PDA

View Full Version : Clinton.



Pages : [1] 2

ygfperson
07-02-2002, 09:18 AM
What is your opinion of him?

Mario
07-02-2002, 11:12 AM
One of the best presidents US has seen. The time for his work to be properly acknowledged will come. He pumped up US economy and moved on the international scene without lending his ears to militarists. He failed on Middle-East only because of lack of time.

He was on his prime when he had to step down from the White House. The fact that democracy tries to protect itself against dictatorships does create this paradox where sometimes the best candidate and the sure winner can't run for the position. Sad...

As for the ML affair... with due respect to his wife, fact is I would rather much prefer to have a player has president than to have a warmonger. Make love not war...

Sayeh
07-02-2002, 11:32 AM
I find it appalling that the majority of you voted for Clinton.

That suggests you are liberal idealistic children.

That's a fact, not a putdown. Liberals have child-like thought processes, not hindered by reality or the hard facts of life. Or perhaps you're socialistic swine.

Clinton was a liar, a thief, a cheat, an adulterer, a crook, and had 51 people _murdered_ (and that's _after_ he became president). Oh yeah, he also married Hillary. For her part, Hillary had a child named Chelsea, whose father was Vince Voster-- that's why he was waxed. I find it particularly interesting that the paperwork that proved that relationship existed was destroyed in the Murrah building before being publicized.

Every one of his speeches were a rereading of his previous speech-- all lies and filled with "what the public wants to hear"-- no substance or truth.

Now, when you are old enough to get a good paying job, you can thank Clinton and his ilk because half your income (literally half of every paycheck you get) goes to the government. And to think, the Founding Fathers revolted (Boston Tea Party) over a fraction-penny tax.

Ideals are just that-- ideals. Something unattainable because of circumstance, discourse, immutable physical law, human nature, etc.

Another thing, that demonstrates the liberal "child-like" mentality is that it accepts _no_ responsibility for its actions. It is always someone elses fault! Wrong. Only children refuse to take responsibility. By extension, it is not the government's place to coddle you, care for you, or wipe you nose and tie your shoes. Unfortunately, liberals keep wanting to give government more power, giving up more freedoms.

You cannot legislate evil away. In any truly free society, people are occassionally going to get hurt because somebody took advantage of that freeness.

If we change our way because the twin towers came down, then terrorism has won the battle. If you are a liberal or a socialist, then by defacto standard you are a terrorist. And are fundamentally opposed to everything that made America what it is today.

The reason people called America "The Melting Pot" is because people immigrated and became Americans. One language, one purpose, one culture. Strength does _not_ come from diversity. United we stand, divided we fall.

You think Clinton cut taxes in any way? Think again-- every proposed tax-cut that a liberal has ever come up with, is a small reduction in a huge increase. Not an actual cut. Look at the math, this will help you understand:

Current Tax Rate: 10%
Legislated Tax Increase: 25%
Proposed Tax Cut: 5%

Result: 10% + 25% = 35% New Tax Rate - 5% tax cut = New 30% Tax Rate

So we went from a 10% tax rate to a 30% tax rate-- wow, what a savings! And yes, that _is_ how the US Government does it. It's called borrowing from the future. It was dreamt up by former President L.B.Johnson- liberal.

THAT IS NOT A TAX CUT-- IT'S AN INCREASE!

Answer me this: Why should I be paying taxes for the public school system when I don't have a child in school any longer?

----

Thanks to liberals, no one in America actually owns any property. It's rented or loaned. Now if you think I'm wrong, look at this:

If you don't pay your taxes, the Feds will came and take everything you own-- who really owns it? The Feds do.

Thanks to liberals, the Miranda was struck down. Most people are exposed to America Justice from what they see on TV-- I have news for you-- what you see on TV is based solely on California Law. It doesn't wokr that way anywwhere else in America. Thanks to liberals, police now no longer require search warrants. they can go and do and look anywhere they please.

jackbooted thugs.

----

Sadly-- liberals and socialists are terrorists. Terrorists against Liberty and Individuality, Life, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

----

Govtcheez
07-02-2002, 11:36 AM
Wow, that's really wonderful, Sayeh. Truly, truly wonderful.

Tell me - John Birch Society, KKK, or just some ultra right wing whackjob?

-Terrorist

Sayeh
07-02-2002, 11:47 AM
Oh, and one more _critical_ little thing your teachers fail to mention in your schoolrooms, in reply to Mario's statement:

>> The fact that democracy tries to protect itself against dictatorships

WE DO NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA. That is MOB RULE. We have something called a REPUBLIC. That is why there is an electoral college.

Clinton was the worst president in the history of the United States of America. An embarassment unparalleled. He can't even lead his own penis; how can he be expected to lead a nation? What a joke!

The man raised taxes, cut down the military, expanded the size of government (1100+ new departments were created under his rule), and royally screwed the pooch in foreign policy. Abridged freedoms left and right.

Our job is not that of "band-aid" for the world. We've given trillions away and forgiven debts as big. And what do we get out of it? We're hated because our people live so well. Other countries are jealous. How can this be if we are the "infidel" or the "foreign devil"-- Sorry folks-- your way doesn't work. Ours does. Wake Up!

>> He pumped up US economy

cr@p-- you are uninformed. The reason our economy sucks right now is because of what CLINTON DID. You people think the economy changes overnight? No. It takes months, years for some waves to build and change and start affecting. Fact of the matter is, all the good economic press he got was in truth created by his predecessor-- Bush senior.

Bush junior is having to clean up Clinton's mess right now. And that's the way the presidency has gone since 1972. Liberals spend and waste, and build big government and tear down military (the only reason other countries are kept in line), and then a conservative is elected that has to clean it all up. They spend their term doing so, at great expense. It is always more expensive to rebuild. Because of this, a liberal gets elected again, because people have such a short term memory, they can't see cause and effect.

the only thing the Dumbocrats did correctly, is they picked the appropriate mascot-- a JackAss.

Sayeh
07-02-2002, 11:51 AM
>> Tell me - John Birch Society, KKK, or just some ultra right wing whackjob?

Uh, no. Actually I just keep to myself quietly most of the time. I just let off steam here. I can yack. And I'm not all that right-wing. I despise the KKK, stupid racist swine. I absolutely will not fault any person for the color of their skin. That stance is absurd beyond belief. Besides, most people think Jesus was white-- boy would they be surprised to see just how black he was.

As for birch, the only birch I work with is the one I put across a female bottom regularly.

Govtcheez
07-02-2002, 12:00 PM
> And I'm not all that right-wing.

Really... What would you describe yourself as, then?
The reason our economy sucks right now is because of what CLINTON DID. You people think the economy changes overnight? No. It takes months, years for some waves to build and change and start affecting. Fact of the matter is, all the good economic press he got was in truth created by his predecessor-- Bush senior.
While I agree with the fact the economics don't change in the blink of an eye, you can't say that prosperity during Clinton's presidency was totally the result of the elder Bush. Maybe partially, yes, but there's nothing Bush alone did htat would have accounted for the economic climate of the mid to late 90s. How about the mess that Bush senior had to clean up? Was that in some way Clinton's fault, or was that Carter? Was the economic climate some 10 years after Carter left office his fault, or could that maybe be Reagan, who spent more money than every other president put together?

> The man raised taxes

Yeah, because nobody else has ever done that, especially never Republicans. "Read my lips - no new taxes".... Hmm...

> royally screwed the pooch in foreign policy

Right, and Dubya's actions with Kyoto were something all Americans should be proud of.

> Now, when you are old enough to get a good paying job, you can thank Clinton and his ilk because half your income (literally half of every paycheck you get) goes to the government.

I make a decent enough wage, and I know I sure as hell don't give half my check to the government, state or federal.

ober
07-02-2002, 12:24 PM
hear hear govt....

but that aside... without gettin on the soapbox with Sayeh... a great deal of Clinton's economical success was due to what Bush senior put in place during his years in office. Did you happen to notice the downturn that began at the end of his tenure? Regardless... it's not necessarily just the president's fault/glory for how the economy is running... I don't know why everyone feels like they have to place the blame on one man.

and having said that... maybe if Clinton could have kept his dick in his pants, and spent a little more time with the country's issues... maybe I would have liked him more.

Govtcheez
07-02-2002, 12:34 PM
a great deal of Clinton's economical success was due to what Bush senior put in place during his years in office. Did you happen to notice the downturn that began at the end of his tenure? Regardless... it's not necessarily just the president's fault/glory for how the economy is running... I don't know why everyone feels like they have to place the blame on one man.
Like I said before, some of this could be attrbitued to Bush, but Clinton has to take some credit for it - he was in office too long for it to be totally Bush's doing. Besides, the economy's largely cyclical anyways.

> maybe if Clinton could have kept his dick in his pants

I hate that this keeps being brought up - you think he was the first president to have an affair? He's just the only one to get caught. I'm not defending him - what he did was wrong and gross (I mean, sure you're a pasty white dude, but you're the President - you should be able to get better chicks than Monia), but I think it's really weak that the first thing out of so many people's mouths when they criticize Clinton is "He had an affair!"

Sayeh
07-02-2002, 12:40 PM
>> Right, and Dubya's actions with Kyoto were
>> something all Americans should be proud of.

Actually yes, we should be. The Kyoto Protocol is based on the premise of global warming being a man made issue-- what a joke. In the first place, real scientific proof has been delivered (and ignored by tree huggers) that proves the ozone isn't being hurt, and secondly, America is far cleaner than any other country out there. Try working with facts for a change instead of perceptions.

Just a couple:

- Ozone (O3) is created primarily from UV rays striking the upper atmosphere. More Ozone is created everyday than all of man's technology can eliminate.

- If the earth were really warming, ocean water would evaporate at a greater rate, creating monsoons everywhere, all the time.

The "global warming" issue was a dream-up to help government gain more power and financial clout. If you want to research the truth to your satisfaction, then I suggest you surf google.

I mean, the only reason global warming is touted at all is because it was something the media could grab onto without having to listen to reason. A perfect example of this is medical science and stomach ulcers. It has been scientifically proven that stomach ulcers are the result of a virus. And can be completely cured with one proper treatment. But I bet your doctor won't tell you that if you go to get treated for one.

I like that 'dubya'-- cute.

---

>> I make a decent enough wage, and I know I sure as hell
>> don't give half my check to the government, state or
>> federal.

Apparently not-- you must be in the $13/hour range. I suggest you take your paystub and peak at the rate. I know that I (in the low-middle class white collar) pay 37% federal (income, fica, soc-sec) and atleast 12% state.-- Gee 37+12 = 49%.

---

You know, all you really have to do is follow the money trail. I didn't say I was a Republican. I said I was a conservative. Most politicians are alike. Greedy. The fact that politicians are not subject to the same laws you and I are is an interesting fact few people know.

That's right. You are a class B citizen (as am I). Although our society wasn't supposed to have social classes. A police officer, and an attorney and a doctor are examples of class 'A' citizens. Did you ever wonder why they are legally required to always use their title? An attorney is Esquire, etc.

Ooops, back to my usual refrain-- learn how things really work. Sorry fellas, I forgot you just like to bandy ideals about without getting into the nuts and bolts.

nvoigt
07-02-2002, 12:42 PM
a liar, a thief, a cheat, an adulterer, a crook, and had 51 people _murdered_ (and that's _after_ he became president).


If he is doing all this in favor of his nation, it sounds like a perfect job description for a politician. Face it, you don't want a politician to be fair... you want him to cheat, lie, steal, assault and whatever else he can get away with diplomatically or by force, as long as it benefits your own well being.
Cheating is his ........ing job... though I agree he should have taken this a little less literaly.

Sayeh
07-02-2002, 12:43 PM
And no I didn't say Clinton was responsible for anything prior to his presidency.

But it it is true that Reagan spent most of his presidency cleaning up after Carter. Carter was the worst joke this country ever knew. He alone is responsible for the Deficit being what it is today.

In fact, why don't you go look at the numbers since 1960 and see what the deficit was and where it's increased. I think you'll be surprised at the dynamic change it underwent because of carter.

I remember when the deficit ran in the millions, not the trillions.

tgm
07-02-2002, 01:47 PM
I think Clinton was a decent president (or at least had a good government behind him). If not, he wouldn't have been in office so long. One thing he was very good at, as my high school English teacher said when he first got elected, is public speaking. My teacher was quick to note that JFK was an incredible speaker as well (she might be a bit partial to English though). However, I find it funny how uneducated people blamed Bush for the bad economy before he even had a chance to make any policies.

I find myself in agreement with Sayeh on everything else.

golfinguy4
07-02-2002, 02:17 PM
Sayeh, I respect your opinion and all, but guess what, we NEED taxes. Do you want your grandchildren (if you have any?) to get a good free education? Education costs $ and guess what pays for it, taxes. Do you want people invading America at ease? Of course not. Guess what pays for you defense, TAXES. People should stop *****ing about taxes, pay them, and have a country that can improve and prosper.

Procyon
07-02-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Sayeh
The Kyoto Protocol is based on the premise of global warming being a man made issue-- what a joke. In the first place, real scientific proof has been delivered (and ignored by tree huggers) that proves the ozone isn't being hurt, and secondly, America is far cleaner than any other country out there.

You are aware, I hope, that ozone deterioration and global warming are two completely unrelated issues? As in, they have nothing to do with each other? For that reason, I won't try to refute your ozone comment, although that problem has mostly been solved with the invention of CFC substitutes anyway.




- If the earth were really warming, ocean water would evaporate at a greater rate, creating monsoons everywhere, all the time.Certainly there'd be more evaporation, and more storms, but "monsoons everywhere" is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Now, here are a few things we would see:

- Higher average temperatures at ground stations
- Melting and retreat of continental glaciers
- Movement of temperate species towards the poles

And, all of these things have been widely observed.

And, personally, I thought Clinton was a good president.

Fountain
07-02-2002, 04:45 PM
oh, man...did you say you werent a republican but a conservative? Jesus, I am in Britain...and the LAST thing any country needs right now is conservatives...............

Yes, the last post was correct, you will see NO monsoons you frigging loony, but the melting of the ICE is far worse. However I live in NW England so I am ok-London will sink but not me!

OH the Clinton thing- I saw one post saying they would have trusted him more if he had kept his dick in his pants? MAN that is garbage- IT IS THE OTHER WAY ROUND! OF course its better to trust a man that likes a BJ etc etc - he is just like YOU!

Now, im not saying he didnt shag up some of the good things you had going, but HEY...He did ok-good enough for me.......

Isn't this new Bush bloke always taking backhanders etc from Texans or something-like with energy or something-this kyoto thing?

better to enjoy the women than be a crook

Fordy
07-02-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Fountain
oh, man...did you say you werent a republican but a conservative? Jesus, I am in Britain...and the LAST thing any country needs right now is conservatives...............

Not wishing to enter into a political argument, do you really think the people running the UK government today are any less conservative than the last Tory government.......LOL....they aint socialists...thats for sure

Clyde
07-02-2002, 05:15 PM
" If you are a liberal or a socialist, then by defacto standard you are a terrorist"

A rediculous statement.

"Liberals have child-like thought processes, not hindered by reality or the hard facts of life. Or perhaps you're socialistic swine."

*Bursts out laughing*

"In the first place, real scientific proof has been delivered (and ignored by tree huggers) that proves the ozone isn't being hurt"

A false statment.

"Ozone (O3) is created primarily from UV rays striking the upper atmosphere. More Ozone is created everyday than all of man's technology can eliminate"

An ignorant statement

"If the earth were really warming, ocean water would evaporate at a greater rate, creating monsoons everywhere, all the time"

A fantastically ignorant statement.

Perhaps you should stick to talking about topics you have a clue about, no?

Fountain
07-02-2002, 05:22 PM
Not wishing to enter into a political argument, do you really think the people running the UK government today are any less conservative than the last Tory government.......LOL....they aint socialists...thats for sure


And if Fordy thinks they are pure bred ignorant tory sh**e he is being silly..


Not wanting to enter into political arguments either.......NB...bows down to Fordy...........but Blair != Thatcher

Unregistered
07-02-2002, 05:36 PM
clinton was a loser and bush is no better face it all your politicians suck...

Mario
07-02-2002, 05:57 PM
I'll add a bit more...

>> If you are a liberal or a socialist, then by defacto standard you are a terrorist

Then you'll have to arrest 48% of the US population, even before your president starts to think on what to do about Saddam. But irony aside, you should know that a whole doesn't make a part. If all terrorists were socialists or liberals, a liberal or socialist wouldn't necessarly be a terrorist. Logic is a good thing on a programming forum.

>> Liberals have child-like thought processes, not hindered by reality or the hard facts of life. Or perhaps you're socialistic swine

As a matter of fact i'm neither. I'm an anarquist. Believe it or not. I don't believe in democracy, or any other type of political system, as a means to constitute a country.

>> Carter was the worst joke this country ever knew. He alone is responsible for the Deficit being what it is today.

The deficit was mainly due to the fact that Carter was the responsible for the end of US oil speculation. He banned the practice of holding petroleum prices far below that of world levels... this basically ended his career. For those who were already on this world at that time you will probably never forget the huge lines on gas pumps. But it also established a new world order in oil prices that benefited US ever since... no president after Carter ever dared to revert this price decontrol law he introduced.

Carter also was the man behind Camp David acords, the treaty with China and the Panama canal treaties... you seem to either have a very limited knowledge of your own country history, or a very single-minded one. Sorry.

Hillbillie
07-02-2002, 06:46 PM
Wow, I actually agree with Clyde for once. Should I worry? ;)

>clinton was a loser and bush is no better face it all your politicians suck...<

Sad, but correct...

>I hate that this keeps being brought up - you think he was the first president to have an affair? He's just the only one to get caught. I'm not defending him - what he did was wrong and gross (I mean, sure you're a pasty white dude, but you're the President - you should be able to get better chicks than Monia), but I think it's really weak that the first thing out of so many people's mouths when they criticize Clinton is "He had an affair!"<

Preach on, Rev. Cheez! :D Not to mention that him getting a BJ has nothing to do with his professional life. Who gives a **** if he cheated on his wife? That's their business...

ygfperson
07-02-2002, 06:53 PM
Actually yes, we should be. The Kyoto Protocol is based on the premise of global warming being a man made issue-- what a joke. In the first place, real scientific proof has been delivered (and ignored by tree huggers) that proves the ozone isn't being hurt,
proof from the Limbaugh Letter?

and secondly, America is far cleaner than any other country out there.
what about canada?

Try working with facts for a change instead of perceptions.
i was just thinking that.


- Ozone (O3) is created primarily from UV rays striking the upper atmosphere. More Ozone is created everyday than all of man's technology can eliminate.
if this is true, then why isn't the planet filled with ozone? ozone is created daily, true. the banning of cfc products will eventually help nature fix itself. this isn't a big issue now, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. it's important to acknowledge that we have depleted ozone in the upper atmosphere. we don't want to make the same mistake twice.

- If the earth were really warming, ocean water would evaporate at a greater rate, creating monsoons everywhere, all the time.
i don't think this is possible. we're not talking about a +100 F rise in temperatures, though. a gradual amount will do. ice is melted, oceans rise, and the general climates change.

The "global warming" issue was a dream-up to help government gain more power and financial clout.
which government? this is a global problem. besides, bush rejected the idea until recently. the benefitters would be... who?
If you want to research the truth to your satisfaction, then I suggest you surf google.i think i'll stick to scientific american
I mean, the only reason global warming is touted at all is because it was something the media could grab onto without having to listen to reason.
i'll agree with this. it doesn't make it any less dangerous, though.

A perfect example of this is medical science and stomach ulcers. It has been scientifically proven that stomach ulcers are the result of a virus.
some ulcers are viral. some are from stress. some are from the food you eat. you can't limit a fairly broad idea like an ulcer to one cause.

And can be completely cured with one proper treatment.
lemme guess: a hunger strike?

But I bet your doctor won't tell you that if you go to get treated for one.
i'm not sure where you're going with this. there is no conspiracy to deny people ulcer treatments.

Apparently not-- you must be in the $13/hour range. I suggest you take your paystub and peak at the rate. I know that I (in the low-middle class white collar) pay 37% federal (income, fica, soc-sec) and atleast 12% state.-- Gee 37+12 = 49%.

what state?
yes, i know taxes take a big bite of your salary. we aren't in kansas anymore, toto. we have grown from an isolated frontier country to the world's superpower.

You know, all you really have to do is follow the money trail. I didn't say I was a Republican. I said I was a conservative. Most politicians are alike. Greedy. The fact that politicians are not subject to the same laws you and I are is an interesting fact few people know.
true. the constitution states that congressmen and women can't be arrested for minor crimes, like speeding. however, Congress as a whole can censure a member for doing that. they are still liable for the bigger crimes, though.


That's right. You are a class B citizen (as am I). Although our society wasn't supposed to have social classes. A police officer, and an attorney and a doctor are examples of class 'A' citizens. Did you ever wonder why they are legally required to always use their title? An attorney is Esquire, etc.
where did you get this?

getting back to the clinton topic...
i thought he was a great president. his affairs (pun intended) don't matter. it's the results. he didn't hurt the economy with his tax increases. he oversaw the first balanced budgets in 40 years. (in contrast, reagan and bush sr. quadrupled it). he survived impeachment with higher approval ratings than before.

i know some of the above can be attributed to the predominately republican congress. but in the end both sides restricted each other's attempts for the good of the nation. clinton learned this and preached as a moderate in his later years. if only more presidents could be like that.

Mario
07-02-2002, 07:14 PM
>>>> If the earth were really warming, ocean water would evaporate at a greater rate, creating monsoons everywhere, all the time.
>> i don't think this is possible.

It's not. Global Warming affects the land masses way more than it affects the ocean. Like you said it would take a much higher rise in temperatures for the effects to be noticeable over water. Polar ice constitutes a land mass for all that matters to climate physics. That's why the melting we have seen is a direct effect of the global warming.

no-one
07-02-2002, 07:15 PM
how many ways can i say GO SAYEH! Hit the nail on the head!

the segregation of classes is happening in america, nobody sees this.

btw: more polution and global warming(which btw is a myth) is cause by a single volcano erruption than man can cause in 1000 years at his worst level... so shut it. that means we got another 970 years of waste!!

99.9999% of global warming effect can be attributed to solar changes or don't exist at all, you cannot take one friggen hot year and say its global warming! wtf is that about.

>Sayeh, I respect your opinion and all, but guess what, we NEED taxes.

yes but not that much, about 40% of our tax money is squandered, or stolen or wasted or given away to people that will use it to kill us, and thats a lot. secondly anything but a flat tax is unfair. i work for the money no matter how much it is its mine, if i want to help other people or give it away, ITS MY COICE, not the govenment's.

AND CLITON WAS IMPEACHED!! WHAT FOR LOOK IT UP! DAMNIT THE ONLY REASON HE WASNT REMOVED FROM OFFICE WAS THE DEMOCRATS!!! WHY!!! BECAUSE HE WAS A DEOMCRAT? I DONT KNOW BUT IT ........ES ME OFF!

and anyone who believes he was impeached because of the affiar is an idiot, they don't impeach people for getting some ass, that was never the issue. EVER!

now as Sayeh i shall retire from this crap.

BTW: back on topic, clinton was a terrible president who nearly destroyed the country.

Clyde
07-02-2002, 07:46 PM
"Wow, I actually agree with Clyde for once. Should I worry? "

Heh, congratualations, welcome to the logical side of life :)

"btw: more polution and global warming(which btw is a myth) is cause by a single volcano erruption than man can cause in 1000 years at his worst level... so shut it. that means we got another 970 years of waste!! "

Global warming is not a myth, and we have done far more than a single volcanic erruption, we have done so much that we have disrupted the co2 cycle.

"99.9999% of global warming effect can be attributed to solar changes or don't exist at all, you cannot take one friggen hot year and say its global warming! wtf is that about. "

No.... global warming effects can be attributed to the industrialisation that started in the 19th century.

no-one
07-02-2002, 07:55 PM
well, as with most thing it depends on who you ask/believe...

most of the data i've seen leads me to believe otherwise... lets leave this at a difference of opinion eh?

Sayeh
07-02-2002, 08:13 PM
OMG, I find it strange that the only factual material provided is what I've given you aside from my sarcasm regarding Hillary and Billary.

It's okay. It really is. I cast pearls, I don't really expect you to listen or learn any longer. You just don't care for my delivery so you question my words without really stopping to think about it. Fine. whatever.

And with all due respect mario, you can't even spell anarchist correctly. You don't even know the difference between det-cord and fuse. stop pretending.

If you are living in America, I suggest you go commit some felonious crime to get yourself arrested. I think you will get your eyes opened very widely about what a thin veneer of freedom people actually have. I also suggest you make friends with a few attorneys and learn a little bit more about the 'class a' and 'class b' citizenship that exists.

in fact, here is an example- I challenge each of you to determine just exactly why an attorney can tell a police officer to ****-off to his face, and you will be arrested for doing the same thing.

I don't know, maybe if you are beaten half to death just for trying to urinate while standing up, maybe then the light will start to dawn.

Ha ha...ha haha ahahahahaah...

Sentaku senshi
07-02-2002, 08:19 PM
::Claps hands::, yippy yippy a brand new topic :) This is going to be fun.

Ok now back to being serious

>Clinton was a liar, a thief, a cheat, an adulterer, a crook, and had 51 people _murdered_ (and that's _after_ he became president). Oh yeah, he also married Hillary. For her part, Hillary had a child named Chelsea, whose father was Vince Voster-- that's why he was waxed. I find it particularly interesting that the paperwork that proved that relationship existed was destroyed in the Murrah building before being publicized.<
Who did he have murdered? And don't tell me people inocent civilians, or people he did not let off death row.

>Every one of his speeches were a rereading of his previous speech-- all lies and filled with "what the public wants to hear"-- no substance or truth.<
Obivisly when you are trying to get your point acrose to mulitple audences you should only tell one of them but tell the rest about something else.

>Now, when you are old enough to get a good paying job, you can thank Clinton and his ilk because half your income (literally half of every paycheck you get) goes to the government. And to think, the Founding Fathers revolted (Boston Tea Party) over a fraction- penny tax.<
I see the guy whou can bearly aford bread should pay more taxes, so the person who has the good paying job can afford to buy a 4th lincon contenantal. Oh yea the founding fathers did not revolt because of the amount, the revolted because they had no representation. "No taxication without representation"


>Answer me this: Why should I be paying taxes for the public school system when I don't have a child in school any longer?<
Only people who can offerd school should go?

>Thanks to liberals, no one in America actually owns any property. It's rented or loaned. Now if you think I'm wrong, look at this:

If you don't pay your taxes, the Feds will came and take everything you own-- who really owns it? The Feds do.<

If someone does not pay there morgage there house can reposesed. Sorry but your taxes are just like any other bill, they need to get payed.

>Thanks to liberals, the Miranda was struck down. Most people are exposed to America Justice from what they see on TV-- I have news for you-- what you see on TV is based solely on California Law. It doesn't wokr that way anywwhere else in America. Thanks to liberals, police now no longer require search warrants. they can go and do and look anywhere they please.<

If that was true the ECUL (or somthing like that) would be taking major action.

>yes but not that much, about 40% of our tax money is squandered, or stolen or wasted or given away to people that will use it to kill us, and thats a lot. secondly anything but a flat tax is unfair. i work for the money no matter how much it is its mine, if i want to help other people or give it away, ITS MY COICE, not the govenment's.<
What you make is based on the Amount of Workers x company needs and what they can get. Second refer to my comment on taxes earler in response to Sayeh

>AND CLITON WAS IMPEACHED!! WHAT FOR LOOK IT UP! DAMNIT THE ONLY REASON HE WASNT REMOVED FROM OFFICE WAS THE DEMOCRATS!!! WHY!!! BECAUSE HE WAS A DEOMCRAT? I DONT KNOW BUT IT ........ES ME OFF!<
Plus some replucians that reilized he should not be removed.

>and anyone who believes he was impeached because of the affiar is an idiot, they don't impeach people for getting some ass, that was never the issue. EVER!<
LOL, haha haha. Wrong one of the reasons the republicans thought he should be impached was becauase of the Afair. The fact of the Matter is as an Affair is a civil suit and not a criminal one, he should have never been in court. It is just like if someone wanted to sue him for cutting down a tree on there property. That can wait till after his presidency was up.

ygfperson
07-02-2002, 09:21 PM
Answer me this: Why should I be paying taxes for the public school system when I don't have a child in school any longer?
because you share the cost. that's what taxes are about: pooling the cost of running the country and the government beaurocracy, and scaling it so that those who can most afford to pay pay the most.

Thanks to liberals, no one in America actually owns any property. It's rented or loaned. Now if you think I'm wrong, look at this:

If you don't pay your taxes, the Feds will came and take everything you own-- who really owns it? The Feds do
what is your concept of ownership? do you own all the land down to the earth's core? do you have the right to let your property ruin someone elses? do you have the right to shoot tresspassers?

they don't own your property. they take it from you in compensation for not paying taxes.

Thanks to liberals, the Miranda was struck down. ... Thanks to liberals, police now no longer require search warrants. they can go and do and look anywhere they please
civil libertarians are liberals. they are also conservatives. isn't it amazing how two people who believe the same thing about something can vote differently?

If that was true the ECUL (or somthing like that) would be taking major action.
ACLU, and they always are

anything but a flat tax is unfair. i work for the money no matter how much it is its mine, if i want to help other people or give it away, ITS MY COICE, not the govenment's.
it's your 'coice', huh? you don't live in complete freedom. as you have subtley said, we are not free.

AND CLITON WAS IMPEACHED!! WHAT FOR LOOK IT UP! DAMNIT THE ONLY REASON HE WASNT REMOVED FROM OFFICE WAS THE DEMOCRATS!!! WHY!!! BECAUSE HE WAS A DEOMCRAT? I DONT KNOW BUT IT ........ES ME OFF!
a whole lot of things ........ you off...

clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying under oath involving the affair. it is true that the democrats pretty much kept him in office. look at the big picture, though. WHY? he had sex with another woman, then lied about it. do you remove the fairly elected president from office because he slept with somebody?

the liberals of this country are not out to kill you slowly. they could care less. they want to make this country a better place to live. conservatives want to do the same thing, but they have a different idea on "better". if not anything else, please realize that neither the liberal view nor the conservative view is totally correct.

novacain
07-02-2002, 11:14 PM
Govtcheez
>>I hate that this keeps being brought up - you think he was the first president to have an affair? He's just the only one to get caught. I'm not defending him - what he did was wrong and gross<<

Like so many you miss the point. It was not that Clinton had an affair with ML, big deal. (Both the Kennedy's had affairs with Monroe). It was that under oath he lied (perjury) to protect himself from prosecution (in the Flower case, along with others). He used his reputation as president and a good family man to deny the allegations of sexual misconduct (rape). The acquittal in this case stopped further prosecution in other cases.

What else would / did he do that was against the law and hurt others to protect his reputation?

Sayeh
>>Our job is not that of "band-aid" for the world. We've given trillions away and forgiven debts as big. And what do we get out of it? We're hated because our people live so well. Other countries are jealous. How can this be if we are the "infidel" or the "foreign devil"-- Sorry folks-- your way doesn't work. Ours does. Wake Up!

Xerox and WorldCom and Enron are shining examples of your way aren't they? You have to prop up, with tariffs, quotas and subsidies, your timber, steel and farming industries lest actual completion destroy them.
Remember you the US tax payer, homebuilder and consumer are paying to protect these big businesses from reality and a true global economy.

How come the terrorists are not attacking the UK, Europe or Australia only America?

>>and secondly, America is far cleaner than any other country out there.

That's why in Japan, the recycled waste (and waste water) is used to power, on reclaimed land, a free water playground.

The same waste in the US is burnt in incinerators.

>>It has been scientifically proven that stomach ulcers are the result of a virus.
Actually discovered by a friend of my family, Dr Warren and partner here in my home town. (AFAIK it is a bacteria)

No-one
Clinton was not actually impeached, as Nixon was. He was tried for impeachment and found not guilty (as 2/3 majority was needed in a 50/50 mix of Dems and Reps).

>>now as Sayeh i shall retire from this crap.

Yes. Post a lot of untruths, false facts and opinions (touted as facts) then leave, in case anybody refutes them.

I doubt you could justify one of the figures you quote with a single fact!

ygfperson
>>do you remove the fairly elected president from office because he slept with somebody?

No. But you do for criminal acts ie perjury, rape and fraud.
You can't have someone not born in the US as president but a liar and cheat is OK?

no-one
07-02-2002, 11:42 PM
>Xerox and WorldCom and Enron are shining examples of your way aren't they?

these are not shining examples and they do not define us as a whole, stop acting like any mistake means we have accomplished nothing and have failed at everything, the system allows for peole to do wrong, people will do wrong, does this mean the govt. should controll our entire lives to prevent enron? NO!

>Remember you the US tax payer, homebuilder and consumer are paying to protect these big businesses from reality and a true global economy.

unfortunatly we don't get to choose where our tax dollar goes.

>Clinton was not actually impeached, as Nixon was.

he was impeached by congress but not the senate so he was not removed from office.

>he was tried for impeachment and found not guilty (as 2/3 majority was needed in a 50/50 mix of Dems and Reps).

a congressional conviction/impeachment requires a simple majority vote,
he was convited of perjury and obstruction of justice. look it up.

>Yes. Post a lot of untruths, false facts and opinions (touted as facts) then leave, in case anybody refutes them.

my opinions were not touted as facts if this is what you see then its your problem, they were not intended or implied as so.

99.9999% the number was ment to place emphasis, to bring added attention to the statement, get over it.

by some,
90+% of global warming is attributed to solar phenomena and that the rest is natural global phenomena, we are not really a large factor.

and volcanos do produce that much polution,

and a great many estimate 40% of taxes are wasted,

so you if you don't like my facts you can :edit:.

watch some informative american news programs or read some non biased news or scientific reports...

::edit:: toned it down a bit... so as to allow for continured discussion.

novacain
07-03-2002, 01:35 AM
No one

Clinton was tried for impeachment and aquitted, congress has nothing to do with it (apart from recommending that he stand trial). Note: Even the BBC got the legal procedure wrong in its reports.

from
http://www.planet101.com/impeachment_article.htm

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

I watch your news, CNN as well as the BBC and Australian BC news.

Could be you need a little less biased news service.

>>90+% of global warming is attributed by some to solar phenomena and that the rest is natural global phenomena, we are not really a factor,

Please supply ONE link to support this 'opinion'

no-one
07-03-2002, 02:09 AM
>congress has nothing to do with it (apart from recommending that he stand trial).

wtf?

it doesn't happen without Congress.

Traditionally, the House(Congress), after drawing up and voting on articles of impeachment that specify the charges and their factual bases, assigns congressional "managers" (prosecutors) to present the case before the Senate.

also when the Congress Draws and Votes up the Articles Of Impeachment and they are passed, it is refered to as impeachment, or Congressional Impeachment.

>I watch your news, CNN as well as the BBC and Australian BC news.

CNN hah, BBC HAHA. thats non biased?

i've watched them both thanks and they are quite biased.

>Could be you need a little less biased news service.

Could be, but i doubt it, since use a great many.

>Please supply ONE link to support this 'opinion

1. i didn't get this off the internet
2. these are relatively new estimates
3. greenies no like, info not wide spread.

4. do some reasearch on solar radiation and global warming or the solar climate change, and maybe you'll begin to grasp what im saying

try searching google for something like

'solar causes of global warming' or
'solar global warming' or
'solar climate change'

or something like that, you'll see what i mean...

some go as high as all of the global temperate change can be attributed to this, some estimate more volcanic influences...

most are old and keep i relatively low at around 40%, these are new numbers, you'll hear about it eventually,

BTW: did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers.

so stop breaking my balls, over nothing. or something your not up on.

minesweeper
07-03-2002, 03:29 AM
I love debates like this one, it makes me realise that England isn't the only country with a s*** government.

novacain
07-03-2002, 03:46 AM
Did not think you could support it. Just as soon as someone dares mention the US in a less than favourable light and its off.

A bunch of patriots spouting propaganda, disinformation and misinformation. Defying all logic and discounting any truth.

No-one (posts unsubstansiated fact)
>>90+% of global warming is attributed by some to solar phenomena and that the rest is natural global phenomena, we are not really a factor,

(wtf. The sun is responsible for global warming and the rest is natural! Why did it not happen eons before? Why the acceleration in the last 50 years?)

NovaCain (asks for source of info)
>> Please supply ONE link to support this 'opinion'

No-one (tries to defend said misinformation)
>>1. i didn't get this off the internet
>>2. these are relatively new estimates
>>3. greenies no like, info not wide spread.

Ahh. New esimates which are incontraverable, not on the web and hidden by the all powerful evil greenies!

LOL

>>it is refered to as impeachment
Semantics.

Trial=impeachment
convicted=impeached
acquitted=??? (not impeached???)

Not to mention it is a fundamental of the Westminister system, that both of our governments are based on, that there is a seperation of government and judiciary. Which is clearly not the case here.

>>so stop breaking my balls, over nothing. or something your not up on.
Hang on a second, you are yet to post one FACT and I am not 'up on it'. You expect to spread this rubbish and not be asked to at least provide some info?

LOL

Mario
07-03-2002, 04:10 AM
>> And with all due respect mario, you can't even spell anarchist correctly. You don't even know the difference between det-cord and fuse. stop pretending

I confess! My grasp of the English language is not that perfect. Shame on me. Now, for something completely different (remember?), if you pay a little more attention to details you will learn to things:

1. You show little knowledge of the things you say. I present facts with my statements, you tell us to go and search for them. How about that for pretending.

2. I'm not American neither am I living in US. So i can not and don't wish to test your arrest theory... not that what you say is different from any other country on this world. You argument is rather mute.

Mario
07-03-2002, 04:27 AM
>> BTW: did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers.

You really have to decide whether you trust scientists or not. To smack on the scientific community disregarding all their findings as rubbish, only to then backup your arguments by quoting the scientific community that doesn't share the same views, doesn't help your case.

The above is completely false. First, the 'most' adjective you use there. It's not most, but in fact is a tiny amount of scientists.
Second, the reasons behind that climate age change... maybe you should have keep reading your source and you would find out that they attribute this possible change as a possible effect of ... you got it! Global Warming.
And third, we are already on a warm age period. We are not moving in or out of it. Most scientists believe the global warming is dangerous and powerful but not in such a way that it would change climate to the extent you are talking about. The global warming effects and the reason they are so dangerous is because of its effects on wild life... especially plant life, the support for most life on earth.

Clyde
07-03-2002, 09:21 AM
In my environemenal chemistry lectures we covered global warming, the change in co2 levels is undeniable.

"did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers"

We are not moving into an "inverse of an ice age", we are if anything moving towards an ice age, in fact man kinds activities have meant that the next ice age has been delayed.

But if we the ice caps keep melting, and they will if co2 levels remain high, eventually the volume of the ocean will reach a critical levels and we will be plunged into the coldest longest ice age.

We need to reduce global CO2 emmisions.

ober
07-03-2002, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Clyde
In my environemenal chemistry lectures we covered global warming, the change in co2 levels is undeniable.

"did you know most scienists now estimate were moving into and inverse of the ice age? hence changing global temperatures, hence new relatively unreleased numbers"

We are not moving into an "inverse of an ice age", we are if anything moving towards an ice age, in fact man kinds activities have meant that the next ice age has been delayed.

But if we the ice caps keep melting, and they will if co2 levels remain high, eventually the volume of the ocean will reach a critical levels and we will be plunged into the coldest longest ice age.

We need to reduce global CO2 emmisions.

WTF does this have to do with Clinton?!?!!?! :confused:

Regardless, I believe Clinton infact WAS LEGALLY IMPEACHED. However there was something... maybe a 2/3 vote that they didn't get to pass it.

I think I'm right on this one, but don't quote me

Sayeh
07-03-2002, 09:57 AM
From mario:
> 1. You show little knowledge of the things you say.
> I present facts with my statements, you tell us to
> go and search for them. How about that for pretending.

No, actually I have greater knowledge than most of you on the issue. I should not have to lead you by the balls to everwhere you should be going.

And as for facts-- why don't you try these, you stupid child. (I have put a link bibliography at the end so you can get more than you probably care to read):

--------------------

US Gov't Press Conference about Kyoto Protocol
===============================================
One of the very most stringent tests of the
validity of computer simulations of the climate
of the earth is based on the records from the
Arctic. According to computer forecasts, the
polar areas are very sensitive to global
warming. The forecasts say the polar region
should have warmed enough in the last 50 to
100 years to begin melting polar ice. Melting
polar ice would then produce positive feedback
that would amplify any warming already present.

However, radiosonde measurements that start in
the mid-1950s show that _no_ net warming has
occurred over the past several decades, which
contradicts the theoretical models by tree
huggers.

This includes measurements taken with satellites
and other observable phenomenon.

The greenhouse-induced warming just has not been
detectable in the Arctic either in the
troposhpere or at the surface over this 40-year
period.

Furthermore, it is not possible for the polar
caps to melt "rapidly" as the tree-huggers
suggest. A recent article in "Science" magazine
explains that the ice sheet is so stable that
the heat of climate warming, either natural or
man-made, would take _millenia_ to flow through
the ice to the underlying rockbed carrying the
ice.

Now, for stories we read in the papers on
increased hurricanes, increased blizzards,
destructive rainfall, butterfly extinctions,
glaciers melting in Glacier National Park-- these
are hyperbolic stories which have _no_
scientific basis whatsoever. In fact, temperatures
for Glacier National Park since 1895 (the last
100 years) show there has been _no_ summertime
warming that could cause those glaciers to retreat.
The warming that has occurred has been solely
natural.

The most important feature of this 100-year
temperature record is that _most_ of the warming
occurred before about 1940. But most of the
greenhouse gases from human activities entered the
atmosphere after 1940. That means most of the
temperature rise of the last 100 years that occurred
early in the century did not come from greenhouse gas
activities because it occurred before such gases
existed.

95% of the so-called "greenhouse gases" is water
vapor.

Excerpts from Article 2
(has lots of nice graph data)
=======================
It turns out that scientists have been able to carefully
test the hypothesis of global warming during the past 50
years - without relying on arguments that are based on
other hypotheses or on incompletely understood calculations.
During the past 50 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
have risen by a large amount, while, simultaneously, precise
measurements of atmospheric temperatur have been made. These
measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric
greehouse warming of the atmosphere as predicted by proponents
of "global warming: is not taking place and is unlikely ever
to take place. In other words, global warming has failed
experimental test.

Excerpts from Article 3
========================
Apocalyptic visions, such as those conjured up by environmentalism,
have been made throughout Man's history and invariably turn out to be
false. They attract widespread interest principally for the reason
that bad news is more newsworthy than good news. Thus the prediction
of catastrophes due to global warming, even on very inconclusive
evidence, is likely to be treated with considerably more importance
than the prediction that things might not be so bad after all. By
contrast, the non-doomsday scenario demands far more evidence in order
to satisfy its critics.

...

In regard to global warming, about the only fact that is universally
agreed upon is that there has been an increase in "Greenhouse Gases",
particularly CO2, in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil
fuels. But, contrary to popular misconceptions, there is no consensus
on what the consequences of this will be. Before discussing those
consequences a number of further facts can be cited.

(1) All the greenhouse gases are produced in nature, as well as by
humans. To give one example, termites are responsible, annually, for
10 times the current world production of CO2 from burning fossil
fuels. [3]

(2) CO2 concentrations have varied widely in the geological past,
obviously, therefore, from before Man had any significant impact, or
even existed.

(3) The oceans act as a "sink" for CO2 and hold 60 times more of it
than does the atmosphere.

...

[Here is an example of tree huggers typically avoiding real
scientific facts in lieu of theoretical, made-up data- ed]

Another response to the observed lack of warming is that "the data
don't matter". Those very words were spoken by Chris Folland of the
United Kingdom Meteorological Office at a meeting of climatologists in
Asheville, North Carolina, on August 13, 1991. Shortly after that
Folland added:

"Besides, we're not basing our recommendations [for immediate
reductions in CO2 emissions] upon the data; we're basing them upon
the climate models." [14]



-------------------------
And finally, I say to you, our weather forecasters can't even
predict the weather for a few hours ahead of a broadcast with *any*
accuracy-- how do you think _anyone_ can forecast it for the next
centure.

So, I say to you tree-huggers-- YOU GET _YOUR_ FACTS STRAIGHT.
I rely solely on scientific fact. You tree-huggers should try it.



Article Bibliography
--------------
1 http://www.ncpa.org/press/0929gwd.html
2 http://www.accesstoenergy.com/ate/9711/gwarmg.htm
3 http://www.libertarian.org/LA/globwarm.html

Sayeh
07-03-2002, 10:41 AM
From Novacain--
---------------------
> Actually discovered by a friend of my family, Dr Warren and partner here in my home town. (AFAIK it is a bacteria)

Hey, I agree with you, thank you. I couldn't remember the word 'bacteria', all I could think of was virus or fungi. Bacteria is correct.

> Xerox and WorldCom and Enron are shining examples
> of your way aren't they?

Uh no. they came after my time. They are however shining examples of a failed liberal educational system. The educational system today is teaching incorrect MBA and ethics principals. That's why such tacts are taking place.

> Clinton was not actually impeached, as Nixon was.
> Clinton was tried for impeachment and aquitted

No, Clinton was impeached, but never tried, so he could not have been acquitted. Get your facts straight.

Clinton was impeached on 2 of the 4 counts: Article 1 and Article 3. He was not tried by the Senate and he chose not to resign. You may visit this links for the actual data:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/newsid_238000/238784.st

http://www.ourtimelines.com/zpcimp.html

> Yes. Post a lot of untruths, false facts and
> opinions (touted as facts)

Uh, no. I've loaded my argument with facts and links you may peruse at will.

Shut your pie hole.

> Gore won the popular vote

No, using the rules prescribed by the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, Bush won by 493 votes.

That's one of the fundamental reasons America is not a _democracy_, it is a *REPUBLIC*. So we don't have "mob rule". the electoral college knew what was best for the people and made the right choice with Bush.

Govtcheez
07-03-2002, 10:45 AM
I wasn't going to say anymore, because sayeh, you do know more than me (whether I believe most of it or not), but

> No, using the rules prescribed by the highest court in the land, the United States Supreme Court, Bush won by 493 votes.

is outright wrong - Bush may have won Fla. by that many votes, but Gore won the nationwide popular vote (not that it means anything, since we are, as you've pointed out, a republic, and not a democracy).

salvelinus
07-03-2002, 11:11 AM
Clinton was impeached by the House. Impeachment is similar to being indicted. House members acted as prosecutors, the Senate as jury. He was acquitted by the Senate.
Richard Nixon wasn't formally impeached, although he certainly would have been if he hadn't resigned first.
And Sayeh, you a playeh! You forgot that the real reason the feds broke in on Elian Gonzales and shipped him back to Cuba is that he was the love child of Clinton & Reno. They couldn't let that get out, so hello, Castro! And Senator Jeffers in Vermont was forced to quit the Republican party when Clinton blackmailed him with compromising photos of Jeffers, Gary Condit and Chandra Levy. And did you know that Clinton secretly redid the White House pool in the shape of a pentagram and painted it black? Aides are forbidden to confirm they heard screams from there every solstice.
And is it a coincidence that Clinton was in Colorado and Arizona just before the big fires started? Only a fool can't see the connection.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks... and it's fact!

Mario
07-03-2002, 11:12 AM
>> And as for facts [...] US Gov't Press Conference about Kyoto Protocol

Err... You better get your facts straight, LOL! I never mentioned the Kyoto Protocol, even once. I was talking about Carter and Clinton. You are funny...

>> why don't you try these, you stupid child

Hey! Great! You just made it easier on me. It was nice talking with you. Bye

Clyde
07-03-2002, 11:38 AM
"The oceans act as a "sink" for CO2 and hold 60 times more of it
than does the atmosphere."

That calculation involves quite a large assumption but it is in many way irrelevant.

We have interupted the ice-age cycle.

If you look at how ice ages cycle what occurs is atmospheric CO2 levels rise, causing polar ice to melt, this causes the volume of the sea to increase resulting in increased absorption of CO2, which decreases atmospheric CO2 levels, which causes a decrease in ambient temperature and hence the formation of more polar ice, which decreases the volume of the oceans which increases the amount of atmospheric CO2.......... rinse repeat.

Now instead of the usual decrease in CO2 levels that occurs where we are in the cycle we see an increase,

We have delayed the next ice age but if we keep increasing the amount of CO2 we give out, we will reach the next ice age trigger point, then we will be in trouble.

"And finally, I say to you, our weather forecasters can't even
predict the weather for a few hours ahead of a broadcast with *any*
accuracy-- how do you think _anyone_ can forecast it for the next
centure"

You are mixing two extremely different ideas, accurate local weather predictions are impossible over long periods of time because the weather is chaotic, however large scale climate changes like ice ages etc., follow very repeatable non-chaotic patterns.

no-one
07-03-2002, 11:53 AM
>
Did not think you could support it. Just as soon as someone dares mention the US in a less than favourable light and its off.

A bunch of patriots spouting propaganda, disinformation and misinformation. Defying all logic and discounting any truth.
<

this is bull****, and you don' t have a damn clue what your talking about here so shut it up.

>(wtf. The sun is responsible for global warming and the rest is natural! Why did it not happen eons before? Why the acceleration in the last 50 years?)

the acceleration of which is very little can be atttributed to many factors... bot natural and in relation to the sun.

>Ahh. New esimates which are incontraverable, not on the web and hidden by the all powerful evil greenies!

oh, is this your assumbtion all knowing novain!

the greenies are poor stomped on angels who wield no power used for out patriotic misinformation!!

let me explain a little something to you people about reality, that you don't seem to grasp,

first though, let me clarify, the reasearch i've seen the numbers i've quoted and the statement's i've made are all quite accurate,
just because you don't know them or your refuse to believe it does not make it false,

in fact it is new estimates say we are moving into(yes INTO) and not in the middle of a "warm age", and that much unliked by "greenies"(who wield siginificant power wether you like it or not) that states what i have said, Fact's are not judged by wether or not you have a hyperlink in real life.

you choose what you believe this is what i do, so you can eat me.

now the lesson on reality concerning Facts, this little misconstrued misused word,

when it comes to people there are no facts, only what a particular person holds as true, you opinions may be different that does not me that his "Facts" are not also true, there are millions of resources for attaining "Facts" all with a slightly different spin on the "truth", who's "opinion/Facts" you decide to believe is up to you.

some still believe the sun revolves around the earth, thats fact to them, who's to say whos write or wrong?
You? No?
Me? No?
Popular Opinion? No?
Reality? yes.


now the fact is you ignored completely what i said, a said look into the damn thing and you migh be amazed to my, accuracy...

but did you? NO!

let me get you started, this article run in the New York Times is even 3 years old...

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2958/nytco2.html

don't hear much about this do you? as i said if you HAD looked most keep it estimated around 40%, some say "virtually all", it depends on who you ask, new estimates i've seen say 90%.

BTW: theres your one link.

Clyde
07-03-2002, 11:58 AM
Washington diary

New Scientist vol 174 issue 2349 - 29 June 2002, page 59


Andreas Frew finds officials thinking the unthinkable


SOME called it a small miracle. But perhaps they spoke too soon. What they found miraculous was a report from the Bush administration earlier this month about global warming. It stated in utmost detail that the planet was indeed warming up, with many chapters and verses about the painful consequences for North America. And, mirabile dictu, it said that human activity is most probably a significant part of the cause.

From the start of his administration, and even before, President Bush has said that there's not enough evidence to blame the oil industry and factories and cars and coal-fired power plants for the rise in temperature. Why the change of heart? Well, perhaps there wasn't one. The next day, after headlines ballyhooed the new Bush view, the President was asked about the report at a press conference. He said, yes, I saw what the "bureaucracy" wrote in the report. The tone, if not the words, was dismissive.

So what is one to make of this? Are some reckless, faceless bureaucrats now jobless and headless as well? Details have not been revealed. But the President's top environmental adviser told one journalist that the report is no big surprise: Bush always believed the science showed that humans are contributing to global warming. He went on to say that the report was only stating what "could" happen in the future, not what "would" happen, so no action to mitigate warming was required yet.

Hmmm. Linnaeus once said that nature does not move in fits and starts. Obviously he knew nothing of politics.

THERE are any number of slogans that we Americans like to use routinely to define our identity: "In God we trust", "E pluribus unum", "The melting pot", "Land of the free and the home of the brave". But it's easy to get the feeling that the proper slogan should be, "It can't happen here". Because we rarely get nailed, Americans suffer from a false sense of invulnerability.

That's why the 11 September terror attacks were so very devastating. Not only was the loss of life horrifying, and the destruction of a New York landmark appalling, but the attack proved that the US is not, in fact, immune to foreign threats.

Right now a serious round of finger-pointing is under way in Washington over who might have known enough to suspect that a terror act was imminent last fall, and if they did know, why they didn't have the wit or moxie to do something about it. It's much more soothing to think that one person or one agency screwed up than to face the possibility that we may be under a cloud of risk for quite some time to come.

FEDERAL animal health officials must be looking at the current furore and getting a knot in their stomachs. While giving no guarantees that the unthinkable is truly impossible, these officials have done their level best to convince people that they need not worry about BSE or foot and mouth disease (FMD) entering the US. They show slides with a map of the US with a high picket fence around it, as much as to say "nothing gets in without our say so".

But if you leave Washington and listen to the rank-and-file veterinarians instead of the political appointees, you get a different picture. Port inspectors are overburdened, existing rules aren't being enforced, laboratory facilities for quick diagnoses are antiquated and inefficient.

And while everybody visiting Britain last summer had to wipe his or her feet before returning to the US, one gets no sense of extra caution prompted by a recent FMD outbreak in South Korea, where thousands of soccer-mad tourists are running amok before returning home. The animal health people on the ground say we've kept FMD out by luck as much as by planning.

Invulnerability is a worthy goal for superheroes, but it's probably a hopeless quest for most countries, even if they are superpowers.


Andreas Frew

Clyde
07-03-2002, 11:59 AM
Miserly attitude to climate rubbished

New Scientist vol 174 issue 2347 - 15 June 2002, page 5


Fighting global warming would barely dent the world's economy


PEOPLE will be five times as rich in a hundred years' time. And if we are willing to postpone that prosperity by just two years, we could fix global warming into the bargain.

That's the startling conclusion of leading US climate scientist Stephen Schneider and Swedish energy economist Christian Azar, who are about to publish a bruising assault on the Bush administration's claims that international plans to curb climate change would cripple the US and world economies.

"The wild rhetoric about enslaving the poor and bankrupting the economy to do climate policy is fallacious, even if one accepts the conventional economic models," Schneider told New Scientist. He says the economic arguments need to be put in context, and called on climate scientists to take a tougher stand against the doom-mongers who say action would be too costly.

Schneider's assault comes a week after a further blow was dealt to the prospects that the Kyoto Protocol will come into force. Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced that his government would not ratify the protocol, claiming it would "cost jobs and damage our industry".

The Bush administration, and now apparently Howard, have taken their tone from leading environmental economists such as Yale's William Nordhaus, who has argued that "a vague premonition of some potential disaster is insufficient grounds to plunge the world into depression". But, says Schneider, over a century even the trillions of dollars thought necessary to halt global warming would be a blip compared with the economic advances predicted by the same experts.

Many climate scientists have become frustrated by what they regard as the dead hand of economic orthodoxy in academic analyses of the costs and benefits of action to halt global warming. But in a forthcoming issue of the journal Ecological Economics, Schneider and Azar tackle the economists head-on, taking their own numbers and putting a dramatic new spin on them.

Last year's report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the economists' assessment that stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide at twice pre-industrial concentrations by 2100 would cost between $1 trillion and $8 trillion. It sounds a lot, says Schneider, but the money would be all but invisible against the 2 per cent a year economic growth predicted by the same economists.

Without action to halt global warming, economists predict that the world as a whole will be 10 times as rich by 2100, and people on average will be five times as well off. Adding on the costs of tackling warming, says Schneider, would postpone this target by a mere two years. "To be 10 times richer in 2100 versus 2102 would hardly be noticed." Similarly, meeting the terms of the Kyoto Protocol would mean industrialised countries "get 20 per cent richer by June 2010 rather than in January 2010".

Put that way, he believes, the American public and politicians could be convinced that curbing greenhouse emissions is a necessary insurance policy against the potential dangers of climate change.


Fred Pearce

Clyde
07-03-2002, 12:02 PM
They paved paradise

New Scientist vol 174 issue 2344 - 25 May 2002, page 16


Will we ever opt out of rampant, planet-choking development?


WITHIN just 30 years, almost three-quarters of the planet's natural land surface will be carved up by human activity. Roads, mines, cities and farms will have obliterated and fragmented the rainforests of the Amazon and central Africa, filled Asian air with smogs, and stifled coastal waters poisoned by toxic red tides.

But it doesn't have to be like that. This week the UN has released a pioneering report that attempts to map out the environmental choices facing the planet in the early 21st century. If we stopped putting market forces first, and instead pursued a more environmentally based route to economic development, the figure could be cut to 55 per cent. And in places, the call of the wild could return to the suburbs.

The report implicitly attacks the stance of the US and the World Trade Organization, which claim markets will generate the wealth to solve environmental ills. A bad environment is an economic millstone, it says.

Klaus Töpfer, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, launched the report, saying: "We now have hundreds of declarations and treaties designed to address environmental problems. Now let's find the political courage and innovating financing needed to implement them."

The report, by UNEP scientists, presents a stark choice. Staying with a "markets first" approach will keep us burning ever more coal and oil, and raise emissions of carbon dioxide from the current 6.5 billion tonnes a year to 16 billion tonnes by 2032. Global warming will accelerate fast. But moving onto a "sustainability first" path could harness wind and solar power to keep emissions down to 8 billion tonnes, with the climate set to stabilise by mid-century.

Putting markets first would also mean almost 3 per cent of the land would be covered in concrete, as the world becomes ever more suburbanised. The figure would reach 5 per cent across Asia. But building more compact cities and encouraging people to live closer to their work could keep it below 2 per cent.

If markets let rip, says the report, we can kiss goodbye to most of the planet's surviving wild places, and say hello to a huge increase in natural disasters triggered by extreme weather and deforested hillsides. Some 85 per cent of Latin America will be carved up by development—the highest figure for any continent and a death knell for the Amazon rainforest. The rapidly melting Arctic will be peppered with mines and hydropower plants.

Take the greener road, however, and everything changes. The report paints a picture of a Europe full of train-riding, waste-recycling, telecommuting vegetarians where the suburbs and fields are given back to nature.

A quarter of all preventable illnesses are down to dirty water and air, says the report. In India alone, urban air pollution costs a billion dollars a year in disease and lost crops. Water pollution costs another $6 billion and soil erosion deprives the country of $2 billion in lost productivity. The poor, says the report, need the environment the most, not the least.