so who's going to be the next US president?

[Rogier]

who do you think... some newspaper published something about Howard Dean...

- who do you think will win
- who would you like to win

[Gene Williams]

Bush, probably by a large margin. When it gets right down to it, most people want a MAN in the White House. I've never seen a more pitiful group of candidates than the Democrats have come up with. I'd vote for Tony Kehoe first:D

[Dex]

Bush has the biggest war-chest ever. Everything Bush now does is designed to win that election.

[Shitoryu Dude]

I'd like to see someone who isn't an extremist running, but so far that hasn't happened.

Bush is most likely going to remain in office for another term.

:beer:

[elder999]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
I've never seen a more pitiful group of candidates than the Democrats have come up with. I'd vote for Tony Kehoe first:D

I have to agree with Gene on this one, and I don't think it's a suprise to anyone when I say that I want the Bush gang out.

I also have to agree with Dex-Mr. Bush's administration has fulfilled every promise it made to every special interest group it courted during the election-and that gets votes even more than his money will, the very thing that kept his father out of a second term.

...maybe not by such a wide margin, though......

Me, I'm gonna start campaigning for Mickey Mouse.

[Senjojutsu]

Me, I'm gonna start campaigning for Mickey Mouse.
Aaron,
Of course there is always Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. - "Democrat".   He has campaigned repeatedly for the office of U.S. President, beginning 1976: six times for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.   He is presently a candidate for that party's nomination for the year 2004, yet I have not seen him in any debate?   Lyndon and Reverend Al trading their thoughts would be great.
:D

I mean LaRouche is over the hill now at eight-two, those jail terms age anyone do they not?

But I always did enjoy those lectures of his, the TV airtime him and his cultists bought the weekend before the November elections. The funny thing is his name still ends up on almost all the state ballots as a candidate.

The Queen of England being an international drug dealer, the need to colonize Mars, his rants over the Trilateral Commission, his verbose rambling of his bizarre economic theories (like some on this board).

It was like a MAD TV or SNL comedy skit, but for real.
:p

[elder999]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
Aaron,
Of course there is always Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. - "Democrat".
p

...or Ross "I got $500 Million" Perot, "Republican/Conservative."
:D

[Shitoryu Dude]

Who's the Libertarian candidate?

[Cady Goldfield]

Bush will be re-elected for lack of a strong Democrat alternative.
I'd like to see a statesman get into office, but there aren't any these days. Only business managers.

Off topic, but I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any truth to this chain e-mail I just got...

SOCIAL SECURITY:
>
>Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
>
>Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
>
>You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
>
>In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
>
>For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
>
>When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
>
>Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.
>
>For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
>
>This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
>
>Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
>
>Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....
>
>This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
>
>"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
>
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid)
>into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our
>employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after
>retirement.
>
>Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000
monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!
>
>Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
>
>That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from
under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.
>
>If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
>
>How many people can YOU send this to?
>
>Keep this going clear up thru the 2004 election!! We need to be heard!
>

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Who's the Libertarian candidate?

Radio-host Gary Nolan (http://www.garynolan.com/index.shtml).

I prefer small "l' libertarians, myself.:rolleyes:

[elder999]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Off topic, but I'd be interested in knowing whether there is any truth to this chain e-mail I just got...

Not exactly.

This is from a report from the Civil Service Retirement System, and the Federal Employees Retirement System(which happens to be one of mine):


Members of Congress have been paying into Social Security (SS) since 1984. Prior to 1984 they were covered under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). They now have both CSRS and SS.
Those elected after January 1, 1984, have SS and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) benefits. Pre-1984 members of Congress can trade their CSRS benefits for FERS.
So, the full list of retirement plan options for members of Congress are:

1. Full coverage under SS and CSRS

2. The “CSRS Offset” plan, which includes both CSRS and SS, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by SS contributions and benefits.

3. FERS plus SS

4. SS alone

“All members pay SS payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the SS taxable wage base of ($84,900 in 2002). Members covered by FERS pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. [Congress kicks in 11% of the Members' salary as its contribution]. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $84,900 of salary and 8.0% of salary above this amount into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

“As of October 1, 2000, 409 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 356 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $52,464. Fifty-three Members had retired either with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $46,932 in 2000.”

Under CSRS, “Members” become legally qualified to receive retirement benefits after five years of service. Depending upon the age of the retiree, the benefits can begin paying immediately or be deferred.
Members aged 60+ with 10 years of service or aged 62 with five years of service are eligible for full and immediate pension.
Members age 55-59 with at least 30 years of service can receive an immediate but reduced pension so long as they did not resign or be removed from office.

An example was given for a Rep. or Senator retiring after Dec., 2002, with 26 years of service (7 under CSRS, 19 under FERS). With an ending “high-3” salary of $138,233, their annual pension would be $72,442 per year.

Social security is another issue, though. I hope you're not planning on collecting.....

[Cady Goldfield]

Thanks, Aaron.

Yeah, I don't put much truck in SS being there to serve me, the tax-paying citizen, when I retire. Though I do give 'em credit for sending me that dandy annual update on my "earnings" and how much I will receive if I should decide to retire at age 62 or at 70. They do a good job pretending there will be something to pay me with. :D

Fortunately, I have TIAA CREF and other reliable sources of retirement income.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Yeah, I just got my little SS report yesterday. Worthless as far as I'm concerned.

:beer:

[Senjojutsu]

The press pundits are saying its Howard Dean will be the nominee "unless"...

What has perplexed me has been the other Democratic candidates' unwillingness to effectively "attack" Dean's policies, beliefs, and positions. Not to mention shall we say "Dean's temperament and arrogant demeanor".

What the Democrats do not need (if they want to win) is another liberal "know it all" Northeast State Governor running in another national election.

Can anyway say - Dukakis vs. Bush '41 in 1988.
Two words, Willie Horton, (weekend prison furloughs for convicted murderers) which then presidential primary candidate Albert Gore III introduced as an issue against Dukakis.

What!? By not bringing up similar examples of Dean's policy issues during the Democratic primaries you think the Bush 2004 team will ignore them in the fall campaign???

Here is a current news story breaking today.   Seems like Howard "Stars and Bars" Dean was quite the unilateral Rambo 'dissing NATO and the UN back in 1995 regarding Bosnia.   Dean has been going around bashing his Democratic (Congressional member) opponents constantly about their Iraq war vote!!!

Now Governor Dean, what exactly was the national security threat the Bosnia Serbs presented to the United States of America during 1995?

=============================================
Howard Dean letter to President Clinton

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-01-14-dean-bosnia_x.htm

Below is the text of Howard Dean's letter to President Clinton on the conflict in Bosnia, dated July 19, 1995.

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:
After long and careful thought, and after several years of watching the gross atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs, I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure.

I think your policy up to this date has been absolutely correct. We must give, and have given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work. It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.

Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action. While I completely agree with you that no ground troops should be committed for other than humanitarian purposes in Bosnia, I would ask that you take the following steps in Bosnia. First, lift the arms embargo as it applies to the Bosnian government. Second, enforce a full embargo of the sort that is now in effect in Iraq on the Bosnian Serbs and upon Yugoslavia. Third, break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia. Fourth, commit American air power to support the Bosnian government until the situation is stabilized and the civilian murders and atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped.

I understand the risks of this policy and their implications for the NATO Alliance and the future success of the United Nations. Surely, however, as you watch and read about the huge amount of unwarranted human suffering, particularly of children, you would agree that our current course must now be changed.

I urge you to make these changes as soon as possible, and I look forward to supporting your policy fully to the best of my ability.

Sincerely,
Howard Dean, M.D.
Governor

[Tamdhu]

Yeah, but...but...Dean hates Bush! Isn't that enough?

; )

[TenguAteMyPuppy]

Radio-host Gary Nolan.

Saw him in a televised debate with another LP candidate (I think the other guy was a Constitutional law professor. Don't remember his name). Great guy. Not a chance in hell of winning.

Libertarians would be doing themselves a favor by voting for Kucinich or Dean (or possibly even Clark). Any of these three would be a far cry better than Bush.

Trust me, your civil liberties are a lot more important than how much the government spends on a bunch of lame welfare checks. There won't be an LP at all if we just sit back and hope the Republicans stop destroying big chunks of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Plus, Bush hasn't exactly been "LP-friendly" on economic issues either. It's lose-lose for you guys, as far as that area is concerned.

[Exorcist_Fist]

If the economy gets better bush will win... If not, many of his more retarded actions will come home to roost.

If the demos find any suitable candidate though.

[Chrono]

Second day in Political Science class and we were discussing this. The professor started going around the room and asking us if we knew who was running. I swear, I was very close to saying, "Isn't there a porn star running in it?"

Jon

[hyaku]

Originally posted by Rogier
who do you think... - who do you think will win- who would you like to win

A Martian.

Hyakutake Colin

[kenshorin]

I would prefer to vote for our own Aaron Cuffee, because while I may not agree with everything he says, I have a higher respect for his political intelligence more than I do for any of these knuckleheads running. So Aaron, when are you throwing your cap into this race? ;)

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu

What has perplexed me has been the other Democratic candidates' unwillingness to effectively "attack" Dean's policies, beliefs, and positions. Not to mention shall we say "Dean's temperament and arrogant demeanor".

Actually, they've pretty much been doing nothing but that. That's part of their problem... just attacking the front-runner isn't going to win you a primary.


What the Democrats do not need (if they want to win) is another liberal "know it all" Northeast State Governor running in another national election.

One of the most interesting things around this election so far has been the portrayal of Howard Dean as a liberal. He's actually far closer to the center than most of the other candidates, with the possible exception of Lieberman. The NRA gives him an "A" for his views on gun control, he supports the death penalty, and he's a fiscal conservative who managed to balance Vermont's budget. The idea that he's "liberal" seems to extend entirely from his views on Iraq, another wonderful example of how the news media can take a story and run with it to the point of distorting the truth.


Here is a current news story breaking today.   Seems like Howard "Stars and Bars" Dean was quite the unilateral Rambo 'dissing NATO and the UN back in 1995 regarding Bosnia.   Dean has been going around bashing his Democratic (Congressional member) opponents constantly about their Iraq war vote!!!

Now Governor Dean, what exactly was the national security threat the Bosnia Serbs presented to the United States of America during 1995?

=============================================
Howard Dean letter to President Clinton

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-01-14-dean-bosnia_x.htm

Below is the text of Howard Dean's letter to President Clinton on the conflict in Bosnia, dated July 19, 1995.

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:
After long and careful thought, and after several years of watching the gross atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs, I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure.

I think your policy up to this date has been absolutely correct. We must give, and have given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work. It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.

Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action. While I completely agree with you that no ground troops should be committed for other than humanitarian purposes in Bosnia, I would ask that you take the following steps in Bosnia. First, lift the arms embargo as it applies to the Bosnian government. Second, enforce a full embargo of the sort that is now in effect in Iraq on the Bosnian Serbs and upon Yugoslavia. Third, break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia. Fourth, commit American air power to support the Bosnian government until the situation is stabilized and the civilian murders and atrocities by the Bosnian Serbs have been stopped.

I understand the risks of this policy and their implications for the NATO Alliance and the future success of the United Nations. Surely, however, as you watch and read about the huge amount of unwarranted human suffering, particularly of children, you would agree that our current course must now be changed.

I urge you to make these changes as soon as possible, and I look forward to supporting your policy fully to the best of my ability.

Sincerely,
Howard Dean, M.D.
Governor
There are actually a host of reasons why Bosnia was different from Iraq, the main one being that Clinton really had tried to form an international consensus, and options were up. Bush doesn't really have any respect for international institutions, and despite the lip service to the U.N., it shows. I supported taking action in Bosnia but not Iraq for precisely that reason; in Bosnia, I really felt all options had been tried and failed. With Bush on Iraq, it seemed like he decided that he was going to invade, and everything else was pretty much an afterthought. (I should note I'm in no way a pacifist; I was not against attacking Iraq per se, and in fact think it will in hindsight probably be viewed as more good than bad, but I still think Bush went around it the utterly wrong way, and should've really focused on Al Qaeda before moving on to Iraq.) At any rate, there's a large difference between supporting unilateralism as a final measure, and supporting unilateralism as a standard policy.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by hyaku
A Martian.
Yes; me. Although not born in the USA, my popularity will ensure that congress passes a change in the law enabling me to run. Overwhelmed by my brilliance, all other candidates will recuse themselves, leavingthe field uncontested, as they all unite behind me. My policies will include free beer for all, and all cabinet posts will be offered to certain select members of e-budo. I shall bring universal peace and brotherly love (orgies to be held every Tuesday and Friday night), and align the stars.
Vote for Tony Kehoe, for universal peace! :cool:

[Rogier]

so what's this stuff with Bush putting down 1 billion dollar for the new space program? Is this a election stunt?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Rogier
so what's this stuff with Bush putting down 1 billion dollar for the new space program? Is this a election stunt?
Of course.
Addition to MY manifesto: We're gonna send George W. Bush into outer space! :D

[elder999]

Originally posted by kenshorin
I would prefer to vote for our own Aaron Cuffee, because while I may not agree with everything he says, I have a higher respect for his political intelligence more than I do for any of these knuckleheads running. So Aaron, when are you throwing your cap into this race? ;)

That's very flattering, but I can assure you that I'm virtually un-electable, and I would fear for my life should I be elected, and I have no interest at all in the presidency-I'm of the opinion that the best man for the job is probably the one they have to drag into the White House kicking and screaming-and my platform would have at least one thing to piss each and every voter off, anyway.

[Starkjudo]

Aaron, we finally agree again on at least one thing - no one who wants the White House should ever get it.

But if I had to choose a democrat, i'd choose Lieberman. He's the only one i've seen with any real class, and he's stuck to his story the entire time. I don't agree with all his politics, but he seems (at least as much as any politician is capable) honest.

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by kenshorin
I would prefer to vote for our own Aaron Cuffee, because while I may not agree with everything he says, I have a higher respect for his political intelligence more than I do for any of these knuckleheads running. So Aaron, when are you throwing your cap into this race? ;)

At least we'd be able to count on him to give a sound spanking to anyone who shows up nekkid at a White House party.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
At least we'd be able to count on him to give a sound spanking to anyone wh shows up nekkid at a White House party.

And that's just the very least of why I'm virtually un-electabe;you should see some of the things I did in college.:eek:

[Senjojutsu]

Some breaking political news - DAMN - this changes everything.

Now there are only eight candidates left!!!

FORT DODGE, Iowa 01/15/2004
Carol Moseley Braun plans to end her White House bid Thursday, leaving an all-male field for the presidency and giving her support to Democratic front-runner Howard Dean.   Braun was to officially endorse the former Vermont governor Thursday afternoon during an appearance at Carroll High School in Carroll, Iowa, said Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040115/ap_on_el_pr/braun_13
======================================

[elder999]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
Some breaking political news - DAMN - this changes everything.

Now there are only eight candidates left!!!

There are only three candidates-I don't know what you'd call the other five guys......potential vice-presidential candidates?
Prospective also-rans?

[Senjojutsu]

There are only three candidates-I don't know what you'd call the other five guys......potential vice-presidential candidates?
Aaron,
How can you be so judgmental?   :p
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time it must be remembered not a single vote has been yet cast!   It's like determining preseason ranking polls in College Football during August!

I myself think it is just plain stupid that Iowa and New Hampshire voters are given such a premium in determining the next president.

My ideal primary system would have only seven primary elections dates spaced two-three weeks apart.

Each designated presidential primary date would have at least seven states included.

All the states would be dynamically sequenced via a November lottery held three years before the next general presidential election.

The lottery would be similar to the NBA draft, where the states would have more chances in the bin based on where each state was sequenced in the previous primary election season. Those who had been scheduled later in the previous cycle would be given more chances.

Is it flawed, well yes, it would suck if California, New York, and Texas ended up in the first primary date a few seasons in a row.

But how flawed is walking through Iowa cornfields every four years!!!

[Starkjudo]

Which three are you counting? Dean, Sharpton and Kerry?

[elder999]

Originally posted by Starkjudo
Which three are you counting? Dean, Sharpton and Kerry?

You actually think I would call Sharpton a "candidate," just because he's conducted himself with unprecedented maturity and wit?Or is it because of the polls?

I was counting Dean, Clark and Lieberman. The rest-whatever value they might offer to the job, or not are probably not going to do as well in the primaries, or win the support of much of the Democrat party, with the possible exception of Gephart getting more support from labor unions in the midwest.....

Kerry's doing a half-a$$ed job, partly because his heart is no longer quite in it; his time to be president was done when Clinton got the nomination. I think he's also probably afraid of too much more probing into his revelations about Viet Nam.....

Sharpton's won support from the people he expects to get support from, and, while he's gotten points for his conduct in the debates,that's all he's going to get.Two words make him completely untouchable, even as a dark-horse vice presidential candidate: "Tawana Brawley." :mad:

Dennis Kucinich: madman.:eek: Dark-horse for V.P., though.

Edwards: Too young, but being from the south and young makes him a possible running mate.

If nothing changes between now and the primaries-no new dirt on Dean, no drafting of Hillary Clinton or Gore-look for either Dean-Clark or Dean-Gephart. Lieberman's got to much antipathy towards Dean, and vice-versa, and the geography is just wrong.

Not that any of it matters.:rolleyes:

[Gene Williams]

Bush is the best man for the White House right now. I am a Republican who does not like the "Big Government" Republicanism of Bush, but he is the only person in this race with the balls to do what has to be done national security wise. I don't quite understand why hating Bush is a cottage industry among many democrats...sour grapes mostly. But take a look at who they have come up with...Dean who is a buffoon; Gephardt, who looks like a lab rat and can't open his mouth without whining; Kerry, completely self absorbed; Edwards, pretty boy and Clinton "lite;" and Lieberman, whom I could possibly vote for but who hasn't got a chance. The one man with the sense and ability to do the job, the dems won't elect. Sheesh!

[Starkjudo]

Originally posted by elder999

I was counting Dean, Clark and Lieberman.

My bad. I forgot Clark completely, and didn't think you'd have Lieberman as high - although for my buck, he's the sole voice of sanity in the Dem. party.

[Cady Goldfield]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
[snip]and Lieberman, whom I could possibly vote for but who hasn't got a chance. The one man with the sense and ability to do the job, the dems won't elect. Sheesh!

Well, we have to be realistic. It will be a long time - if ever - before a Jew gets elected president in this country. That Kerry and Clark both have half-Jewish ethnic ancestry doesn't help them either, even if they were of presidential material.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Personally, I think it will be even longer before you get an atheist or agnostic elected. This whole preoccupation with candidates and their faith is stupid. I'd like to see it be an issue in the reverse - candidates showing that they are capable of rational thought by disavowing any religious fervor.

:beer:

[elder999]

Originally posted by Starkjudo
My bad. I forgot Clark completely, and didn't think you'd have Lieberman as high - although for my buck, he's the sole voice of sanity in the Dem. party.

Me too; I think Dean is even more pathological than Bush.

originally posted by Gene WIlliams
Bush is the best man for the White House right now. I am a Republican who does not like the "Big Government" Republicanism of Bush, but he is the only person in this race with the balls to do what has to be done national security wise.

That isn't necessarily true, and much of what he's done and is doing-the things I truly hate-have nothing whatsoever to do with "national security," and if you think they do, well, like the rest of this country,you're gonna get the government that you deserve.:rolleyes:

originally posted by Cady Goldfield, who rocks!;) Well, we have to be realistic. It will be a long time - if ever - before a Jew gets elected president in this country. That Kerry and Clark both have half-Jewish ethnic ancestry doesn't help them either, even if they were of presidential material

Or a black one...especially not Al Sharpton.

[Starkjudo]

Originally posted by elder999
Or a black one...especially not Al Sharpton.

It depends on the candidate. Colin Powell might could have done it, but his best shot was in 2000. Unless he forges a lasting peace between Israel and the PLO and convinces Kim Jong Il to step down, as well as single-handedly capturing osama, i'd say his name recognition has fallen.

[Senjojutsu]

Yes he is NOT a presidential candidate this year (yet), but I still have to include this Al Gore story - and "Shrub" was the dumb one in the 2000 election, right?

So per Gore, in Bush's brief 36-month tenure in office has created climatic changes on a global scale - at this rate soon Bush will possess more power than Kimpatsu!  :eek:
=================================================

GORE TO WARN OF 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADES!

In what political watchers are calling possibly the biggest gaffe in years, former Vice President Al Gore is set to give a speech tomorrow on the perils of global warming -- on what is expected to be the coldest day in New England in nearly half a century!

Against the advice of senior advisers, Gore is planning to appear at the historic Beacon Theatre in Manhattan on Thursday to issue an indictment of the Bush administration's "inaction on global warming."

Gore will make the warming case on a day forecasters are predicting the coldest temps in Boston since 1957, with wind chills in parts of New England plunging to 100 degrees below zero!

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Sources would not say whether the speech is to be given outdoors.

Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/agwarm.htm
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 14, 2004 19:39:09 ET XXXXX

[Cady Goldfield]

heh heh.
But John, climatologists point out that extreme temperatures and weather - including atypically *cold* weather - is part of the global warming. For perhaps decades, the shift will be composed of erratic weather, including cold snaps, snow, hurricanes/gales, drought and other extremes.

It's not the immediate forecast that indicates the shift; you have to step back and look at a trend over a stretch of time. The tundra and polar icecaps are still melting.

[Robinson]

Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
heh heh.
But John, climatologists point out that extreme temperatures and weather - including atypically *cold* weather - is part of the global warming. For perhaps decades, the shift will be composed of erratic weather, including cold snaps, snow, hurricanes/gales, drought and other extremes.

It's not the immediate forecast that indicates the shift; you have to step back and look at a trend over a stretch of time. The tundra and polar icecaps are still melting.

Cady, you are completely correct. Basically energy from the sun passes through the atmosphere as shortwave radiation. This energy is radiated back from the earth as long wave radiation which is better absorbed by the atmosphere. Adding gases like methane and CO2 increase the absorption of this radiation, increasing the amount of enegy in the climate system. This increased energy can and does manifest as an overall warming and in increased storm activity. You need look no further than the most recent hurricane season to see the effect on damaging weather events.

The evidence for the warming is irrefutable. Questions remain as to how the warming will affect local climates, as well as how much of the warming is anthropogenic. There is no question as to whether there is an anthropogenic effect, merely has it aggrevated a natural warming or has it in fact reversed what would otherwise be an interglacial cooling.

[Senjojutsu]

There are actually a host of reasons why Bosnia was different from Iraq, the main one being that Clinton really had tried to form an international consensus, and options were up. Bush doesn't really have any respect for international institutions, and despite the lip service to the U.N., it shows. I supported taking action in Bosnia but not Iraq for precisely that reason; in Bosnia, I really felt all options had been tried and failed. With Bush on Iraq, it seemed like he decided that he was going to invade, and everything else was pretty much an afterthought.
Ben,
Didn't Bush try to form an international consensus for months? Trying diplomacy to make U.N. Iraq resolutions (plural) actually mean something? But the appeasers and money-firsters prevented the "international community" from acting decisively. You know, "the usual suspects"; The French, Germans, and Russians.

So I guess Wesley Clark ain't going to get your primary vote? Today's headlines.
By the way General Clark - are not U.S. troops still deployed in Bosnia, YEARS later? But at least we got the troops out of Haiti !:
=============================================================

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2004 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War. "I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26.   "I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.   "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

END
------------

[Vapour]

.

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
Ben,
Didn't Bush try to form an international consensus for months? Trying diplomacy to make U.N. Iraq resolutions (plural) actually mean something? But the appeasers and money-firsters prevented the "international community" from acting decisively. You know, "the usual suspects"; The French, Germans, and Russians.

He didn't try to build consensus so much as tell people what he was going to do, and that they could be with him or against him. And the Germans aren't "the usual suspects". The French and the Russians, admittedly, are. I'm not saying we wouldn't have had to go it alone anyway, but I would've preferred we make a real effort at diplomacy, first. We ended up losing a lot of goodwill.


So I guess Wesley Clark ain't going to get your primary vote? Today's headlines.
By the way General Clark - are not U.S. troops still deployed in Bosnia, YEARS later? But at least we got the troops out of Haiti !:


Ah yes, the Drudge report. Unfortunately, parts of what Drudge wrote were stuff Clark said taken waaaay out of context, and part of it Drudge actually made up (sadly, I'm not joking).

From Knight-Ridder:

Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and added sentences that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment.


If you're interested, you can read the actual transcript of what Clark said (in PDF format)
here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf).
Clarke was arguing the con side, while Richard Perle was taking the pro-invasion stance.

The Drudge report is a bit infamous for its, shall we say, liberal interpretation of quotes. And I don't mean in the political sense. As for who's going to get my vote, I haven't decided yet. None of them appeal to me as much as I'd like. Ah well.

[Senjojutsu]

Cady and Richard,

Yes but in the story I mentioned above - Al Gore and your global warming position is falling prey to the "Sally Struthers Syndrome" - which can be defined as:

"No matter the validity of your argument; the amount of ridicule and satire is inversely proportional to the amount of bad timing of your presentations or the quality of your leading advocate".

To e-Budo international readers, Sally Struthers was a marginal American TV star from the '70's who then went on to a career being a spokeswoman on weepy, heart-tugging TV ads to help relieve starvation and hunger in Africa, especially for the African children.

Not that famine and malnutrition in Africa are amusing or bogus topics - but you see readers - the years of caloric overindulgence with Ms. Struthers were not kind.   To be blunt - Sally had swelled up like a blimp!

This led to multiple parodies by stand-up comics and satiric commentators; "Like Sally, put down the dozen cupcakes - your daily afternoon snack - and send them to Ethiopia for your hunger cause."
;)

[Cady Goldfield]

Yeah, point taken and duly appreciated. I got it when I read the article for the first time. :)

Speaking of Ms. Struthers, "South Park" has done a couple of episodes that mercilessly send her up, depicting her as a "Jabba the Hut" gluttonous creature. I almost pee'd my shorts laughing.

[Mitch Saret]

Just wanted to touch on this for a moment


Originally posted by Robinson

The evidence for the warming is irrefutable.

What evidence? Just as many reputable scientists, including ones at NASA, disprove global warming. One theory is CO2. Well maybe we should all stop exhaling! Evidence on both sides is anecdotal at best. If there was any concrete proof there would not be an argument.

My main contention is this, we maybe have 200 - 250 years of remotely accurate weather data. That is a fraction of a fraction of a minute percantage of the weather this planet has experienced. Could this not be a cycle that is natural?

Back in high school I remember all over the news there were scientists claiming we were on the verge of another ice age, now our polar ice caps are melting beyond repair. It merely proves that global warming is a political cause, nothing more.

A natural cycle has my vote.

[Kimpatsu]

Mitch,
Which scientists at NASA have "disproved global warming"?
Even leaving aside Michael Shermer's observation that global warming is now a political, not a scientific, issue, the ozone hole, etc. is clearly a new, post-industrialisation phenomenon, which can be proved using ice cores drilled rfom Antarctica. Note also that NASA scientists are government scientists, and as I wrote earlier, once you take the government's shilling, there is incridible pressure to toe the government line, and produce partisan results, rather than the truth.
Would your support for a "natural cycle" be because you don't want to modify your lifestyle?

[Mitch Saret]

Tony,

Specific names, I could not give you. But scientists that are paid from both sides spew the position which that particular group wants them too. The reports are interpreted countless ways. As I said, if therewere definite proof there would be no debate.

I support my theory of a natural cycle because I don't think we, as humans, can effect the planet that gravely.

Remember Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines? When it ereupted there was a ring af debris surrounding the planet. It was shown on all the weather radars. We were told that it would be years before it all would diddipate and things would get back to normal. The weather effects were to be severe and far reaching, you name it. As I recall, we didn't experience any effects here in Illinois, and after just a couple of months there was no trace it had ever erupted. The planet cleaned itself.

Now, I am not one for outright pollution, and I think oil spills are terrible, but have you seen how they are cleaned through natural cycles? Now granted, an oil spill needs to be contained and taken care of ASAP, but there was a case near Atlanta,GA I believe. This natural pond, full of industrial waste and so forth, after dumping just stopped because of the plant closing, in just 2 years was pure as can be, with water life and vegetation, and all sorts of things. And all that was done was the pollution was stopped.

All the talk about the hole in the ozone layer and so forth. That has been shown to be cyclical. The hole has always been, and will always be there. It's size has constantly been changing. For us not to have an ozone layer only one event would have to take place. The sun would have to extinguish. The sun creates ozone. I don't think we can compete with that, or have the capability to put out the sun. So, maybe global warming will help replenish the ozone...one bad effect gives way to a good effect...confusing, ain't it?

Again, I just don't think humans are as powerful as we would need to be to affect the planet in that way. Just one man's opinion. And, BTW,if a lifestyle change would guarantee a difference, I would be all for it. I just don't see any proof that it would.

[Dex]

That's funny, really.

Perhaps you would explain why (along with the rest of the world) the US banned the manufacture and use of CFCs in 1979 then?

As to your cycle argument...if you do a google search you will easily find that current pollution levels are destroying the validity of those cycle models.

[cdwright]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
Bush is the best man for the White House right now. I am a Republican who does not like the "Big Government" Republicanism of Bush, but he is the only person in this race with the balls to do what has to be done national security wise. I don't quite understand why hating Bush is a cottage industry among many democrats...sour grapes mostly. But take a look at who they have come up with...Dean who is a buffoon; Gephardt, who looks like a lab rat and can't open his mouth without whining; Kerry, completely self absorbed; Edwards, pretty boy and Clinton "lite;" and Lieberman, whom I could possibly vote for but who hasn't got a chance. The one man with the sense and ability to do the job, the dems won't elect. Sheesh!

You are funny guy Gene. I would like to know what Bush has done for natonal security besides tell us to buy duct tape and plastic wrap. Don't tell me capturing Saddam has made us safer, I mean, what was he going to do from that spider hole?
It is a shame I have to go to British news papers to find out Halliburton/KBR was cleared of overcharging the government 100 million. I know there is a Pentagon invesigation, but hell Mars exploration is in the news, why cover things that matter now?

I am just curious why this administration stonewalls every invesigation. Like Ashcroft has said, "If you have nothing to hide...."

I used to be a Repub, but after watching what the party did to John McCain, they just ticked me off. Now I think they are the biggest bunch of hypocrites............

Oh, please do not reply with Clinton did.........I know about Clinton, I read. I am just curious how long GW is going to be in the White House before he is responsible for something?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Specific names, I could not give you. But scientists that are paid from both sides spew the position which that particular group wants them too. The reports are interpreted countless ways. As I said, if therewere definite proof there would be no debate.

I support my theory of a natural cycle because I don't think we, as humans, can effect the planet that gravely.
That's blue sky thinking for you. We ARE affecting the planet; the ozone hole due to CFCs is one example.
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Remember Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines? When it ereupted there was a ring af debris surrounding the planet. It was shown on all the weather radars. We were told that it would be years before it all would diddipate and things would get back to normal. The weather effects were to be severe and far reaching, you name it. As I recall, we didn't experience any effects here in Illinois, and after just a couple of months there was no trace it had ever erupted. The planet cleaned itself.
A similar eruption (but more massive) 74 thousand years ago nearly wiped out all the humans on the planet. But we don't need to go aiding the process.
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Now, I am not one for outright pollution, and I think oil spills are terrible, but have you seen how they are cleaned through natural cycles? Now granted, an oil spill needs to be contained and taken care of ASAP, but there was a case near Atlanta,GA I believe. This natural pond, full of industrial waste and so forth, after dumping just stopped because of the plant closing, in just 2 years was pure as can be, with water life and vegetation, and all sorts of things. And all that was done was the pollution was stopped.
All the talk about the hole in the ozone layer and so forth. That has been shown to be cyclical. The hole has always been, and will always be there. It's size has constantly been changing. For us not to have an ozone layer only one event would have to take place. The sun would have to extinguish. The sun creates ozone. I don't think we can compete with that, or have the capability to put out the sun. So, maybe global warming will help replenish the ozone...one bad effect gives way to a good effect...confusing, ain't it?
Global warming won't replenish the ozone hole.
Droughts in Africa and increased precipitation in the temperate zones are two effects of global warming we can witness now. Africanized bees, Lassa fever, and scorpions are moving further northwards because as the temperature rises, they can survive in more northerly climes. These are effects of man-made global warming that can be seen now.
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Again, I just don't think humans are as powerful as we would need to be to affect the planet in that way. Just one man's opinion. And, BTW,if a lifestyle change would guarantee a difference, I would be all for it. I just don't see any proof that it would.
Then you're looking in the wrong place. Lifestyle changes would definitely help, but they would have to be made by everyone to have an effect. A switch from oil to renewable energy sources would be a start, but the oil barons in the White House would never allow it. Depressing, isn't it?

[Mitch Saret]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

That's blue sky thinking for you. We ARE affecting the planet; the ozone hole due to CFCs is one example.

CFC's were banned because of political pressure. The reports I have seen show the ozone hole has always been there, and has been going up and down in size forever. Besides, if CFC's are the cause, why is the hole over Antarctica, where there are no CFC's?


Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Then you're looking in the wrong place. Lifestyle changes would definitely help, but they would have to be made by everyone to have an effect. A switch from oil to renewable energy sources would be a start, but the oil barons in the White House would never allow it. Depressing, isn't it?

Neither do the oil barons anywhere else around the world. Right now alternative fuel sources are not economically feasible, either for the manufacturer's or the consumers. The best bet so far is the hybrid, but I can't afford that right now. They are getting better, but it takes some time. Lifestyle changes by all may help, but again, it's all speculation.

I re-iterate, if there was absolute proof one way or another, there would be no debate. I find it interesting, Tony, that you are the one who is espousing a party line. Weather is an inexact science at best, it's hard to accurately forecast next week as opposed to the next decade. Show me proof positive and I will get rid of my car today. I don't think you can.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
CFC's were banned because of political pressure. The reports I have seen show the ozone hole has always been there, and has been going up and down in size forever. Besides, if CFC's are the cause, why is the hole over Antarctica, where there are no CFC's?
Any such hole would be inevitably over the poles. And why do you think the hole's been there forever?
Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Neither do the oil barons anywhere else around the world. Right now alternative fuel sources are not economically feasible, either for the manufacturer's or the consumers. The best bet so far is the hybrid, but I can't afford that right now. They are getting better, but it takes some time. Lifestyle changes by all may help, but again, it's all speculation.
Better to be safe than sorry. As for clean energy not being economically viable, that's because no money is put into its development; again, that's the oil barons at work.

I reOriginally posted by Mitch Saret
iterate, if there was absolute proof one way or another, there would be no debate. I find it interesting, Tony, that you are the one who is espousing a party line. Weather is an inexact science at best, it's hard to accurately forecast next week as opposed to the next decade. Show me proof positive and I will get rid of my car today. I don't think you can.
There is evidence. (Note: Proof is for maths and alcohol.) Ignoring it, however, is the easiest thing to do, which is why this planet is going down the toilet.

[Senjojutsu]

Well getting back from thread drift…   the US presidential primary election has warmed up.

The two big winners per the Tuesday morning pundits:  John Kerry and John Edwards
Note: Presidential candidates Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark chose not to participate in Iowa

Kerry Wins Iowa Caucuses

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040120/D806AMI02.html
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - John Kerry and John Edwards rode 11th-hour surges to a one-two finish in Iowa's kickoff presidential caucuses Monday, dealing a stunning blow to favorite Howard Dean. Kerry's comeback blew the nomination fight wide open, setting the stage for a free-for-all in New Hampshire's follow-up primary.

The two losers last night were Dick Gephart and Doctor Howard Dean, please see my next post about the good doctor!

Gephardt to End Presidential Campaign

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040120/D806DF582.html
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Dick Gephardt is conceding the Democratic presidential nomination to one of his rivals, acknowledging after a disappointing fourth-place finish in Iowa that "this didn't come out the way we wanted

Aides said Gephardt was returning home to St. Louis and would formally withdraw at midday Tuesday.

[Senjojutsu]

You guys have to listen to the Dean concession speech clip!

http://www.drudgereport.com/dean.mp3

I guess that is Dean's war cry!!
Maybe the anger management course did not work.   Try to watch it on TV today.

"...Stinging from his third place finish in Iowa that robbed him of his frontrunner status, Governor Howard Dean tonight gave a red faced concession speech in which he vowed to go all over the country fighting to defeat George Bush. He named the states in which he said his campaign would fight, and as he rolled out the names of the states became red, his gestures sharp and angry."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20040120/ap_on_el_pr/dean_7&printer=1
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa - Howard Dean finished his Iowa campaign Monday night the way he began — impassioned and defiant of his Washington rivals.

[cdwright]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
You guys have to listen to the Dean concession speech clip!

http://www.drudgereport.com/dean.mp3

I guess that is Dean's war cry!!
Maybe the anger management course did not work.   Try to watch it on TV today.

"...Stinging from his third place finish in Iowa that robbed him of his frontrunner status, Governor Howard Dean tonight gave a red faced concession speech in which he vowed to go all over the country fighting to defeat George Bush. He named the states in which he said his campaign would fight, and as he rolled out the names of the states became red, his gestures sharp and angry."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=694&u=/ap/20040120/ap_on_el_pr/dean_7&printer=1
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa - Howard Dean finished his Iowa campaign Monday night the way he began — impassioned and defiant of his Washington rivals.

Oh, something from the Drudge Report? A great unbiased news source. :rolleyes:

The only thing that could have made your post better was to throw in pieces from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. :rolleyes:

[Senjojutsu]

Oh, something from the Drudge Report? A great unbiased news source. The only thing that could have made your post better was to throw in pieces from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
Huh?
The speech is Dean's speech, his OWN WORDS.
Listen or watch the concession speech on CNN if that helps your hearing.

Bias...???
You mean I should only quote CBS, BBC or the vaunted journalistic integrity of the New York Times - oh wait...   maybe a Jason Blair byline would meet your news standards.
:rolleyes:

This "speech" should be the prominently repeated on tonight's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central if that's your speed.

By the way - wasn't it Drudge who six years ago this month broke a story about some White House intern?
:D

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu

This "speech" should be the prominently repeated on tonight's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central if that's your speed.

Sadly, that actually is some of the best, unbiased commentary in the country today.


By the way - wasn't it Drudge who six years ago this month broke a story about some White House intern?
:D
Could be, but as I said above, he's also known for taking quotes and using them out of context, (the Clark example being the most blatant and obvious one, at least as of late) so I don't much trust his reporting. This particular report may well turn out to be true, but I prefer to hear it from a more reliable source.

The NYT is still one of the better sources out there, although the Jason Blair thing was pretty bad. The Wall Street Journal does a pretty good reporting job, too, although their editorial page is far too right-wing for my taste. No news source is perfect, of course, and things should always be taken with a grain of salt (and it never hurts to check multiple sources, too), but some sources are definitely better than others.

[Robinson]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
.

I re-iterate, if there was absolute proof one way or another, there would be no debate. I find it interesting, Tony, that you are the one who is espousing a party line. Weather is an inexact science at best, it's hard to accurately forecast next week as opposed to the next decade. Show me proof positive and I will get rid of my car today. I don't think you can.

Say good bye to your car.....

Does your car put out CO2? Yes
Does CO2 absorb long wave radiation in the atmosphere? Yes
Is there evidence of warmer climates associated with high CO2? Yes
Is there let forested land as a sink for CO2? Yes
Are fossil fuels being burned removing another sink for CO2? Yes
Does this prove there will be an man made effect? Yes


Do you need more proof? Find any plot of global temperature over the last 150 yrs and you will an upward trend.

[Senjojutsu]

Sadly, that actually is some of the best, unbiased commentary in the country today.
Hello Ben, we're in agreement on that one!
Jon Stewart, Lewis Black and TDS crew savage everyone pretty much equally.
:D

...and on the news/comic horizon:
Dennis Miller is in the NBC studios in Burbank, California.
On January 26th he will start as host of a new evening talk show on CNBC. This may be interesting if his show lasts.

My main beef is in the past few years the Internet, and the newer Cable News shows have presented the news and political junkies with some good/some bad options.   Also has been the steady blurring between entertainment and the news business - why does a presidential candidate have to go on Oprah?

We are no longer captives to the media elite and their own biases, be it the NYT, Comrade Dan, etc. for our daily news bread. This makes some people very unhappy.

I guarantee anyone on e-Budo the "respectable American mainstream press" by this weekend will be running stories about Howard Dean and his temperament (again).   Oh it may be couched in serious terms as of   "is anger electable in November"   but it is will be days after Drudge, Jon Stewart, soon Dennis Miller have covered the subject matter...

[Jack B]

Characterizing the Dean rally speech as "red faced ... sharp and angry" is pretty blatantly shilling in the campaign by the Democratic establishment to bring him down at all costs. Dean is popular as a protest vote, but the Iowans said as they started to believe that Bush could actually be defeated, they switched to Kerry and Edwards.

What happened in Iowa is that Gephart expended his campaign capital with mudslinging at Dean, who responded ("angrily" ... ooh!) with the result that both combatants turned off voters, and the bystanders profited. Clark and Lieberman ignored Iowa (which is a Republican state anyway), so it's still a 5-man race.

Maybe angry will sell, in a world of Michael Savage and the host of muckraking demagogues. Rush Limbaugh started the flow of hate with his incessant ad hominem attacks on our then President Clinton, and the campaign to make "liberal" a pejorative, and the political debate is only adjusting to that level.

RE Kerry using the F word in Rolling Stone, check out Churchill's Parrot. And the unexpurgated Watergate tapes. Don't think it will hurt him.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu
We are no longer captives to the media elite and their own biases, be it the NYT, Comrade Dan, etc. for our daily news bread. This makes some people very unhappy.
This is such bogus nonsense. There is no "liberal media"; Fox News is owned by a rabid rightwinger. What the right really mean when they call the BBC, et. al., "left wing" is that these TV stations have the integrity to challenge the absurdities of conservative orthodoxy. Can't you find a new scapgoat to blame?

[Shitoryu Dude]

"rabid"? Please - don't let your PC socialist leanings color your statements. ;)

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
"rabid"? Please - don't let your PC socialist leanings color your statements. ;)

Remember this little thread? (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22612&highlight=liberal+media)

Ever wonder why it was so short?

Fact is, the media-especially when it comes to television in the U.S., are mostly oned by corporations with historically conservative leanings. GE in the case of NBC, Disney in the case of ABC, Viacom in the case of CBS and, of course, Rupert Murdoch in the case of Fox.

If you think any of these particular media organs is neutral, or even permitted to be, well, you probably believe the O'reilly Factor is a "no-spin zone.":rolleyes:

It's also equally clear that there are various publications that have a decided political bias-read about one event in "Soldier of Fortune," and it's hardly going to seem like the seame one in "The Progressive," or even "The Economist."

[Shitoryu Dude]

They all tend to be slanted one way or another - but the Big 3 have been left leaning since at least the '60s. Hell, Dan Rather once stated that the New York Times was "middle of the road" or something to that effect.

At one time CNN was pretty unbiased, but later turned into the Clinton News Network and has yet to come back to center. I go to Fox News website because I can rely on it to not cater to rabid socialists on a grand scale. Still have to filter out those so far on the right that the Spanish Inquisition looks like a pack of cub scouts, but at least they aren't the sum total of the site.

:beer:

[cdwright]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Senjojutsu
Huh?
The speech is Dean's speech, his OWN WORDS.
Listen or watch the concession speech on CNN if that helps your hearing.

Bias...???
You mean I should only quote CBS, BBC or the vaunted journalistic integrity of the New York Times - oh wait...   maybe a Jason Blair byline would meet your news standards.
:rolleyes:

This "speech" should be the prominently repeated on tonight's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central if that's your speed.

By the way - wasn't it Drudge who six years ago this month broke a story about some White House intern?
:D [/QUOT

Yes I do get some news from the BBC as they have the guts to report stories tha US media will not touch, for example, KBR getting letting off overcharging for gas without so much as a peep from the admin here.

I take most news and newspapers with a grain of salt. Jason Blair? Another good one. I think he graduated from the Rush Limbaugh school of journalism. Lie and pray no one reads or checks facts.

The Daily show is probably closer to the truth than most news.

Was that the intern they found in Scarborough's office? Is that the story Drudge broke?
Oh you are refering to Monica I bet.

Man, how many years does GW have to be in office before he is accountable for something?

[Mitch Saret]

Originally posted by Robinson
Does your car put out CO2? Yes

Actually, my car, as all others, puts out CO, carbon MONoxide, not DIoxide. You and I and every other breathing creature puts out carbon dixide, CO2.


Originally posted by Robinson

Is there let forested land as a sink for CO2? Yes

Actually, according to the US Forestry service, in the continental US there is more forested land now than in the previous 200 years. Rain forests are down in number, but overall, we are pretty much ok in that regard. And responsible loggfing companies, and i will admit there are some that are bad, actuall plant 5 trees for every tree the cut.



Originally posted by Robinson

Is there evidence of warmer climates associated with high CO2? Yes

True, a 150 year trend of increases totaling half a degree. Which could easily be accounted for by the increase in human population. And those studies also say, while talking about the possible effects of greenhose gases and global warming, also state that the differntial effect could be accounted for by cyclical changes.


Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Any such hole would be inevitably over the poles. And why do you think the hole's been there forever?

So, Tony, you admit it has been there forever, and NOT created by human activity? And why would it inevitably be over the poles?



Originally posted by Kimpatsu

There is evidence. (Note: Proof is for maths and alcohol.) Ignoring it, however, is the easiest thing to do, which is why this planet is going down the toilet.

While I love the line about proof, we need to share some someday, :toast: there is evidence on both sides, hence the debate

My opinion, and I grant, it is my opinion based only on what I have read, both pro and con, is that we just can't affect the planet to that degree. I am all for not polluting, but look at real pollution in areas where the streets are still mud and covered with animal feces. Where water is drunk from the streets where people urinate and so forth. Let's get these countries to help take care of themselves before blaming us for everything.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Actually, my car, as all others, puts out CO, carbon MONoxide, not DIoxide. You and I and every other breathing creature puts out carbon dixide, CO2.



Actually, burning gasoline(C8H14) looks a little like this:

C8H14->CO+CO2+H2O + assorted other stuff in insignificant quantities.

A siginificant product of its combustion [B]is[/I] carbon dioxide, though

[Mitch Saret]

Aaron, putting it in chemical equation form is way beyond me. However, I must ask, which is more significant, the CO or the CO2? After all, we all know about carbon monoxide poisoning, so, what's the real lowdown?

And, I love the sig line, is that new?

[elder999]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Aaron, putting it in chemical equation form is way beyond me. However, I must ask, which is more significant, the CO or the CO2? After all, we all know about carbon monoxide poisoning, so, what's the real lowdown?

And, I love the sig line, is that new?

Actually CO2 is most significant, for a variety of reasons.

Typically, the EPA and scientists report emissions per year n "tons of carbon," or "tons of CO2." In 1999, for example, U.S. emissions from all sources of hydrocarbons: residential, transportation and electric generation, were about 649 million tons. Because combustion is never perfect, some portion of the emissions consists of carbon monoxide, methane, other volatile organic compounds, and particulates. These other gases (particularly carbon monoxide) eventually decay into carbon dioxide, but it is not strictly accurate to talk about “tons of carbon dioxide” emitted.

Nah...the sig line is just one of my more recent, vocal rants-I'll probably change it soon....

[Robinson]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret



Actually, according to the US Forestry service, in the continental US there is more forested land now than in the previous 200 years. Rain forests are down in number, but overall, we are pretty much ok in that regard. And responsible loggfing companies, and i will admit there are some that are bad, actuall plant 5 trees for every tree the cut.





In addition to the fact that cars do release CO2, maybe you should read this

http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/ForestFactsMetric.pdf

Pay particular attention to page 3, current forests are only 70% of what they were in 1630 and >75% of the loss has occurred since 1800.

[Senjojutsu]

Aaron had written:
Remember this little thread? Ever wonder why it was so short?

Yes Aaron, we can't always hit home runs. That's why sometimes e-Budo threads only get five replies.   :kiss:
But thanks for your succinct write-up regarding corporate ownership of the major TV networks.

Aaron had written:
If you think any of these particular media organs is neutral, or even permitted to be, well, you probably believe the O'reilly Factor is a "no-spin zone."

That is my point!   All news organizations make coverage and editing decisions based on a variety of factors including the cultural/political slant of the editors.
O'Reilly - sh!t he was a pompous arse back on his days on local Boston TV.   O'Reilly ego is sort of like - Al Franken's.   Maybe it is time for those two to have pay-per-view.   A WWE-sponsored Texas Death Match or better yet a Thunderdome set-up.   Two men enter, one man leaves.


Tony K. had written:
There is no "liberal media"; Fox News is owned by a rabid rightwinger. What the right really mean when they call the BBC, et. al., "left wing" is that these TV stations have the integrity to challenge the absurdities of conservative orthodoxy

It is amazing you get so angry about this.
There is Fox News viewpoint versus ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR and it drives so many crazy when Fox News continues to gain market share.
"Absurdities of conservative orthodoxy" - as opposed to the all-knowing liberal orthrodoxy???
Sorry Tony, I grew up and live in Massachusetts - the cultural mecca of liberal orthodoxy in the USA.   I can document liberal absurdities for over thirty years.

Jack B had written:
...started the flow of hate with his incessant ad hominem attacks on our then President Clinton, and the campaign to make "liberal" a pejorative, and the political debate is only adjusting to that level.

…Unlike three years of informed and unemotional attacks by various Democratic front organizations towards Dubya. Where is the love?

Jack B had written:
Characterizing the Dean rally speech as "red faced ... sharp and angry" is pretty blatantly is pretty blatantly shilling in the campaign by the Democratic establishment to bring him down at all costs.

Please define the Democratic establishment?
Is not Albert Gore, who publicly endorsed Dean, not part of the Democratic establishment?
Do you mean The Clintons?

Corey had written:
…that US media will not touch, for example, KBR getting letting off overcharging for gas without so much as a peep from the admin here

So if the Pentagon auditors find overcharging and gouging - demand a refund.
Fine KBR with some interest and penalties.   If fraud charges can be brought - prosecute.
So the liberation of over 24-million people from a despot is balanced against bean counting?
There's a war on!!!

Corey had written:
Man, how many years does GW have to be in office before he is accountable for something?

Well Corey you may get your wish now.   Because many are pissed and "may stay home in November" about Presindente Jorge Vicente Bush's complete capitulation regarding illegal immigration.   :mad:  

I think we can also live a few more generations before going to Mars.

==========================================================

Regardless of the above media discussion - Iowa is now history for 2004.

Round One of a (minimum) ten-round boxing event is complete, with one knockout (Gephardt) and one who had a standing 8 count (Dean).

For informational purpose, below is the short-term schedule for the presidential primaries for the next six weeks.   March 2nd has been nicknamed "Super Tuesday" - it is not certain that the Democratic nominee will be locked up by then - but most of the pretenders should be gone after those March 2nd primary results are posted.

January 27   New Hampshire
February 3   Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
February 7   Michigan, Washington
February 8   Maine
February 10   Tennessee, Virginia
February 14   District of Columbia, Nevada
February 17   Wisconsin
February 24   Hawaii, Idaho, Utah
March 2     California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont

...with more scheduled election fun into June.

[Gary Dolce]

Actually in the case of complete combustion of gasoline, Aaron's formula should look like this:

C8H14->CO2+H2O

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, which occurs when the engine is running "rich" - too much fuel, not enough air. As Aaron indicated there are also other byproducts that are produced by vehicle engines such as unburned hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, and particulates, also the result of incomplete or ineficient combustion of gasoline.

Because CO is just a byproduct of poor combustion, it is emitted in much lower quantities that carbon dioxide (CO2). Current emissions standards in the US require a passenger car to emit not more than 3.4 grams of CO per mile of travel. If you drove a car that always emitted exactly at the standard 15,000 mile a year, you would produce about 112 pounds of CO a year. That same vehicle would produce about 8.5 tons of CO2 per year.

CO2 production is directly correlated to fuel economy. A big SUV would emit as much as 14 tons of CO2 per year. A more fuel efficient car would emit as little as 5 tons of CO2 per year (3 tons per year for the most fuel efficient hybrid vehicle).

In 1995 (most recent data I could quickly find), there were about about 201,000,000 cars and trucks registered in the US. All that CO2 adds up very quickly.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Gary Dolce
Actually in the case of complete combustion of gasoline, Aaron's formula should look like this:

C8H14->CO2+H2O

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, which occurs when the engine is running "rich" - too much fuel, not enough air. As Aaron indicated there are also other byproducts that are produced by vehicle engines such as unburned hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, and particulates, also the result of incomplete or ineficient combustion of gasoline.


Show me an engine that can be tuned to "complete combustion,"-as in no CO emitted- and I'll see to it that the Society of Automotive Engineers will lay all sorts of awards at the inventors feet. There's "more complete combustion,"- as in fuel injection, boiled gasoline, and other contrivances- and, in the case of natural gas,"nearly complete combustion," but there is no "complete combustion"......sort of like getting a turbine to run with 100% heat efficiency-doesn't happen......

[Gary Dolce]

No argument with you there Aaron. I should have been clearer. I was only trying to point out that CO is an undesired byproduct of combustion, which can be limited (but not necessarily eliminated) by making more efficient engines, adding oxygenated hydrocarbons to the fuel, or by certain emission control devices.

CO2 on the other hand is the natural endproduct of the combustion of carbon fuels. The only way to limit CO2 is to burn less fuel, or to use a completely different energy source.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret

Actually, according to the US Forestry service, in the continental US there is more forested land now than in the previous 200 years. Rain forests are down in number, but overall, we are pretty much ok in that regard. And responsible loggfing companies, and i will admit there are some that are bad, actuall plant 5 trees for every tree the cut.


This is a rather famous-and fatuous Limbaughism.

In what are now the 50 U.S. states, there were 850 million acres of forest land in the late 1700s vs. only 730 million today (Limbaugh's claim also ignores the fact that much of today's forests are single-species tree farms, as opposed to natural old-growth forests which support diverse ecosystems.)

There is a great deal more forest in the U.S. now than in 1920, though, and annual growth as well as the growth rate has increased yearly since 1952.

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by Senjojutsu

Jack B had written:
Characterizing the Dean rally speech as "red faced ... sharp and angry" is pretty blatantly is pretty blatantly shilling in the campaign by the Democratic establishment to bring him down at all costs.

Please define the Democratic establishment?
Is not Albert Gore, who publicly endorsed Dean, not part of the Democratic establishment?
Do you mean The Clintons?

Actually, there pretty much is no Democratic establishment. That's part of the reason the Republicans keep running them over.

There's a really good article about that, which can be found here (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0401.confessore.html) .

[dave501]

Last night on the news they actually said that lieberman would be the best candidate. I think if the media got behind him, it would help immensely. But then again, bush is going to win pretty much no matter what.

Here's a fun article about Kerry: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20040122.shtml

here's an article about media bias: http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report0104_p1.asp

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by dave501
Last night on the news they actually said that lieberman would be the best candidate. I think if the media got behind him, it would help immensely. But then again, bush is going to win pretty much no matter what.

Here's a fun article about Kerry: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20040122.shtml

here's an article about media bias: http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialReports/2004/report0104_p1.asp
It's tough to say. Kerry's actually beating Bush by 3 points in the Newsweek poll atm. The poll also has Bush's approval rating down at around 50 percent, with 44 percent disapproval. Gallup gives Bush 53 percent approval, but still at 44 percent disapproval. His trends on the issues have been consistently moving downward, too. I'm not so certain this is going to be the cakewalk for Bush some people are making it out to be. Of course, it all really depends on how appealing his opponent is.

[Mitch Saret]

Well, I couldn't get the referenced forestry page to open, but Aaron, I did hear it on Rush's show, and normally would not have used it. I heard it after I read it about 3 months earlier in the Wall Street Journal. And I usually trust things from there.

While I listen to Rush regularly, I don't take him as anything more than entertainment. Sure, occasionally I agree with his views, but I disagree just as often. Regardless, I find him entertaining, and looking at him as anything more than that, well, that's just silly.

[Jack B]

Originally posted by dave501
Last night on the news they actually said that lieberman would be the best candidate. I think if the media got behind him, it would help immensely. But then again, bush is going to win pretty much no matter what.
Lieberman won't get the nomination. He's Jewish. He's also too urbane for the US advertising market. We like cowboys. We ain't French, you know.

Dean was right to keep his Jewish wife under wraps. It'll make people think he's soft on Israel, which probably isn't true. Bush is probably more likely to let Israel do what it wants. The Arab countries would probably be less likely to accept the US as a mediator if we had a Jewish president. Which would force the President to take a harder line with Israel.

Bush has a lot of real vulnerabilities (immigration reform, giving tax money to churches, expanding government, increasing debt, alienating our allies) as well as social issues (abortion, states recognition of civil unions) that can be attacked.