morn

Here is an excellent site that did a pretty good job with the 04 election too. Occasionally Kerry would pull ahead but on the vast majority of days it showed Bush clearly ahead. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Here is an excellent site that did a pretty good job with the 04 election too. Occasionally Kerry would pull ahead but on the vast majority of days it showed Bush clearly ahead. http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Middle east is a vital strategic region, the US status as a superpower depends on oil imports from the middle east. Israel is a powerful ally in that region of the world. Obviously it's in the US's best interest to support Israel, national security concerns require it. Israel has a right to exist today, even if they stole their land from muslims, today there are families and cities of people living ordinary lives there who's lives would be turned upside down to deal with something that happened 60 years ago, they have a right to exist and are surrounded by hostile nations.

Middle east is a vital strategic region, the US status as a superpower depends on oil imports from the middle east. Israel is a powerful ally in that region of the world. Obviously it's in the US's best interest to support Israel, national security concerns require it. Israel has a right to exist today, even if they stole their land from muslims, today there are families and cities of people living ordinary lives there who's lives would be turned upside down to deal with something that happened 60 years ago, they have a right to exist and are surrounded by hostile nations.

Banning giving money to individuals seems like the best solution, just to parties. Great idea Public funding while I don't see anything wrong with it in principle, it is a conflict of interest, as the people running the government are also in control of where tax dollars are spent, and you want to now put them in charge of funding their own campaigns with tax dollars? How long until a government changes the law so the ruling party gets more of the funding. ;) And you watch they'll rapidly increase budgets to run thousands of TV adverts, letting them use public money to do their own promotion, they'll never stop increasing the budget for it.

Banning giving money to individuals seems like the best solution, just to parties. Great idea

Public funding while I don't see anything wrong with it in principle, it is a conflict of interest, as the people running the government are also in control of where tax dollars are spent, and you want to now put them in charge of funding their own campaigns with tax dollars? How long until a government changes the law so the ruling party gets more of the funding. ;) And you watch they'll rapidly increase budgets to run thousands of TV adverts, letting them use public money to do their own promotion, they'll never stop increasing the budget for it.

Yes water is a major part of global warming. Here's how it works, co2 in the atomsphere heats up the ocean which causes more evaporation and hence more h2o in the air. Co2 is really a catalyst, water is the major greenhouse gas. Also it has been determined than the sun is not the cause behind the observed temperature increase. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm "He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one." Also of note is climate change has occurred in the past from natural causes of greenhouse gas, an increase in volcanism is thought to be the cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum "The event saw global temperatures rise by around 6 °C over 20,000 years, with a corresponding rise in sea level as the whole of the oceans warmed.[2] Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose, causing a shallowing of the lysocline. Regional deep water anoxia may have played a part in marine extinctions." And a much larger older event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event Massive volcanic eruptions near a massive coal bed so you had the planet burning it's own coal, as well as disturbance and release of gas from Methane clathrates in the ocean, which is basically frozen methane in deep ocean and permafrost. So mass extinction, global warming have happened in the past and are hardly unusual and the planet survives fine, but many species do not. So I wouldn't worry about the planet, but I would worry about the effect it might have on us.

Yes water is a major part of global warming. Here's how it works, co2 in the atomsphere heats up the ocean which causes more evaporation and hence more h2o in the air. Co2 is really a catalyst, water is the major greenhouse gas.

Also it has been determined than the sun is not the cause behind the observed temperature increase. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

"He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one."

Also of note is climate change has occurred in the past from natural causes of greenhouse gas, an increase in volcanism is thought to be the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

"The event saw global temperatures rise by around 6 °C over 20,000 years, with a corresponding rise in sea level as the whole of the oceans warmed.[2] Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose, causing a shallowing of the lysocline. Regional deep water anoxia may have played a part in marine extinctions."

And a much larger older event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

Massive volcanic eruptions near a massive coal bed so you had the planet burning it's own coal, as well as disturbance and release of gas from Methane clathrates in the ocean, which is basically frozen methane in deep ocean and permafrost.

So mass extinction, global warming have happened in the past and are hardly unusual and the planet survives fine, but many species do not. So I wouldn't worry about the planet, but I would worry about the effect it might have on us.

Between conspiracy and incompetence, it's usually better to bet on incompetence. They've dealt with the problem cowardly though. Willing to give up the liberties that so many people have fought and died for, for safety.

Between conspiracy and incompetence, it's usually better to bet on incompetence.

They've dealt with the problem cowardly though. Willing to give up the liberties that so many people have fought and died for, for safety.

Paranoia. This is not a socialist plot. There is a real problem. Something needs to be done.

Paranoia. This is not a socialist plot.

There is a real problem. Something needs to be done.

Yeah. You know what the ultimate monopoly is? Stalinism, when one guy owns every business. ;)

Yeah. You know what the ultimate monopoly is? Stalinism, when one guy owns every business. ;)

I assure you about the only countries that would think about Iran that way would be China or Russia. European and most Asian countries no not trust Iran or do not want to risk allowing the conflict prone middle east to have nuclear capability.

I assure you about the only countries that would think about Iran that way would be China or Russia. European and most Asian countries no not trust Iran or do not want to risk allowing the conflict prone middle east to have nuclear capability.

If you don't own the land, then you can't do what you want on that land. If you own the land you are unobstructed in building your factory. If everyone who has an idea has to check it with the community first, then innovation and progressive will be far slower, people often don't get new ideas until you show it to them. And this is why I don't like marxism. People who think differently tend to not get on with the community. A system that maximises the power of the individual in the end benefits everyone.

If you don't own the land, then you can't do what you want on that land. If you own the land you are unobstructed in building your factory. If everyone who has an idea has to check it with the community first, then innovation and progressive will be far slower, people often don't get new ideas until you show it to them.

And this is why I don't like marxism. People who think differently tend to not get on with the community. A system that maximises the power of the individual in the end benefits everyone.

The problem the left has, is that the right wants to legislate it's beliefs. They want to force their beliefs on others. Tell people who they can marry etc.

The problem the left has, is that the right wants to legislate it's beliefs. They want to force their beliefs on others. Tell people who they can marry etc.

There is a decade long solar cycle where the sun's output increases and decreases. But the point is the long term trend, is upwards temperatures. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png And this correlates with the increase in co2 as in the graph as few posts up.

There is a decade long solar cycle where the sun's output increases and decreases. But the point is the long term trend, is upwards temperatures.

And this correlates with the increase in co2 as in the graph as few posts up.

It's a social contract, it not a free contract. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract In other words, society costs money and you are obligated to pay for being a member of it. It's a bit like a club. ;) However there should be tight justifications for spending, as it is the money earned by hard working people.

It's a social contract, it not a free contract. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

In other words, society costs money and you are obligated to pay for being a member of it. It's a bit like a club. ;) However there should be tight justifications for spending, as it is the money earned by hard working people.

Sanctions punish people for the crimes of their government. There are measures that can be taken that do not hurt the people though. Negotiate with international community, get them to freeze iran's bank accounts, to disallow travel by government officials, refuse to give their government loans.

Sanctions punish people for the crimes of their government. There are measures that can be taken that do not hurt the people though. Negotiate with international community, get them to freeze iran's bank accounts, to disallow travel by government officials, refuse to give their government loans.

I like the idea of a negative income tax actually, it seems the only fair alternative to both welfare and progressive taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax The general idea is a income tax at 25%, but everyones taxes start at $ -10000. So if you're making $0, the government gives you $10000, if you're making $4000, you pay $1000 in taxes, and then get $10000, for a total of $13000. If you're making $40000, you'll pay $10000 in taxes, and get back $10000 so that's the break even point. If your income is $100000, you'll pay $25000 in taxes and get back $10000, for a take home income of $85000. This system greatly simplifies government too, no deductions for the IRS to investigate, no social security or other programs, just give everyone $10000 and tax 25% of their income. This gives you a small government that also keeps people off the streets.

I like the idea of a negative income tax actually, it seems the only fair alternative to both welfare and progressive taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

The general idea is a income tax at 25%, but everyones taxes start at $ -10000. So if you're making $0, the government gives you $10000, if you're making $4000, you pay $1000 in taxes, and then get $10000, for a total of $13000. If you're making $40000, you'll pay $10000 in taxes, and get back $10000 so that's the break even point. If your income is $100000, you'll pay $25000 in taxes and get back $10000, for a take home income of $85000. This system greatly simplifies government too, no deductions for the IRS to investigate, no social security or other programs, just give everyone $10000 and tax 25% of their income. This gives you a small government that also keeps people off the streets.

Actually the federal reserve have the biggest responsibility for the present bank crisis. Since the dotcom boom they've kept interest rates incredibly low. This just encouraged people to go on a house buying and spending spree with cheap credit. Then banks kept coming up with clever schemes to keep pumping money into the housing boom and it all blew up. Now the government is going to bail them out, so they are rewarded for screwing up the economy. They should have gone out of business. The federal reserve seems to have abandoned their core mission and is focused entirely on preventing a stock market decline...

Actually the federal reserve have the biggest responsibility for the present bank crisis. Since the dotcom boom they've kept interest rates incredibly low. This just encouraged people to go on a house buying and spending spree with cheap credit. Then banks kept coming up with clever schemes to keep pumping money into the housing boom and it all blew up. Now the government is going to bail them out, so they are rewarded for screwing up the economy. They should have gone out of business.

The federal reserve seems to have abandoned their core mission and is focused entirely on preventing a stock market decline...

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml http://www.shackletoncentenary.org/antarctica/antarctic-ice-loss-1.php http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm You're probably seeing the down of a solar cycle, but the long term upwards trend is still there. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

http://www.shackletoncentenary.org/antarctica/antarctic-ice-loss-1.php

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm

You're probably seeing the down of a solar cycle, but the long term upwards trend is still there.

Property is theft? Is that what you say to justify the theft of peoples property that will come with your socialist revolution? Life the way you want to, means that you are able to have an idea, build a factory or whatever to create it, without having to go to some committee and trying to get them to all agree that your idea. The problem with original ideas, is that most people don't agree with them because they're so out of the box at first. Look at the computer industry, open source movement is real communism, it is production in a stateless and moneyless fashion, but the real innovation comes from Apple and Microsoft still. Because in a corporate structure, the guy with the vision can be at the top of the hierarchy and get his vision made.

Property is theft? Is that what you say to justify the theft of peoples property that will come with your socialist revolution?

Life the way you want to, means that you are able to have an idea, build a factory or whatever to create it, without having to go to some committee and trying to get them to all agree that your idea. The problem with original ideas, is that most people don't agree with them because they're so out of the box at first.

Look at the computer industry, open source movement is real communism, it is production in a stateless and moneyless fashion, but the real innovation comes from Apple and Microsoft still. Because in a corporate structure, the guy with the vision can be at the top of the hierarchy and get his vision made.

America is not a christian nation. America was not founded on any judo-christian principle. But rather on the idea of inalienable natural rights. Which is an atheistic attempt to provide for absolute morality. If it was a christian nation you'd probably have the ten commandments being the law of the land with a cromwell like lord protector dictatorship.

America is not a christian nation. America was not founded on any judo-christian principle. But rather on the idea of inalienable natural rights. Which is an atheistic attempt to provide for absolute morality. If it was a christian nation you'd probably have the ten commandments being the law of the land with a cromwell like lord protector dictatorship.

The url shows temperatures are up as well. It is extreme wishful thinking to suggest it's not related. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060330181319.htm

The url shows temperatures are up as well. It is extreme wishful thinking to suggest it's not related. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060330181319.htm