"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
resort
> to name-calling. <
>
> Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
> is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>

No, that's not why...

> Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
> because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> which he'd not convinced.
>

That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
stupid.
A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
that
"it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
I'm
free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
the
general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
realized
they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
Democratic
party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.

Ted

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
resort
> to name-calling. <
>
> Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
> is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>

No, that's not why...

> Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
> because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> which he'd not convinced.
>

That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
stupid.
A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
that
"it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
I'm
free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
the
general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
realized
they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
Democratic
party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.

Ted

 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:bo6rhb0rvn@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
resort
> to name-calling. <
>
> Why is it you leftist ******** always think anyone who disagreees with you
> is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>

No, that's not why...

> Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
> because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> which he'd not convinced.
>

That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
stupid.
A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
that
"it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
I'm
free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
the
general election came in all the liberal ----ups that voted for Nader
realized
they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
Democratic
party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.

Ted

 

"rnf2" <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3fa75987$1@news.iconz.co.nz...
>
> They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
> nominal.
>

Of course, consider too that the sexually promiscious lifestyle prevalent
there
has greatly encouraged the epidemic. And I am not talking about a mere
10-20
different --- partners over a lifetime being worthy of note, I'm talking
about
a society where buying a different prostitute 3-5 times a week is not that
unusual.

AIDS is one of those population limiting devices that is about 80%
voluntary,
20% involuntary. If people don't want to die from it, they can tremendously
increase their odds against getting it by limiting multiple --- partners.

Ted

 

"rnf2" <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3fa75987$1@news.iconz.co.nz...
>
> They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
> nominal.
>

Of course, consider too that the sexually promiscious lifestyle prevalent
there
has greatly encouraged the epidemic. And I am not talking about a mere
10-20
different --- partners over a lifetime being worthy of note, I'm talking
about
a society where buying a different prostitute 3-5 times a week is not that
unusual.

AIDS is one of those population limiting devices that is about 80%
voluntary,
20% involuntary. If people don't want to die from it, they can tremendously
increase their odds against getting it by limiting multiple --- partners.

Ted

 

"rnf2" <rnf2@NOSPAMwaikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3fa75987$1@news.iconz.co.nz...
>
> They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
> nominal.
>

Of course, consider too that the sexually promiscious lifestyle prevalent
there
has greatly encouraged the epidemic. And I am not talking about a mere
10-20
different --- partners over a lifetime being worthy of note, I'm talking
about
a society where buying a different prostitute 3-5 times a week is not that
unusual.

AIDS is one of those population limiting devices that is about 80%
voluntary,
20% involuntary. If people don't want to die from it, they can tremendously
increase their odds against getting it by limiting multiple --- partners.

Ted

 

In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jonesy wrote:
>
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
>> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>>
>> Yet another right-wing lie.
>>
>> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>
>In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
guess some engineers in high
>tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
sides, not just "your half") and

Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.

>state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.

Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
you could get up over 100%!

>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jonesy wrote:
>
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
>> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>>
>> Yet another right-wing lie.
>>
>> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>
>In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
guess some engineers in high
>tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
sides, not just "your half") and

Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.

>state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.

Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
you could get up over 100%!

>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FA6A6C2.670B2F9D@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jonesy wrote:
>
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:<bnuuae0m7h@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
>> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>>
>> Yet another right-wing lie.
>>
>> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>
>In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
guess some engineers in high
>tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
sides, not just "your half") and

Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.

>state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.

Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
you could get up over 100%!

>
>Ed
>

 

In article <AXzpb.98929$e01.335314@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <5ac380ce.0311031151.38c36d1c@posting.google.com >, Dianelos
Georgoudis wrote:
>> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
>> tenets are given:
>>
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
>> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
>> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
>> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
>
>> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
>> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
>> that ice caps will start melting.
>
>Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
>it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
>
>> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
>> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
>
>> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
>> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
>> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
>> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
>> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
>> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
>
>Well, here's today's news:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>or something to dismiss it all.

Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?

>
>> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
>> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
>
>Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
>proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
>nothing unsafe about it in and of itself.

Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?


>So the question becomes how much
>CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
>regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
>humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
>a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
>Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
>a problem as well?
>
>And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
>authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
>
>> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
>> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
>> all go back to horse carriages.
>
>Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
>want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
>in)
>
>> It means that while there is
>> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
>> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
>> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
>> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
>> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
>> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
>> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
>
>What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
>resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
>anything else.
>