Sending more troops to Guam will cause it to Tip Over (and Global Warming)

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9R-cQ_A_6w

He is a United States Congressman from Georgia. He is a member of the United States Congress and sits on the Armed Forces Committee and the Committee of the Judiciary. He is assigned to the subcommittees of:
Subcommittee on (Armed Services) Readiness Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy (Chairman)
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Subcommittee (Judiciary) Task Force on Judicial Impeachment

His most significant vote of late was for ObamaCare - The Democrats so called "Health Care Bill" which makes it a crime for American Citizens not to have health insurance.

He now stands as the first Democrat in the United States Congress to express fear that the island of Guam will tip over. The problem as he sees it is Guam, having a somewhat narrow length in proportion to its width, just might capsize if the United States Navy were to transfer 8,000 Marines to the island as planned.
"My fear is that the whole island will become so overpopulated that it will tip over and capsize." He goes on to say "We didn't think about global warming neither, and now we do have to think about it."

I guess the Democrat Congressman from Georgia was absent from school when it was explained that islands do not float on the ocean. They are instead the tops of mountains and volcanoes which extend above the surface of the water.
"The Peak of a submerged mountain, Guam, rises 37,820 feet above the floor of the Marianas Trench, the greatest ocean depth in the world. When visiting Guam, hiking up one of its mountains is like scaling a peak higher than Everest. A metal object would take 64 minutes to fall through the Marianas Trench, just east of Guam..."
Let me try to give an example of just how impossible it is for the island of Guam to tip over. If every single nuclear warhead on the planet Earth were placed on the island and simultaneously detonated, the island would not tip over.
Equally as absurd is this phobia about global warming. The world has been getting warmer since the peak of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. At some point this current warming period will peak, and then the world will start to get colder and colder as it enters into another ice age. At some point, the next ice age will peak and the world will once again enter into a period of global warming. A single cycle usually takes from 40,000 to 100,000 years so you have nothing to fear. By the time the world hits its warmest period your bones will have long since turned to dust with age.

http://www.examiner.com/x-30407-LA-AntiEstablishment-Examiner~y2010m4d3-Democrat-fears-island-of-Guam-will-tip-over--And-global-warming [editorial - referenced for citation]

Truly Absurd. But one must ask why its 10 days later and I am only hearing about this now, from the Water-Cooler.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Truly Absurd. But one must ask why its 10 days later and I am only hearing about this now, from the Water-Cooler.

Becasue it would mean the media would have to report on something bad or embarrassing involving a democrat. And we can't have that!

I think there is a 90 day media reporting moratorium on any bad press for democrats. Unless they are forced to report on an issue becasue the evil Fox News has run a story that has gained traction. (sarcasm)

Black Swan

Baja California yesterday had a 6.9 earthquake near Guadalupe and we thought we were going to "tip over" into the Pacific.

Grabbed my surf board and was ready for the Big Wave, but all we got was a bit of sloshing in Newport Beach harbour. Bummer!

Moriarty

Amerika wrote: »

Becasue it would mean the media would have to report on something bad or embarrassing involving a democrat. And we can't have that!

Because it's easier to keep an eye on the remaining three republican congressmen, since the party did so utterly pants in the last elections as they no longer represent a percentage of the population wider than the margin of error?

Troll, troll, troll my boat, gently down the thread.. I think I can officially qualify as a "pundit" now, right?

Amerika

Moriarty wrote: »

Because it's easier to keep an eye on the remaining three republican congressmen, since the party did so utterly pants in the last elections as they no longer represent a percentage of the population wider than the margin of error?

Run, Hide! November is coming. Many Democrats are out of touch with voters and will be out of a job soon enough.

And did you see that a recent survey now shows that 4 in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents. Verrrrrrry Interesting. We are voting for fiscal conservatives -- and not many Democrats fit that bill.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

And did you see that a recent survey now shows that 4 in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or independents. Verrrrrrry Interesting. We are voting for fiscal conservatives -- and not many Democrats fit that bill.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

So, are you guys standing your own Tea Party candidates as a 3rd party or are you just going to claim every GOP victory as one of yours?

"fiscal conservative" is a traditionally a mantra of the Republican Party.
I actually suspect your equating the Tea Party (teabaggers) with Republicans but i'm not sure that's 100% true.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

So, are you guys standing your own Tea Party candidates as a 3rd party or are you just going to claim every GOP victory as one of yours?

"fiscal conservative" is a traditionally a mantra of the Republican Party.
I actually suspect your equating the Tea Party (teabaggers) with Republicans but i'm not sure that's 100% true.

In most states there is no official Tea Party. Like me, just a group of concerned citizens looking for fiscal responsibility from our elected officials, going to a rally or two, and getting the word out.

And you can’t automatically equate the Tea Party with republicans. As an example, most of the Tea Party members support Marco Rubio in the Flordia US Senate race over the Republican chosen candidate Charlie Crist.

But yes the majority will go with a republican most of the time, but ideology now trumps party.

Besides being a nut, Hank Johnson would not get our support because of his stance and voting record on the budget and the economy.

Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (Mar 2009)
Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief. (Jan 2009)
Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
Voted YES on defining "energy emergency" on federal gas prices. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on revitalizing severely distressed public housing. (Jan 2008)


Also, the term teabagger is offensive to Tea Party members. Next time it will be reported to the mods.

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

In most states there is no official Tea Party.
And you can’t automatically equate the Tea Party with republicans.

So only some Republican candidate victories count as Tea Party ones.
How are you going to tell which ones? It doesn't sound very scientific.

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

So only some Republican candidate victories count as Tea Party ones.

Yes I guess, just like some Democrat candidate victories (blue dogs) could count as Tea Party ones also.

How are you going to tell which ones? It doesn't sound very scientific.

Doesn't have to be scientific, becasue any time a candidate who believes in limited government and fiscal restraint wins, so America wins.

BluePlanet

Amerika wrote: »

Yes I guess, just like some Democrat candidate victories (blue dogs) could count as Tea Party ones also.

Doesn't have to be scientific, becasue any time a candidate who believes in limited government and fiscal restraint wins, so America wins.

Wins what, a cookie?

Amerika

BluePlanet wrote: »

Wins what, a cookie?

Here is a good interview, as you seem to be confused by who and what ideas the Tea Party represents. (I have the feeling this whole thing backfired on Letterman.)
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw9zpfjOe0g&feature=PlayList&p=D572607C5C63CC17&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=20
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlHPg7y3Yjg&feature=PlayList&p=D572607C5C63CC17&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=21
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnmfB2vsGwk&feature=PlayList&p=D572607C5C63CC17&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=22

uberwolf

Overheal wrote: »

Truly Absurd. But one must ask why its 10 days later and I am only hearing about this now, from the Water-Cooler.

twas on Newstalk on Friday evening.

sceptre

The tea party collectives are nothing to do with this thread. Take it somewhere where it's actually something to do with the thread.

/mod


And Hank Johnson appears to be an idiot with statements like that.