PDA

View Full Version : Serious question for the politically savy here



S0Noma
11-27-2007, 06:55 PM
What's the difference between 'tax and spend' Democrats and 'borrow and spend' Republicans?

Isn't the one about 'pay now' and the other 'pay later'? To some degree aren't they both about spending money we don't have for things we don't need (like more government?)?

What am I missing? If the 'borrow and spend' approach simply defers a huge debt and leaves it on the shoulders of future generations - what have we gained other than a temporary relief from higher taxes?

Just asking.

pooltchr
11-27-2007, 07:08 PM
Both policies are equally as dangerous to the economy. I would much prefer we find a way to reduce government spending, eliminate all non-essential government programs, and get our government back down to a managable size.

We need people in Washington who will do what is right for the country rather than what will garner votes. We haven't seen that in quite a few years. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Steve

Vapros
11-27-2007, 08:40 PM
Deficit spending has become a way of life for quite a long time now. Damned few of us would be solvent if all our markers were suddenly called in, especially the Federal government. Every administration and every generation inflates the national debt and passes it along to the next, but the end of the month never seems to get here. There's little doubt that this is the way progress happens, but I'm not sure there will ever be a reckoning. We've been told that it was right around the corner for decades, that this irresponsibility cannot continue, but it does. High finance is delicate and fragile, and understanding it is far beyond most of us. Only Alan Greenspan knows, and he's not telling.

Similarly, we are whistling in the dark at the polls. We all think we know who should be elected, and none of us is right. Nobody on the ballot except politicians. Nothing very good is liable to happen to us on election day, but we keep hoping. The only thing more outrageous than one party is the other one. Maybe next time . . . .

Is there anything you want? Just sign right here. We'll bring it out in the morning.

S0Noma
11-27-2007, 09:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vapros:</font><hr>
Similarly, we are whistling in the dark at the polls. We all think we know who should be elected, and none of us is right. Nobody on the ballot except politicians. Nothing very good is liable to happen to us on election day, but we keep hoping. The only thing more outrageous than one party is the other one. Maybe next time . . . .
<hr /></blockquote>

You got that right. Liars, wh0res and thieves. There were some things I liked about Bill C. but it seemed like he had a bad habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. Bush Jr. has always struck me as more of a figurehead prez than a guy who actually has his hands on the reins. Lots of behind the scenes lever pulling. Which is a good thing in a way because he seems to fall well short in the brains department.

What I really feel as a concerned American is that we need a LEADER at a time like this - not a wh0re or a thief or a liar or a marionette.

What ever happened to the America we used to have when real leaders ran for office? Or am I dreaming that we used to have it and now we don't?

Vapros
11-27-2007, 09:42 PM
That's a whole 'nother subject. The presidency is for sale and has been bought many times. There's an auction going on right now, matter of fact. You asked about leaders? Even if they did run they wouldn't win. The politicians have the thing by the short hairs. The votes come in bunches, and to get them you have to promise them something, and then you owe them something for the money they give you. We have the white vote and the black vote and the labor vote and the farm vote and the industry vote, etc. Make 'em an offer and you might get 'em. They go to the highest bidder.

The rest of us - the miscellaneous vote - make our choices in some strange ways, but it's not all our fault. All we know is what we see and hear on television. By election day we are voting against candidates rather than for them. The mud-slinging we see here on this site has been learned from politicians.

Democracy is full of potholes and briar patches. I'm old and retired and thoroughly disgusted with the system, but I'm living better than I ever did before. Explain that to me.

Drop1
11-27-2007, 10:00 PM
It costs too much to go to work,to run a business,so I quit going,declared myself a designer,and only do what I want. I don't think many people understand the decreasing purchasing power of what they earn,and end up old,and full of stress. Thats not the way to check out /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

cushioncrawler
11-28-2007, 01:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> What's the difference between 'tax and spend' Democrats and 'borrow and spend' Republicans? Isn't the one about 'pay now' and the other 'pay later'? To some degree aren't they both about spending money we don't have for things we don't need (like more government?)? What am I missing? If the 'borrow and spend' approach simply defers a huge debt and leaves it on the shoulders of future generations - what have we gained other than a temporary relief from higher taxes? Just asking.<hr /></blockquote>There iz no difference. Taxes are a way (one of a number of wayz) of allocating the burden among the people. The total burden to (the) people (by govt expenditure) iz unchanged, whether fully covered by a tax or not, whether covered by loans or not. madMac.

LWW
11-28-2007, 05:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> What's the difference between 'tax and spend' Democrats and 'borrow and spend' Republicans?

Isn't the one about 'pay now' and the other 'pay later'? To some degree aren't they both about spending money we don't have for things we don't need (like more government?)?

What am I missing? If the 'borrow and spend' approach simply defers a huge debt and leaves it on the shoulders of future generations - what have we gained other than a temporary relief from higher taxes?

Just asking. <hr /></blockquote>
That's easy.

First, borrow and spend congress volk do exactly that. Tax and spend people on the other hand do exactly that, and then borrow some more.

LWW

eg8r
11-28-2007, 08:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between 'tax and spend' Democrats and 'borrow and spend' Republicans? <hr /></blockquote> The difference is glaring for me and neither are good ideas. It is the spend part that is the burden. The reps are spending tons and tons of money on this war and the dems are spending the rest of the money on everything else.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the one about 'pay now' and the other 'pay later'? To some degree aren't they both about spending money we don't have for things we don't need (like more government?)? <hr /></blockquote> Yes it is pay now or pay later, the theory is that with borrowing you will pay later without increasing any additional burden on the tax paying citizens. Notice I am very specific in who is going to pay, this debt will not burden the poor one bit, as I already pointed out, they will continue to get their free handouts as long as a dem is in office. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Now with that being said I stand with the rest of those on this board that have stated they do not agree with W's spending, it is completely out of control and I don't see that debt every being repaid in full without some drastic measures taken to reduce that actual current spending including future increases. I say we start with removing the raises that Congress votes on for themselves.

eg8r

Deeman3
11-28-2007, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr>
<hr /></blockquote>

You got that right. Liars, wh0res and thieves. There were some things I liked about Bill C. but it seemed like he had a bad habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. Bush Jr. has always struck me as more of a figurehead prez than a guy who actually has his hands on the reins. Lots of behind the scenes lever pulling. Which is a good thing in a way because he seems to fall well short in the brains department.

What I really feel as a concerned American is that we need a LEADER at a time like this - not a wh0re or a thief or a liar or a marionette.

What ever happened to the America we used to have when real leaders ran for office? Or am I dreaming that we used to have it and now we don't?



<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> I'm with you on this, SONoma! A candidate that tells the truth, asks for sacrifice that is non-partisan and shows real leadership. He/she would not have a chance to be elected dogcatcher, unfortunately.

Until the electorate, in general, knows the difference in substance and popularity, we are not going to get a better field of candidates.

As to your question, both are the same in cost with one paying interest (eventually) and the other stealing as we go. Both are great examples of wasting what used to be our money.... </font color>

SKennedy
11-28-2007, 10:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr>
What I really feel as a concerned American is that we need a LEADER at a time like this - not a wh0re or a thief or a liar or a marionette.

What ever happened to the America we used to have when real leaders ran for office? Or am I dreaming that we used to have it and now we don't?
<hr /></blockquote>

The best and the brightest don't want the job. Those with egos want it, which is not a good thing when someone who wants power is given power. A real leader is the person who steps up to the job and performs it out of a desire to serve the citizens and our country, not to serve themselves. And when there is someone willing, we put them in a huge public spotlight that is hard on anyone and their family. Our society just doesn't produce many good and worthy people anymore who are willing to put up with all of it. So, generally who do we get to run...those who are motivated by ego and power.

wolfdancer
11-28-2007, 11:35 AM
It's simple....GWB is "passing the buck" onto the next President, and future admins, and the price just to service the huge debt, will be paid by even more taxes then before the "cut"
He bought himself votes as did "Daddy Warbucks,...read my lips..." with a tax cut...while creating a record deficit with his war for oil/profits.
In much the same way....he avoided an unpopular draft by, paying huge bonus's to enlistee's, and supplementing the Armed Forces with a "privateer" security force, Blackwater ($.40 of every war buck goes to private companies).
The same thugs, free of any lawful restraints, that were sent in to quell the N.O. riots. It's a scary thought...GWB's private army can be used in this country to put down any dissent???
Not since the days when they would deputize the Pinkerton goons, to put down worker rebellions...has this been done.

SKennedy
11-28-2007, 12:57 PM
If I was younger I'd think about working for a group like Blackwater for the opportunity to rid New Orleans of "undesirables." Of course, the hard part is distinguishing the good from the bad guys. But, when in doubt, just consider them all "unfriendly."

......Better yet, maybe I'll form my own "troop troup!"

Wolf..even if Gayle is not posting currently, we don't get to miss her point of view with you around! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Vapros
11-28-2007, 01:09 PM
Less than 18 hours - that's how long this thread lasted before GWB was cited. I suppose we should have seen it coming. "It's simple" says wd.

SKennedy
11-28-2007, 01:48 PM
GWB and global warming.....the causes of all things wrong in this world!
Bet you heard about the bats dying from global warming...but did you ever hear about the British High Court ruling on October 2 that stated Gore's movie could not be shown in public schools without a disclaimer warning the students "of the partisan, political, and misleading nature of the film"...? How about the fact that Antarctic sea ice set records in October...more than has ever been recorded before? How about a recent report that Arctic shrinking sea ice is believed (by NASA scientists) caused by localized unusual wind patterns that caused the ice to flow south, which is not attributed to global warming? Of course not! Temps is the 60's, when the norm is in the 30's also being blamed on global warming??? How can that be when global warming has only produced a temp increase of 0.7 degrees? Have you heard that the latest and greatest satellite info actually shows the earth's temp to be decreasing and that actual records show the highest year of temps on record was in the 1930's?
I could go on..but what's the point. We could be buried in ice with the wooly mammoths and it would still be about global warming and GWB and the "profiteers". These folks ever consider what happens if there are no profits? Then they'll scream something about obscene profits.....funny how no one seems to care when these same companies lose money.

S0Noma
11-28-2007, 02:29 PM
There are some who would disagree with you...

http://i14.tinypic.com/71ci6c3.jpg

Skennedy, in a nutshell can you explain the sinister agenda of the 'global warming' conspiracy?

Teasing a little - but I am curious as to what you believe their agenda to be? In short, what's to be gained by lying about global warming?

wolfdancer
11-28-2007, 04:02 PM
So, your answer to my thoughts on taxes and the war profiteering is "new info" that dispels the myth of global warming, thus also negating any concerns about the war and taxes? You should forward your idea then to Congress, which is planning to look into the contracts, and have already issued a "stop" on one major player.
And while you're at it...contact the Eskimos with your good news...and that team that just went up there to take measurements...faulty instruments, no doubt.
I'm not trying to sell any Global Warming theories to anyone. Whether you or I, believe or not,.....won't change anything. It's unfortunate, imo, that it is a political issue,with the Republicans on one side, and the Dems on the other

SKennedy
11-28-2007, 04:21 PM
Congress is always looking at various issues, including non-issues. Congress is a political body.

As to global warming... I agree it had nothing to do with your post. I was just adding a little salt to the wound and thought I would help expand your cause.

As for Eskimos and the equipment...you're talking about the Arctic, which I stated did have ice receding. It's the cause of the ice receding that was being debated. However, if you are trying to make the argument that the local Eskimos know more than the scientists about weather issues and global warming...I'm not so sure I could disagree with you.

For the record...I don't like taxes....and I don't like excessive war profiteering. However, if a legitimate company is providing a needed service I see no reason for them not to make a profit.

SKennedy
11-28-2007, 04:38 PM
The photo doesn't work with me...it means nothing. He just wanted to rest a little bit. These guys are likely capable of swimming all the way from the Arctic to Maryland!

I don't think there is a "sinister" agenda. Some may say that it's about someone's agenda to stop economic growth of the US, or similar type thoughts. As for my opinion, I just think a part of society, and a growing portion at that, loves to have a crisis at hand....the "crisis of the day"..except longer period of time...how about "crisis of the decade."
I think the majority of folks who believe and warn about global warming are being honest and sincere. I just think they are wrong.....just like global cooling (ice age right around the corner), Y2K, the universe is no longer expanding and is actually shrinking and basically imploding, a meteor will hit us and destroy all life, and the latest...the universe is being destroyed by dark matter and we're all going to die. I think we have a need to always have a crisis at hand. Not a shrink...but I do wonder if it isn't related to our own mortality and our inability to accept it. We may label someone as a "drama queen" and really what they are doing is the same thing...creating a crisis or making an issue about nothing...they're just doing it on a smaller scale. Media and people need stimulation...even if it is potentially tragic news.
All I'm saying is that in my opinion there is no catastrophic global warming and if there is some warming trend, it is not man-induced, but just part of a natural cycle.

Bobbyrx
11-28-2007, 06:33 PM
I don't recall any "riots" in New Orleans or anyone complaining about anything Blackwater did there at that time. They were given a contract to become an official vendor to the U.S. government during the Clinton administration.

pooltchr
11-28-2007, 06:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> In short, what's to be gained by lying about global warming? <hr /></blockquote>

The explanation I heard from the meterologist who started the Weather Channel (sorry, can't remember his name) was quite simple. Follow the money...

Scientists at a university get government grant (our tax dollars) money to study this theory. Now, if they find that there is little or nothing to the global warming theory, there is very little chance of getting more grant money to continue research.

If, however, they find that the world is in danger of melting, they have a crisis, which the media loves to promote. Once the media promotes it, the government has no choice but to continue and even increase funding for more research into how we can prevent this crisis. And all the universities get lots more grant (our tax dollars) money to buy all kinds of new toys to do more research.

Remember...if we don't have a major crisis in our lives...we don't need big government involvement...not good for politicians who want to be needed.

30 years ago they were predicting the next ice age. Now they are predicting a meltdown. And the government spends and spends and spends.....

Steve

S0Noma
11-28-2007, 07:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> The photo doesn't work with me...it means nothing. He just wanted to rest a little bit. These guys are likely capable of swimming all the way from the Arctic to Maryland!
<hr /></blockquote>

With all due respect, according to this article they are having a hard time.

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Wants Polar Bears Listed as Threatened

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 27, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world's most recognizable animals out of existence.

The administration's proposal -- which was described by an Interior Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- stems from the fact that rising temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the sea ice that polar bears need for hunting. The official insisted on anonymity because the department will submit the proposal today for publication in the Federal Register, after which it will be subject to public comment for 90 days.

Identifying polar bears as threatened with extinction could have an enormous political and practical impact. As the world's largest bear and as an object of children's affection as well as Christmastime Coca-Cola commercials, the polar bear occupies an important place in the American psyche. Because scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide from power-plant and vehicle emissions is helping drive climate change worldwide, putting polar bears on the endangered species list raises the legal question of whether the government would be required to compel U.S. industries to curb their carbon dioxide output.

"We've reviewed all the available data that leads us to believe the sea ice the polar bear depends on has been receding," said the Interior official, who added that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. "Obviously, the sea ice is melting because the temperatures are warmer."

Northern latitudes are warming twice as rapidly as the rest of the globe, according to a 2004 scientific assessment, and by the end of the century annual ocean temperatures in the Arctic may rise an additional 13 degrees Fahrenheit. As a result, researchers predict that summer sea ice, which polar bears use as a platform to hunt for ringed seals, will decline 50 to 100 percent. Just this month, researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research outlined a worst-case scenario in which summer sea ice could disappear by 2040.

By submitting the proposal today, the Interior Department is meeting a deadline under a legal settlement with three environmental advocacy groups -- the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace -- that argue the government has not responded quickly enough to the polar bear's plight. The department has been examining the status of polar bears for more than two years.

NRDC senior attorney Andrew Wetzler, one of the lawyers who filed suit against the administration, welcomed the proposal for listing.

"It's such a loud recognition that global warming is real," Wetzler said. "It is rapidly threatening the polar bear and, in fact, an entire ecosystem with utter destruction."

There are 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide, 4,700 of which live in Alaska and spend part of the year in Canada and Russia. The other countries with polar bears in their Arctic regions are Denmark (Greenland) and Norway.

Although scientists have yet to fully assess many of the 19 separate polar bear populations, initial studies suggest that climate change has already exacted a toll on the animals.

The ice in Canada's western Hudson Bay breaks up 2 1/2 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, giving polar bears there less time to hunt and build up fat reserves that sustain them for eight months before hunting resumes. As local polar bears have become thinner, female polar bears' reproductive rates and cubs' survival rates have fallen, spurring a 21 percent population drop from 1997 to 2004.

Scientists have not charted the same rapid decline within the U.S. polar bear populations, but federal scientists have observed a number of troubling signs. The bears have resorted to open-water swimming and even cannibalism in an effort to stay alive.

Polar bears normally swim from one patch of sea ice to another to hunt for food, but they are not accustomed to going long distances. In September 2004, government scientists observed 55 polar bears swimming offshore in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, an unprecedented spike, and four of those bears died. In a separate study that year, federal scientists identified three instances near the Beaufort Sea in which polar bears ate one another.

The Interior official said government officials studying Alaskan polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea area have observed thinner adult bears and a lower rate of survival among cubs. Although the population has yet to dip, "unless the polar cub survival rate goes up, it would have to happen," the official said.


Polar bears tussle near Churchill, Manitoba. Scientists say rising temperatures are melting the sea ice that the bears use for hunting.
Polar bears tussle near Churchill, Manitoba. Scientists say rising temperatures are melting the sea ice that the bears use for hunting. (By Jonathan Hayward -- Associated Press)
Special Report

Read complete Post coverage on the science and politics surrounding the threat of human-induced climate change.

IN THE GREENHOUSE: Follow the Post series on the science behind confronting a changing climate.

Still, the official added that the decision to propose polar bears as threatened with extinction "wasn't easy for us" because "there is still some significant uncertainty" about what could happen to bear populations in the future.

"This proposal is sort of like a scientific hypothesis. You put this out there and say to the world, 'Tell us, is this right or is this wrong?' " the official said, adding that Interior will hold several public hearings about its proposal. "We're projecting what we think will happen in the future, not just what's happening at this moment."

The department could take up to a year to complete its proposal, and it could abandon the listing if it unearths new scientific projections about the bears' fate. But that appears unlikely, as recent models have consistently pointed to a faster deterioration of Arctic sea ice.

Although federal officials cited rising sea temperatures once before in a threatened-species proposal -- in May, when they called them a "major stressor" on Caribbean elkhorn and staghorn corals -- today's proposal will mark the first time the administration has identified climate change as the driving force behind the potential demise of a species.

Robert Correll, the scientist who chaired the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004, said in an interview that the proposal to place polar bears on the endangered species list is "highly justified."

Correll, now directs the global change program at the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, added that he is participating in an administration-funded study at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on how climate change could affect national security and foreign policy.

That, along with the proposal on polar bears, he said, "plays into a reality that, in my opinion, they're going to be rethinking their position" on global warming.

<hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122601034.html)

Drop1
11-29-2007, 07:10 PM
"borrow and spend Republicans," have sex more often,but enjoy it less, due to the guilt. "Tax and spend Democrats" realize,with out borrowing,you have no interest,and interest,on top of interest to pay as time goes buy."Do nothing Atheists,"think they are both right,and eat soup.

SKennedy
11-29-2007, 08:54 PM
Trust me....I'm rooting for the bears! I respect such an awesome carnivore.

Chopstick
11-30-2007, 08:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> These guys are likely capable of swimming all the way from the Arctic to Maryland!
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Well, maybe that's what happened to Gayle.</font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
11-30-2007, 08:40 AM
Blackwater in New Orleans.......
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/blackwater.jpg
http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/blackwater2_box.htm
And while the company may have started "under the Clinton Admin" Prince was an intern under George Bush, and all his political donations are to the Republican Party.
Also the company has expanded a bit since then.... a decade, Blackwater's revenue from federal government contracts has grown exponentially, from less than $100,000 to almost $600 million last year. In August, the company won its biggest deal ever, a five-year counternarcotics training contract worth up to $15 billion shared with four other companies.
After the recent "innocent shootings" charge...they were "rewarded" with a $92m contract.

Qtec
11-30-2007, 09:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Follow the money...

Scientists at a university get government grant (our tax dollars) money to study this theory. Now, if they find that there is little or nothing to the global warming theory, there is very little chance of getting more grant money to continue research.

If, however, they find that the world is in danger of melting, they have a crisis, which the media loves to promote. Once the media promotes it, the government has no choice but to continue and even increase funding for more research into how we can prevent this crisis. And all the universities get lots more grant (our tax dollars) money to buy all kinds of new toys to do more research. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.

Treasure dome

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years." <hr /></blockquote>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm


All those who deny climate change can only question the work done by others, they have no actual evidence of their own to back up their claims.
A much more logical scenario is that the biggest poluuters[ sp?] - fearing they might have to clean up their own mess, ie cost them money- found it cheaper to conduct a mis-info campaign. The bought the Govt- the report from US scientists on CC was edited by a poitical hack in an office and when found out he scuttled back to his boss, EXXON!

[ QUOTE ]
Former Bush Aide Who Edited Reports Is Hired by Exxon


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: June 15, 2005

Philip A. Cooney, the former White House staff member who repeatedly revised government scientific reports on global warming, will go to work for Exxon Mobil this fall, the oil company said yesterday.

Mr. Cooney resigned as chief of staff for President Bush's environmental policy council on Friday, two days after documents obtained by The New York Times revealed that he had edited the reports in ways that cast doubt on the link between the emission of greenhouse gases and rising temperatures.

A former lawyer and lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying group for the oil industry, Mr. Cooney has no scientific training. The White House, which said on Friday that there was no connection between last week's disclosure and Mr. Cooney's resignation, repeated yesterday that his actions were part of the normal review process for documents on environmental issues involving many government agencies.

''Phil Cooney did a great job,'' said Dana Perino, a deputy spokeswoman for the White House, ''and we appreciate his public service and the work that he did, and we wish him well in the private sector.'' <hr /></blockquote>

I remember the Cig Comp CEOs all stood up and denied cigs could cause cancer .
We now know that they were ALL lying.

Q

DickLeonard
11-30-2007, 09:22 AM
Eg8r taking away Congress's pay hikes would make them bigger crooks than they are. If it's a job for the rich who will reprsent the poor..LWW.####

S0Noma
11-30-2007, 09:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> All those who deny climate change can only question the work done by others, they have no actual evidence of their own to back up their claims.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Strike the words 'climate change' and substitute 'evolutionary theory' and you have the crux of the so-called 'Intelligent Design' argument. The ID folks have no real scientific method, or tangible proof to back them up.

It's interesting to note that we still live in a time when ignorant voices are still placed above those who have earned the right to their claims - by hard work, study and the accumulation of testable and verifiable facts.

DickLeonard
11-30-2007, 09:30 AM
SKEnnedy just give them their ancestors 400 acres and a mule and they wouldn't be undesireable.####

DickLeonard
11-30-2007, 09:44 AM
Chopstick Gayle is allowed two vacations a year which maybe taken without consulting with the CCB. She has put up with Steve and ED whose posts contain thoughtful yet wrong thinking while the AZBers posts are frought with nothing.

I for one have been telling her she is wasting her time with with twenty to forty line posts and they post one liners. Life is to valuable to waste it on those thugs.####

S0Noma
11-30-2007, 10:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> The photo doesn't work with me...it means nothing. He just wanted to rest a little bit. These guys are likely capable of swimming all the way from the Arctic to Maryland!<hr /></blockquote>

This comment of mine comes late in the thread - by now, I realize that you do care about what's going on with the P-Bears. Just wanted to let you know that as I was researching the issue I came across this little stat about the problems with melted ice and the distances that some bears are now being forced to swim:

[ QUOTE ]
In northern Alaska the U.S. Minerals Management Service has concluded that some polar bears are drowning as they try to swim increasingly long distances between the ice and land.

The federal agency documented four drowned bears that had tried to swim a record 160-mile (257-kilometer) gap in September 2004.

The worldwide polar bear population is between 20,000 and 25,000, scientists estimate. web page (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0210_060210_polar_bears_2.html) <hr /></blockquote>

So as it turns out? Some of them aren't quite strong enough to swim indefinitely before finding an ice floe upon which they can rest.

As a person who reveres wildlife, I nonetheless feel that it's an impossible dream for us to maintain all wildlife populations intact regardless of environmental changes. If, as we now know (for what ever the reason) the world's climate is warming up and ice is disappearing? The end of Polar Bears in the wild may be an inevitability. Not trying to point fingers or lay blame - just saying - when they're gone from their wilderness habitats because the habitats no longer exist?

I for one, will miss them.

Qtec
11-30-2007, 10:36 AM
Problem is most people or at least enough people still believe that what they hear on Fox etc is is true!
When the media is bias and partisan, Democracy is threatened. The fact that the media never really challenged the claims by the Govt in the lead up to the Iraq invasion is both frightening and shows a defect in the system.
The NEWS is now a commodity in the US. Big Corps now decide what is news and what isn't.
eg, Kerry the decorated Vietnam war hero is a traitor and GW the Champagn charlie who took flying lessons instead of fighting and couldn't even be bothered to take a pyhsical is a stand-up guy?!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank God for the Web................now they want to control that as well.!

Q

eg8r
11-30-2007, 10:37 AM
It is just a start, not the end all solution. I think a very sensible change would be to not allow Congress to decide their own raises.

eg8r

SKennedy
11-30-2007, 10:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> The photo doesn't work with me...it means nothing. He just wanted to rest a little bit. These guys are likely capable of swimming all the way from the Arctic to Maryland!<hr /></blockquote>

This comment of mine comes late in the thread - by now, I realize that you do care about what's going on with the P-Bears. Just wanted to let you know that as I was researching the issue I came across this little stat about the problems with melted ice and the distances that some bears are now being forced to swim:

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
In northern Alaska the U.S. Minerals Management Service has concluded that some polar bears are drowning as they try to swim increasingly long distances between the ice and land.

The federal agency documented four drowned bears that had tried to swim a record 160-mile (257-kilometer) gap in September 2004.

The worldwide polar bear population is between 20,000 and 25,000, scientists estimate. web page (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0210_060210_polar_bears_2.html) <hr /></blockquote>

So as it turns out? Some of them aren't quite strong enough to swim indefinitely before finding an ice floe upon which they can rest.

As a person who reveres wildlife, I nonetheless feel that it's an impossible dream for us to maintain all wildlife populations intact regardless of environmental changes. If, as we now know (for what ever the reason) the world's climate is warming up and ice is disappearing? The end of Polar Bears in the wild may be an inevitability. Not trying to point fingers or lay blame - just saying - when they're gone from their wilderness habitats because the habitats no longer exist?

I for one, will miss them.

<hr /></blockquote>

I agree.

Deeman3
11-30-2007, 10:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr>I for one, will miss them.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> One of the great sages of our time, Steven Colbert, would disagee with you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif However, I do agree. </font color>

SKennedy
11-30-2007, 10:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> eg, Kerry the decorated Vietnam war hero.....
Q <hr /></blockquote>

What???? Perspective is everything!! And ours don't match!

S0Noma
11-30-2007, 10:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Problem is most people or at least enough people still believe that what they hear on Fox etc is is true!
When the media is bias and partisan, Democracy is threatened. The fact that the media never really challenged the claims by the Govt in the lead up to the Iraq invasion is both frightening and shows a defect in the system.
The NEWS is now a commodity in the US. Big Corps now decide what is news and what isn't.
eg, Kerry the decorated Vietnam war hero is a traitor and GW the Champagn charlie who took flying lessons instead of fighting and couldn't even be bothered to take a pyhsical is a stand-up guy?!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank God for the Web................now they want to control that as well.!

Q <hr /></blockquote>

I disagree in the sense that the media has always been commercially driven - from the beginning they have responded to audience ratings which determine how much they can charge their commercial advertisers (sponsors) and ultimately goes directly to their capacity to survive as a going concern.

In short - the real question here is - does the audience drive the news or does the news drive the audience? If you look at it from a ratings = advertising dollars = suviving as a going concern perspective - then the answer is that the audience drives the news which in turn is massaged to appeal to the appetite of the audience. Give them what they want and they will keep coming back for more.

Conservative news outlets like Fox didn't simply materialize from no where - they came to be because there was and is a demand for their perspective. Right, wrong or indifferent, it is the demand for that perspective that drives Fox and not the other way around. Does Fox cater to it's audience? Preach to the choir? Of course it does - but that doesn't mean that it's anything other than a commercial enterprise selling a product to willing consumers.

As to your comments on the role of the media in the run up to the war in Iraq? Commercial news entities are NOT going to go against popular opinion. Granted that popular opinion was being manipulated by certain government interests taking advantage of the huge over-reaction to the 9/11 tragedy - but the news outlets went with it because popular opinion shapes the appetite of the audience. As a major commercial news media is it fiscally wise at a time like that to question the national fervor? Probably not. Neither was it politically prudent for many otherwise rational politicians to stand up and declare themselves in opposition to the war.

So, there you have it - media whores giving their johns (the viewing/reading public) what those johns want.

Wish it weren't so but it is.

Qtec
11-30-2007, 10:57 AM
How about their raises be linked to how well the country is doing as a whole?

GW has borrowed [ by conservative estimates] 3 trillion $ and the country is still running at a loss?
It took 100 years for the Nat Debt to reach 6 trillion in 1999. GW has increased that debt by 50% in 7 years!

The Dollar has lost 1/2 its value. Oil is $100 a barrel- 3 times the cost in 1999.

GW basically borrowed cash and gave it to his friends and the US public will pay for it. Its pure theft.

Need I go on?

Q

eg8r
11-30-2007, 11:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The NEWS is now a commodity in the US. <hr /></blockquote> What are you talking about. Your same issues are just regurgitated issues used about the media and their bias towards Clinton. You can remove the word "now" and you might make a little sense.

eg8r

eg8r
11-30-2007, 12:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How about their raises be linked to how well the country is doing as a whole? <hr /></blockquote> Sounds fine, but then who is going to be making the decision on how the country is doing?

[ QUOTE ]
Need I go on? <hr /></blockquote> Nobody asked for you to start.

eg8r

DickLeonard
11-30-2007, 12:17 PM
Sonoma what I find as a terrible hoax the BoooB hoasting a Middle East peace conference 6 years after he totally #%$%^% upped the Middle East. ####

LWW
12-01-2007, 08:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Sonoma what I find as a terrible hoax the BoooB hoasting a Middle East peace conference 6 years after he totally #%$%^% upped the Middle East. #### <hr /></blockquote>
Oh sure, the ME had a millenia old history of peace going didn't it! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Dude, that comment shows a total disregard of history. That or a total ignorance of it.

LWW

LWW
02-19-2012, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's simple....GWB is "passing the buck" onto the next President, and future admins, and the price just to service the huge debt, will be paid by even more taxes then before the "cut"
He bought himself votes as did "Daddy Warbucks,...read my lips..." with a tax cut...while creating a record deficit with his war for oil/profits.</div></div>

How about an update on how much the deficit has improved?