Re: Global Warming and RBR Experts

"RicodJour" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Clearly, the
several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate
that
it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in
the
policies he prescribes."

Good God. "many-faceted conundrum"? Excellent example of middle
manager double-speak, which roughly translates to, "I'm a middle and
middling manager that hopes the bureaucratic phraseology will make me
appear more intelligent." Seldom works.

The voice of experience speaketh?

RicodJour said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Clearly, the
several interrelated aspects of this many-faceted conundrum demonstrate that
it is vastly more complex than how Hansen has characterized it in his
testimony and, therefore, that its solution is likely not to be found in the
policies he prescribes."

Good God. "many-faceted conundrum"? Excellent example of middle
manager double-speak, which roughly translates to, "I'm a middle and
middling manager that hopes the bureaucratic phraseology will make me
appear more intelligent." Seldom works.

It "works" a lot. Haven't you noticed how many of them there are?
They are as prolific as rabbits.

Okay, we got the rabit breeding in, so let's open this up to wing-nut
"overpopulation" kooks since we got the global warming thing started.

3 laws of life:
0. death
1. taxes
2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse

-- Ben Franklin, 1759

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse

-- Ben Franklin, 1759

Wow. BF was a Democrat. I never knew that.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse

-- Ben Franklin, 1759

Wow. BF was a Democrat. I never knew that.

You mean like Democrat senior Senator Robert C. Byrd once of his more famous
quotes, "One man's pork is another man's job. Pork has been good investment
in West Virginia. You can look around and see what I've done."

By the way, Democrat senior Senator Byrd in 2006 became the first ever
Democrat Senator to secure for his state one BILLION dollars in earmarked
pork.

Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein colluded to get Indian gambling casinos (run
by Reid's Nevada gambling companies of course) in Sacramento county
California. Feinstein's son just happened to then be hired by the "Indians"
to act as their legal representation.

Why those interesting Democrats not only forwarded a Cut and Run bill but
they also installed $20 Billion in earmarked pork. Can't let a good Democrat
sponsored bill go to waste you know.

Tom Kunich said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

SLAVE of THE STATE said:

2. whatever social problems exist, guvmint will make them worse

-- Ben Franklin, 1759

Wow. BF was a Democrat. I never knew that.

You mean like Democrat senior Senator Robert C. Byrd once of his more famous
quotes, "One man's pork is another man's job. Pork has been good investment
in West Virginia. You can look around and see what I've done."

By the way, Democrat senior Senator Byrd in 2006 became the first ever
Democrat Senator to secure for his state one BILLION dollars in earmarked
pork.

Yeah. Byrd is about a million years old and he's ALWAYS been this way.
I'm sure Byrd has won the occasional Pork Barrel Politics Championship,
but the competition is as stiff as Byrd's speech delivery.

Harry Reid and Feinstein are lightweights compared to guys like Byrd and
Ted Stevens. Even in your example, it's not money from tax coffers that
they've got their hands in. If they last long enough, they'll get the
experience and clout necessary. Maybe someday they'll compete.

None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
endeavors, have moved to the forefront.

They have betrayed us, Tom.

Fred Fredburger said:

Tom Kunich wrote:

None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
endeavors, have moved to the forefront.

They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -

No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
you still can't just say screw it and walk away.

Quoted message said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Tom Kunich wrote:

None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
endeavors, have moved to the forefront.

They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -

No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
you still can't just say screw it and walk away.

Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.

Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
only be interpreted that way.

You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
only what she feels obliged to.

One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.

On 6/21/07 9:53 PM, in article [email hidden],

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Tom Kunich wrote:

None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
endeavors, have moved to the forefront.

They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -

No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
you still can't just say screw it and walk away.

Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.

Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
only be interpreted that way.

You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
only what she feels obliged to.

One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.

I used to think that if Giuliani ran, that I'd vote for him ... But he's
still just a bit too much of a hawk for me ... same thing with McCain. The
one thing I do like about both of them is that they tend to speak their
minds ... I "feel" they are both more honest than the Bush administration.

I will never vote for Hillary Clinton, which may surprise Kunich.

I like Barack Obama, which will likely drive Kunich crazy.

I like John Edwards, who is a bit more centrist.

I still like Al Gore.

And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

Steven L. Sheffield said:

I like Barack Obama, which will likely drive Kunich crazy.

Quoted message said:

I still like Al Gore.

And that won't drive Kunich crazy ? Anyway you probably won't have to do
much driving.

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Tom Kunich wrote:

None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
endeavors, have moved to the forefront.

They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -

No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
you still can't just say screw it and walk away.

Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.

Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
only be interpreted that way.

You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
only what she feels obliged to.

As much as I dislike and distrust Hillary, she's to be prefered over the usual
suspects that the Dems march out. She can be pushed, she watches the polls,
believes the focus groups and in general is willing to go where she sees the
wind blowing. Normally this isn't a good trait, but it would be better than the
Kerrys, Gores, Kucinichs and Obamas - true believers to a man. Or at least truly
committed to some really bad ideas.

Quoted message said:

One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.

He has more actual executive experience than the next 5 people in the race
combined. Someone was asking about the probable Fred Thompson run and my off
hand comment was that he had little experience in govt other than a term and a
half in the senate. Then I realized that put him ahead of the other contenders.

One thing that sets Rudy apart (and this is something the Dems would profit by
learning from) is that he has made a respectful peace with social conservatives.
The Dems still seem to think that the religious right demands conformity when
all they demand is to not be insulted. They would prefer complete agreement,
like any other faction, but it isn't necessary.

Ron

Fred Fredburger said:

Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.

Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
only be interpreted that way.

You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
only what she feels obliged to.

One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.

Bah. A Yankee fan growing up in Brooklyn--that's it in a nutshell.
Wait till he has to actually work with someone he doesn't agree with.

http://tinyurl.com/2uj9dy

Steve

RonSonic said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

On Jun 19, 6:21 pm, Fred Fredburger
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> None of which has anything to do with my point that the Republicans, who
> used to believe the government should stay out of social engineering
> endeavors, have moved to the forefront.
>
> They have betrayed us, Tom.- Hide quoted text -
No doubt about it Fred. Nevertheless do you vote for Guiliani whom we
don't like or Hillary who has vowed to turn this country into a
Socialist State? In a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't
you still can't just say screw it and walk away.

Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.

Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
only be interpreted that way.

You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
only what she feels obliged to.

As much as I dislike and distrust Hillary, she's to be prefered over the usual
suspects that the Dems march out. She can be pushed, she watches the polls,
believes the focus groups and in general is willing to go where she sees the
wind blowing. Normally this isn't a good trait, but it would be better than the
Kerrys, Gores, Kucinichs and Obamas - true believers to a man. Or at least truly
committed to some really bad ideas.

Quoted message said:

One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.

He has more actual executive experience than the next 5 people in the race
combined. Someone was asking about the probable Fred Thompson run and my off
hand comment was that he had little experience in govt other than a term and a
half in the senate. Then I realized that put him ahead of the other contenders.

One thing that sets Rudy apart (and this is something the Dems would profit by
learning from) is that he has made a respectful peace with social conservatives.

Looks like pandering from where I sit.

Steve

Quoted message said:

The Dems still seem to think that the religious right demands conformity when
all they demand is to not be insulted. They would prefer complete agreement,
like any other faction, but it isn't necessary.

Ron

Steven L. Sheffield said:

And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.

Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
Anderson or thereabouts.

RonSonic said:

As much as I dislike and distrust Hillary, she's to be prefered over the usual
suspects that the Dems march out. She can be pushed, she watches the polls,
believes the focus groups and in general is willing to go where she sees the
wind blowing. Normally this isn't a good trait, but it would be better than the
Kerrys, Gores, Kucinichs and Obamas - true believers to a man. Or at least truly
committed to some really bad ideas.

That's my impression of Hillary too. I also believe that Hillary
wouldn't be especially susceptible to overly zealous advisors. If they
tell her to move against the wind, she wont listen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.

He has more actual executive experience than the next 5 people in the race
combined. Someone was asking about the probable Fred Thompson run and my off
hand comment was that he had little experience in govt other than a term and a
half in the senate. Then I realized that put him ahead of the other contenders.

One thing that sets Rudy apart (and this is something the Dems would profit by
learning from) is that he has made a respectful peace with social conservatives.
The Dems still seem to think that the religious right demands conformity when
all they demand is to not be insulted.

I don't think the religious right is a homogeneous (C'mon, Donald,
there's one just hanging for you!) bunch, though they do tend to vote
that way. I remember a bunch of them kicking up a fuss against GW in
2004 because he hadn't delivered on their agenda. The threat was that
they'd all stay home instead of going to the polls. A small group making
noise way out of proportion to their size. They hardly spoke for the
entire Christian right, but they made use of the impression that they
all think and act and vote the same. They backed off before the
elections, claiming to have extracted sufficient promises from the
administration. I expect to hear similar noise raised against Guiliani
if he's still a serious candidate next March or so. But it'll just be
noise. What are they gonna do vote for Hillary?

Fred Fredburger said:

Steven L. Sheffield said:

And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.

Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
Anderson or thereabouts.

I don't know why. To me he seems like a fairly mainstream Dem. Too conservative
(normal?) to be a NY Dem which is why he flipped to run for mayor. He knew he
couldn't make it past the Dem primaries. Unlike most of the rest of the field
he's got actual experience managing something larger than a law office or senate
staff.

Ron

RonSonic said:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:45:01 -0700, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.

Quoted message said:

Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
Anderson or thereabouts.

I don't know why. To me he seems like a fairly mainstream Dem. Too conservative
(normal?) to be a NY Dem which is why he flipped to run for mayor. He knew he
couldn't make it past the Dem primaries. Unlike most of the rest of the field
he's got actual experience managing something larger than a law office or senate
staff.

The weird thing is that he epitomizes big business, but doesn't act
big business.

R

RicodJour said:

RonSonic said:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:45:01 -0700, Fred Fredburger

Quoted message said:

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> And I like Michael Bloomberg, who was once a Democrat, then a Republican,
> and now "unaffiliated", and who has yet to declare his candidacy ... but
> I've got a feeling he will run, despite indicating that he isn't.
Bloomberg is the most interesting (potential) third party candidate in a
long time. Most 3rd party candidates pose a bigger threat to one party's
candidate than the other. It's kind of rare for one to land in the
center between 2 candidates. Bloomberg can do that. Not since John
Anderson or thereabouts.

I don't know why. To me he seems like a fairly mainstream Dem. Too conservative
(normal?) to be a NY Dem which is why he flipped to run for mayor. He knew he
couldn't make it past the Dem primaries. Unlike most of the rest of the field
he's got actual experience managing something larger than a law office or senate
staff.

The weird thing is that he epitomizes big business, but doesn't act
big business.

R

You have to watch what he does, not just what he says. He's
deceptively savvy politically. He's managed to pit real estate
developers against the affluent left and paint the left as racist. He's
put a businessman in charge of the department of education and gotten
rid of all the career educators at the top. He's also continued the
marginalization of organized labor.

Steve

On Jun 22, 10:37 pm, Steven Bornfeld <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You have to watch what he does, not just what he says. He's
deceptively savvy politically. He's managed to pit real estate
developers against the affluent left and paint the left as racist. He's
put a businessman in charge of the department of education and gotten
rid of all the career educators at the top. He's also continued the
marginalization of organized labor.

Having dealt with NYC unions more than I care to, I don't necessarily
see that as a negative. There's no doubt he's savvy on several
levels, and that's what's needed to knock people's heads together to
get them to compromise and agree.

Haven't made up my mind about whether he'd make a good president.

R

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steven Bornfeld said:

Fred Fredburger said:

Yeah, it seems like this every 4 years.

Oddly, my fear of an H. Clinton presidency isn't that at all. I'm afraid
she'll worsen an already bad foreign policy situation out of a need to
prove how tough she is. Some of the things she's said about Iran can
only be interpreted that way.

You're also right in recognizing that she'll have to throw a few bones
to the far left if she's elected. How many remains to be seen. I think
she's more opportunist than demagogue, so I expect her to do for them
only what she feels obliged to.

One interesting thing about Guiliani is that he's not beholden to the
traditional Republican special interest groups. It might make him
un-electable. On the other hand, I find that quality attractive.

Bah. A Yankee fan growing up in Brooklyn--that's it in a nutshell.
Wait till he has to actually work with someone he doesn't agree with.

He doesn't seem to care. He'll find a way to go around them and do what he wants.
Example: when asked about what he'd do if Congress defunded a war (which is within
their Constitutionally appointed realm), he said that he'd take the money from
somewhere else. Oy...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?