claims of global cooling in the 80s There was never any scientific consensus at the time. Some people believed in cooling due to aerosols, some people believed in warming due to CO2, and everyone agreed they wanted more data. This led to a few scare stories in the popular media. The American Institute o
I don't believe there is any such tax policy which rewards companies for shipping jobs to India or anywhere else There is. Kerry has a proposal regarding that. Here's the first link off of google, I don't have time to look for a comprehensive page on the issue right now. http://money.cnn.com/2
My impression is that everyone in this thread is decades away from coolness.
Fascinating.
Whether or not the wealthy as a class are paying their share--I have no idea how to define what their fair share would be, anyway--I think we probably all agree that the amount paid shouldn't vary arbitrarily by whether someone happens to be engaged in activities favored by some quirk in the tax code. Pork is pork, whether it takes the form of government spending giving money to a particular favored industry or government tax cuts aimed at not taking m
Most politicians, even rich ones, don't go out of their way to exploit tax loopholes. They know their tax returns are released during campaigns, and being seen as a tax evader is political death. Any way you slice it, that's a pretty stupid statement Bush made. "The rich are screwing you" is not a theme the incumbant usually wants to hit on.
One problem is that all people have a tendency to make up their minds on an issue, then try and fit new evidence into their preexisting idea of the world. So smart people are skilled use their intelligence to interpret the available evidence to come to the result they want to achieve, rather than evaluating the evidence for what it is. This can make smart people really inflexible.
Well, you can't deny that one of the things that Kerry really wants everyone in the country to know about him is that he is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Only after that comes rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, the health care plan, his position on stem cells, and so on. I find the "people shouldn't vote on his war record..." argument interesting. It's kind of like the "people shouldn't vote based on gun control" complaints from
vincible: We can reasonable fiture out how much CO2 humans put in the atmosphere. But we have no way of telling how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere from other sources. Well, that's only partially true, but it doesn't even really matter. We
never before have these veterans been so motivated to refute his claims. Nixon was plenty motivated and powerful. And a senator is arguably the second-highest office in the land--there's lots of motivation there too. Senatorial campaigns are big enough to get some national coverage, and big enough that
It's actually not that hard to figure out how much CO2 we've put into the atmosphere. We know that every ton of coal burned creates a certain amount of CO2, every ton of oil or gas gives a certain amount, etc. So you can look at some pretty solid economic data and figure out the human contribution to global CO2 concentrations. It's really quite large. Human activity will cause at least a doubling of CO2 from
Charming. You are correct: I cannot understand your post's relevance. Good day.
An election decided by a few hundred still looks to me like your individual vote not mattering. Unless you're in the Supreme Court, of course People voting isn't about making change. Some people may believe that they are creating change, but they are, statistically, fooling themselves. I'm willing to bet that the chance of a presidential election being decided by your one vote i
Um... are you answering my post or just making your own point? I mean, there's nothing in your post #62 which addresses what I was wondering about, or that I disagree with (except for the shock part, I don't see why you were surprised). But it's addressed to me. To repeat, Kerry's war record has been scrutinized in a whole bunch of elections. Even before Kerry was ever elected to be anything, Nixon was trying to destroy his career. Remember Ke
I don't think either satisfaction, or "quiet desperation," fully explain it. I think it's a rational decision on many people's part that their one vote in a country of 300 million, or state of 10 million, or city of 1 million, or whatever--really doesn't affect policy. And if what they do makes no difference, then why pay attention to politics?
BakerStreet, I'm not questioning its importance. But I'm questioning why, if the story is essentially true, someone wouldn't have brought it up in a previous election, or to discredit him during the testimony to the Senate which made him famous in the first place. He certainly has had enough enemies. And it's not like this is the first time his war record has been a
I wonder, if this is true, why it wouldn't have come out decades ago. He was a national figure during the Vietnam war, with many political enemies. And he's been in dozens of elections, a few of them very nasty. Certainly his record isn't everything he wants us to believe it is, but it's hard to believe that it's actually a *bad* record.
The "environmentalists" are not a monolithic group. And yes, most of the ones who are very concerned about global warming are also in favor of nuclear power. (I favor nuclear power too.) The earth is currently COOLER than it has averaged in the past 10,000 years </TA
The problem with global warming debates is that very few of the political junkies who like to argue about it actually know anything about atmospheric physics. No one is saying that the "globe" isn't "warming", the problem with "global warming" is that no one is bothering to prove that WE are causing it in any convincing
ANWR, I believe can be explored if under strict environmental guidelines I think most environmentalists would be willing to trade ANWR to get better fuel economy standards. I'm not sure if the reverse is true, though. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-
When your town doesn't have water or power, does the federal government charge in and build the infrastructure for you? No, your local government does. Should the US government do it for them, or get the Iraqis in place to do it themselves? From the invasion until just a little while ago we *were* the
Do you think, maybe, that IRAQIS should be the ones to decide what they need So we approve the funding for a year, in October, for an Iraqi government that didn't even take shape until eight months later? What an o
Let's not forget that those stealth bombers and missile defense systems he voted against are now being actively used in combat by our military. I don't see how you can differentiate between funding for soldiers and funding for the weapons systems they use. Well, the missile defense system doesn't actual
What the heck are you talking about? Your post seems to assume that the money isn't not being spent because there's no need for it. This is daft. It's not being spent because of simple incompetence. "To date only $458 million has been spent, officials said, citing red tape ." Anyone who reads the news can see there's a need for it, sheesh. Perhaps you misinterpreted my $1 billion comment... that was to illustrate how sl
Yes, I think the quotes attributed to Kerry weren't just fabricated. Of course the quotes aren't fabricated. The question was, do you think that what Kerry said is accurate? Was he telling the truth? Is there anything incorrect in his statement? Anything that can be argued with? <TABLE cellpadd
JoeUser Forums