posted 06-10- 11:45 AM            

1. Job market still shakey.

2. Stock market improved a little (more thanks
to Greenspan, no election to rig, than Bush)

3. Other nations pissed off at us for wanting
to start up star wars and killing environmental
regulations.

4. Daughters were raised to be drunks. (Hey
Clinton's personal problems were fair game.)

5. Tax cut mainly for the most wealthy
americans. (Top 1% taxes have increased 43%
while their income has increased 157% since
1979.)

6. Increasing energy problems, and cost, with
no clear energy policy to improve these
conditions.

7. Loss of senate control by extreme right-
wingism in Bush's party.

Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

Of course Bush has only been in office a short
time. All of the above is probably still
Clinton's fault. LOL

P.S. Heard a little tidbit from Jeff Greenfield
(CNN) that some high up republicans are a little
uncomfortable about how the 2000 election
was handled. He didn't say why or add anything
more. Will be interesting to see where, if
anywhere, this leads.

posted 06-13- 04:35 PM               

Gotta love politics for that.

posted 06-14- 12:44 AM               

I went to school to become a Cabinet maker Jerry.

I am looking at taking on a Job as one shortly, I'm sure if I'm not up to speed in min a couple weeks I would be fired, as I should be.

posted 06-14- 06:15 PM               

And why does the US economy have a "massive" effect on everyone else? Because we are the biggest economy and trade more with the world than anyone else. And why are we the biggest and trade the most? Because we are the most capitalistic, and the least hampered by unions and taxed by government! And as Europe goes down the road to Socialism the gap will become wider.

Nat, did I understand you to say that Clinton did more for the USA than any other President? Like what?

posted 06-14- 06:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArgonV:
Yeah Jerry, but the English pound is still worth more than a U.S. dollar!!!!

---

Another point ArgonV, the Pound is worth 168 times more than the Japanese Yen. Are you going to tell me that England is a stronger economy than Japan? It's the relative value of the currencies that matters, not the absolute value. Don't they teach economics in Texas?

posted 06-14- 10:19 PM            

"Nat, did I understand you to say that Clinton did more for the USA than any other President? Like what?"

posted 06-15- 09:42 AM            

The flap over Mr. Bush's rejection of Kyoto illustrates this. In the latest issue of Time magazine, reporter James Graff relates the conventional view that Mr. Bush's "artless kiss-off in March of the Kyoto accord on global climate change enraged Europeans so much that Washington actually noticed." In fact, Mr. Bush did precisely what he was expected to do, given the U.S. Senate's 95-0 rejection of the treaty in 1997. And the "rage" expressed by Europe's leading political figures was mainly a feat of histrionics, not an expression of genuine concern for the environment.
The center-left governments of both Germany and France govern in coalition with the radical Greens; politically, they have no choice but to adopt a pious expression in the face of this environmentalist holy grail. Yet given last September's fuel-tax protests, which succeeded in all but shutting down Britain, Belgium and France, it's doubtful whether these governments will want to raise fuel taxes by further whopping percentages in order to meet the emissions targets demanded by Kyoto. Having the U.S. do the dirty work of rejecting the treaty offers the ultimate political escape hatch.

Then, too, for all the European rhetoric about their environmental credentials and the need for "global leadership" on global warming, no EU country has yet ratified Kyoto. Currently, eight EU member states--France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Ireland and Greece--have exceeded their emissions targets, some by nearly 100%.

True, large emissions reductions in Germany and Britain have allowed the EU as a whole to claim it has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 4% from 1990 levels--half of what Kyoto requires. But much of those gains have been achieved by one-time closures of coal-burning plants in the British Midlands and the former East Germany. Further reductions will be a lot more painful to achieve.

So in addition to offering Europeans an alibi for getting out of Kyoto, Mr. Bush's rejection of the treaty conveniently deflected attention from Europe's own environmental peccadilloes. And it handed Europe a moral victory.

Still the same "old Europe", weak people with no back bone. How can you say anything about us when you don't live here. Botton line here is you don't know shit about the US, so keep the your nose out. That's all we need is some dumb fucks from Europe/and the Great White North telling us what is wrong. Hey you better fix your own fuck ups, but wait you usually let the US come in an fix it for ya don't you.

The world where the French embarrass themselves almost daily with their xenophobia, transit strikes, and their Socialist government? Where the British can embarrass themselves with the antics of the Royals and the tabloid press? Where the Irish continue to kill and destroy each other in the name of religion? Where Germany can barely contain the return of the Aryan Nation?

What part of the world are we speaking of? Africa with genocidal wars and continued black-on-black slavery? The Middle East and the Islamic fundamentalists? India and the Near East with cow worshiping in the midst of starvation, or maybe the Taliban in Afghanistan? Surely we embarrass the Chinese, who force women to be sterilized and kill their own people in a repressive regime.

Who is embarrassing whom?

posted 06-15- 10:26 AM               

"We account for almost 20 percent of the man-made greenhouse emissions," he said. "We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions."

Wow... that must have really angered the Far Right... people like Limbaugh and Michael Reagan... people who still have their heads in the sand about global warming.

posted 06-15- 05:40 PM            

Lets have some more republucans appointed to
office. I hope you guys like what your getting.

posted 06-15- 05:56 PM               

Um... that 80 percent is divided up among how many countries?

>As I see it the Euros are as much to blame or more so for the failure of Kyoto. None of them signed it!!!

OK, Europe is as much to blame. So what... who cares?

The only relevant question is what are we going to do about global warming now that it's been established as a real problem? Give up because we can't find a solution that won't reduce the profits of US industries?

posted 06-17- 01:28 PM            

And still blind I see.........

Warming tread...are you willing to take that chance? Scientists are the least political group around...they don't care about corporate profits and politcal science. If they are jumping up and down, perhaps we ought to listen.

Where did you get this analysis of the stock market? You are telling that it was a scare tactic by the Dems? LOL. Find someone that worked at 'insert here'.com and ask them why they don't have a job anymore. The bubble burst. Dems didn't have shit to do with it.

Missile Shield...hehe..that's funny. Waste billions of dollars for missiles that will NEVER come. Think about it. Who in their right mind would fire a missile at the US? We have enough missiles to stomp anyone into the stone age. Why would a country risk annhilation by firing a missile at us? And terrorist groups? Won't happen either. If they get a missile, they have to find a country to fire it from...and as I said before, who is stupid enough to do that? Instead of wasting money on it we should be paying our troops more and stop sending them on TDY's every six months to some third world pisshole. Why do you think the military is having a hard time recruiting people? No one wants to put up with that bullshit. Of course, giving the current trend, as people lose jobs, they will flock to the security of the armed forces.

Space programs aren't a waste either. They may come in handy after we screw up the environment enough in a few more hundred years

Bush doing a good job? HUH?? Who owns the Senate now? Hint - not Republicans. All Bush is doing is making the country look bad by pushing his missile shield and being stupid about the environmental issues that most of the world (and the MAJORITY of the citizens in the US that didn't vote for this bloke) have. Yes, Bill's first days in office were pretty shitty and he did make us look bad with his sex shit and white water. But you can look at Dubby and see 'one term' written all over his face. He was elected to make sure the rich get richer.

Anyway, glad to have you back Mirth.....

posted 06-17- 03:01 PM               

The study was commissioned by the Whitehouse and was conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. Here is a quick link I snagged off the web... not sure if this is the best source, but I'm short on time right now... http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

>Second, how do they know this warming trend isn't a natural cycle?

There is a mountain of evidence that global warming is not a natural cycle. In fact, the debate is no longer about whether global warming is happening or not. The debate is over what the effects will be.

>Chances are, it is and we are being reactionary.....

Chances are it is a natural cycle? On what are you basing this assumption?

Again, I will use the heart attack analogy... if your doctor told you that you are at high risk of a heart attack, what would be the more logical strategy...

1. Take steps to improve your health

or...

2. Wait for the heart attack and hope that surgeons can fix you

posted 06-17- 03:36 PM            

I'm not totally against missile defense. We have airborne platforms now that are testing lasers to target missiles and planes. But there are better places to put billions of dollars than in the missile defense shield. Let's prove it works before we commit to anything.

posted 06-17- 06:02 PM            

Let's be honest here. Car bombs and embassy bombs are one thing, but attacking the US with a missile is another. I'm not saying it would ever happen, but I would hate to be on the recieving end of our response.

Do I agree to spend billions on research? No, not at this time. It's not needed. We spent a billion + on the atomic bomb getting it to work during WW2. At the time, it was needed. It's lasted over 50+ years now. THAT's a bargain. I still think missile defense should be researched, but on a limited basis and should NOT be part of our future strategic plans for the next 50 or so years.

Remember, the Maginot(spelling) line was thought to be invincible. Well, as we all know, it didn't work. They just went around it. Same thing with missile defense. Why put all of our eggs in one basket? What's to stop a terrorist from transporting a weapon of mass destruction through Mexico? You can't be prepared for everything.

posted 06-17- 06:33 PM               

Seriously, you would rather attack a nation and start a war rather than defend against a terrorist missle? I don't think we will, and the terrorists and the countries haboring them know that. Did we attack Libya after we found out that the Locherbie Pan Am bombing was done by Libyans? Are we attacking Afghanistan since the Yeman ship attack was "probably" connected to Ben Laden (however you spell the asshole's name) How many Americans need to be killed before you think we should do something about it? Obviously a few hundred in an airliner or a few hundred in an embassy or on a ship doesn't meet your criteria. How much shit do we take before we start a war Dan. Since you don't want a defensive system, all we have left is an offensive system.

The Maginot line was a relic of the past. It didn't meet the then current threats. MAD (your solution) is a relic of the past, it doesn't meet modern threats. We need forward thinking not backward thinking.

Besides, the reality is Bush wants a limited system now so he can get one up and running to prove that it works. Once he has everyone convinced it's a good idea he, or the next President, will want to expand it to use against the Chinese. Incrementalism is the name of the game.

[This message has been edited by Jerry (edited 06-17-2001).]

posted 06-17- 06:55 PM            

I think we keep talking about two different attacks. You keep saying plane bombings and embassy bombings. I'm talking about a missile attack on American soil or something along those lines.

Right, we can't start a war for a plane bombing, but attacking the US is a different story completely.

posted 06-17- 07:34 PM               

You still haven't answered my question: if a plane bombing or embassy bombing killing a few hundred Americans doesn't justify attacking a country according to your sliding scale, what does? An attack on US soil? What if only 1 or 2 are killed on US soil? Do you go to war? 100? 1000? 10,000? What if you aren't sure what country harbored these particular terrorists? What if it's another Navy ship and 1,000 are killed but not on US soil? That's the problem with an "offense" only choice. Too many variables to consider before you go to war. Avoidance, through defense, is a better answer.

You want to know what the modern threats are and why the current defense system cannot handle them? The main topic here is a missle attack, isn't it? What defense system? If you are going to attack a country you attack where the defenses are weakest. Bush is trying to plug a gap.

posted 06-17- 08:06 PM               

The report urges the establishment of a vigorous program of basic research to reduce uncertainties in future climate projections. In addition, a global observing system that monitors long-term climate predictions is needed. "

Sounds like they are not sure either. I agree that more studies are needed and should be done.
As for what nature has done in the past..... there you go.... it is fact that our weather is still a mystery to us. We have some ideas of how the mechanics work, but as for actually knowing anything..... not even close. It is like saying you know all about War & Peace by reading one chapter. We are still learning cause and effect, and even at that, they are loose theory.... not even close to hard facts. The language used by the Scientific community is even more vauge then computer companies talking about warranties. ;}
We don't know it isn't a natural cycle, all we know is that it is happening. We can't say what it is, but we think it has to do with us...... but we still can't prove it is. And there isn't a mountain of evidence to prove anything. There is much conjecture and speculation... but nothing more. What is hurting us more than CO2 is the deforestation of Brazil and other large forests. Stopping that would do more to help us than any reduction of our CO2 output.
BTW, we know more about heart attacks then we do about the natural processes of this planet. It doesn't fly as analogy.
BTW, Scientific leaders are some of the most politically driven people out there... where do you think the money comes from for thier grants for research? Don't fool yourself into thinking that they are not part of the political structure... they are. Important note.....who was the internet desinged for in the beginning? The Military, The Federal Government, and Colleges.
The space program has been under fire for Years Dan. Many people would like to see NASA disbanded. Setting up a space defense program would allow us to funnel cash into the space programs. It would be back door, but it neesd the funding, and getting from the defense budget is a good thing.
The other good thing about this program is that it can stimulate world economy by providing jobs and investor intrest.... Anything that moves the world forward is a good thing in my book.
I see the Bush adminstration working to bring the world under this plan, and making strides to help companies get cleaner, but by offering real quotas that are reachable and won't break the companies to do it. Where is the problem with that?
Your job would disappear if clinton had enforced the standards that were on the books. No company could do it, and they would have been shut down. Who's fault would that be Smokey? BTW, better change your name..... your demo friends might think you are causing global warming... being smokey and all... LOL
Glad to be back guys....
Now piss off.... heh

posted 06-17- 08:40 PM            

Come out of the past. I know the 1930's were
great because if you had any money you could
buy anything you wanted for a song. Those
days are over and your not going to get them
to return no matter how hard you try.

If you want to know the real reason Bush
is trying to revive star wars look at what
individuals and corporations contributed to
his presidential campaign then look at what
individuals and corporations will benefit
from star wars. Follow the money and you will
find your answer.