On Thu, 06 Nov 03 13:52:49 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>I can't fault FMLA, in itself its a good thing. Workplace safety sometimes
>>goes to far the way the laws are written. Whether you like it or not Lloyd
>>there is such a thing as over regulation. I think abortion is wrong, but its
>>not for me or anyone else to legislate it, hence I don't think it should be
>>an issue.
>>The Brady Bill and assault weapons ban are a joke, if you actually got out
>>of that ivory tower you're holed up in you might realize it. If it were up
>>to you I could think of three people off the top of my head who might be
>>dead at the moment if they didn't have a firearm handy.
>>An Atlanta police officer's wife who killed her would be rapist.
>>A man who shot a would be carjacker on the northside of Atlanta somewhere in
>>a Wal-Fart parking lot.
>>A wal-Fart employee in Florida somewhere IIRC who was being stabbed by some
>>nutcase who was foiled by an old lady w/ a pistol.
>>
>>
>>
>And for each of those, there are family members shot in anger or accidentally,
>suicides with a handy gun, children shooting children with a gun found in the
>house, shooting of a neighbor the homeowner thought was a burglar, etc.

And there are those who will say that the one is an overpowering
reason to ban all guns.
Did you know there are people who use knives to assault other people,
and to commit suicide with?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:03:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>>Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results of
>>Florida?
>
>No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
>votes.

An "honest recounting"??
I remember the photos of vote counters actually holding a ballot up to
the light to see if there was a small amount of light passing around a
"dented" chad; if there was, the vote would be counted (for Gore, of
course).
The concept of a voter actually being capable of making a positive
vote was thrown out, and Gore's people wanted to determine a voter's
mind for them.
Yeah, that's "honest", all right.
>
>>The final results were accurate and valid.
>
>Says who?

The SCOTUS.
Of course, when they vote *your* way, they are only being reasonable.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:03:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>>Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results of
>>Florida?
>
>No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
>votes.

An "honest recounting"??
I remember the photos of vote counters actually holding a ballot up to
the light to see if there was a small amount of light passing around a
"dented" chad; if there was, the vote would be counted (for Gore, of
course).
The concept of a voter actually being capable of making a positive
vote was thrown out, and Gore's people wanted to determine a voter's
mind for them.
Yeah, that's "honest", all right.
>
>>The final results were accurate and valid.
>
>Says who?

The SCOTUS.
Of course, when they vote *your* way, they are only being reasonable.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Thu, 06 Nov 03 14:03:56 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas? Florida?"
>>Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the results of
>>Florida?
>
>No, it was the Republicans who tried to stop an honest recounting of the
>votes.

An "honest recounting"??
I remember the photos of vote counters actually holding a ballot up to
the light to see if there was a small amount of light passing around a
"dented" chad; if there was, the vote would be counted (for Gore, of
course).
The concept of a voter actually being capable of making a positive
vote was thrown out, and Gore's people wanted to determine a voter's
mind for them.
Yeah, that's "honest", all right.
>
>>The final results were accurate and valid.
>
>Says who?

The SCOTUS.
Of course, when they vote *your* way, they are only being reasonable.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

Thanks, Ed, well stated.

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of
years.
> > It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
> You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of
CO2 has
> never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
> concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more
or less
> permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
> coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of
the
> stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any
rate the
> era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take
another 200
> years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will
just be
> a blip.
>
> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
> in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is
not a
> change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change
attributable to
> human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
> (whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be
trivial
> compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
> bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use
it as an
> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential
for harm
> is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming
is not
> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
> theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming
because it
> generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global
warming
> because they can get money to study it.
>
> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise
10
> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you
buy land
> in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right,
rearranging the
> lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
> any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our
CO2
> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work
anyhow.
>
> To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
> the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
> dramatically overstated.
>
> Ed
>

 

Thanks, Ed, well stated.

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of
years.
> > It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
> You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of
CO2 has
> never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
> concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more
or less
> permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
> coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of
the
> stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any
rate the
> era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take
another 200
> years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will
just be
> a blip.
>
> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
> in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is
not a
> change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change
attributable to
> human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
> (whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be
trivial
> compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
> bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use
it as an
> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential
for harm
> is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming
is not
> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
> theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming
because it
> generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global
warming
> because they can get money to study it.
>
> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise
10
> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you
buy land
> in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right,
rearranging the
> lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
> any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our
CO2
> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work
anyhow.
>
> To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
> the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
> dramatically overstated.
>
> Ed
>

 

Thanks, Ed, well stated.

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FAAAB43.B4072C31@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > CO2 put into the air by nature has been in balance for millions of
years.
> > It's man changing this equilibrium that's the problem.
>
> You'll have to explain what you mean by "balance." The concentration of
CO2 has
> never been static. In fact, the long term trend was a reduction in the
> concentration until about 10,000 years ago. CO2 is constantly being more
or less
> permanently removed from the atmosphere and tied up in corral reefs,
limestone,
> coal, oil, peat, etc., etc., etc. Recently mankind has released some of
the
> stored CO2. Maybe we are actually helping to restore the balance. At any
rate the
> era of fossil fuel will sooner or later come to an end. It may take
another 200
> years or 1000 years, but it will end. On the geologic time scale it will
just be
> a blip.
>
> I don't doubt that an increase in the concentration of CO2 might cause a
change
> in the climate. However, climate change will occur whether there is or is
not a
> change in the CO2 concentration. The component of climate change
attributable to
> human activity may actually be beneficial. It might counter some "natural
change"
> (whatever that means) or reinforce the "natural change" or it may be
trivial
> compared to the "natural change." The manmade component might be a good
thing, a
> bad thing, or an insignificant thing. I object to what I perceive to be a
> hijacking of the issue of global warming by groups who are trying to use
it as an
> excuse for promoting their other unrelated goals. I think the potential
for harm
> is deliberately overstated. I think the science supporting global warming
is not
> subject to the sort of scrutiny that it should be because it is a "popular
> theory" with liberals. I think the new medias trumpets global warming
because it
> generates a lot interest. I think a lot of scientist promote global
warming
> because they can get money to study it.
>
> If I am wrong and the worst case scenario happens, the sea level will rise
10
> feet and millions of people will have to move. Fortunately, it won't rise
over
> night, so they can move. If you believe in global warming, I suggest you
buy land
> in Kansas now. If the global warming people are wrong and nothing dramatic
> happens, millions of people will be spared the pain of having their lives
> rearranged for no reason. If the global warming people are right,
rearranging the
> lives of millions of Americans to meet the terms of the Kyoto treaty won't
have
> any affect on the end results. We will just continue to move most of our
CO2
> generating industries to third world countries, and in the end, NYC will
still be
> underwater, and no one will care because everyone will be out of work
anyhow.
>
> To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is worse
than
> the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case is
being
> dramatically overstated.
>
> Ed
>

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.

This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
24 billion tons.

Regards,

Ed White

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.

This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
24 billion tons.

Regards,

Ed White

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Humans put out more CO2 than nature by several orders of magnitude.

This is simply not true. In fact it is wrong my many orders of magnitude.
According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, natural emission
are at least 700 billion tons. Emissions related to human activity are only about
24 billion tons.

Regards,

Ed White