Proved: There is no climate crisis

[Imawhosure]

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.

 

 

 

Nice try – but no cigar. Miss direction again – when you ought to know the truth.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...efer=news_index

 

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

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

Actually, it is pretty good being a conservative, which is not a republican as there are democrat conservatives, but as far as I know, there are not any liberal repubs.

 

Also, it amazes me that your have such a selective memory, lolol. Tell us who tried to put regulations on the MACS, and who stopped them?

 

And then there is the deal about refineries, hehehehehehehe. What does consolidation have to do with who stopped new ones from being built? I don't care who owns them, just that they are not there CAUSE YOUR GUYS STOPPED THEM, lololol.

 

I do agree with you though that both partys are asleep, will use this as a stepping stone to blame each other, and we will get the shaft somehow or other.

 

And then we have your last ridiculous sentence, which shows how out of touch and whint you really are, lololol. It goes like this

 

------------------->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 . . .!)

 

 

My answer to that farcial statement is simple-------->Buyer beware? lololol. If you are not intelligent enough to buy something with a reasonable outcome, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BUY IT!!!!!! Unless of course, some LIBERAL ass**** tells you that you can, and borrow 125% of what your buying, just cause it ain't fair in America.

 

Tell ya what!!!! Why don't you go back and look how this idea came about. Yep, repubs had control of congress, but tell everyone how it played in the media with the dems pushing it, how it was elitist, racist, wasn't fair, cause the repubs were balking. Then of course, Phil and the boys said hey, DEREGULATION, and we had BOTH of our wonderful partys sowing the seeds of this mess.

 

You see, they are both complicit in this fiasco. Repubs for deregulation, dems for wanting fairness to own things that people can't afford.

 

If we were smart, we would ALL get together and stop both our partys for pushing these dreadful policys that screw both you and I in the end.

 

I am for it, are you?

[fmccap]

I am for it, are you?

If you were you wouldn't vote for either, you would waste your vote like you say I am. I don't consider it a waste on my part though because I am voting for something I actually believe in, not the lesser of the two evils.

[RaZor]

Actually, as I have pointed out several times here -I am a lifelong Rep that finally figured things out and became an independent. I guess that you could say that many opportunities with an inside view of Republican operations, rubbed my morality the wrong way and I began educating myself with other than the party line. Probably their biggest lapse in understanding in what makes an economy work is that the stronger the middle class (you know the other 95%) IS WHAT MAKES capitalism work. The better off the majority, the more that they can make legitimately. But that has become a lesser thing since Ronnie. What is important is how much you can accumulate - not how you accumulated it. Hell, that makes drug and arms dealers legitimate. I do not believe in cannibalism.

 

I laugh at those who use figures like the percentage of overall taxes that the wealthy pay -- without realizing that it is representative of the percentage of overall income earned too.

 

Many of my viewpoints are as conservative (esp fiscal) as you can get. But there are probably a couple of things that I side with the liberals on, but for the most part, I really am a moderate. I rather abhor extremists in either direction.

 

I am very much in favor of a third and even fourth party, but realize that that ain't ever going to happen unless the Electoral College is done away with - which again, probably ain't gonna happen as neither party will be willing to give up their positions - in my lifetime anyway.

 

Over the years, you'd probably be shocked at some the letters that I have written to Dems. I know you wouldn't be shocked at the ones I wrote to Rep politicians.

 

I even wrote Ford execs a letter forecasting the housing bubble and it's affect on P/u sales along with the oil price escalation 3 years before they occurred.

 

Unfortunately, no one listened - but at least I gave it a shot.

 

I am not a fearful person (never have been) and telling me that there is a bear in the woods doesn't effect me at all. I am not afraid of dying either, as I probably should have . . . (well I won't say it 'cos Floyd maybe lurking about) too many times.

 

All in all as human beings, the things we have in common eclipse our differences.

[stephenhawkings]

Actually, it is pretty good being a conservative, which is not a republican as there are democrat conservatives, but as far as I know, there are not any liberal repubs.

 

haven't heard of libertarians? guess third party canidates are out of your circle of trust.

sis you know that the first republican president was a third party canidate?

 

I do agree with you though that both partys are asleep, will use this as a stepping stone to blame each other, and we will get the shaft somehow or other.

 

freedom of choice A or B? doesn't sound like much of a choice at all.

i hope a bunch of people vote for the pseudo republican mcpalin so perhaps when hes done screwin things up bloombereg buffett, or somebody with brains kills of one of the two corrupt choices that so many americans love because of guns, abortions, gay rights, or what ever other crap has convinced us that our system is working just fine.

i know a lot of complaining i should goto some liberal islamic country, thanks, but no thanks i'll tough it out here and use our freespeech zones when i can.

[stephenhawkings]

RaZoR has opened his eyes to the light, or maybe i should say dark evil peoples that have zapped our liberty and freedoms and want the common man to foot the bill.

[stephenhawkings]

This is funny.

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

 

i love the idiotic idea of pumping CO2 under ground, what f'in moron came up with that?

like its going to stay there just like love canal, or most other underground dumping stations we use.

might take a while to travel up 1800 meters to the surface, but it will.

enviro nutcase ideas like this make sensible ones like cfc reduction or even vegetarianism look bad.

but thats science until you prove it doesn't work go with it, kinda like our conservative fiscal policies our country uses!

[Trimdingman]

If you were you wouldn't vote for either, you would waste your vote like you say I am. I don't consider it a waste on my part though because I am voting for something I actually believe in, not the lesser of the two evils.

 

The Democrats are the ones who pushed the people in this direction. They have to be nudged back a little at a time. I think that you are mostly right, but to set things straight in a short time would cause too much damage, maybe even a civil war. The Republican Party has a realistic chance to be elected and bring about some change. Liberals are rabid religious zealots. They cannot be changed. Their beliefs are ingrained, just like orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Trimdingman

[RaZor]

The reason why this bubble was allowed to inflate was not that the American people demanded it, it was because it was spectacularly profitable for Wall Street. . . for a while. Do a little research and you will find that Wall Street handed out 33 billion dollars in bonuses LAST YEAR alone. Hell, Lehman are still going to pay out $2.5 billion in bonuses to their NY employees. True these bonuses were allocated before the Chapter 11 filings, but what prudent/responsible business pays bonuses to employees, or officers when they are going bankrupt? What company pays bonuses if they are even loosing money (unprofitable)? I contend only the very stupid ones. Oh, but yes, it was those stupid home owners that should have known they couldn't afford. . .

 

Wasn't anyone paying attention during the first four years of the Bush administration? There is only one State of the Union address that he did not include his "Ownership Society" mantra - and that was the last one. Gentlemen, it was a plan directly from the top to generate growth after the tech stock bubble burst in 2000/01 - to redirect all of the money that investors were left holding looking for some place to put it. The Bush tax plan was going to create a deficit (and they knew it) with their tax cuts and so to make it all work out, (lower taxes create greater revenues through economic stimulus), another vehicle HAD TO BE exploited to grow the economy. If necessary, go back and search through Bush's speeches 2001-2004 and see how many times he used "Ownership Society" (it's staggering). Oh, but you can't blame this one on Bush, right? Wrong - looks like he had plenty to do with it (after all, wasn't he the 'decider' - which made everyone else - the followers).

 

Seems like there is very convenient memory in these parts.

<it was those Dems, those libs, those homeowners that. . .>

[macattak1]

Nick, Savetheplanet, Stephenhawking, Theripper, etc. all have one thing in common.

 

They all fiercely believe in Global Warming and they all take the same tactic. They spread the propaganda regarding GW in response to any criticism of it AND upon push back they then fall back to farlse arguments of:

 

Well, we should not be trying to destroy our planet should we? Or,

What do you have against cutting pollution? Or,

You want to make the US like China? Or,

So we should just dump old motor oil behind the garage like so many people I know do? Or,

You don't think recycling is good? Or,

Etc, etc, etc,

 

Maybe the environmentalists could put pressure where it is needed. India, China, Russia, etc. As stated, you don't dust the blinds while the kid is dumping the contents of the fridge on the floor!

 

How many times do people need to hear it? Our high energy costs are not because of some decline in resources but because of a strangle hold on accessibility to resources and solutions by these people that want man to be the extinct ones.

 

Further, there is no Economic growth with out Growth in Energy usage. Period. You want to cut back our energy needs then you want to cut back our economy plain and simple. Never in history has a country grown their economy by cutting energy consumption. If they cared about people 1/10th as much as they did the planet they would be working on starvation, disease, tyrants, malnutrition, orphans, etc. world wide. Those things deserve 1000x the attention of a caring compassionate person over GW. So it just calls into question their motives or understanding of the planet they claim to know so much about.

 

But then they just go back to 'So you think having clean drinking water is bad?' arguments. Just like Wakamole!

 

And to think that other world bodies and governments don't have plans for our country they would like to see come to fruition? Just take a look at what our country has done to other countries and such to extend our agenda, values, needs, and desires. Russia and China would love to see us fall. Every loss for us is an automatic win for them.

 

Guess it is just time to start replying to all the 'So you thing pollution is OK?' responses with "So, you are pro communism? Russian or China?"

 

I think we were on a fine Pollution trend back in 1990. Prior to this mass GW hysteria created as the next stepping stone in the Environmentalists chopping block.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

Weather or not GW is real, we need to reduce pollution everywhere. We shouldn't destroy the economy to do it, but minimizing our impact on the planet probably isn't a bad idea.

[goinbroke2]

Weather or not GW is real, we need to reduce pollution everywhere. We shouldn't destroy the economy to do it, but minimizing our impact on the planet probably isn't a bad idea.

 

Agree'd, I've said it before, don't dump oil etc but on the other hand don't economically destroy me because I made a personal choice to have 3 light bulbs on at night when 2 will do!

Pollution is bad....we get it...we want to curtail it...but I'm not denying my kids the rights to go skating in a local rink because "rinks cause abc pollution and must be eliminated". Mass hysteria will only polarize the two sides.

 

If you want people to not throw garbage out the window of their car (a pet peeve of mine), enforce the fines and educate people on the damage caused.(enviro and tourism).

Adding .10c to a bottle of pop and then giving me .5c back when I return the empty works because it's moderate. Change that to a fanatical/hysterical ban on pop or adding $1.00 and giving back .10c for the empty and saying the rest "will go towards the enviroment" would not only polarize the pop/nonpop drinkers but make most sane, legal abiding citizens revolt.

(throw the can out in spite)

 

Stop the chicken little "the world will end tomorrow unless you..." and use common sense. It will go farther and have more sway. :shades:

[goinbroke2]

I forgot to add, can you get rid of the

 

 

"Jack Layton: A Prime Minister That Will Put You and Your Family First" and the ndp banner please? It's your right to show whatever you want and I respect that, but seeing that turns my stomache. Everything about that man and the party makes me sick.

 

Thank you

[suv_guy_19]

Everything about that man and the party makes me sick.

 

 

I felt that way too until I heard Jack Layton speak on healthcare. There are many things I don't agree with him on, but I am quite dissatisfied with most of the available choices. I have went from planning to vote Conservative, then Liberal, the NDP. I really do hope that Stephen Harper wins (he will), but I want a strong opposition to him, and until they get a new leader, the Liberals aren't that opposition. That is why I am rooting for the NDP.

[goinbroke2]

Ah, I see. Being hard core right wing I am waiting for harper to get a majority so he can let loose and fix stuff. However, with a minority he had to stay middle-of-the-road and that worked to a certain extent too I guess. Everybody needs counterpoint or a splash of reality once in a while, but I think the liberals went to far and just shitcanned everything good or bad. Yes the lib's and ndp together were basically making government ineffective to the detriment of Canadians.

[Trimdingman]

The NDP don't care who they crawl into bed with. They are now trying to make a deal with the Liberals to form a coalition. I hated Trudeau and Chretien. Paul Martin wasn't bad. He was a voice of sanity in the Liberal Looney Bin. Right now, there is only one choice. Give the Conservatives a majority, and they will be able to really get to work and straighten things out. The Liberals tried to paint the Conservatives, in the last election, as scary, and radical. They must have been looking in the mirror. Harper is as steady as a rock, and sensible and logical. Dion, on the other hand talks about more taxes when the price of everything is going through the roof. What world is he living in?

Edited September 28, 2008 by Trimdingman

[suv_guy_19]

The NDP don't care who they crawl into bed with. They are now trying to make a deal with the Liberals to form a coalition. I hated Trudeau and Chretien. Paul Martin wasn't bad. He was a voice of sanity in the Liberal Looney Bin. Right now, there is only one choice. Give the Conservatives a majority, and they will be able to really get to work and straighten things out. The Liberals tried to paint the Conservatives, in the last election, as scary, and radical. They must have been looking in the mirror. Harper is as steady as a rock, and sensible and logical. Dion, on the other hand talks about more taxes when the price of everything is going through the roof. What world is he living in?

 

 

I am pretty much forced to agree with you (Except when it come to Chretien). I just want to make sure there's a strong oposition who will speak u and keep the government accountable.

[suv_guy_19]

I forgot to add, can you get rid of the

 

 

"Jack Layton: A Prime Minister That Will Put You and Your Family First" and the ndp banner please? It's your right to show whatever you want and I respect that, but seeing that turns my stomache. Everything about that man and the party makes me sick.

 

Thank you

 

I took of the logo for you at first (I never wanted him as PW, I just put their logo there) and now I'll take down the whole thing. I can't vote for someone who will risk putting us into deficit. Looks like I'm down to only one choice.

[stephenhawkings]

Nick, Savetheplanet, Stephenhawking, Theripper, etc. all have one thing in common.

 

They all fiercely believe in Global Warming and they all take the same tactic. They spread the propaganda regarding GW in response to any criticism of it AND upon push back they then fall back to farlse arguments of:

 

Well, we should not be trying to destroy our planet should we? Or,

What do you have against cutting pollution? Or,

You want to make the US like China? Or,

So we should just dump old motor oil behind the garage like so many people I know do? Or,

You don't think recycling is good? Or,

Etc, etc, etc,

 

Maybe the environmentalists could put pressure where it is needed. India, China, Russia, etc. As stated, you don't dust the blinds while the kid is dumping the contents of the fridge on the floor!

 

india russia and a whole host of other countries signed the kyoto protocal, but the US didn't

 

How many times do people need to hear it? Our high energy costs are not because of some decline in resources but because of a strangle hold on accessibility to resources and solutions by these people that want man to be the extinct ones.

sounds kinda radical, man the extinct ones? high energy costs, do you mean high gas prices?

 

Further, there is no Economic growth with out Growth in Energy usage. Period. You want to cut back our energy needs then you want to cut back our economy plain and simple. Never in history has a country grown their economy by cutting energy consumption. If they cared about people 1/10th as much as they did the planet they would be working on starvation, disease, tyrants, malnutrition, orphans, etc. world wide. Those things deserve 1000x the attention of a caring compassionate person over GW. So it just calls into question their motives or understanding of the planet they claim to know so much about.

the is no economic growth in the energy sector with out growth in energy usage, perhaps sustainability is not compatable with the size matters philosphy. maybe if we shut off the fox news, and opened a book. I never thought GW claimed to know much about the planet, especially WMD's in IRAQ!

But then they just go back to 'So you think having clean drinking water is bad?' arguments. Just like Wakamole!

sorry i like clean water i guess its that whole i dont wish for extinction thing again

And to think that other world bodies and governments don't have plans for our country they would like to see come to fruition? Just take a look at what our country has done to other countries and such to extend our agenda, values, needs, and desires. Russia and China would love to see us fall. Every loss for us is an automatic win for them

china has plans for the US just goto walmart, or look at the back of your TV, or computer, shirt collar...

i am also glad that we are extending our values, needs and desires to other countries.

kill them via democracy, get our oil, and get us some import hookers we'll all be just fine.

 

Guess it is just time to start replying to all the 'So you thing pollution is OK?' responses with "So, you are pro communism? Russian or China?"

 

so let me get this right since i conserve rain water for my garden, and care about my/human stewardship of this planet i am a communist? does my oposition to the $700 billion dollar govt. bailout/buyout/taxpayer sellout, make me a communist too? i know my collection of an unemployment check most this summer makes me a social programs service reciever, but a communist come on, what have you conserved this year? what, if any, conservative actions have you taken, ever?

 

I think we were on a fine Pollution trend back in 1990. Prior to this mass GW hysteria created as the next stepping stone in the Environmentalists chopping block.

 

Peace and Blessings

pollution trend, al,ost sounds as cuddly as global warming, as for the GW hysteria i think theres more than just environmentalists that can't believe this guy is running/ruining our country.

 

whats really sad is how the environment is twisted to be a procommunist idea, what are we living in the 50's still? the big red scare going to get you?if you knew where all that plastic crap you buy every day came from you would know we may have won some major battles (ok maybe not vietnam) but the war of globalization hasn't been going to well, at least for americans, or sweatshop workers.

but if your 'conservative' because your prolife, prowar on terror,procoporate bailouts, antigay rights, or anitenvironment, than you are in truly a sad state of misinformation.

but keeping the sheep blind, dumb, and ignorant is just what big brother ordered.

the ministry of truth has done its job on you via the telescreen, just remember this when you find out that your neither the inner party, the outer party, only a lowly prole.

 

<~~~~~ still trying to figure out how the coomies have planned to take the US over with the enviromental movement/

[goinbroke2]

I took of the logo for you at first (I never wanted him as PW, I just put their logo there) and now I'll take down the whole thing. I can't vote for someone who will risk putting us into deficit. Looks like I'm down to only one choice.

 

 

Thanks again.

 

The wife has zero interest in anything political whatsoever, her only question lately was "how come there's no real choice this time?" I asked what she meant and she said "well of course I'd never vote for another frenchman who I can't understand, and that other guy from BC is just kooky". I said forget about how they look or sound, what about their policies?

Her answer? "I don't have any interest in listening to that crap that I don't understand".

 

Basically, If it weren't for me, (since she has the same mindset to vehicles) she would be one of the "mindless sheeple" who drives a camry or civic.

 

Love to see a conservative majority....we'll see......

 

Oh and to keep this on topic, stephenhawkings, you have gone from making a case for GW to personal attacks and doing the usual thing here which is to pick peoples posts apart by taking stuff out of context and not understanding (or refusing to acknowledge) the point which was posted.

[stephenhawkings]

why do i keep getting the GW attacker/commie rap?

is it because of my red flower bushes?

or MEAP scores?

 

i'll quite mentioning conservatives vs liberals, or commies, or 100 ft house boats when every one wants to discuss science, in particular environmental science.

 

now we can all look at commercials by oil companies and agree that they need tax cuts, as their record prices and record profits cant last forever.

 

when we all decide to acknowledge that propaganda is not science, save the art of researching and making it, then we can move back towards a healthy debate on the topic of weather or not "Proved: There is no climate crisis, For IMAWHOSURE and others."

to which i can respond perhaps it's not crisis mode for most human beings, but for some it is.

Asthma sufferes, residents of Centralia Pennsylvania, Chernobyl, almost three mile island, women of child bearing ages that like to eat fish, those pesky liberals from New England that don't like acid rain, fishermen who loathe the cromorantes, fishermen who loathe zebra mussles, I could go on for hours, but any connection to mans actions and altering of the balance that mother nature has maintained for billions of years seam to be a tough read for most.

Edited September 29, 2008 by stephenhawkings

[goinbroke2]

:boring:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somebody brought zebra muscles into an area that was previously uninhabited by them...was it man's fault...ultimately, yes.

 

Should we stop all fishermen/introduce a new tax on fishing boats/tax fish in the store higher all in the name of saving the planet from zebra muscles? NO!!!

 

 

 

Enough of the ok? We know pollution is bad, stop saying the sky is falling unless we destroy our economy and livelyhoods. Again, if it wasn't for the western opologist's, where would all the worlds guilt go? I drink from a man-made biodegradeable bottle and I'm destroying the planet and should feel guilty when other country's are building coal fired plants without safety/health/enviromental oversite at a record pace? Shake your head! wring your hands and feel guilty all you want but your not guilting me into feeling bad just because you do.

 

 

[Trimdingman]

I am pretty much forced to agree with you (Except when it come to Chretien). I just want to make sure there's a strong oposition who will speak u and keep the government accountable.

 

The opposition doesn't care about improving things when they are not in power. All they want to do is undermine the government. If you like more government, more social programs, and higher taxes, vote Liberal/NDP. If you want to see government back away from nanny-statism, the party that has the best odds of doing that is the Conservative Party. The NDP wants more of it, and the Liberals want power, at any price. They have no morals or ideals.

 

Maybe you like Chretien. To me he was a disgrace, especially after 9/11. He was slow to offer any condolences, and when he did speak, he blamed the US for bringing this on themselves. He has family in the French oil business with interests in Iraq. I think that they were pulling his strings.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Trimdingman

[stephenhawkings]

:boring:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somebody brought zebra muscles into an area that was previously uninhabited by them...was it man's fault...ultimately, yes.

 

Should we stop all fishermen/introduce a new tax on fishing boats/tax fish in the store higher all in the name of saving the planet from zebra muscles? NO!!!

 

 

 

Enough of the ok? We know pollution is bad, stop saying the sky is falling unless we destroy our economy and livelyhoods. Again, if it wasn't for the western opologist's, where would all the worlds guilt go? I drink from a man-made biodegradeable bottle and I'm destroying the planet and should feel guilty when other country's are building coal fired plants without safety/health/enviromental oversite at a record pace? Shake your head! wring your hands and feel guilty all you want but your not guilting me into feeling bad just because you do.

 

 

ok enough of the drum beating about pollution being bad, as long as i and others who care about the planet we reside on aren't called commies, or protax liberals. i have never thought or said that taxing fishermen was they way out of this noncrisis, the free market, regulated, or not, bailouted or not should be able to address this concern when it becomes one for those psuedoconservatives.

[Trimdingman]

ok enough of the drum beating about pollution being bad, as long as i and others who care about the planet we reside on aren't called commies, or protax liberals. i have never thought or said that taxing fishermen was they way out of this noncrisis, the free market, regulated, or not, bailouted or not should be able to address this concern when it becomes one for those psuedoconservatives.

 

 

When a Liberal will come up with a plan to curb pollution which will actually save me money instead of costing me money, I will consider the possibility that he is sincere. Cutting down of land fill, for example, could be done by cutting down on packaging, eliminating phone books (they could be programmed into the phone, or be on CDs). We don't need newspapers anymore with the technology that exists. Liberals are more interested in weakening the economy so they can dump on the conservatives and create more unemployed liberal voters, than they are in finding viable solutions to environmental problems. The truth is, they would like to see pollution get worse so they would have more to criticize the conservatives about.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Imawhosure]

When a Liberal will come up with a plan to curb pollution which will actually save me money instead of costing me money, I will consider the possibility that he is sincere. Cutting down of land fill, for example, could be done by cutting down on packaging, eliminating phone books (they could be programmed into the phone, or be on CDs). We don't need newspapers anymore with the technology that exists. Liberals are more interested in weakening the economy so they can dump on the conservatives and create more unemployed liberal voters, than they are in finding viable solutions to environmental problems. The truth is, they would like to see pollution get worse so they would have more to criticize the conservatives about.

 

Trim, that was bogus in my opinion.

 

Liberals believe what they believe, just as conservatives do the same. Sure, I think the regular liberal on the street is wrong, but I don't see them using it as a grand plan to screw things up. They support it because they BELIEVE it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

For me, the enviro/conservative debate is kinda like 2 people sitting at slot machines in Las Vegas right next to each other. They both start at exactly the same time, and each time they pull the one arm bandit, they get exactly the same outcome and they are both winning; and yet, both know if they continue the pulling, eventually they may not. They both know the odds, but while they are getting the same results exactly, their mindset is NOT the same. One will bailout before the other.

 

The only difference in this scenario next to ours is----------->They are MUST force the person next to them to see it their way, so one is pulling the other away, and the other has his/her hands wrapped around the one arm bandit refusing to leave.

 

Who is correct?

 

Nobody really knows cause neither knows where they sit on the tumbler of the bandit, but they both have good arguements over their position, now don't they!!!!!

 

Of course, when other people get involved, (other countrys) they are really trying to get the outcome that helps them. Which is why Kyoto is a pile of horse dung, lolol. All Americans would be much more inclined to go along with enviros if it was between us, and would eliminate anybody else who would profit from us agreeing to give them at least part of what they want.