drum up the majority of the money — more than $1 million — that fueled the campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.

He has given nearly $10 million of his own money to gay-rights initiatives, including the same-sex marriage efforts not only in New York but also in New Hampshire and New Jersey. And that figure doesn’t include his assistance in tapping a broad network of donors for individual candidates. He was pivotal in rounding up about $250,000 apiece for the Republican state senators in New York whose votes for same-sex marriage provided its margin of victory in the Legislature.

Now, Singer says, he’s providing $1 million to start a new “super PAC” with several Republican compatriots. Named American Unity PAC, its sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.

What a bunch of utter nonesense this post is.

I get your point about having a serious discussion about climate change that is being sold with a cover of Bieber on the front. Thanks for the article, finally ampost not made up of the words racist, dumb, homophobe, racist, dumb, Palin, homophobe, bigot, taxes, taxes, and did I forget, homophobe.