On 6/18/10 5:30 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:17:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we
should be spending our money.


Don't tell froggy that...he'll "invent" stilts for houses and try to
sell them to Nebraskans.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:46:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is what scares me. This might be a framework for a real health
care plan but, more likely, it will just be a huge pork barrel where
they keep adding on to it until it becomes another bloated government
money pit.

Well, that's possible, but that's why we need to be vigilant and hold
Congress accountable for what they do.

How is that working out so far. I saw a projection today, using
Obama's numbers that the interest on the debt will be $900 billion in
a few years. That assumes interest rates are stable. Indications are
they will go up sharply was world liquidity drops.

It's a bit early to tell how things will ultimately shake out, but
spending in general and the HC legislation HAD to happen or we'd be in
much worse shape, certainly going forward. There are no "indications" that
interest rates will go up sharply... what liquidity? The money supply is
stable.


You be sure to let us know if things take a sudden turn for the worse.

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:42:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:23:58 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Koresh was a maniac. He didn't deserve to die, but don't put him
out to
be
some kind of American hero standing up to Big Gov't.

Certainly he was a nut but the country is full of them.
Who was the biggest threat to America?


Dick Cheney, even though he wasn't veep then.

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate
change is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


What if it isn't a positive step. What do you think you'd be for then?


I'll take this as a serious question, even though I know it isn't. It's
unclear if a carbon tax is the best way to go. It seems like it would have a
positive short-term effect, but I'd like to hear more (and not some
right-wing screamer).

What if it was proved that all the deep water oil wells are dangerous to the
point of imminent failure? What if we had to permanently shut them down?
Perhaps we need to have a dedicated program and comprehensive energy policy
that looks at our strategic national interest. Not perhaps.. we do. That
would be an even more positive step.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:17:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No Al Gore was veep and in the end he may end up being the biggest
threat to the republic ever. This TV evangelist has created a scam
bigger than the derivative market where we will be paying billions of
dollars for worthless "carbon credits" and we will be buying them from
his company. 3d world countries will be selling us trees for
outrageous prices and then cutting them down anyway.
You only have to look at the freon credit program to see that kind of
abuse. Countries now manufacture CFCs for the express purpose of
selling the credits when they destroy them

Come on! He might hype it a little bit, but adverse global climate
change
is
the biggest national threat we have.

Do you really think taxing carbon and using the money to buy trees in
Guatemala will change that, particularly when there is no real
guarantee the trees will stay bought.


Don't know. I'm not a carbon tax expert. Something needs to get done. If
that's a positive step, I'm all for it.


I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we have the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:19:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:41:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The Bin Laden family was still a big player in Saudi Arabia and
Clinton was afraid to stir up anything that might have jiggled the
price of oil and crashed his rising economy.

They had disowned him, and even Bush was complicit in flying his family
out
after 9/11...

Make up your mind, either the family is part of the problem or they
were innocent


It's not my mind that is made or unmade. This was Bush's decision. I think
you'd need to ask him.

I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get
home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million families
from getting home.
I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction.

Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who wants to
put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really over-reacted, and
we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit.


In a more enlightened time we would have just had a foreign national,
working for the CIA, put a bullet in his ear.

Actually bin laden did get CIA (or other? US help) when fighting the
Soviets.

Exactly. They knew how to get at him.

Ok... but, they didn't. Your solution is....


Ignore the ******* until he gets comfortable and sticks his head up,
then shoot him. I guess you have never been squirrel hunting.

Never... ewww... how could you kill a furry little guy?? I have no doubt
that there is a plan for that if we can't get good ground intelligence to
drop a 500 lbs bomb on his head.


How many lives would that have saved? (Iraqi, Afghani and American)
200,000?

Total agreement there... but we really need to set a good example even
if
it's not expedient.


That was the point of using a foreign national and having plausible
deniability. I am old enough to remember when we were very good at
that and the world was actually a lot more peaceful place.


Fidel's cigars?

If Eisenhower was still president in 1961, Fidel would be a footnote
in the history books. No missile crisis, no embargo, no Angola war and
no Granada war.
That guy knew how to get things done covertly and efficiently.

If we hadn't had the Granada "war", we wouldn't have had that movie with
Clint Eastwood, old but cool hunk of hunks.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:21:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I saw a projection today, using
Obama's numbers that the interest on the debt will be $900 billion in
a few years. That assumes interest rates are stable. Indications are
they will go up sharply was world liquidity drops.

It's a bit early to tell how things will ultimately shake out, but
spending
in general and the HC legislation HAD to happen or we'd be in much worse
shape, certainly going forward. There are no "indications" that interest
rates will go up sharply... what liquidity? The money supply is stable.

We still do not know how this Euro thing is going to work out. Bear in
mind, more than half of our foreign owned debt is from European
sources. If they lose the ability to buy our paper, that paper will be
harder to sell, hence the auction will be higher

I think that's at least a plausible argument. I think the European Union is
here to stay, but it might scale back.

"Moose" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:46:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is what scares me. This might be a framework for a real health
care plan but, more likely, it will just be a huge pork barrel where
they keep adding on to it until it becomes another bloated government
money pit.

Well, that's possible, but that's why we need to be vigilant and hold
Congress accountable for what they do.

How is that working out so far. I saw a projection today, using
Obama's numbers that the interest on the debt will be $900 billion in
a few years. That assumes interest rates are stable. Indications are
they will go up sharply was world liquidity drops.

It's a bit early to tell how things will ultimately shake out, but
spending in general and the HC legislation HAD to happen or we'd be in
much worse shape, certainly going forward. There are no "indications"
that interest rates will go up sharply... what liquidity? The money
supply is stable.


You be sure to let us know if things take a sudden turn for the worse.


There's a signpost up ahead - your next stop, the Twilight Zone! (No, not
the Twilight movie.)

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:22:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You said "Nobody was "regulating" the industry before or after
(unfortunately).Reagan was after and Carter was before".
I couldn't take it any other way.

If Bush started MMS he must have been trying to build the framework
for regulation. (like you say the health care bill did)

The reality is, there were always people at Interior who were
regulating drilling. All they did when they "created" MMS was put a
different logo on their stationary and put a new political appointee
in charge of them. The job down in the trenches never really changes
that much if you are a GSer doing the actual work.

Reagan/Watt started MMS... look it up. Bush just filled it to the brim
with
cronies of big oil.


You miss my point. In DC these things are just assemblies of things
that are already there as a rule. If they "change" something, usually
the only thing that changes is the sign on the door. It will still be
the same people doing the work.

In regulation, it is always a group of cronies from the industry being
regulated. That is why Obama has the same people trying to fix the
financial mess who caused it in the first place.


I'd like to know who you think could sort out the financial mess other than
the people who are familiar with the problems. But, I know what you mean...
it's like getting a car thief to design an anti-theft device. That's fine,
as long as they don't use it to their own advantage.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:02:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was only addressing the Al Gore solution to the problem he defined.
Personally I only have one observation. I an not sure if it is more
arrogant to think man caused global warming or that man can stop
global warming.

We better just make plans to live in a warmer world. That is where we
should be spending our money.

Al Gore's solution may be one piece of the solution. Human beings are
absolutely the cause of adverse climate change. I don't know if we have
the
ability to fix it, but we have to try. You're talking about dooming
millions
to extreme hardship if not death. There are no legitimate solutions that
will fix that problem without fixing the underlying cause.


"Human induced climate change" is the part that you do get
disagreement about among scientists. The predominance do agree it is
getting warmer but that support starts dropping off when you start
assessing blame on why. The CO2 trend is 8000 years old, more closely
tied to agriculture than anything else.. In that regard, it is more
closely related to population than industrialization. I suppose if we
reduced the population to the 1900 levels, we *might* reduce CO2 to
1900 levels.

The "predominance" agree it's human caused. You can quote all the numbers
you want, but that's a fact.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:07:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I do not have a problem with him helping the Bin Laden family to get
home. I had a problem with him stopping the other 50 million families
from getting home.
I think the whole post 9-11 policy is over-reaction.

Oh... like the shoe-bomber-take-my-shoes-off bs. I hate that. Who wants to
put your feet on God-knows what. Blech. I agree. We really over-reacted,
and
we gave up too much. In that sense, he accomplished quite a bit.

The terrorists have won in my opinion. As a nation, we are certainly
terrorized enough to be giving up our freedom.

Nah. They might have "won" a battle, but the war over our constitution has
been going on for 200 years. A bunch of people living in caves aren't
powerful enough to win.