wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:08:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.


It really depends on if the Greeks will accept reforms that will suit
the Germans (basically scaling back their lifestyle). If that part
fails, the rest is in jeopardy. If the Germans and Brits pulled out of
the EU, it would fall apart.

I think they will accept them... every indication they will. Were the Brits
ever really part of the EU?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:11:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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.


Again, you want it both ways. You agree Wall street people are the
ones who should regulate Wall street but you think it is wrong to have
oil people regulating the oil industry.

No. I think that both former WS people and former Oil people should be
involved in it, since they probably have the technical expertise, but
ultimately sensible regulations need to be implemented that take some
decisions out of the hands of insiders. Not saying it's easy, but there are
reformers available in both industries who are honest and have the public
good in mind.

How could people who have no background in oil, actually know enough
to regulate it. We are seeing some of that in action with the Obama
administration and this cleanup.

I still like my idea of turning the whole cleanup to Clinton and GW,
working together and letting Obama run the country.
The synergy of the two of them and their contacts would be a lot more
effective than the Chicago mob who are running it now. They have
declared they are brothers now anyway.

There's no "Chicago mob" running anything. Interesting idea, but I don't
think Bush has the time, given his heavy Facebook schedule.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it. That's
how things get done in the scientific world.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:18:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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.


Tell me again while you are submitting to an electronic strip search
at the airport or when you have to jump through the hoops to renew
your driver's license after your state passes "real ID"
Women take a worse beating than men in that, like having to produce
certified copies of all of their marriage licenses and divorce
decrees.
All I seem to need is my DD214.

Electronic strip search? You mean a metal detector or some screening where
my identity remains hidden unless something is discovered? I have no problem
with that. Not sure what country you're talking about, but I've never heard
of anyone having to produce divorce papers to renew a license.

wrote in message
news
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:19:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It really depends on if the Greeks will accept reforms that will suit
the Germans (basically scaling back their lifestyle). If that part
fails, the rest is in jeopardy. If the Germans and Brits pulled out of
the EU, it would fall apart.

I think they will accept them... every indication they will. Were the
Brits
ever really part of the EU?


They are part of the EU, they just have not adopted the Euro.

I was, ummm... joking.

On 6/19/10 6:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


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.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html


If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would
you believe?




The ones on fox news?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:22:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:11:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
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.


Again, you want it both ways. You agree Wall street people are the
ones who should regulate Wall street but you think it is wrong to have
oil people regulating the oil industry.

No. I think that both former WS people and former Oil people should be
involved in it, since they probably have the technical expertise, but
ultimately sensible regulations need to be implemented that take some
decisions out of the hands of insiders. Not saying it's easy, but there
are
reformers available in both industries who are honest and have the public
good in mind.


Dreamer

Well, that's how it's supposed to work. It works like that for many things,
although not perfectly. If you're expecting perfection, that's the dream
part.


How could people who have no background in oil, actually know enough
to regulate it. We are seeing some of that in action with the Obama
administration and this cleanup.

I still like my idea of turning the whole cleanup to Clinton and GW,
working together and letting Obama run the country.
The synergy of the two of them and their contacts would be a lot more
effective than the Chicago mob who are running it now. They have
declared they are brothers now anyway.

There's no "Chicago mob" running anything. Interesting idea, but I don't
think Bush has the time, given his heavy Facebook schedule.


I suppose there is nothing in Obama's plate now

Not sure I understand. The administration is working round the clock on
many, many issues. The White House never sleeps, and probably hasn't for
decades.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:53:37 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:22:35 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

How is that going. The time last I looked BOTH wars are still going on
and Osama is no closer to being captured than he was on Sept 12 2001.

bush let bin laden escape. bush let him get to pakistan. unless you
think obama should start ANOTHER war, you go ahead and tell me how
obama should get him, OK?

and BOTH wars are going on because it would be criminal to abandon
iraq

At the time we were chasing Osama in Tora Bora we just had a small
contingent of CIA and special Ops people there calling in air strikes.

bush had the option of sending in the army...locking up tora bora and
capturing bin laden

he decided the bin ladens had too much money so let osama escape

That was the way the plan was supposed to work. The special Ops people
were in trouble when the local war lords turned against them and there
is no guarantee 1000 or even 10,000 more troops hastily dropped in
there with no real plan, would have turned the tide up in those
mountains. It would have just sent a lot more American kids home in
body bags.

really? got any proof of that?

oh. none. when we DID send in the troops we destroyed the taliban govt
in a matter of weeks.

why not read the 'new republic' article on how bush let bin laden
escape?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:02:48 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:23:53 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Obama shot his whole wad on this health care gift to the big medicine
lobby and let the rest of the country go to hell (or stay in hell if
that is what you think Bush was).

which was one HELLUVAN accomplishment. and the 'big medicine' lobby
is not too happy with obama

so either you're bull****ting or you're lying.


Let's see what the hall open season has to offer, then you decide how
great this "free" health care plan is working. The insurance company
is already hiking the rates for the families who want to take
advantage of the preexisting condition and those who want to put
their 20 somethings on the policy.

you're right. it would be cheaper to let 'em die. WTF...why not?

The big medicine people will do just fine. They are going to sell more
government paid for drugs and doctors/hospitals will get more
patients. I still have not seen anything to control the cost, They
just increased availability

let's balance the budget on the backs of the sick and dying. why not?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:30:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:05:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
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.


You are going to have to cite that ... and not from, Al Gore.

My "8000 years ago" number is from an article in Scientific American
about tracking CO2.
In that regard, man may be causing the CO2 buildup but it still tracks
population growth and the rise of agriculture as much as any other
metric. It is an 8000 year trend. Buying carbon credits from Al Gore
is not going to do anything about that. It will just create another
phony bubble market like the CDOs that will probably pop

I do have a little skepticism about "published reports" because
professors publish to get grants and there are no grants to prove man
didn't cause global warming.

Read all about it..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

If you don't believe "published reports," what possible reports would you
believe? Unpublished ones? How is someone supposed to do anything if they
don't let others know??

It's very difficult to prove a negative. You create a hypothesis, then you
test that hypothesis. If it holds up, you publish and others test it.
That's
how things get done in the scientific world.


They didn't ask the second half of the question.

"Is this human activity the mere fact that we are here?"

I said this tracks POPULATION as closely as anything else. I suppose
if we scrubbed five billion off the world population we could actually
reduce CO2 levels to what it was in 1800 when there were only a
billion of us but it might take 40-50 years to see it happen after we
were gone. (forests and grassland taking the farms and cities back)

Human population is directly correlated with activity. We could scrub 5
billion, and certainly population is a serious issue, but that's not much of
a solution. We need to find a way to live that doesn't damage our
environment that will ultimately result in scrubbing millions due to
disaster.