Quantcast

Which Presidential Candidate Is Better Suited to Handle an Alien Invasion?

Fun 2012/06/30 22:47:31
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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?

Read More: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/two-thirds...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • jay Aquaduck 2012/07/02 20:55:28
    jay
    Most of his supporters (not him by he sanctions it like African-Americans for Obama) already have.
  • Aquaduck jay 2012/07/02 21:01:55
    Aquaduck
    1) where? 2) So it means that you should too? monkey see, monkey do...
  • jay Aquaduck 2012/07/05 22:12:45
    jay
    Good point I dont have to be like him, but Obama could create a racist. I thought we were getting close to a post racial society.

    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.
  • Aquaduck jay 2012/07/06 05:46:51
    Aquaduck
    He said "We need blacks, we need latinos" because America, and pretty much the whole world, is dominated by whites. And it's not because they're better at what they do, it's because a lot of white Americans can't stand to see a minority have authority over them. So what he said is true. There needs to be a balance of whites & minorities. And in case you forgot, Obama's VP is 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.
  • jay Aquaduck 2012/07/06 17:26:14 (edited)
    jay
    I agree with balances, but I think you miss why he said it. Liberals have played this game for years. Keep blacks down so you can control their votes. Prime example instead of healthcare a way could have been worked on that EVERY kid in america come out of school with a trade or a chance to go to college and make college affordable. The problem with that is people will realize they can make it on their own.

    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.
  • LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH 2012/07/01 02:52:11
    Mitt Romney
    LADY LIBERTY SILLY WORDSMITH
    +8
    I Don't believe in OBAMA, he can go to SELL his HOPE & CHANGE to ALIENS!
  • 3052457 2012/07/01 02:47:23
  • relic 2012/07/01 02:43:24
    Mitt Romney
    relic
    +6
    Barack IS an Alien and would probably give them the keys to the city. Much like Libya, Egypt, etc.
  • Hula girl - Friends not Fol... 2012/07/01 02:42:31
    Mitt Romney
    Hula girl - Friends not Followers
    +7
    Barack handles nothing well....well maybe you're right Obama does allow the Aliens in the country faster but that's not handling the situation that's aiding it.
  • Charles E Hula gi... 2012/07/01 03:06:28
    Charles E
    +1
    We already know he is willing to issue illegal Executive Orders to let them stay so obviously he has a plan.
  • MarinerFH 2012/07/01 02:42:06
  • Kat ♪ ~... MarinerFH 2012/07/01 03:15:23
  • Kigan 2012/07/01 02:32:31
    Mitt Romney
    Kigan
    +6
    We don't have an "other" option where neither answer is better?

    Obama is already handling an invasion, and his answer is to grant them amnesty.
  • Skye 2012/07/01 02:28:29
    Barack Obama
    Skye
    +2
    :). I'm pretty sure this question should be taken seriously guys please don't fight, lol.
  • RogerCoppock 2012/07/01 02:13:29 (edited)
    Barack Obama
    RogerCoppock
    According to a very professional poll taken by National Geographic, almost 2/3 of Americans believe President Barack Obama would better defend us from a space alien invasion than Republican Mitt Romney. When I saw this, I had to laugh.

    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."
    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.
    borg
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/01 02:21:04
    Pm
    +3
    Anti science.....DIDnt Obama cut NASA funds by an unprecedented amount.

    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.
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/01 02:34:47
    RogerCoppock
    "There is NO evidence that human carbon emissions contribute to a change in Earth's atmosphere."

    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?

    TempVsCO2 jpg
    (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/...
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/01 09:42:08
    Pm
    All this graph shows is an increase of CO2 and temperature over a period of time. This is not evidence of human caused global warming. The Earth goes through fluctuations in temperature.
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/02 01:33:57
    RogerCoppock
    +1
    LOL! Read the second half of my post. Follow the link to the "Nature" article.

    Why do deniers only read half of a post before they vomit their lies?
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/02 21:29:47
    Pm
    Why do libs lie?

    "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?
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/02 23:23:09
    RogerCoppock
    Ok, you've read the abstract. Now read the rest of the article.
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/03 00:05:26
    Pm
    I have to sign up and make a payment to read the rest.
    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.
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/03 07:12:46
    RogerCoppock
    "I have to sign up and make a payment to read the rest."

    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.
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/03 07:28:51
    Pm
    I know how CO2 is measured. I am an IIT grad. All studies have shown are that some areas are trapping more heat than others and overall more heat is being trapped in the atmosphere compared to 30 years ago. See how a point of reference (aka historical data) are RELEVANT. We have no idea how much the greenhouse effect has contributed to global warming in the past. Scientists have found the Earth warms and cools over a period of time in a cycle repeating itself. It is factually incorrect to make such a conclusion without all the data. Its why the scientific community is split. In fact most scientists conclude humans cannot possibly emit enough carbon for the Earth to be radically affected by it. And others also say its impossible to know without the historical data. I dont know how else to explain it to you. It seems as if you have an agenda and will never listen.
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/03 07:56:43
    RogerCoppock
    "See how a point of reference (aka historical data) are RELEVANT. We have no idea how much the greenhouse effect has contributed to global warming in the past. "

    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?
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/03 21:20:00
    Pm
    I hope you read all this so you can discuss each point I make directly. I I have to all your comments in the past.
    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 hope you read all this so you can discuss each point I make directly. I I have to all your comments in the past.
    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.
    (more)
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/03 21:55:13
    RogerCoppock
    "[ . . .] most scientists conclude humans cannot possibly emit enough carbon for the Earth to be radically affected by it."

    You said it. It is a lie.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/1...
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/03 22:00:45
    Pm
    Key word radically. Every skeptic agrees human carbon emission contribute to an increase in the greenhouse effect. However the skeptics conclude it isn't enough to cause the change the proponents claim.
    Not a lie.
    Please refute or discuss my post.
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/03 22:02:46 (edited)
    RogerCoppock
    What a sad attempt at apologetics.

    Your post contains a lie.
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/03 22:12:40
    Pm
    Apologetic, I am not defending a religion....
    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.
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/03 22:02:47
    Pm
    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 w...







    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.
    (more)
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/03 22:10:01 (edited)
    RogerCoppock
    "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."

    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,)

    CO2Increase jpg
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/04 00:19:47
    Pm
    Where did I write atmospheric C02 is decreasing? Everyone knows its increasing......Again you use your lib tactics.
    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...
  • RogerCo... Pm 2012/07/04 04:20:39
    RogerCoppock
    "Any horticulturist will tell you, the more carbon build up, the more "food" plants will have to grow.."

    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?
  • Pm RogerCo... 2012/07/10 19:36:43
    Pm
    If you read the study, there is not an overall reduction in chlorophyll....The trend is moving forward...The trends for surface temp are also evening out. How is that possible? We use much more fossil fuels than we did in the 70s and 80s. By a alarmists logic, the temp should have increased much more. It hasn't.
    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.
  • ray 2012/07/01 02:13:28
    Mitt Romney
    ray
    +1
    Obama will just give them citizenship.
  • Zuggi 2012/07/01 02:13:04
    Barack Obama
    Zuggi
    Romney liked Battlefield Earth?

    ...wow. That's proof of idiocy. The book was as bad as the movie.
  • Sup4A 2012/07/01 02:09:16
    Mitt Romney
    Sup4A
    +1
    Unless of course the aliens just want to chat. Then my choice might have just sparked an interstellar incident. Really though, any real fight between us and a world capable of traveling between stars just wouldn't happen. They would be so far ahead of us technologically that unless The Avengers decided to join the party, we would be helplessly dead.
  • jumpboots 187th PIR 2012/07/01 02:07:32
    Mitt Romney
    jumpboots 187th PIR
    +1
    Romney by far...........
  • Mary Ann 2012/07/01 01:57:10
    Barack Obama
    Mary Ann
    As long as they can vote, Odumbo hands down!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2014/10/25 19:51:42

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals