I seriously question the methods, or 'convenient' polls that would support YOUR PERSONAL PERCEPTION of the public perception you propose above.

What is founded however about public perception, is that it is filtered through high cynicism and skepticism about anything communities of 'experts', 'businessmen' or 'politicians' present it with.

But let's take YOUR PERSONAL PERCEPTION of public opinion for argument sake's.
If the public perception were to fall for the 'convenient' and unfounded dogma of denialists, and go against scientific 'most probable' proposition, then the public perception is not only irresponsibly 'unfounded', but it is accelerating humanity's walk towards self-destruction.

This is no longer about global warming. This about humanity as whole being responsible for distinguishing 'most probable' and acting on it collectively, as opposed to defending individual 'delusional obsessions', and doing nothing.

Science is not religion. The TRUTH HAS nothing to do with science.

Lindzen as a scientist, and avowed denier of global warming, which is his science given right, has no business peddling his 'work' as THE THRUTH, and people aware of and/or endorsing his work have no business miss-packaging it as THE TRUTH.

Science questions, validates, and PROPOSES what it can demonstrate as MOST PROBABLE!!! Truth has nothing to do with MOST PROBABLE. Science keeps questioning, through a healthy spirit of applied skepticism, any statistically accepted 'MOST PROBABLE'.

The scientific means of establishing that which is 'most probable' at any given moment, is the volume of 'scientific consensus' vs 'counter scientific consensus' on any issue.

Personal opinions, public surveys and individual biases, subjective convictions and dogmatic beliefs are of absolutely no relevance in the scientific discourse.

As for the global warming question, there is no more debate within the scientific community.

There is an overwhelming number of 'eligible' scientific candidates whom have presented and defended their findings amongst peers, pointing to global warming as 'MOST PROBALBE', measuring up against an insignificant proportion of equally eligible scientists, presenting and defending their opposition or downright denial.

That simple! Overwhelming eligible members of the scientific community presenting and defending successfully a converging number of varied SCIENTIFIC perspectives, ELECTS THAT WHICH IS PROBABLE.

Given the permanent probing, questioning and skeptical nature of science, it always welcomes and encourages 'expert dissension'. Unlike religion that would excommunicate any questioning and dissension against dogma.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, believe it or not, does not enter into this equation.
Statistical 'scientific support' establishes that which is 'MOST PROBABLE', in spite of the 'welcomed' and on-going small proportion of dissenting positions, or downright 'dirty tricks' from questionable foes (e-mail fabricated scandal)!

Crisp follow-through Fanta!!!

Love it!

Damned if does, and damned if he doesn't!!!

You people are so funny in a perversely obstinate 'one track mind' kind of way!!!

That would be part of the 'subtle' and most 'unchristian' vocabulary the fanatic religious right,
... from which the republican party is desperately trying to distance itself,
... is vomiting in the face of the large majority of reasonable people in society, whom are faced with dealing lucidly with one of life's true tragedy.

It speaks volume about the poster, and simply never applies to the person for whom the epithet is intended.

Thomas Lifson, founder and editor of 'American Thinker' is the ultimate right wing PROPAGANDA MACHINE.

He and his delusionally ideological 'A-T' are Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's and Glen Beck's, main source of 'invented here' BS, sort of the 'Mao's China marching word fabricators'.

Feed off it, and agree with it all you wish, it won't change the fact that 'A-T' and most of the 'editorial' swings on FOX are DELUSIONAL AND OBSESSIONAL OVER THE TOP PROPAGANDISH BS.

Freedom of speech allows for all of it, but whether you decorate a pig with a LIPSTICK, or dress it up in a TUX, IT IS STILL A PIG!!!

Say hi to Mr Lifson for me.

:)

Looks like he will end-up going back 'up there', 'empty ended' !!!

Even christians couldn't agree on WHO he is, never mind WHAT he preached!!!

Note:
read 'advednture's post (a few posts above) several times, and then some. That's all there is: SPIRIT and NOW.
If YOU WANT 'JESUS' OR 'CHRIST' to 'come back' into 'YOUR NOW', rekindle the spirit in your own 'being', and leave the rest to faith.

Anything Knowledge based research and development, and its first cycle production or implementation stages.

Engineenring (Environmental sectors):
- Energy Optimization
- Alternative 'green' energy technologies
- Recycling technologies (all consumer fields including automotive, consumer electronics, general consumer goods)
- Carbon emission reduction strategy consulting for top-end industrial and institutional emitters

Bio-medical engineering
Bio-pharmaceutical
World-wide water redistribution technologies
Telecommunications (engineering)
Infrastructure 'PREVENTIVE' of any type

Teaching Mandarin, Cantonese

Commercial ambassadors to the HUGE Indian, and Chinese commercial/trade opportunities (not a walk in the park, but can't walk away from it either)

... for starters ...

Agree Fanta.

And after close scrutiny and examination of 'willing2's REPETITIOUSLY SLANTED 'narrative' throw-ought his numerous threads, the only connection between the two men, is the colour of their skin.

And I wish I could just laugh it off (and knowing you Fanta, I believe your own 'ROFLMAO' sign-off above, can only be straight sarcasm!),

... but I find the whole string of threads from this poster, way too OBNOXIOUS (to be polite), and way outside of what I consider to be humorous, ... much less factual, pertinent, helpful, or forwarding ...,
... to laugh it off.

Now don't get me wrong I unconditionally defend any person's right of 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH',

... right along anyone's unalienable right to waste it on such insipid topics.

'Willing2', you're writing skills are such, that the subtlety and nuances of your incredibly valuable message might get lost on people.

For the benefit of those whom might have a hard time deciphering your wisdom, and timely teachings, I figured I would summarize the key (secret code) of your semantics, such that no one would left in the 'dark'.

Here it is:

1) 'HUSSEIN', usually accompanied by the famously subtle prefix 'ANTI', also qualified as 'THE DEMON HUSSEIN' and subliminally opposed to 'PRO-AMERICA-AMERICANS'

2) 'DEVOTED MUSLIM APPOINTED TO GOVERNMENT' hardly needs translation

3) 'MUSLIMS (ALL) WANT TO SEE THE DEATH OF AMERICA', as in all christians are good, all muslims are bad. The enemy is here, and it is US!!!

4) 'OBUMMER(synonym of 'HUSSEIN' in 'willing2's fantasy style), as in ...send (him) BACK TO KENYA'. Masterfully dancing between a religious hyperbole based on a fable, to an anatomical play on word revealing 'willing2's control of the prosaic form.

5) 'FLUSH THE SHIITE OUT OF CONGRESS' again, willing2 amazingly transforms one of his favorite anatomical pastime into a powerful hyperbolic, metaphoric allegory, pointing again to the serious dangers invading and taking over, not only willing2's mind, but AMERICA'S VERY CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION!!!

While I truly get a kick out of willing2's wonderfully creative, caricatural, and incredibly fablelistic and allegorical style,

... I wanted to make sure that the essence of his message wasn't lost on style!!!

Roadmap to a new breed of fascism.

Under the masks of (false) fight for freedom and ethno-centric nationalism, the Republican party is fast loosing its credible and democratic privileges.

It would appear that the GOP has been naively tempted, and has let the 'GENIE' of the diabolical and dogmatic 'religious right' kind,
... OUT of the LAMP', and have no idea how to get the 'devil-back-in'.

Left-right balance is fundamental to any democratic society.

As the 2 party reality that it is, the USA is threatened, IMO by something far more debilitating than any black or white president.

When everything MUST BE ONE COLOR, ONE IDEOLOGY, ONE BELIEF AND CREED, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS 'EVIL', there is NO FREEDOM LEFT, AND NO POSSIBLE DEMOCRACY!!!

Bush son said something to that effect recently, and I paraphrase: '... the future political success of the GOP rests essentially on the party claiming back control from the out of control fanatic religious right activists and their dogmatic ideology ...'.

Nothing wrong with the 'old' GOP. Everything wrong with dogmatic neo-fascism, hypocritically invading an otherwise legitimate political movement, even when that movement is the Good Old Republican Party.

Lovin' to see you on the 'front' again, callin' the 'delusional bluff', and keepin' things straight!


Cheers to you Fanta!

'... immature,

... inexperienced, and in over his head!

...he's been a complete failure.

..he's made everything worse...'

'Giocamo', Please stay on topic. This post is not about BUSH!!! Your failed hero has retired from the presidency nearly a year ago!

I realize change is a difficult thing to accept for some of us, but there is this limit beyond which DELUSION takes over, and leaves one with no credibility whatsoever. Sort of that 'fool on the hill' of the famous 'Strawberry field', FOREVER!!!

AMERICA have spoken!!! Obama is the USA's leader and president. There is only one way to be PRO-AMERICAN:

'... critique constructively as much as you see fit, but stand unconditionally behind the leader that the US of A has DEMOCRATICALLY AND MOST UNEQUIVOCALLY CHOSEN as President'.

Anything short of that, can be is nothing other than ANTI-AMERICAN.

'thomas3474', while it is true that the Federal Court has upheld the 'In god we trust' on american coins and paper money, you'll be very disappointed to hear that the official Federal Court verdict itself contradicts everything you state in your post above.

In his June 12, 2006 verdict, U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. rejected a lawsuit brought by California atheist Michael Newdow.

Damrell said use of the phrase has "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."

Damrell, citing previous cases that have upheld use of the motto, observed in his opinion in Newdow v. Congress of the United States
, "The national motto is excluded from First Amendment significance because the motto 'has NO THEOLOGICAL or RITUALISTIC impact' and is of a PURELY SECULAR, 'PATRIOTIC' and 'CEREMONIAL CHARACTER.'"

In other words, and contrary to everything you state in your post, it is precisely because the motto is considered NON RELIGIOUS, NON-CHRISTIAN, NON-DOGMATIC, and PURELY SECULAR that it is being upheld in this particular case, AS NOT INFRINGING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

If you keep insisting on your personal notion that the US is a christian nation and not a secualr one, and that 'in god we trust' were clearly, as you personally believe, a religious and christian exclusive motto, you will force the very judge who upheld the motto as a strictly SECULAR and CEREMONIAL MOTTO, to strike it down as a religious and christian motto, and thus ANTI CONSTITUTIONAL.





Please read the 'establishment clause of the 1st amendment of your Constitution.
Contrary to what you state: '... religion entering State affairs', or the 'State 'involving' itself with 'christians',
... IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION, AND ITS FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS!!!



Again 'thomas3474', you've got it all wrong.

The Founding Fathers were not afraid of a liberal dictator.
YOU ARE!!!
On the contrary, the Founding Fathers WERE AFRAID OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
... afraid that the christian Church of England would 'dictate' as you put it, and preside over the affairs of the SECULAR and FREE emerging USA.



On this one, you should present your personal opinions, beliefs and convictions to the people quoted below, and see if you have any success in changing the course of the US Constitution.

Here are your opponents:



"WHEN PEOPLE TELL ME THAT WE ARE, OR HAVE BEEN A CHRISTIAN NATION, I WANT TO ASK, ‘WHEN?’. "

Brian McLaren, MA, leader of the 'Emergent Church' movement, wrote the following statements in his Apr. 16, 2009 article "A Christian Nation Wouldn't Act This Way," published on Washington Post's 'On Faith' blog:

"... Was it in the colonial era or during westward expansion, when we began stealing the lands of the Native Americans, making and breaking treaties, killing wantonly, and justifying our actions by the Bible? Was it in the era of slavery or segregation, when again, we used the Bible to justify the unjustifiable? Was it in more recent history, when we dropped the first nuclear bomb and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, when we overthrew democratically elected governments in the Cold War era, when we plundered the environment without concern for the birds of the air or flowers of the field, or when we sanctioned or turned a blind eye to torture earlier this decade? Was it earlier this week, when I turned on the TV or radio and heard people scapegoating immigrants and gay people and Muslims?...

I would say that the more we claim America is a Christian nation, the less we uphold the highest ideals of both authentic Christian faith and authentic American democracy."




"THE USA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION"

Steve Benen, former spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, wrote the following comments in his Apr. 7, 2009 article , published by TheWashingtonMonthly.com:

"The US Constitution is, of course, an entirely secular document, but for years, the religious right movement and its allies have been anxious to declare the US a 'Christian Nation...'

We have a secular constitution that established a secular government. Our laws separate church from state. No religious tradition enjoys official sanction over any other. Of course we're not a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation...

The usual argument is that most of the US population is Christian. That's true, but irrelevant. Most of the US population is white - does that make the United States a 'white nation'? We also hear arguments that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians. That's also true, but also irrelevant. Most of the framers were also men - does that make our country a 'man's nation'?

It's time to retire this old conservative canard."




"WE ARE A NOT CHRISTIAN NATION, AND OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. "

Susan Jacoby, best-selling author, wrote the following statements in her Apr. 13, 2009 article published on Washington Post's 'On Faith' blog:

"US citizens understood the distinction between a Christian nation, or government, and a majority Christian population in the 18th century, and the fact that many do not understand this today - in a multiethnic and multireligious society that the revolutionary generation could not possibly have imagined - attests to the poor teaching of American history in schools throughout the nation...

The majority of Americans are still Christians, but our government is secular and our nation is now composed of nonbelievers and believers of numerous religious denominations - some of which did not even exist at the time of the nation's founding... We are not a Christian nation, and our government is not a Christian government. That's a simple fact, and one of the glories of our history - as the founders understood."



"IN FACT, THE GOVERNEMENT, AS A LEGAL ORGANIZATION, IS SECULAR, AND INDEPENDENT OF ALL RELIGIONS. "

David J. Brewer, JD, former US Supreme Court Justice, in his 1905 lecture series "The United States, A Christian Nation," stated:

"This Republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world...

Nevertheless, in what sense can the United States be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion, or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is public serve, or essential to recognition either politically of socially.

In fact, the Government as a legal organization is independent of all religions."



As long as it is strictly a SECULAR AND CEREMONIAL motto, as stated by the courts, I say to you 'thomas3474', 'IN GOD WE TRUST', and long live to a SECULAR nation, where all citizens are FREE to practice any or no religion.

Way too many sensationalist inaccuracies, erroneous associations and leading arguments to deserve investing in a direct reply.

You provided a link to the most dogmatic and propagandish
'... Committee on Ways & Means Republicans...' website, when the only factual references, which help clarify all the confusion of this post, are stated black and white in a reply letter from 'Douglas W. Elmendorfis', Director of the Congressional Budget Office, to questions presented by Charles B. Rangel, of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Here is the link to the actual source document:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/webreturn/?url=http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10691/hr3962SubsidiesRangelLtr.pdf

To those whom prefer using facts rather than outlandish proaganda to form their opinions, simply read the letter of the above link, string the facts together, and like I, you will most likely come out of it with a completely opposite understanding than that of the highly biased propaganda of the 'Committee on Ways and Means', and carried over (IMO) by raiderfan.

While there is room for a serious and responsible debate to take place on the question of the health care reform proposition from the current administration, grossly unfounded and erroneous propaganda will never help forward such a debate.

msharmony, with all due respect to you and to your beliefs, I find the above post very confusing.

I am not a homosexual as I gather you. When I put myself in your shoes and test drive the 'conduct' you seem to abide by, as you state in your post, there are several contradictions with which I simply could not reconcile my ethical values and principles, and figure I would share those with you.

For example, when you state on the one hand,

'... I would never tell anyone their life was wrong ...',

and then go on to state,

'... I would be honest about whether their actions or words are wrong ...',

while I understand the infamous 'hate the sin love the sinner', and see your words here as a variation on that theme, the sinning judgment simply doesn't hold the road.

Allow me to propose that in order to make your claim that homosexuality is a sin, you must hold the dogma based belief that one is NEVER 'born', so to speak', homosexual, but 'becomes', or is influenced to adopt 'the lifestyle'; a perversion numerous christians have a bad habit of repeating with impunity. In other words, this line of thinking 'allows with impunity', way too many people to judge and condemn their fellow human being, based on a belief!!!

I have beliefs too msharmony, and they are without doubt the foundation of MY life. They allow me to make sense FOR MYSELF, of what would otherwise be a life of total confusion.

But you see msharmony, those beliefs of mine, based on what is considered to be a solid and time tested ethical and moral foundation, CATEGORICALY cannot be imposed on anything, or anyone else then myself. I live by those principles, and part of those principles, is the principle to refrain from IMPOSING my beliefs on others.

While I stand for my beliefs for myself, I grant you msharmony the same privilege, and respect that you may very well have beliefs as you do, and that may very well be DIFFERENT from mine.

Now back to the 'homosexual (vs) sin (vs) christian dogma' situation.
My (personal) beliefs say that homosexuals are 100% human beings, just as heterosexuals are.
I was born heterosexual, and some of my fellow human beings were born homosexuals.

NOTHING WRONG!!! NOTHING SINFUL!!!

As I, they are just as much part, no separation, of OUR human experience. We are all 100%, hetero and homo, legitimate and deserving full fledge human beings. No separate class, or degree of sin, or any other perverted sophism.

That is my belief: NO SIN, NOTHING WRONG, and moreover, nothing to change, or manage, or segregate.

That is my belief, and it is founded on solid ethical and moral principles.

Obviously, your beliefs and mine do not coincide.
Should that be a problem???

Not necessarily!

If you don't impose that belief on anyone else than yourself, we have no problem.

You have the right to any and all the PERSONAL beliefs that you hold.
You do not wish to engage in same sex exchanges, that is good, and it is something you and I share, and are in full agreement upon.
But that is where it ends.

My beliefs, or your beliefs, and their corresponding 'lifestyles' cannot be imposed on someone else's legitimate and perfectly 'life-given' ways.

We have a system of 'law and order' to handle those of us whom transgress what which we collectively and categorically consider to be moral or ethical transgressions.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TRANSGRESSIONS PROSECUTABLE BY LAW.
There is a sound moral and ethical foundation for such premise.

Church dogma cannot any longer obstinately disregard the higher moral and ethical ground of our day, just because it wants to hold on to a 2000 year old version of what was trying to install itself as the ethical and moral high ground of the time.

HOMOSEXUALS (AS HETERO) ARE TOGETHER 100% HUMAN BEINGS. The 'sin vs sinner' sophism doesn't hold.
There is nothing wrong with the natural condition of homosexuality.
... nothing to prosecute,
... nothing perfect,
... nothing to change.

You see msharmony, this is my belief, and it has the same value as yours. And if there were 100, 1 000, or 1 000 000 of us sharing the same belief, we still couldn't impose it on you.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been a full fledge part of humanity since inception. They will keep co-existing naturally as long as our human experience lasts. Homosexuality has not affected the proliferation of the human race in the past and there are no signs to suggest that it will in the future.

Let's move our focus and energy to the real battles!!!
'God' knows there is no shortage of those.

Thanks for the info 'tribefan'.

I was unaware that the following 'hot button' issues had been settled overnight!!!
- 'Israelo-Palestinian,
- 'Pro-choice vs Pro-life',
- 'Separation of Chruch and State in America',
- 'Evolution science vs Creationism fable',
- 'The bible: man written vs god inspired',
- 'not enough time to list other religious-right 'hot buttons'

Can't wait for the news hour tonight!!!



FORMER HOMOSEXUALS!!! You're serious?!?!? You mean from the 'good church' conversion programs which welcomes 'REPENTANT HOMOSEXUALS' under the sine qua none promise to convert to 'heterosexualism'?!?!?! Those FORMER HOMOSEXUALS???

I'm not sure whether that is the epitomy of naïvity or perversity?!?!



And of course, YOU of all quidam sinners, are the ultimate judge of 'measuring-up' just fine!!!

WOW!!! You truly are hitting the 'BULL'S EYE' of this post!!!

Well, if you're game 'Yellowreose', I'm willing to argue the 'con' side of that statement with you.

You suggest I'm generalizing. Fair enough, make your case and I'll happily debate against that premise with you.

... all in good fun, ... and in good faith!!!

Christian doctrine, as the other 'big club' religions, are 'exclusive' and 'divisive' by nature, in the deepest part of their primitive 'DNA'.

From the 'christian' paradigm, whether we practice according to cult or not, we all swim in these 'divisive' cultural waters where the notion of human rights only applies to 'US', whatever the 'US' turns out to be.

Christians ONLY understand 'christian rights', and so on and so forth.

Christians are trained to fight and defend those rights 'to death'. It's a basic 'bigotry from DNA 101' training.

HUMANS RIGHTS is what they perversely 'use' to deny other humans the rights that conflict with their dogmatic doctrine.

'... women shouldn't be given the right to vote, ... because it's always been an exclusive right exercised by men...' (past injustice for perspective)

Yeah right!!! That one sure hit a brick wall!

Just as the 'marriage exclusive' argument, claimed for the good christians, will hit the same wall.

Eventhough it may take time, history has shown us that 'human wisdom' prevails for humans over the long run, ... not christians or any other divisive mentality or sectarian dogma.

If there were no dogmatic and judging religious cults, feeding the barbaric compulsions of fear in people, there would NO GAY/STRAIGHT, NO BLACK/WHITE, NO BELIEVER/NON-BELIEVER, divisive walls.

JUST EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMANS!!!

It would seem, IMO, that you are pointing to the well established 'hypocritical double standards' of the 'the one and only truth' of all those self appointed perverse 'christan churches', or delusional paper popes. They all give christianity a bad name.

As for the movies you are referring to, they are more often than not, squarely pornographic and indecent.

Furthermore, my wife and I have never needed a 'rating', to overule our own responsiblities.

If it were up to me, all those bible movies, produced by cheap opportunists, or delusional 'crusading' and hate filled christian funamentalists, would all be rated 'D & H, f.p.o.a.a', that is : '

'... Dangerous and Harmful for people of all ages'.