The Coming Climate Change [Archive] - Page 8 - CNCzone.com-The Largest Machinist Community on the net!

GORDYKD

03-31-2008, 09:37 AM

Just a little reading to make one wonder about the true legitimacy of all that is "Global Warming"

Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

Rekd

03-31-2008, 09:41 AM

Hi everybody,
Did ya'll just catch Leslie Sthall's interview with Al Gore on 60 minutes? Really fascinating. He allows that GW is happening, which obviously it is. Any thoughts?
Take care,
xyzdonna

:sigh:

He "allows" that GW is happening? Isn't that special.

Is he "allowing" it to happen on Mars too?

Did he "allow" it to happen several times over that last several hundred thousand years?

Did he "allow" the internet to happen too?

Seriously, Donna, he's a tool. He couldn't cut it as a politician so he invented man made global warming so he could sell carbon credits to unsuspecting fools who are all to willing to jump on each and ever band-wagon that rolls buy to separate the ignorant from their dollar. Very reminiscent of the plight of the Star Bellied Sneech's when Sylvester McMonkey McBean came by with his star adding/removing machines.

"You're a Star-bellied Sneetch,
you suck like a leech.
You want everyone to act like you."

Besides, I thought you were leaving?

MIKE JEFFERS

03-31-2008, 09:41 AM

petrol at $4 a gallon oh happy days

its over £5 a gallon here thats about 10 bucks

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 11:27 AM

petrol at $4 a gallon oh happy days

its over £5 a gallon here thats about 10 bucks

The sad part of that is that 60 to 80 % (my own rough estimate made from 66 years of watching the government thugs!) is tax either open, covert or otherwise included by mandate. (ie: no new refineries for thirty years, no drilling or exploration off shore, Alaska, the Rockies or just anywhere likely to produce. "Economically feasible" means that they have artificially inflated the price of a given product to the point of being able to sell any line of crap to the public for the purpose of shearing the sheeple!

Stated differently, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

fizzissist

03-31-2008, 12:14 PM

“I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view,” he told CBS. “They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off.”
--Al Gore on 60Minutes

Anybody catch Leslie asking Al the "hard" question....saying that Dick Cheney is skeptical...she would have given him even more credibility by saying Elmer Fudd. I wonder what his response would have been if she'd mentioned Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, or any of the host of people who are actually climate scientists??

Now we know that the 19,000 scientists who've signed the petition questioning the rush to crucify man for the planet's warming all believe the earth is flat.

I loved the part where Algore got credit for the energy remodel of his house. No mention of course that he didn't do it until after he was nailed for his energy usage.

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 01:37 PM

fish1234

03-31-2008, 02:21 PM

Well I may as well state that today MARCH 31 2008 and here in Wisconsin we are getting 6 to 10 inches of snow and highs in the mid 30's! I would like a little warming as I and many others in this part of the country are tired of cold and snow! On another note why do all the car manufactures keep building 300, 400 and more horsepower vehicles? It is all about money! If there was less GREED and keeping up with the jones the world would be a better place!

Rekd

03-31-2008, 03:04 PM

martinw

03-31-2008, 04:41 PM

fizzissist

03-31-2008, 05:13 PM

fish,

The manufacturers are building what we want to buy, and I wouldn't have it any other way! Imagine them building ONLY things THEY thought were what you needed?

I think not!

How often do you think they'd actually be doing, you know... what YOU want? ;)

Rest easy in the knowledge that if you're not sure what you want, an ad agency will TELL you what you want.

Like Algore's agency of choice for his sky-is-falling...whoops, I mean Globull Warming Campaign. We should be expecting to see some very slick ads, with talking amphibians, extinct hominids, and animated polar bears all decrying the impending doom.

How fitting. An agency made famous for farce, selling....farce.

(note: The Martin Agency...they've also sold Coke, MBZ, and.....drum roll......Homeland Security)

Mariss Freimanis

03-31-2008, 06:04 PM

fish1234,

The car you want is the Trabant:

"The much-derided Trabant - which means fellow traveller - was first made in 1957 and they were produced for 30 years with little improvements.

The pollution-producing cars were powered by smoky, two-stroke engines and went from 0-62mph in 21 seconds and had a top speed of 70mph.

Their steel frames had roofs, bonnets, fenders and doors made from plastic that was strengthened by wool or cotton.

It was the East German's People's Car and was incredibly basic, often having no brake lights or indicators."

Mariss

martinw

03-31-2008, 06:53 PM

The point being that it is possible to manufacture compact fluorescents that don't remind one of a morgue. Why this isn't being done, I have no idea.
xyzdonna

Dear Donna,

Unless I am entirely mistaken, there is a move afoot to ban all incandescent lamps in Europe within a few years, and replace them with "compact flourescent" ones. Filament lamps will be banned.

This will include low voltage halogens I think.

The planet-saving alternatives, (morgue lights), contain a small amount of mercury. The EU has just banned mercury. Well, it does not seem to be entirely "joined-up" in its thinking.

There are many millions of low voltage tungsten lamps over here in small lamp fittings. They give off a pleasant light.

There is no "compact flourescent" lamp to put into those many fittings.

Conventional light fittings far out-number low voltage tungstens. Recent studies suggest that most people do not want morgue lights, even if given them for nothing.

If you can come up with a lamp that gives a warm spectral response, and is compact, and has a beam that can be directed, if required, you will be doing mankind a massive favour.

For myself, I think I will stock up with a huge pile of illegal lamps, and sell them at inflated prices on e-bay, before being dragged off to the Climate Change off-shore prison.

Best wishes,

Martin

dynosor

03-31-2008, 07:22 PM

Dear GORDYKD,

Many thanks for that post.

Could you post a link to the article?

Best wishes,

Martin
I believe it is this article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

martinw

03-31-2008, 07:30 PM

I believe it is this article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Dear dynosor,

Thank-you for that.

Best wishes,

Martin

xyzdonna

03-31-2008, 08:44 PM

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 09:40 PM

Hi jhowelb,
Did you catch TV tonight? Al Sharpton has teemed up with your hero, Pat Robertson, to do an ad for Al Gore's global warming initiative. It seems that Al is seeking out unlikely, diametrically opposed proponents to highlight his GW stance. I can't wait to see the commercial. They are saying that we all live on the same planet so we must take care of it. What a novel thought!
Take care,
xyzdonna

You have again leaped headfirst into an incorrect assumption. I view Robertson as an eccentric opportunist only slightly less demented than the other two you mentioned. I cannot take seriously anything uttered by any of them.

But lets see, Gore has a much applauded book (Earth in the Lurch?) virtually indistinguishable from the Una Bombers Manifesto, a phony flick which is being force fed to kids world wide, an Emmy and a bogus Nobel Award and he STILL finds it necessary to spend $30 million on an advertising campaign? Business must be failing badly!

jhowelb

03-31-2008, 09:51 PM

http://bangornews.com/news/t/aroostook.aspx?articleid=161983&zoneid=175

Caribou sets snowfall record
By BDN Staff
Saturday, March 22, 2008 - Bangor Daily News

By Julia Bayly
Special to the NEWS

FORT KENT, Maine — It’s official. The 2007-08 snow season in northern Maine is one for the record books. Just in time for the start of spring.

The old record of 181.1 inches of snow recorded in Caribou, set in 1955, was shattered by noontime Friday when the National Weather Service in Caribou recorded 182.5 inches of snow since the start of the season.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/americas/31snow.html?ei=5065&en=36bdab2bb3f6d083&ex=1207540800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Tons of Snow Test a Place Where Cold Is No Stranger
By IAN AUSTEN

OTTAWA — People here are divided between those longing for a few more inches of snow to set a record and others who think the 14 feet that has already landed, and mostly lingered, is more than enough.

No one needs to ask Luc Guertin his view. His front yard on a suburban street here features his personal monument to eastern Canada’s unusually prolonged, relentless and snowy winter. A snow wall, about 18 ½ feet high, 6 to 10 feet wide and 30 feet long, rises along one edge of the driveway. Standing next to a flagpole at the top, a balaclava-clad mannequin holds a snow shovel aloft in “Rocky”-style triumph. A sign, decorated with fuzzy chickens, offers outdated Easter greetings to the steady stream of sightseers who make their way to Toulouse Crescent.

Mr. Guertin, it should be noted, occasionally slips into an elaborate, homemade robot costume before picking up his extra-long snow shovel.

“Once I got going, I figured, why stop?” Mr. Guertin, a carpenter, said of his snow creation, which was mostly shoveled by hand rather than raised with a snowblower. “This year was such a record year for snow, so who knows, next year I might not be able to do it. A moment like this doesn’t come very often. I’m hoping for a snow record.”

The children wandering by one late March evening to poke and gaze at Ottawa’s newest attraction, as well as the drivers stopping for photographs, said that they, like Mr. Guertin, were hoping for another seven inches of snow. That would break the record from the winter of 1970-71, which meteorologists have called a thousand-year event.

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 07:03 AM

Hi Martin,

Quote Martin: Unless I am entirely mistaken, there is a move afoot to ban all incandescent lamps in Europe within a few years, and replace them with "compact flourescent" ones. Filament lamps will be banned.

Me: Bad idea. There are applications where incandescent would be better. I made the mistake of putting one of those mercury vapor lamps on our back porch. On a cold winter night it takes forever to come on and you can fall down the steps if you're not careful. I've learned to turn it on ahead of time if I'm wearing heels. It does save energy though and the bulbs last forever, we've never had to replace the bulb.

Quote Martin: The planet-saving alternatives, (morgue lights), contain a small amount of mercury. The EU has just banned mercury. Well, it does not seem to be entirely "joined-up" in its thinking.

There are many millions of low voltage tungsten lamps over here in small lamp fittings. They give off a pleasant light.

Me: Mercury is bad for the environment. You don't want it in the fish you eat, that's for sure. Hopefully your government will provide a conscientious method of disposal so that public spirited people can get rid of the things properly. That hasn't happened over here unfortunately. I don't know where to go to get rid of old mercury filled neon tubes for instance.

Quote Martin: If you can come up with a lamp that gives a warm spectral response, and is compact, and has a beam that can be directed, if required, you will be doing mankind a massive favour.

For myself, I think I will stock up with a huge pile of illegal lamps, and sell them at inflated prices on e-bay, before being dragged off to the Climate Change off-shore prison.

Me: Find a glass blower (neon tube bender) in your area. See if you can get him to show you a Technolux color chart or equivalent. You'll find some warm colors in there. If all they have to do is take a straight piece of glass, put electrodes on each end and pump it, the cost should be very reasonable. Several years ago it was about $2/ foot, probably a little more now. If pumped well they will last a long time (50,000 - 100,000 hours).
I found this tidbit:
"High colour temperature tubes (cool whites) (4000K and up) produce more brightness per watt than warmer whites (up to 3500K)." Apparently they are using the morgue light phosphors because of brightness per watt, it makes their efficiency numbers look better. The 4000K refers to the color temperature and I know that K stands for Kelvin but don't exactly know what this means.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 07:35 AM

Hi Rekd,
Quote Rekd:
He "allows" that GW is happening? Isn't that special.

Is he "allowing" it to happen on Mars too?

Did he "allow" it to happen several times over that last several hundred thousand years?

Did he "allow" the internet to happen too?

Me: I'm just playing it for laughs. I've come around to Geof's way of thinking. It's probably happening and man is probably contributing to it in a small way, but there's nothing we can do about it.

Quote Rekd:
Seriously, Donna, he's a tool. He couldn't cut it as a politician so he invented man made global warming so he could sell carbon credits to unsuspecting fools who are all to willing to jump on each and ever band-wagon that rolls buy to separate the ignorant from their dollar. Very reminiscent of the plight of the Star Bellied Sneech's when Sylvester McMonkey McBean came by with his star adding/removing machines.

Me: I can't argue with that. Although I've no idea what "Star Bellied Sneech's" are, or who "Sylvester McMonkey McBean" is.

Quote Rekd:
Besides, I thought you were leaving?

Me: I tried but I just couldn't. jhowelb needed me.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-01-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote Rekd:
Besides, I thought you were leaving?

Me: I tried but I just couldn't. jhowelb needed me.
Take care,
xyzdonna

CAN ANYONE DEFINE THE WORD "IS"? THEN NEXT "NEED"!

(Like Batman needs the Joker? Like Superman needs Kryptonite? Like the Roadrunner needs the Coyote? Right, and I NEED a migraine headache and hemorrhoids!)

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 09:06 AM

Hi Martin;
I found this interesting tidbit from a guy's website: http://www.emanator.demon.co.uk/bigclive/joule.htm
It's a good way to use up spent batteries. He claims the circuit will run continuously for a week on a "dead" battery. Might give the non-morgue lighting effect you're looking for. BTW, he's from your neck of the woods, Scotland I think.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-01-2008, 09:41 AM

You can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it. - Einstein.

fizzissist

04-01-2008, 09:51 AM

You can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it. - Einstein.

Got to laugh at the irony of that quote....since Al Gore has essentially concocted the whole AGW scare, and miraculously, he has the cure; Carbon Credits.

That's the secret of a good snake oil salesman..create a disease, and sell the cure.

newdogs

04-01-2008, 10:08 AM

[QUOTE=Bluesman;312748]Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. "

Yup, I remember for me it was 1972.

[QUOTE=Bluesman;312748]"I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"

Yup, I wouldn't say I was scared but I was a very concerned little guy. And wondered why my dad said "they always come up with something like that to try to make us feel guilty" he wasn't too concerned about the coming ice age or the destruction of the ozone.

[QUOTE=Bluesman;312748] "GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster" Actually I have come think it's more a religion for those who beleive it's fact.

More to the point after 34-35years I'd say I think those disasters that crop up like global warming are just something the rest of the world pushes to make us here in the US feel guilty for the way we live. We have all the advantages so many others in the rest of the world crave for. We are a noble nation that always is first to come to the aid of people & places in need of help. But it always seems that the US is to blame for all these catastrophes. Funny how things come around, now after all these years I feel like my dad did back then!
Rob Drummond
Hillsboro, NH

jhowelb

04-01-2008, 10:31 AM

Got to laugh at the irony of that quote....since Al Gore has essentially concocted the whole AGW scare, and miraculously, he has the cure; Carbon Credits.

That's the secret of a good snake oil salesman..create a disease, and sell the cure.

Thank you!
Only I think as a group they (libs) dream up the cure then go searching for the ailment!!

fizzissist

04-01-2008, 11:39 AM

xyzdonna

04-01-2008, 06:00 PM

If you're worried about the coming ice age, google Stanford's Stephan Schneider. He was sounding the alarm back then, and is sounding the alarm now about AGW.

This is the ilk that we're dealing with, the scientists who earn their living by alarmism, and in Schneider's case, he even admits it!

This guy goes so far as to say it's ok to exagerate claims to scare people.

That ain't science, it's P.T. Barnum.

Hi fizzissist,
I did as you suggested and googled Stanford's Stephan Schneider. Poor guy, the press has really frazzeled him. He admits to the uncertainties of climate change while attesting to the certainty of being quoted out of context.

Quote: Despite many attempts on my part — in my books, papers, talks, and other op-eds — to outline my opinions and dispel the media-propagated myths, the distortions continue to this day, even in "respectable" publications like the Economist, which ran a partial quote (also taken from the Discover article) without even calling me to see if it was valid. (See the quote from the Economist. The 'brave' editor of this attack does not even sign his polemic, but I am told it was Clive Crook.) The most egregious distortion I am aware of was in a 1996 opinion piece by Julian Simon (see also my rebuttal), a business professor at the University of Maryland, in which he not only used an out-of-context quote from the Discover article to "prove" that I advocate exaggeration in order to get attention, but he also invented a preamble, that I advise people to “stretch the truth,” and he attributed that to me, while (of course) leaving off the last sentence of my actual remark.

Me: Here is the quote from the Discover magazine article:

Stephan Schneider: Here is the published quote from that interview with Discover, from which selected lines have been used for over a decade as "proof" that I exaggerate environmental threats:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html?http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html#TheDoubleEthicalBindPitfall

Me: If you read the whole article the guy is really sincere about trying to get the truth out. He just says that the media demands that he be lumped into one corner or the other. He has to couch his quotes so as to cater to the kind of reporting that is being done. The media doesn't like ambiguities.
Take care,
xyzdonna

fizzissist

04-01-2008, 08:33 PM

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

What part of "we have to offer up scary scenarios" don't you understand??? The right balance between being honest and EFFECTIVE????

Not taken out of context, not misquoted. He draws a difference between honesty...and effectiveness. Clearly stating that you aren't effective when you're honest, meaning that he KNOWS he's lying.

[I]Stephen Schneider - Criticism
In 2002, Schneider was criticized by the Danish Space Research Institute in which they claim Schneider misrespresented their work in his criticism of Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist; they state "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism."

(edited for correction)

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 07:23 AM

What part of "we have to offer up scary scenarios" don't you understand??? The right balance between being honest and EFFECTIVE????

Not taken out of context, not misquoted. He draws a difference between honesty...and effectiveness. Clearly stating that you aren't effective when you're honest, meaning that he KNOWS he's lying.

[I]Stephen Schneider - Criticism
In 2002, Schneider was criticized by the Danish Space Research Institute in which they claim Schneider misrespresented their work in his criticism of Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist; they state "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism."

(edited for correction)

Hi fizzissist,
The news media is really in the entertainment business. They are looking for 30 second sound bites. They don't want a lot of scientific folderol laced with disclaimers. They want incisive, insightful comments that come to conclusions. He is saying that to get your message out there you must comply with these conditions. Format your comments so that they are easily assimilated by the average couch potato. The trick is to do this in such a way as to retain your honesty.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 07:31 AM

Hi everybody;
To quote from his website:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html

Citizens must demand that scientists provide honest, credible assessments that answer the "three questions of environmental literacy": 1) What can happen?; 2) What are the odds of it happening?; and 3) How are such estimates made? Citizens must also achieve a certain level of environmental, political, and scientific literacy themselves so that they feel comfortable distinguishing climate change fact from fiction and making critical value judgments and policy decisions, in essence becoming "citizen scientists". Just as popularization of potential probabilities and consequences will occur with or without input from scientists, policy decisions will be made with or without input from an informed citizenry. I hope that citizens will take responsibility for increasing their scientific, political, and environmental literacy and recognize the importance of the positive effect that an informed public will have on the policy process.

Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.

Take care,
xyzdonna

Rekd

04-02-2008, 08:21 AM

:sigh:

I saw a big sticker on the back of a truck many years ago, *cough*ClintonYears*cough*. Took up the whole tailgate, and rightfully so. It read: "-NameRemoved-: Like a turd that won't flush"

fizzissist

04-02-2008, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE=xyzdonna;433812
Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.
[/QUOTE]

That doesn't mean that what he says isn't deceptive. Likewise, you'll never hear Gore say that he wants anyone to say anything deceptive or that he himself would ever say anything deceptive....after all, that would be undermining his own credibility.

The VERY last thing Gore wants is for people to actually read the real science for themselves. Read only what you are spoonfed by them. Via the mainstream media of course.

Anyone see the 60Minutes piece Sunday night and notice that the VERY first tidbit proving "gorebull" warming is the schtick about Kilamanjaro??

Anyone need to be educated as to why that argument (Kilamanjaro is proof of global warming) has long since been blown out of the water?? What it is proof of is that the AGW group is still trying to sell something that is known to be BS.

Not to mention Gore's riding in the limo, heading for the black SUV, flying to India...can you say hypocrisy?? But back to Schneider....He and James Hansen and Michael Mann are all in the same boat.

jhowelb

04-02-2008, 12:27 PM

Manufactured shortages for political purpose!!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/18/ndoil/

North Dakota oil patch is booming
by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio
August 28, 2006

There's an oil boom in western North Dakota. Oil companies large and small are investing millions of dollars in new wells. The North Dakota oil industry has boomed and busted many times in the past 50 years. But some believe new technology and high oil prices will bring long term stability to the North Dakota oil patch.

Western North Dakota has large oil reserves. By some estimates, it has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A federal government geologist estimated a formation called the Bakken shale holds 400 billion barrels of oil.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/

Welcome to the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division, home page.

http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=157178

You may be wondering why are we experiencing a gasoline shortage when oil production is peaking in North Dakota...

The shortage isn't with oil the bottleneck is in the refining process.

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 04:45 PM

Manufactured shortages for political purpose!!

Hi jhowelb;
I think you're right, there is no oil shortage if the price is right. As long as oil stays at the price it is now (over $100/barrel) then there will be plenty of oil that will be economical to extract. Of course you have to consider that it will also be economical to produce biofuels at these prices as well. The advantage is that they are more carbon neutral.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 04:49 PM

That doesn't mean that what he says isn't deceptive. Likewise, you'll never hear Gore say that he wants anyone to say anything deceptive or that he himself would ever say anything deceptive....after all, that would be undermining his own credibility.

The VERY last thing Gore wants is for people to actually read the real science for themselves. Read only what you are spoonfed by them. Via the mainstream media of course.

Anyone see the 60Minutes piece Sunday night and notice that the VERY first tidbit proving "gorebull" warming is the schtick about Kilamanjaro??

Anyone need to be educated as to why that argument (Kilamanjaro is proof of global warming) has long since been blown out of the water?? What it is proof of is that the AGW group is still trying to sell something that is known to be BS.

Not to mention Gore's riding in the limo, heading for the black SUV, flying to India...can you say hypocrisy?? But back to Schneider....He and James Hansen and Michael Mann are all in the same boat.

Hi fizzissist;
Yes, actually I need to be educated about Kilimanjaro. What's the deal on that?
Thanks,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-02-2008, 04:53 PM

Hi jhowelb;
I think you're right, there is no oil shortage if the price is right. As long as oil stays at the price it is now (over $100/barrel) then there will be plenty of oil that will be economical to extract. Of course you have to consider that it will also be economical to produce biofuels at these prices as well. The advantage is that they are more carbon neutral.
Take care,
xyzdonna

ARTIFICIALLY inflated prices in order to extract money (and tax) for ulterior motives. (phony green concerns about the enVIRONment, the CARAbo, the SPOTTED owel, ANwar or some other Gorebullsht!)

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Do some more research, bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment

xyzdonna

04-02-2008, 09:59 PM

ARTIFICIALLY inflated prices in order to extract money (and tax) for ulterior motives. (phony green concerns about the enVIRONment, the CARAbo, the SPOTTED owel, ANwar or some other Gorebullsht!)

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Do some more research, bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment

Hi jhowelb;
Quote: "bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment"

Me: Perhaps it depends on which bio-fuels you are considering. Ethanol from corn, I would agree. Not to mention what it's doing to our cost of food. Biodiesel from algae, I think not. This process takes CO2 out of the environment to produce the oil for diesel fuel.

Quote: There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Me: Well, as one of the "environmentalist nut cases", of course I have to disagree. We must reach a homeostasis with our environment. Anything else is suicidal. Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. All the bad things Geof spoke about are going to happen. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives. Also, that we survive in an enhanced (evolved) form. The coming decades will be traumatic. Let us hope they will portend a new order of things. An order of sanity, reason and logic, as opposed to capricious and contentious superstition and religion.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 10:17 AM

Rekd

04-03-2008, 10:58 AM

Here is where you really begin to sound nutty with an order of arrogance and ignorance of monumental proportions.

Actually, that started a long time ago. What I'm seeing now is simply annoying. It's like she's obsessed with herself. I suppose the

Quote: blah blah blah

Me: blah blah blah

Quote: blah blah blah

Me: blah blah blah!

...while it makes me want to puke, could be worse if she were to use colors to represent different personalities.

Seriously, why won't this thing flush!!!???

dynosor

04-03-2008, 12:13 PM

Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives.

I wonder when some nut-job is going to use this reasoning in his defense for randomly killing a bunch of people that got in his way? If the Twinkie defense can stand, why not "I did it to save the planet from overpopulation"?

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 12:14 PM

Actually, that started a long time ago. What I'm seeing now is simply annoying. It's like she's obsessed with herself. I suppose the

...while it makes me want to puke, could be worse if she were to use colors to represent different personalities.

Seriously, why won't this thing flush!!!???

She, and Liberals in general, are obsessed with themselves and their desire to "save the world, civilization, the motorist, the poor, the minorities" from themselves and certain destruction brought on by dis regard of the Liberal "god-of-the-moment" (environmentalism, climate change, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, welfare, racial set asides and quotas and affirmative action).

They are not to be questioned on the effectiveness, justice or unintended consequences of these thing but rather should be judged by the purity of their intentions.

They will never acknowledge the negative side of the ledger ( all the carbon and money needed to manufacture raw materials) and insist that there is a zero sum gain. This would allow them to tax the economy into prosperity just as Stalin did!

This is the insanity that says that because of high fuel prices we will punish the oil companies with ever higher taxes, restriction on refinery facilities, exploration and recovery operations and expect then that the price of gas will go down.

But at the same time if the price of paint goes up THAT will be passed on to the customer of the sign shop!

THEY are the ones responsible for the outrageous prices but we are supposed to believe that THEY also have the answer by imposing further restrictions!

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -Winston Churchill

“You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.”
Albert Einstein

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 12:20 PM

Kilimanjaro....a beginner's primer

Kilimanjaro is a volcano. There is evidence that it is not a dead volcano, but a DORMANT volcano....that means there's still magma. That magma is believed to be within 400meters of the upper surface where the glaciers lie.
Magma=heat, heat+glacier=....receeding glacier???

Observed glacial retreat on Kilimanjaro was more rapid in the first half of the 20th century than the second half. In fact, the rate of recession of both slope and shelf glaciers has taken two distinct reductions of decline since 1950. That is contrary to the theory of atmospheric warming as a cause. (apologies to Lonnie Thompson)

What does appear to be the major cause of Kilimanjaro's glacial loss is the reduction in precipitation. Something on the order of 25% of the ice loss is countered by new snow, and most of the ice loss is to sublimation, not temperature related melting.

Why the reduction in snow (or rain, for that matter)? The single most obvious answer is a change is land use, not a slight increase in atmospheric temps. Farmers have cleared huge tracts of land, resulting in less humid upwelling, directly effecting a reduction in precipitation.

Precip on Kilimanjaro is also dependent on Indian Ocean and south Atlantic Ocean cycles...SST anomalies, El Nino, etc.....all things that are subject to normal variability.

Mt. Kenya in 1961 had in November 1961, for example, precipitation on the footslopes of Mt. Kenya that exceeded 275% of normal as a result of onshore flow from a large area of anomalously warm SSTs in the western Indian Ocean. There was also dense cloud cover for the period with greatly reduced evaporation. Gorebull warming proof?
I think not.

1961 was during the period of time when we were getting prepped for the coming ice age...we just hadn't been warned yet by....Stephen Schneider

There isn't a carbon credit in this universe that will restore Kilimanjaro's glaciers.

--previously posted:
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf

--yes...another edit....couldn't help myself and had to post this link to the U.K. lawsuit that rips up Gore's AIT movie...:)
5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Rekd

04-03-2008, 01:43 PM

I wonder when some nut-job is going to use this reasoning in his defense for randomly killing a bunch of people that got in his way? If the Twinkie defense can stand, why not "I did it to save the planet from overpopulation"?

Agreed. Perhaps some will use it as a reason to /self??

Mariss Freimanis

04-03-2008, 01:53 PM

Hi everybody;

Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.

Take care,
xyzdonna

XYZ,

Deception also includes what is omitted. I took a quick look and there is a obvious sleigh-of-hand on Schneider's website. The dreaded hockey-stick graphs have a 1,000 AD to 2,000 AD timescale. The temperature graph has a 1,900 AD to 2,100 AD timescale to include the usual hysterical extrapolations 100 years into the future.

What's missing is 900 years from the temperature timescale. Why didn't it also run from 1,000 AD? Perhaps to remove an inconvenient and very large drop in world temperatures that began around 1,200 AD and persists to the present day? Leaving it in would have kicked the props out from under the correlation he is trying to make between greenhouse gases and temperature.

Seems a little deceptive to me.

Mariss

Rekd

04-03-2008, 01:56 PM

Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable.
...
It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives.

I missed this the first time around. Good thing too, cuz I just puked reading it. (I knew eating that cottage cheese so early was a bad idea...)

Seriously, if these nut-cases are so anti-human, why don't they just remove themselves from the gene pool? (nuts)

I posted this on my blog about another subject, but the terms seem to fit nicely here as well...

Since the 1990's, radical environmental groups like the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have been destroying property in the hopes of stopping mankind's' existence. These freaks who use everything modern technology has to offer in the name of stopping modern technology have no idea how stupid and idiotic they really are, nor do they understand that in order for people to take them seriously, they 1) need to stop destroying other people's property, and 2) stop being hypocrites.

They need to move out of their houses, quit their jobs, remove their clothes, burn all their own personal property, and go live like a monkey in the woods.

Anything less than that and they are automatically regarded as thugs. If they truly cared about the environment, they would instantly denounce modern civilization and live like the savages they are.

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 02:24 PM

Matt,
I guess that is exactly what gets me so mad about the global warming alarmism crowd...the hypocrisy.

I'd sure love to see the personal "carbon footprints" from all of the people associated with Al Gore!!

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 07:49 PM

I missed this the first time around. Good thing too, cuz I just puked reading it. (I knew eating that cottage cheese so early was a bad idea...)

Seriously, if these nut-cases are so anti-human, why don't they just remove themselves from the gene pool? (nuts)

I posted this on my blog about another subject, but the terms seem to fit nicely here as well...

Hi Rekd,
Nothing "anti-human" about it, any engineer, scientist or mathematician should be able to explain to you that perpetual population growth won't work. Robert Malthus predicted the problem in the early 1800's. We are rapidly approaching the limits of what this planet can support. After that, consult with Geof on his predictions of what will happen next.

Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 07:58 PM

Hi Rekd,
Nothing "anti-human" about it, any engineer, scientist or mathematician should be able to explain to you that perpetual population growth won't work. Robert Malthus predicted the problem in the early 1800's. We are rapidly approaching the limits of what this planet can support. After that, consult with Geof on his predictions of what will happen next.

Take care,
xyzdonna

It must be absolutely miserable to be so completely confused about everything all the time!

Consistency is good if you aren't consistently WRONG!

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 08:30 PM

Here is where you really begin to sound nutty with an order of arrogance and ignorance of monumental proportions.

Overpopulation and sustainability are your personal and unqualified, unquantified baseless opinions, NOT fact!

Who promoted you to the rank of paragon and director of human fate?

Capricious and contentious superstition and religion are the exact terms to describe the brand if Liberalism that guides your life without the benefit of a recognized God! (Little Church of fallen, clueless, Godless keepers of the Flames of Illumination.)

Hi jhowelb,
Wow, arrogant, ignorant & nutty in monumental proportions! I knew I was good but not that good! If I elicit all that from a conservative, it's quite a compliment actually.
No one promoted me to the rank of paragon director, I simply see things as they are, remember? My brand of liberalism is, as I've said before, teleological, reasoning with the end purpose in mind. From Wikipedia: "Teleology holds there is a purpose inherent and final cause for all that exists." We may not understand or know it, but there is a destiny and purpose for the universe. I'm religious in my own way you see, but I suppose it's on a different paradigm from you. You worship an angry god who demands penance and forgiveness of sins. I suppose the god I consider is beyond that. When I consider the god you worship, he looks a lot like what the people of ancient times would have imagined him to be. Which makes sense, they created him. If there is a god, and there well may be, I think he would be several orders of magnitude beyond what the religions of the world have come up with.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Mariss Freimanis

04-03-2008, 08:40 PM

1) Quote XYZ: "I'm religious", "If there is a god". Pray tell where is the logic, teleological or otherwise?

2) No comment on message #2160? The one addressing you seeing no deception?

Mariss

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 09:01 PM

Hi jhowelb,
Wow, arrogant, ignorant & nutty in monumental proportions! I knew I was good but not that good! If I elicit all that from a conservative, it's quite a compliment actually.
No one promoted me to the rank of paragon director, I simply see things as they are, remember? My brand of liberalism is, as I've said before, teleological, reasoning with the end purpose in mind. From Wikipedia: "Teleology holds there is a purpose inherent and final cause for all that exists." We may not understand or know it, but there is a destiny and purpose for the universe. I'm religious in my own way you see, but I suppose it's on a different paradigm from you. You worship an angry god who demands penance and forgiveness of sins. I suppose the god I consider is beyond that. When I consider the god you worship, he looks a lot like what the people of ancient times would have imagined him to be. Which makes sense, they created him. If there is a god, and there well may be, I think he would be several orders of magnitude beyond what the religions of the world have come up with.
Take care,
xyzdonna

You don't know which or if I attend church but you presume to know the character and disposition of my God for whom you don't even have enough respect to capitalize His name. You imagine what my God looks like while the scripture tells us that none may look upon His face because we don't have the capacity to understand what we are looking at and then you tell me what you "think", as an amoeba, about the Creator and Architec of the Universe.

Arrogant, ignorant and LOST! (pathetic)

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 09:08 PM

1) Quote XYZ: "I'm religious", "If there is a god". Pray tell where is the logic, teleological or otherwise?

2) No comment on message #2160? The one addressing you seeing no deception?

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
jhowelb I can do off the top of my head, you are another matter. You posted a serious question that I've referred to the good Doctor. If he deigns to answer me then I'll get back with you. If not, then I'll have to do some research on my own and come up with a plausible explanation.
The logic to my religion is simple, I'm an agnostic. I am religious in the sense of revering the beauty, order and transcendent elegance of the universe. That it could have had a designer, well that's a nice thought.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-03-2008, 09:55 PM

Hi Mariss,
jhowelb I can do off the top of my head, you are another matter. You posted a serious question that I've referred to the good Doctor. If he deigns to answer me then I'll get back with you. If not, then I'll have to do some research on my own and come up with a plausible explanation.
The logic to my religion is simple, I'm an agnostic. I am religious in the sense of revering the beauty, order and transcendent elegance of the universe. That it could have had a designer, well that's a nice thought.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Arrogant and lost. Good thing they pay you what your worth rather than what you think your worth!

I suspect that you are in awe of the beauty of what you perceive to be inside yourself. From this vantage point it's another view entirely!

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 10:04 PM

Mariss,
Is this what you were looking for?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Geof

04-03-2008, 10:19 PM

.....The logic to my religion is simple, I'm an agnostic.....xyzdonna

Many years ago I came across a definition for an agnostic. And for all the readers who read things into what other people write notice I say A definition, not 'the' definition. To reiterate: A definition for (or of) an agnostic is someone who is waiting for their miracle (to be convinced of the existence of a supreme being I guess).

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

xyzdonna

04-03-2008, 10:21 PM

Arrogant and lost. Good thing they pay you what your worth rather than what you think your worth!

I suspect that you are in awe of the beauty of what you perceive to be inside yourself. From this vantage point it's another view entirely!

Now jhowelb,
I didn't mean to be unkind, just mischievous. I enjoy our banter. You bring out some of the best of me. I hope I do the same for you. Now think about it, you wouldn't want the liberal that you love to hate to be nice would you? That would be insufferable! A liberal must be a vixen, a vamp, someone who sees through the incongruous illogic of the conservative mindset!
Take care,
xyzdonna

fizzissist

04-03-2008, 11:08 PM

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

RELIGION, n.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
MIRACLE, n.
An act or event out of the order of nature and unaccountable, as beating a normal hand of four kings and an ace with four aces and a king.

HEAVEN, n.
A place where the wicked cease from troubling you with talk of their personal affairs, and the good listen with attention while you expound your own.

CNC_Programmer

04-04-2008, 07:39 AM

A short read! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html)

CNC_Programmer

04-04-2008, 07:44 AM

Many years ago I came across a definition for an agnostic. And for all the readers who read things into what other people write notice I say A definition, not 'the' definition. To reiterate: A definition for (or of) an agnostic is someone who is waiting for their miracle (to be convinced of the existence of a supreme being I guess).

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

From Merriam-Webster:

Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

xyzdonna: Although I don't share many of your views, I am also agnostic! I think #1 above says it pretty well!

Rekd

04-04-2008, 08:43 AM

Hi Rekd,
Nothing "anti-human" about it, any engineer, scientist or mathematician should be able to explain to you that perpetual population growth won't work.

Holy Captain Obvious, donna!!!

Nobody needs to explain to me that there are a lot of people in the world. It was predicted that we'd have eaten ourselves out of a planet by more than a quarter of a century ago.

Sorry, I just don't buy the hype. We're smart enough to deal with the problem without the need for fear mongering by way of junk science, and flat out lies.

The point, which you miss with alarming consistency and diligence, is your perception of what is and what is not a real problem. Much like Bill Clinton in his inability to "define" the use of the word "is" when he was caught in a bold-faced lie and still refused to tell the truth.

You also seem to be of the impression that we should create some kind of world government so we can deal with it on an international level.

Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

Mariss Freimanis

04-04-2008, 08:50 AM

fizzissist,

Thanks for the URL; that's what I was looking for. The red graph (most recent study) looks particularly bad for Schneider when graphed over a 1,000 AD to 2,000 AD timescale to match his hockey-stick graphs. Later today I'll scale the red graph and superimpose it over one of his graphs so we all can see the correlation.

Mariss

fizzissist

04-04-2008, 09:40 AM

Leon,
Never believe what you read at Fox. Nothing they say could ever possibly be true. They're shills of the right-wing conspiracy. At least that's what I keep hearing from my liberal friends.

So, if Fox repeats what Hadley says, it isn't true. It is true though if you hear it from James Hansen.

I love the mention of how you can't look at a single year, and at the same time they shout about how '98 was the warmest year (though that claim is subject to a heated debate by actual scientists). Schneider said too you have to look at long term trends....

Anthony Watts ( wattsupwiththat) and ClimateAudit have some great discourse on that whole issue.

But notice, if you will, that there's a curious shift in the tone of the alarmists? As if they're getting ready to spin the whole campaign around just in case things do get cooler....CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MODELS PREDICT???

...(place yuk yuk here).....

Mariss,
Go to Real Climate, and read what Gavin and the gang are saying about the ARGO bouys and claiming that the data is in need of correction....because they're not showing the desired warming....(another yuk yuk).....

jhowelb

04-04-2008, 09:47 AM

Now jhowelb,
I didn't mean to be unkind, just mischievous. I enjoy our banter. You bring out some of the best of me. I hope I do the same for you. Now think about it, you wouldn't want the liberal that you love to hate to be nice would you? That would be insufferable! A liberal must be a vixen, a vamp, someone who sees through the incongruous illogic of the conservative mindset!
Take care,
xyzdonna

Good Lord! You give me a huge migraine (dislocated further South) and prove one thing for positive. Liberals routinely engage in "the willing suspension of disbelief" of any thing incredible and even of the obvious!

Rekd said it very well,

<snip>

The point, which you miss with alarming consistency and diligence, is your perception of what is and what is not a real problem. Much like Bill Clinton in his inability to "define" the use of the word "is" when he was caught in a bold-faced lie and still refused to tell the truth.

You also seem to be of the impression that we should create some kind of world government so we can deal with it on an international level.

Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

First, create a problem and then create more and bigger government to tax the people into oblivion so you can "deal" with the "problem".

Let me emphasize, Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

xyzdonna

04-04-2008, 10:13 AM

Many years ago I came across a definition for an agnostic. And for all the readers who read things into what other people write notice I say A definition, not 'the' definition. To reiterate: A definition for (or of) an agnostic is someone who is waiting for their miracle (to be convinced of the existence of a supreme being I guess).

What miracle are you waiting for?:)

Hi Geof,
Sorry I didn't get back with you sooner, computer problems. We've been uninstalling stuff to get back to a stable platform. I'm not expecting any miracles, I'll just have to wait and see what happens when I croak. If I did screw up and jhowelb is correct then so be it. Somehow I don't think so but who knows. At least I'll be with all my friends.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Mariss Freimanis

04-04-2008, 11:45 AM

OK, graphing is fun. I took Schneider's hockey-stick CO2, NO2 and CH4 graphs scaled from 1,000 AD to 2,000 AD, combined them and added the temperature anomaly graph provided by fizzissist scaled to the same timespan. I also included best linear fit lines for temperature and the dreaded hockey-stick graphs. They are the fat blue, red and black lines.

My interpretation:

1) Global cooling ended at about 1700 AD (end of fat blue line).
2) Global warming began at 1700 AD (beginning of fat red line).
3) CO2, NO2 and CH4 began increasing in 1900 AD.
4) Global temperatures have not yet recovered to the 1000 AD 'normal'.

Questions:

1) If global warming is due to man made greenhouse gases, why did global warming begin 200 years before the increase of these gases?

2) How do greenhouse gases account for global cooling from 1000 AD to 1700 AD? The greenhouse gas concentrations remained constant over this span.

3) How can anyone assert there is a non-zero correlation between temperature and greenhouse gases? I cannot see from the graphs how the latter affects the former.

Mariss

fizzissist

04-04-2008, 02:13 PM

My interpretation:

1) Global cooling ended at about 1700 AD (end of fat blue line).
2) Global warming began at 1700 AD (beginning of fat red line).
3) CO2, NO2 and CH4 began increasing in 1900 AD.
4) Global temperatures have not yet recovered to the 1000 AD 'normal'.

Questions:

1) If global warming is due to man made greenhouse gases, why did global warming begin 200 years before the increase of these gases?

2) How do greenhouse gases account for global cooling from 1000 AD to 1700 AD? The greenhouse gas concentrations remained constant over this span.

3) How can anyone assert there is a non-zero correlation between temperature and greenhouse gases? I cannot see from the graphs how the latter affects the former.

Mariss

The argument you'll get from the AGW crowd is that:
1. There was natural warming occuring, well within natural variability.

2. Greenhouse gasses were being taken back into solution by the oceans at a rate which held them steady as recorded in the proxies. Additionally, the oceans and other CO2/greenhouse gas sinks weren't saturated as they are today.

3. Timescales are confusing to the casual observer. Warming=increased CO2=warming. The ice core data, presumably the best gas proxy, has an inherent lag due to various factors so there might not appear on the surface to be a correlation. The 800 (and as little as 200) to 2800 year lag of CO2 to temperature is thoroughly discounted by Gavin Schmidt, Jeff Severinghaus, and others at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw

Man's contribution has increased CO2 levels beyond what the system would normally be able to keep in balance, resulting in what is impending runaway warming.

There. Simple. You should now be convinced that man has caused global warming. :)

....btw, ice skating on the Thames is an indication of a healthy planet. Just what you need, right?

Rekd

04-04-2008, 02:27 PM

CO2
Oh.

You mean plant food?

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 10:17 AM

When Liberals offer an environmentally friendly alternative, be very afraid indeed!

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 11:01 AM

And now the ugly truth begins to peak it's head out and look around at all the "suckers"!

World Bank accused of climate change "hijack"

By Ed Cropley

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Developing countries and environmental groups accused the World Bank on Friday of trying to seize control of the billions of dollars of aid that will be used to tackle climate change in the next four decades.

"The World Bank's foray into climate change has gone down like a lead balloon," Friends of the Earth campaigner Tom Picken said at the end of a major climate change conference in the Thai capital.

"Many countries and civil society have expressed outrage at the World Bank's attempted hijacking of real efforts to fund climate change efforts," he said.

Before they agree to any sort of restrictions on emissions of the greenhouse gases fuelling global warming, poor countries want firm commitments of billions of dollars in aid from their rich counterparts.

Now, let me ask, just WHERE do you think all this money is going to come from? HINT: it will no longer be in YOUR budget!!

pdf hold entire article.

fizzissist

04-05-2008, 03:23 PM

Poor nations at climate conference demand more money to cope with global warming
2008-04-01 09:52:58 -

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - "Poor countries at U.N. climate change talks demanded Tuesday that wealthy nations provide them with billions of dollars a year to cope with global warming and shift away from polluting, carbon-intensive industries....."

http://www.pr-inside.com/print512779.htm

Who is this "Group of 77"??? You're gonna love this...notice that China and India are members...and they're demanding free money from YOU!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77

Anyone catch the evening news story the other night talking about what countries own how much of our national debt? Wasn't China in for something like $350Billion??

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

File this story under "Climate Change Blackmail,,,,and Dumb Enough to Pay it."

Mariss Freimanis

04-05-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by xyzdonna View Post

"Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable.
...
It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives."

XY,

Take a deep breath, relax and look at the attached thumbnail. Note that most of the earth reads '0 people per sq. km'. Even around Chattanooga.

Mariss

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 06:35 PM

Would be interesting to see similar maps graphing, for example, distribution of trees or possibly just rain forests. Bet it would be instructive!!

jhowelb

04-05-2008, 08:51 PM

So it seems at just a glance, there are a whole lot more trees than there are people!!

Temperate and Boreal Forest Types

1 Evergreen needleleaf forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is predominantly (> 75%) needleleaf and evergreen.
2 Deciduous needleleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is predominantly (> 75%) needleleaf and deciduous.
3 Mixed broadleaf/needleleaf forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is composed of a more or less even mixture of needleleaf and broadleaf crowns (between 50:50% and 25:75%).
4 Broadleaf evergreen forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, the canopy being > 75% evergreen and broadleaf.
5 Deciduous broadleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, in which > 75% of the canopy is deciduous and broadleaves predominate (> 75% of canopy cover).
6 Freshwater swamp forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, composed of trees with any mixture of leaf type and seasonality, but in which the predominant environmental characteristic is a waterlogged soil.
7 Sclerophyllous dry forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, in which the canopy is mainly composed of sclerophyllous broadleaves and is > 75% evergreen.
8 Disturbed natural forest
Any forest type above that has in its interior significant areas of disturbance by people, including clearing, felling for wood extraction, anthropogenic fires, road construction, etc.
9 Sparse trees and parkland
Natural forests in which the tree canopy cover is between 10-30%, such as in the steppe regions of the world. Trees of any type (e.g., needleleaf, broadleaf, palms).
10 Exotic species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species not naturally occurring in that country.
11 Native species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species that occur naturally in that country.
Unspecified forest plantation
Forest plantations showing extent only with no further information about their type, This data currently only refers to the Ukraine.
Unclassified forest data
Forest data showing forest extent only with containing no further information about their type.
KEY Tropical Forest Types

12 Lowland evergreen broadleaf rain forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude that display little or no seasonality, the canopy being >75% evergreen broadleaf.
13 Lower montane forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, between 1200-1800m altitude, with any seasonality regime and leaf type mixture.
14 Upper montane forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, above 1800m altitude, with any seasonality regime and leaf type mixture.
15 Freshwater swamp forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, composed of trees with any mixture of leaf type and seasonality, but in which the predominant environmental characteristic is a waterlogged soil.
16 Semi-evergreen moist broadleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude in which between 50-75% of the canopy is evergreen, > 75% are broadleaves, and the trees display seasonality of flowering and fruiting.
17 Mixed broadleaf/needleleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is composed of a more or less even mixture of needleleaf and broadleaf crowns (between 50:50% and 25:75%).
18 Needleleaf forest
Natural forest with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is predominantly (> 75%) needleleaf.
19 Mangroves
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, composed of species of mangrove tree, generally along coasts in or near brackish or salt water.
20 Disturbed natural forest
Any forest type above that has in its interior significant areas of disturbance by people, including clearing, felling for wood extraction, anthropogenic fires, road construction, etc.
21 Deciduous/semi-deciduous broadleaf forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude in which between 50-100% of the canopy is deciduous and broadleaves predominate (> 75% of canopy cover).
22 Sclerophyllous dry forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is mainly composed of sclerophyllous broadleaves and is > 75% evergreen.
23 Thorn forest
Natural forests with > 30% canopy cover, below 1200m altitude, in which the canopy is mainly composed of deciduous trees with thorns and succulent phanerophytes with thorns may be frequent.
24 Sparse trees and parkland
Natural forests in which the tree canopy cover is between 10-30%, such as in the savannah regions of the world. Trees of any type (e.g., needleleaf, broadleaf, palms).
25 Exotic species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species not naturally occurring in that country.
26 Native species plantation
Intensively managed forests with > 30% canopy cover, which have been planted by people with species that occur naturally in that country.

xyzdonna

04-06-2008, 08:10 PM

Hi Rekd,
Quote:Nobody needs to explain to me that there are a lot of people in the world. It was predicted that we'd have eaten ourselves out of a planet by more than a quarter of a century ago.

Sorry, I just don't buy the hype. We're smart enough to deal with the problem without the need for fear mongering by way of junk science, and flat out lies.
Me: I hate junk science as much as you do. But how do you deal with the very real problem of overpopulation. It will max out the resources of our planent; oil, water, food, minerals; the list is long.

Quote: The point, which you miss with alarming consistency and diligence, is your perception of what is and what is not a real problem. Much like Bill Clinton in his inability to "define" the use of the word "is" when he was caught in a bold-faced lie and still refused to tell the truth.

Me: I may conceptually, and dilligently see problems that others (conservatives) don't. I may also consistantly ignore problems that aren't real problems in spite of the fact that conservatives may percieve them as problems. Bill Clinton was caught in a "bold faced lie" because conservatives were asking questions that were none of their business. The President of the United States should be allowed his privacy. George Bush would agree, I can assure you of that.

Quote: You also seem to be of the impression that we should create some kind of world government so we can deal with it on an international level.

Screw that. We've got way too much government already.

Me: No, I don't think we need a world government, we have the United Nations to resolve these international problems.

Yes, finally something we can agree on. We do have too much government!
Take care,
xyzdonna
PS: I hope ya'll missed me, my internet was down all weekend.

jhowelb

04-06-2008, 08:31 PM

#1
I hate junk science as much as you do. But how do you deal with the very real problem of overpopulation. It will max out the resources of our planent; oil, water, food, minerals; the list is long.

Except for the "inconvenient truth" illustrated in the two graphics provided by Mariss and my self. No evidence that our "resources" are strained exists and my offer for nomination for the "Darwin Award" still stands for anyone so concerned with over population as to take a near by exit!

#2
I may conceptually, and dilligently see problems that others (conservatives) don't. I may also consistantly ignore problems that aren't real problems in spite of the fact that conservatives may percieve them as problems. Bill Clinton was caught in a "bold faced lie" because conservatives were asking questions that were none of their business. The President of the United States should be allowed his privacy. George Bush would agree, I can assure you of that.

We have already seen your ability to be selective blind to any thing which you already have an opinion, like election and narcotics laws. Most Liberals can rationalize any thing at all and this statement PROVES it!

#3
No, I don't think we need a world government, we have the United Nations to resolve these international problems.

Yes, their record is at least as good as that of the Democrat Party. The stench of corruption would drive a dog off a gut wagon!

#4
Yes, finally something we can agree on. We do have too much government!

Insincerity is the greatest insult one can heap on a man of intelligence and integrity.

You owe Rekd a huge apology!

(Do you ever pay any attention to your spell checker?)

handlewanker

04-06-2008, 09:32 PM

There's a damm good reason that some areas are sparsely populated, there's nothing going on there, no work, no resources, no transport system, no shops, and nobody in their right minds.

By the time you lot populate these areas it will be standing room only, that is no room for food crops, unless you really believe that there will be "life on Mars".

Incidently, about the previous quote about the moon landings being a staged medicine show, NOBODY has yet explained how some ordinary people, not Superman & Co, were able to withstand the radiation that exists beyond about 250 miles or so when you leave the Earths influence.

Explain that one away.
Ian.

fizzissist

04-06-2008, 10:04 PM

Me: I may conceptually, and dilligently see problems that others (conservatives) don't. I may also consistantly ignore problems that aren't real problems in spite of the fact that conservatives may percieve them as problems. Bill Clinton was caught in a "bold faced lie" because conservatives were asking questions that were none of their business. The President of the United States should be allowed his privacy. George Bush would agree, I can assure you of that.

Lying to a federal grand jury under oath is none of my business???? Just to brush you up on some minor points....

The whole affair was the !@*%! PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA being charged with sexual harassment in the workplace. As a woman I'd think you'd be even more sensitive to such an issue. If your boss had sexually harassed you in his office, and under oath asked if he'd ever had sex with someone else in the office....it's none of your business?? My bet is you'd be singin' a different tune.

The subject of his lie is irrelevant, but both the question and the answer were.

What absolutely astounds me is women not relating to the fact that if the president can get away with it, then ANYONE should be able to. .... But I must be misguided? It's ok for a democrat, but not ok for a republican.

Never mind. He lied under oath. An attorney himself, he lied under oath to a federal grand jury. He lied to you, he lied to me, he lied to the court, he lied to the country...and he lied to his wife.

We're seeing now that he's successfully passed that baton to the woman that would be our next president.

NOw...back to Gorebull warming.

howiesatwork

04-07-2008, 04:34 AM

jhowelb

04-07-2008, 08:05 AM

There are still people convinced it's gonna be the end of the world when this natural warming cycle peaks...
Who is it that decides what is the "Normal" mean temperature of this planet?
Where is that LMAO smiley when you need it, huh? :confused:;)

Here is a hint: not anyone who resides on the face of the planet past present or future! Humans do not have the capacity to change the "thermostat". Man's accomplishments are temporal and finite.

BTW, there have always been nut cases walking about with "the world ends tomorrow" signs. What makes these loonytoons any different?

LMAOAY!!!

jhowelb

04-07-2008, 12:54 PM

Oh, yea! And even MORE evidence of Gorebull Warming!

StarTribune.com
Storm dumps more than 2 feet of snow in northern Minnesota

By Associated Press

April 7, 2008

Residents of the Iron Range and other parts of northern Minnesota are digging out from under at least 2 feet of fresh snow.

The grand prize for the most snowfall goes to Virginia, Minn., where 32 inches piled up between Friday night and this morning. More than a foot fell in the northern Minnesota community of about 9,000 people since Sunday evening, the National Weather Service said.

Not far behind, 29 inches fell in northern portions of Itasca County, 27 inches in Cass Lake, 26 in Babbit, and 25 in Chisholm.

A spring snowstorm Sunday and continuing today caused slippery roads and travelers advisories and prompted the closing of Interstate Hwy. 94 westbound out of Alexandria.

And this morning, more than a dozen school districts in northern Minnesota have delayed or canceled classes, KARE-TV in the Twin Cities is reporting.

A winter storm warning remained in effect until 7 a.m. today in northeast Minnesota. The warning indicates that significant amounts of heavy snow, freezing rain and sleet are expected. The snow will make travel hazardous or impossible, the National Weather Service said.

The snow in northern Minnesota is expected to end by late this morning, but 1 to 2 additional inches of snow will fall before then. The storm is likely to move into western Wisconsin later this morning.

Another storm system may bring more snow to the northern part of the state by the end of the week, the weather service said.

Other heavy snowfalls were reported in Babbitt with 22 inches, Tower, 19, Grand Rapids 25, Wirt, 22 , and Cohasset 23.5. Lake Bemidji reported 13 inches, Wilton, 12.5, Zerkel, 18, and New York Mills, 13 inches.

Snow was coming down at the rate of 1 to 2 inches per hour on Sunday afternoon.

A St. Louis County sheriff's deputy says "quite a few" vehicles were in the ditch all the way toward Hibbing Sunday afternoon, but no serious injuries were reported.

Heavy snow also fell in the Morris, Alexandria and Staples area of west-central Minnesota. Grand Forks reported 6 inches of snow

I-94 westbound out of Alexandria was closed early today. About 6 inches of snow fell in that area.

Today in the Twin Cities will bring a 40 percent chance of light snow between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. The skies will be mostly cloudy and temperatures will hit a high of around 39 degrees. Tonight, temperatures should drop to about 28 degrees.

On Tuesday look for rain after 1 p.m. and temperatures should rise to about 44 degrees with winds of 6 to 9 miles per hour.

Staff Writers John McIntyre and Tim Harlow contributed.

Information from: Mesabi Daily News, http://www.virginiamn.com

fizzissist

04-07-2008, 01:54 PM

jhowelb, since you brought up forests....
In the news we're seeing finger pointing of more forest fires as another proof/result of Gorebull Warming. Whoops. That isn't quite the case.

"..During the ten years from 1988 to 1997, eighty-eight percent of wildfires were attributed to human causes and twelve percent to lightning. However, these lightning caused "natural fires" accounted for fifty-two percent of the total acres burned...twelve percent of the fires resulted in fifty-two percent of the acres burned, and it gets worse. In 2001, lightning caused fifty-nine percent of the fires and accounted for eighty-two percent of the acres burned, www.nifc.gov/fire_info/nfn.htm "

98% of the wildland fires my kid fought this last summer were human caused.

jhowelb

04-07-2008, 02:13 PM

There is another dimension to the fires that is also tied to the left and sets my teeth on edge.

The ecco nuts are doing everything possible to keep citizens out of the forests and businesses from profiting from them.

As a boy we could camp anyplace we wanted in the Arizona forests and without much danger of fire because the cattle and logging companies keep the underbrush cut back in order to protect their interests.

Cut to today when no one is allowed to cut anything anywhere nor to camp anywhere but an "approved camp ground" and fire danger is rife, losses to fire are staggering and wildlife is in steep decline.

Score another victory for the "illuminated" left with their deep thinking New York forestry experts!! Thanks for nothing!!

fizzissist

04-07-2008, 02:27 PM

The TRPA (Tahoe Regional Planning A[insert you know what I really wanna say here]) that governs the Lake Tahoe region that sprawls over California and Nevada has created over the decades just such a nightmare.

The good news is that crews are working diligently to clear the dense underbrush and clear out trees that contribute to a fire going major. It's long, hard work, and it's not cheap.

Like you, I can't tell you how I miss ...just going camping. It isn't fun anymore.

GORDYKD

04-07-2008, 02:31 PM

Score another victory for the "illuminated" left with their deep thinking New York forestry experts!! Thanks for nothing!!

Here in the midwest we have a similar "enlightend buracracy" trying to protect us from ourselves. with the anual spring thaw comes the presence of frost boils on the rural gravel roads, very common and although a great hazard to travel if you are not prudent in where and how you drive to avoid them nothing can really be done to prevent them short of not driving on the roads. Enter the great wise ones, county board of supervisors, all from the metropolitan area of the county with no agricultural background. Their enlightend wisdom dictates that there will be no vehicles over 15,000 lbs. allowed on the rural roads for the next 90 days while the roadbeds are soft. I must mention at this point that the predominant industry in these rural areas is agriculture. Numerous very large hog, cattle and grain farms. Each of these farms operates much as any business with schedules for delivery and contracts to fill and obviously the animals must be fed requiring feed trucks weighing in at 5 times the stated limit to arrive up to twice a week. Yet the wise ones have decided that they can just close the roads for 90 days.

xyzdonna

04-07-2008, 02:42 PM

Except for the "inconvenient truth" illustrated in the two graphics provided by Mariss and my self. No evidence that our "resources" are strained exists and my offer for nomination for the "Darwin Award" still stands for anyone so concerned with over population as to take a near by exit!

We have already seen your ability to be selective blind to any thing which you already have an opinion, like election and narcotics laws. Most Liberals can rationalize any thing at all and this statement PROVES it!

Yes, their record is at least as good as that of the Democrat Party. The stench of corruption would drive a dog off a gut wagon!

Insincerity is the greatest insult one can heap on a man of intelligence and integrity.

You owe Rekd a huge apology!

(Do you ever pay any attention to your spell checker?)

Hi jhowelb,
My spell checker was on the other computer, the one I can't get on the internet anymore with. This is the laptop, it can still get on the internet. My two plug in boxes don't connect for some reason. Looks like you won't have xyzdonna to kick around anymore, at least till I can figure out how to get back on the internet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Tempus

04-07-2008, 04:03 PM

Me: Well, as one of the "environmentalist nut cases", of course I have to disagree. We must reach a homeostasis with our environment. Anything else is suicidal. Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. All the bad things Geof spoke about are going to happen. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives. Also, that we survive in an enhanced (evolved) form. The coming decades will be traumatic. Let us hope they will portend a new order of things. An order of sanity, reason and logic, as opposed to capricious and contentious superstition and religion.
Take care,
xyzdonna

We have stopped Evolving, and began Devolution.
No longer will the stong survive, and the weak be culled. Now; thanks in large part to liberal politicians, the strong pay the price for the weak of mind and back. We now take so much care not to offend, and not to dare hold back the ignorance in this country that we are losing the potential to evolve further.

and yes, for the record, I am a conservative, but have a few things in the republican party I certainly do not agree with.

Years ago the Republicans, and the Democrats were different. They had opposing views, but could discuss things, and see the other side of the aisle.

Left----------Middle----------Right

Looking to pick up the middle, the Right leaned in a bit. The Left were far wiser and went further and further Left, so far that if a Right winger was to be leaning to the middle, they would actually be further left than the left originally was.

Left------------------Middle----------------------------------Right

Terminology has also been bandied about by the ignorant. Fascism, and Communism to be precise. Really look at the meaning of the words, and figure out that they are not Right wing definitions....

Reagan was once shown a poll, and rather than consider changing his view to match the poll, he said,"Well, We’ll just have to educate them" This was concerning pulling out of the recession he walked into. Not saying that he was a brilliant man, but he did have a belief in himself.

If I saw that in one of our candidates, even if I didn’t like their stands, I would seriously consider voting that way. Conviction in your beliefs is not based on polls.

Most Americans are ignorant. Yeah, I said it. This view comes from watching our great country believe in "Reality TV" or that news isn’t skewed, or that Global Warming is a Fact.

The Earth is Cyclical is its changes.

We are foolish enough to believe that the rantings of non-learned people are scientific facts, and are conceited enough to believe that we can "change the world"

Even if it were true (not even close) and all of America went totally Green (another bunch of political bull****) we would have no effect on the planet. India and China are now the 2 greatest industrial countries in the world and have little or no concern about regulating pollution.

Now I do prefer a cleaner environment, but let’s call it that and do what we can rather than call it Global Warming and have Politicians ram it down your throat like some seventies pornstar.

Rekd

04-07-2008, 04:07 PM

Looks like you won't have xyzdonna to kick around anymore,

Don't threaten me with a good time, missy! :banana:

xyzdonna

04-07-2008, 09:55 PM

Don't threaten me with a good time, missy! :banana:

Hi Rekd,
I'm back and I've finally got this *amn computer up and running. Say Rekd, what kind of 4 wheeler is that you're riding in the pix. Spouse and I just bought a Honda 5 speed fuel injected 4-wheeler, 420 cc I think. It's hot.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-07-2008, 10:15 PM

We have stopped Evolving, and began Devolution.
No longer will the stong survive, and the weak be culled. Now; thanks in large part to liberal politicians, the strong pay the price for the weak of mind and back. We now take so much care not to offend, and not to dare hold back the ignorance in this country that we are losing the potential to evolve further.

Me: Much of what you say is true, and more isn't. Evolution is the way it happened. That's how we became who we are. To ignore that is idiocy. To say that "thanks in large part to liberal politicians the strong pay the price for the weak of mind and back" is also idiocy. It simply doesn't happen that way.

"and yes, for the record, I am a conservative, but have a few things in the republican party I certainly do not agree with.

Years ago the Republicans, and the Democrats were different. They had opposing views, but could discuss things, and see the other side of the aisle.

Left----------Middle----------Right

Looking to pick up the middle, the Right leaned in a bit. The Left were far wiser and went further and further Left, so far that if a Right winger was to be leaning to the middle, they would actually be further left than the left originally was.

Left------------------Middle----------------------------------Right

Terminology has also been bandied about by the ignorant. Fascism, and Communism to be precise. Really look at the meaning of the words, and figure out that they are not Right wing definitions....

Reagan was once shown a poll, and rather than consider changing his view to match the poll, he said,"Well, We’ll just have to educate them" This was concerning pulling out of the recession he walked into. Not saying that he was a brilliant man, but he did have a belief in himself.

If I saw that in one of our candidates, even if I didn’t like their stands, I would seriously consider voting that way. Conviction in your beliefs is not based on polls.

Most Americans are ignorant. Yeah, I said it. This view comes from watching our great country believe in "Reality TV" or that news isn’t skewed, or that Global Warming is a Fact.

The Earth is Cyclical is its changes.

We are foolish enough to believe that the rantings of non-learned people are scientific facts, and are conceited enough to believe that we can "change the world"

Even if it were true (not even close) and all of America went totally Green (another bunch of political bull****) we would have no effect on the planet. India and China are now the 2 greatest industrial countries in the world and have little or no concern about regulating pollution.

Now I do prefer a cleaner environment, but let’s call it that and do what we can rather than call it Global Warming and have Politicians ram it down your throat like some seventies pornstar.

Well, you do have some ideas I want to consider, let me think about what you have said and get back with you. My computer has been on the fritz and I've just now come back online.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Rekd

04-08-2008, 10:39 AM

...what kind of 4 wheeler is that you're riding in the pix. Spouse and I just bought a Honda 5 speed fuel injected 4-wheeler, 420 cc I think.

That's no me donna, that's my kid riding in our back yard. He's 4 years old in that picture doing jumps. The quad he's riding is a 50cc Kazuma.

He can also ride a motorcycle...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/FukNRekd/Cz/Cz_elec-moto.jpg

Little bastid can ride the wheels off just about anything. He was riding his bicycle with NO training wheels since he was 3, and his little brother is even MORE in to riding.

I really don't know why you decided to buy that gas guzzling, air polluting, ground destroying death trap. It's very un-liberal of you and your friends will likely not approve. Gonna suck if the liberal control freaks succeed (http://www.atvsource.com/articles/articles/2008/040808_atv_size_restrictions_based_childs_age_instead_size_experience.htm)in making it so my kids can't ride. (chair)

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 10:56 AM

fizzissist

04-08-2008, 12:05 PM

Liberals should not be allowed to drive or ride ANYTHING that would make them even appear to be hypocrites.

...With the obvious exceptions of Al Gore, Madonna, Bono, Leo di Coprolite, James Hansen, or the hordes of celebrities or activists working so hard to educate us to change OUR lifestyles...
----------------------------------------------------------------
This just in at junkscience.com... :)

Oh, to be in England…

…now that April’s there.
And whoever wakes in England
Sees, some morning, unaware,
That the lowest boughs and the brushwood sheaf
Round the elm-tree bole are in tiny leaf,
While the chaffinch sings on the orchard bough
In England - now!
- Robert Browning

Oh, to be in Heathrow Terminal 5,

Now that snow is there…

British Airways has cancelled more than 120 flights after snow added to the list of woes at Heathrow’s Terminal 5. With 12 flights scrapped from the schedule because of ongoing problems with the automated baggage system, another 126 were axed because of the cold weather.

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 01:51 PM

<snip>

I really don't know why you decided to buy that gas guzzling, air polluting, ground destroying death trap. It's very un-liberal of you and your friends will likely not approve. <snip>

As with all hypocrites....uh, I mens Liberals, uh...oh ...same thing! (HMMMM)
They are allowed to drive, fly, buy, steal or waste anything they want. Like Algore et al! After all their intentions are good and their motives ar3e pure. See, it how you FEEL about these things that count.

Did you notice how she is still side stepping all those inconvenient things that she can't answer?

Then they wonder why folks begin to gag and puke when they open their mouths to spew this crap!!

Hey, Wxyz, have you changed anyones way of thinking on this zone? Yea, didn't think so!

Rekd

04-08-2008, 02:45 PM

Did you notice how she is still side stepping all those inconvenient things that she can't answer?

I noticed that many many pages ago. Many. Pages. Ago. (nuts)

I'm not sure why there are still a few here trying to have a cogent conversation with her. You know it's not going to happen. You'll make your points, backed up by facts in many cases (and common sense in others), and she'll promptly and reliably ignore them. :p

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 03:27 PM

Just like the apology that I recommended she offer you..............................
DEAD silence! Those are things the left have in common across the board.

True, nothing will ever be convincing enough to her to make a change. I too, long time back, announced that my purpose was to simply assure her, her kind and anyone else reading that I, at least will always stand in opposition the lunatic left. I am not alone. Fully 50% of the populace oppose them as well as has been shown in all those closely contested elections.

In the word of a really wise man, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

xyzdonna

04-08-2008, 05:27 PM

I noticed that many many pages ago. Many. Pages. Ago. (nuts)

I'm not sure why there are still a few here trying to have a cogent conversation with her. You know it's not going to happen. You'll make your points, backed up by facts in many cases (and common sense in others), and she'll promptly and reliably ignore them. :p

Hi Rekd,
Sorry, I don't do that deliberately. It's been a bad week. I've started classes at a local vocational school, the main internet computer fritzed out, and I've been working on some signs for some property spouse and I are developing. The internet computer was the biggie. I was pulling my hair out calling tech support for Comcast. They first connect you to a bimbo who is obviously reading from a menu card. When she finally realizes that you know more than she does she kicks you upstairs to the real tech guy. Here it's guess and by gosh, sometimes you luck up and get someone who really knows his stuff. I finally got someone who got me back up on the new computer in about 3 minutes. Dude was really sharp. I praised him effusively, I think I embarresed the poor guy.
OK, now what point do you want me to address?
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-08-2008, 06:14 PM

Well, after all it is their self appointed DUTY to protect you from yourself, your children and the environment from you and to prevent all splinters, scrapes, scabs, bruises, bumps and callouses. You simply can't be trusted to make any decisions for yourself because they are ENLIGHTENED!!!

Hi jhowelb,
You know, I've been thinking a lot lately about the differences between liberals and conservatives. The chasm between us is not as wide as you may think. Thanks to this forum I've tried to understand conservatives a little better. You must remember that I really don't have many liberal friends. My whole family is conservative, even my dear sweet 'ol mother. I can, however, hold conversations with her and explain my misgivings about where this country is going and receive cogent and well thought out responses. This is impossible with my brother in law the idiot. He just gets mad.
Now let me tell you a little about him. He took a college degree in history, I got mine in psychology. Both are useless unless you go on to grad school and neither of us did. Mariss on the other hand obtained an EE degree. This you can use out of the box with only a BS. I assume that's as far as he went but I don't know that. Obviously he has a talent for what he does, that's why he's so successful in designing his drives. So where is all this leading? My brother in law has decided to kick back and let my sister support him until he reaches retirement age. He can't get a job, what can you do with a history degree unless it's a doctorate? Same with psychology. I haven't kicked back, I'm off to technical school to learn a new skill. So in one sense I guess I'm kind of conservative in believing you should continually strive to do something. I live an examined life, unlike my brother in law. He goes to church and votes Republican. That's about all he knows.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-08-2008, 06:34 PM

As with all hypocrites....uh, I mens Liberals, uh...oh ...same thing! (HMMMM)
They are allowed to drive, fly, buy, steal or waste anything they want. Like Algore et al! After all their intentions are good and their motives ar3e pure. See, it how you FEEL about these things that count.

Did you notice how she is still side stepping all those inconvenient things that she can't answer?

Then they wonder why folks begin to gag and puke when they open their mouths to spew this crap!!

Hey, Wxyz, have you changed anyones way of thinking on this zone? Yea, didn't think so!

Hi jhowelb,
Actually I have changed someone's thinking. My own. I once espoused anthropogenic global warming and now I'm not so sure I believe in it. I guess Geof, Mariss and yourself helped change that. Now I think, what would have happened if Gore had gotten the presidency? I suppose he would have proceeded on the assumption that man was causing climate change and that really hasn’t been established. I wonder where we'd be now? Surly not in Iraq. Better off or worse? We'll never know.
As the only person (to my knowledge) who has actually changed their mind on this discussion, what would you conclude? That I was the only one who was wrong, or the only one who was open minded?
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 07:02 PM

Hi jhowelb,
Actually I have changed someone's thinking. My own. I once espoused anthropogenic global warming and now I'm not so sure I believe in it. I guess Geof, Mariss and yourself helped change that. Now I think, what would have happened if Gore had gotten the presidency? I suppose he would have proceeded on the assumption that man was causing climate change and that really hasn’t been established. I wonder where we'd be now? Surly not in Iraq. Better off or worse? We'll never know.
As the only person (to my knowledge) who has actually changed their mind on this discussion, what would you conclude? That I was the only one who was wrong, or the only one who was open minded?
Take care,
xyzdonna

....... or the one being dishonest?

Had Gore moved into the Whitehouse we would have the full weight of the international boot on our neck, you included. You need disparately to learn that those people do not have your interests at heart! You are nothing more than chattel!

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 07:26 PM

Hi jhowelb,
You know, I've been thinking a lot lately about the differences between liberals and conservatives. The chasm between us is not as wide as you may think. Thanks to this forum I've tried to understand conservatives a little better. You must remember that I really don't have many liberal friends. My whole family is conservative, even my dear sweet 'ol mother. I can, however, hold conversations with her and explain my misgivings about where this country is going and receive cogent and well thought out responses. This is impossible with my brother in law the idiot. He just gets mad.
Now let me tell you a little about him. He took a college degree in history, I got mine in psychology. Both are useless unless you go on to grad school and neither of us did. Mariss on the other hand obtained an EE degree. This you can use out of the box with only a BS. I assume that's as far as he went but I don't know that. Obviously he has a talent for what he does, that's why he's so successful in designing his drives. So where is all this leading? My brother in law has decided to kick back and let my sister support him until he reaches retirement age. He can't get a job, what can you do with a history degree unless it's a doctorate? Same with psychology. I haven't kicked back, I'm off to technical school to learn a new skill. So in one sense I guess I'm kind of conservative in believing you should continually strive to do something. I live an examined life, unlike my brother in law. He goes to church and votes Republican. That's about all he knows.
Take care,
xyzdonna

The chasm is so much wider than you could ever possibly imagine, as much as living in reversed universes. mater vs intimater!

If you had lots of Liberals very close to you, still you would have no Liberal friends. Look how quickly all the friends of the Hildabeast are turning on her. And even FOBs are now SOBs!!! They will cut your throat in a heart beat when it serves them!

If it is you goal to understand conservatives you are already going down the road to defeat. We do not walk, think, act, believe or breath as a block unit. If you want to understand a conservative you must first view him as an individual. One of a kind who may share some notions of right and wrong, good and evil with some other folks but like snowflakes.

To be conservative is to love of the best of America that has been from the start. And to want to pass the best on to progeny. To believe in the basic good of mankind and to be optimistic about his abilities to DO IT FOR HIMSELF BETTER THAN GOVERNMENT CAN! (or will)

Now, you may not really be Liberal. You may just THINK you are. You will have to travel light years to understand conservatives.

On the other hand, a new conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged! (Joe Lieberman?)

As far as the brother in law is concerned, walk a mile in his shoes............
There is a lot you DON'T know about him, them, their lives together.
(think speck in his eye and log in yours)

xyzdonna

04-08-2008, 07:47 PM

....... or the one being dishonest?

Had Gore moved into the Whitehouse we would have the full weight of the international boot on our neck, you included. You need disparately to learn that those people do not have your interests at heart! You are nothing more than chattel!

Hi jhowelb,
Dishonest? Surly you can't accuse me of that, I've been truthful with every post. Didn't you notice that I have a conservative side? My disdain for my brother in law who has retired quite a few years before normal retirement age while I, who am older, still work? He identifies with conservatives because he's religious and votes Republican. Is he really a conservative? I don't think he knows the answer to that. I know that I'm a liberal.
Here in Chattanooga we have a conservative mayor. He's put in those new automated harassment cameras all over town (they call them automated enforcement). Go through the red light while it's yellow and if it happens to turn red while you're in the intersection shazaam, they photo your license plate and you get a $50 ticket. They have those out in California yet? They are everywhere, all the little conservative redneck towns around here are putting them in. I've been nailed 3 times already! Does it make for a safer city? NO!
I finally decided to fight the last ticket to no avail. I lost. But I learned something. This 'ol codger came in and said he'd never been to court in his life, never got a ticket before. Sorry said the judge, the cameras don't lie. $50. The only accident I've had in the last 15 years was when some kid ran into me. And now I'm getting all these tickets. I'm thinking of moving out of this godforsaken town, either that or running for mayor. Liberals can do better than that.
Sorry for the rant,
Take care,
xyzdonna

debogus

04-08-2008, 08:14 PM

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 08:24 PM

And conservative is doing the right thing.........when nobody is looking!

xyzdonna

04-08-2008, 08:37 PM

"Here in Chattanooga we have a conservative mayor. He's put in those new automated harassment cameras all over town "
Why ?
Just because he's conservative ?
Maybe he got tired of fools that drive like idiots and cameras are cheaper than officers.
Or is he a RINO and thinks this is just a money making opportunity ?
Whats the percent of all the other city offices ? All conservative ?

The traps I love , are the pedistrian cross walk stings .
More fun when I do them myself. You see ,the rules are there for a reason.

Dave

Hi debogus,
The traps you love? And you are a conservative? So big brother is placing these cameras all over the place to photograph your every move, any indiscretion and you are caught. This is the society that you want? What, have we switched positions? Am I now a conservative and you a liberal? It makes you think now doesn't it?
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-08-2008, 08:39 PM

And conservative is doing the right thing.........when nobody is looking!

Hi jhowelb,
Liberal is doing the right thing all the time!
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 09:11 PM

Hi jhowelb,
Liberal is doing the right thing all the time!
Take care,
xyzdonna

Define "is"!

jhowelb

04-08-2008, 09:12 PM

Los Angeles considers global warming tax
April 7, 2008 - 9:58AM

To fight global warming, a bill in Sacramento would enable Los Angeles County transit officials to increase taxes on motorists. It's a bad idea that may foreshadow even worse to come.

Billed as a "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee," the measure would cost motorists either an additional 3 percent motor fuel tax, or up to a $90 annual flat fee, based on vehicle emissions. The new charges would be on top of taxes already paid at the pump. Either option requires a majority approval by a vote of the people.

"At this point the people of the Los Angeles region have just had it when it comes to traffic and air quality," claimed Assemblyman Mike Feuer, a Los Angeles Democrat and author of Assembly Bill 2558.

We concur about the traffic mess, but with little else Mr. Feuer claims in seeking to overtax motorists. The assemblyman's sleight of hand conflates two issues, the real problem of congested traffic and the contrived emergency of so-called global warming.

Congested traffic is easily verifiable. If it went away tomorrow, politicians would be unable to persuade voters to tax themselves to fix it.

Global warming at best amounts to less than a degree of temperature increase during the past century. If the recent several-year cooling trend is an indication, global warming may be going away. But because the only "proof" of long-term catastrophic consequences lies in contrived computer models, politicians like Mr. Feuer can insist even as temperatures decline that doomsday still lies ahead unless people tax themselves to fix the problem.

Los Angeles County motorists should ask Mr. Feuer what global temperature would persuade him that a new tax is unneeded. Global warming, now conveniently rechristened "climate change," is perfect for demagoguery. Those advancing the cause won't explain how they will know we have won the global warming fight, let alone what the ideal temperature is supposed to be.

Climate has changed as long as the Earth has spun on its axis. It's been considerably warmer in recent centuries than today, and during those periods humanity simply adapted, indeed, flourished with fewer cold-weather deaths and more abundant crops.

But facts don't deter schemes like Mr. Feuer's to raise $400 million in additional taxes to pay for already funded transit projects. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority would have to place the issue on the ballot if AB2558 becomes law, and probably would do so because the agency would reap the bounty.

We hope, however, that motorists see the ploy for what it is and reject the additional tax. If not, it's a good bet this scare tactic will be repeated throughout the state.

dynosor

04-09-2008, 02:03 AM

What, have we switched positions? Am I now a conservative and you a liberal?

Oh what a mobius strip you weave...

CNC_Programmer

04-09-2008, 06:10 AM

Hi debogus,
The traps you love? And you are a conservative? So big brother is placing these cameras all over the place to photograph your every move, any indiscretion and you are caught. This is the society that you want? What, have we switched positions? Am I now a conservative and you a liberal? It makes you think now doesn't it?
Take care,
xyzdonna

There's really a short quick answer to those tickets. OBEY THE LAW! That's a conservitave view!

Rekd

04-09-2008, 07:47 AM

Sorry, I don't do that deliberately.

Ya know... if you did it once or twice, or five times or ten, I might believe you. But you've conveniently ignored dozens of questions over the last couple thousand posts.

I only read your drivel because I have to. (nuts)

fizzissist

04-09-2008, 02:33 PM

I've got a great idea. Let's let the liberals pay the bills, and if they're successful, then the conservatives will gladly join in!!

BANGKOK, 7 April 2008 (IRIN) - Countries, mostly in the developing world, could spend between US$6 to $18 billion a year by 2030 to manage additional costs to health services as a result of climate change, according to independent research cited by a World Health Organisation (WHO) official, hence the need for rich countries responsible for global warming to help pay towards these additional health costs. "That figure was based on a WHO assessment, which found that modest global warming since the 1970s was already causing over 150,000 excess deaths every year by 2000 - the costs and the estimates would now be higher," said Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, one of the authors of a new WHO report, released on World Health Day.

Read the entire article of hooey at:
http://www.irinnews.org/PrintReport.aspx?ReportId=77651

Everyone who dies of disease can blame global warming????

Next we're gonna be hearing that global warming is harming NASCAR lap times.

dynosor

04-09-2008, 03:29 PM

Next we're gonna be hearing that global warming is harming NASCAR lap times.

But it does! Higher air temperature reduces intake charge density. Less oxygen to burn fuel and lower effective compression both reduce power.

This assumes that GW has actually raised the air temperature at the time of the race. Right now, it seems GW has produced a useful drop in temperatures and should yield some good lap times.

I know GW causing a drop in temperature doesn't make sense, but then those pushing solutions for this tripe have alterior motives.

For instance, this democrat proposes biofuel as a means of population reduction: "Corn ethanol may be a lousy fuel, but it could be a great population control technology…"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=141791&mesg_id=141791 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=141791&mesg_id=141791)

jhowelb

04-09-2008, 03:35 PM

TomB

04-09-2008, 07:10 PM

I don’t believe that global warming should be a liberal/conservative issue. That it is, is only the result of entrenched interests protecting their cash flow. Look at the big picture; any or all of these three things could be true:
1) CO2 emissions might be causing or amplifying global warming.
2) Loss of manufacturing jobs may be destroying the US economy which in turn will hurt the global economy.
3) We, the US and most other countries, are being heldup by the oil producing nations.

The answer to all of these problems is to develop an alternate source of energy. This note could get much longer if all alternates were discussed, but in summary the most viable is nuclear using next generation pebble bed reactors. If we put our mind to inventing the way to replace all of our major power needs with no-CO2-emmision nuclear we could positively address each of these areas. Why not consider this an opportunity?

This is an international forum, so I don’t want to be to US centric, but seriously attacking this problem could serve to guide the solution to several other problems. For example, how do we generate the wealth needed for baby boomer retirements and how do we motivate young people to pursue science, engineering and math.

These are all serious problems that require complex thinking by people like us, technical guys/gals that understand rules. When I see a discussion like this degrade into a conservative/liberal diatribe I feel bad for the lost opportunity we had to debate the big picture.
Tom

jhowelb

04-09-2008, 08:55 PM

All the lamenting and gnashing of teeth you can muster for the "lost cause" won't change the blunt truth. It IS a left right issue with those on the left trumping up this line of crap for the specific purpose of shearing the sheeple for profit and political power. Open your eyes and look at the jerks who stand to gain and they are all on the left or in socialistic third word countries who also want a big slice of the America tax pie.

Sorry but your "third way" is nothing more than capitulation. That I will never do. I was born and raised in the US, went to war, fought and bled in the company of heroes who died for this country and I don't mind one damned bit being US-centric. THIS is the country I care about and the rest can damned well provide for themselves or go hungry! I'm sick to death of the gimme attitude of the third world, we give and give and then they shout death to America!! Screw them!

If you want a solution to the energy "crisis" find a way to shut the mouths of the nit wit greenies that protest every damned thing that does not directly put them on easy street.
The conversation went South when the first of them decided they could make a buck. (Can you say Algore?)

fizzissist

04-09-2008, 09:04 PM

I don’t believe that global warming should be a liberal/conservative issue. .......When I see a discussion like this degrade into a conservative/liberal diatribe I feel bad for the lost opportunity we had to debate the big picture.
Tom
Tom,
Go back and look at the discussion and how liberal/conservative made it's way into it. IT DIDN'T. The entire discussion is a result of LIBERAL interests running this AGW crap up the flagpole and DEMANDING that everyone salute it.

This whole thing is primarily a result of liberal interests trying to foist the blame for something practically non-existent on the opposition, creating a popular wedge. It was intended to strengthen their control, and hence, profits.

It's turned political because, well, it IS political. It's never been scientific.

Here AlGore tell you to buy carbon credits:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/1

Here's where he tells you to go:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Once again, his own carbon credit money sequestering company is Generation Investment Management....

xyzdonna

04-10-2008, 08:30 AM

Hi Tom,
Quote Tom:
I don’t believe that global warming should be a liberal/conservative issue. That it is, is only the result of entrenched interests protecting their cash flow. Look at the big picture; any or all of these three things could be true:
1) CO2 emissions might be causing or amplifying global warming.

Me: I guess I'm partly to blame for injecting politics into the discussion. But it's so much fun, it really upsets conservatives! CO2 emissions probably are affecting global warming, but they are only one of the factors. Sunspots and natural cyclical variations come into play as well.

Quote Tom:
The answer to all of these problems is to develop an alternate source of energy. This note could get much longer if all alternates were discussed, but in summary the most viable is nuclear using next generation pebble bed reactors. If we put our mind to inventing the way to replace all of our major power needs with no-CO2-emmision nuclear we could positively address each of these areas. Why not consider this an opportunity?

This is an international forum, so I don’t want to be to US centric, but seriously attacking this problem could serve to guide the solution to several other problems. For example, how do we generate the wealth needed for baby boomer retirements and how do we motivate young people to pursue science, engineering and math.

These are all serious problems that require complex thinking by people like us, technical guys/gals that understand rules. When I see a discussion like this degrade into a conservative/liberal diatribe I feel bad for the lost opportunity we had to debate the big picture.

Me:That's a good thought, but it was pointed out by Geof that building nuclear reactors releases tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The problem is the enormous amount of concrete required. Concrete manufacturing is very intensive in terms of CO2. Still, you have a good idea. France doesn't have an energy problem, they went all nuclear a long time back.

Take care,
xyzdonna

Mariss Freimanis

04-10-2008, 09:08 AM

"I guess I'm partly to blame for injecting politics into the discussion. But it's so much fun, it really upsets conservatives!"

And:

"When I see a discussion like this degrade into a conservative/liberal diatribe I feel bad for the lost opportunity we had to debate the big picture."

I guess you never really got a firm hold on that "cause and effect" thingy.

Mariss

fizzissist

04-10-2008, 09:51 AM

I guess you never really got a firm hold on that "cause and effect" thingy.

Mariss
I think you've found the quintessential definition of euphemism.

>"When I see a discussion like this degrade into a conservative/liberal diatribe I feel bad for the lost opportunity we had to debate the big picture."

The "big" picture has two sides...one, political, the other, scientific. There has been zero qualified debate on the scientific side by anyone from the AGW camp. None.

Whenever the AGW argument is shown to be without factual basis, they start flinging the noun "conservative" surrounded by derogatory adjectives. Like denier. AlGore goes so far as say we're likened to those who still believe the earth is flat. It wasn't the conservatives who started this fracas, it was liberals....and they have the nerve to come here and claim liberals are being denied somehow the opportunity/right/whatever to debate??

Classic. You can't win the argument on topic, so you change the subject.

xyzdonna, you say that it's fun to upset the conservatives, and at the same time bemoan the discussion degrading into a diatribe. Maybe I'm confused as to your motives?

xyzdonna

04-10-2008, 09:58 AM

xyzdonna

04-10-2008, 10:23 AM

I think you've found the quintessential definition of euphemism.

>"When I see a discussion like this degrade into a conservative/liberal diatribe I feel bad for the lost opportunity we had to debate the big picture."

The "big" picture has two sides...one, political, the other, scientific. There has been zero qualified debate on the scientific side by anyone from the AGW camp. None.

Whenever the AGW argument is shown to be without factual basis, they start flinging the noun "conservative" surrounded by derogatory adjectives. Like denier. AlGore goes so far as say we're likened to those who still believe the earth is flat. It wasn't the conservatives who started this fracas, it was liberals....and they have the nerve to come here and claim liberals are being denied somehow the opportunity/right/whatever to debate??

Classic. You can't win the argument on topic, so you change the subject.

xyzdonna, you say that it's fun to upset the conservatives, and at the same time bemoan the discussion degrading into a diatribe. Maybe I'm confused as to your motives?

Hi fizzissist,
Perhaps my post was confusing. TomB was bemoaning the fact that the discussion had degraded into a diatribe. I'm the one who made the political comment. I see that a little humor is not appreciated by conservatives however.
Also, maybe the fact that AGW is not being debated is a result of the fact that no one on this forum is currently championing it. I've come around to Geof's way of thinking on the subject.
Take care,
xyzdonna

fizzissist

04-10-2008, 11:32 AM

No one is championing it??
I'm inclined to think that anyone who is liberal is, since I see not a single liberal elected official or party backer jumping the AGW ship.

I guess that puts you in a quandry....if you're a true liberal, and the liberals are demanding adherence to a new world order based on THEIR solution to a problem that they've created...how do you reconcile your position of accepting "Geof's way of thinking"??
-------------------------------------------------------

The slick trick behind global frauding"In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.

That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science...."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_slick_trick_behind_global.html

jhowelb

04-10-2008, 11:36 AM

Hi Mariss,
I guess not, I really don't understand what you are saying.
Take care,
xyzdonna

That's because YOU are confused, there isn't any cause/effect in either postulation.

Toms points one and two are fabrications and point 3 is irrelevant to GoreBull warming and is more relevant to interference in the free market by government/internists on the left/ecology agenda forcing the purchase of foreign oil vs recovering our own.

The crisis has been manufactured....again for MONEY! (power)

handlewanker

04-10-2008, 01:27 PM

jhowelb

04-10-2008, 02:07 PM

Hi all, you all overlook the FACT, that with the population increasing unsustainably at the present rate,................
Ian.

You are confusing fact with your own opinion!

Mariss Freimanis

04-10-2008, 03:09 PM

FACT: Human beings dissipate 100W of heat, 2.4kW-hrs per day. This is an inconsequential amount of energy. Secondly, human beings are solar powered; the fuel they consume is recently stored solar energy be it vegetable or animal. That makes human metabolic contribution zero.

The earth has sufficient arable land to sustain 45 billion people, 8 times the present population.

Most people on earth still use wood fires for cooking. That wood is recently stored solar power as well and has no contribution to the earth's heating.

"Over-population" is a misanthropically driven aesthetic concern instead of an actual one. Only agrarian or subsistence level societies have large numbers of children. It makes sense then to have many hands available in a family to eke-out a labor intensive and inefficient existence. Once a society becomes industrialized, birth rates plummet. It then makes sense to have only a couple of children because of the education they require to function in society. Knowledge and education, not many strong backs are needed.

People in third-world countries have a lot of children per family. The people are not ignorant, stupid or irresponsible. It is because their survival strategy is different than the survival strategy that applies in developed countries.

You want less people in the world? Then hope everyone develops a technological society.

Mariss

jhowelb

04-10-2008, 03:29 PM

POST#1400

Perhaps you would volunteer to lead the parade to a smaller population?

I'd be only too happy to nominate you for a "Darwin Award"!!

The offer is still good, any takers?

fizzissist

04-10-2008, 04:06 PM

Hi all, you all overlook the FACT, that with the population increasing unsustainably at the present rate, global warming will not be a significent problem.

This means that the body temperature of all those "new arrivals" will add to the woes of your present problems.

In their lifetime they will contribute to the energy absorbtion that is on an exponential curve anyway.

You are constantly increasing your energy consumption and so production.

There are no models that account for the extra mouths that require HOT food and drink as a daily requirement, and so the energy spiral increases, no matter if the GOREBULL says it is, it is an undeniable fact that cannot be denied by Liberal, Conservative or COMMIE, or any other camp you care to name.

At the end of the day the phrase "you only know what you had when it's gone" is a hollow ring of truth, and this is a legacy you will hand down to your children.

So far on this thread I have not seen one original thought expressed.

Quoting the popular point of view is just the same as hearsay, and those that voice someone else's opinion are just shallow sycophants trading as original thought.

I respect an original point of view no matter how controversial and despise anyone who merely overstates the current thought pattern in order to impress the lesser mortals.
Ian.

LOL!! Leave it to an Aussie to come up with the innovations. Hangin' upside down too long, me thinks.

Birth rates? Australia's is UP to 1.77/female in '05 from the 1.75 rate just 2 years ago. That's a net rate of 12.4/1000. Maybe it's the $3000 baby bonus the government offers? F___in 4 the Money!! Gotta love it!!

If you want to talk about reducing the number of bodies, then you should start talking to the 138 countries that have higher birth rates than even the US (at 14/1000....certainly influenced by Mexico's 19.3/).

You guys are ones to be preaching, wanna share how much COAL you sell to China?? Did I hear you say that you're helping China to increase their energy consumption??

And your energy consumption...electricity consumption in Australia grew by 54% in the 14 years to 2004.

I must say, you've got some real original thoughts....amusing if not accurate.

xyzdonna

04-10-2008, 07:23 PM

handlewanker

04-10-2008, 07:50 PM

To whom it may concern, my conclusion to your observations "that we hang around upside down" is that you still live in cloud cuckoo land and only believe what sombody else wrote about the rest of the world.

ANYBODY with an ounce of knowledge will know that if you continue to expand your population at the present rate, then by the time it reaches 45 billion hungary mouths to feed there won't be much left to feed it on, given the liking for flesh products and the FACT that there won't be enough arable land to grow the huge amount of crops that an animal food based society requires to feed the animals it lives on, apart from the vast lake of fresh water that even now is rapidly becoming in short supply.

Grow up, look around you, the mess you currently live in is only going to get worse with your current thinking pattern.

It has been hypothesised that the current growth rate of the third world countries will lead to a vast divided society that will only strive by fair means or foul to equalise the balance of advantages that the present affluent society enjoys at the expense of the not so well off group.

Chairman Mao once stated that should the world even contemplate an armed confrontation with them, then they must know that the Chinese could lose 500 million people and still populate the rest of the world.

That's probably what the war cabinet in the good old USA have weighed in the balance when some of their deep thinkers blame their woes on the unfair world domination of ALL markets in ALL commodities by the Chinese.

The Japanese in 1936 sought to increase their market potential by going to war with the then very backward and fragmented Chinese society but got tamed in the process.

I hate to think what any other third world emerging nation would contemplate if they decided to outgrow the rest of the world in order to produce the amount of cannon fodder required to withstand an armed confrontation.

Global warming is not an issue when you look in your own backyards and see the mess that all your LEARNED thinkers have created.

Wise up all you people, put the world to rights, but come up with some original thinking instead of just quoting somone else's theories and hypothesis, who assumes because they have letters after their name that anything they expound is the gospel truth, and people like yourselves just quote them ad finitum because it makes you feel good.

Your society of doomwatchers will in the end blame it all on the last generation that will not be around to defend their theories or the misinterpretation that pseudo scientists apply to them.

BTW, did you know, and this is a bone of contention with most Aussies, that one of the reasons the OZ mobile encouraged immigration to Australia in the 80's was because of the STAGNANT population growth rate.

The OZ mobile drew on the redundant tradesmen that were thrust onto the world market when jobs back yonder dried up in the recession that occurred worldwide in the early 80's.

It was a standing joke among the Poms that they only came to OZ to show the Aussies how to do it, as they seemed to have forgotten with the low birth rate. ROFLMAO.

So, people of the lesser planet Earth who cannot agree which God of many made the universe, get your act together, agree on a plan for survival, stop trying to score off of the lesser species and come up with some ORIGINAL THOUGHT, so that all may profit by your combined wisdom.
Here's hoping, but not expecting.
Ian.

TomB

04-10-2008, 08:31 PM

I seem to have drawn some fire. Before I respond, note that I’m a 65 year old working engineer and my business is weapon systems. I am not advocating for my industry’s position in that it really does not have a position. Yes, I will be well served by cheaper energy, but since everybody else would be well served by that I don’t feel it should disqualify me for bias. I have done international business and raised a son that is currently on his third tour in the Persian Gulf (USAF) so I’m pretty well aware of how things work in that part of the world. My background gives me every bit as much credence to argue for US positions as does jhowelb, and like jhowelb I am not willing to conceded to international pressure just because it is noisy.

I did not say that arguments for or against global warming were valid. I said that there was at least 3 problems that connect to how we create energy and that there was a solution that could solve all of the real or potential problems and at the same time save us all recurring money.

Jhowelb says I should follow the money. That’s really easy to do since my gas station put a sticker on the pumps that provides the numbers. Out of the $3.30 I spent on a gallon there are taxes, store profit, distribution costs and $2.475 to be split between the refinery and the producing nation. For my gas that is $.56 for Exxon and $1.91 for Saudi Arabia. Note that is the same process and refinery that when gas sold for $1.00, got by on $.19 per gallon and is now making three times that amount. Exxon can do that because they charge a percentage and nobody competes with them. Some call that a windfall profit but I did not. I argued that we need an alternative energy source that forces them to sharpen their pencil. What about the $1.91that goes to Saudi Arabia? Probably $.91 goes to pay for the royal family and $1.00 goes to fund schools that teach kids to spread Islam on the point of a sword. I get upset when I see people arguing it is a left or right wing conspiracy all the while the money flows to ben Ladin’s friends. Yes Mr. jhoweb I have followed the money and it does not go to greenies trying to bilk the public. Maybe they are trying to divert a buck there way, but that is what competition is about. We need that competition because without it the status quo is raping the public. You Mr jhowellb, say you are defending the country against all the left wing greenies but the numbers seem to show your are just protecting Exxon and funding the enemy.

Mr. fizzissist says I should go back and read the whole thread and I will discover this is a liberal conspiracy to shear the public of their money. I’ve followed the whole thread and don’t see it exactly that way, but that is beside the point. I favor the “don’t shot the messenger and instead take full advantage of the message to make your point” approach. I carefully did not say that global warming was caused by man’s carbon emissions. I said maybe it is, maybe it amplifies or maybe you don’t believe that point. I listed 3 reasons why we need an alternative energy and if only 1 or 2 were valid we would still need the solution. Selling the solution will be tough so if the greenies will get on a team to develop alternate energy because they think it will reduce global warming, and the manufacturing jobs advocates will join because cheap energy makes jobs and the gas buying public joins to reduce pump prices we might just build a big enough team to force development of a solution. Mr fizzissist says its political and not scientific. I think it is both and the solution must involve both, but we can’t even get into the discussion if we just say it’s political and resort to name calling. That really was the source of my frustration when I wrote the post. I knew I would be attacked, but it just bothered me too much to ignore.

I tried to make another point; members of CNCzone are numbers people. We are all good at numbers and we really do understand risk as it relates to machines. Every one of us realizes that when we screw up and run the cutting tool into the table stop, steppers don’t fail and servos do. We are a population that is well suited to argue the pro’s and con’s of systems based upon the numbers and risks. If we did that and avoided the labeling, everybody would get smarter. Right next to us is a thread about it taking 95 years to reach payback on a hybrid. It’s a good thread with numbers and satire. That thread is based on 8 cent /kwh and $3.0 /gallon costs. My post advocated for cheap power. Change the basis for that thread to .8 cent power or .08 cent power and look at how it changes the results. Do we have to invent a bit to get there? Obviously, yes. Are we giving away sovereignty to invent a solution? Hell no, we are building something that everybody else will want to buy. (I’m a working engineer, I do things for profit.)

The note is too long and I’ll shut up hereafter, but it’s been something I’ve been thinking about and I had to get it out of me.

Tom

Mariss Freimanis

04-10-2008, 08:49 PM

For a thousand years people have been shouting "The end is near!" Just last week some Russians crawled out of the cave after the world didn't end on schedule. It's idiotic to project anything into the future appended with "at the present rate" because rate and even the +/- sign in front of the rate changes. In the 1870's the New York Times projected NYC will be 6' deep in horse manure if the number of horses in the city continued to grow "at the present rate". How did that projection work out?

The world is not a mess, it's not going to hades in a hand basket and no 3-stooges fire-drill survival plan is needed. It is a wonderful time we live in; people have never been as well-fed, materially rich, long-lived and healthy as they are now. When was this Golden Age you say we have lost? Henry VIII didn't have as a powerful monarch what even poor people take for granted today.

The world will not end. It will still be here, wealthier and better than it is now long after we are gone. Be an optimist.

Mariss

jhowelb

04-10-2008, 09:05 PM

Do you remember when Puerto Rico was raising hell about the US Navy using that nothing little island just off the coast of Puerto Rico for bombing practice, which they had used for the past 75 years?

Demonstrations were held! Hollywood left wingers, Al Sharpton, and his fellow demagogues went down there to demonstrate to get the Navy out!

It infuriated me at the time. Well, here is revenge. Always be careful what you ask for, you just may get it!

One of the many headaches that the U.S. has had was the Puerto Rican island of Vieques. In the waning years of the Clinton Administration protesters demand that the US Navy aba ndon bombing and naval gunfire exercises that had taken place on the largely uninhabited island for nearly seventy years.

In 2002, the bombing exercises were transferred to an Air Force bombing range in central Florda not far from Jacksonville and Pensacola Naval Air Station s. In January, many of the protesters were back in Puerto Rico, celebrating the final bombing exercise on Vieques and waved Puerto Rican flags and placards that read "U. S. Navy, get out of Puerto Rico."

The following February, Rumsfeld announced that the U. S. Navy will close the Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico in 2004, eliminating 1200 civilian jobs as well as 700 military positions. This naval facility is estimated to have put nearly $300 million annually into the local economy.

The next day a stunned Governor Sila Calderon, held a news conference in San Juan protesting the base closure as a serious blow to the Commonwealth's fragile economy. The governor stated that "The people of Puerto Rico don't now or never did have an interest in closing the Vieques bombing range or the Roosevelt Roads naval base. We are i nterested in both staying in Pue rto Rico.

When asked, the Commander-in-Chief, Western Atlantic Command, said, "Without Vieques, I see no further need for the facility at Roosevelt Roads. None."

So, Yankee go home? Fine. But we'll take our dollars with us. Hasta la vista, baby!

On February 21, the Secretary of Defense also announced that starting this year, the U.S. European Command would begin moving most, if not all, of its active combat and support units from bases in Germany to others being established in Poland, The Czech Republic, Hungary and Turkey to "better position them for rapid deployment to likely hot spots in those parts of the world."

Immediately the business and government leaders in the German states of Hesse, Rinelandand Wurttemburg, protested the loss of nearly $6 billion US revenue each year from the bases and manpower to be displaced. A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry speculated that the move may be "what the Americans call 'payback' for the actions of this government in opposing Military action in Iraq."

"Does anyone know the German translation for: "Hasta la vista, baby?" I think "Aufwiedersehen, linesmen" is a good translation.

Oh, isn't it nice to see a government with guts and a good memory???

Also, here are some statistics and conclusions about a different subject.

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, when this was written) that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D. C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. (...and that was while handguns were outlawed!!)

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U. S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: Just maybe the U.S. should pull out of Washington, D.C. !!!!

Mariss Freimanis

04-10-2008, 09:06 PM

jhowelb

04-10-2008, 09:08 PM

I believe it was Harry Truman who said, "I don't give 'em hell, I just tell like I see it and they think it's hell!"

Nope, not gonna let loose a broadside....ain't gonna do it!

TomB

04-10-2008, 10:27 PM

[QUOTE=Mariss Freimanis;437385]Tom,

Good post. Though mentioned, what goes unnamed is this anonymous alternate energy. My point would be if it existed, it would be used. ....

Tom B -
My first post stated it. Nuclear but based upon pebble bed reactor technology. The US built Light Water Reactors in the 60's and that type of reactor has the nortorious failure mechanim that everybody fears The US industry is incrementally advancing to Heavy Water Reactors. They have the same failure mechanism. It is that risk that leads to the need for massive containment concrete that was mentioned in some other response and also the problem of waste disposal and very costly certification processes. But go look at the South African pebble bed reactor approach. It has fail safe characteristics and should not be ignored. Wikipedia has a good technical explination that covers or links to both pros and cons. A Google search for pebble bed reactor will give you reading for several evenings.

In the US we are not looking at this type of solution because the public has been guided to a position where they are too afraid to look at anything and industry on zero budget is just taking incremental steps. That is the real problem that must be addressed and to do so requires cool but rigerous numbers based arguement and as many allies as possible. I deliberatily did not go too far down that road in the other posts because I think that pebble bed is the way to go but others believe that breeeder reactors, fusion reactors or tidal hydo generation could be the answer. Oil shale has a place in this story but if it takes .75 BTU to extract 1 BTU of oil then it is only vialbe if there is a cheap source of energy. Just off the cuff, it might make sense to put a reactor next to the oil shale and via that route produce cheap oil. It my seem conterintutive to spend a BTU to get a BTU but oil is a portable energy souce that trucks and planes will need, while nuclear is not. Thinking thru all these alternatives will be hard but we need to do it. But I felt that sorting out those choices should be done in paralled with educating the public.

Tom

Mariss Freimanis

04-10-2008, 11:45 PM

Tom,

Couple of points:

1) You do weapons technology. That is an honorable thing in my mind and you get my respect. Your work keeps us all safe so we can have these discussions here and have everything else that we enjoy in life. You have no need to be the least bit equivocating about it.

2) To your point. Nuclear is the only real "alternative" energy and I'm sorry I missed your saying so. It does present problems though in that there is no intermediate storage of the energy it produces. Nuclear energy produces electricity as an end product. That end product is least suitable for storage given our technology today. Cars and jet airliners are unsuitable candidates for battery power. Hydrogen (generated from electricity) is also an unsuitable candidate for intermediate energy storage due to its miserably low non-cryogenic energy density, volatility and tendency to alloy with metals being a metal itself.

Our civilization is built on oil. Oil is a wonderful substance. It is usable as a fuel for fixed-plant bulk energy producers like municipal electric power plants while at the same time being eminently suitable as compact fuel source for small compact mobile power plants such as personal vehicles and transport aircraft. Leaf-blowers to 747s; it can power them all. It's successor will have a tough uphill climb barring a technology breakthrough in electrical storage batteries (like 3 or 4 orders of magnitude).

Mariss

dynosor

04-11-2008, 12:21 AM

Nuclear, but based upon pebble bed reactor technology.

Tom

I think building the safest form of nuclear power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and to be ready when the oil eventually runs out is the right thing to do.
It is the right thing to do because it is the best alternative for low cost energy, not because it is required to prevent global warming.

We are a long way from running out of oil, but it takes a decade to build a nuclear power plant. It may not be a bad idea to start identifying where to put such power plants and how to pay for them. I'd prefer people bought stock in power companies because they think it will eventually pay off, and that normal market forces and risks apply.
Just don't tell us we have to pay fines for burning fossil fuels, and that some of this money will be used to develop alternative energy.

The point about nuclear power stations using a lot of concrete and thus releasing huge volume of CO2 may be factually correct, but that is relevant only if you are building nukes to avoid CO2. If nukes are correctly used to provide cost effective power, then don't fret about the CO2 "spike" for a few years - it will average out later, not that it actually matters.

If CO2 spikes during manufacture were of real concern to GW fanatics, hybrid cars and photo voltaic panels should be crossed off the list immediately. Hybrids have purely symbolic meaning, in my opinion. Why else would the Toyota Highlander hybrid (25 MPG HWY) get access to the commuter lane, when the Yaris (36 MPG HWY) does not?

Plenty of people here want affordable energy, just don't use global warming in the foundation of any proposal. That said; you are going to find that people who are afraid of CO2 are terrified of nuclear power.

Mariss Freimanis

04-11-2008, 02:50 AM

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 03:06 AM

Hi handlewanker,
I agree with you that the earth is headed toward cataclysmic overpopulation. Population is by it's very nature exponential. The biological system is designed to produce more offspring than would be needed to simply self sustain. How else could you make up for the casualties along the way? If you want 10 offspring then produce 15, you're bound to lose at least 5.
Unfortunately the least intelligent tend to be the most prolific. This is evolution in reverse.
Take care,
xyzdonna

handlewanker Hi all, you all overlook the FACT, that with the population increasing unsustainably at the present rate, global warming will not be a significent problem.

This means that the body temperature of all those "new arrivals" will add to the woes of your present problems.

In their lifetime they will contribute to the energy absorbtion that is on an exponential curve anyway.

You are constantly increasing your energy consumption and so production.

There are no models that account for the extra mouths that require HOT food and drink as a daily requirement, and so the energy spiral increases, no matter if the GOREBULL says it is, it is an undeniable fact that cannot be denied by Liberal, Conservative or COMMIE, or any other camp you care to name.

At the end of the day the phrase "you only know what you had when it's gone" is a hollow ring of truth, and this is a legacy you will hand down to your children.

So far on this thread I have not seen one original thought expressed.

Quoting the popular point of view is just the same as hearsay, and those that voice someone else's opinion are just shallow sycophants trading as original thought.

I respect an original point of view no matter how controversial and despise anyone who merely overstates the current thought pattern in order to impress the lesser mortals.
Ian.
Today 12:36 PM

handlewanker

Mariss Freimanis

04-11-2008, 03:19 AM

XY,

Aw geez,.. please stop with the apocalyptic stuff already. It's been done better in a million sci-fi B-movies than what you are doing. Tiresome, trite and retread-tire boring.

Mariss

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 04:05 AM

Tom,

Good post. Though mentioned, what goes unnamed is this anonymous alternate energy. My point would be if it existed, it would be used. If it were used, it would then be pedestrian and not "alternative". My alternatives are:

1) It doesn't exist.
2) It exists but dark cabals suppress knowledge about it.
3) It exists but people are just too dumb, lazy or greedy to develop it.
4) It would exist if only those moron scientists would invent it.

My vote is for door #1.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
It does exist, and the "dark cabals" (conservatives) do suppress knowledge of it. That's because they don't want to fund it with their tax dollars. It will be developed as well when these "dumb, lazy, greedy" "knuckle dragging troglodytes" finally wake up to the fact that it's cheaper, easier and smarter than invading a country and stealing their oil.
Consider, I was reading a Popular Mechanics magazine (January 2008) article about a new Volkswagen turbodiesel that gets 75 mpg. Think of how much fuel and pollution we would save if people started driving this type of vehicle. Now suppose biodiesel comes online at a cost of $10/ gal. Then by mathematical extrapolation that works out to a cost of $10 to go 75 miles.At 20 mpg and $3/gal it costs $11.25 to go the same 75 miles. I used mathematical extrapolation again, I hope I did the numbers right. Can you see where I'm going with this?
To fund this ersatz war we've run the national debt up to $30K for every man woman and child in the country. Think what we could have done with that money developing biofuels. Ah, but that would have been the smart thing to do, very unconservative.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 04:24 AM

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 04:40 AM

The CO2 generated to make concrete is a spurious argument. First-off, CO2 is not the new-found poison it's made out to be. Up until two years ago it was an innocent byproduct of civilization and metabolism until the Global Warming idiots got their teeth in it to make it into a deadly scourge. GW doesn't exist, CO2 has no effect on the non-existent GW, so let's leave it at that.

It's curious how a million concrete slabs can be poured to build a million new houses but pouring concrete to build one nuclear power plant will destroy civilization as we know it in one fell swoop. Somehow I think we are more resilient than that and somehow I think we will survive this grievous insult to the "fragile and delicate ecosystem we call planet earth".

Jeez, will the '60s hippies ever curl up and die? These spoiled, narcissistic, self-involved sons and daughters have wreaked 40 years of harm. I'm deeply ashamed of my generation.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Brother Bob said it best: "Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."
We "spoiled and narcissistic" hippies have been doing good for over 40 years now. We've helped clean up the environment, expand the national park system, save whales, etc. Not to mention avoiding useless wars. You should be very proud of your generation. It has helped make America great.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 04:54 AM

XY,

Aw geez,.. please stop with the apocalyptic stuff already. It's been done better in a million sci-fi B-movies than what you are doing. Tiresome, trite and retread-tire boring.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
If it's apocalyptic you want consider this. Many in the world earn about $2/day. As the cost of food rises, it is approaching this figure to feed these same workers. Can you envision riots, revolutions and anarchy? I think this is what Geof alluded to.
Take care,
xyzdonna

mlind

04-11-2008, 06:02 AM

Hi folks,

Interested in helping mother nature and saving yourself about 30-40+ ...... dollars a month? The price of natural gas and electricity isn't going to go down in the forseeable future...

Got your interest.... For a small invetment less than 100 bucks you can build a hot water heater that is makes economic sense as well as one that helps the environment.

Check out this website and do your own research. I did some experiments with a tank at the cabin and it works great. I'm currently in the process of building one for the house. No more monthly gas bills in the summer and if lucky the same in the winter.

http://www.byexample.com/projects/current/batch_collector/

Don't think about it....Just do it.

jhowelb

04-11-2008, 08:06 AM

Wxyz, untangling your thought processes is a daunting task and growing more difficult week by week. You really should see a professional about that!

We "spoiled and narcissistic" hippies have been doing good for over 40 years now. We've helped clean up the environment, expand the national park system, save whales, etc. Not to mention avoiding useless wars. You should be very proud of your generation. It has helped make America

Now there is arrogance at it's ultimate! Your generation is responsible for a blood bath in Southeast Asia that puts Hitler in league with amateurs. Further, because of your generation, the American blood spilled in that conflict was consigned to waste. You'd be well advised to just shut up on that score.

As to the other outlandish claims, it will be generations before the economy can recover from the harm your generation has caused.
\
Thank you SOOO much! You can QUIT already!!!

Hi Mariss,
If it's apocalyptic you want consider this. Many in the world earn about $2/day. As the cost of food rises, it is approaching this figure to feed these same workers. Can you envision riots, revolutions and anarchy?

The rising food prices are due to the quackery spawned by biofuels and alternatives real and imagined again brought about by YOUR generation. Not to mention all the ecofriendly, anti progress green weenie nitwittery already vested upon us.

[quote=TomB;437420]
To spend a BTU to get a BTU? Aren't they doing that already with ethanol? Biodiesel from algae is a much more productive investment. You get a yield of about 5,000 gal/acre/year.

And now you want to fill the Southwestern part of the country with cesspools filled with toxic waste to further some quacks get rich quick at the expense of the taxpayer scheme.

The best thing your generation could do at this point is to sit down, shut up and just enjoy the blessings that all the previous generations fought hard to leave you. Your brains have been fried on drugs to the point that you really don't realize the harm you are doing.

\
Enough, already!

Mariss Freimanis

04-11-2008, 11:54 AM

XY,

Save whales? I didn't know you were that religious!

Mariss

Tempus

04-11-2008, 02:20 PM

Hi Mariss,
It does exist, and the "dark cabals" (conservatives) do suppress knowledge of it. That's because they don't want to fund it with their tax dollars. It will be developed as well when these "dumb, lazy, greedy" "knuckle dragging troglodytes" finally wake up to the fact that it's cheaper, easier and smarter than invading a country and stealing their oil.
To fund this ersatz war we've run the national debt up to $30K for every man woman and child in the country. Think what we could have done with that money developing biofuels. Ah, but that would have been the smart thing to do, very unconservative.
Take care,
xyzdonna

If ignorance is bliss, I would think donna would be happy as a clam.
Obviously she listens to the "gore won" group that want to believe that we are at war for oil: that we are there to steal it from these poor people.
Have you been there and seen the carnage laid into good people by the Taliban? or are you having your opinions spoon fed to you by Billary?
Have you actually seen the difference in the lives of the people that are being protected in the US "war for oil"?
....of course not.
Do you understand that the "Surge" is working, and that the US, has not been attacked for years by a group that "promised" continuing terrorist activities?
Oh, let's concentrate on Global Warming (farce) and convince everyone that it's a fact and say that the US is bad because we are at war, and call it a war for oil.

oh yeah...
Billary was shot at by snipers, loves the yankees, and doesn't know what "is" is.
Obama can't figure out where he was, or who his friends have been.

and Gore invented the internet, and is a great scientist.

Mariss Freimanis

04-11-2008, 03:31 PM

jhowelb

04-11-2008, 03:40 PM

Ummm, WHAT oil crisis?

Huge Oil Reservoir Under Northern Plains

Thursday , April 10, 2008

BISMARCK, N.D. —
The government estimates up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, using current technology.

The U.S. Geological Survey calls it the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed.

An assessment by USGS in 1999 found the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge had 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil, said Brenda Pierce, a geologist for the agency

The Bakken Formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota, where the oil is trapped in a thin layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface.

Companies use pressurized fluid and sand to break pores in the rock and prop them open to recover the oil.

Donald Kessel, vice president of Houston-based Murex Petroleum Corp., said he believes the Geological Survey's assessment of how much oil can be recovered in the Bakken may be a little on the high side.

"That's a lot of zeros," Kessel said Thursday.

Kessel said his company was the first to get a producing well in the Bakken in North Dakota three years ago. The company now has about 20 producing wells.

The report released Thursday by USGS was done at the request of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., over the past 18 months.

A study by the USGS in 1995 found 151 million barrels of oil could be recovered from the Bakken using technology at that time.

"This is great news," Dorgan said of the new report. "This is 25 times the amount of the previous assessment."

jhowelb

04-11-2008, 05:19 PM

Tax rebate explained

This is a great explanation of the tax rebate program recently enacted by Congress. If you don't understand how it will work maybe this explanation will help:

50,000 people went to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due to the ticket holders.

The team was about to mail refunds when a group of Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out the ticket refunds based on the Democrat ational Committee's interpretation of fairness.

Originally the refunds were to be paid based on the price each person had paid for the tickets.
Unfortunately that meant most of the refund money would be going to the ticket holders that had purchased the most expensive tickets. This, according to the DNC, is considered totally unfair. A decision was then made to pay out the refunds in this manner:

People in the $10 seats will get back $15. After all, they have less money to spend on tickets to begin w ith. Cal l it an 'Earned Income Ticket Credit.' Persons 'earn' it by having few skills, poor work habits, and low ambition, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because it 'seems fair.'

People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund.
After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, they must not be paying enough taxes.

People in the $75 luxury box seats will each have to pay an additional $25 because it's the 'right thing to do'.

People walking past the stadium that couldn't afford to buy a ticket for the game each will get a $10 refund, even though they didn't pay anything for the tickets. They need the most help. They are either lazy or think that society owes them for just being born. Sometimes this is known as Affirmative Action.

Now do you understand?

If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi
or Senators Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama for
assistance.

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 06:46 PM

Wxyz, untangling your thought processes is a daunting task and growing more difficult week by week. You really should see a professional about that!

Now there is arrogance at it's ultimate! Your generation is responsible for a blood bath in Southeast Asia that puts Hitler in league with amateurs. Further, because of your generation, the American blood spilled in that conflict was consigned to waste. You'd be well advised to just shut up on that score.

As to the other outlandish claims, it will be generations before the economy can recover from the harm your generation has caused.

Thank you SOOO much! You can QUIT already!!!

The rising food prices are due to the quackery spawned by biofuels and alternatives real and imagined again brought about by YOUR generation. Not to mention all the ecofriendly, anti progress green weenie nitwittery already vested upon us.

[quote=xyzdonna;437505]

And now you want to fill the Southwestern part of the country with cesspools filled with toxic waste to further some quacks get rich quick at the expense of the taxpayer scheme.

The best thing your generation could do at this point is to sit down, shut up and just enjoy the blessings that all the previous generations fought hard to leave you. Your brains have been fried on drugs to the point that you really don't realize the harm you are doing.

Enough, already!

Hi jhowelb;
I'm the essence of simplicity, figuring me out shouldn't be all that hard. What you see is what you get, As Popeye says, "I am what I am and that's all that I am". Hmmm, the blood bath in S.E. Asia, the Vietnam war, yes that was foisted off on us by a liberal Democrat, LBJ, sorry about that. I protested it vociferously. As did many others from my generation, I don't think you should hold those of us who protested culpable. We did what we could to extricate our country from another vain endeavor.
Well, before I fill the southwest with "toxic cesspools" I would try it on a smaller scale and see how it works. I would also see how the project could be scaled. But this is something that's being done already. Check this out:
Quote: "If we were to replace all of the diesel that we use in the United States" with an algae derivative, says Solix CEO Douglas Henston, "we could do it on an area of land that’s about one-half of 1 percent of the current farm land that we use now." http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4213775.html
So see jhowelb, it's doable. Get the biodiesel thing going, buy one of those new turbodiesel Volkswagens that get 75 mph and shazaam, the energy crises is solved! That was easy, what else do you want me to figure out?
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 07:01 PM

XY,

Save whales? I didn't know you were that religious!

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Yep, go to church every Sunday. Pray for whales, furry little critters, and downtrodden creatures of every kind. But you're right. I'm not really all that religious. But I am real honest. I have to tell my dear sweet 86 year old mom that "yes I went to church, yes mom I'm saying my prayers and reading my Bible", "oh mom, just a little nip every now and then, it helps with the digestion" (ya gotta lie about something).
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-11-2008, 07:12 PM

Gosh XY, I never looked at that way before. I think you right! You poor liberals have dragged the knuckle-scrapers to troughs full of billions of dollars of profit to be made from Counterculture Oil but the idiots just won't take the money! It's there; 5 bazillion barrels of Hippie Oil per acre all for the taking and these idiots won't sell it! All they want to do is invade other countries to steal their oil. The only thing left to do is have the taxpayers force these troglodytes to become billionaires selling the stuff. Thanks XY, I think I finally got it.

Mariss

Ah Mariss,
I should have learned a long time ago not to match wits with you. You crack me up! Well, if it does start to pan out (biodiesel from algae) I hope you'll admit I was right. I'll confess that you're the funniest EE I've run across.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Mariss Freimanis

04-11-2008, 10:06 PM

arcticcat307

04-11-2008, 10:22 PM

xyzdonna, here's a link to that wonderful 75 mpg voltswagon. Sounds like it's ready to take the market by a storm. Or maybe not!
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto497.htm

xyzdonna

04-12-2008, 05:34 AM

xyzdonna, here's a link to that wonderful 75 mpg voltswagon. Sounds like it's ready to take the market by a storm. Or maybe not!
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto497.htm

Hi arcticcat,
After reading that review it would seem that the VW is not quite ready for prime time. But consider this, if you're willing to drop back to 50 mpg you could probably put together a pretty comfortable, easy to drive diesel car. The fuel cost would not be a whole lot more. Suppose you drive 15,000 miles per year. At 50 mpg you'd use 300 gal. and at 75 mpg you'd use 200. Even at $5/ gal. gas that's only a $500 difference spread out over the whole year. Not too bad considering.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-12-2008, 07:30 AM

I'll happily admit you are right when someone invests hard-earned venture capital, the funded enterprise brings a product to market at competitive prices and not a single penny of taxpayer money and not a single legislative "inducement" is involved in the process. In other words, an honest, unskewed market-driven outcome. It is the only fair arbiter of the merit of any idea.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
I think a little legislative intervention will be necessary since the hard-earned venture capital must not be subjected to the vagaries of the market place. Most oil now comes from states that aren't too friendly to the United States. If a synthetic fuel industry were seen to be developing and becoming viable, these states might decide it would be in their best interests to quash it. This could be accomplished by a precipitous and temporary decline in prices. Just long enough to put the offending companies out of business. A tariff on imported oil or a temporary increase in taxes on petroleum derived fuel would prevent this.
Take care,
xyzdonna

handlewanker

04-12-2008, 08:04 AM

handlewanker

04-12-2008, 08:33 AM

BTW, wouldn't it be a good idea to create a sort of home based industry that reduced the need to import so much oil.

If the third world countries reduced their oil prices to drive you out of business, so what, when do you BUY goods, when they're sky high or when they hit rock bottom?

If you don't know the answer to that one you definately need some professional help big time.

Let the government of the PEOPLE support the people, that's why they got voted into power wasn't it, so if the third world dropped their prices, let the government subsidise the new and emerging technologies, so that one day when they're big and strong they will in turn support the government with their profitability by way of taxes, and the infrastructure for sustained viability will have been laid.

If the oil prices plumetted then stop pumping your own and plough some of that export dollars into buying up the cheapies, once it's gone they'll be in a worse situation than anyone as they have no alternative industry expertise to fall back on, except for Dubai who are creating the base for a future that will not be framed in oil production.

The plan is to REDUCE your oil imports, that is make the stuff last a bit longer by using enough alternative sources, this way the third world won't feel that you've got something against them and get touchy when they have to start paying more than 10 cents for a gallon of home produced petrol because their USA market has collapsed, commonly called "killing the golden goose", and what a golden goose you lot are.
Ian.

xyzdonna

04-12-2008, 09:45 AM

A tariff you say, now where did I hear that phrase before.

If a tariff were placed on ALL imported goods then you wouldn't have the problems you now bemoan about money going to third world economies that undercut your own and close your business platforms down.

Before anyone says that it would affect your exports, think about this, if they want your goods they'll buy them at your price.

There aint nothing the Chinese are making that you can't make just as well, the only problem is they work for a dollar a day, so if tariffs were in place those goods would be "taxed" to bring them up to the level of the home produced goods and so we get fair trading instead of empty workshops and closures.

The botom line is if you like Chinese manufactured goods because they're better, then you have the answer in one then, it's not the price that kills your markets but innovative technology and new ideas.

At the end of the day it's the government in power that decides if the country must be sold down the gurgler to appease some foreign exchange deals that only line the pockets of those in power, not the man in the street.

It has been said that a conservative government would prefer to have everyone working on the land, that's because they're land owners at heart, and industry has no interest to a land owner.
When you own the land you own the people.
Ian.

Hi handlewanker;
I don't think I've ever purchase anything made in China that was as good as what's made here in the USA. I'm sure the same could be said of your Australia. We purchase these goods because they're cheaper.
This is something I wish Mariss would weigh in on. He manufactures products and I'll wager that he doesn't sell many of them in China. His products are of the highest quality, are very reliable and well designed. My spouse owns nine of his stepper drives and loves them. Our government is sending jobs overseas en masse. I don't feel that this strategy is good for our economy or our future. China has no qualms about stealing our technology.
An interesting tidbit for you to consider. Awhile back we went to a conference in Knoxville, TN on the Mach2-3 software. There was a gentleman from Taiwan who was there. Now this guy flew halfway around the world to attend a little conference on the Mach software. I was amazed, but it shows that they have money.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-12-2008, 09:57 AM

Hi jhowelb;
I'm the essence of simplicity, figuring me out shouldn't be all that hard. What you see is what you get, As Popeye says, "I am what I am and that's all that I am". Hmmm, the blood bath in S.E. Asia, the Vietnam war, yes that was foisted off on us by a liberal Democrat, LBJ, sorry about that. I protested it vociferously. As did many others from my generation, I don't think you should hold those of us who protested culpable. We did what we could to extricate our country from another vain endeavor.
Well, before I fill the southwest with "toxic cesspools" I would try it on a smaller scale and see how it works. I would also see how the project could be scaled. But this is something that's being done already. Check this out:
Quote: "If we were to replace all of the diesel that we use in the United States" with an algae derivative, says Solix CEO Douglas Henston, "we could do it on an area of land that’s about one-half of 1 percent of the current farm land that we use now." http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4213775.html
So see jhowelb, it's doable. Get the biodiesel thing going, buy one of those new turbodiesel Volkswagens that get 75 mph and shazaam, the energy crises is solved! That was easy, what else do you want me to figure out?
Take care,
xyzdonna

I will readily admit that you are "simple" but your thought processes are scrambled eggs. As usual you conveniently "misinterpreted" the blood bath. It was AFTER the withdrawal that the killing really started, don't even attempt to close your eye to those millions of dead that your leftie buddies are responsible for!

And then add to that the fact that all our dead were dishonored by that same withdrawal. Then add to that the disgrace you heaped upon those of us who were returning. Heros treated like trash! For SHAME! Hang your miserable head!

And, by the way, I was sent there by John Kennedy! You can't get the facts straight to save your miserable a$$!

In fact I will continue to force this into your face until you do see it. You ARE culpable and freedom is NEVER a vain endeavor. Until you see that and the fact that you owe your freedom to those guys in uniform you don't deserve to be called American. You wouldn't know patriotism if it bit your.......

You make me want to vomit!

fizzissist

04-12-2008, 11:47 AM

Freedom is worth what you're willing to pay for it.

Rekd

04-12-2008, 12:07 PM

Don't think about it....Just do it.

Um. No.

That's our entire problem, no matter what the situation. People like you and donna trying to get normal, cogent people to stop thinking and "just do it".

"It" might not be something we "want" to do. (nuts)

Believe it or not, there are a lot of good, honest, hard working people out there than CAN fend for themselves. We don't need nor want your nanny-state handouts and dependency creating crap shoved down our throats. We're not helpless and we're not stupid.

jhowelb

04-12-2008, 12:46 PM

In her case, the price was paid by others for whom she feels no gratitude what so ever.

Had we not gone to Viet Nam she might well be speaking Chinese. Lost on her!

The idea that a free Iraq can keep Iran and Seria in check and out of New York will never pass thru her head.

Mind dead, dim witted liberal lunatics still making the same stupid misjudgments. They are the millstone hung around our neck. Stalin's fifth column! A scourge upon the land!

It seems my real passion has bubbled to the surface again. I WON'T Apologize!

xyzdonna

04-12-2008, 01:15 PM

I will readily admit that you are "simple" but your thought processes are scrambled eggs. As usual you conveniently "misinterpreted" the blood bath. It was AFTER the withdrawal that the killing really started, don't even attempt to close your eye to those millions of dead that your leftie buddies are responsible for!

And then add to that the fact that all our dead were dishonored by that same withdrawal. Then add to that the disgrace you heaped upon those of us who were returning. Heros treated like trash! For SHAME! Hang your miserable head!

And, by the way, I was sent there by John Kennedy! You can't get the facts straight to save your miserable a$$!

In fact I will continue to force this into your face until you do see it. You ARE culpable and freedom is NEVER a vain endeavor. Until you see that and the fact that you owe your freedom to those guys in uniform you don't deserve to be called American. You wouldn't know patriotism if it bit your.......

You make me want to vomit!

Now jhowelb;
I never did anything that could be construed as disrespectful to our soldiers. I had friends who went over there. I didn't support the politicians who sent them, but the soldiers I respected then and still do.
It just might be that those millions who died after we left, might be alive if we hadn't gone in the first place. I never said freedom was a vain endeavor, war frequently is. Yes, we owe our freedom to our military. But our military needs a commander in chief who is intelligent, sagacious and whose motives are for the good of the American people.

Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-12-2008, 03:24 PM

Now jhowelb;
I never did anything that could be construed as disrespectful to our soldiers. I had friends who went over there. I didn't support the politicians who sent them, but the soldiers I respected then and still do.
It just might be that those millions who died after we left, might be alive if we hadn't gone in the first place. I never said freedom was a vain endeavor, war frequently is. Yes, we owe our freedom to our military. But our military needs a commander in chief who is intelligent, sagacious and whose motives are for the good of the American people.

Take care,
xyzdonna

Your attitude is disrespectful of them as well as your ideology! They have an outstanding commander but you are too brain dead or deceitful to recognize or admit it. You field of vision is so limited you can't see beyond your own immediate goal as is demonstrated in your view on junk science scams and global schemes that work to our detriment. Maybe you'd like him better if he redefined the word "is" or spent part of his work day trying to choke some young intern in the Oval Office?

Yours and the motives of those on the left are the ones which are devious and rotten to the core.

We didn't create the Communist or the Camere Rouge anymore than we have created radical Islamic terror groups, Saddam Husein or the lunatics in charge of mayhem in Iran. Remember? The ones who want to kill you today?

It's not asking too much for you to open your eyes and view reality for the first time in your life!

fizzissist

04-12-2008, 06:34 PM

You aren't supporting the troops if you don't support their mission.

Btw, xyzdonna, it was YOUR mother's generation that send it's sons to Viet Nam. Me and jhowelb were the generation that got sent.

mlind

04-13-2008, 12:40 AM

We're not helpless and we're not stupid.[/QUOTE] That remains to be seen.

Ok I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you just had a bad day and took it out in this forum rather than kicking the dog. Not a problem.

To me saving 600+ dollars a year makes good sense. But, if you would rather pay the utility company that money go right ahead. Me, I use the savings to pay for my hunting/fishing trips.

For the record I am not a liberal nor a greenie. I am and have always been a conservative. I am a honest hard working "normal" American who can and does fend for himself. I fully support our troops and our policies in Iraq... There have been no 9/11's here in the USA since we invaded Iraq... Our troops are doing and have always done a great job.

Government handouts? I don't believe in ANY entitlement programs. Frankly welfare just gives people an excuse to fail.

Donna who?

Um. No.

That's our entire problem, no matter what the situation. People like you and donna trying to get normal, cogent people to stop thinking and "just do it".

"It" might not be something we "want" to do. (nuts)

Believe it or not, there are a lot of good, honest, hard working people out there than CAN fend for themselves. We don't need nor want your nanny-state handouts and dependency creating crap shoved down our throats. We're not helpless and we're not stupid.

xyzdonna

04-13-2008, 08:29 AM

You aren't supporting the troops if you don't support their mission.

Btw, xyzdonna, it was YOUR mother's generation that send it's sons to Viet Nam. Me and jhowelb were the generation that got sent.

Hi fizzissist;
Sorry fizzissist, that statement is the apogee of absurdity. I didn't support the Vietnam war and I don't support the current war in Iraq. History has proven me right in the former and will in the latter. A history lesson on my parents politics notwithstanding. I realize that just because 70% of the American people now agree with me doesn't make my stand valid. So let's look at the situation dispassionately.
It should be obvious by now to even the most jaded conservative that this war was about oil. There were more vile and dangerous tyrants available for the taking, why else go after Saddam? So in we went and the enemy analyzed our strategy, and found the obvious weakness. We had no strategy. Our commander in chief partied through the Vietnam war and took no lessons from it. So they hatched a plan to outsmart the administration, a fairly trivial endeavor as it turns out. They would wear us down with capricious terrorist strikes, it has worked flawlessly. We will lose this war as we lost the Vietnam war, due to the incomparable incompetence of our elected leaders. I suppose that is a direct reflection on the people who helped elect them, the voters.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Rekd

04-13-2008, 10:24 AM

Ok I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you just had a bad day and took it out in this forum rather than kicking the dog. Not a problem. I really don't need any benefit of any doubt from you, but thanks anyway.

As for not being stupid, I would think if you were half the conservative you claimed to be, you'd know better than to try to tell a group of people to "not think" about something.

That would be... stupid, wouldn't it?

To me saving 600+ dollars a year makes good sense. But, if you would rather pay the utility company that money go right ahead. Me, I use the savings to pay for my hunting/fishing trips.

For the record, it's 8:00 in the morning, and my electric meter is already spinning backwards via the solar voltaic system on my white, heat reflecting roof, right next to my solar water heater. It takes me about 3 months to save $600.00 just from the solar voltaic system alone, not to mention how much more I save with the insulation, double paned glass, plellet stove, fire place, well and all the other things I do to not use energy outside what I can generate myself. And I'm not doing it to "save the planet" from so called global warming. I'm doing it because I'm tired of paying other people to do what I want.

For the record I am not a liberal nor a greenie. I could care less. What I don't like about you is your arrogance in that you think that just because something is working out to a very small savings for you annually, that it's the right thing for everyone to do. Guess what... IT'S NOT! And for the likes of you to try to tell us to "not think" and "just do it" is idiocy.

Donna who?

Donna is a person who writes a lot in this forum but says very little, except that she thinks that everyone here should be doing what she believes is right because it seems to be working for her. Very similar to what you're doing.

jhowelb

04-13-2008, 11:53 AM

Hi fizzissist;
Sorry fizzissist, that statement is the apogee of absurdity. I didn't support the Vietnam war and I don't support the current war in Iraq. History has proven me right in the former and will in the latter. A history lesson on my parents politics notwithstanding. I realize that just because 70% of the American people now agree with me doesn't make my stand valid. So let's look at the situation dispassionately.
It should be obvious by now to even the most jaded conservative that this war was about oil. There were more vile and dangerous tyrants available for the taking, why else go after Saddam? So in we went and the enemy analyzed our strategy, and found the obvious weakness. We had no strategy. Our commander in chief partied through the Vietnam war and took no lessons from it. So they hatched a plan to outsmart the administration, a fairly trivial endeavor as it turns out. They would wear us down with capricious terrorist strikes, it has worked flawlessly. We will lose this war as we lost the Vietnam war, due to the incomparable incompetence of our elected leaders. I suppose that is a direct reflection on the people who helped elect them, the voters.
Take care,
xyzdonna

I just love graphic artists, great people! But all those signs, letters and posters gotta go! They are a blight on the land worse than trash alongside the highway. Billboards gotta be the creation of Satan or at least the ilk of Stalin or Hitler!

There is an example of absurdity that you should be able to relate to! It is the kind of thing you do to our troops. When you tell them that the thing they sacrifice for, bleed for and indeed die for is a useless exercise in insanity you have equated them to cannon fodder.

The big discussion in Washington today is whether the Iraqis should use the $100.00 per barrel THEY are getting from the sale of their oil for the reconstruction of Iraq! That makes this statement STUPID! " It should be obvious by now to even the most jaded conservative that this war was about oil." WHO is profiting enough then to make war worth while? Open your baby blues to the real truth!

"We will lose this war as we lost the Vietnam war..." That is right! If we lose it it WILL be lost in the same place and for the same reason. The place will be the news medis and the halls of congress. And the reason will be because the left is so invested in defeat politically that they throw victory away. We were not defeated in Viet Nam, your soul sisters and brothers threw it away.

Your not even smart enough to realize when something is to your benefit. You hate America, you hate the military, you hate our health care system, you hate religion, you hate morality and in short you hate our way of life. Why don't you pack your crap and move to Cuba? I'm sure you will find everything there in line with your way of thinking!!

fizzissist

04-13-2008, 12:31 PM

xyzdonna...Our commander in chief partied through Viet Nam? Which one...Bush or Clinton?..oh, never mind, they both did.

I stand by my statement that you aren't supporting the troops if you're not supporting their mission. If bleeding heart liberals deprive them by congressional means of the tools and supplies they need, then the troops aren't being supported. I would have preferred that we'd gone into Iraq and gotten the job done, but thanks to Clinton's massive troop reductions under his administration and reluctance of the left side of the isle to fully support that which they had already agreed to, we sent in National Guard. That was a mistake for a myriad of reasons.

"Here, soldier, go into battle. I support you. But I don't think you need all these guns and stuff, because it makes us look agressive and I don't think you should be going there." Is that what you're saying??

Yes, Iraq is ALL about oil. So was Bosnia. Clinton sent us in to secure the AMBO pipeline while he negotiated Corridor8 oil deals behind closed doors. We were lucky with Bosnia, since there wasn't nearly the snipers to contend with (sorry, HRC) and our troop losses were nill.

Even your Queen of Bleeding Heart Liberals Her Royal HighnASS Hillary Rammit Clinton said that Saddam needed to be disarmed. YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, & WMD

There. The standard bearer for liberals. 8 years wearing Al Gore's pants, grooming for the presidency, being privvy to the intel.....and supporting the disarming. If you think she didn't know it's about oil, or cat food, or whatever, you're dumber'n a bag a hammers.

xyzdonna

04-13-2008, 04:56 PM

We're not helpless and we're not stupid. That remains to be seen.

Ok I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you just had a bad day and took it out in this forum rather than kicking the dog. Not a problem.

To me saving 600+ dollars a year makes good sense. But, if you would rather pay the utility company that money go right ahead. Me, I use the savings to pay for my hunting/fishing trips.

For the record I am not a liberal nor a greenie. I am and have always been a conservative. I am a honest hard working "normal" American who can and does fend for himself. I fully support our troops and our policies in Iraq... There have been no 9/11's here in the USA since we invaded Iraq... Our troops are doing and have always done a great job.

Government handouts? I don't believe in ANY entitlement programs. Frankly welfare just gives people an excuse to fail.

Donna who?[/QUOTE]

Hi mlind;
I've said it before, but that was before you started posting, ever heard of the "post hoc fallacy"? "Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" Latin for "after this, therefore because of this". As I've mentioned, it's probably the most overused fallacy in logic.
Quote: "I fully support our troops and our policies in Iraq... There have been no 9/11's here in the USA since we invaded Iraq..."

Me: To imply a causative relationship between those things is absurd.
For the record, I'm a liberal and a greenie, perhaps the only one on this forum. That I should have to stand alone lamenting the fruits of conservative stupidity is amazing. I am also a hard working honest American who fends for herself with a little help from everyone else. And this you require as well. You, as I, depend on our servicemen, policemen and other public figures to defend and protect us. That is as it should be. We also depend on our elected leaders to do the same. Sadly, the current administration has fallen far short. The Bush administration's policies have been an unmitigated disaster. Think of how many of his appointees have had to resign in disgrace. At every juncture his decisions have been incompetent. He is the worse president in my lifetime hands down. I've said it before, Nixon was a crook but at least he was smart. It astounds me that everyone on this forum stands up for him. What are the lyrics to that song? "Clowns to the left of me, jokers on the right".
Take care,
xyzdonna

Mariss Freimanis

04-13-2008, 05:59 PM

XY,

I saw a car today with a bumper sticker that said "I'm against the next war". It was also peppered with the usual "Hillary for Prez" and various punk-rock band stickers. That was helpful because it helped me place the driver's mindset.

The sad thing is liberals (like this driver) have always opposed any conflict for what I think is just idle sport. You do it reflexively because it makes you feel special, a rebel and because everyone else you know does it. Makes you part of that tribe.

You see non-liberals in cartoon colors, comic book prose and with a 2-dimensional cardboard cutout intellect. Nothing matters to you because nothing for you is ever dear enough to die for to protect. There is nothing noble in your makeup. You said it yourself like it's a good thing; abuse doesn't bother you and for that I pity you.

Your kind, while saving whales, cleaning up the environment and making us safe for socialism, undermined the war in Vietnam. You spat on the brave returning warriors and called them "baby killers". One real "baby killer" was your own Vietnam War hero John Kerry who served three months, just long enough to shoot a 16 year old boy in the back.
Then this coward came back dressed in a Hippie camouflage uniform, bush hat and all, to testify in front of Congress to accuse honorable, real soldiers of being "baby killers". What a pieces of excrement your heroes are. Thank goodness for the Swift Boat patriots to bring the truth forward.

Your kind never stopped. They are termites that eat at the foundation of country just for the sheer anarchist pleasure of destroying. The US was perceived as being a paper tiger after Vietnam. 911, the invasion of Kuwait and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq directly led from this perception. All were events and wars that never would have happened were it not for your kind.

You learned nothing though. Perhaps the hatred towards yourself and your own country was too hard to overcome. You gleefully rubbed your hands together because you had a new war to oppose. Probably brought out the rebel in you and gave your life a meaning. You had a new opportunity to undermine your country and nothing makes a liberal happier than that. Not even gay rights, abortion, illegal aliens, environmental protection, hate conservatives, Obama-Mohamed/Hillary/Kusinich/Nader for prez; nothing gets your juices flowing like a war where you can undermine your own country. Now you really have a reason for living!

I said it's a sad thing. The sad thing is my daughter and her husband, both 2nd lieutenants in the Army, have to go this June to fight in a war that would have been unnecessary had you and your Hippie liberals not undermined the Vietnam War. You are proud of the work you did. Here is the consequence. My daughter and son-in-law are left with the job of cleaning up the defecation you left on the floor in the '70s. I pray they both will be safe but if anything happens to either of them, the blood will be on your and your kind hands. I cannot say it any clearer than that.

You are an idiot. You speak in bumper-sticker jingles "The war is about oil". You don't know the consequences of what you do. You strut around sanctimoniously saying you are doing the right thing. You have no idea of the mess you leave behind you. Others have to clean up after you.

I bade Chris, my son-in-law goodbye last night. We talked for hours about his fears and his hopes. He talked about his love for Marissa and how that will see him through. We consumed a fair amount of beers. He left this morning at 4AM and before I got up. I will not see him for 15 months and I pray he will be safe. I'm sorry, I have nothing funny, clever or witty to say today that will amuse you.

Mariss

xyzdonna

04-13-2008, 07:01 PM

jhowelb

04-13-2008, 07:13 PM

Would that be the God you don't believe in?

Mariss Freimanis

04-13-2008, 07:35 PM

XY,

I believe you are a good person at heart. If you weren't, I wouldn't bother with you. It doesn't change what the dearest and closest to me and whom I love with all my heart have to contend with and what the genesis of of their ordeal is. For me to do otherwise would be either foolish or stupid. My pain is large an my heart aches.

Mariss

Mariss

handlewanker

04-13-2008, 07:46 PM

Well JH, you're a bit of a strange one, a hero? to whom?

As we are now very friendly with the Vietnamese people that you lot tried to exterminate for world freedom!!!!!! what crap you spout.

At this moment in time world peace is a good as it's going to get.

Oh, and BTW, if you read your bible, you know the "good book", you'll see that it advocates "thou shalt not KILL." How do you figure on that one, having been a fully paid up volentary member of a killing machine?

Of course I suppose you'll say it was only in self defence, balls, you lot went over there with the express job of maximising the body count, so if you came home to a disgusted enlightened general public that didn't believe all the b**sh1t that got you all fired up to kick arse and generally be obnoxious, think about this, nothing has changed since the time the French tried to do what you lot couldn't, and now we consider Vietnam as our friends, North or South.

No one is for one moment thinking that you didn't do your bit for your country, but looking for praise when you should have thought for a moment and considered what it was you were actually doing in somone elses backyard, is the same as praising Adolf Hitler for slaughtering millions of Jews so that the state of Israel could become a reality.

Was your sacrifice worth all that killing?

Calling someone else "simple" is like being blind but wearing prescription spectacles.
Ian.

jhowelb

04-13-2008, 07:58 PM

Well JH, you're a bit of a strange one, a hero? to whom?

blah, blah, blah! Misquote, out of context, extreme effort to be relevant, blah, blah, blah!
Drivel, drivel, drivel! Snide snot etc etc!!
Ian.

I see that you are your usual warm, kind, thoughtful, introspective and understanding self!

Kicked any children or grandmothers today?

handlewanker

04-13-2008, 08:23 PM

Short and sweet JH as your usual crappy self.
But you did get my point, nothing personal of course.
Ian

handlewanker

04-13-2008, 08:54 PM

Hi Maris, I deeply sympathise with your situation, that is to say I am sorry that you have family that couldn't give a rats' that they are going to fight a war for no good purpose and possibly cause grief to you.

I think possibly the downing of the beer clouded the moral judgement that went with it.

Were they actualy forced at the point of a gun to take up arms and fight the good fight or was it a well paid job in some cushy military billet that went sour when in the cold light of day the real call to arms came and there was no backing out of it.

I relate a tale from the second great military conflict of the previous century.
A friend of my father entered the military service as a tank driver between the wars, as it was an exciting thing to be in charge of a steel monster and just charge up and down training grounds while having a bloody good time, firing off a big gun and not being shot at, all at the countries expense (UK 1936).

Things went terribly wrong in 1939, the Dunkirk withdrawal etc.
Now he was being shot at by a very angry Kraut soldiery and the tank was the last place to want to be in.

Long story short, I despise people who join any military service and then get the cold horrors when it dawns on them that there will be a bill to pay for services rendered, and the "career" in the military means you don't place much value on friends and family when you are about to be just a number on some military payroll.

Did it ever occur to you that they might just be the cause of someone else's sorrow.

I expect they went to a religious gathering and prayed for "victory" or at least the ability to end someone elses existence so that they could come home to a "hero's" welcome.

A note in the diary of an Afrika Korps officer, circa 1943, said, "I sometimes wonder who's side God is really on".

Does it really matter when you dedicate your life to the annilation of fellow human beings?
Ian.

jhowelb

04-13-2008, 09:15 PM

Short and sweet JH as your usual crappy self.
But you did get my point, nothing personal of course.
Ian

The generosity of your spirit is astounding

What a marvelous wonderful happy life you must have!!

Mariss Freimanis

04-13-2008, 09:40 PM

handlewanker,

Allow me to complement you for the milk of human kindness that seeps from your every pore. I hope you shower frequently.

Mariss

handlewanker

04-13-2008, 10:47 PM

Well there must be better things in life than just wanting to kick arses.

All of your present day problems can be traced back to your desire to run the world.

By this I mean that the moment you step out of your own boundaries and attempt to flex your muscles, someone somewhere is going to get a bit pissed off at your attitude and do something about it, or hadn't you noticed?

Right now back home you'all have a big problem and that is to keep the people happy and contented.

Reading back through the posts the best you can come up with is to blame all your problems on the libs or conservatives whoever THEY may be.

The very people that rule your country have by your own admission been so inept and corrupt that it escapes your thinking patterns to realise that it was YOUR votes that put them there.

They didn't just materialise and announce that they were going to right the band wagon.

The biggest laugh is the Communist that you fear so much, never got within hooting distance of your administrative body, so they can't be blamed for your current crisis situation.

So if you can't recognise a BADDY in your own back yard when you see one, ( see kennedy'e father and the close links with the Mafia), how do you reckon on deciding that sombody else in a country far away is a BADDY?

I reckon you could devote your time and energy to better things, like making better opportunities for your kids to inherit a country that the world can look up to, and not be criticised for all the mismanagment that the succeeding political agencies are heaping on you.

If only 30% of your energy requirements can be satisfied with wind,water, solar and bio type production systems, how do you see your future if oil is a dwindling resource?

The coming climatic change could see you all as refugees to the South, better make friends now while you've got time, your kids will love you for it.
Ian.

mlind

04-13-2008, 10:52 PM

We're not helpless and we're not stupid.[/quote] That remains to be seen.

I see, proves my point.... Don't give up hope, there is help. Its called education and therapy. Try a little of both.

========================
I really don't need any benefit of any doubt from you, but thanks anyway.

As for not being stupid, I would think if you were half the conservative you claimed to be, you'd know better than to try to tell a group of people to "not think" about something.

That would be... stupid, wouldn't it?

For the record, it's 8:00 in the morning, and my electric meter is already spinning backwards via the solar voltaic system on my white, heat reflecting roof, right next to my solar water heater. It takes me about 3 months to save $600.00 just from the solar voltaic system alone, not to mention how much more I save with the insulation, double paned glass, plellet stove, fire place, well and all the other things I do to not use energy outside what I can generate myself. And I'm not doing it to "save the planet" from so called global warming. I'm doing it because I'm tired of paying other people to do what I want.

I could care less. What I don't like about you is your arrogance in that you think that just because something is working out to a very small savings for you annually, that it's the right thing for everyone to do. Guess what... IT'S NOT! And for the likes of you to try to tell us to "not think" and "just do it" is idiocy.

Donna is a person who writes a lot in this forum but says very little, except that she thinks that everyone here should be doing what she believes is right because it seems to be working for her. Very similar to what you're doing.

jhowelb

04-14-2008, 06:09 AM

Hi Maris, I deeply sympathise with your situation, ...............
Ian.

What a jerk you are!

Maris is the most gentile, compassionate intellectually gifted person currently posting on this forum and you just managed to gratuitously and unnecessarily attack both him and his children.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that you have difficulty getting anyone to respond to you after this. I know that it will be beneath my dignity and I, for one, will simply ignore the fact that you are here. It's called ostracism.

I'd like to be able to say that it's been nice, but it really hasn't!

fizzissist

04-14-2008, 08:33 AM

What a jerk you are!

.... and I, for one, will simply ignore the fact that you are here. It's called ostracism.

LOL!!
Ostracism. Isn't that how they all got there in the first place???

I have to say that I made a mistake earlier in saying that China was the biggest importer of their coal. According to their official coal industry association, it's Japan. Sorry.

What's funny is that here we're being told by the drug dealer that our need for his product is our downfall. It's called hypocrisy.

jhowelb

04-14-2008, 09:31 AM

LOL!!
Ostracism. Isn't that how they all got there in the first place???

I have to say that I made a mistake earlier in saying that China was the biggest importer of their coal. According to their official coal industry association, it's Japan. Sorry.

What's funny is that here we're being told by the drug dealer that our need for his product is our downfall. It's called hypocrisy.

I thought that History repeating would be a bit of justice.

True, a hypocrite but vicious and obnoxious. Just hate filled and critical of everyone and everything. Prolly hates himself!

Uncalled for!

Rekd

04-14-2008, 10:05 AM

I can't refute anything Rekd said about me, so I'll just keep acting like a 3rd grader and calling him stupid because he hurt my little feelings.

There, fixed it for you. (nuts)

mlind

04-15-2008, 12:27 AM

We're not helpless and we're not stupid.[/quote] That remains to be seen.

I see, proves my point.... Don't give up hope, there is help. Its called education and therapy. Try a little of both.

HapSmo19

04-15-2008, 04:14 AM

OK........WHEW!
I read all 2,308 posts and I'm finally ready to chime in. I can sum up this fiasco in one word............how do you spell the sound a fart makes?

This is just those who's motherland dissolved in 1989 begging to be controlled. The rest of us can only hope it warms enough to dry out a land bridge for them to drive their hybrids back to the collective.

George Carlin said it best when he said: "SAVE THE F****N' PLANET???!!!"

xyzdonna

04-15-2008, 06:03 AM

HapSmo19

04-15-2008, 06:28 AM

Identify yourself, are you a liberal or conservative?

Is this a requirement? Are those my only two choices?:)

xyzdonna

04-15-2008, 06:57 AM

Is this a requirement? Are those my only two choices?:)

Hi HapSmo19;
LOL, no, not at all. I'm really a moderate in liberal's clothing. But this particular forum is so right wing that I'm considered right up there with Jane Fonda and Che Guevara. I've been trying to find an ally, but no one seems to take my point of view. Perhaps we liberals art too disparate. Maybe the conservatives are more like minded. The only good thing is that I doubt a conservative could get elected for dog catcher this time around.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Rekd

04-15-2008, 07:41 AM

I'm really a moderate in liberal's clothing.

You don't have to lie to hang out, donna, but by all means, don't let that stop you.

But this particular forum is so right wing

There are over 80,000 members here at CNCzone. From all over the world. People that, you know... work for a living.

How dare they want to have control of their lives.

LoLing at SAVE THE F***ING PLANET???!!!

Rekd

04-15-2008, 07:50 AM

BTW, donna...

We drive, they starve. The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.

A demonstrator eats grass in front of a U.N. peackeeping soldier in Port-au-Prince
A demonstrator eats grass in front of a U.N. peacekeeping soldier during a protest against the high cost of living in Port-au-Prince

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Put a spin on this for me please. It makes too much sense. (nuts)

mlind

04-15-2008, 09:08 AM

fizzissist

04-15-2008, 09:13 AM

There are over 80,000 members here at CNCzone. From all over the world. People that, you know... work for a living.

Gee...working for a living (many who own their own businesses)....and not liberal???? How could that be????

Gotta love the latest, that now Bush is responsible for global starving. (this never would have happened under a liberal administration)

His predecessor did a fine job of helping America transform from a world power to a world customer.

xyzdonna

04-15-2008, 09:17 AM

BTW, donna...

Put a spin on this for me please. It makes too much sense. (nuts)

Hi Rekd,
Quite obviously these Island nations have populated themselves to the breaking point. It's happening to the world at large as well. The planet may be able to support more people but everyone's quality of life will suffer. It's going to take some clear vision and political leadership, something we've been short on lately.
I've said it before, it's absurd to take grain to make ethanol like this administration advocates. Biodiesel from algae is the best possibility on the horizon. Couple that with 50 mph diesel cars and who cares if gas is $10/gal. Taking food crops to make fuel will result in more people going hungry.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-15-2008, 09:24 AM

:nono:Obviously the demonstrators were hungry:withstupi.

A demonstrator eats grass in front of a U.N. peackeeping soldier in Port-au-Prince
A demonstrator eats grass in front of a U.N. peacekeeping soldier during a protest against the high cost of living in Port-au-Prince

Gee...working for a living (many who own their own businesses)....and not liberal???? How could that be????

Gotta love the latest, that now Bush is responsible for global starving. (this never would have happened under a liberal administration)

His predecessor did a fine job of helping America transform from a world power to a world customer.

Not to mention fight a war from 30,000 feet by bombing the Bosnians into oblivion for having the audacity to fight an invasion of foreigners into one of their provinces. (Sorta like if Mexico tried to take Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.)

By the way, we still have troops there. Why do we not hear a hue and cry to bring them home?

Also the most important item in that quote by Rekd, "The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Starving to death for alternative fuel!

jhowelb

04-15-2008, 09:27 AM

Hi Rekd,
Quite obviously these Island nations have populated themselves to the breaking point. It's happening to the world at large as well. The planet may be able to support more people but everyone's quality of life will suffer. It's going to take some clear vision and political leadership, something we've been short on lately.
I've said it before, it's absurd to take grain to make ethanol like this administration advocates. Biodiesel from algae is the best possibility on the horizon. Couple that with 50 mph diesel cars and who cares if gas is $10/gal. Taking food crops to make fuel will result in more people going hungry.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Stuck on stupid! Go invest your own money!

CNC_Programmer

04-15-2008, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by xyzdonna
Hi Rekd,
Quite obviously these Island nations have populated themselves to the breaking point. It's happening to the world at large as well. The planet may be able to support more people but everyone's quality of life will suffer. It's going to take some clear vision and political leadership, something we've been short on lately.
I've said it before, it's absurd to take grain to make ethanol like this administration advocates. Biodiesel from algae is the best possibility on the horizon. Couple that with 50 mph diesel cars and who cares if gas is $10/gal. Taking food crops to make fuel will result in more people going hungry.
Take care,
xyzdonna

But what if the speed limit is only 30mph? Or 70mph

I like nit picking!!!!

Rekd

04-15-2008, 09:38 AM

Thats a dumb question.

Wow.

What question was a dumb question?

Rekd

04-15-2008, 09:41 AM

Quite obviously these Island nations have populated themselves to the breaking point.

Oh. My. God.

I'm just speechless donna. Your ignorance knows no boundaries, and your denial of reality is epic.

xyzdonna

04-15-2008, 09:45 AM

Oh. My. God.

I'm just speechless donna. Your ignorance knows no boundaries, and your denial of reality is epic.
Hi Rekd,
Explain Please!
Take care,
xyzdonna

Rekd

04-15-2008, 10:11 AM

Explain Please!

It figures. :drowning:

I'll explain for those cogent enough to realize the irony and the idiocy. Something that in all likelihood will be wasted on you, donna.

Quite obviously these Island nations have populated themselves to the breaking point.
...
Taking food crops to make fuel will result in more people going hungry.

Get it?

Not to mention how you single handedly proclaimed yourself the all-knowing all-seeing expert on what our best chance at a fossil fuel free future is...

Biodiesel from algae is the best possibility on the horizon.

There are lots of alternatives, donna. Nuclear, solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal, etc.

Your arrogance in singling out eukaryotic based bio-diesel as "the best possibility on the horizon" is annoying and insulting.

xyzdonna

04-15-2008, 10:52 AM

It figures. :drowning:

I'll explain for those cogent enough to realize the irony and the idiocy. Something that in all likelihood will be wasted on you, donna.

Get it?

Not to mention how you single handedly proclaimed yourself the all-knowing all-seeing expert on what our best chance at a fossil fuel free future is...

There are lots of alternatives, donna. Nuclear, solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal, etc.

Your arrogance in singling out eukaryotic based bio-diesel as "the best possibility on the horizon" is annoying and insulting.

Hi Rekd,
Obviously I'm just stating my own opinion although it is shared by many scientists and engineers. The lead time on a nuclear reactor is what, 10 years? Still, it's a good long term solution and I agree, we should get started. We'll have to wait till the current administration is gone however, they don't have an energy policy.
I don't think that those overpopulated island nations Cuba, Haiti, etc. have a synthetic fuel program set up, they mostly ride bicycles and raise food crops.
Gotta go, school awaits, did I tell ya'll I'm taking classes again?
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-15-2008, 10:56 AM

It figures. :drowning:

I'll explain for those cogent enough to realize the irony and the idiocy. Something that in all likelihood will be wasted on you, donna.

Get it?

Not to mention how you single handedly proclaimed yourself the all-knowing all-seeing expert on what our best chance at a fossil fuel free future is...

There are lots of alternatives, donna. Nuclear, solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal, etc.

Your arrogance in singling out eukaryotic based bio-diesel as "the best possibility on the horizon" is annoying and insulting.

Directly related to the Liberal "mind set". They do not think, they feel! She feels fear of the unknown future so she must find something to let her feel that she is doing something to assuage that fear.

She feels that people going hungry so we can make fuel is wrong and so substitutes a feel good "alternative"! Can't think about the ecological damage done by this crap!

She feels that an island nation could have so many people that they can't grow enough food to feed them. Can't think about boats and aircraft to import fuel.

And so it goes on ad infinitum, can't think about unintended consequence, can't understand anything beyond a zero net sum gain. Can't understand the natural law of diminishing returns involve in manufacturing fuel to run this massive human system. Can't fathom the scope of logistics, never mind the mechanics.

Cling to your hopes and ignore all evidence to the contrary!

Rekd

04-15-2008, 11:03 AM

As I figured, donna. You do not see the irony do you?

The lead time on a nuclear reactor is what, 10 years?

Still, it's a good long term solution and I agree, we should get started.

Better tell those liberal tree hugging eco-freaks to stop trying to stop just about every single attempt we make to secure a reliable fuel source, both long term AND short term.

We'll have to wait till the current administration is gone however, they don't have an energy policy.

Resorting to lies again, donna? Typical liberal response to try to deter the truth. Perhaps you don't like the policy, so you try to pretend it doesn't exist?

I don't think that those overpopulated island nations Cuba, Haiti, etc. have a synthetic fuel program set up, they mostly ride bicycles and raise food crops.

Wow. Just wow. The irony never stops does it? :banana:

fizzissist

04-15-2008, 11:31 AM

I've said it before, it's absurd to take grain to make ethanol like this administration advocates. Biodiesel from algae is the best possibility on the horizon.
xyzdonna

Stupidity knowing no bounds is one thing, but twisting the facts is so typical of a true liberal.

"..to take grain and make ethanol like this administration advocates.."

It was NOT this administration that has been the champion of turning food potential into fuel, it is the #@!ING LIBERALS who've been pushing ADM's financial interests. This administration, under Bush, as you recall, is all for EvilBigOil, right!?!

This administration is simply caving to pressure from the liberals and saying 'ok, we need alternative fuels'.

It's the LIBERAL contingent that wants the rest of the world to embrace (and even profit from) ethanol, at the expense of their growing food. As far as the bulk of the starving african nations go, the vast majority of that is a result of land (mis)use, climate issues (that predate the AGW nonsense), or wars.

Take some time out ('bout an hour & 16min) and watch what should be the companion movie to AlGore's An Inconvenient Truth....The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle

At the end you'll see a very interesting perspective on 3rd world energy and quality of life!!

HapSmo19

04-15-2008, 08:50 PM

Enjoy.....

YouTube - George Carlin on Global Warming

xyzdonna

04-15-2008, 09:48 PM

Stupidity knowing no bounds is one thing, but twisting the facts is so typical of a true liberal.

"..to take grain and make ethanol like this administration advocates.."

It was NOT this administration that has been the champion of turning food potential into fuel, it is the #@!ING LIBERALS who've been pushing ADM's financial interests. This administration, under Bush, as you recall, is all for EvilBigOil, right!?!

This administration is simply caving to pressure from the liberals and saying 'ok, we need alternative fuels'.

It's the LIBERAL contingent that wants the rest of the world to embrace (and even profit from) ethanol, at the expense of their growing food. As far as the bulk of the starving african nations go, the vast majority of that is a result of land (mis)use, climate issues (that predate the AGW nonsense), or wars.

Take some time out ('bout an hour & 16min) and watch what should be the companion movie to AlGore's An Inconvenient Truth....The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3928695593212006635&q=great+global+warming+swindle&total=215&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6&hl=en)

At the end you'll see a very interesting perspective on 3rd world energy and quality of life!!

Hi fizzissist;
Yes of course I recall that this is the big oil administration, they've been perpetrating that in their war in Iraq. This war, due to the incompetent mismanagement, is just about lost. Perhaps that's just as well, it never should have been waged in the first place.
Quote: As far as the bulk of the starving african nations go, the vast majority of that is a result of land (mis)use, climate issues (that predate the AGW nonsense), or wars.
Me: I agree.
Quote:Take some time out ('bout an hour & 16min) and watch what should be the companion movie to AlGore's An Inconvenient Truth....The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle

At the end you'll see a very interesting perspective on 3rd world energy and quality of life!
Me: Thanks, I'll do that.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-16-2008, 06:02 AM

Hi fizzissist;
Yes of course I recall that this is the big oil administration, they've been perpetrating that in their war in Iraq. This war, due to the incompetent mismanagement, is just about lost. Perhaps that's just as well, it never should have been waged in the first place.

Quote:Take some time out and watch ....The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3928695593212006635&q=great+global+warming+swindle&total=215&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6&hl=en)

At the end you'll see a very interesting perspective on 3rd world energy and quality of life!
Me: Thanks, I'll do that.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Being naturally stupid is forgivable, but intentionally stuffing your head in a toilet to get the Dem "talking points" and then refusing to hear any news that is contrary is willing suspension of disbelief of Orwellian scale.

You ignored this the first time so I'll bring it back. Post 2289.

I just love graphic artists, great people! But all those signs, letters and posters gotta go! They are a blight on the land worse than trash alongside the highway. Billboards gotta be the creation of Satan or at least the ilk of Stalin or Hitler!

There is an example of absurdity that you should be able to relate to! It is the kind of thing you do to our troops. When you tell them that the thing they sacrifice for, bleed for and indeed die for is a useless exercise in insanity you have equated them to cannon fodder.

The big discussion in Washington today is whether the Iraqis should use the $100.00 per barrel THEY are getting from the sale of their oil for the reconstruction of Iraq! That makes this statement STUPID! " It should be obvious by now to even the most jaded conservative that this war was about oil." WHO is profiting enough then to make war worth while? Open your baby blues to the real truth!

"We will lose this war as we lost the Vietnam war..." That is right! If we lose it it WILL be lost in the same place and for the same reason. The place will be the news medis and the halls of congress. And the reason will be because the left is so invested in defeat politically that they throw victory away. We were not defeated in Viet Nam, your soul sisters and brothers threw it away.

Your not even smart enough to realize when something is to your benefit. You hate America, you hate the military, you hate our health care system, you hate religion, you hate morality and in short you hate our way of life. Why don't you pack your crap and move to Cuba? I'm sure you will find everything there in line with your way of thinking!!

And #2290

Yes, Iraq is ALL about oil. So was Bosnia. Clinton sent us in to secure the AMBO pipeline while he negotiated Corridor8 oil deals behind closed doors. We were lucky with Bosnia, since there wasn't nearly the snipers to contend with (sorry, HRC) and our troop losses were nill.

Even your Queen of Bleeding Heart Liberals Her Royal HighnASS Hillary Rammit Clinton said that Saddam needed to be disarmed. YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8)

There. The standard bearer for liberals. 8 years wearing Al Gore's pants, grooming for the presidency, being privvy to the intel.....and supporting the disarming. If you think she didn't know it's about oil, or cat food, or whatever, you're dumber'n a bag a hammers.

When things get hot you duck and cover , hide a while then ignore the truth and try to continue on as if you never heard.

That is self imposed idiocy that can only be explained as intellectual suicide!

jhowelb

04-16-2008, 06:39 AM

This morning President Bush said each one of us would get $300.00, it was $800.00 but they dropped it to $300.00 "stimulus package". If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China , if we spend it on gasoline it will all go to the Arabs, and neither will help the American economy.
The way I see it, we need to keep that money here in America, so the only way I can see to keep that money here at home is drink beer or spend it on prostitution, those are the only businesses still in the U.S.

xyzdonna

04-16-2008, 07:56 AM

Hi jhowelb,

Originally Posted by xyzdonna:

Hi fizzissist;
Yes of course I recall that this is the big oil administration, they've been perpetrating that in their war in Iraq. This war, due to the incompetent mismanagement, is just about lost. Perhaps that's just as well, it never should have been waged in the first place.

Quote:Take some time out and watch ....The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle

At the end you'll see a very interesting perspective on 3rd world energy and quality of life!
Me: Thanks, I'll do that.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Quote jhowelb:
Being naturally stupid is forgivable, but intentionally stuffing your head in a toilet to get the Dem "talking points" and then refusing to hear any news that is contrary is willing suspension of disbelief of Orwellian scale.

You ignored this the first time so I'll bring it back. Post 2289.

Me: That's funny, that's exactly the complaint I have about conservatives, they refuse to look at anything which contradicts their cherished belief structure.

Quote jhowelb:
I just love graphic artists, great people! But all those signs, letters and posters gotta go! They are a blight on the land worse than trash alongside the highway. Billboards gotta be the creation of Satan or at least the ilk of Stalin or Hitler!

Me:That's how I made my living, but my signs were well designed and aesthetic.

Quote jhowelb:
There is an example of absurdity that you should be able to relate to! It is the kind of thing you do to our troops. When you tell them that the thing they sacrifice for, bleed for and indeed die for is a useless exercise in insanity you have equated them to cannon fodder.

Me: I've watched interviews on TV where the troops say they ignore the controversy, they are there to do a job. In most of the interviews I've seen they support the war effort. It would be hard for them to do otherwise without being censured. A soldier doesn't have the same right of dissent that a citizen does.

Quote jhowelb:
The big discussion in Washington today is whether the Iraqis should use the $100.00 per barrel THEY are getting from the sale of their oil for the reconstruction of Iraq! That makes this statement STUPID! " It should be obvious by now to even the most jaded conservative that this war was about oil." WHO is profiting enough then to make war worth while? Open your baby blues to the real truth!

Me: The fact that it hasn't worked out to be a profitable enterprise is due to the incompetent mismanagement of the war. No thought was given to what the Iraqi people had to say. The hubris of this administration was in going in, polishing off Sadam, and then saying in essence; "now we fixed everything, start loving us and give us your oil".

Quote jhowelb:
"We will lose this war as we lost the Vietnam war..." That is right! If we lose it it WILL be lost in the same place and for the same reason. The place will be the news medis and the halls of congress. And the reason will be because the left is so invested in defeat politically that they throw victory away. We were not defeated in Viet Nam, your soul sisters and brothers threw it away.

Me: This war is different from Vietnam. That war was fought over ideology, this was over oil. I think that is evident to all the players, but of course left unsaid by this administration. Obviously we won this war quickly and easily from the military standpoint. This due to competence of our soldiers and their equipment. It was after the military phase was over that it was lost due to Bush's abject incompetence. The American people see that it has been lost, the administration continues to pretend that it hasn't. They are constantly changing strategy; troop surges, forging alliances with different players. The problem is they are fighting more than just the Taliban. They should have abandoned this effort long ago when they became embroiled in a civil war. To continue was utter folly.

Quote jhowelb:
Your not even smart enough to realize when something is to your benefit. You hate America, you hate the military, you hate our health care system, you hate religion, you hate morality and in short you hate our way of life. Why don't you pack your crap and move to Cuba? I'm sure you will find everything there in line with your way of thinking!!

Me: Something to my (our) benefit? The national debt hovering around $30,000 for every man, woman and child. The economy in recession.
I do not hate our country! I hate it when our resources are squandered by stupidity! I do not hate our military, they have done a marvelous job! This effort was lost by our elected administration. I do despise the way our health care system is funded. The people who are in the business (doctors, nurses, practitioners) are for the most part dedicated and competent. The large drug companies and health insurance companies are doing what is in their interests, not ours. Cuba is another example of a failed state, they just failed in different ways. Perhaps if you want a better example of what works, look to the French.
And #2290

Quote jhowelb:
Yes, Iraq is ALL about oil. So was Bosnia. Clinton sent us in to secure the AMBO pipeline while he negotiated Corridor8 oil deals behind closed doors. We were lucky with Bosnia, since there wasn't nearly the snipers to contend with (sorry, HRC) and our troop losses were nill.

Even your Queen of Bleeding Heart Liberals Her Royal HighnASS Hillary Rammit Clinton said that Saddam needed to be disarmed.
YouTube - Hillary Clinton's views on going to...

There. The standard bearer for liberals. 8 years wearing Al Gore's pants, grooming for the presidency, being privvy to the intel.....and supporting the disarming. If you think she didn't know it's about oil, or cat food, or whatever, you're dumber'n a bag a hammers.

When things get hot you duck and cover , hide a while then ignore the truth and try to continue on as if you never heard.

That is self imposed idiocy that can only be explained as intellectual suicide!

Me: You may have a point, maybe Obama would be a better choice. The only reason I favor Clinton is that she'll have Bill's input. Bill is sharp, real sharp.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-16-2008, 08:14 AM

You prove my point, arguing with you is like wrestling with a pig. A person only gets dirty and sweaty and the pig likes it!

You simply will not see and you can't defend your position even when you do try. Thus, you really aren't worth the effort!

fizzissist

04-16-2008, 09:30 AM

jhowelb

04-16-2008, 09:48 AM

Bill's a liar, a real liar. That's who you want input from?

Me: How can people be so dumb?

The Hildabeast is as big a liar as Bill, it's congenital.
Of course Wxyz prefers them, after all she too is a liar. Great at even telling lies to herself.

CNC_Programmer

04-16-2008, 09:57 AM

The only reason I favor Clinton is that she'll have Bill's input. Bill is sharp, real sharp.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Bill's a liar, a real liar. That's who you want input from?

Me: How can people be so dumb?

But he is sharp! He usually gets away with it. Unlike the other side that are expected to resign if they "misspeak" about anything!

jhowelb

04-16-2008, 10:10 AM

But he is sharp! He usually gets away with it. Unlike the other side that are expected to resign if they "misspeak" about anything!

That's because the "other side" has REAL standards while HRC and company will tolerate any kind of misbehavior!

xyzdonna

04-16-2008, 01:03 PM

But he is sharp! He usually gets away with it. Unlike the other side that are expected to resign if they "misspeak" about anything!

Hi CNC_Programmer;
That's funny! But you know, we should probably put a lid on it. Much as I like to bash Bush and ya'll like to skewer Clinton and Obama, we should probably get back to solving the energy crisis. I feel for Mariss, his daughter and son-in-law off to Iraq. I'm sure it is hurtful when I point out the uselessness of this war. I don't like to be hurtful, it's a liberal thing.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-16-2008, 02:10 PM

Hi CNC_Programmer;
That's funny! But you know, we should probably put a lid on it. Much as I like to bash Bush and ya'll like to skewer Clinton and Obama, we should probably get back to solving the energy crisis. I feel for Mariss, his daughter and son-in-law off to Iraq. I'm sure it is hurtful when I point out the uselessness of this war. I don't like to be hurtful, it's a liberal thing.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Open your eyes and actually READ what Mariss has said. His kids going off TO DO THEIR DUTY is a point of extreme pride for him. What is hurtful is the nitwit attitude and remarks of you and your kind. You are just too damned stupid to know when you've been handed the most precious gift one human can give to another.

It is only useless in your very small mind. If you had the brains God gave a goose you'd realize that they are guaranteeing your safety as well as bringing freedom to millions. That is hardly useless and this is not the first time I've told you this. Get it thru your thick skull.

AND you most certainly DO want to hurt with those comments else you would shut the hell up with your ungrateful diatribe. The more you do it the more people hate you for it.

Here are a few points for you to ponder.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is a remote possiblility of victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

As John Steinbeck once said:

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?" The Ranger responded, "Because they don't make a 46."

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?" "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."

8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE
IT!!!

But wait, there's more!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said "Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!" To which I said, of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!" She then asked, "Are you that afraid of some one evil coming into your house?"
My reply was, "No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too." To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.

xyzdonna

04-16-2008, 04:53 PM

Open your eyes and actually READ what Mariss has said. His kids going off TO DO THEIR DUTY is a point of extreme pride for him. What is hurtful is the nitwit attitude and remarks of you and your kind. You are just too damned stupid to know when you've been handed the most precious gift one human can give to another.

It is only useless in your very small mind. If you had the brains God gave a goose you'd realize that they are guaranteeing your safety as well as bringing freedom to millions. That is hardly useless and this is not the first time I've told you this. Get it thru your thick skull.

AND you most certainly DO want to hurt with those comments else you would shut the hell up with your ungrateful diatribe. The more you do it the more people hate you for it.

Here are a few points for you to ponder.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is a remote possiblility of victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

As John Steinbeck once said:

1. Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

3. I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?" The Ranger responded, "Because they don't make a 46."

6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?" "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."

8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE
IT!!!

But wait, there's more!

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said "Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!" To which I said, of course it is loaded, can't work without bullets!" She then asked, "Are you that afraid of some one evil coming into your house?"
My reply was, "No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too." To which I'll add, having a gun in the house that isn't loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.

Hi jhowelb;
That is funny also. We have two rifles in the house as well, a 22 and a shotgun. Only the 22 is loaded. I can use the 22, when I once shot the shot gun I got knocked on my a$$.
Let me take off my Democrat hat and put on my psychologist hat. I'll critique you as well as myself. We're both guilty of the same thing as CNC_Programmer alluded to. I ignore little things with Clinton (Bill) as you do with Bush (George) because their our "boy". Well, actually you ignore some pretty big things with Bush but I guess it's all a matter of degree. I suppose we're both blind to the failings of our "boy".
We have different philosophical perspectives you and I. Your main thrust is that hard working conservatives should keep as much of the money they make as possible. Very little should be spent on welfare and such for the less fortunate. I'm of the mind that society as a whole benefits when everybody is taken care of to some extent. I base this on life experience, perhaps you do as well. I can (and have) cited you some real world examples of that. I can tell you absolutely that we have not benefited from this war in Iraq, it simply cost too much. Afghanistan maybe but not Iraq.
So you see, we both are prejudiced to some degree by our perspective. It will be difficult for the chasm between us to be bridged. All I can tell you is that the Republicans have mucked it up so badly it will be a shoe in for the Democrats to get in this time.
Take care,
xyzdonna

fizzissist

04-16-2008, 05:12 PM

police are armed historians

jhowelb

04-16-2008, 06:12 PM

You are just WRONG, intentionally, purposely and completely WRONG!

Therefore the W in Wxyz! It stands for WRONG!

NONE is so blind as him who will not see! That's you! No one can show you anything because you won't look. If we hold up a picture for you, you examine the damned frame!

I am through, you aren't worth the effort nor aggravation.

Rekd

04-16-2008, 08:20 PM

All I can tell you is that the Republicans have mucked it up so badly it will be a shoe in for the Democrats to get in this time.

Quoted for posterity. :banana:

Care to go out on a limb and make a guess as to how badly the mucked up Repubs will lose by?

xyzdonna

04-16-2008, 08:50 PM

Quoted for posterity. :banana:

Care to go out on a limb and make a guess as to how badly the mucked up Repubs will lose by?

Hi Rekd,
Yep, I'll go out on a limb. I may be conservative in my prediction, and I really hate that, but I'll make a prediction. 55% to 45% our favor. Piece of cake. And would you be kind enough to make a prediction from your vantage? This ought to be good. I'll wager it's a mirror image of mine, only the reverse. Hmmm, well that's what a mirror image is isn't it? The reverse?
Has anyone ever wondered why a mirror image is in reverse? But yet the top is up and the bottom is down?
Take care,
xyzdonna

fizzissist

04-16-2008, 09:32 PM

Has anyone ever wondered why a mirror image is in reverse? But yet the top is up and the bottom is down?
Take care,
xyzdonna

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that it might be obvious to the casual observer. It's kind of a basic physics thing.

Donna, I think you might be having a problem with it because you're not looking at a simple reflection in a simple mirror. You're looking at a mirror through the lens of a large format camera. The image is not only backwards for you, it IS upside down!

The democrats are too busy trying to eat their young to have provided a serious threat to the repubs....even as bad as the repubs have screwed up. That's how bad the dems are!!

--jhowelb, that was a GREAT post with Steinbeck's words.

xyzdonna

04-16-2008, 10:01 PM

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that it might be obvious to the casual observer. It's kind of a basic physics thing.

Donna, I think you might be having a problem with it because you're not looking at a simple reflection in a simple mirror. You're looking at a mirror through the lens of a large format camera. The image is not only backwards for you, it IS upside down!

The democrats are too busy trying to eat their young to have provided a serious threat to the repubs....even as bad as the repubs have screwed up. That's how bad the dems are!!

--jhowelb, that was a GREAT post with Steinbeck's words.

Hi fizzissist;
That's fascinating fizzissist. I love this. So you're saying I don't see things as they really are? I'm out of touch, I'm wrong? The dems are bad? Get a load of me next prediction, I think it will be 20, or 25 years before we screw up so badly that the Repubs will get back in, whatcha think about that? Yep, when you put a complete moron in charge of the whole country, you gotta expect, bad things will happen. What do you have for an encore?
Take care,
xyzdonna

dynosor

04-16-2008, 11:03 PM

police are armed historians
Yes, and the CHP are just the armed wing of the IRS.

dimaker

04-17-2008, 07:33 AM

1998 was the warmest year on record. the planet has started to cool a bit. we all owe our lives to al gore he has saved the planet. it appears that the world has listened and averted disaster. thanks al. but i wonder, if man made global warming were actually true isnt there some positives? arentt here some areas of the planet that could now be used as farmland?
that how weknow that als full of hot air. hell never mention any benifits

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 07:59 AM

Hi Rekd,
Yep, I'll go out on a limb. I may be conservative in my prediction, and I really hate that, but I'll make a prediction. 55% to 45% our favor. Piece of cake. And would you be kind enough to make a prediction from your vantage? This ought to be good. I'll wager it's a mirror image of mine, only the reverse. Hmmm, well that's what a mirror image is isn't it? The reverse?
Has anyone ever wondered why a mirror image is in reverse? But yet the top is up and the bottom is down?
Take care,
xyzdonna

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16obama.html?ei=5065&en=20b42c88b48878ce&ex=1209009600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)
April 16, 2008
Fight Leaves Democrats Questioning Prospects

By JEFF ZELENY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/jeff_zeleny/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
The battle between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) over whether Mr. Obama belittled voters in small towns appears to have hardened the views of both candidates’ supporters and stirred anxiety among many Democrats about the party’s prospects in the fall.

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 08:08 AM

1998 was the warmest year on record. the planet has started to cool a bit. we all owe our lives to al gore he has saved the planet. it appears that the world has listened and averted disaster. thanks al. but i wonder, if man made global warming were actually true isn't there some positives? aren't there some areas of the planet that could now be used as farmland?
that how we know that als full of hot air. hell never mention any benefits

True! And if bull**** was music he'd be a full orchestra!!!

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 08:16 AM

Hi fizzissist;
That's fascinating fizzissist. I love this. So you're saying I don't see things as they really are? I'm out of touch, I'm wrong? The dems are bad? Get a load of me next prediction, I think it will be 20, or 25 years before we screw up so badly that the Repubs will get back in, whatcha think about that? Yep, when you put a complete moron in charge of the whole country, you gotta expect, bad things will happen. What do you have for an encore?
Take care,
xyzdonna

See guys, the problem with morons is that they think every one else has a mentality equal to their own. This one won't even take time to read the news and when you force her to look at the truth she says to herself "that can't be, I don't like it!"

It's not a mirror, it's the distortion caused by viewing the world thru a twisted mind!

xyzdonna

04-17-2008, 10:14 AM

See guys, the problem with morons is that they think every one else has a mentality equal to their own. This one won't even take time to read the news and when you force her to look at the truth she says to herself "that can't be, I don't like it!"

It's not a mirror, it's the distortion caused by viewing the world thru a twisted mind!

Hi jhowelb;
Remember please that approximately 98% of the people posting here seem to be conservatives. I find that interesting. Putting my psychologist hat on makes me wonder why. Obviously people who are interested in CNC are smart, technical, and perhaps for the most part successful. I guess they think it's in their own best interests to keep as much of their money as possible. This to the exclusion of the broader picture which seems elusive to them. Strange as it may seem I even have friends who are essentially paupers who are conservative. That's like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders! This one friend in particular has no problem collecting food stamps though. Also, when you think back, Clinton was the president who overhauled the welfare system remember?
I once was on the neon list spouting my liberal views. I got the same reception as I've gotten here. I should go back and see if after 8 years of Bush any have changed their mind. Judging from the responses I'm getting here I would doubt it. I would think that they, like yourself, still support their "boy". I know one of the neon lists posters personally. He thinks the same now as then. I guess our hope lies in the undecided (independent) voters. Well, that's all for now, I'm off to school.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Rekd

04-17-2008, 10:28 AM

I guess they [conservatives] think it's in their own best interests to keep as much of their money as possible.

OMG!!

You think we shouldn't want to keep the money we work hard for?

Are you ****ing serious!!!??? (chair)

You think we should all work our asses off for someone else to continue to sit on their ass and live off OUR labor???

Nothing personal, but you disgust me. Perhaps those Doctors were right. Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 10:59 AM

Hi jhowelb;
Remember please that approximately 98% of the people posting here seem to be conservatives. I find that interesting. Putting my psychologist hat on makes me wonder why. Obviously people who are interested in CNC are smart, technical, and perhaps for the most part successful. I guess they think it's in their own best interests to keep as much of their money as possible. This to the exclusion of the broader picture which seems elusive to them. Strange as it may seem I even have friends who are essentially paupers who are conservative. That's like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders! This one friend in particular has no problem collecting food stamps though. Also, when you think back, Clinton was the president who overhauled the welfare system remember?
I once was on the neon list spouting my liberal views. I got the same reception as I've gotten here. I should go back and see if after 8 years of Bush any have changed their mind. Judging from the responses I'm getting here I would doubt it. I would think that they, like yourself, still support their "boy". I know one of the neon lists posters personally. He thinks the same now as then. I guess our hope lies in the undecided (independent) voters. Well, that's all for now, I'm off to school.
Take care,
xyzdonna

"Physician, heal thyself!"

You can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it. " Albert Einstein

"That's like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders!" RIGHT! The Clintons paid tax on (wonder how much went under the radar) $109 million over the last ten years. Check the personal holdings of all those Dem senators. They are the "richest Americans" and they know how to cheat the tax code. The phrase "fox guarding the hen house" comes to mind. We don't buy that crap because we see what a miserable screaming freaking FAILURE every liberal project from affirmative action to war on poverty has been!

The welfare system was overhauled because the Repubs dragged him to it and force fed it to him. He later bemoaned the "terrible mistake", but you wouldn't be aware of any of that because it doesn't fit your template. You have already made up your feeble, confused little mind and don't want any facts!

They won't have changed their minds on your neon list (whatever that is) because conservatives believe in and stand on principle. They won't want to punish success because they hope to make their own success, which BTW would be a hell of a lot easier without all that liberal government getting in the way.

As to supporting "my boy", it may surprise you to learn that I didn't have much use for GWB from the outset. He always was far too liberal as was his father. The policy on the boarder issue is one place I take bitter exception with him. This latest foray into populism with GW/CC is another. He is, however the duly elected president and thus deserves more respect than fools like you are willing to give him.

In summary, you just don't get it. You aren't capable. (See? Even after my recent brush with death you can still act stupid enough to make me want to slap the pi** out of you!)

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 12:34 PM

Democrats facing ethics problems:

•Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, who is under investigation of alleged bribery in connection with helping market broadband telecommunication services in Nigeria. Former aide Brent Pfeffer and businessman Vernon Jackson have pleaded guilty. An FBI raid on Jefferson's houses in New Orleans and Washington last year found $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Jefferson hasn't been charged and has denied wrongdoing. His attorney, Robert Trout, declined to comment.

• Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, who directed federal grants to non-profit groups back home while entering real estate deals with top officials of the groups. The congressman's personal wealth jumped. Mollohan has defended his actions as designed to bring economic development to his district, but he had to step down as the top Democrat on the House ethics committee.

•Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the subject of staff complaints that he assigned workers to babysit, chauffeur and tutor his children and pushed aides to do campaign work on government time. Conyers attorney Stan Brand said the congressman responded to the charges two years ago and hasn't heard from the ethics committee since then. Republicans are "looking to increase the Democratic body count" in response to their own corruption scandals, he said.

Democrats also have taken hits from a run-in between Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and a Capitol Police officer, and an early-morning accident in which Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island weaved up a street in his car and struck a security barrier near the Capitol. He checked into a drug rehabilitation center Friday.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California sought to distinguish her party's foibles from the scandals that brought down Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., for bribery and three former Republican congressional aides who had ties to ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Abramoff, a Republican, pleaded guilty in January to corruption charges.

"You're talking about two completely different things," Pelosi said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. The Democratic ethics cases are "individual challenges that those people will have to deal with," she said, noting that she has called for the House ethics committee to investigate Jefferson. Republicans, she charged, have a system of "corruption, cronyism and incompetence" that goes beyond personal indiscretions.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee, said Republicans have "a governing philosophy" to cozy up to lobbyists that has led them to favor industries such as oil and pharmaceuticals, producing higher prices for gasoline and prescriptions. "That is a fundamental difference," he said.

Panetta said such line-drawing is lost on voters. The best Democrats can hope for is a repeat of 1994, he said, when voters — angered over misbehavior by members of both parties in a House bank scandal — turned 38 incumbents out of office. "It hurt the party in power the most," Panetta said.

That year, the Democrats lost the House majority they had held since the 1950s. Using corruption as a campaign theme is "still a pretty good strategy, but I wouldn't put it at the top of my list of attack issues," Panetta said.

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 12:40 PM

Article published Nov 23, 2007
Study: Democrats the party of the rich

November 23, 2007

By Donald Lambro - Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majoritiy of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

The shift in the number of wealthier Democratic districts got a significant bounce in the last election.

"A fair number of these districts are represented by freshmen, a lot of the guys who got elected in 2006," he said.

"The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the rich.' More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households," he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a preview of his study.

dynosor

04-17-2008, 01:06 PM

98% of the people posting here seem to be conservatives. Putting my psychologist hat on makes me wonder why.

Simple: Conservative are about creating wealth; Liberals are about redistribution of wealth. Creating wealth involves creating something useful, most often using tools and skills, including CNC machines.

I wonder how many lawyers are Liberals...

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 01:10 PM

Just a short list. Kinda shows what a lie this quote is.

"This to the exclusion of the broader picture which seems elusive to them. Strange as it may seem I even have friends who are essentially paupers who are conservative. That's like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders!"

Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who was an accomplished trial lawyer, has a blind trust worth $5 million to $25 million. Senator Edwards earned big fees as one of his state's top trial lawyers before winning a Senate seat in 1998. Beyond the blind trust, Mr. Edwards listed a money-market account worth $1 million to $5 million, and bank accounts, certificates of deposit, stock and other investments worth at least another $1.5 million.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, whose family has extensive land holdings in his home state, reported assets of about $8 million to $31 million

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts with Teresa Heinz Kerry, have an estimated $500 million. The assets he listed as his own, or owned jointly with his wife, are worth $700,000 to $2.4 million. They include a trust, a painting and $300,000 to $1.5 million in stocks and bonds.

Senator Graham reported assets owned by him or his wife worth nearly $8 million to more than $31 million. The largest asset, at $5 million to $25 million, was land and developments, including a golf course, in Miami-Dade County.

Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, the former co-chief executive of Goldman Sachs, disclosed owning more than $50 million in Goldman stock through his blind trust. He also owns undeveloped land in Ouray, Colo., worth $25 million to $50 million.

Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, with a net worth of at least $111, is one of the wealthiest U.S. senators with an estimated net worth in 2005 of $279 million.

John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, with an estimated net worth of at least $82 million.

Points out the reason for the "W" in Wxyz!!!

CNC_Programmer

04-17-2008, 01:12 PM

fizzissist

04-17-2008, 02:38 PM

George Soros? Ron Burkle? All the guys AlGore and BillC associate with?
Makes me wanna puke when I hear that the conservatives are all the wealthy....and the liberals are all about helping the poor...

Rekd

04-17-2008, 03:20 PM

George Soros? Is he a US citizen?

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 04:37 PM

George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management, LLC and founder of The Open Society Institute. He was born in Budapest in 1930. He survived the Nazi occupation and then fled communist Hungary for England, where he graduated from the London School of Economics. In 1956, Soros immigrated to the United States, where he accumulated a large fortune through the investment advisory firm he founded and managed. Mr. Soros has been active as a philanthropist since 1979. He has established a network of philanthropic organizations that are now active in more than 50 countries. These organizations are dedicated to promoting the values of democracy and an open society. The foundation network spends about $400 million annually.

I can find no mention of becoming a citizen. He saw first hand the failures of two other types of government, then came here to take advantage of our system (partake of the milk and honey) and then has the balls to try to destroy this country. What a prince!

fizzissist

04-17-2008, 04:44 PM

U.S. citizen?
Since when did you have to be a citizen to donate to a democratic candidate or spend time in the Lincoln bedroom?

Like Elton John announcing his support for Billary?

Btw, Bono, of U2, champion of the taxpayer subsidizing 3rd world debt and feeding the world's poor is himself a champion hypocrite. To avoid the heavy taxes in the U.K. or Ireland (don't remember which he's financially based out of) he moved his record company to the Netherlands.

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 04:55 PM

Really informative! Not exactly a model citizen, IF he even is one!

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/engdahl-soros.html

The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros

by William Engdahl

EIR Investigation Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), November 1, 1996

The dossier that follows is based upon a report released on Oct. 1 by EIR's bureau in Wiesbaden, Germany, titled "A Profile of Mega-Speculator George Soros." Research was contributed by Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich, Paolo Raimondi, and Scott Thompson.

fish1234

04-17-2008, 05:24 PM

dang

04-17-2008, 06:00 PM

I wrote a very long post but all it would have done is added to all the bickering and name calling that is going on already. So I deleted it and will say just this: GET RID OF ALL THE HATRED, ANGER, VIOLENCE, GREED, SELFISHNESS, ARROGANCE AND LACK OF RESPECT TO YOURSELF AND TO OTHERS. Then maybe we can fix all the problems that plague this world!

I am talking about real problems not perceived or dreamed up ones!

So basically, we're screwed. We'll be extinct along with most other life on this planet, in less than 100 years. Every singly biological system on this planet is in decline. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

Also, I've been avoiding this thread for a while now, and will continue to as well. Having said that, I'll bug out of this thread, not to return. I don't need to argue with "ya'll" over that very basic fact of man-made planetary destruction.

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 06:08 PM

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 06:10 PM

So basically, we're screwed. We'll be extinct along with most other life on this planet, in less than 100 years. Every singly biological system on this planet is in decline. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

Also, I've been avoiding this thread for a while now, and will continue to as well. Having said that, I'll bug out of this thread, not to return. I don't need to argue with "ya'll" over that very basic fact of man-made planetary destruction.

Bye, bye! Ya'll!

dynosor

04-17-2008, 06:25 PM

I wrote a very long post but all it would have done is added to all the bickering and name calling that is going on already. So I deleted it and will say just this: GET RID OF ALL THE HATRED, ANGER, VIOLENCE, GREED, SELFISHNESS, ARROGANCE AND LACK OF RESPECT TO YOURSELF AND TO OTHERS. Then maybe we can fix all the problems that plague this world!

I am talking about real problems not perceived or dreamed up ones!

Yes, and don't forget to add: "First do no harm."

Good intentions do not excuse doing something "to help" that ultimately yields negative unintended consequences. Be especialy careful of signing up for things like carbon taxes that will do nothing more than re-distribute wealth and cannot be easily undone once international agreements have been made.

xyzdonna

04-17-2008, 06:50 PM

OMG!!

You think we shouldn't want to keep the money we work hard for?

Are you ****ing serious!!!??? (chair)

You think we should all work our asses off for someone else to continue to sit on their ass and live off OUR labor???

Nothing personal, but you disgust me. Perhaps those Doctors were right. Liberalism IS a mental disorder.

Hi Rekd,
Disgust you? Perhaps that says more about you than me. There was a time when liberals and conservatives could sit around, have a glass of brandy, and hold a congenial discourse. William F. Buckley would have understood that. The neanderthals that now foist themselves off as conservatives clearly don't. You seem to think there is a whole cadre of people out there who's one goal is to live for free off of everyone else. This simplistic and absurd assumption is so out of touch with the way things really are that it's laughable. That any thinking person could subscribe to it is pathetic.
Take care,
xyzdonna

handlewanker

04-17-2008, 07:26 PM

Yes, bickering and squabbling, and while you're about it add back biting and nit picking.

BTW JH, what is "doing their duty" as opposed to merely going "over there" to kick arses for oil.

I suppose Mariss gets a warm glow knowing that someone "over their" is going to the knackers yard in the great oil expedition.

Where do you get the idea that the state of the nation is being safe guarded by getting a bunch of jobless youth to go "over there" and kick arses so that some of you can drive around in cars using cheap petrol bought by the blood of your boys and theirs.

Isn't life suppopsed to be sacred?

Or maybe you've got an excess of roosters in the farmyard and need to find something for them to do.

How about getting the jobless boys back onto the land to produce foodcrops so that they can have a decent life instead of coming home to a critical population that didn't believe all the bull about winning a war for "arms of mass destruction" and wouldn't praise them for kicking arses in a foreign land.

At the end of the day when you calculate the BILLIONS of dollars that would have made a huge impact if it had been ploughed into something, anything, but not an imponderable war machine that just goes from bad to worse making the same mistakes but with different people.

Your biggest fears are that there will be no one left to fight with, because they've all taken their balls back home, and this will mean that within about 40 years of no military activity your "military might" will become stagnant and innefectual and all your generals will come and go never having fired a shot in anger.

So who will you annoy next when you come back from the oil fields?

It's got to be soon or else you'll have an army of highly trained arse kickers running around in the 'burbs highly motivated to "do their thing" but without an outlet for their aggression.

Maybe they'll apply to join the LAPD like a film I saw on the box, so that their talents can be utilised to the full.
Ian.

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 07:35 PM

Hi Rekd,
Disgust you? Perhaps that says more about you than me. There was a time when liberals and conservatives could sit around, have a glass of brandy, and hold a congenial discourse. William F. Buckley would have understood that. The neanderthals that now foist themselves off as conservatives clearly don't. You seem to think there is a whole cadre of people out there who's one goal is to live for free off of everyone else. This simplistic and absurd assumption is so out of touch with the way things really are that it's laughable. That any thinking person could subscribe to it is pathetic.
Take care,
xyzdonna

No, it says it all about you.

The idyllic conversation with brandy could only happen in your imagination where you control everything. All congenial discourse ended in the early sixties and was replaced with open warfare in 1968 at the DNC Convention!

When did you meet a Neanderthal? (spelling!) Time travel a recent accomplishment?

There IS a whole cadre of people out there who's one goal is to live for free off of everyone else. They are called Liberals!

You are the one who is simplistic, absurd and laughable and so out of touch with the way things really are. Any person thinking as you do is pathetic!

See, all those words can be turned back on you.

BTW, you are again ignoring a group of posts that you ducked out to avoid. 2354 thru 2360.

As your chief antagonist I can't let you get away with that!

xyzdonna

04-17-2008, 07:42 PM

"Physician, heal thyself!"

You can't solve a problem with the same mind that created it. " Albert Einstein

"That's like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders!" RIGHT! The Clintons paid tax on (wonder how much went under the radar) $109 million over the last ten years. Check the personal holdings of all those Dem senators. They are the "richest Americans" and they know how to cheat the tax code. The phrase "fox guarding the hen house" comes to mind. We don't buy that crap because we see what a miserable screaming freaking FAILURE every liberal project from affirmative action to war on poverty has been!

The welfare system was overhauled because the Repubs dragged him to it and force fed it to him. He later bemoaned the "terrible mistake", but you wouldn't be aware of any of that because it doesn't fit your template. You have already made up your feeble, confused little mind and don't want any facts!

They won't have changed their minds on your neon list (whatever that is) because conservatives believe in and stand on principle. They won't want to punish success because they hope to make their own success, which BTW would be a hell of a lot easier without all that liberal government getting in the way.

As to supporting "my boy", it may surprise you to learn that I didn't have much use for GWB from the outset. He always was far too liberal as was his father. The policy on the boarder issue is one place I take bitter exception with him. This latest foray into populism with GW/CC is another. He is, however the duly elected president and thus deserves more respect than fools like you are willing to give him.

In summary, you just don't get it. You aren't capable. (See? Even after my recent brush with death you can still act stupid enough to make me want to slap the pi** out of you!)

Hi jhowelb;
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were sick, hope you are better now. It does surprise me that George wasn't your "boy". Bush too liberal? That's amazing. You didn't support his open boarder policy of allowing all these illegal immigrants to bring us cheap labor? But it was so good for business don't you know? So what if he turns our country into a banana republic. "Fools like me" don't give respect to real fools. My "feeble confused little mind" is quite lucid regarding what conservatism has wrought.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 07:49 PM

Naw, you are completely awash. You have even forgotten a conversation we had.

Private Message: Re: not flu

03-22-2008, 02:07 AM

Re: not flu
Not flu,suspect pneumonia.
Insults are thing of past, making peace with Maker. Hoping to make right with Him all past sins

Hi jhowelb,
I'm really sorry, I do hope you get well soon. Don't worry about me, nothing you've said has been hurtful, only humorous. You have a marvelous wit and they say that has curative powers. I hope it brings you through with flying colors. In spite of my posts their is some residual religion from my Christian upbringing. I'll be praying for you. Get well soon!
Take care,
xyzdonnaMaybe you've gone completely over the edge!

xyzdonna

04-17-2008, 07:49 PM

No, it says it all about you.

The idyllic conversation with brandy could only happen in your imagination where you control everything. All congenial discourse ended in the early sixties and was replaced with open warfare in 1968 at the DNC Convention!

When did you meet a Neanderthal? (spelling!) Time travel a recent accomplishment?

There IS a whole cadre of people out there who's one goal is to live for free off of everyone else. They are called Liberals!

You are the one who is simplistic, absurd and laughable and so out of touch with the way things really are. Any person thinking as you do is pathetic!

See, all those words can be turned back on you.

BTW, you are again ignoring a group of posts that you ducked out to avoid. 2354 thru 2360.

As your chief antagonist I can't let you get away with that!

Hi jhowelb;
Look, I just got back from school, I answered a couple of posts then went out to eat. All in good time, I'll answer everyone. Parroting everything I said is kind of unoriginal don't you think? I hope you're feeling better.
Take care,
xyzdonna

xyzdonna

04-17-2008, 08:02 PM

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 08:05 PM

Hi jhowelb;
Look, I just got back from school, I answered a couple of posts then went out to eat. All in good time, I'll answer everyone. Parroting everything I said is kind of unoriginal don't you think? I hope you're feeling better.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Well, you are "parroting" all the party line talking points so I thought I'd demonstrate to you that it takes no effort and BTW just saying something doesn't make it so!

This simplistic and absurd assumption is so out of touch with the way things really are that it's laughable. That any thinking person could subscribe to it is pathetic.

Gratuitous statements! Purely your opinion and with no actual base in reality. You THINK it's out of touch, laughable and pathetic. My dear, THAT is arrogance!

xyzdonna

04-17-2008, 08:07 PM

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by handlewanker http://www.cnczone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=438632#post438632)
Hi Maris, I deeply sympathise with your situation, ...............
Ian.

What a jerk you are!

Maris is the most gentile, compassionate intellectually gifted person currently posting on this forum and you just managed to gratuitously and unnecessarily attack both him and his children.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that you have difficulty getting anyone to respond to you after this. I know that it will be beneath my dignity and I, for one, will simply ignore the fact that you are here. It's called ostracism.

I'd like to be able to say that it's been nice, but it really hasn't!
.

xyzdonna

04-17-2008, 08:31 PM

Simple: Conservative are about creating wealth; Liberals are about redistribution of wealth. Creating wealth involves creating something useful, most often using tools and skills, including CNC machines.

I wonder how many lawyers are Liberals...

Hi dynosor,
That's funny, inaccurate but funny nonetheless. Yes conservatives are paranoid, they think all us liberals want to do is separate them from their booty. As a liberal I respect the enterprise that conservatives exhibit. Take Marisse for instance, he is a highly successful engineer producing products that are useful. Nothing wrong with that. He contributes to society, indeed if it weren't for people like him society would regress. Now consider my helper. He's an alcoholic who currently resides on the street with his wife. A good worker however. He and his wife got kicked out of public housing because they were living together. Imagine that, a husband living with his wife. It seems she was eligible for public housing because she was disabled. He was not. They require $100 a month to pay for this housing. He was able to earn it, she was not. Strange don't you think? So now they are both on the street, living in someone's backyard. He's working as hard as he can, but in our society that's not enough.
Another real story about the way the world actually is.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 08:32 PM

Hi jhowelb;
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan said it best:
"Republicans are "looking to increase the Democratic body count" in response to their own corruption scandals, he said."
Take care,
xyzdonna

Still closing your eyes to whatever don't fit your template!

Hi jhowelb;
This simply shows that rich, successful people can be compassionate. As opposed to conservatives, whose main objective is greed at the expense of the less fortunate.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Naw, it shows that Dems are the party of RICH FOLKS! ( And that you are wrong again!)

jhowelb

04-17-2008, 08:56 PM

Hi dynosor,
That's funny, inaccurate but funny nonetheless. Yes conservatives are paranoid, they think all us liberals want to do is separate them from their booty. As a liberal I respect the enterprise that conservatives exhibit. Take Marisse for instance, he is a highly successful engineer producing products that are useful. Nothing wrong with that. He contributes to society, indeed if it weren't for people like him society would regress. Now consider my helper. He's an alcoholic who currently resides on the street with his wife. A good worker however. He and his wife got kicked out of public housing because they were living together. Imagine that, a husband living with his wife. It seems she was eligible for public housing because she was disabled. He was not. They require $100 a month to pay for this housing. He was able to earn it, she was not. Strange don't you think? So now they are both on the street, living in someone's backyard. He's working as hard as he can, but in our society that's not enough.
Another real story about the way the world actually is.
Take care,
xyzdonna

dynosor is inaccurate exactly HOW and on what? Not good enough to dismiss him out of hand with that gratuitous statement.

You aren't paranoid if the really do want to get you. (and they DO!)

Your helper is unemployable because he is a drunk!
As a recovering alcoholic sober for 41 years I can attest from first hand knowledge that being an alcoholic won't keep him down Being a drunk WILL and should.

I am shocked Wxyz! As a good liberal You should provide this man and his wife a place to live, food and clothing. Even if he has to live in your garage!

You are right on one item. It's not enough to work hard. You have to stay sober, develop a good work ethic, educate yourself to do something that will earn more money and above all apply yourself consistently toward bettering yourself. The only thing society owes you is opportunity, what you do with it is entirely up to you!

Rekd

04-17-2008, 09:17 PM

Yes conservatives are paranoid, they think all us liberals want to do is separate them from their booty.

Uh huh...

I guess they think it's in their own best interests to keep as much of their money as possible.

... what ever gave you that idea?

Mariss Freimanis

04-18-2008, 12:55 AM

XY,

One thing I've enjoyed is reading what you write, and from that, trying to get into sync with how you think. Part of what I do is spent growing a business and it in some part requires making people feel comfortable with us and confident we will keep our promises. Empathy and understanding gives insight into another person's point of view and is an absolutely vital tool. Figuratively one has to put themselves into the other person's shoes and walk a mile in them. You learn the other person better and know how you can help them. Empathy is a skill that takes a little imagination and a little effort to put one's own ego aside in order to make room in your mind for another person's perspective.

You are the first and only liberal I have ever been able to study at length. My previous encounters with your kind were pretty much like with you initially: "Oh.. You're one of,.. Those kind" and then any invitation to continued polite discourse was immediately and unilaterally rescinded. Very touchy, philosophically xenophobic and brittle people as a rule.

To say your mind is an alien landscape is an understatement when I try to see it with your eyes. Probably no less jarring were you to try to see my mind with your eyes. I make the effort because it's what I do. My disappointment is you don't try as hard. You still refer to me and my kind as Neanderthals which is OK because you cannot summon up the courage to use really pertinent and current epitaphs. As a liberal you are forbidden to use divisive, unencompassing and exclusionary phrases. Neanderthals are safe. There aren't any around to complain about being stereotyped in a discriminatory and racially insensitive manner.

Studying you has led to depressing conclusions. We live on two different planets. Your kind as best as I understand it feel my kind is to be exploited for what we produce. You are right, there aren't too many liberals on this site because people here are the kind that produce. They are a different kind of people than what you are used to; self-sufficient, proud, intelligent, confident and free-thinking; complete and scornful of help individuals. They are the antitheses of the weak, stupid, incompetent and willingly victim professionally outraged types that get your juices going.

My kind produces. My kind works 7 days a week and loves their work. My kind does not depend on the greasy, limp hand offered as 'help' at anytime by your kind at anytime in their lives. We have pride. When my children were born and we were poor, I scrounged for wooden pallets to burn in the fireplace to keep us warm (Oak is the best; it burns a long time and it puts out a lot of heat). We could have applied for welfare from your kind but I'd rather have frozen to death. I knew I wouldn't stay poor, my kind never does and my hand would have been soiled had I reached for that help. I just couldn't have dealt with the stink on my fingers.

Your kind thinks you know better what to do with the wealth my kind produces than we do. Your power is manipulating the tyranny of democracy. There are far less of my kind than there are of your kind. You say we have too much? You win because all the lame slackers are on your side.

You said you are off to school. The last time I was off to school was 30 years ago. I finished, have you? Your kind produces nothing. Your kind are parasites that suck the blood from my kind. My kind endures because no matter what you do, my kind produces enough to offset how much your parasite kind sucks-off. Your agony is despite what you do to my kind, we will always live better than you ever will. We love our wives, (not 'spouses') like you do, our children are the apple of our eyes. Some of our children are better than us and love our country so much that they put their lives at risk when they could enjoy the spoils my kind produces.

Your kind encompasses wing-nuts like fish%#! and handwhacker. My kind does not. I wonder which kind is better.

Mariss

dynosor

04-18-2008, 01:52 AM

Yes conservatives are paranoid, they think all us liberals want to do is separate them from their booty.

Donna, you paint conservatives a greedy scrooges. I believe in giving from the heart to the charity or cause or case of my own choosing. It gives me pleasure to help people, including with my own money. I have given certain entities multiple multi-k$ gifts over a number of years, when moved to do so. This was to enable them to help others in need, to push their enterprise "over the hump" into functionality. However, I absolutely refuse to sign up for regular donations that people "can depend on" - I am willing to help them up, but they must want to stand on their own feet, therefore they must need to stand on their own feet.

Liberals don't seem to believe in individual generosity because it seems taking care of the indigent is the state's responsibility. This can only be done with money extorted from the expected unwilling through taxation. If you really care about those in need you will take direct action to help them. The only kind of help that benefits society as a whole in the long term is help that results in people again becoming self-sufficient.

I don't mind subsidizing those who are physically or mentally impaired, but if an able person wants to "live well", they will have to find something legal to do that has value to markets they live in. If they are smart, they will do something that pays well due to scarcity or because that activity facilitates many kinds of profitable activity. I have no time for anyone who wants get rich by screwing others out of their money, no matter their proclaimed political affiliation.

xyzdonna

04-18-2008, 07:40 AM

dynosor is inaccurate exactly HOW and on what? Not good enough to dismiss him out of hand with that gratuitous statement.

You aren't paranoid if the really do want to get you. (and they DO!)

Your helper is unemployable because he is a drunk!
As a recovering alcoholic sober for 41 years I can attest from first hand knowledge that being an alcoholic won't keep him down Being a drunk WILL and should.

I am shocked Wxyz! As a good liberal You should provide this man and his wife a place to live, food and clothing. Even if he has to live in your garage!

You are right on one item. It's not enough to work hard. You have to stay sober, develop a good work ethic, educate yourself to do something that will earn more money and above all apply yourself consistently toward bettering yourself. The only thing society owes you is opportunity, what you do with it is entirely up to you!

Hi jhowelb;
Well that and the cigarettes, they cost a lot these days. He and his wife both smoke, that can add up to quite a bit with the taxes they put on them now. But you made a valid point, he won't get on top of things till he gets these expensive habits under control. I doubt that will happen. I don't have any space in my garage or shop. Intentionally for that very reason, I don't want anyone living over here.
You are right again, about educating yourself, that's why I'm back in school. It's fun and I'm learning a lot. See, conservatives and liberals can agree on some things.
Take care,
xyzdonna

jhowelb

04-18-2008, 09:07 AM

Hi jhowelb;
Well that and the cigarettes, they cost a lot these days. He and his wife both smoke, that can add up to quite a bit with the taxes they put on them now. But you made a valid point, he won't get on top of things till he gets these expensive habits under control. I doubt that will happen. I don't have any space in my garage or shop. Intentionally for that very reason, I don't want anyone living over here.
You are right again, about educating yourself, that's why I'm back in school. It's fun and I'm learning a lot. See, conservatives and liberals can agree on some things.
Take care,
xyzdonna

As usual, even in this post, you are dissembling. The first two points are completely ignored. I submit because I've hit the nail exactly on the head and you CAN'T respond.

Originally Posted by jhowelb http://www.cnczone.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=440736#post440736)
dynosor is inaccurate exactly HOW and on what? Not good enough to dismiss him out of hand with that gratuitous statement.

You aren't paranoid if they really do want to get you. (and they DO!)

More proof on "paranoid".

Yes conservatives are paranoid, they think all us liberals want to do is separate them from their booty.

I guess they think it's in their own best interests to keep as much of their money as possible.

Rekd

04-18-2008, 09:13 AM

jhowelb

04-18-2008, 09:19 AM

A "good" Democrat exhibiting "real intelligence" and "love" of country?

With patriots like these we can't afford even one enemy!

xyzdonna

04-18-2008, 10:10 AM

Hi Mariss,
I've been accused of ignoring posts and points that I couldn't answer. I've been busy going to school and so forth. But I will address every point you've made. This because you are "empathetic", and you have "tried to understand".

Mariss: One thing I've enjoyed is reading what you write, and from that, trying to get into sync with how you think. Part of what I do is spent growing a business and it in some part requires making people feel comfortable with us and confident we will keep our promises. Empathy and understanding gives insight into another person's point of view and is an absolutely vital tool. Figuratively one has to put themselves into the other person's shoes and walk a mile in them. You learn the other person better and know how you can help them. Empathy is a skill that takes a little imagination and a little effort to put one's own ego aside in order to make room in your mind for another person's perspective.
You are the first and only liberal I have ever been able to study at length. My previous encounters with your kind were pretty much like with you initially: "Oh.. You're one of,.. Those kind" and then any invitation to continued polite discourse was immediately and unilaterally rescinded. Very touchy, philosophically xenophobic and brittle people as a rule.

Me: Isn't that amazing? I've found that to be true of conservatives I've met as well. Present company excepted, I'm thinking of my brother in law specifically. I can't even bring up politics because he gets so mad. I think it's a matter of mediocre people of any strip, whether liberal or conservative. My brother in law can't hold a job, has a college degree in history.

Mariss: To say your mind is an alien landscape is an understatement when I try to see it with your eyes. Probably no less jarring were you to try to see my mind with your eyes. I make the effort because it's what I do. My disappointment is you don't try as hard. You still refer to me and my kind as Neanderthals which is OK because you cannot summon up the courage to use really pertinent and current epitaphs. As a liberal you are forbidden to use divisive, unencompassing and exclusionary phrases. Neanderthals are safe. There aren't any around to complain about being stereotyped in a discriminatory and racially insensitive manner.

Me: Oh I think I can pretty well use any phrase I want when addressing conservatives. Ya'll have called me about every thing conceivable. My mind may be an alien landscape to you, but I think I have conservatives pretty well figured out. You are for the most part hard working, industrious, creative people who have accomplished something through diligent effort. My brother in law and ne'er-do-well friend being the exception. I suppose it might surprise you that I put myself in that same category with you. We've worked hard, built a sign business from scratch and then sold it. Off now to a new enterprise or two.
What's the difference between you and I? Conservatives start with a false premise. That there are all these people out there who don't want to work and who wish to live off the government. Granted there are some, I've met them and known them personally, one was a family member the other my brother in law. But for the most part this premise is false. Even my brother in law has looked for a job. He's taken a part-time minimum wage job driving a shuttle bus. But you start with this false (for the most part) premise and extrapolate that into a whole political belief system. It is this paranoia that I find so excruciating.

Mariss: Studying you has led to depressing conclusions. We live on two different planets. Your kind as best as I understand it feel my kind is to be exploited for what we produce. You are right, there aren't too many liberals on this site because people here are the kind that produce. They are a different kind of people than what you are used to; self-sufficient, proud, intelligent, confident and free-thinking; complete and scornful of help individuals. They are the antitheses of the weak, stupid, incompetent and willingly victim professionally outraged types that get your juices going.

Me: I'm sorry, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps that is my fault because of my rather pathetic attempts at humor. I mentioned separating conservatives from their booty. That was a joke to emphasize the stereotypical thinking that conservatives use when addressing liberals. I think it was taken literally. To say that conservatives are "self-sufficient, proud, intelligent, confident and free-thinking" as compared to liberals who indulge the "weak, stupid, incompetent and willingly victim professionally outraged types" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It is to start with a false premise and then extrapolate it ad nauseam.

Mariss: My kind produces. My kind works 7 days a week and loves their work. My kind does not depend on the greasy, limp hand offered as 'help' at anytime by your kind at anytime in their lives. We have pride. When my children were born and we were poor, I scrounged for wooden pallets to burn in the fireplace to keep us warm (Oak is the best; it burns a long time and it puts out a lot of heat). We could have applied for welfare from your kind but I'd rather have frozen to death. I knew I wouldn't stay poor, my kind never does and my hand would have been soiled had I reached for that help. I just couldn't have dealt with the stink on my fingers.

Your kind thinks you know better what to do with the wealth my kind produces than we do. Your power is manipulating the tyranny of democracy. There are far less of my kind than there are of your kind. You say we have too much? You win because all the lame slackers are on your side.

Me: I've never really been poor, but not really rich either. We have plenty now and more coming in down the road. But we've worked our way up as well. We probably weren't as poor as you once were and probably aren't as rich as you are now. But we have worked hard and accomplished much. To look at us you might wonder why we are liberal, we've done all the things you've mentioned that conservatives do. Here you go again with your invalid extrapolations. "Your kind thinks you know better what to do with the wealth my kind produces than we do." I want to do what works, what benefits the people of our society. What gets the job done. I have no use for a welfare state. But I want to see a decent universal health care system like almost every developed nation on earth has. This is basic, and should have been implemented a long time ago.

Mariss:You said you are off to school. The last time I was off to school was 30 years ago. I finished, have you? Your kind produces nothing. Your kind are parasites that suck the blood from my kind. My kind endures because no matter what you do, my kind produces enough to offset how much your parasite kind sucks-off. Your agony is despite what you do to my kind, we will always live better than you ever will. We love our wives, (not 'spouses') like you do, our children are the apple of our eyes. Some of our children are better than us and love our country so much that they put their lives at risk when they could enjoy the spoils my kind produces.

Me: No I haven't finished learning and I never will. I will be using my new-found skills in a new endeavor. It will be to produce something useful. Again you're doing the same old tired trick of extrapolating something I've said into something derogatory. You're also assuming that my kind is parasitic, also invalid. I'm sure you have a loving family as do we, although we are childless. And yes, I sometimes employ my facility with the language to deliberately irritate conservatives, much to my amusement. "Spouse", "apologist" and sycophant" being examples. I'm sure you have great children, we only have cats.

Mariss: Your kind encompasses wing-nuts like fish%#! and handwhacker. My kind does not. I wonder which kind is better.

Me: My kind is better, but for all your vain attempts at empathy you will never see it. Let me tell you a story, it's the only way I know to express where I'm coming from.
You may remember that I once posted a picture of our CNC machines, one of them had a tall young man next to it. That was "Bubba". He was one of the best helpers we ever had. His brother had worked for us but stole and was fired. Bubba was hard working and honest. Then he had an accident and he attributed that to his vision problems. But they apparently weren't related. After much wasted time scrounging for medical help his family finally found the right agency to provide them the help at no cost. They were poor and ignorant of the system. By the time he was able to get a cat scan and learn that he had a brain tumor he had lost the sight of one eye and most of the sight of the other. Now he may be unable to work for the rest of his life. If he had lived in Cuba he could have had health care and possibly saved his sight. His misfortune was having been born in a country with no health care system. No one benefits from this waste, and it happens everyday. People are becoming disabled and dying because of this. It is an abomination.
Take care,
xyzdonna
PS: If there is any point I haven't addressed, please apprise me of it and I will answer it.

jhowelb

04-18-2008, 11:27 AM

Hi Mariss,
......... I think it's a matter of mediocre people of any strip, whether liberal or conservative.

......... Oh I think I can pretty well use any phrase I want when addressing conservatives.

..........I suppose it might surprise you that I put myself in that same category with you. We've worked hard, built a sign business from scratch and then sold it.

....What's the difference between you and I? Conservatives start with a false premise. ...... But you start with this false (for the most part) premise and extrapolate that into a whole political belief system. It is this paranoia that I find so excruciating.

..............I'm sorry, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps that is my fault...

...... To say that conservatives are "self-sufficient, proud, intelligent, confident and free-thinking" as compared to liberals who indulge the "weak, stupid, incompetent and willingly victim professionally outraged types" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It is to start with a false premise and then extrapolate it ad nauseam.

.......... Here you go again with your invalid extrapolations. "Your kind thinks you know better what to do with the wealth my kind produces than we do." I want to do what works, what benefits the people of our society. What gets the job done. I have no use for a welfare state. But I want to see a decent universal health care system like almost every developed nation on earth has. This is basic, and should have been implemented a long time ago.

....... Again you're doing the same old tired trick of extrapolating something I've said into something derogatory. You're also assuming that my kind is parasitic, also invalid.

.......... And yes, I sometimes employ my facility with the language to deliberately irritate conservatives, much to my amusement. "Spouse", "apologist" and sycophant" being examples. I'm sure you have great children, we only have cats.

.......My kind is better, but for all your vain attempts at empathy you will never see it.......

Take care,
xyzdonna

What arrogance! Insufferable!

If he had lived in Cuba he could have had health care and possibly saved his sight.

No, he would be dead!

CNC_Programmer

04-18-2008, 11:36 AM

Donna (and anyone else reading this),

This is probably going to p*ss off a few here!

I think your response to Mariss had a lot of valid points. I concluded that you are, basically, a good person and want the best for everyone. There are a few things that get in the way of anyone who is an idealist. One is reality!

The reality is, as you’ve pointed out, that any blanket description of people will have a few exceptions that someone will use to discredit that group. That is true if you use race, sex, national origin, religion, politics or any other criteria you can think up.

Democrat vs Republican and liberal vs conservative are not necessarily synonymous. There are many democrats that tend to be quite conservative and many republicans embrace some liberal concepts. In reality, from my point of view, we, as humanity, cover the whole spectrum from ultra liberal to die hard conservative. Some areas of that scale are more densely populated. And many of us tend to not fall in the same place on all subjects nor at all times.

Does my moving on that scale make me wishy/washy? Not at all. I may change my views based on new information and/or just my mood at the time. Everyone does. Some times I may change my views, or at least my stated view, based on a reaction to someone I view as an extremist.

Speaking of extremists, I have no use for them, or at least their extreme views. I will often take a stance that I do not embrace just to play the devil’s advocate and even the field. In other words, if you espouse a very extreme view (either liberal or conservative) you will often find yourself at odds with me. And there is always enough evidence (empirical or anecdotal) to make almost anything sound reasonable.

Any “plan” developed by a government body has flaws. Maybe, just any plan! There is a contingent of people who will use those flaws to exploit the plan for personal gain. There is a contingent who will want to scrap the plan because it doesn’t go far enough. With a bit of luck and a few good people, something will be developed that minimizes both these problems.

Donna, I think for the most part, you and I would agree. We want the best for our family and friends. Our final objectives are very similar. However, we have differences in what “best” is and how we should get there. Why can’t we, generically speaking, sit down face to face and find some ground where we can agree and work out a plan we can both embrace. Some solution that we can both support even though it is not what either of view as ideal. Something workable is better than nothing. And that’s what usually occurs when we are diametrically opposed and refuse to compromise. Is compromise better than nothing? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

Not having a party on my voter registration prevents me from voting in either parties primaries. But it states political position pretty well. I guess it also fits with my religious view as an Agnostic.

Regards

Leon
.
.
.

jhowelb

04-18-2008, 11:56 AM

Something workable is better than nothing. ..... Is compromise better than nothing? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!

Not true. Take for example a compromise with Islamic extremists whose staring position is "We will kill all infidels!"

How would you find middle ground? Kill only every other one of us? Perhaps only kill a few each day allowing us to regenerate?

On some points there can be no compromise! Thus with liberals, they will continue to take a little more each day till there is nothing left.

History proves this to be correct. Take gun control as an example. Started with banning "Saturday night specials" then to "assault weapons" then firearm registration and now they want all pistols. Creeping incrementalism is one of the favorite tools of the left. As is the judiciary.

When they can't pass laws in the legislative process they find judges who will legislate from the bench.

There can be no compromise with fanatics regardless of their ideology. That would to some include me, so be it! I don't want compromise, I want victory!

CNC_Programmer

04-18-2008, 12:19 PM

Not true. Take for example a compromise with Islamic extremists whose staring position is "We will kill all infidels!"

How would you find middle ground? Kill only every other one of us? Perhaps only kill a few each day allowing us to regenerate?

On some points there can be no compromise! Thus with liberals, they will continue to take a little more each day till there is nothing left.

On others, it's essential just to survive.

History proves this to be correct. Take gun control as an example. Started with banning "Saturday night specials" then to "assault weapons" then firearm registration and now they want all pistols. Creeping incrementalism is one of the favorite tools of the left. As is the judiciary.

My concealed carry permit expired some years ago. But, "Saturday night specials" and "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill people. "Saturday night specials" should be illegal in any manner. "assault weapons" should be limited to military environment.

When they can't pass laws in the legislative process they find judges who will legislate from the bench.

Now that's just wrong. But has nothing to do with "compromise".

There can be no compromise with fanatics regardless of their ideology. That would to some include me, so be it! I don't want compromise, I want victory!

A valid compromise requires a concession and an honest commitment from both sides. In the case of some fanatics, they will willingly make the concession and commitment without any intentions of complying. This invalidates the commitment and, therefore, "compromise". If you absolutely believe yourself right and believe any action is justified, compromise is impossible. Compromise with Islamic extremists (or most any fanatic, for that matter) is impossible. Only the appearance could be achieved!

jhowelb

04-18-2008, 01:03 PM

A valid compromise requires a concession and an honest commitment from both sides. In the case of some fanatics, they will willingly make the concession and commitment without any intentions of complying. This invalidates the commitment and, therefore, "compromise". If you absolutely believe yourself right and believe any action is justified, compromise is impossible. Compromise with Islamic extremists (or most any fanatic, for that matter) is impossible. Only the appearance could be achieved!

We have a good quantity of points of agreement, Let's see if we can expand on them.

My concealed carry permit expired some years ago. But, "Saturday night specials" and "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill people. "Saturday night specials" should be illegal in any manner. "assault weapons" should be limited to military environment.

The term "Saturday night specials" is a creation of the liberal mind set intended to mask the intent of the lawmaker. This term was coined in the early part of last century by Democrat politicians in New Orleans to describe a knife with a slender gently curved blade of thin metal generally carried by fishermen. If you fish you may have one in your tackle box, you would call it a fillet knife.

Also in the catch all phrase book is "assault weapons"! A musket is an assault weapon designed to help Marines board sailing vessels. So is a hammer. Thor, the god of war and thunder used a hammer to smash his foes! Anything you choose can be labeled an "assault weapon"

That you had a concealed permit tells me that you at one time owned a weapon that can be characterized with either label.

Any firearm at all can be said to have "no purpose other than to kill people" I would submit, sir, that THAT is not necessarily bad. The guy who breaks into my house at night while I sleep will certainly die.

A shop owner should be able to protect himself, his property and employees from other MEN or WOMEN who come to do harm.

For some judge sitting in his chambers surrounded by armed cops to tell me I can't own a weapon because it's only purpose is to kill people is hypocrisy!

Care to count how many of those liberal celebrities who espouse gun control for the masses have themselves a concealed pistol and/or armed guards?

A valid compromise requires a concession and an honest commitment from both sides.Right there are the seeds of deceit. Compromise with a liberal means "let them have their way." As does "bi-partisan", "common good" and a whole host of other phrases used as code.

Which brings us back to GoreBull warming. That is code for "give up all your rights, money and property as well as your freedom".

To my way of thinking that is a call to fight to the death.....NO compromise possible!

CNC_Programmer

04-18-2008, 01:50 PM

The term "Saturday night specials" is a creation of the liberal mind set intended to mask the intent of the lawmaker. This term was coined in the early part of last century by Democrat politicians in New Orleans to describe a knife with a slender gently curved blade of thin metal generally carried by fishermen. If you fish you may have one in your tackle box, you would call it a fillet knife.

Also in the catch all phrase book is "assault weapons"! A musket is an assault weapon designed to help Marines board sailing vessels. So is a hammer. Thor, the god of war and thunder used a hammer to smash his foes! Anything you choose can be labeled an "assault weapon"

That you had a concealed permit tells me that you at one time owned a weapon that can be characterized with either label.

A liberal like twist or "spin" of statements! The depiction of weapons was a quote from your post! Typically is today's world describing small caliber, poorly constructed and illegally manufactured handguns that are as subject to kill the user as the target (Saturday night specials) and large caliber automatic or semi-automatic normally used by military and collected by "gun collectors" (assault weapon). My firearms "Could be" but typically would not be subject to either label!

Any firearm at all can be said to have "no purpose other than to kill people" I would submit, sir, that THAT is not necessarily bad. The guy who breaks into my house at night while I sleep will certainly die.

Not quite true. There are, for example, firearms designed for target and hunting purposes. Shotguns, although they are capable of doing it quite messily, are not designed with the intent of killing people. As for "can be" you just included your (or my) car/truck. In my case, 4500 pounds of deadly weapon and I don't need a license to buy or own, just to drive on a public roadway. I don't even need to register it with the state (government) unless I plan on using it on a public roadway.

A shop owner should be able to protect himself, his property and employees from other MEN or WOMEN who come to do harm.

For some judge sitting in his chambers surrounded by armed cops to tell me I can't own a weapon because it's only purpose is to kill people is hypocrisy!

Care to count how many of those liberal celebrities who espouse gun control for the masses have themselves a concealed pistol and/or armed guards?

Right there are the seeds of deceit. Compromise with a liberal means "let them have their way." As does "bi-partisan", "common good" and a whole host of other phrases used as code.

Which brings us back to GoreBull warming. That is code for "give up all your rights, money and property as well as your freedom".

To my way of thinking that is a call to fight to the death.....NO compromise possible!

And, in spite of all my other statements, sometimes it's worth the sacrifice! I am not a believer in the GW theory (and it is only a theory). Rules, laws and, yes even. taxes are a necessary evil for us to continue our way of life. as one of our forefathers once stated (paraphrase) there can be no freedom without laws.

jhowelb

04-18-2008, 03:19 PM

A liberal like twist or "spin" of statements! The depiction of weapons was a quote from your post! Typically is today's world describing small caliber, poorly constructed and illegally manufactured handguns that are as subject to kill the user as the target (Saturday night specials)These are also called "zip guns" and have been deemed illegal and no further laws are needed but Saturday night special has more recently been used to include S&W and Colt revolvers of any caliber with 2" barrel

and large caliber automatic or semi-automatic normally used by military and collected by "gun collectors" (assault weapon). Large caliber is anything bigger than .17 BB gun. M-16 is .22 caliber. Inthis class as in the previous one caliber is or should be irrelevant and is only another excuse to attack the weapon. Fully automatic has been labeled a machine gun and has been deemed illegal fron the days of Al Capone. No further legislation needed.

My firearms "Could be" but typically would not be subject to either label!Take another look at what the "Brady bunch" wants to do. They most certainly will be confiscated.

There are, for example, firearms designed for target and hunting purposes. Shotguns, although they are capable of doing it quite messily, are not designed with the intent of killing people.As a law abiding American citizen, why would I be restricted from using certain firearms in the pursuit of my sport, competition target shooting on the basis of what someone thinks the designer had in mind when he drew the plans?

Again, one must resist all infringement of rights no mater how "logical" the loopy left can make it sound.

Compromise is another word for surrender!

As a retired law enforcement officer I will readily agree that there is a need for rules, laws and taxes and that the rule of law is what sets us aside from libs like Wxyz who thinks that laws were made for every one BUT her. We don't have a reasonable partner for negotiations. Liberals are the descendants of Communists, both socialists. Marx said politics was just another form of warfare. Know your enemy or he will eat you alive!

dufas

04-18-2008, 04:00 PM

XY

I would add to Mariss's statement that liberals can and do destroy people's lives by pushing for and passing nonsensical 'feelgood' laws.

As one example I would point out the Spotted Owl. The 'save the trees' that was the real reason for using the Owl excuse to keep everyone out of the forest. The problem was I personally planted many of the trees that the liberals called old growth forest. I and others planted 6 seedlings for every tree harvested, and then that particular area was not touched for another 20 years. Many of the so called old growth areas had already been logged two or three times before. The net human result as far as touching my family was that many of my relatives ended up in poverty, lost their homes and of coarse, their income. The younger people moved out of state and eventually got back on their feet,.... but the working elderly, the people in their late 50s and early 60s lost everything. Some ended up homeless, others, [ I later found out after it was too late..] like my grand parents, died, lost and forgotten in some 2 dollar a night walk up room. The liberal idea of 'help' was that my grand parents would have to split up and help would be given to my grand mother only. My grand father could roam the streets as far as the compassionaate left was concerned.

After the dust settled, it was admitted by the progressive liberals that the Spotted Owl was just used as an excuse and the owl was never in any danger.

For myself, I once had a business. It was shut down by the liberals. These liberals were happy to close me down but could care less about my employees or the monies that I had to pay back for contracts that could not now be completed. One contract was for the state...the very state that the liberals lobbied to have me closed down. The state came in and stated that not only do I owe them the monies paid thus far on the contract but also fines for not completing said contract. I ended up selling my house and every other thing I owned to pay the state and previous customers back the amount I owed.

I would say that liberals have what I would say is the 'Martin Sheen complex..' This is, to put it bluntly, it is perfectly alright for liberals to crap all over others but, liberals will scream to high heaven if anyone or anything gets in the way of their lives.

XY, you strike me as a young person. One of the problems with the young is that history starts when one of you becomes old enough to observe what is around them. You cannot do any research because history is constantly being rewritten by the liberals to fit their view of how they think things should be. One glaring example of history revisionism or at the least, the way the liberals teach history is about segregation. A group of Democrats called the dixiecrats fought against laws to integrate society. My own daughters school book says it was the republicans that fought integration, yet, it was the Republicans that not only instituted the laws for integration, but tried to enforce them peacefully without force It took a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson to use armed force against Americans to break the segregation lines but the Liberals take credit for everything.....

Liberals will lie, cheat, steal....do anything anything to get their way.. I do not trust a liberal at all...

dufas

04-18-2008, 06:20 PM

jhowelb......

I know this is off topic and you stating that you are a retired law enforcement officer, what I am about to ask will probably anger you. I have relatives that are in law enforcement and they won't even discuss the matter.

Anyway, During my life time, the law and I have crossed paths several times. I hadn't done anything against the law, it was just the officers had thought I had.

I grew up in the mountains of a north western state. The police were constantly stopping people for what the police called 'routine investigation'...One policeman would stand behind the car with his weapon drawn, pointing at whom ever was in the vehicle and the other would go through his 'investigation'... What usually happened was that they couldn't find anything wrong so the investigating officer would say that he was going to write a ticket for some simple thing like a broken headlight, taillight, or cracked windshield. If one mentioned that the equipment was in good shape, the officer would walk to the area of the vehicle that he stated was amiss, take his "night stick" and promptly break the afore mentioned item. One quickly leaned to keep their mouth shut and he wouldn't break anything. One just had to pay a 'fix it' fine without getting anything fixed.

If one put up too much of a stink, most of the police carried a 'sap' which the officer used to beat on the disagreeable motorist . A small leather bag filled with lead shot or sand. The sap would be used to beat the offending 'suspect' without leaving any marks. This happened to person that I worked with while he and his family was on vacation in 1980. So, I suspect these police are still doing things in the same old way. A few people have been killed by this method. When brought to the attention of higher authorities, the cop that was holding the weapon will state that he never saw a thing that was out of the ordinary....

On other times, my wife was twice accused of being a prostitute and I was arrested as her 'john'. The first time, her car broke down and she called me to pick her up. Just as she got in the car, several police came racing up.I was thrown to the ground, roughed up and placed in a police car. My wife was handcuffed and placed in another car. We were both taken to jail where we were held for several hours before anyone would even speak to us. The first words out of the detective that finally came to speak to me was that I am being arrested for procurement and soliciting sex. He wouldn't believe that we were married. After about an hour of his crap, I told him to go ahead and press the sex charges. I was going to get a lawyer and sue him and anyone else I could find. He then said that they could 'make up' other charges if it came down to that. The only thing that got us out was another officer that seemed a little more intelligent came in and told the detective to let us go, we were man and wife. We were let out in front of the police station and had to take a cab back to where our cars were parked. The cop that walked us out thought it was a big joke and kept chuckling about the situation.

Nearly the same thing happened a few years later when on a trip. We stopped at a motel. Around 2 AM , the door opened and 6 or so police burst into the room. We ended up being paraded around naked in the parking lot surrounded by a group of cops who were making sophomoric comments about my wife's and my sexual attributes. They acted more like street punks than officers of the law. Apology, never. Guess it shows weakness...

Never get caught driving the same make and color vehicle that was used in a crime. I know! You will get thrown to the ground, beat on, you vehicle will be impounded and you will be thrown in jail. After they 'discovered" that I wasn't the culprit, they let me go. I had to pay nearly a thousand dollars to get my car back and repair the damage that the police had caused to it. I was threatened when I approached the city to recoup my losses.

There are others but the worst one didn't happen to me, it happened to one of my in laws. To make a long story short, he was arrested for manslaughter. After 2 1/2 years in jail while going through the trial, it was discovered who really committed the crime. My in law lost his home, his career, everything he owned. Losing the house and the police harassing his family looking for clues until his wife couldn't take it anymore and she got a divorce. The district attorney calmly stated one day during the trial that all charges were being dropped and that the real culprit has been arrested and confessed to the crime. He was let out, penniless, homeless, with no where to go. The judge and the district attorney made announcements about how wonderful the justice system was. Sort of makes the police's usul statement "If one is innocent, one has nothing to worry about..." very hollow words indeed.

Recently, a policeman was driving drunk, passed a parked school bus while kids were getting off. The policeman hit and killed one of the kids then raced away from the scene trying to elude private citizens who were following him. They finally cornered him in a driveway of a home. It took 3 months for the system to decide that he 'might have been' drinking. The DA dropped all charges except one minor one and the policeman will end up serving two years in prison where anyone else would get a 18 year sentence.

I guess my basic question is why are the police so unethical. Many times they are no different than a street gang and then the system backs them all the way even when it is found that the cops were wrong.