Bush or Kerry or ???

Just because someone doesn't sue for defamation, does not mean the Guardian is telling the truth. And I do think the Lynch story was exaggerated.

 

Geez, I am glad you left with that attitude. You were never a true American...you obviously forget that Europe, and a large part of Asia and the rest of the world is free because of the blood of hundreds upon thousands of our men and women who got shot to hell by German and Japanese machine guns. I am disgusted by your statement. Please remember some of us have relatives right now who are serving so your sorry ass does not have to be afraid of a terrorist blowing it up.

 

Law has zero to do with the discussion at hand. We're talking about critical thinking, the ability to draw conclusions about what actually happened when the only sources are media reports. We're not in a court of law where the rule of law pertains. Courts are required to come to a conclusion - therefore they allow circumstantial evidence to have *some* weight, in the absence of more compelling evidence to the contrary. Thereby they can draw a *legal* conclusion, but that's not the same thing as saying with 100% certainty what did or did not happen.

Private individuals, on the other hand, are allowed the privilege of understanding when there's not sufficient information to draw a definitive conclusion. When forming an opinion based upon media sources, one who's properly versed in critical thinking would understand how properly to assign weight to different pieces of 'evidence', and understand above all how to tell the difference between what's proven and what's conjecture. You seem to be unable to do that.

Note that I've never said the rape did or did not occur - I've merely pointed out that your 'proof' that it was a lie is not proof at all. We do, however, have the testimony of Ms Lynch, via her authorization of the biography you question. You need *facts* before you can impeach her testimony and prove that the rape didn't occur.

IOW, none of us know shit, and so claiming that the rape story is a lie is just your usual grandstanding.

 

Hey let her go...she is happy with her girlfriend and hopefully they will stay where they are. If only she could have taken some others with her....

 

Other notable Bush policy errors :
Anatagonised the majority of EU nations - ignored or vetoed the UN - ignored or vetoed the Kyoto Treaty

Thank God!

 

A very noble intent perhaps but the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. That's the spin Bush put on it in order to sell it to the American public but day by day more people who were instrumental in the Bush strategy are coming forward and admitting that Iraq was never tied to terrorism. Bush simply didn't want to hear anything else. He instructed his intelligence people to bring him information showing that Iraq was involved in terrorism so they brought him what little circumstantial shards of evidence they could dig up. But the fact remains, and is becoming more clear every day that Iraq had no terrorist ties and nothing to do with Al Qaeda or the attack on September 11, 2001.

I'll agree that it's better to stand firm in America and attempt to regain our lost rights and freedoms than to run to some other county while the America founded over 200 years ago falls to pieces at the hands of greed and dishonor and disinformation.

 

As much as we recognize the importance for the environment, we also recognize that we cannot accept the proposed Kyoto Treaty in its present form. In enacted, the U.S. would be forced to reduce so-called "greenhouse" gas emissions by 30% below projected levels. Other nations, for example China and India, would face no restrictions. Simple put: its expensive and unworkable US sovereignty would be threatened, not to mention the implications on our military. To sum it up, the Kyoto treaty is bad science and bad politics and it should not pass in its present form.

The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty will lead to massive increases in the cost of gasoline, heating oil and food, and will cost millions of American jobs. As a result, America's standard of living will be significantly downgraded. It will also undermine recent reform of farm programs and threaten U.S. agricultural production. In addition, major developing nations like China would be exempt, which will not reduce worldwide emissions.
The equivalent of a 25-cent-per-gallon gas tax would be needed to meet the imposed restrictions. (The US Commerce Department)
With that hidden tax, U.S. net farm income would be slashed by 24%. (The American Farm Bureau, 12/97)
Production costs for commodities would rise significantly due to the higher energy prices: corn production costs by 15.5%, soybean production by 13.7%, cotton production by 12.7%, wheat production by 13.4%, hog production by 4.9% and milk production by 3.8%. (American Farm Bureau, 12/97)
The rise in energy prices would cost each household approximately $2,000 a year. (Economist William Nordhaus, Yale University)
Carbon taxes will cause relatively large income losses in the poorest one-fifth of the population. (Gary W. Yohe, Professor of Economics, Wesleyan University)
A new UN bureaucracy would manage resource allocation on a global scale, with the U.S. being forced to shoulder a larger burden than other countries.

China flatly refused to join, telling Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) that it would accept no limits within the next 50 years.
Germany is likely to meet its reduction objective because the re-unification between East and West Germany resulted in the shutting of factories and whole industries in the former East Germany.
Great Britain will likely meet its goal because it destroyed its coal industry and reduced it with natural gas for the North Sea.
The U.S. conceded to UN bureaucrats some control over U.S. agriculture and forestry policies.
US Military will be restricted as dictated by the UN.
U.S. treaty negotiators caved in on the issue of exemptions on energy use for our military. This means the UN will dictate when and how certain military maneuvers can be carried out, and how much fuel can be used.

It is any wonder why, according to a Gallup Poll, only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union believe greenhouse gasses are overheating the planet?

There is no concrete evidence that global warming is taking place. If global warming is taking place, it is not certain that the cause is human activity rather than natural climatic change. Even if it was taking place, it is not at all certain that an effective way to deal with it is by imposing high-cost restrictions on the U.S. as prescribed under the Kyoto Treaty.

Al Gore pushed U.S. negotiators to get a treaty so that he will have a high-profile issue to exploit for his presidential bid in 2000.

 

Well, not to split hairs or the like but Kyoto was ignored in 2000 when it only got ONE vote in the Senate. The resident Pro tem of the Senate at that time was Al Gore. The President was Clinton. Since then, its been a dead issue.

Sure, claim it was a sacrifice to the upcoming Presidential Election but the fact is 99 Senators either voted against it or abstained from voting.

 

Missing Carbon, Global Warming, Vertical Migration and Clathrates

An abstract By WL

The global carbon cycle is a central issue of the proposed "global warming" hypothesis. This cycle is poorly understood by most and searching for facts returns overwhelming information, the most damning being the missing carbon. This is carbon, released by human activity from fossil fuels, that cannot be accounted for in the carbon cycle. Over half of the carbon released by human activity falls into this catagory. More precisely, out of the 8 billion metric tons of carbon released into the carbon cycle each year, only 3.2 billion tons shows up in atmospheric measurments.

Where does it go? Research should look at the obivious, photosynthesis. The function of plants to use CO2 and water with energy from the sun to make carbohydrates (carbo-carbon, hydrate-water). In making carbohydrates, they give off oxygen.

CO2 + H2O + energy = nCH20 + O2 where n is the polymeric number of the carbohydrate, 6 for the sugar sucrose.

Researchers are blinded because they look to trees which only make 8% of the earth's oxygen, the smallest contributor to the oxygen cycle and similarily, the smallest fraction of carbon dioxide absorption.

Looking for larger numbers, one goes to the next level, grasslands and crops. This is still tiny, a 12% producer of oxygen and similar carbon dioxide absorber. Even combined with the trees, its still tiny compared to the seas.

Yes, 80% of the earth's oxygen comes from the sea. So it stands to reason 80% or so of the carbon cycle is tied to the seas. Occum's razor? Definitely.

The weakness in this assumption is the carbon of the oceans is assumed to be floating in the upper levels of the ocean, in constant flux. For carbon to be sequestered or "stored" in the ocean, it needs to become sediment. Currents and life prevent this, or so it was thought. And if it was forming a sediment, it could be quantified in dredgings of the bottom. But the carbon could not be found, at least in a form recognizable as biogenic.

Ocean scientists have long speculated over another mystery, that being chitin. Chitin is the shells of marine life like shrimp, crabs and the like. Exoskeletons which are complex carbonhydrates. Yes, carbohydrates. Carbohydrates which resist digestion by higher life forms like marine invertabrates, fish and marine mammals. How much missing chitin? 1000 billion metric tons, per year!

The "missing carbon" pales in comparison to "missing chitin" by a factor of 240. 240 times more chitin winds up missing each year that carbon. And chitin contains carbon. A lot of carbon. About 40% by carbon by mass so the missing carbon in chitin is still about 100 times greater than the missing carbon in the atmosphere.

Now where is this chitin going? Bacteria on the ocean floor are degrading this chitin, feeding on it. The scale of the decomposition is only recently demonstrated. Seems like the bacterial have developed a sense of finding chitin and rapidly colonizing the deposit.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/jhu-gms122903.php

Ok, so the bacteria are degrading the chitin. This would release the carbon back into the water and ultimately back into the atmosphere, right? Not so fast.

http://www.gutbugs.dabsol.co.uk/publish/abs5.htm

The bacteria are anerobic meaning they derive energy without using oxygen and instead of making carbon dioxide, they make methane. Here is where the global warming Luddites enter the self-flagelation stage. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and therefore this is bad. But just like the original Luddites, the GW variety fails to see the big picture, that is the methane never makes it to the surface.

Yes, this methane is locked away in vast expanses of ocean floors as an ice-methane deposit known as clathrates. The earth had about 5,000 gigatons (5 x 10^15 tons) of carbon in the form of conventional fossil fuels, both recoverable and non-recoverable, potential and consumed. The oceans have about twice that in clathrate deposits. 10,000 gigatons of carbon are contained in clathrates. Since clathrates cannot exist in deeper ocean sediments (20 feet below the mudline) due to geothermal heat, their origin is most probably from biological activity.

 

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't adhere to the Kyoto treaty 'cuz we'll have to pay more for gas. This is precisely the attitude that's gotten us where we're at.

I'll admit the issue of global warming is fuzzy, and unclear. However, to my mind, a prudent course of action would be to assume the worst and prepare accordingly. It'd be a lot better to find out that there was nothing to worry about and we paid some higher prices for awhile, then to find out that there *was* something to worry about and now it's too late to change, 'cuz half of Antarctica just broke off into the oceans and the world's coastlines are gonna be 30' higher for the foreseeable future.

Doesn't it make sense to hope for the best, but to prepare for the worst?

 

I agree with the basic premise. But I think all countries should be required to reduce emissions by equal percentages. Requiring the US to be more restrictive only puts the US at an economic disadvantage. If higher prices are the cost of a cleaner enviroment thats fine, but everyone needs to pay not just Americans.

 

Please lay off the Hollywood disaster films!

I all for being environmentally responsible, but if you tank the economy, you’ll end up having an even more desperate global problem.
Poor and hungry Americans would tend to not place a high priority on the environment.

This change needs to be a social one not one dictated to us by third world countries.

Personally, I think people who drive around in Hummers and Monster trucks and suburbans are insecure morons, but I can be responsible for my own actions.

 

Oh spare me. I'm talking about the theoretical consequences of ignoring the possibility that global warming is happening. Antarctica is mostly ice, and if the global climate is actually changing, then it's entirely possible that large portions of it would break off and raise the world's coastlines. It's not Hollywood.

So your answer is to do nothing, because it might cost us something? Hardly consistent with your comment about being responsible.

Personal behavior can be changed socially. I'm not talking about Hummers/monster trucks/SUVs. My concern is that something is done to mandate corporate responsibility. In the absence of a gov't mandate, corporations will just do whatever's cheapest, which usually means just dumping crap into the air.

Well we can agree on something then.

 

I agree with that, with the caveat that I think it's irresponsible to say 'if nobody else is gonna do it, then we're not'. At some point someone has to set an example, no?

I'm not necessarily advocating the Kyoto treaty here, mind you; I'm just saying that our country should make its best effort to determine the correct course of action and follow that course, regardless of who else is or isn't willing to play along.

 

Read my abstract above before you think global warming is even a remote certainty. Please note, vertical migration, clathrates and missing chitin are all recent discoveries which in concert, effectively kill the GW hypothesis. The carbon cycle has a negative feedback mechanism for global warming. Too much CO2 and more clathrates are formed. Too little and ocean levels drop, exposing clathrates to dissociation, increasing the greenhouse effect.

For the earth's climate to be anything stable over 100 million years despite external effects, there HAS to be a negative feedback loop. GW can only be valid if there is no negative feedback loop, in fact it requires a positive feedback to remain valid.

 

Just as long as it doesn't put us at a disadvantage. If we set an example and no one else follows, then it won't much matter anyway. Will it make you feel better to say at least the US tried while the planet goes down the tubes? We're all in this equally or it won't work.

 

Bull. Ice shelves are FLOATING ice. If it breaks off, it isn't going to raise the sea level because its floating properties are only because water EXPANDS when it freezes. Unless you melt terrestial ice, sea levels are not going to rise.

Oh yes, the retreating glaciers...tiny bit of water there compared to the Three Gorges Dam and lake in China that is now filling.

 

It's a shame that @ 1/2 of the people in this country don't vote. Why is that? Some people, about 1 in 10(10%) have mental problems & then there are those who think its too much of a hassle; maybe @ 5%. What about the rest. To some, it does'nt even occur to them, or maybe they think they're not allowed to vote for some reason or another(maybe another 5%). So what about the other 30% who are intelligent enough & legally able to vote ? For some reason they are not voting. Maybe they feel, as i do, that voting for a corrupt 2 party system legitimizes it. I vote but i do it w/ a heavy heart. I think that the dem's & repubs or repub's & dem's have a "stranglehold" on the political process. It's, pretty much rule of the wealthy. The constitution does'nt say"We the wealthy people", it says"We the people". Who can afford to stand up to them much less afford to run 100's of commercial's w/o some kind of financial backing? Right now it's vote for vanilla or vote for the other vanilla. It's sad. Does anybody else notice this? I am, reluctantly, voting for the other vanilla because inroads were'nt able to be made, this time; in relation to outside parties getting into the process. I don't like not voting.

 

Nothing in particular to say, I've just never seen this thread so low in the forum before. I thought I would bump it up to it's rightful place in the standings.

 

Top Ten Excuses of People Who Don’t Vote:

1) "Nobody is talking about the issues."

Truth: “Actually they are talking about the issues but I’m just too lazy to read newspapers or look up their policy positions on their websites. Instead I’ll just spend my free time watching TV and playing video games. I learn about the candidates from watching the political ads. Its easier.”

2) "All the parties are the same."

Truth: No, they are not the same. The last four years have shown how different the parties are. We would not have made the mistake of going to Iraq if the Dems were running the country. Isolated strikes on key targets, perhaps. But wholesale war and occupation? No. That’s just one of the differences.

3) "All politicians are corrupt and out to line their own pockets"

Truth: Actually John Kerry is already filthy rich and his wife is even richer. He doesn’t want or need more money. He wants to serve his country which he did by volunteering to serve in Vietnam (even though he could have easily gotten out of it). He has served in government for 30 years when he could have been getting richer by running a corporation or being a lawyer. Money is not his motivation. He is motivated by serving his country.

4) "I don’t agree with the positions of the two major parties"

Truth: “I want a party that I am in 100% agreement with. I am just that self-centered and politically immature. The world should revolve around me.”

5) "The parties don’t talk about things that matter to me."

Truth: "Like, I want an in-ground pool in my backyard and a flat screen TV. But the politicians don’t seem to be addressing this in their promises. Who cares about the economy, healthcare, the environment, business regulation, and Iraq? What about me? What about what I want? What about my in-ground pool?"

6)"We need a third party candidate."

“Nevermind that a third party president could never function with our political system. Nevermind that I haven’t bothered to vote for third party candidates in local or state elections. Nevermind that there are no third party congressmen or senators. Nevermind that I never get politically involved on the grassroots level to help create a third party. I just want the president to be from a third party in order to create absolute gridlock when we try to pass a budget. That would be fun, wouldn’t it?”

7) "We need a third party candidate. I don’t care what they stand for."

“Even if its some guy without experience and a comprehensive platform. Just to tell the major parties how much they suck. I like to waste my vote.”

8) "If I vote I am choosing between the lesser of two evils."

Truth: Nobody is perfect and neither are you. Do you expect only saints to run for office? Do you expect Jesus to run for office? Even if he did, the republicans would denounce him as a socialist, liberal, anti-business radical who supports terrorists and prostitutes and you wouldn't vote for him anyway.

9) "The election doesn’t matter"

Truth: “Nothing really matters to me. I am incapable of forming an intelligent opinion on any of the issues and I really don’t know what the issues are to begin with. As long as gas prices stay low, everything is good in my little corner of the world.”

10) "I’m just an ignorant dumbass."

Truth: True