Proved: There is no climate crisis

[stephenhawkings]

im a whore house, or i am a 100 foot whore house boat?

what are you talking about a hundred foot house boat diety?

my leader?

if i was going to acknowledge leadership by any one it would most likely be my wife.

but if you had a little more eye sight past those blinders and actually read a book once in a while, or had an original thought you might know that the earth has many climate variations throughout history, as cited in EARTH IN THE BALANCE by your favorite president to get elected, but not serve al gore.

but you probably can't phantom reading a book you would rather start to watch the inconvient truth on dvd and get bored and turn on faux news or some other mindless entertainment, theres a reason they call it television programing.

so maybe the global cooling will cool your, im guessing allegedly conservative head (conservative in brain power) off.

let me know how you can vision a world where man has had no impact and any sort of environmental degradation is only a liberal media myth meant to scare us, kinda like uh, i don't know terrorist invading your neighborhood?

[stephenhawkings]

Man does not have the capacity to polute the planet to such an extent as to damage it even if they deliberately set out to do so. We would die off before the planet. CO2 is not pollution. There is a half-baked idea that too much man-made CO2 will create a "greenhouse effect" and warm up the earth. This can't happen because we are not capable of producing that much CO2. Why are they trying to alarm us? Could it be a socialist attempt at more control? Let's see. Are socialists in agreement with this? Does their proposed solution involve more regulation and taxation? As Sherlock would say; "Elementary, my dear Watson."

 

We would die off before the planet.

 

thought i would highlight that again, for i am weird in that i find dying off a bit of a scheduling conflict as i have to go back to work next week.

 

CO2 is an entry level greenhouse gas

 

try googling, or wikipediaing(although it might be edited already just like mcpalin) methane and the cattle industry/cow sh*t

 

let me know if it stimulates any brain cells

[goinbroke2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...ars-427843.html

 

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

 

And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

 

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

 

And the econazi's are being encouraged to break the law, deemed "justified" WTF???

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...law-925561.html

 

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

 

 

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

 

 

Crap like this is why I'm against all the "sky is falling" enviro nazi's. I don't dump oil on the ground, in fact I'm qualified Hazmat rep and Halocarbon certified. I have several courses in cfcc handling. Obviously I don't (can't by law) do things I know are not eco friendly. But to believe that the sole reason for all lifes troubles are caused by the vehicle I drive and the only way to "redeem" myself is to pay or be taxed more, is bullshit. Not when solar science hasn't even been taken into account, not when all the scientist are arguing and all claiming "they know best", not when this same climate cycle has been repeated through out history, not when the fear mongerers (like gore) are making millions off of peoples fear.

 

No sir, when one person has an agenda, and pushes it on others for their own profit or benefit then I call bullshit.

 

Unfortunately, it all could be true, the earth could burst into a ball of fire in 30 years because of cars. The sad part is, if somebody cared and truely wanted to "help", they wouldn't of used a snake oil salesman to fleece the public in the first place. His lost credibility has never been shaken due to others with their own agenda's following his footsteps and spewing their own version of doom and gloom in the hope of catching a buck.

 

As long as there are gullible people, there will be snake oil salesmen.

As W.C. Fields put it, "there's a sucker born every minute".

 

This isn't the last crises, stockmarket/gas shortage/nuclear war/evil empire/gas crunch again/global cooling/another gas crunch/global warming/climate change/???/ The next crises is right around the corner, just wait and somebody will come up with something that is TOO IMPORTANT to not act. (which is liberal speak for tax)

 

Well, my truck has been sitting outside idling while I type this,just because I forgot to turn it off, think I'll go fire up the two stroke mower that I put way to much oil in so it really smokes...JK

 

Naw I'll help the planet...I'm having hamburger for lunch! :beatdeadhorse:

[Imawhosure]

if i were to run into someone like you on the street, i'd call the funny farm.

 

 

You won't run into me on the street, lolol. You see, I don't belong to a gang, hehehehehehehe.

 

You mean you are not on the Al Gore bandwagon? Good for you!!!!

 

Now if you can just figure out that Nancy Pelosi is the female equivalent, we will be getting somewhere.

 

Anyway, I respect your opinion. At least you don't try to make excuses for your stance, even if it may be unpopular. If the rest of your group had 1/2 as much character as you and Mr Methos do, you might be able to convince someone.

 

WAIT, let me rephrase the last sentence--------------->IF THE REST OF YOUR GROUP HAD 1/2 AS MUCH CHARACTER AS YOU AND MR METHOS DO, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONVINCE SOMEONE WHO IS NOT ALREADY BRAINWASHED............CAUSE ALL OF THEM IN YOUR CAMP ALREADY are SOCIALIST WANNABEES!!!! With character, you might convince a weak minded conservative or two.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Imawhosure

[Trimdingman]

We would die off before the planet.

 

thought i would highlight that again, for i am weird in that i find dying off a bit of a scheduling conflict as i have to go back to work next week.

 

CO2 is an entry level greenhouse gas

 

try googling, or wikipediaing(although it might be edited already just like mcpalin) methane and the cattle industry/cow sh*t

 

let me know if it stimulates any brain cells

 

Wikipedia is politically correct. It does not draw conclusions, just repeats information. I know how large the earth's surface is, and how vast the atmosphere is. If you collected all of the earth's human population, and placed them in the desert, they would be invisible from the moon. We believe that we are more than we actually are. Cow farts produce more greenhouse gases that we do, and cow farts are imperceptable to the atmosphere. Socialists want us to bankrupt ourselves fighting something that is beyond our scope; way beyond. It would be like trying to purify the ocean, one pail of water at a time.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

Wikipedia is politically correct. It does not draw conclusions, just repeats information.

That's the prime purpose of an encyclopedia: information. Whether it is politically correct or not is a matter of opinion. Considering the independence of its contributors, unless a majority of them are posting entries that you feel are "politically correct", it's kinda unlikely that Wiki as a whole is "politically correct".

 

cow farts are imperceptable to the atmosphere.

Well, without fact to back that up, what we have here is a brain-fart. Billions of cows over a couple of centuries? That's a lot of methane hanging around, that didn't used to be there.

 

Socialists want us to bankrupt ourselves fighting something that is beyond our scope; way beyond.

Environmental extremists might find that OK, but most socialists depend on a paycheck too.

 

It would be like trying to purify the ocean, one pail of water at a time.

There's your problem: if you have to purify the ocean, you don't use a pail. And with all the plankton-size plastic molecules in the oceans causing environmental decay for little critters like plankton, algae and krill, you will probably see an ocean cleaning effort by 2050 or before. Whether it will ne politically correct or not remains to be seen.

[Trimdingman]

That's the prime purpose of an encyclopedia: information. Whether it is politically correct or not is a matter of opinion. Considering the independence of its contributors, unless a majority of them are posting entries that you feel are "politically correct", it's kinda unlikely that Wiki as a whole is "politically correct".

 

 

Well, without fact to back that up, what we have here is a brain-fart. Billions of cows over a couple of centuries? That's a lot of methane hanging around, that didn't used to be there.

 

 

Environmental extremists might find that OK, but most socialists depend on a paycheck too.

 

 

There's your problem: if you have to purify the ocean, you don't use a pail. And with all the plankton-size plastic molecules in the oceans causing environmental decay for little critters like plankton, algae and krill, you will probably see an ocean cleaning effort by 2050 or before. Whether it will ne politically correct or not remains to be seen.

 

Did the dinosaurs fart? Now you are worried about animal farts. Don't let the socialists find out or we will get taxed on farts.

 

A paycheck taken from taxes paid by other people for working to undermine the country is one type of paycheck that I would like to see withdrawn. Make them get real jobs.

 

I didn't suggest using a pail to clean the ocean. I was making a comparison to the futility of human attempts to change the climate. It would be impossible, also for humans to alter the make-up of the oceans We could dump all of our chemicals or do our best to keep it clean. The difference would be unnoticeable to the ocean as a whole. We are not that great a force on this planet.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Ford Jellymoulds]

EU Tells US Airlines to Pay for Their Carbon Emissions or Lose Flights to Europe

 

 

The European Union is playing hardball with the US aviation industry.

 

In order to reduce aviation-generated carbon emissions in Europe, the EU is requiring airlines to join a carbon cap and trade program no later than 2012. It's a European plan, but its not just for European airlines. Jacques Barrot, the EU transport commissioner, announced that all airlines with European service must participate, and those which don't may see access to lucrative European destinations chopped.

 

The US industry is not amused.

 

The US airlines aren't having it. They say the Europeans are being hysterical and that forced participation in their carbon trading plan violates international treaties. The Air Transport Association, the trade group for US carriers, calls the European's focus on aviation emissions "out of proportion" and believes that the US industry is having success with market driven approaches like buying more fuel-efficient aircraft, reducing the weight of their planes, and investigating alternative fuels.

 

But EU airlines insist that if they have to join the carbon trading market, their US competitors should be forced to jump in as well. They expect to shell out up to $65 billion buying carbon credits over the next 15 years, and say that if other airlines aren't forced to do the same, it would amount to a massive tax on European aviation.

 

 

Is the EU overstepping its bounds? Threatening to suck the life out of an already fragile industry with a blanket of stifling regulation? Or is the US, with its "let the market take care of it" approach, not doing enough to hold aviation accountable for its carbon output?

 

EU Bank Account will be collecting Global Warming taxes worth $65 billion off European Airlines and either ban American airlines flying into Europe if they don't pay up, how much of the EU tax will go back into fighting the effects of global warming not one buck will that you can be sure off, most of the global warming taxes will elsewhere not bad since spend most of their time is spent somewhere in the upper Troposphere which remains a fairly constant -57C.

 

It won't be to long before the greedy EU will want to impose Global Warming carbon credits taxes on cars you can see it coming.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/post.html

Edited September 21, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Edstock]

We could dump all of our chemicals or do our best to keep it clean. The difference would be unnoticeable to the ocean as a whole. We are not that great a force on this planet.

Well, that's your opinion.

 

The collapse of fishing stocks world-wide suggests otherwise; it's a really noticeable change to the ocean as a whole, if you fish for a living.

 

The infusion of plankton-size plastic into the world's oceans is also a noticeable change to the ocean as a whole, only you have to use a microscope to see it.

 

Now the reefs around the world appear to be declining, and no one knows why, but it's a really noticeable change to the ocean as a whole.

 

Chemical pollution is having an effect on the endocrine systems of fish and amphibians, as the pollution mimicks the effect of female hormones, similarly to the chemicals that out-gas when you microwave food in soft vinyl containers (use glass). The good news is that it's a really noticeable change to the ocean only in certain coastal waters — for now.

[theripper]

trim, are you saying we have NO impact at all on the earth??

 

mercury in the water supply? smog in our big cities? rivers being diverted and parching other regions? deforestation?

 

wtf? you can't be in that much denial, dude!

 

again, there may or may not be an impact on longterm climate, but if you're saying we are too small to have an impact on the earth whatsoever, you are nuts. any rational argument you have made up until this point is moot.

Edited September 21, 2008 by theripper

[stephenhawkings]

socialist evil? maybe we should all kill the unions and turn back any benefits we recieve becasue of them?

 

as for wkikpedia, i dont catergorize it politcally incorrect, just suspectally correct, as any fool can edit info on there for their own needs political/environmental/social/idiotical/profitable

 

i'm glad to see that some one has discoverd the cow methane connection

 

now we we could every one elses head out of a cows ass, and maybe out of the mccdonalds drive thru the world might be come a better place, but those happy meals are just so darn, well happy!

 

i gotta go take my meds and goto work for a change talk to you boys latter

[Imawhosure]

im a whore house, or i am a 100 foot whore house boat?

what are you talking about a hundred foot house boat diety?

my leader?

if i was going to acknowledge leadership by any one it would most likely be my wife.

but if you had a little more eye sight past those blinders and actually read a book once in a while, or had an original thought you might know that the earth has many climate variations throughout history, as cited in EARTH IN THE BALANCE by your favorite president to get elected, but not serve al gore.

but you probably can't phantom reading a book you would rather start to watch the inconvient truth on dvd and get bored and turn on faux news or some other mindless entertainment, theres a reason they call it television programing.

so maybe the global cooling will cool your, im guessing allegedly conservative head (conservative in brain power) off.

let me know how you can vision a world where man has had no impact and any sort of environmental degradation is only a liberal media myth meant to scare us, kinda like uh, i don't know terrorist invading your neighborhood?

 

Then my good man, DON'T GO TO WORK!!!!!! Live your own ideal! You are contributing to the problem, are you not?

 

Or, is it ok for you? It is an evil you can live with, because your LEADER says you and your family need to eat, lolol.

 

Of course we have an impact on the planet, to say we don't would be idiocy. But are you suggesting that the earth does not heal itself? Have you ever dug a hole, and watch it close over time with the rain? What about pollution being driven back to the earth by the same thing? What happened to that huge oil spill that was supposed to screw up the eco system forever? What about when they lit the wells on fire in the Middle East, and our temperature was supposed to rise? (it has actually dropped)

 

Now then, long before we arrived on this planet, species were here, and now they are gone. Tell us, at what POINT was there balance, or rather is a balance an ongoing occurence? Just because it is not the same today as it was yesterday does NOT mean it is OUT OF BALANCE. It could actually be going BACK INTO BALANCE.

 

PROVE THAT YOUR THEORY IS ANY BETTER THAN MINE WITH PROOF!!!!

[stephenhawkings]

Then my good man, DON'T GO TO WORK!!!!!! Live your own ideal! You are contributing to the problem, are you not?

 

Or, is it ok for you? It is an evil you can live with, because your LEADER says you and your family need to eat, lolol.

 

Of course we have an impact on the planet, to say we don't would be idiocy. But are you suggesting that the earth does not heal itself? Have you ever dug a hole, and watch it close over time with the rain? What about pollution being driven back to the earth by the same thing? What happened to that huge oil spill that was supposed to screw up the eco system forever? What about when they lit the wells on fire in the Middle East, and our temperature was supposed to rise? (it has actually dropped)

 

Now then, long before we arrived on this planet, species were here, and now they are gone. Tell us, at what POINT was there balance, or rather is a balance an ongoing occurence? Just because it is not the same today as it was yesterday does NOT mean it is OUT OF BALANCE. It could actually be going BACK INTO BALANCE.

 

PROVE THAT YOUR THEORY IS ANY BETTER THAN MINE WITH PROOF!!!!

what theroy are you professing? that mankind has had no affect on th eearth, and that i am worshiping a hundred foot house boat that tells me to eat?

Of course we have an impact on the planet, to say we don't would be idiocy.

all closed holes by rain aside i can't argue with that one.

as for the huge oil spill, which one? and who said forever?, maybe in the forever of those liitle birds that died.

i don't think i mentioned wells in the middle east, and i did acknowledge that the globe, or more specifically regions of it cool.

maybe you have heard of london fog, or been to san fransico and experinced how cool it is.

my guess is not.

as for the earth and its balance, you seam to think its in balance, or its out of balance and going back to balance.

i just hope the fulcrum doesn't get to out of wack as it would certainly have an impact on the planet, to say we don't would be idiocy.

so yes i agree mankind has had an impact, and perhaps the earth is balanced/out of balance, or any anecdote you would take that to mean.

i still think we can pee in the pool enough to make it taste funny.

 

Of course we have an impact on the planet, to say we don't would be idiocy.

 

so i wonder now what sources/magzines/newspapers/books/peer reviewed journals/scientific studies you have stumbled across on your big sceen, or internet, that justifies your belittlement of humankinds affects on the globe?

 

i am serious can you name three?

or would two be easier?

ok i'll settle for one, but at least show me some sort of scientific method that was used to help you get to the point you are now at, and also let me know where you came up with the 100 foot house boat that is my boss/diety/ or whatever you call it.

[stephenhawkings]

ok so i'll give you three and see if you can get one.

 

heres the first probably from your favorite.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tem...re_measurements

 

another that is from your buddy, or someone you think i worship(i am an atheist)

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm

ok its not from al but he mentioned it and i bet you think i heard it from him first and only!

 

and lets see if i can find one more for you to ridcule

 

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html this ones from the weather man, but he isn't always right so

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechang...earch_2003.html pretty much the same crap

 

 

more wiki

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image..._Comparison_png

 

http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Aral/Aral

 

http://www.ford.com/our-values/environment...ate-change-456p

i thought this last one might sink in, like a paycheck at the party store i bet!

[stephenhawkings]

one more from the liberal media!

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/124888/detail/

[Trimdingman]

Well, that's your opinion.

 

The collapse of fishing stocks world-wide suggests otherwise; it's a really noticeable change to the ocean as a whole, if you fish for a living.

 

The infusion of plankton-size plastic into the world's oceans is also a noticeable change to the ocean as a whole, only you have to use a microscope to see it.

 

Now the reefs around the world appear to be declining, and no one knows why, but it's a really noticeable change to the ocean as a whole.

 

Chemical pollution is having an effect on the endocrine systems of fish and amphibians, as the pollution mimicks the effect of female hormones, similarly to the chemicals that out-gas when you microwave food in soft vinyl containers (use glass). The good news is that it's a really noticeable change to the ocean only in certain coastal waters — for now.

 

These things that you mention are important, but have nothing to do with the long-term health of the planet. New species will evolve to replace species that die off. What I am concerned about is that socialist leaders want us to believe that there is a climate crisis, and that it is possible for us to spend our way out of it. If the climate is getting warmer, and that is a big "if", we are not the cause of it, and we do not have the ability to stop it. Spending trillions of dollars in this futile effort will weaken our economy and help our enemies. Do you think that China or the Middle East will be better guardians of the ecology than we are after they take over when we collapse?

Edited September 23, 2008 by Trimdingman

[stephenhawkings]

These things that you mention are important, but have nothing to do with the long-term health of the planet. New species will evolve to replace species that die off. What I am concerned about is that socialist leaders want us to believe that there is a climate crisis, and that it is possible for us to spend our way out of it. If the climate is getting warmer, and that is a big "if", we are not the cause of it, and we do not have the ability to stop it. Spending trillions of dollars in this futile effort will weaken our economy and help our enemies. Do you think that China or the Middle East will be better guardians of the ecology than we are after they take over when we collapse?

 

socialist leaders?

sounds like we need to get rid of the union, aren't they socialist?

probably unemployment, and AIG bailouts, that sounds like socialism to me.

 

i bet the big 'if' isn't going to be stopable either so get some suntan lotion all you white people.

[Trimdingman]

socialist leaders?

sounds like we need to get rid of the union, aren't they socialist?

probably unemployment, and AIG bailouts, that sounds like socialism to me.

 

i bet the big 'if' isn't going to be stopable either so get some suntan lotion all you white people.

 

We are now reaping the fruit of the seeds sown by the original American socialist, Franklin Roosevelt. We will survive this, after shedding a portion of our wealth. At least, we had options, if we could see what was happening, and conducted our affairs accordingly. Taxing our way to Nirvana will only benefit the socialist dictators, and cost the rest of us, with no chance of escape. These people have no quarrel with the dictators of this world, and once we collapse, they will fit right in nicely.

[stephenhawkings]

well old ben franklin said 'death and taxes'

now who was it that was talking about small government?

[Trimdingman]

well old ben franklin said 'death and taxes'

now who was it that was talking about small government?

 

 

He was ahead of his time. It is too bad that we do not think that way any more. What we have now is slow socialism. Slowly by degrees we are getting poorer. We don't notice as much because technology is improving, and things can be purchaced cheaper. What happens when this ends? The Federal Reserve will keep on sucking the interest. We could end up like Cubans, dependent on government for the clothes on our backs and the food we eat. We need to start taking this sucker the other way.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Trimdingman

[RaZor]

Have you ever noticed how conservatives 'stay on message' with accusations, miss-direction, fear-mongering, miss-truths, minimalization when their claims are exposed.

 

"Global warming (or a more accurate label - rapid climate change) is a socialist plot to extract our monies and wealth." That is the danger, the plot to turn our country into a socialistic society. Sha right!

 

Forget about the fact that Republican party (leaders) has been for almost three decades perpetrating a redistribution of the wealth of our citizens on a much grander scale than anytime in history. At the same time, the war plan includes a flanking maneuver with the attack on our constitution that has never been greater and, surprising to some, apparently there is a sizeable amount of Americans who, consumed by the fear mongering, are willing to stand by and watch their constitutional rights/freedoms diluted – without as much as a whimper – such is the power of fear.

 

"GW is a ploy to take our money – through taxation and destruction of our economy." What a heaping pile of cow manure – one that is steaming much more than polluting gases.

 

"Socialism" has become that chronic badge that brainwashed conservatives throw at everything that they do not understand, do not want to admit, or want to demonize (and scare everybody by labeling something with it). Check out just about ANY Republican source and you will find an underlying (if not blatant) accusation that the crown jewel of a socialist welfare state in America is Social Security. Bullshit that proclaims that "Social Security is one of the most immoral, anti-family socialist programs in America today". Oh, and you can include Medicare and just about any other program that provides security to individuals in this country – Socialism! Socialism! Socialism!!! Welfare state!!!

 

It doesn't matter that those who repeatedly misuse the term incorrectly (it is apparent that they think if they repeat it often enough. . . . maybe someone else will believe it too) wouldn't know Socialism when they saw it. Along comes REAL Socialism and guess which party/leader is demanding – yes, demanding that it be implemented:

 

The Bush administration (whose Dept of Justice has miserably failed to enforce existing laws for almost 8 years) gives us real Socialism: essentially a de facto nationalization of the entire banking and related financial system. That's right - every bank and other financial institution in the United States may just become a de-facto organ of the U.S. government -- if Paulson thinks they should be, and he may order them to do virtually anything that he claims is in furtherance of this act. The proposal of the Bush admin and his Treasury Sec would give Paulson the ability to nationalize unlimited amount of private debt and force you, your children, and very likely your grand-children to pay for it.

 

 

Now that is Socialism – and, oh yeah, we need to insert in there that none of this reviewable (you know, to protect us and all of our friends who have undoubtedly committed numerous crimes, such as fraud, from EVER having to answer for their crimes).

 

 

You may choose to believe that the claim is that this is intended to 'promote confidence and stability" in the financial markets. Fat chance. More than likely it will instead strike terror into the hearts of investors worldwide who hold any sort of paper, whether it be preferred stock, common stock or debt, in any financial entity that happens to originate from the U.S.

 

 

One minute everything is just "rosey", the subprime meltdown is contained, and "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"(Bush, Paulson, McCain). And, less than a week later, congress is being coerced to just accept this Socialistic (corporate welfare) plan and surrender their constitutionally-mandated right to oversee spending in order to forestall economic chaos. (Isn't that what was done before with the Bush/Iraq War and the Patriot Act? – "You MUST act now!" -- yep)

 

 

I have no doubts that there are many Americans (quite a few here on BON) that can be easily duped and will let the prospect of a national crisis trick you into giving up your freedom. The people behind this scam are the same landsharks and flim-flam men who polluted the global marketplace with their snake oil and toxic sludge. Aren't these the same scammers who manufactured the crisis to begin with? Isn't this just the latest installment of the Shock and Awe Doctrine -- engineer a crisis, and then, distribute billions to their cronies and buddies and then steal whatever is left behind? Isn't this just the same shit, different day? All one has to do is look at who lined up with what position BEFORE a week ago last Monday. IF that is not enough an indicator for you, then I guess you are willing to take some more (or, maybe I should say, maybe you are willing to give up some more).

 

Oh, but yes back on track, Global Warming is a movement of Socialism and it's going to ruin our economy. Miss-direction = oh, oh, oh, look over there – Bad! Bad! Bad!

 

 

Classic ploy used by pick-pockets everywhere. "What the hell happened to my wallet? "

 

 

I guess there are some that will always be suckers and/or victims . . . and they will even say, "But he was seemed like such a nice guy – you know, one that I would like to sit down and have a beer with. . ." The learning curve is just too steep for some people.

 

 

"Global Warming - it's a Socialist plot!"</sarcasm>

[Imawhosure]

Razor,

 

Using misdirection or a RED HERRING, will get you nowhere with most of us, lolol.

 

1. If it wasn't for the fact that YOUR guys wanted to insure everyone with a nickel could buy a home.......because AMERICA JUST WASN'T FAIR, we wouldn't be in this mess. When REGULATIONS were attempted to be put on Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, guess what party stopped it, lolol.

 

2. And if that wasn't bad enough, which party has STOPPED drilling for years, on top of years; and also blocked refinerys.........helping push the price of oil and gas into the stratosphere making inflation re-ignite with a vengence? Duh, you know who, and so does everyone with a lick of sense.

 

Do you know what a derivative is, and how it works? Do you know how money is transferred, without actually being transferred between two countrys?

 

If you DO NOT, then quit talking about stuff you have no concept of, and why things have to be the way they are for the time being, or close anyway.

 

Regardless of if 1/2 you people understand it or not, WE ARE WALL STREET!!!!! Oh sure, the suits run it, and screw it up to boot. But in the final analysis, WE THE PEOPLE, are Wall Street. It is our money, our retirement, our 401ks, OUR money that makes the markets work. YOU are being protected from the SUITS by your government, because if not through no fault of your own, you will end up broke, without a job, and no prospect to get one anytime soon.

 

If any of you want to bitch about something that makes reasonable sense, then why not bitch about how BOTH partys ignored this problem until it bit us in the ass!!! Just look who is on the committees in Congress who over see this stuff, and you will find BOTH partys fell asleep at the wheel.

 

We heard peeps of problems from economists, and a few politicians; but what did the LEADERS OF BOTH partys have to say basically? "All is well, full speed ahead!"

 

And as far as some of you great economists trying to tie the deficit with this financial crisis, you better read a little more. This is THE PRIVATE SECTOR in trouble, and it was because of poor political ideas, poor management on Wall Street, and all you people who thought it was a brilliant move to either buy a 400,000 buck house, or get rich flipping them.

 

And for you LIBERALS and many CONSERVATIVES, I have heard you bemoan the fact on several occasions if not constently, about how our children and grandchildren would have to pay our debt.

 

Well then, QUIT COMPLAINING about this housing mess. You see, YOU are going to take the bullet for them now to LOWER housing prices to where they will actually be able to afford them. Your pain will stabilize the market after it falls, and you WILL NEVER see a run up in home prices again that we had seen in the last decade. This is what is causing your pain, and the government will make sure this pain never happens again.

 

How in the world do you expect to have liquidity in a country, when an autoworker thinks it is a brilliant idea to pay 1/2 a million for a 2700 sq foot ranch, and the bank is willing to tie up their reserves to loan it to him/her, with 2% down, lolololol.

 

While I am not a big fan of Allan Greenspan, his words were correct; although he shoulda been using it for the housing market.........IRRATIONAL EXHUBERANCE. If you over reached on the bubble, take your financial bath, and quit whining it is ANY politicians fault. Hellllllooooooooooo, it is YOUR FAULT for being greedy, not needy!!!!!!!

[fmccap]

This is funny.

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

[Imawhosure]

This is funny.

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

 

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE, tell me again how THE LEADER and his minions are not screwing things up to make it, more, like, POLAND, lololololol!!!!!!

[RaZor]

Using misdirection or a RED HERRING, will get you nowhere with most of us, lolol.

 

1. If it wasn't for the fact that YOUR guys wanted to insure everyone with a nickel could buy a home.......because AMERICA JUST WASN'T FAIR, we wouldn't be in this mess. When REGULATIONS were attempted to be put on Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, guess what party stopped it, lolol.

 

You make a perfect example of what I posted above and show that you possess a convenient memory. Oh, here's a question for you: Which campaign manager was getting paid by Freddie up until last month (that earlier claimed that it ended 2 years ago)? Let's look what has transpired over the years:

 

You seem to have forgotten about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which totally gutted Glass-Steagall, setting off wave of mega-mergers among banks and insurance and securities companies. Driving force was Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who has received $4.6 million from the FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate = FIRE) sector over previous decade. Then as Congress heads for Christmas recess in December 2000, Sen. Gramm attaches 262-page amendment to an omnibus appropriations bill. Commodity Futures Modernization Act will deregulate derivatives trading, give rise to Enron debacle, and open door to an explosion in new, unregulated securities.

 

American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act (also in Dec 00) makes it harder for consumers to get out of lender-required insurance. National Association of Realtors lobbies hard for it, spending $9 million, plus $4 million in contributions.

 

Then in March 2001. the FTC sues Citigroup and its subsidiary Associates, nation's 2nd-largest subprime originator, charging "systematic abusive lending practices" involving 2 million borrowers; 18 months later Citigroup settles for a paltry $215 million.

 

Fed chair Alan Greenspan signals (in April 01) concern with "abusive lending practices that target vulnerable segments of the population and can result in unaffordable payments, equity stripping, and foreclosure."

 

In April of 2002, Georgia enacted a new anti-predatory law, but a large sub-prime lender, Ameriquest helps lead a campaign against it and announces that it won't do business in Georgia until law is changed. Standard & Poor's refuses to rate Georgia mortgage securities, choking credit supply to state's home buyers; law gutted within a year.

 

Conseco files for bankruptcy, mostly due to its purchase of subprime lender Green Tree. In all, 13 banks have failed during 2002—most, according to a Fed report, because of bad loans and "improper accounting related to the securitizing of assets."

 

New Jersey's anti-predatory-lending law signed. Again, Ameriquest and other lenders launch campaign to kill it and Standard & Poor's says it won't rate certain New Jersey securities; law gutted within a year.

 

Ameriquest employees give total of $200,000 to Bush's 2004 campaign; founder Roland Arnall and wife Dawn give more than $5 million to pro-Bush pacs. Arnall later appointed ambassador to Netherlands.

 

Federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issues final rule to preempt states from applying most of their credit laws to national banks and their subsidiaries in 2004.

 

Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio)—who will later go to prison on corruption charges related to Abramoff scandal—introduces Responsible Lending Act (2005), billed as an anti-predatory-lending measure but in fact designed to preempt stronger state laws. Key supporters include New Century Financial, nation's 2nd-largest subprime lender, which has contributed nearly $50,000 to Ney's campaign. Consumer advocates call it "Loan Shark Protection Act."

 

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act makes it far harder for consumers (but not businesses) to discharge debts is also passed in 2005. Chief sponsor, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), has received $2 million-plus from fire sector since 1989.

 

Ameriquest settles 49-state investigation into deceptive subprime practices for $325 million in 2006.

 

2007

 

Paulson tells Congress, "One of the pleasant surprises I had coming to government has been the strong economy we have today."

 

HSBC's head of mortgage-lending business resigns. Its losses reach $10.5 billion.

 

Bernanke tells House Budget Committee the housing sector "is a concern, but at this point we don't see it as being a broad financial concern or a major factor in assessing the course of the economy."

 

New-home sales reported down 20.1% from previous year.

 

Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign announces that Sen. Gramm will join it as cochair and economic policy adviser.

 

Subprime giant New Century Financial files for Chapter 11 after being forced to repurchase billions of dollars of bad loans.

 

UBS (who had hired Sen.Gramm as a consultant and to lobby Congress, Treasury, and Fed on banking and mortgage issues as industry pushes to eliminate predatory-lending rules) shuts down Dillon Read Capital Management, its US subprime arm. GM's finance unit announces deep losses on subprime mortgages. sec task force begins meeting to examine Wall Street's handling of subprime loans.

 

In Wall Street Journal interview, former Fed governor Edward Gramlich accuses Greenspan of blocking a 2000 proposal to increase scrutiny of subprime lenders. Greenspan responds there are "a very large number of small institutions, some on the margin of scrupulousness and very hard to detect when they are doing something wrong."

 

In congressional testimony, Bernanke cuts growth forecasts for 2007 and 2008, blaming problems in housing market; warns that subprime crisis could cost up to $100 billion.

 

American Home Mortgage, one of the largest US independent home-loan providers, files for Chapter 11.

 

Countrywide, biggest US mortgage lender, narrowly avoids bankruptcy by taking out emergency $11.5 billion loan.

 

Ameriquest goes out of business.

 

Treasury secretary Paulson tells House Financial Services Committee that "fundamental reappraisals in the pricing and appetite of risk have taken place numerous times...We are in the process of another such reappraisal."

 

And we won't even delve into 2008, do you see a trend in there? Oh, an additional interesting fact is that McCain since January 1^st, has stated, ""Fundamentals of our economy are strong" more than 18 times.

 

Now I suppose that you are going to try and convince anyone with active brain cells that the blame is on the consumer that should have known better than buy a house that they couldn't pay for.

 

I met a couple at a party a couple weeks ago that wanted a home equity loan a couple of years ago. They were quoted (with all of the particulars) for a fixed term loan. Come closing day, the mortgage company had bait 'n switched it with a very bad ARM and tried to say that was agreed to. Only one problem, the husband had been smart and placed a Sony handheld tape recorder directly on the table in front of the broker (in full view) during the first meeting. They instructed the attorney to begin legal proceedings against the company right at the closing. They had also taped the "closing meeting" in full view. They were awarded a $25,000 out-of-court settlement in lieu pressing charges and turning over the tapes and notes. My point is, and as you can see from above, your contention that it's the victim's fault for all of these bad subprime mortgages is just plain BS. I wouldn't be surprised if you contend that rapes are the female's fault.

 

2. And if that wasn't bad enough, which party has STOPPED drilling for years, on top of years; and also blocked refinerys.........helping push the price of oil and gas into the stratosphere making inflation re-ignite with a vengence? Duh, you know who, and so does everyone with a lick of sense.

 

Nice try – but no cigar. Miss direction again – when you ought to know the truth.

President George W. Bush allowed an increase in oil refinery mergers to go unchecked since he took office and may have contributed to the highest gasoline prices in 20 years as the November election approaches.

 

 

The Bush administration approved 33 takeovers totaling $19.5 billion, on top of 21 deals worth $7.3 billion under President Bill Clinton, Bloomberg data shows. Reduced supplies were already pushing up gas prices in Clinton's term, according to a Federal Trade Commission study conducted after pump prices rose to more than $2 a gallon in Milwaukee and Chicago in 2000.

 

"We're in a much worse position than we were when the federal government broke up the Rockefeller oil companies of the early 1900s,'' Jon Meade Huntsman, a registered Republican and founder of Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Co., the largest privately held chemicals maker, said in an interview. `The average guy on the street is getting killed because this administration does not care.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...efer=news_index

 

Yes, Clinton shouldn't had allowed those 21 deals either. Mergers are rarely good for the consumer.

 

 

Do you know what a derivative is, and how it works? Do you know how money is transferred, without actually being transferred between two countrys?

 

If you DO NOT, then quit talking about stuff you have no concept of, and why things have to be the way they are for the time being, or close anyway.

 

Yep I do know and I also know how to spell countries. However, it is very questionable whether you do. Think of it in terms that you apparently want to blame the subprime woes on the homeowners being over extended (credit wise), and yet seemingly you do not understand that what this buy-out is about -- corp execs (that are supposed to know better), doing exactly the same – only to a much greater extent. Can you say 'buy bad investments' and way 'over leveraged'?

 

 

Please note how much effort (in the list above) was put forth to thwart predatory lending practices. By the way, there was no mandate, at any time, to fore go normal credit practices - you know - the ability to pay, income verification, things like that. Countrywide purposely pushed ARMs even though they had some fixed rate plans. But they paid MUCH higher commissions for ARMs. IF those mortgages had been limited to fixed raters, we wouldn't be in this predicament. Yes, many would had to buy a house of lesser value to qualify, but we wouldn't be where we are now, would we? Is this a concept that you can understand?

 

 

Regardless of if 1/2 you people understand it or not, WE ARE WALL STREET!!!!! Oh sure, the suits run it, and screw it up to boot. But in the final analysis, WE THE PEOPLE, are Wall Street. It is our money, our retirement, our 401ks, OUR money that makes the markets work. YOU are being protected from the SUITS by your government, because if not through no fault of your own, you will end up broke, without a job, and no prospect to get one anytime soon.

 

If any of you want to bitch about something that makes reasonable sense, then why not bitch about how BOTH partys ignored this problem until it bit us in the ass!!! Just look who is on the committees in Congress who over see this stuff, and you will find BOTH partys fell asleep at the wheel.

 

We heard peeps of problems from economists, and a few politicians; but what did the LEADERS OF BOTH partys have to say basically? "All is well, full speed ahead!"

 

And as far as some of you great economists trying to tie the deficit with this financial crisis, you better read a little more. This is THE PRIVATE SECTOR in trouble, and it was because of poor political ideas, poor management on Wall Street, and all you people who thought it was a brilliant move to either buy a 400,000 buck house, or get rich flipping them.

 

And for you LIBERALS and many CONSERVATIVES, I have heard you bemoan the fact on several occasions if not constently, about how our children and grandchildren would have to pay our debt.

 

Well then, QUIT COMPLAINING about this housing mess. You see, YOU are going to take the bullet for them now to LOWER housing prices to where they will actually be able to afford them. Your pain will stabilize the market after it falls, and you WILL NEVER see a run up in home prices again that we had seen in the last decade. This is what is causing your pain, and the government will make sure this pain never happens again.

 

How in the world do you expect to have liquidity in a country, when an autoworker thinks it is a brilliant idea to pay 1/2 a million for a 2700 sq foot ranch, and the bank is willing to tie up their reserves to loan it to him/her, with 2% down, lolololol.

 

Blah, blah, blah. (Minimize in the face of evidence that does not support your position) But Mommy, Billy did it too! And contrary to you statment, there were people that warned of this two years ago. They weren't Republicans.

 

But I agree to a certain extent, however, go back above and read over that chronological list which highlights some of the events of the last 9 years. Of course there are Democrats whose hands are not clean. But far less than the Republicans as they have constantly pushed (and thwarted any legislation – even by the states to cut back on predatory lending) for deregulation that allowed the "suits" to run a muck in our economy fulfilling their unbridled greed and arrogance. And I didn't even bring up the Keating scandal – oops, I just did. There is a long track here you know for some.

 

While I am not a big fan of Allan Greenspan, his words were correct; although he shoulda been using it for the housing market.........IRRATIONAL EXHUBERANCE. If you over reached on the bubble, take your financial bath, and quit whining it is ANY politicians fault. Hellllllooooooooooo, it is YOUR FAULT for being greedy, not needy!!!!!!!

 

So if the public (some but not all, were victims of predator lending practices) "over reached on the bubble, take your financial bath, and quit whining it is ANY politicians fault," . . .or, were you talking about Wall Street should take their "financial bath, and quit whining it is ANY politicians fault". (but Mommy, he didn't stop me from doing it . . .!)

 

Tough being a Republican these days, eh?