Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Andre,

The people who back this idiot now have to face the facts that they were lied to about Iraq,education funding,national security and now the environment.

When you call Bush an idiot you immediately put him beneath you. That is likely the reason why most of the Democrats underestimate him, and that is why they lost to him, twice.

We must let Washington know that this administration does not represent us.

Do they ever? I mean, really, what administration has been without its snags and bumpy roads?

But right now I could do with some practical suggestions. You say that, “We must let Washington know that this adminstration does not represent us,” but how do you propose to do that? Washington gets its messages through votes and public polls. And the votes are clearly in favor of the Republicans.

Isn’t global warming caused mostly by cities ? Milions upon millions of people living in such small areas puts out a huge amount of pollution.

The Acid rain in Maine and New Hampshire comes from Pittsburg and Detroit. Ever flown over LA or NYC ?
That dark cloud comes from below, “the city”.

I suggest we get rid of all cities.

The people who live there?

Too bad !

I guess we could use their stem cells to cure diseases and save humanity.

James, your sarcasm is unnecessary. Surely you concede that there are ways of improving the environment without totally obliterating cities.

Hey, if we obliterate all of the cities, wouldn’t the process create pollution as well? Kind of a situation where we get a bunch of pollution up front versus a lot of pollution spread out over the long run. Incidentally, I think we should abolish all rural areas; those damn cows are polluters too, you know.

Someone please explain to me all the issues with arguing whether or not Global Warming has a bad impact on the environment? To me, it sounds like all of the research and delay over the health impact from smoking. I’ve heard such idiotic areguments - ie. “There can’t be global warming because there are part of the ice shelf that are growing.” OK - ice shelves are cyclical - so there will always be ones that grow and ones that shrink. It’s the level to which they grow and shrink - and how far ‘back’ they shrink. Look at the data, and the recently uncovered segments — that pretty much proves the point. Things are starting to get bad, and they will get bad before we can repair things. The longer we continue in this direction, the worse things will get.

My personal concern is the tipping point - when we will pretty much go past the point of no return. Seems kind of like waiting till you have lung cancer before you consider giving up smoking.

Hey now Ant, them’z fightin woords.

Out heire in the cuntree we luv r E.coli

Yes, cities cause pollution, but more than that, our pollution is caused by vehicles and everything else that runs on fossil fuels…if we could put our hard-earned tax dollars into research of fuel economy and alternate energy sources to replace fossil fuels, we could take a dramatic step toward reducing continuing pollution problems. It’s going to be a hard sell to an administration that is lining their pockets with oil money, and has their hands deep into international petroleum interests, but it still is a nice thought that it is possible!

We Americans have to change our mix of energy sources and that means we need to build more nuclear power plants. The U.S. gets only about 12% of its power from nuclear sources. Places like Germany, Japan and the UK get more, and France gets more than 60% of its electric power from nuclear sources.

I have not done the math, but clealy if we replaced almost 50% of our CO2 produced power with non-CO2 nuclear power, we would achieve big reductions. In this case, the French have the right idea and maybe we can learn from them (hard as that is to say)

It is time for Americans to pressure their elected officials to make it easier (even just possible) to build new nuclear power facilities in the U.S.

The U.S. should work to reduce its CO2 output. In the longer run, we will probably be able to lean on renewable sources made possible by better technologies. In the medium and short run, however, nuclear is the only way we can achieve any meaningful reductions.

I just checked. My figures on France were old. France gets 78% of its electricity from Nuclear. America has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s. France, by contrast, has built 58 plants in the same period. Vive la France on this at least. I have to give credit where it is due.

I just checked. My figures on France were old. France gets 78% of its electricity from Nuclear. America has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s. France, by contrast, has built 58 plants in the same period. Vive la France on this at least. I have to give credit where it is due.

You know we’re in trouble when we’re being outpaced by the French!

The French are good at some things besides cheeze and wine.

Jack, and where are the French storing their spent fuel rods? Or, who are they paying to pick them up and make them disappear? Huh? Huh?

Solve the absolutely immense spent fuel threat, and calculate the costs for same into the price tag for nuclear energy; then come back and talk to me about nuclear energy. The world is becoming a hot place to live in, become deformed in, grow ill in, and die in, in a number of ways.

Andre, I was glad this was a short article. If it were much longer, I would not have read it without spaces between the sentences. It may be cool looking for a paragraph. It is damned hard to follow for a number of them.

Good topic though. Do you have a link to the Washington Post article?

“James, your sarcasm is unnecessary. Surely you concede that there are ways of improving the environment without totally obliterating cities”

Think it was necessary Zeek. A topic about the environment that doesn’t talk about the environment but instead is just more anti-Bush drivel and calling Republicans more names.

-Yawn and sigh, again-

Let me get this straight, now the left is saying that nuke plants are good ?

You people need to make up your minds !!!!

All the money that was spent on Yankee 2 and I don’t think it ever even powered up.

Answer this:
Is the earth cooler now than it was 400 years ago ? No? Then why is there evidence that wheat once grew scandinavia, where today that would be impossible.

Why do old viking writings refer to Greenland as Greenland ? It ain’t been green since you or I have been around.

Perhaps we’re a virus and global warming is just there earth’s way of getting rid of us.

Instead of Bush sucks, what are some real suggestions. Not everyone can have a windmill. They only work well under ideal conditions. Can we all have solar homes? Do we need to telecomute Instead of driving ?

Can you believe the democrat answer is to add a 50 cent tax to gasoline ???

Why not dot the entire coastline around the US with elec. windmills for a start, no tax money required, just allow private companys the right to put them up and sell the power back to the state?
Put them offshore a few hundred yards and any tweety birds that fly into them could help feed the fish. A few less sqwaking, crapping on everthing, seagulls wouldn’t be missed by most.
The Kennedys and other yuppies can sail their lil toy boats around them and the extra fishfood might help bring codfish back to under $6 a pound.

Sounds like a win- win to me.

David

We have to choose the most urgent problems to solve first. The spend fuel may be repossessed (the Japanese do that) which will reduce the mass. We are looking into the Yucca Mt site. It is a work in progress, as all science is a work in progress.

Meanwhile, we faced with a problem of too much CO2. I am not sure I agree with all the contentions about global warming, but the consensus of environmentalists seems to be that this is the most pressing problem facing us today. We can work on improving renewables and nuclear power simultaneously, but we can’t currently simultaneously reduce CO2 emission and grow the economy with the technologies we have today without nuclear power.

The Euro cases are not directly applicable to us. Most Europeans will not meet their CO2 goals, so much of their rhetoric is only hot air. The Euro average is helped by the UK (which in the 1990s essentially closed down its obsolete coal industry, as it would have done in any case), Germany (which closed down some of the legacy of communism industries in the East, which should have been done anyway) and E. Europe (also with the dirty communist industries to shut down.) The Euro area also is growing only about half as fast as the U.S. Slower growth means less CO2.

Oh yeah, the Euro average is also helped by France, which increased its share of electricity provided by nuclear power.

James

The European climate was warmer in the high Middle Ages (the medieval warm period) than it is today. The earth’s climate fluctuates with or without human intervention. Ten thousand years ago (not a long time in geological time) most of us would be sitting on or under a mile of ice. At other times the earth was ice-free. I think people are afraid that human activity will add to the volatility

Here’s the ideal situation:
Eastern North Dakota, there was a strong initiative to develop wind energy using windmills. Believe me, ND is a windy place! It would not only help to harness a lot of energy, it would revitalize the ND economy. The initiative died. Why? A strong coal company lobby. Not that they would lose anything by it, mind you. They stood to gain, actually, if they took the time to read the prospectus and invest in the technology. A definite win-win situation they chose to make it a win-lose situation. So everybody lost because of their shortsightedness.
Conservatives in action, once again!

The point of the article Zeke was to point out that Bush policy is not based on science. Not based on humanity and not based on morality. People who support Bush are either easily deceived or have no grasp of what morality is.
If you consider 1,704 U.S. troops deaths, thousands of Iraqi citizens deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to things like education,health care and the environment mispent so that Cheney,Bush and their wealthy friends could profit a bump in the road then you place little value on humanity or morality.
I do appreciate the feed back.

Andre,

Sorry, I thought this was about the enviornment.
Thanks for clearing it up that that this was just a Bush/bash thread.
KcTim caught it right off, but I was fooled, kinda.

I agree 100% with Andre and the original post. I just can’t understand how he fooled so many people into supporting him to get elected TWICE!

Andre,
You posted in the Red column :

“It’s nice to read an article that addresses the issues. We need more info and less partisan rhetoric.
Thanks”

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at June 17, 2005 05:01 PM

I couldn’t have said it better( in any column).

James wrote: “Why do old viking writings refer to Greenland as Greenland ? It ain’t been green since you or I have been around.”

Ummm…if I remember my history correctly, the explorers at the time purposefully misnamed the island ‘Greenland’ in order to fool other explorers into thinking that it was the real find (they wanted ‘Iceland’ for themselves!)

Oh, and if you think about it, keeping the price of oil above a certain level actually makes a good deal of sense. I know it’s counter-intuitive, perhaps, but it actually works based on capitalist forces. Keeping that price above a certain level gives companies encouragement to invest in alternative forms of energy. There’s no reason for them to do so when oil is insanely cheap (compare the cost of gas here to what it is in Europe!).

Any excuse to bash the President.

I’m just glad to see that the understanding that greenhouse gases are definitely having an adverse effect on the planet is becoming officially accepted, in spite of this administration.
As someone who as worked in environmental science for years, I have seen much incontravertable data ignored by politicians over the years. Usually, it’s the republicans because the notion is contrary to the needs of business.
Never, however, has it been so blatant as with this administration. They actually attempted to turn the clock back many years in their statements, and mislead the American people into thinking that this evidence was wrong, all along.
I would like to say that the people responsible for this scam should all pay, but I would rather see our efforts focused on pushing for alternative sources of non-polluting, renewable enery.
Nuclear, in its present form, is not the answer, but it may be after more research into the problems it presents. But there are many other sources. Solar is becoming more efficient and can actually handle a significant portion of personal energy needs.
Whatever the answers are, they need to be found NOW. We won’t know that we are past the point of no return until it is too late. We may already be there.

Andre,

If you consider 1,704 U.S. troops deaths, thousands of Iraqi citizens deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to things like education,health care and the environment mispent so that Cheney,Bush and their wealthy friends could profit a bump in the road then you place little value on humanity or morality.

I think you missed my point… I wasn’t saying Bush and his advisors were doing well or anything to that affect. I was merely pointing out that the belief that you aren’t being represented by Bush is a feeling that many before you have had. Perhaps you were distracted by my dialog, but the main point I was trying to get across is that people will be unhappy with anyone you put in the Whitehouse. Even one of our nation’s most popular presidents, FDR, was not without his critics (quite a few at that).

To be quite blunt, your feelings are not all that special. I’d wager that many Republicans felt exactly the way you do now during the Clinton years. Granted, you have every right to be upset, but you’re making a pretty big deal out of something that isn’t that big of a deal.

Zeek…you must be kidding, or are you drinking a little too much…alzheimer’s maybe? You stated:

That is likely the reason why most of the Democrats underestimate him, and that is why they lost to him, twice.

Washington gets its messages through votes and public polls. And the votes are clearly in favor of the Republicans.

Zeek, get a clue!! Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and was placed in his position by the Supreme Court. He “won” in 2004 by altering the vote and disenfranchising thousands of voters who attempted to vote. (I was in Ohio, working with dozens of people, taking statements on the fraud that took place there…and that’s only in Ohio! Go here to read what happened: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf#search=’what%20went%20wrong%20in%20Ohio’)

Did you forget, or do you still get your news from corporate media sources? If you’re going to debate and/or just play “devil’s advocate”, at least get your story straight!

Secondly, the Bush administration is the ONLY entity in the WORLD WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH THE “GLOBAL WARMING” STUDIES! The only scientists who don’t agree are THOSE WORKING FOR OIL/ENERGY-FUNDED THINK TANKS! BUSH EVEN HAD A SENIOR WH OFFICIAL (EX-OIL LOBBIST) DOCTORING GOVERNMENT REPORTS! (Note: He just resigned in disgrace and got hired by ExxonMobil…no surprise!)http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1502485,00.html One need only do a Google search to find this out! http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html “>http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501659,00.html

Or is everyone else in the world lying because they don’t like Americans? (Rush believes this…tells you alot about dittoheads and their ilk and their way of thinking…)

Hey, howabout a little POPULATION CONTROL???? Maybe we wouldn’t be polluting the world so much if we weren’t breeding like rats.

capnmike,

Hey, howabout a little POPULATION CONTROL????

You have to be kidding me… We have a hard enough time beating the teenagers apart with a stick, and now you want to start dinking around with the adults? That would inherently encourage more abortions and contraceptions which are two highly controversial subjects in America and would therefore impede the passing of any population control law.

Carri,

Zeek, get a clue!! Bush lost the popular vote in 2000

WHO FREAKING CARES?!? GORE ISN’T IN THE WHITEHOUSE IS HE? Sheesh! My point was that Democrats underestimated him and payed for it, and they did. Had they been prepared for a showdown in Florida maybe Gore could have taken it, but seeing as they were oblivious to Bush’s plans they completely got screwed over. Again, they underestimated him.

He “won” in 2004 by altering the vote and disenfranchising thousands of voters who attempted to vote.

Yeah, you’d think the Democrats would have learned to prevent this the SECOND TIME AROUND but I guess Bush just outsmarted them, again.

(I was in Ohio, working with dozens of people, taking statements on the fraud that took place there…and that’s only in Ohio! Go here to read what happened:

I don’t need to read what happened because I know that there were frauds there. I know that in one district more votes for Bush were registered than there were people in the district itself. You know what? I don’t even care. If Kerry’s people were stupid enough to let this happen, then it serves them right for being so naive.

Did you forget, or do you still get your news from corporate media sources? If you’re going to debate and/or just play “devil’s advocate”, at least get your story straight!

You assume that I get my news from corporate media sources when in actuality I don’t. I know the story, I’m just saying it is irrelevant.

Secondly, the Bush administration is the ONLY entity in the WORLD WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH THE “GLOBAL WARMING” STUDIES!

Untrue. The disagreement is about the conclusions of global warming studies. Many argue that no micro/macro experiments on global warming have been done and therefore we cannot assess the dangers of rising CO2 levels accurately.

Or is everyone else in the world lying because they don’t like Americans?

Again, it’s all about interpretation of data. Personally, I would like to see less pollution anyhow, but to say that you know how CO2 is destroying the world is a conclusion that is not concrete.

If you go back and actually research what the experts were saying about global warming then you would here them say we would all be dead before now. The polar ice caps are getting deeper not melting. The mass is the same.It would be less embarassing if you would check in to things before you spout off with diatribe script that has no basis in fact. Think for yourselves and open your mind..YOU JUST MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!

No, actually the polar ice caps are melting… I’m not exactly sure who is telling you the ice caps are getting deeper, or how that would even work, but I would like to see your source if you have one.

It depends on which ice caps you study. And the data can be variously interpreted.

You may have noticed that it rarely snows on very cold days. Cold air can’t hold much moisture. Glaciers require snow to grow and maintain themselves. No matter how cold it is, if there is no snow, you don’t get ice on land. That is why many areas of Antarctica are rock and not snow covered.

If the air gets warmer it snows more. A glacier will grow in this case, as some in Alaska are now doing. There is a magic number for ice and that is 32. If the temperature rises from -20 to 20 (F), it doesn’t matter. But if it rises from 30 to 34 it does. So shrinking ice caps or growing ones could be caused by a variety of factors.

Andre said,

“People who support Bush are either easily deceived or have no grasp of what morality is.”

Jack said,

“It is time for Americans to pressure their elected officials to make it easier (even just possible) to build new nuclear power facilities in the U.S.”

I have been criticized mercilously for making comments relative to Democrats and Liberals which “characterized them all into one group” Andre, as a supporter of Bush I can assure you that I am not easilly deceived and I certainly do have a grasp of what morality is.

Please do not include me in such broad characterizations going forward.

Jack,
I know that your comment is in regard to how well they are doing in France and elsewhere with nuclear power facilities. I agree that we should be doing more in this regard in the US. I have two points to make ;
[1] unless I am mistaken, these facilities create
“disposables” after a period of time. We have
a great deal of difficulty finding places to
store these “disposals/waste” with the
number of nuclear locations we have now,
where will find locations for the increase.

[2] it seems that every time we decide to store
waste somewhere, the entire population within
miles of that area cause a huge stir. Also,
people of all political views who are not
even remotely affected by this, are screaming
at the administration for being at fault.

Note : The same kind of upheaval results from the fact that nuclear materials “fresh and waste” have to be transported. There is always someone (or a group of someones) trying to become famous over that issue as well.

Seems to me that a good place to store the wast from neclear reactors would be the vast wilderness of Alaska. I would even approve of not drilling at Anwar as a tradeoff.

“The people who back this idiot now have to face the facts that they were lied to……..”
Aint it funny how the Dems like to call those they don’t agree with names. But let a Repub say anything about soneone they don’t agree with (specialy Teddy, Hillary, or Billary)then their closed minded bigots.
I’ve got news for youall, ALL POLITICIANS LIE. And most are idiots regardless of party.

It is true that most politicians lie. Clinton lied about having oral sex with an intern.I am merely looking at the cost of the lies told and the fact that Republicans claim this administration is moral.The Republican voters do not hold these people accountable but bury their heads in the sand or defend them.
Clinton lied about oral sex.Cost: 1tsp. of semen and dry cleaning(approx $15.00)
Bush lied about WMDs and Osama and Saddam being in league together. Cost: 1,708 U.S. lives, 100,000 Iraqi lives,Hundreds of billions of dollars some of which went to Kellog Brown and Root(coincidence),Increase in anti-American feelings throughout the world,tortured prisoners,faltering health care and education systems,high fuel prices,distrust for our government by half of the U.S. population( I know that it’s the gay loving,abotionist liberals hell bent on destroying the moral fiber of this great nation), but it’s still half of us. You’re telling me that all lies are equal?

YES I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!