Usa President

Discussion in 'World Events' started by ripleofdeath, Apr 15, 2001.

  1. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    does anyone realy think the guy is a "good life form"
    if you do,
    i think you are being a blind optermist.
    he just renegged on a major issue of polutive emitions without (kyoto treaty) batting an eyelid.
    (and clinton and his free rape(trade) deal welcomed in the neighbour and then put a fence up and charged him to get home{eufimissim} wat a freak)
    hes spawned from the devil
    just look in his eyes and if you are pure of heart
    you will see what i mean
    its like looking at a demon puppet
    hes just another front for the greed mungerers
    and any people who voted for him...
    do you know him better than your next door neighbour?
    they fixxed the vote with his fathers kronies and setup the ellection to fool the elderly voters
    i think that every usa resident should feel embarrised if anything
    im not saying that i/we have the answer
    because the strate facts are
    a. if the rich cared about the poor...they wouldnt be rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    b. the study of politics and economics is a joke...why you ask?
    how many countries are in debt????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    thoughts anyone....?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Malaclypse Perturber Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    198
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Time/02112 Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    298
    Busch's BIG GUN

    (Busch)...this one's for fightin' & which one was for fun?

    (LOL) Good one Malaclypse!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    Oh, I like that one! Gun…Fun
     
  8. pragmathen 0001 1111 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452
    Rip ...

    You haven't been seeing devils and demons in altered television images as well, have you?
     
  9. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    pragmathen

    what are we trying to say....
    Just to stir the pot a little!
     
  10. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    LOL pragmathen you made me chuckle..thnx

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    When you have spent hundreds of hours as I have watching the way people move (combative requirement) you get a bit jaded I guess when you see such indecision and duality of 'words to movement' and facial expression...hence emotion...hence image of a man...
    (I would like to be proven wrong in my opinion)
    For all I know he could be a really nice guy....
    BUT if he was.... nice guys come last don’t they?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You will know when a "good" leader takes control of a country because they will be in world news saying they are currently building homes for the homeless and state funding all medical treatment evening taxes across the board not 5% for companies and 25% for the worker
    And another key would be to see the huge govt employees..Military...(your national guard maybe)
    Involved in community rescue/day to day help.
    Instead of running around in circles chanting kill kill
    Look at the figures of posttraumatic stress disorder and suicide of returning vets before you recant mind control and hardening of the spirit.
    Just my highly opinionated opinion anywho
    ...Thoughts anyone...?
    Groove on all
     
  11. Corp.Hudson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    419
    Bush

    On the other hand, maybe he will teach American schoolchildren how to spell and form basic sentences. And just maybe that might trickle down to you ripleofdeath...We can only hope.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Seriously, I don't see what the big deal about Bush is. He won the election legitimatly (sp.?) and has done no worse for the nation then Clinton or Bush Sr. did in their first months. He has been crucified in the media, which has really cost him in the court of public opinion. I actually pity the guy.
     
  12. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    Dear corp as much as it might be fun to make fun of the poor we should try and maintain the moral high ground while others choose their arena of battle!
    Hence bush...
    Why is it that in spite of more people voting for gore
    Bush won?
    IM NOT SAYING FOR AN INSTANT that gore is any better...i don’t personally know either.
    But... we can assume that
    a. People will still starve to death in your mighty country.
    b. People will still die from the inability to afford health care.
    and so the list goes on.
    Bush said "I WANT TO RUN THIS COUNTRY".
    Which has a very unique position in the world.
    Look at all the military graveyards (hardware)
    People kill for a loaf of bread in your country.
    All the resources that go to waste and are destroyed to maintain high profit margins.
    Why is it that people say "i know this is not good for me but i will eat/do it anyway"?
    The govt knows this and uses it to fester their appetite for greed, lust and power.
    If we can see a person, that by some freak of nature (human) has managed to maintain some small amount of humanity why vote for the other one?
    AND MORE IMPORTANTLY why let them cheat their way into office?
    Bush is an open supporter of Satanism! Fact.
    Everyone know knows this but think it ok cos he isn’t trying to rape and sacrifice their children today.
    And if he does tomorrow...well "we can forgive him because we are Christian and god will punish him"
    IN OTHER WORDS- "we will sit on our ass and hope they rape and murder the neighbours instead of us cos were so fat we cant jog without making stretch marks"
    "What’s that...” "oohh of coarse we are normal"
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....huh?
    and so soo many wish and prey for judgement or a commit!
    Countrys
    and so soo many wish and prey for judgement or a commit!
    this is the case..as i see it... in most country's.
    #
    WOW just a sudden thought (as i was going through spell check

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    why would a genius want to rule or govern idiots?
    they wouldn't..of coarse..so they don't LOL
    *these are just my opinions and i hope to be proved wrong

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Unfortunately only time can tell...pun unintended
    groove on all
     
  13. mpfunk economist slacker Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Kyoto accords

    Let me first say I am not a big Bush supporter. I think in both republican and democratic races the lesser candidate won. I would have voted for McCain or Bradley over Bush or Gore, but the criticism of Bush for rejecting the Kyoto accords is ridiculous. America is being scapegoated in this case, because no one wants to ratify the Kyoto accords. The other countries criticizing the United States for not accepted the treaty sure aren't rushing to agree to it either. No country wants to agree to the Kyoto accords because they are reckless, and the U.S. is the only country admitting to this so Bush is the bad guy. The other countries are loving this because they look good by criticizing the U.S. and they don't have to agree to the accords.

    The optimal level of pollution is not zero and it is not as low as the Kyoto accords call for. These levels of pollution are so cost prohibitive to maintain that accepting them will criple the economy. Do I think we are at the social optimum for pollution, no we are not because the externalities of the market are hard to internalize. But I in no way think we need to adopt some crazy low level of pollution that would put countries further below the social optinum than they are currently above it. I respect Bush is this situation because at least he is honest instead of pushing the blame for not wanting to accept the Kyoto Accords on others.

    By the way the Greenhouse effect has never been proven. There has been a warming trend in the climate, however, it currently is warming up to what has been the mean temperature.
     
  14. Malaclypse Perturber Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    198
    WHA?

    First off, Mr. Bush HAS NOT BEEN CRICIFIED BY THE MEDIA in any way, shape or form. If anything the media has once again confirmed my belief they are the big whore spreading their pearl for whoever's in "power"!

    Bush is a "fortunate son" who has taken advantage of a situation that was just screaming for someone to take advantage of. I really hope he gets a huge kick in the face and the Mr. Greenspan's "economic patches" fall apart when the 2004 elections come-around...which I think will happen (purposely!).
     
  15. mpfunk economist slacker Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    I don't think that Bush has been crucified by the media, I think other countries have been crucifying him for not agreeing the the treaty, when they have no intention of agreeing too it either. Bush as being used by other countries to deflect the fact that they don't want to ratify the treaty either, but also don't want to be vocal about it like Bush. When these countries step up and ratify the treaty I'll believe otherwise.

    Of course Bush is a "fortunate son" just like his opponent in the election. As long as the democrats can put up a decent candidate, hopefully Bradley, I will be all for Bush going out in 2004. However, I would not believe for a minute that Greenspan is going to sabotage the economy to get Bush out. Greenspan is fairly non-partison he was appointed by a republican and retained by a democrat, so I don't think he has it in for Bush even though he and Bush Sr. don't quite like each other. If Greenspan has any hope for a career in the future or doesn't want to be crucified by other economists for causing a recession I think he will avoid tanking the economy. Greenspan will continue on his evenhanded predicatable approach throughout his tenure.
     
  16. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Kyoto

    mp,

    Couldn't help noticing how you insist that the global warming effect hasn't been "proven". In connection with that, I would like to ask you just what it would take, in your opinion, to "prove" it. Would you only believe it was real when it was already in full swing, with all the associated ecological and economic catastrophies? I don't know about you, but I believe in prevention. That is, avoiding damage in the first place rather than waiting to see whether the damage will happen and then scrambling to compensate.

    By the way, the worldwide scientific consensus based on measurement as well as extensive modelling, is that global warming is for real. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that the worldwide scientific community pledges membership in the U.S. Democratic party. C02 levels are now at their highest levels in more than 200,000 years, and have been on a very steady rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and that is an indisputable fact. Today, U.S. produces something like 20% of the world's greenhouse gases with only 4% of the world's population. If that is not disproportionate, I don't know what is. Here's a statistic quoted from a Swedish environmental minister: "For every million dollars in gross national product generated in the European Union, 1.4 tonnes of greenhouse gas is emitted. In the United States, for one million dollars of gross domestic product generated, 2.66 tonnes are emitted."

    In the U.S., power plants and cars produce 2/3 of the total global warming pollution. This means that all U.S. would have to do to comply with Kyoto, is to (1) reasonably increase its required car mileage (perhaps even double it! because right now it's just about the lowest it's ever been -- and greatly increasing car mileage would also dovetail nicely as a conservation measure with a comprehensive national energy policy) and (2) invest more in emissionless power production (hydroelectric, solar, tidal, wind, geothermal) as well as refit existing powerplants with emission reducing technology. As for the remaining 1/3 of the output, I'm sure that an even more comprehensive national policy would be able to cut down emissions further without unreasonable cost. I don't see the logic behind claims that such measures would bring skyrocketing expenditures and "cripple" the U.S. economy. As a matter of fact, I find such talk ridiculous and brazenly irresponsible. If anything, greatly increasing car mileage would save Americans immense amounts of money they now spend refuelling -- it would be equivalent to a very sizeable tax cut (as would the elimination of national debt, which for some reason is not an important political issue any more.)

    And of course without U.S. participation other countries would be reluctant to incur reasonable cost complying with Kyoto while a major economic competitor incurs no cost at all. Essentially, U.S. being the world-leader failed to be such when it came to sound environmental policy and prudent long-term vision. And, I find the Republican position that Kyoto is unfair with respect to industrialized countries because it doesn't take developing countries into account, to be utterly nonsensical and astonishingly self-centered and short-sighted. It is a position that has as its long-term goal the continued dominance of U.S. over the rest of the world, and the continued stratification of the world into developed vs. developing countries. That is not a tenable vision. The developing countries <u>will</u> catch up, and in some cases overtake (think Asia), the U.S. as economic superpowers. Nothing will prevent that from happening. Arguing that Kyoto would speed the process up significantly is also stupid, because compliance with the protocol would put only a minimal load on the mighty U.S. economy. On the other hand, not complying with the protocol consigns the rest of the world, U.S. included, to a future that is shaky at best.

    Kyoto is supposed to be a first step, a consensus and momentum builder. Once the industrialized countries of the world ratify and comply with the agreement, it will become much easier to later also bring the developing nations under that fold. Otherwise, you would have to be a moron to expect developing nations to accept a handicap that would impact their economies disproportionately when compared to the economies of developed nations. With such an attitude on the part of the world's economic leader, no global pollution-reducing treaty will <u>ever</u> be ratified or implemented.

    Not only that, but simply by ratifying the Kyoto treaty U.S. would not be under obligation to enforce it unless enough industrialized countries ratify it to account for 50% of global emissions -- such a condition is part of the treaty. It means that U.S. has woefully missed its chance to be a consensus builder. The other countries are still talking of trying to ratify the agreement, but without U.S.' 20% participation, it will be much harder to hit the 50% mark. Bush's act, therefore, is nothing short of downright malicious sabotage.

    The Republican attitude is egotistic, close-minded, short-sighted, unreasonable, economically nonsensical, scientifically unjustifiable, and moreover it is an open invitation to global disaster. Now, don't you feel proud to play your part in representing and promoting that nauseating tripe?
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2001
  17. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    boris i bring bad news...
    with a response like that you have ruled your self out of any political office with your shear volume of basic fact interpretation and pro-active enviromental 'fluid' manipulation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    he he
    i think the point of being a leader or role model has elluded most countries and its people.
    as im sure your reminded of on a dayly basis-boris :/
    the u.s has moved from lead by example to lead at all cost.
    and ... most other countries are soo fickle to say.. " well
    the U.S.A is not doing it so why should we"!
    what country can stand alone...without trade to the U.S.A....? not many i would think?
    so it creates a catch 22 for anyone wanting to look to the good of the human race and the earth...
    LOOK AT NEW ZEALAND when the no nukes policy was established,,, nz sufferd and the effect was a 'riple' through the country.
    relations have never been the same in the political arena(on a populos perceptive basis anywho)
    there are substantial CIA/NSA hightech listening posts in new zealand which have been built only recently compared to the no-nukes development.

    "its like a birds nest of fishhooks on razor wire, when you are too poor to afford another hook to catch your dinner with", "how should i hurt myself"????

    groove on all
     
  18. mpfunk economist slacker Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    what kind of proof

    The question of what kind of proof would I accept to believe in global warming. Well something along the way of proving that the warming trend is caused by the CO2 emissions. So form of regression analysis would be nice. There have been warming trends in the past, maybe some research into want caused those warming trends. For all I know this has been done and I haven't seen it, I don't claim to be an expert. The main thing that bothers me is that we are currently below the mean temperatures and are currently warming up to the mean temperature, is this possibly a trend that will be reversed or is it actually being caused by greenhouse gasses. I have never seen any analysis that proofs that greenhouse gasses are the cause of the warming trend.

    I do despite this believe in reducing measures for pollution, but I see Kyoto as too extreme. This agree a lot with this article especially the opinions of the economist that some corporations are pushing for Kyoto to take advantage of the barriers to entry and permits that Kyoto will create. People do benefit from regulation. It tampers with free entry into the market and creates above market profits. There is a loss of consumer surplus eaten up by producer surplus and a deadweight loss that cannot be captured. The other point of the article I couldn't agree more with is creating market incentives for pollution reducing measures. The reason corporations do not produce at the point where marginal social benefit equals marginal social cost is that property rights relating to pollution are not defined. The cost is not internalized and thus pollution is above optimum, which I think is the point we are at. I think incentives along the lines of taxes on pollution or tax breaks for pollution reducing measures would create a market incentive to reduce pollution in which case there is not a need for the Kyoto treaty. Also incentives could be given to any research that produces new technology for reducing emissions. These market incentives will not skew the market supply nearly as much, in fact they may push the market to the social optimal production point.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=85000756

    I also think one reason the U.S. has higher pollution than Europe is the U.S. still relies on coal power plants, while Europe has converted over to nuclear. I know I've brought up the evil nuclear power plant issue, but it is the lowest cost lowest pollution producing energy source and Europe relies heavily on nuclear power. I believe we do need to lower emissions from energy production and nuclear is the way too go since all other alternatives carry too high of a cost. Three Mile islands melt down was contained within the plant. I nuclear plant that is designed well will first of all not melt down, second if there is a melt down it will be contained within the plant and there will be little harm done.
     
  19. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    mp,

    I don't know where you get your information, or what point you are trying to make.

    I don't know what "mean" you are talking about. Here's a graph of average world temperature for the past 150 years:

    <img src="http://thermal.gg.utah.edu/gould/Gould_GIFs/Used/Figure_1.GIF">

    Looks to me like we are quite past the global mean. Here's a graph of sea level over a similar time span:

    <img src="http://thermal.gg.utah.edu/gould/Gould_GIFs/Used/Figure_2.gif">

    Here's a graph that superimposes temperature with greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere:

    <img src="http://thermal.gg.utah.edu/gould/Gould_GIFs/Used/Figure_7.GIF">

    And here's the url from which these images come, so you can see (and read) for yourself: http://thermal.gg.utah.edu/gould/

    Now normally, when you consider grave risks the criterion should be somewhat below proof. You wouldn't board a plane if a majority of the world's experts agreed there's a good chance the plane is going to crash after takeoff. Now then,

    You've got it all backwards. The Kyoto treaty was established in the first place to induce just such tax and market incentives. The Kyoto treaty is not a policy of implementation, it is merely a statement of goals -- and it is <u>not</u> mutually exclusive with your proposals.

    Chernobyl, on the other hand, was not so lucky. I understand it is still not contained, and the entire county is basically a radioactive wasteland. I'm not saying that nuclear energy cannot ever be any good, but I do propose that we first figure out how to dispose of the waste before we put the technology into mass circulation.

    If you don't believe the greenhouse pollution is causing environmental damage, then why would you at the same time believe in reducing it?

    Indeed, for a while it does. But that is only a short-term effect. Long-term, cleaner technologies become widespread and abundant, which is of course the goal. On the other hand, any delay in action or any gradualist policy does tremendous damage. This is because the greenhouse gases have extremely long lifetimes (on the order of a century), and the warming effect lags the increased greenhouse concentrations. This means that even if we stop all greenhouse emissions today the climate will continue to warm further for decades due to the "slingshot" of all the existing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Yet greenhouse emissions are growing <u>exponentially</u> (!!) as you can see from the graphs above. Meanwhile, I would like to remind you of that plane allegory.
     
  20. mpfunk economist slacker Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    warming trend

    I wish I could find the article that I read concerning warming trends. I vaguely remember the temperatures being for at least a couple of thousand years probably more I just can't remember. I also don't remember how they obtained the data set so I really handicapped by this. Since the data set has for more than the 250 so years that your graphs present, it doesn't prove that the warming trend is below global mean temperatures for the long run. All I am saying is the Kyoto accords require pollution levels at too low of a level. Until there is more solid proof of causation between greenhouse gases and a warming trend, I think the position of the Kyoto accords is too risk averse.

    On nuclear power Chernobyl was a poorly built plant. It didn't have the meltdown safeguards that would be required in most industrialized nations today for nuclear power plants. In fact the problem is that there were not the proper containment measures which allowed the radiation to spread. It was a horrible tragedy that would have been prevented with the proper engineering.
     
  21. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    hey all

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    i would like to point out that over the last 15 years or so , i remember several news items stating the illegal dumping of nuke-waste which is illegal and has been for many years (IN SOME COUNTRYS) AND I THOUGHT it was a globaly accepted law? i could be way wrong on that....???
    however... the fines i have heard of were a meer few thousand dollars yet the profit from one ship of nuke-waste was a million or severel.....so they can afford to pay the fines aslong as they keep dumping it illegaly!
    kinda sad realy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    mpfunk- as boris was pointing out (i will expand the concept) if i was standing in your front yard with a machine gun in my hands wearing camo gear and grenades on my belt-would you not take servear steps to have me removed?
    maybe even point a loaded weapon at me?
    threatning to shoot me though i had not made any threat-myself!...?
    it seems all too contrived to compare/offer in alternative,
    nuke plants for greenhouse gas.
    it makes people jumpy and afraid to change yet we have soo many other options!
    THE OIL BARRONS must be illiminated in some way!
    they control life and death of millions of people and in my opinion repress all other "alternative fuels" so they may maintain their power and wealth.
    we must circumvent/go-arround their power base to build anything that would compromise their control.
    -AND GUESS WHOS POCKET they are PISSing IN?
    -(expression-'pissing in their pocket'- or in bed with-
    tounge down the back of their trousers-greasing up to.
    all the world leaders of coarse.
    oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh for a map to guide us through the web they weave!
    -and to further the topic-notice how greenpeace always
    confronts the 'big boys' in a huge ship of some sort...
    it kinda makes it look too big to change doesnt it?
    i wonder who is realy controlling them.....
    my opinion is that greenpeace is one of the best run missinformation/redirecting/miss-directing organisations ever developed.( i appologise for the spelling i have limited time tonight)
    WHAT WOULD CHANGE THE SYSTEM...=
    telephone voting! using voice id pre-established-from home address only.

    groove on all

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    -charity starts at home!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    heyya all

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    let us hope that, ...
    as fear control is eliminated,
    that the united nations along with all other countrys will
    get behind the movement for peace and bring peacefull
    govenence to all contrys no matter what religion.

    imagine what could be produced with all the money spent on activism and terrorism and weapons if they spent it on farms and community projects and medical science = # reproductive technology to prevent excess population growth in all plants and animals.

    to lead by example to protect the innocent by intent of virtue of good will and peace...

    israel and palistine!...
    now is your chance to prove you value peace over war!

    we all must seek to cure Blood Lust!

    groove on all

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    peace light truth love
    the path to that we hold above.
     

Share This Page