[quote]Is there, or isn't there a single-payer system? Yes or no. Answer just by one word.[/quote] The answer is NO. Not yet. There is also no provision to cover children with preexisting conditions right now. They forgot to put that in the bill but said it was there. Well, it is in the bill but it does not take effect until 2014. So much for liberal compasion.
Im thinking that since the President does not what a moon base we should go there to escape him. It is not that bad really, The Europeans survived. oh wait that was with our help.
I remember when the UK banned firearms. A year later the stats came out. Everyone expected the murder rate to drop dramatically. In a way it did. Gun crimes dropped like a rock. The murder rated stayed the same the only differences was since people didn't have a gun handy they used spanners, kinves, strangulation and cricket bats. What they found out was people that want to kill people will used whatever is handy. So unless you are going to ban people, you will not save lives only change the
I like the name Colonel Colt used for one of his weapons. "The Peacemaker" and when a bad person uses it we call it "The Liberal". [e digicons]:D[/e]
[quote]Please let us know when they are published.[/quote] I will as soon as I finish writting them. LOL Thank you for your kind words. Have you thought of posting it on Amazon. hint hint. Just kidding I would never put that kind of pressure on someone I know.
Yes, you too can become a paid published author! If your work is good. I am not going to publish junk but I will give a chance to those that have been rejected by the big houses.
I have been persuaded by friends and family to start an e-book publishing house. I am currently in the works to get this done but I do not wa
Well, the book is out and sales are not hot. The first three weeks I sold 10 copies. The frustrating part is that the next update on sales won't be until August. Man the publishing business is an act of sadomasochism. You sweat blood to write a book and no one wants it because you are unknown. You get a publisher and it takes as much as 18 months to produce your book. Then when it is published they only tell you the sales data twice a year. You only get paid twice a year
[quote]Take the OP as an example - without a link to what Dr Jones actually said who's to say he really did say that?[/quote] Well you can do what I did and look it up.
[quote]I don’t have to go any further than this to have a reason not to take you seriously, you arrogantly post the same grossly inaccurate crap over and over again, this is the favorite tactic of the dogmatic. First you say the IPPC report predicts 0.006° then you say “I am in error, using only my memory I wrote 0.006°C when in reality it is 0.05°C if you want the full story look up my articles on global warming over the last two years they are a bit more accurate tha
[quote]Times of London did an article, The BBC finally came clean and stated that they had the e-mails a month before it was posted on the web sent to them by a confidential source Link?[/quote] sorry but I read papers, I don't know how to post a link, I go online to blog and to research my books. CURRENT BOOK SILENT THUNDER AT amazon! Sorry but I just had to do that. LOL I have one of my girl friends do my website, facebook and other computer stuff. Here is an
[quote]Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003).[/quote] You
One more thing, the documents/ e-mails posted from East Anglia were not hacked from an outside source. They were sent to the BBC from someone on the inside, the person waited a month for the BBC to report it and then the person posted it on the web. The person knew that the information was explosive and wanted the world to know what was going on. The crap that is AGW is a hoax, the IPCC reports are trash, and each week we are learing more and more how the information is being adjusted to keep
[quote]I'm perfectly familiar with the claims made against William Connolley and his "editing" of AGW related articles. I've debunked this claim a number of times myself and that's the thing about "skeptic" claims, they just get repeated and repeated without any kind of proof, no matter how many times and by how many people these claims have been shown to be baseless.[/quote] <span style="font-family: Verdana; co
[quote]Show me. Show me where in the IPCC report it says the human contribution of global warming is .006 degree over the next 100 years.[/quote I love the fact that you use Wiki as your go to site. while I foolishly read all the actual reports. below are excerpts from my posts that date back to 2008. The IPCC stuff are quots from the report cut and pasted to my articles, I have not edited or left out anything from the actual reports. Keep in mind that the IPCC put out four
[quote]1. You can't deny that their only expertise is having been TV weatherman.[/quote] Weathermen are members of the climatologicall society, to be a member you have to be certified as a climatologist. So being a weatherman is not a bad thing and it is within their realm of expertise. You do know that the girl at the weather channel is trying to get all deniers kicked out of the society and taken off the air? Sounds
[quote]Agreed. However that's not any random 15 year period that's a specifically selected period (i.e. cherry picked) which shows a strong upward trend that just happens to be barely below the level of statistical significance.[/quote] The planet has been warming since the end of the last big ice age. We have had warming spurts and cooling. Cherry picking is what they did to get man made global warming. Over the last
It seems that no one with a brain bothers to look at anything more than a few dozen years of data to make predictions over the next hundred years. I wrote about this almost two years ago and so far, it has proven true. To summarize what I wrote: the sun is the source of heat in the solar system. The Earth is still coming out of the last big
[quote]Ok, but hadn't their human rights been violated by the US? They were detained without a trial and without reason because they were never a threat to the US. They hadn't been a part of the war against terror. Doesn't that mean that they should never have been detained in the first place?[/quote] The people held in CUBA are illegal combatants. That means that they were caught on the battlefield attacking uniforme
[quote]Much longer than that...they use to through animal carcasses into wells (bio-warfare) to incapacitate populations.[/quote] Alexander the great used plague infected bodies to break sieges.
A woman must have the right to choose. Mrs. Tebow chose life. If the oponants don't like that choice then they are not pro choice but pro death!
[quote]The GC was written with "traditional" war in mind, where you have armies fighting with soldiers in uniform. A civilian in these circumstances is suspicious and thus treated a spy. In the war against terrorism declaring everyone in civlian clothes a spy does not seem to be in the terms of the GC because terrorists wear no uniform.[/quote] <span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 7
Remember when Mr. Bush was in that class room during 9/11? He could have used a TOTUS to address the people and the children. Mr. Obama was just being ready for the next terror attack.
[quote]I didn't know that military tribunals allow for detainees to be detained for months on end, even more than a year, before they have their tribunal. I don't want to start a debate about military tribunals or enemy combattants and the rest of it. I still find it fishy,[/quote] Internationa law/ the GC states that if you are not in uniform on the battle field you are a spy. You have no rights and the people that catch you may do whatever they wish with you. you may be s
[quote]but I bet that you would have a much higher unemployment rate than 10% right now.[/quote] Wow, this is so wr
JoeUser Forums