The UK government...

Quoted message said:

...has just launched a "what to do in an emergency" site.

Do they tell you what to do when the murdering lil' chimp in our white house
goes berserk on you, and launches our nukes at you? You may think I'm kidding,
but this [censored] just very well do it if we don't get rid of the cancerous lil
tumor in November.

You know our country is in the crapper when the price of gas goes down only 1
cent, and it makes BIG news on TV. Sorry there dumb-dumber, but you'll lose in
november, know why? Because Bush is the very worse president this country has
ever seen. He has shattered all records on overspending, loss of jobs, record
high unemployment, record high gas prices, record high inflation, record high
lines at soup kitchens and food pantrys, he's quadrupled our budget defecit,
he's dragged us into a idiotic war, changed us from the envy of the world to
being one of the most hated countrys on earth, he wants to quit the UN, bring
back the draft (he'll need lots more people to die for him in his next war),
and in a recent poll of the worlds leaders GWB was voted the top threat to
world peace today. Every decision he has made has been a disaster. There is no
question his judgement is the worse we've ever seen. There really is only
reason you'd still vote for him, you just can't stand the thought of us dems
taking power again. We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush. You know that
really is too bad, because on nov 4th when we hand the chimp his butt on a
platter, you'll be a very, very unhappy (more than usual) man. The last poll I
saw gave Bush 14 states, 36 to Kerry, and in the electoral college Bush had 140
votes, and Kerry 398, and he only needs 270 to win. So if I was a republican
I'd whine too, but I still wouldn't vote for Bush again.
http://www.thousandreasons.org/listB.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0514-14.htm
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushresume.htm
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/political_spew/awarmongerexpl169226.html
http://www.cafeshops.com/votebushout Use your brains, vote for
http://www.johnkerry.com/

<< ...has just launched a "what to do in an emergency" site. >>

excellent! i bet i know who wrote it.
dog bites man.
rein in the reins of your chomping bit,
blinders guide the way.....>

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!

http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo

\\ - - //
( @ @ )
+--------oOOo-(_)--oOOo----+
+------------------------Oooo----+

"TheBillRodgerz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You know our country is in the crapper when the price of gas goes down

only 1

Quoted message said:

cent, and it makes BIG news on TV.

Well, it makes big news when it goes up, too. Here's my take: You know
it's a slow news day when the price of gas goes down by 1cent and it's the
lead on TV.

Quoted message said:

Sorry there dumb-dumber,

Invective. Take the Tickle.com IQ test. Bet you a drink I outscore you.
I will concede that you are normally pretty clever when you're not frothing,
though.

Quoted message said:

but you'll lose in november,

Valid opinion -- I happen to disagree.

Quoted message said:

know why? Because Bush is the very worse president this country has
ever seen.

Yawn...let's analyze your support of that assertion:

Quoted message said:

He has shattered all records on overspending,

I think you'll find that the deficit during wwII was at least 50% of gdp, as
opposed to few % of gdp today. I thought you were better informed.

Quoted message said:

loss of jobs,

!!! How about the great depression, when unemployment in the US was 25%.
It is now about the average (5.6%) of what it was during the Clinton
administration. Second, check the unemployment rate toward the end of the
Carter administration. I thought you guys were supposed to be the
intelligent ones...

Quoted message said:

record high unemployment,

See above.

Quoted message said:

record high gas prices,

Gas was above $3.00/gal in present dollars during the 1974 embargo. It was
a mess; that was when I got out of college. You had to queue up for gas at
4:00 am.

Quoted message said:

record high inflation,

I recall making 16% on my cash during the last years of the Carter
administration. Inflation was, I believe over 9% at that time. The misery
index (inflation + unemployment) was about 19%. That's what got Reagan (no
doubt one of your heros) elected.

Quoted message said:

record high lines at soup kitchens and food pantrys

Maybe so. I haven't read about that, but in general, "If you build it, they
will come". I'll be glad to read any citations you can supply. Here in the
LA area, there are about 1 million poor mexican illegals, most at the public
trough in some fasion.

Quoted message said:

he's quadrupled our budget defecit

Well, Clinton years benefitted from a surplus from the stock market bubble
(more windfalls, more investment, more capital gains, therefore more tax
receipts). Then the congress spent it and more (as they will always do),
the bubble burst and the economy slid into a mild recession as Clinton was
leaving office and Bush phasing in. Then 911 took about 100 billion out of
the economy. So we went from Surplus in the bubble days of $150/share
stocks that made no profit, to a deficit. That's an infinite increase, not
a quadruple.

Quoted message said:

he's dragged us into a idiotic war,

Unsupported invective. Smart people on both sides have made cogent
arguments to support their position.

Quoted message said:

changed us from the envy of the world

Yes, envy of the world. But envy has its dark side, doesn't it? Do you
remember the hundreds of thousands of protesters in Europe filling the
streets when Reagan wanted to put Nuclear missles in Western Europe? The US
has been envied and resented for quite some time. That's what happens when
you're at the top. The Europeans messed up twice this century (with the
exception of the UK, of course), and they're still feel humiliated that the
US and the UK pulled their fat from the fire. I don't lose much sleep over
being popular.

Quoted message said:

being one of the most hated countrys on earth,

Yawn. So they're wrong. We worked very hard (remember Powell's efforts?)
to bring France and Germany and Russia along, but they were getting blood
money from Iraq, so of course they wouldn't support us. French Elf had $100
billion in contracts with Iraq when the embargo ended, and German and
Russian companies were also at the trough. Countries make foreign policy
based on self-interest. Ours was best served by eliminating Sadaam.
Theirs, by keeping him in power.

France has something like 10% largly unassimilated, sullen, unemployed, poor
Muslims, who have created a crime wave in that country. England has a
problem, too. They have to tread lightly. The demographics are, sadly,
inexorably tipping towards an Islamic plurality in Western Europe.

Quoted message said:

he wants to quit the UN,

Bet you dinner you can't give me a quote W on that. (not a Michael Moore of
Al Jazera(sp?) quote, but from a mainline news org). You on?

Now, *I* happen to think that the UN is a corrupt third world organization,
run by corrupt third world governments. It does some good things, and many
bad things (eg, sex for food, the food for oil scam, Libya as chair of the
Human Rights commission, doing nothing about the Rwandan genocide, running
the Palistinian "refugee" camps, etc).

Quoted message said:

bring back the draft (he'll need lots more people to die for him in his

next war),

Clinton, I believe, nearly halved our combat troops. We massed 500,000
troups in Gulf War I because we had them. Clinton left us weaker. We do
need to beef up our army.

Quoted message said:

and in a recent poll of the worlds leaders GWB was voted the top threat to
world peace today.

Let's see, there are what, 25 to 50 true democracies out of about 175
countries? I'll bet you another dinner that the leaders of truly democratic
countries did not support that proposition by a majority.

Even granting that point, If they said the sky was green, or that the earth
was warming up and the ice caps were going to melt tomorrow, I suppose you'd
believe them, too. Consensus is inherently neither accurate, moral, or
beneficial.

Quoted message said:

Every decision he has made has been a disaster. There is no
question his judgement is the worse we've ever seen.

My, what grandiose statements. You must be a real genius!
W has good judgement, in my opinion. So there, I've questioned that
assertion.

Quoted message said:

There really is only
reason you'd still vote for him, you just can't stand the thought of us

dems

Quoted message said:

taking power again.

Projection (see Freud). I posit that you are just mirroring your own ABB
feelings on Bushies. I think Bush will go down as one of the better
presidents, when the dust settles in 20 - 30 years. I support him as W, not
as the anti-Kerry.

Quoted message said:

We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody, whose
boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Quoted message said:

...because on nov 4th when we hand the chimp his butt on a
platter, you'll be a very, very unhappy (more than usual) man.

If that were to happen, I'd be very sad for the country (but happy for
France).
I propose that you'd feel just as bad if Bush won in a walk. That's
politics.
And, no, I consider myself happier than most, actually.

Quoted message said:

The last poll I
saw gave Bush 14 states, 36 to Kerry, and in the electoral college Bush

had 140

Quoted message said:

votes, and Kerry 398, and he only needs 270 to win. So if I was a

republican

Quoted message said:

I'd whine too, but I still wouldn't vote for Bush again.

Everyone's got their favorite poll de jour. The last 10 days before the
election are when the folks in the middle start coalescing. We'll see.

You might want to do some research next time you post wild charges. Or,
then again, maybe you are more informed than you appear, and it's all about
flinging s*** and seeing what sticks.

Warmest etc,

Dan

Quoted message said:

Invective. Take the Tickle.com IQ test. Bet you a drink I outscore you.
I will concede that you are normally pretty clever when you're not frothing,
though.

TY Dan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but you'll lose in november,

Valid opinion -- I happen to disagree.

But I'm right, you're wrong.

Quoted message said:

Yawn...let's analyze your support of that assertion:

No reason to read on. GWB is a murdering, lieing, thieveing, little scumbag,
who cares nothing about anyone who isn't worth a million dollars or more.

Quoted message said:

I thought you were better informed.

I can say the same, because apparently the meaning of "broke all previous
records" eludes you.

Quoted message said:

!! How about the great depression, when unemployment in the US was 25%.

GWB lost us 3 million jobs in 6 months.

Quoted message said:

It is now about the average (5.6%) of what it was during the Clinton
administration.

Because the chimp reclassified jobs like my wifes at Burger King, a 32 hour
week, as full time, gainful employment. I want to see you live on that, and
call it "gainful".

Quoted message said:

See above.

Indeed.

Quoted message said:

Gas was above $3.00/gal in present dollars

Oh get a life, you're being ridiculous now.

Quoted message said:

aybe so. I haven't read about that,

Or very much at all apparently...

Quoted message said:

Well, Clinton years benefitted from a surplus from the stock market bubble
(more windfalls, more investment, more capital gains, therefore more tax
receipts). <snip the BS>

Oh sure, it was because the republicans setup the economy for him to coast for
four years. Yeah, stick with that....

Quoted message said:

he bubble burst and the economy slid into a mild recession as Clinton was
leaving office and Bush phasing in.

LMFAO! Now I know you're full of [censored]. Just like I said above, when the
economys good under dems, you say "because we set it up, and you are coasting
on our hard work", but when it's bad under repubs you say "it's because those
damn dems screwed it all up, and now we're taking the blame". I mean don't you
know how stupid this is?

Quoted message said:

Yawn. So they're wrong.

No they are not wrong. You are just like Bush, saying "the world is wrong, we
are right" and it just doesn't work that way. Bush told the world to go [censored]
themselves, that's wrong., and your insistance that it isn't is ridiculous.

Quoted message said:

Ours was best served by eliminating Sadaam.

Oh my, please explain how we're better off now than we were before this idiotic
war. We are billions in debt, and gained nothing, except of course curious
George got revenge for his daddy.

Quoted message said:

Bet you dinner you can't give me a quote W on that. (not a Michael Moore of
Al Jazera(sp?) quote, but from a mainline news org). You on?

Read the papers, it was on the front page of our regional newspaper, carried by
the IP. I guess you aren't so well informed, are you? I guess you expect me to
waltz down the library, dig through months of newspapers to find it for you? If
you read one you'd have seen it.

Quoted message said:

Clinton, I believe, nearly halved our combat troops. We massed 500,000
troups in Gulf War I because we had them. Clinton left us weaker. We do
need to beef up our army.

No. A Good world citizen has no use for a huge war machine. We have plenty of
troops to defend ourselves, the rest are offense. I guess the two latest
nuclear bombs that Georgie boy wants 3 billion dollars to develop, don't bother
you? Did you know they are STRICTLY offensive weapons designed for use...guess
where? HERE ON AMERICAN SOIL! That's right, the chimp is trying to develop
nukes for use on homeland soil. I guess that's for nov5th after he loses...

Quoted message said:

I'll bet you another dinner that the leaders of truly democratic
countries did not support that proposition by a majority.

"World leaders" are who they are, we can't say because we don't agree with how
they came to power, or in the way they govern, that they are not legitamit
world leaders. Their opinions matter even if you don't like or agree with them.

Quoted message said:

Consensus is inherently neither accurate, moral, or
beneficial.

See you are everything that is wrong with this [censored] up country. If you don't
like what they say, then they are [censored], or have no right to an opinion.
It's beneficial because it is the way the world feels, and rightfully so,
because he IS undoubtedly the biggest threat to global peace. Any president who
tells the world to GFY and does whatever he wants to anyway, is a loose cannon.

Quoted message said:

My, what grandiose statements. You must be a real genius!

You don't need to be to recognize an ignorant, [censored] up loser.

Well, I'm off to a FREE Country for a few days. Repost this [censored] tues when I
return, and I'll be glad to humiliate you some more.
Cheers!

"TheBillRodgerz" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Well, I'm off to a FREE Country for a few days. Repost this [censored] tues when

I

Quoted message said:

return, and I'll be glad to humiliate you some more.

You remind me of the old saying:

When you don't have the facts, argue the law. When you don't have the law,
argue the facts. When you have neither, pound the table!

I agree with Roger, you are not in a good place mentally.

Have fun in Cuba.

-- Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

Quoted message said:

We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody, whose
boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Kerry's creds are solid. War hero, prosecutor, and experienced senator.
"Undistinguished anybody" ? I doubt it. Even among presidential candidates,
he's solid. Not exemplary, but certainly solid.

And the Democratic campaign is going pretty well so far. They picked the right
guy in the primary, the convention went well, and the incumbent is running in
tough times, facing widespread criticism, which has made it easier for the
opposition to stay with a positive message at the convention. It's far from
over, but it's looking pretty good for the Democrats at this stage.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

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

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

Quoted message said:

We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody, whose
boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Kerry's creds are solid. War hero, prosecutor, and experienced senator.
"Undistinguished anybody" ? I doubt it. Even among presidential

candidates,

Quoted message said:

he's solid. Not exemplary, but certainly solid.

And the Democratic campaign is going pretty well so far.

Yea right. Kennedy is for national health care, McCain is for cleaning up
government waste, Bush for tax cuts. Kerry is for what? Being President?
What is his key thing he will do? Anything that the polls tell him. What
is his major political achievement? Nadda. Even in Mass. they say they put
up with Kerry but they know he is ambitious without principle. His new
slogan is "hey, I'm not Bush." Not much to run on.

Quoted message said:

They picked the right
guy in the primary, the convention went well, and the incumbent is running

in

Quoted message said:

tough times, facing widespread criticism, which has made it easier for the
opposition to stay with a positive message at the convention. It's far

from

Quoted message said:

over, but it's looking pretty good for the Democrats at this stage.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

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

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

Quoted message said:

We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody,

whose

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Kerry's creds are solid. War hero, prosecutor, and experienced

senator.

Quoted message said:

"Undistinguished anybody" ? I doubt it. Even among presidential

candidates,

Quoted message said:

he's solid. Not exemplary, but certainly solid.

And the Democratic campaign is going pretty well so far. They picked

the right

Quoted message said:

guy in the primary, the convention went well, and the incumbent is

running in

Quoted message said:

tough times, facing widespread criticism, which has made it easier for

the

Quoted message said:

opposition to stay with a positive message at the convention. It's far

from

Quoted message said:

over, but it's looking pretty good for the Democrats at this stage.

Politically we are on the same page although I'm not happy with his
cutesy VP mate. It should be obvious that Chaney is running the country,
and not well I might add, cuz Bush isn't bright enough to unlock the
[censored] door without the instructions on the toilet paper. I'm tired
of the lies and finger pointing. Bush surrounded himself buffoons and
then says get got bad [censored]. The buck stops at his desk and if I were him
I'd retire in shame and take his Halliburton lackey with him.

-DougF

Jim said:

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

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

> We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody, whose
boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Kerry's creds are solid. War hero, prosecutor, and experienced senator.
"Undistinguished anybody" ? I doubt it. Even among presidential

candidates,

Quoted message said:

he's solid. Not exemplary, but certainly solid.

And the Democratic campaign is going pretty well so far.

Yea right. Kennedy is for national health care, McCain is for cleaning up
government waste, Bush for tax cuts. Kerry is for what? Being President?
What is his key thing he will do? Anything that the polls tell him. What
is his major political achievement? Nadda. Even in Mass. they say they put
up with Kerry but they know he is ambitious without principle. His new
slogan is "hey, I'm not Bush." Not much to run on.

Nonsense. The convention speeches had a fairly positive tone for the most part.
I think a negative convention would have been a big mistake, but that's not what
happened at all (could have happened if Dean won the primary instead of Kerry)

I think it's clear from the above that you just haven't been paying attention.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yea right. Kennedy is for national health care, McCain is for cleaning

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

government waste, Bush for tax cuts. Kerry is for what? Being

President?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is his key thing he will do? Anything that the polls tell him.

What

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is his major political achievement? Nadda. Even in Mass. they say they

put

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up with Kerry but they know he is ambitious without principle. His new
slogan is "hey, I'm not Bush." Not much to run on.

Nonsense. The convention speeches had a fairly positive tone for the most

part.

Quoted message said:

I think a negative convention would have been a big mistake, but that's

not what

Quoted message said:

happened at all (could have happened if Dean won the primary instead of

Kerry)

Quoted message said:

I think it's clear from the above that you just haven't been paying

attention.

Then what is Kerry's key issue? He'll give you everything and lower your
taxes unless you are rich (+$200,000). This is great except it is a pipe
dream. Now, pay attention to what he says and how much it will cost and see
what he is willing to give up then get back to us. Stop listening to
rhetoric and start adding up things on your own.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

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

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

Quoted message said:

We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody, whose
boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Kerry's creds are solid. War hero, prosecutor, and experienced senator.
"Undistinguished anybody" ? I doubt it. Even among presidential

candidates,

Quoted message said:

he's solid. Not exemplary, but certainly solid.

War hero is a bit strong. Many are skeptical of at least one of his 3
Purple Hearts where the medic did not think it was received under combat.
There are even disputes from people who were at the incident where he saved
the man from downing (in terms of whether or not there was still a firefight
going on). I doubt you will hear about the several hundred swift boat
officers and enlisted personnel that do not think he is fight to be
commander-in-chief.
Here is a trick: Name one piece of legislation Kerry sponsored that
ever became law.

Kerry is weak, weak, weak. Heck, Howard Dean is better qualified to be
president.

Quoted message said:

And the Democratic campaign is going pretty well so far. They picked the

right

Quoted message said:

guy in the primary, the convention went well, and the incumbent is running

in

Quoted message said:

tough times, facing widespread criticism, which has made it easier for the
opposition to stay with a positive message at the convention. It's far

from

Quoted message said:

over, but it's looking pretty good for the Democrats at this stage.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

If things are so bad, why is Kerry pretty much tied in opinion polls? He
should be rocking with a big lead.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

> We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody,

whose

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Kerry's creds are solid. War hero, prosecutor, and experienced

senator.

Quoted message said:

"Undistinguished anybody" ? I doubt it. Even among presidential

candidates,

Quoted message said:

he's solid. Not exemplary, but certainly solid.

And the Democratic campaign is going pretty well so far. They picked

the right

Quoted message said:

guy in the primary, the convention went well, and the incumbent is

running in

Quoted message said:

tough times, facing widespread criticism, which has made it easier for

the

Quoted message said:

opposition to stay with a positive message at the convention. It's far

from

Quoted message said:

over, but it's looking pretty good for the Democrats at this stage.

Politically we are on the same page although I'm not happy with his
cutesy VP mate. It should be obvious that Chaney is running the country,
and not well I might add, cuz Bush isn't bright enough to unlock the
[censored] door without the instructions on the toilet paper. I'm tired
of the lies and finger pointing. Bush surrounded himself buffoons and
then says get got bad [censored]. The buck stops at his desk and if I were him
I'd retire in shame and take his Halliburton lackey with him.

-DougF

The biggest buffoon was George Tenet, a Clinton appointee.

Sam said:

War hero is a bit strong. Many are skeptical of at least one of his 3
Purple Hearts where the medic did not think it was received under combat.

Some are skeptical about details of Bush's service too. Let's not go there.

Quoted message said:

If things are so bad, why is Kerry pretty much tied in opinion polls? He
should be rocking with a big lead.

The polls also say that Kerry is still relatively unknown. He could well have
a big lead after the conventions.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

War hero is a bit strong. Many are skeptical of at least one of his 3
Purple Hearts where the medic did not think it was received under combat.

The doctor who put a band-aid on that scratch heard the crew laughing about
how he'd shot a practice grenade too close and had been hit by his own
shrapnel.

I heard his gunner (who served under him, and is not on the payroll of a
political party, like Kerry's travel-mates) say that a second purple heart
occurred when he decided to sink a sampan filled with rice and threw a
grenade in the boat and was hit in the butt by a piece of rice. In other
words, a self-inflicted injury, not a combat wound. Kerry supposedly wrote
himself up for the two minor injuries.

I don't know about the third -- that might be legit.

Also, according to this gunner, the pic of him with a vest of grenades had
him wearing grenades not issued by the navy -- he'd borrowed them from some
army guy for the shot. A regular Junior Michael Moore.

Quoted message said:

There are even disputes from people who were at the incident where he

saved

Quoted message said:

the man from downing (in terms of whether or not there was still a

firefight

Quoted message said:

going on).

His crewman said it was quiet as a church when he picked the overboard guy
up -- no enemy fire. The boats were so fast on acceleration that people did
get thrown off, in fact it happened on another boat that same day,
according to this guy. (no medal for that captain, though)

-- Dan

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to get into the politics here, but I'd like to address
the science part - about "the ice caps were going to melt tomorrow."
Take a look at this picture from NASA and tell me what you think.

Quoted message said:

http://www.awitness.org/journal/melt_ice_cap_glacier.html
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

With pleasure. I love non-ranting debates.

Yes, there is some ice warning in the arctic since satellite measurements
were first available. I know that the co2 concentration has gone from about
280 ppm in the late 1800's to about 360 ppm at present. Most of this change
occurred in the first 50 years of this century.

Measuring this stuff is important, and geophysical research should remain a
high priority.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell:

Is the slight warming we're detecting caused by this change in co2?

Why did worldwide temperatures decrease from 1940 through 1980, while co2
was increasing?

North America is a net CO2 sink -- the continent absorbs more than it
produces, because the forests are growing back. (Much of the Mississippi
valley was forest at one time).

CO2 enhances tree growth -- search for CO2 and tree growth. Trees consume
CO2 for photosynthesis. So it may be that higher co2 leads to more forest,
which leads to less co2 in the atmosphere -- one of many possible buffers.

The earth's temperature was about 4 degrees warmer at about AD 1000, and
there was no corresponding change in CO2 then. There are clearly other
mechanisms which can change the earth's temperature much more than we've
observed in the last half of the 20th century. Who's to say that co2
concentration is the cause of what we see now?

I'm open to the possibility, but there's not enough information yet.

What should be done assuming warming is caused by man? How much should we
pay. What are the costs of a world a couple of degrees warmer? The
benefits?
Are there better ways to save lives than paying a co2 tax on everything?

My main objection to the whole global-warming stuff is that it is an
overreaction; the jury's still out. In general the position that
technology is bad and we need to return to a kind of purity is a religious
one; We need to keep our heads, and fully understand the science before
doing anything rash.

I'm in favor of gradual reductions in all kinds of pollution; shifting
power production in the US to modern and much safer nuclear reactor designs
would make a *big* difference in pollution, but that runs hard up against
the anti-nuke cult.

-- Dan

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

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

Quoted message said:

We need somebody new, ANYBODY but Bush.

Well, that's what you've nominated...an undistinguished anybody, whose
boyhood dream is to ride the big desk.

Kerry's creds are solid. War hero, prosecutor, and experienced senator.
"Undistinguished anybody" ? I doubt it. Even among presidential

candidates,

Quoted message said:

he's solid. Not exemplary, but certainly solid.

Hi Donovan. I shoulda said "undistinguished senate career". What well
known piece of legislation has he produced? His voting record on defense
and intelligence issues is pathetic, no matter how many times he uses the
word "security", "defense" and "strength" in his speeches. Rhetoric may
triumph over actions, but I sincerely hope not.

I've heard tales that his war heroics were more of a ticket-punching, then
get the hell out, kind of thing. But I'll give him his due, despite two
'owie' purple hearts. I heard one of his crew members said yesterday that
there was no enemy fire when he rescued that man overboard, for example.
(Kerry's sailor companions are paid by the Democrats, btw) Nevertheless, he
*was* over there for 4 months. He gets my thanks for his service.

Quoted message said:

And the Democratic campaign is going pretty well so far. They picked the

right

Quoted message said:

guy in the primary,

Dean would have been a disaster (or boon, depending on your tribal
affiliation).

Quoted message said:

the convention went well, and the incumbent is running in
tough times, facing widespread criticism, which has made it easier for the
opposition to stay with a positive message at the convention. It's far

from

Quoted message said:

over, but it's looking pretty good for the Democrats at this stage.

Yes, it is a race. But I think this is Kerry's high water mark, barring bad
stuff in Iraq.
Bush's big weakness is that his popularity is partly hostage to external
events. Kerry gets to sit back and say "I would have done it better".

-- Dan

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

Quoted message said:

Sam said:

War hero is a bit strong. Many are skeptical of at least one of his

3

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Purple Hearts where the medic did not think it was received under

combat.

Quoted message said:

Some are skeptical about details of Bush's service too. Let's not go

there.

Kerry rolls out his Vietnam record every chance he gets and also once
did not think that whether or not one served or not in Vietnam should not be
an issue. Of course, that was when there was a Democrat who did not even
serve in the reserve and did everything possible to avoid service including
getting Senators to write letters for him. Just another Kerry flip flop.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If things are so bad, why is Kerry pretty much tied in opinion polls?

He

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

should be rocking with a big lead.

The polls also say that Kerry is still relatively unknown. He could well

have

Quoted message said:

a big lead after the conventions.

Or once people get to know him and his record, they will like him even
less.

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

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

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm not going to get into the politics here, but I'd like to address
the science part - about "the ice caps were going to melt tomorrow."
Take a look at this picture from NASA and tell me what you think.

Quoted message said:

http://www.awitness.org/journal/melt_ice_cap_glacier.html
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

With pleasure. I love non-ranting debates.

Yes, there is some ice warning in the arctic since satellite measurements
were first available. I know that the co2 concentration has gone from

about

Quoted message said:

280 ppm in the late 1800's to about 360 ppm at present. Most of this

change

Quoted message said:

occurred in the first 50 years of this century.

Measuring this stuff is important, and geophysical research should remain

a

Quoted message said:

high priority.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell:

Is the slight warming we're detecting caused by this change in co2?

Why did worldwide temperatures decrease from 1940 through 1980, while co2
was increasing?

North America is a net CO2 sink -- the continent absorbs more than it
produces, because the forests are growing back. (Much of the Mississippi
valley was forest at one time).

CO2 enhances tree growth -- search for CO2 and tree growth. Trees consume
CO2 for photosynthesis. So it may be that higher co2 leads to more

forest,

Quoted message said:

which leads to less co2 in the atmosphere -- one of many possible buffers.

The earth's temperature was about 4 degrees warmer at about AD 1000, and
there was no corresponding change in CO2 then. There are clearly other
mechanisms which can change the earth's temperature much more than we've
observed in the last half of the 20th century. Who's to say that co2
concentration is the cause of what we see now?

I'm open to the possibility, but there's not enough information yet.

What should be done assuming warming is caused by man? How much should we
pay. What are the costs of a world a couple of degrees warmer? The
benefits?
Are there better ways to save lives than paying a co2 tax on everything?

My main objection to the whole global-warming stuff is that it is an
overreaction; the jury's still out. In general the position that
technology is bad and we need to return to a kind of purity is a religious
one; We need to keep our heads, and fully understand the science before
doing anything rash.

I'm in favor of gradual reductions in all kinds of pollution; shifting
power production in the US to modern and much safer nuclear reactor

designs

Quoted message said:

would make a *big* difference in pollution, but that runs hard up against
the anti-nuke cult.

-- Dan

wasn't there also reports recently that the Sun is burning a bit hotter
than its has been in the past? That would/could make a difference.

I think man's role in global warming is small at best. That is not to say
that reducing output of bad stuff is not a good thing, just not as draconian
at Kyoto would have meant.

If the government taxes CO2, does that mean that runners would have to pay a
tax for every mile run?