Portrait of the average American voter...

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
Mark² wrote:
rafe b wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

You've been assimilated, Rafe.

Yes it does appear that you and William are dealing
with a different reality than mine.

The good news (from where I sit) is that mine seems
to be back in fashion, at least for the moment.
Nothing about the Dems is actually in fashion at all...save
for bitching and moaning.
The Dems aren't there because people voted FOR ideas. They
voted against their opponent.
This is highly problematic, because now...what are Dems to actually do?
They've got no platform of reform.

If the Democrats do what they are itching to do (i.e. raise
taxes, increase spending and gut the military) then their reign
at the top will be very short. Say about two years.

An astounding statement. How can it be that the Democrats are
the ones blamed for high taxes, when it was the Republicans who
set us up for an extremely high national debt, which
accomplished *nothing* for the country other than making the
rich richer and the poor poorer.

"Gut the military" is another odd concept... you apparently
think that having 3000 soldiers killed and 10,000 seriously
wounded is okay. I think *that* is gutting the military, and I
would hope that future leaders will provide leadership that
actually does respect our military by *not* wasting thier lives
on ways to give money to Haliburton.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote:
Mark² wrote:
rafe b wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...

You've been assimilated, Rafe.
Yes it does appear that you and William are dealing
with a different reality than mine.

The good news (from where I sit) is that mine seems
to be back in fashion, at least for the moment.
Nothing about the Dems is actually in fashion at all...save
for bitching and moaning.
The Dems aren't there because people voted FOR ideas. They
voted against their opponent.
This is highly problematic, because now...what are Dems to actually do?
They've got no platform of reform.
If the Democrats do what they are itching to do (i.e. raise
taxes, increase spending and gut the military) then their reign
at the top will be very short. Say about two years.

An astounding statement. How can it be that the Democrats are
the ones blamed for high taxes, when it was the Republicans who
set us up for an extremely high national debt, which
accomplished *nothing* for the country other than making the
rich richer and the poor poorer.

Like I said, and you are confirming, they are itching to raise taxes.
Do they need a valid reason? Of course not. They have been doing it
for the last 60 years. Expecting otherwise is like trying to teach a
lion living on the African savanna to become a vegetarian. You are
promoting the classic liberal agenda.... tax us all into having the same
standard of living. BTW, they call that socialism and it doesn't work.

"Gut the military" is another odd concept... you apparently
think that having 3000 soldiers killed and 10,000 seriously
wounded is okay. I think *that* is gutting the military, and I
would hope that future leaders will provide leadership that
actually does respect our military by *not* wasting thier lives
on ways to give money to Haliburton.

So I guess the comment I made about gutting the military is not in
dispute? A large part of the reason we are in our current mess is
because Clinton, Kerry and pals gutted the CIA and hog tied what was
left during the 1990s. We could have, and should have, killed OBL long
ago and before he gained any momentum to commit the attacks on 9-11. In
the hay day of the CIA he wouldn't have wiped his a$$ without them
counting his hemorrhoids.

Face it, the Dems can't wait to get their hands on the defense budget,
not to reduce costs but, to divert it to their efforts in income
redistribution and buying future votes. Both sides play this angle.
Don't think I'm just picking on liberals. They just spend our money on
different things. Now that the Dems are in power, or will be shortly,
they just deserve more of my attention and deserved criticism.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:56:06 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:


An astounding statement. How can it be that the Democrats are
the ones blamed for high taxes, when it was the Republicans who
set us up for an extremely high national debt, which
accomplished *nothing* for the country other than making the
rich richer and the poor poorer.

"Gut the military" is another odd concept... you apparently
think that having 3000 soldiers killed and 10,000 seriously
wounded is okay. I think *that* is gutting the military, and I
would hope that future leaders will provide leadership that
actually does respect our military by *not* wasting thier lives
on ways to give money to Haliburton.


Maybe military service should be a requirement for
public service, at least for high office (say, Congress
or President.)

That would have excluded Clinton, Reagan, and
Dubya.

On balance, I'll concede that Clinton didn't do
enough good to offset the damage done by
either of those other two clowns (let alone the
*sum* of the damage done.)

I have mixed feelings about mixing military and
civilian roles. OTOH, I'm utterly disgusted at the
way Dubya fancies himself a soldier when in fact
he evaded the service. For chrissake, he didn't
even finish the cushy stint that Daddy got for
him at the Texas Air National Guard.

Clinton and Reagan at least had the decency to
avoid strutting about like GI Joe and calling
themselves "Commander In Chief" or "War
President" at every opportunity. It's downright
distasteful, and an insult to those who really
did serve.

The purple bandaids stint was another one
that just leaves me in awe -- of the amazing
hubris and lack of shame among Dubya and
his admirers.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Mark²" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


Hello, Mark²:

Why are you insulting our primate pals, anyway? g


Cordially,
John Turco

John Turco wrote:
"Mark²" wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


Hello, Mark²:

Why are you insulting our primate pals, anyway? g

Ah.
I'll apologize to our gorilla friends next time I visit...


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

() wrote:

The one part of his history I am not however impressed with, was he
was an Atheist. Everything in moderation I say.

Ah well, to me that just adds to the great man's appeal. :-)

Andrew McP

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.

Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear as a
result, the world will go on just fine.
No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you
/not/ to screw up.

Even if the current changes happening
now is a result of burning fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and
not the exception.
People die. That does not mean killing is the norm.

We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
volcanic eruptions.
Any evidence for it?

Evidence of what?
Of the statement you made.

Volker

Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.

Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear as
a result, the world will go on just fine.
No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you
/not/ to screw up.

They don't know if we are indeed "screwing up". No one really knows. I
do know that science has become the tool of politicians and scientists
will whore themselves out to the highest bidder or to who provides the
largest grants or source of future funding revenue. It is sad that the
scientific community has come to their current state. It puts
everything they say in doubt whether it is correct or not.

The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global
freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts.
They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global
warming or global cooling? Even a temperature DROP is a result of
global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together
like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes
climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect
climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or
computer, can remotely hope to model or predict.

I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either
warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than
what I hear from the global warming alarmists. BTW, hasn't several of
these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should
have burned up all the oil reserves at this point? Shouldn't the world
be a total hell hole by now? They have cried wolf so often that many
people just don't believe them anymore. I'll start worrying when they
say things are going well and the future looks rosy.

Even if the current changes happening now is a result of burning
fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and not the exception.
People die. That does not mean killing is the norm.

We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
volcanic eruptions.
Any evidence for it?

Evidence of what?
Of the statement you made.

See the previous post I made. I already gave you an answer. Just
because you don't like it and snip it out of you reply post doesn't mean
I need to repeat it. You question whether the global climate is
effected by the Earth's axis wobble, volcano eruptions and solar
fluctuation's but believe the current global warming hype without
question? You must be a politician or are looking for more funding revenue.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:43:59 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:


The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global
freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts.
They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global
warming or global cooling? Even a temperature DROP is a result of
global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together
like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes
climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect
climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or
computer, can remotely hope to model or predict.

I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either
warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than
what I hear from the global warming alarmists. BTW, hasn't several of
these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should
have burned up all the oil reserves at this point? Shouldn't the world
be a total hell hole by now? They have cried wolf so often that many
people just don't believe them anymore. I'll start worrying when they
say things are going well and the future looks rosy.


That's why it's no longer called Global Warming, and hasn't been
for some time. It's called Climate Change. The best public info,
bar none, on that topic is he

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The possible shift in ocean currents -- the thermohaline
conveyors -- is real enough that the Pentagon has requested
a study of the potential effects. The PDF of that report is
online:

http://www.astr.ua.edu/white/images/solarsys/earth/exec_pentagon.pdf

There's a broad consensus among scientists that climate
change is real, and that it has a measurable, signifcant
anthropomorphic component. Find me one of those
scientific whores who claim otherwise, and there's a
99.9% probability that they're on the payroll of big oil,
a fossil fuel consortium, or similar lobby.

The good news is that James Inhofe will soon lose the
chairmanship of the Senate Committe on Environment
and Public Works. So said whores will soon lose that
particular forum for spewing their junk science.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:48:43 -0500, Raphael Bustin
wrote:


The possible shift in ocean currents -- the thermohaline
conveyors -- is real enough that the Pentagon has requested
a study of the potential effects. The PDF of that report is
online:

http://www.astr.ua.edu/white/images/solarsys/earth/exec_pentagon.pdf


I'm sorry, that wasn't quite the right URL. Here's one that mentions
the Pentagon report and provides an overview of the topic:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/abrupt-climate-change-faq.html

In particular it describes how "global warming" might lead to
cooler climes (in certain locations) due to changes in thermohaline
circulation (aka ocean currents.) Here's another article on the same
topic, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com