Which Presidential Candidate Is Better Suited to Handle an Alien Invasion?
SodaHead Fun
2012/06/30 22:47:31
|
|
|||||
|
463 votes
|
|
52% | |||
|
431 votes
|
|
48% | |||
After a National Geographic Channel poll revealed that 65% of Americans believe that Barack Obama would be better suited to handle and alien invasion than Mitt Romney, we were curious hear what SodaHeads had to say about the issue.
When analyzing National Geographic’s results, Erik Hayden of TIME NewsFeed was quick to point out that both candidates are well-versed in science fiction.
“Romney . . . enjoyed Star Trek on TV (though reportedly doesn’t consider himself a Trekkie), likes Star Wars, is a fan of Battlefield Earth (the book, if you please) and says Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game is one of his favorites, according to a Politico profile earlier this year.”
He added, “Obama is no sci-fi slouch either, having given nods to both Star Wars and Star Trek while in office. Well-versed in the ways of the Force, he’s been spotted on the White House lawn jousting with a Jedi lightsaber. He’s also flashed Star Trek’s Vulcan salute in the Oval Office when he posed for a photo with the show’s Nichelle Nichols earlier this year.”
Hayden also pointed out that this is one time when Obama’s analytical Spock-like demeanor—something he’s tried to downplay in the past—may actually be working for him.
So what do you think SodaHeads? Which presidential candidate is better suited to handle an alien invasion?
When analyzing National Geographic’s results, Erik Hayden of TIME NewsFeed was quick to point out that both candidates are well-versed in science fiction.
“Romney . . . enjoyed Star Trek on TV (though reportedly doesn’t consider himself a Trekkie), likes Star Wars, is a fan of Battlefield Earth (the book, if you please) and says Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game is one of his favorites, according to a Politico profile earlier this year.”
He added, “Obama is no sci-fi slouch either, having given nods to both Star Wars and Star Trek while in office. Well-versed in the ways of the Force, he’s been spotted on the White House lawn jousting with a Jedi lightsaber. He’s also flashed Star Trek’s Vulcan salute in the Oval Office when he posed for a photo with the show’s Nichelle Nichols earlier this year.”
Hayden also pointed out that this is one time when Obama’s analytical Spock-like demeanor—something he’s tried to downplay in the past—may actually be working for him.
So what do you think SodaHeads? Which presidential candidate is better suited to handle an alien invasion?
Read More: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/two-thirds...
Top Opinion
-
Mark P. 2012/06/30 23:04:41
If you mean how he sanctions african-americans for Obama
1, http://www.barackobama.com/af...
2, during 2010 when he was trying to keep america from saying "YOU LOSE" he said to the effect of voting "we need african-americans, we need latinos". Now this will offend some but if you follow demographics you know that could also be said that we need more people who are likely to depend on the government. hence no one is pandering for the white vote.
3 He has broken his oath of office and the constitution in bypassing congress to pass the dream act by decree. This is the action of a king and he is doing it only for the purpose of trying to "out latino " the republicans.
I wish obama would say to all his donors I just want blacks, gays, latinos and so forth to donate to my campaign. Of course he wont do that because he needs enough self-hating white people to win.
You may dismiss these as the ramblings of a racist. If i am obama helped create me. I know what was in my heart and all the friends I have who are not white.
And btw, it's VERY pathetic that you said "If i am obama helped create me" LOL, such a shame. 1) it's a shame that you would let someone make a racist, or anything for that matter, out of you. What they'd really be doing is making a fool out of you. 2) That would be like me, a black woman, saying that whites made a racist out of me. It's childish and ridiculous.
I could care less the president is half black. Reality is I voted for him in the primary before I saw the light over hillary. IF he ran against Harry Reid I would rather he be in the house. I think the problem some people have is they dont like his policies and that fact that he is black makes many of them just not like him more.
You make a point and I take it, but I am sure Obama has created more racists than klan leaders. Part of the problem is most blacks wont admit when he does wrong.I understand it "we have to stand by him. We came suc a long way" but that does nothing for the country. I had plenty to say about Bush when he was in office
also if the whole world is dominated by whites quiz for you. Name one country that is a major power led by a black? and if you say the USA, Obama is only about 1/4 black as his dad was black and arab and mom was white.
I stand by that he knew blacks and latinos were more likily to depnd on the gov. I would have been offended by that If i were black.
I think they'd both handle it well. Both of them would use nukes first, it's just, Obama would feel guilty about it and Romney wouldn't.
Obama is already handling an invasion, and his answer is to grant them amnesty.
Then I asked, "Why?"
My guess is that recent statements made by Republicans show a distance from science. On issues ranging from global warming to teaching the theory of evolution, Republicans have taken the anti-science side. Some pundits even write about "The Republican War on Science."
It's not to hard, therefore, to forecast a future where space aliens invade the Earth and the Republicans insist that they do not exist. So, it's vote Democratic or get absorbed by the Borg.
Global warming is part of the Earth's natural cycle. There is NO evidence that human carbon emissions contribute to a change in Earth's atmosphere.
Evolution is the best answer thus far. The Smoking gun still hasnt been found.
LOL! Another moron brainwashed by RWNJ spin doctors! You're a prime example of what I was taking about, a causality of the Republican War on Science.
Can you get your head out of your hind end long enough to look at these data?
(Please click on the graph to enlarge it.)
Can you read scientific literature?
The Direct Measurement of Greenhouse Forcing:
Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, and Methane, or CH4, each have different infrared spectra. Satellites recording the infrared spectra of our planet's atmosphere can tell how much infrared energy each gas in our atmosphere traps. The fraction of Earth's greenhouse effect from CO2, CH4, and many other gases is therefore directly measurable. These measurements have been taken for more than three decades, now. Please see:
http://www.nature.com/nature/...
Why do deniers only read half of a post before they vomit their lies?
"The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."
^this explains the greenhouse effect.....WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMAN CARBON EMISSION?
Here is one reason we cannot verify the claim that human carbon emission's speed up global warming; we have only kept track of the weather for a extremely short time, and had the technology to measure green house effects for even a shorter period of time We have no data to compare to.
This is fact. There are many more "independent" (of government funded research) studies which came to the conclusion of the fact.
You have to ask yourself a question, what is the motive in claiming our current source of energy is ruining our planet?
A) Push the agenda to spend tax dollars on green energy. Now, if they were really interested in coming up with a NEW source, then the spending would be overwhelmingly on research and development. However, this is not the case. Under 10% of the green energy spending has been on R&D. 75% of the money was spend on companies over seas. All on already FAILED (I say failed because wind and solar cannot replace oil) technology. Why spend on failed tech over and over again? Research the companies which received gov grants. You will see the executives (which earn millions in bonuses) are buddies with the lib politicians.
Having said all this, I AM NOT AGAINST GOVERNMENT SPENDING AT ALL. Without the gov funding the space program, we would never reach the moon and would not be in the technological age we are in today.
Your local university library carries it.
- - - -
"[ . . . ] we cannot verify the claim that human carbon emission's speed up global warming; we have only kept track of the weather for a extremely short time, [ . . . ]"
We don't need a long record. The satellite infrared spectrophotometer data in the article I pointed you to measures the radiation scattered by CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That directly tells us how much heat each gas is trapping. Historical data is irrelevant.
That is irrelevant.
When I go to the store and buy bananas, the grocer weighs them. She does not consult historical data on the shipments of bananas.
- - - -
"[ . . .] most scientists conclude humans cannot possibly emit enough carbon for the Earth to be radically affected by it."
I want to see that survey of scientists, otherwise I'll chalk that up to another one of your lies.
There are two ways to measure that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, carbon and oxygen radioisotope analysis, and simple accounting. The latter is easiest to see. Did you know that the atmospheric concentration of O2 is decreasing?
I have never ever lied about anything on this website. Would love to see you point out where I have lied...
And comparing a banana to the atmosphere is irrelevant a trick used to try an discredit me...
So you write about the methods of measuring C02 and then say 02 is decreasing. I agree with that...Where is the evidence that human carbon emissions have caused this?
Lets discuss some facts and numbers....You can check the validity of these numbers if you'd like.
The current concentration of C02 in our atmosphere is 390ppm about 0.039%. The scientific community generally accepts that a doubling in c02 concentration will result in a 1 degree increase. The temperature has increased around 0.7 degrees in a hundred years. Nothing has happened. Even if c02 doubles from to 2100, a degree increase in global temperature is far from catastrophic.
For arguments sake lets say the temperature increases enough so that there is significantly less snow and ice to reflect the heat back into space.
The following illustrates how amazing our ecosystem is. On the other end of the spectrum, the increased temp and c02 will drive plant growth. The plants will then in turn soak u...
I have never ever lied about anything on this website. Would love to see you point out where I have lied...
And comparing a banana to the atmosphere is irrelevant a trick used to try an discredit me...
So you write about the methods of measuring C02 and then say 02 is decreasing. I agree with that...Where is the evidence that human carbon emissions have caused this?
Lets discuss some facts and numbers....You can check the validity of these numbers if you'd like.
The current concentration of C02 in our atmosphere is 390ppm about 0.039%. The scientific community generally accepts that a doubling in c02 concentration will result in a 1 degree increase. The temperature has increased around 0.7 degrees in a hundred years. Nothing has happened. Even if c02 doubles from to 2100, a degree increase in global temperature is far from catastrophic.
For arguments sake lets say the temperature increases enough so that there is significantly less snow and ice to reflect the heat back into space.
The following illustrates how amazing our ecosystem is. On the other end of the spectrum, the increased temp and c02 will drive plant growth. The plants will then in turn soak up more C02 and slow warming. THIS IS FACT NOT POLITICAL.
Now lets talk about the how an increase in temperature will cause more water vapor to be trapped in the air because the heat will cause more evaporation. The argument here is that the vapor is accelerate warming. There is also another FACT to consider which will cancel out this effect. The rising water vapor will create more cloud cover blocking out the sun more often, and aid in cooling the atmosphere.
This balance is amazing and also where the debate splits the community i half.
The proponents like yourself, have ESTIMATED the positive feed-backs will dominate in this process. The positive feedback processes are the ones which drive warming, the negative feedback reduces warming. The debate today is whether the Earth will be in balance with the two or will one dominate the other. There is evidence to support all 3 theories.
HOWEVER THE FACT IS MOST LONG TERM STABLE NATURAL SYSTEMS ARE NEGATIVE RATHER THAN POSITIVE FEEDBACK.
Lets talk about the 0.7C increase in temp from 1900. Methods today for measuring surface temp have their flaws, and 100 years ago aren't very credible. However we now have satellites which aren't susceptible to these flaws.
From these satellite measurements from the last 15 years have shown the temperature to be relatively flattening out. But the past 100 years have seen some of the hottest days.
The argument here is warming shouldn't be flattening out, it should be constantly increasing. But it has slowed.
I do not deny an increase in surface temp, i do not deny an increase in C02, I also do not deny that some of it is caused by our emissions, I do disagree that we are causing catastrophic climate change. THERE IS YET EVIDENCE OF THIS.
You said it. It is a lie.
http://www.pnas.org/content/1...
Not a lie.
Please refute or discuss my post.
Your post contains a lie.
The debate is do human emissions cause this catastrophic climate change. And this has not been validated. There was no lie.
KEY WORD RADICALLY = catastrophic change in climate
Scientists are split. The evidence for the proponents relies heavily on models, and these models are in fact very unreliable. See your local weather channel. The prediction rate is around 30%. The climate is an extremely complex system.
Let us move on to the rest of the post. I want to see no more avoiding on your part.
The current concentration of C02 in our atmosphere is 390ppm about 0.039%. The scientific community generally accepts that a doubling in c02 concentration will result in a 1 degree increase. The temperature has increased around 0.7 degrees in a hundred years. Nothing has happened. Even if c02 doubles from to 2100, a degree increase in global temperature is far from catastrophic.
For arguments sake lets say the temperature increases enough so that there is significantly less snow and ice to reflect the heat back into space.
The following illustrates how amazing our ecosystem is. On the other end of the spectrum, the increased temp and c02 will drive plant growth. The plants will then in turn soak up more C02 and slow warming. THIS IS FACT NOT POLITICAL.
Now lets talk about the how an increase in temperature will cause more water vapor to be trapped in the air because the heat will cause more evaporation. The argument here is that the vapor is accelerate warming. There is also another FACT to consider which will cancel out this effect. The rising water vapor will create more cloud cover blocking out the sun more often, and aid in cooling the atmosphere.
This balance is amazing and also w...
The current concentration of C02 in our atmosphere is 390ppm about 0.039%. The scientific community generally accepts that a doubling in c02 concentration will result in a 1 degree increase. The temperature has increased around 0.7 degrees in a hundred years. Nothing has happened. Even if c02 doubles from to 2100, a degree increase in global temperature is far from catastrophic.
For arguments sake lets say the temperature increases enough so that there is significantly less snow and ice to reflect the heat back into space.
The following illustrates how amazing our ecosystem is. On the other end of the spectrum, the increased temp and c02 will drive plant growth. The plants will then in turn soak up more C02 and slow warming. THIS IS FACT NOT POLITICAL.
Now lets talk about the how an increase in temperature will cause more water vapor to be trapped in the air because the heat will cause more evaporation. The argument here is that the vapor is accelerate warming. There is also another FACT to consider which will cancel out this effect. The rising water vapor will create more cloud cover blocking out the sun more often, and aid in cooling the atmosphere.
This balance is amazing and also where the debate splits the community i half.
The proponents like yourself, have ESTIMATED the positive feed-backs will dominate in this process. The positive feedback processes are the ones which drive warming, the negative feedback reduces warming. The debate today is whether the Earth will be in balance with the two or will one dominate the other. There is evidence to support all 3 theories.
HOWEVER THE FACT IS MOST LONG TERM STABLE NATURAL SYSTEMS ARE NEGATIVE RATHER THAN POSITIVE FEEDBACK.
Lets talk about the 0.7C increase in temp from 1900. Methods today for measuring surface temp have their flaws, and 100 years ago aren't very credible. However we now have satellites which aren't susceptible to these flaws.
From these satellite measurements from the last 15 years have shown the temperature to be relatively flattening out. But the past 100 years have seen some of the hottest days.
The argument here is warming shouldn't be flattening out, it should be constantly increasing. But it has slowed.
I do not deny an increase in surface temp, i do not deny an increase in C02, I also do not deny that some of it is caused by our emissions, I do disagree that we are causing catastrophic climate change. THERE IS YET EVIDENCE OF THIS.
As usual, your facts aren't real.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
Planetary plant growth, as measured from satellite infrared detection of chlorophyl, is decreasing. (Tho that is probably due to ocean acidification, another problem with the manmade increase in atmospheric CO2, not global warming,)
The ocean takes is about 90% carbon. And its very simple that the ocean will contain more as the C02 in the atmosphere increases...How is this proof to justify the global warming alarmists claims?
Any horticulturist will tell you, the more carbon build up, the more "food" plants will have to grow....It's the first thing you learn.
Here is a link to a LARGE study done on chlorophyll. In fact chlorophyll trends are both increasing and decreasing depending on location. And in 2008 chlorophyll concentration were at the highest ever in coastal regions.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data...
Yet another lie. No scientist will use a single dimensional resource model for plant growth.
- - -
You do understand that "coastal regions." are a very small fraction of the globe, don't you?
Like I have said before. There is no doubt our emission put extra C02 into the atmosphere. The facts are there. But there isn't evidence of our emissions being the primary driving force of GLOBAL WARMING. If there were, there would be no debate.
...wow. That's proof of idiocy. The book was as bad as the movie.