Hail to the chief.

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grimloc

Rear Admiral
Ladies and gentlemen, hail to the chief! The 43rd president of the United States of America has been sworn in. President Bush, Mr. Strategory, now must live up to the previous presidents (especially Clinton).

I must know, though.... how much of a laughing stock are we to the world, anyway? How stupid do we look to the rest of the Earth?

Wow. No more Clinton jokes. This'll be an interesting four years, eh?

Grimloc out.
 
The US does not look more stupid to the world since that is inpossible after the florida recount.

The Bad thing is that Jay Leno is going to have to come up with diferent jokes, but I think that Bush jr. is going to help him with that.
 
Originally posted by Grimloc
President Bush, Mr. Strategory, now must live up to the previous presidents (especially Clinton).
Click to expand...
Well, in all honesty, that shouldn't be TOO difficult. Live up to several aspects of the past 8 years, perhaps. But Clinton himself really did not accomplish much, nor did he have a large hand in many of those positive aspects.
 
If the new Bush jr. supplies even half as much joke material as his father did, this`ll be the one of the funniest terms in a long time.
 
Enough? It already is too much.:)

Seriously, no one needs to know what all of us think about Bush (BTW, he's a moron IMO):).

[Edited by Earthworm on 01-21-2001 at 01:06]
 
Tad less than a third, its more like everybody and their brother, at least in my area of the us. A friend got into a fight and the guy broke his nose, and MY FRIEND got sued, its rediculous.
 
Originally posted by Grimloc
Ladies and gentlemen, hail to the chief! The 43rd president of the United States of America has been sworn in. President Bush, Mr. Strategory, now must live up to the previous presidents (especially Clinton).

I must know, though.... how much of a laughing stock are we to the world, anyway? How stupid do we look to the rest of the Earth?

Wow. No more Clinton jokes. This'll be an interesting four years, eh?

Grimloc out.
Click to expand...


Just to let everyone know, beings I live in TX and have seen what Mr. Bushy boy has done for TX, errr, what not he has done. Over 80 percent of the kids in Texas still learn their abc's in broom closets at school, not to mention that by Bushy boys plan to raise standards, he does not mean raise educational standards, he means to raise the standards in the SAT and TAS tests, which the study material only focuses on the tests, and not things to help them with life when they get out on their own. Oh and one more thing. Grab your cameras, cause those pretty parks and recreational areas will be turned into oilfields with soot all over the ground, sick looking plants and contaminated water. Dont believe me?...Come here and see for yourself. Anyone familiar with the magazine Vanity Fair?...Read the November issue! Explains all! Over 70 percent of the population here have serious respritory problems as well as ulcers and various other ailments related to oil field work. Isnt it time we really move into the new century by not relying on technology from the 1800's? How much more of the ozone will we burn away for the love of carbon dioxide? :( Just wait you guys up north, it will spread to you too within 2 years of his administration, that is, if he dont take us to some stupid little war on some 3rd world country like his daddy did. Even that didnt acomplish anything. Mr. Saddam Insane is still there, the Arabs still get rich from us buying their oil. Lotta american soldiers died for what, their bank accounts. Think about it.


Long live WC

RFBurns

Quote from Bushy boy during campaign.."Hear my voice"...same ol rederic politics. Here we go again! :(

"Look behind you......watch your six!......BOOM!"
 
CFCs burn Ozone, not Carbon Dioxide...

I guess you mean Canada when you say you guys up north, but most of the polution we get is blown up from the US anyways so there's not that much of a difference about that.

And it's not like Iraq's selling their oil to anyone these days.
 
Well now...

While there are many aspects of this discussion in which I disagree with pretty much everyone, I'm going to limit this reply to a single point: the Ozone and the environment...

A lot of people these days buy the standard liberal line that our evil American lifestyle is destroying the atmosphere and all other life on Earth. This is really a very radical viewpoint that's been given a lot of air play by biased liberal news organizations like CNN for the shock value of it, and for the fact that since they're liberal, they want to help out their wacko liberal brethren in the environmental movement...

-Fewer than 1/4 of respected legitimate scientific organizations and individuals truly believe the ozone levels in our atmosphere to be lower than nature intends them to be.
-All data showing that there are vast holes in the so-called "Ozone layer" are nothing but theoretical computer models based on data fed into a machine, nothing you see Time or Newsweek is actually based on atmospheric tests. The fact is, just as many tests show there to be no problem, but of course Ozone Layer Fine, No need to Worry, isn't much of a headline, and offers no print value whatsoever, so you can imagine why we are bombarded by messages from only the one viewpoint.
-There are more acres of forested land in this nation - which also happen to be more densely forested - than when Columbus landed in 1492, and apparently it has been increasing steadily since time began, despite human foresting.

These 3 facts alone are enough to illustrate my point though there are many more I could list given the proper amounts of time and information.

What I'm getting at is that it's highly unrealistic to believe that an ozone deficiency actually is afflicting our world. It is the height of arrogance to assume that humanity is so destructive to an environment that has suffered natural atmospheric disasters bordering on catastrophe. Example:

In April of 1993, the ozone levels detected in our atmosphere took a nose-dive when Mt. Pinatubo exploded and released thousands of tons of toxic ash and gases into the air. One volcano eliminated more ozone in a split-second than humanity had in a year's time, most likely more time than that, even, much much more. However, by mid-1994, the ozone levels in our atmosphere had begun to show significant signs of recovery. This is what's particularly interesting: The ozone levels actually increased between 1993 and 1994. So if we are doing so much damage to the atmosphere, why did it recover at all, let alone so quickly?

The fact is, Earth is not reacting poorly to our habitation at all, in fact. At least the USA's condition has improved, with over 730 million acres of forested land in our nation alone, a total of over 230 billion trees. That's 900+ trees per capita in the US, one of the most heavily industrialized nations on Earth.

There's really no evidence to support any of the wacko leftist claims that the environment is under siege and losing, and our care of the environment is improving day by day, despite the fact that we really don't need to worry about it anyway.

So the next time the alarmists scream rape over a little internal combustion, just remember these facts, everything will be OK.




[Edited by Frosty on 01-21-2001 at 21:32]
 
Yes, and smoking is not a cause lung cancer.

If you did not use the word liberal I might belive you but since you did...
 
Actually, Iraq's selling millions of barrels of oil every day. It's just that the UN is in charge of distributing the profits, which as a rule go back into Iraq in the form of food.

BTW, RFBurns, the way you say it, it sounds like the Arabs have no right to get rich from selling their oil. What, is it your God-given right to have this oil for free?

[Actually, some American policy papers indeed do refer to "our oil" when discussing the Middle East]

And "lotta" soldiers didn'd die for any bank accounts... they died because the American government wanted to have a showdown with Saddam Hussein and therefore decided to kill all attempts at a negotiated peace (on several occasions, peace was within an arm's reach, but the American government ignored all peace proposals except those that Iraq found unpalatable). Those soldiers, btw, were all Iraqi. I don't think "lotta" applies to the casualties suffered by the coalition.
 
Quatro: I agree with you.
Frosty: Just because a news organization disagrees with what you say doesn't mean that they are leftist (which BTW is a good thing not a bad thing, if the cavemen were conservative and didnt like change we would still be in caves wearing animal skins). Also "Nature" doesn't intend anything to be, it just happens. THe ozone layer increasing between 93-94 was because of unexpected short term increased solar activity which increased the rate of production of ozone to above the rate of destruction of it, that phenominon lasted appx. 7.5 months and following that the ozone layers began the grow again until 2000 when the solar activity was again at a high enough rate to spur increased production, but the overal loss over the last 20 years is greater than the overall gain of ozone, thus the ozone layer is being weakend. (this info came from Scientific American). Next point, while carbon dioxide has not been shown to damage the ozone layer it has led to global climactic changes (commonly known as global warming). This is real and not "standard liberal line". This phenomina has been documented via global temperature per year averages and has shown a marked increase in global temperature. Whether this will have any perminant global impacts has yet to be determined. The Ozone wholes have been detected using sensors that measure the light in a specific spectrum that only ozone (O3) does not reflect. This spectra has been appearing in larger quantities over the polar regions and thus the amount of ozone has decreased over those areas.
I would like to finish that one must not call somebody "wacko" just because one disagrees with them. One may state that they disagree and show evidence to either prove their point of view or disprove someone elses, but just because there is a divergence of opinion that does not meant that they are wrong or "wacko" or "biased".
Greg
P.S. I find your tree figures hard to believe, from what source did you get them? and is that source reliable? Please let me know so I may check on your facts.
 
To add to Napoleon's post, it's easy for Frosty, living in the US, to say that the existence of the Ozone hole hasn't been proven. Similarly, I guess it would be easy for somebody without HIV/AIDS to say that no correlation between HIV and AIDS has been directly proven.
The fact is, the Ozone hole is most definitely real. Frosty may not notice it, because this hole happens to be over Antarctica (expanding seasonally to reach or at least significantly affect South America and Australia). It's a problem people in Chile, Argentina, and Australia have to cope with every year. And yes, people do actually have direct evidence of the Ozone hole. Research stations in Antarctica weren't built just to look pretty.
 
Aha, but...

Jonathan Adler, an environmental policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, New England did the study of forest density to which I referred...

As for global warming, I present to you this single fact: During the first Earth Day proceedings in 1970 or '71 I believe it was, the problem on everyone's tongue was Global Cooling. Cooling. They used environmental tests done since the 1950s to illustrate that global temperatures were dropping dramatically. What I find most odd about this is that the very same organizations that were on the Global Cooling ticket in '71 explain their theories of global warming today the same way: Carbon Dioxide polluting the air is blah blah - Global Cooling/Warming.

The simple fact that they blame 2 diametrically opposed "problems" on the same thing detracts from their credibility in my mind.

What people fail to realize though it has been proven by the fact that 30 years ago we were getting colder, no we're getting warmer, is that climatic temperatures have a range which fluctuates gradually over many decades. Nature cannot maintain a perfect equilibrium constantly with or without us, the earth is simply far too big, so it has a margin of error in which to operate.

This very fact was backed up by a group of scientific researchers whom I believe worked for National Geographic, though I'm unsure, who took core samples from Antarctica to test climatic properties over past millennia. What they found was quite striking in my mind, this type of cooling/warming cycle is natural and occurs without human intervention.

Now, we may alter it, but Earth is a big ol' place, and I'm sure it has the resiliency to handle us. Am I saying nothing should be done? No, what I am saying is that the wacko ULTRA ULTRA leftist - and I'm not talking your average Joe, I'm talking the screaming lunatic type - segment of the environmentalist movement, who are an incredible fringe-type minority, have, by virtue of its incessant braying has earned the greater public attention over the more moderate segments, and convinced everyone that there's a crisis on our hands and that we have to go back to the stone age to save our home. What a crock.

As for calling people wackos, I don't mean the average guy who disagrees with me, I'm glad to entertain any argument a more liberal sensibility is willing to make so long as it's within reason, I mean the way way not average type who'd rather brand me a bigot Satanist Nazi because I like nuclear power.

Speaking of which, and this is just an aside, don't you find it odd that the environmentalist movement backed the California legislature (every wacko is from California ;) )into such a corner over the power plant issue that despite the population of California double in the past few decades, no supplement to the power grid was ever added. And now they all whine about rolling blackouts. Everyone is such a me now, I want, I want, gimmegimme, it's sickening.
 
That's stupid, Quarto. One's nationality has no affect on facts. At this point how one looks at the O-zone hole is based entirely on how one interprets those facts. We haven't known about the hole long enough to know if it's something being affected a huge amount by ourselves, or if it's something natural (some have theorized that it cycles, getting smaller then larger). At this point there is no conclusion either way. The popular press has indeed shown mostly one side of a story. The side that shocks and sells.

TC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top