On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:54:04 -0400, DSK wrote:

If you want to see the *real* difference between the two, compare how
the two's children speak in public, and behave in general. But hey, if
'family values' matter most to you, then you probably won't care about
raising intelligent, well balanced, well-spoken, professional, and
high-achieving kids... at least, if you claim you care about family
values and voted for Bush anyway...



John H wrote:
We should have elected Kerry. Besides well-balanced, well-spoken, professional,
and high-achieving kids, we could have expected:

Taxes to go up *only* for those making over $200,000,

Or maybe a reduction in the huge defecit due to the "war on terrorism"
which Bush & Cheney are fighting by invading countries that have no
connection to terrorism...

The 'No Child Left Behind Act' to be fully funded,

Or maybe the 'No Child Left Behind' act would be rescinded and in it's
place a reasonable, effective, and non-punitive, educational policy that
could be executed with the existing level of funding

BTW you're an educator John H (or at least have claimed to be) what do
you really think of President Bush's unfunded mandate called 'The No
Child Left Behind Act'?

The Iraq Coalition to become much larger very soon, especially with
all the French and German troops that will join,

Or maybe coalition members would stop leaving

Everyone able to have the same medical care afforded members of
Congress,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now?

Cheap prescription drugs,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now? Instead of
the *more expensive* drug plans forced down the country's throats in the
form of a huge deficit-increasing subsidy to the big pharmaceutical
companies which the just-previous and Republican controlled Congress
enacted under the guise of "Medicare Reform" (cough cough)?

All children going to college,

Or maybe just the ones that are smart enough to benefit, whether they
can pay or not.


An immediate end to the nuclear weapons aims of North Korea and Iran,

Why doesn't the Republican controlled Congress do this now?

America to soon be the beloved nation of the entire world,

You mean like we would if GWB honored his campaign promises to put into
force the Kyoto Accords, acted to stop genocide, and didn't lock up
people forever & for no reason other than some fumbling intimation that
they *might* be terrorists?


A tremendous decrease in unemployment,
A huge increase in high-paying jobs,
A resurgence of manufacturing jobs,

Why can't President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress do this now?


An energy independent America, with no reliance on Mideast oil

Or maybe we could just ask Halliburton to return the 200 million + that
they've stolen or overcharged since the beginning of the Iraq war.

A modernized military, able to meet all threats,

I thought Rumsfeld was giving us that now, as soon as he finishes
rooting out the 'Clintonized' military leadership (why is it taking more
than 4 years?).

Etc Etc Etc

Oh and thanks for acknowledging all the problems that the Bush
Administration is creating, or worsening, and leaving for the grown-ups
to clean up after them... I hope the grown-ups get there soon...

DSK

Check out Virginia's implementation of the NCLB Act. You'll not find a lot of
whining about lack of funds. Of course, Virginia already had some standards for
its educational system. It seems as though a big problem is the states'
inability to spend the money allocated them. Why fund more when what's funded
isn't being spent?

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/nclb/

As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.

Lastly, you made my point. We should have elected Kerry, who can do the
impossible and only tax the rich. He would have worked miracles, like getting
folks out of wheel chairs.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil... and put many more *real* terrorists
behind bars for life than Bush has done... after due process, too. Icing
on the cake.

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?
Is an energy-independent America "impossible"
Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?
Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?
Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?
Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr
took office?
Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?


Lastly, you made my point.

Actually, you made mine. Most of Bush & Cheney's policy's have been a
total failure if you look at the good of the country overall, and if you
look at successful policies of the past.

Of course, it's a lot easier to call names and then say doing all these
things is "impossible."

.... We should have elected Kerry

I agree. Actually, we did elect Gore, but unfortunately he didn't get
tot ake office and even you agree that the country is the poorer for it.

... He would have worked miracles, like getting
folks out of wheel chairs.


If that were true, maybe the Pope would have endorsed Kerry.

DSK

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:35:30 -0400, DSK wrote:


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil... and put many more *real* terrorists
behind bars for life than Bush has done... after due process, too. Icing
on the cake.

Clinton - a real winner as far as terrorism goes.

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

No, Bush has started the job.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

In the near term? Yes. If we build a lot of nuclear plants? Maybe.
If we owned Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?

Ah yes, we missed the liberals icons, France, Germany, and Russia.

Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

Bush has increased manufacturing jobs where he could - M1 Tanks, Bradleys,
Humvees, M16s, etc. He couldn't increase the production of automobiles,
textiles, etc. like Kerry could have.
Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

See above.

Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr
took office?

You mean while they were going nuclear under Clinton's reign?
Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?


Lastly, you made my point.

My point was that we should have elected Kerry!

Actually, you made mine. Most of Bush & Cheney's policy's have been a
total failure if you look at the good of the country overall, and if you
look at successful policies of the past.

Of course, it's a lot easier to call names and then say doing all these
things is "impossible."

Please show me where I called you a name.

.... We should have elected Kerry

I agree. Actually, we did elect Gore, but unfortunately he didn't get
tot ake office and even you agree that the country is the poorer for it.

... He would have worked miracles, like getting
folks out of wheel chairs.


If that were true, maybe the Pope would have endorsed Kerry.

Maybe not true, but Edwards said he would do it!

DSK

To prevent you going in to your name-calling, put-down routine, we'll stop now.


--
John H

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

John H wrote:
Clinton - a real winner as far as terrorism goes.


Clinton BAD! Clinton BAD! AArrk!

Polly wanna cracker?

If you bothered your little head with facts, you'd be aware that the
Clinton Administration... meaning mostly the professional counterspooks
in the NSA, along with the Justice Dept... put more terrorists behind
bars for life than the Bush Administration has even caught.

Or were you under the impression that Sept 11th happened on Clinton's
watch, and that Clinton is the one who removed US troops from the hunt
for Osama Bin Laden?



Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?


No, Bush has started the job.

Really? How? By running up a huge deficit, reducing the tax base, and
proposing a plan which *increases* the SS income/payout split and makes
the system go bust sooner? Bush's plan is a great scheme for funneling
money to Bush/Rove affiliated political campaign chests (gotta keep the
cash out of enemy hands, like McCains or Whitmans).




Is an energy-independent America "impossible"


In the near term? Yes. If we build a lot of nuclear plants? Maybe.
If we owned Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Probably.

Are you under the impression that oil lasts forever? Do you think we've
done well at gaining control of Iraq's oil fields so far?


To prevent you going in to your name-calling, put-down routine, we'll stop now.


Is stating facts and asking for some intelligent reply "name-calling"?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
John H wrote:
As to several of your questions, "Why hasn't the Republican
controlled...?", I
would say, for many of these, because it's impossible.


That's funny, they reduced the deficit under Clinton *and* had NO
terrorist attacks on US soil... and put many more *real* terrorists behind
bars for life than Bush has done... after due process, too. Icing on the
cake.

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?
It is as long as it's being made a political football.
Is an energy-independent America "impossible"
Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.
Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to invade
Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr put
together?
YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were getting.
Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?
When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't, yes.
Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?
All countries act in their own short term interest.
Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?
see below
Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?
No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians, Bush
had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took the
money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder reactors
and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line with them.
Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management and
Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get is
some positive world press because we tried while the people we are trying to
help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20 million dollars
from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game now too."

Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It is as long as it's being made a political football.


Agreed, to a large extent.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.

That's hilarious... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.



Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to invade
Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr put
together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't, yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...



Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

All countries act in their own short term interest.

Agreed. OTOH if we don't insult & trample other countries needlessly,
they might be more cooperative on the anti-terror thing.

After Sept 11th the whole world was on our side... except for the very
few Muslim radicals who openly sided with Al-Queda.

The Bush Administration has squandered that good will and lost the
chance to forge a meaningful alliance against terrorism.



Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?

see below

Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?

No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians, Bush
had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took the
money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder reactors
and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line with them.

Really? We sold them that stuff long before... and the Koreans knew more
than you did about Clinton's planning to raid their nuclear facilities
if they didn't dance right. The pros at the State Dept managed the show
under Clinton, not the suck-up right-wing whackos that the Bushies have
put in charge.

The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about
what was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens
with a stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.



Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management and
Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get is
some positive world press because we tried while the people we are trying to
help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20 million dollars
from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game now too."


Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in
foreign policy, I guess.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Is making Social Security more fiscally sound "impossible"?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
It is as long as it's being made a political football.


Agreed, to a large extent.

Is an energy-independent America "impossible"

Yes unless we go from 25% nuclear to at least 75% nuclear.

That's hilarious... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.

The problem with solar power besides the cost to make the solar cells
(energy) and maintain (they have a limited life before they degrade) is
storage. Current battery technology is terrible. Having your solar cells
feed back into the electric grid is the best solution now. So we still have
to have the current generation system. With fuel cell technology you still
have to have the energy to crack water to make the hydrogen. Thus the
reason for nuclear power plants. France is 80% nuclear power (one of their
reasons for supporting the kyoto treaty).


Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were
getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Prove that, point to a NEWS source that supports that statement.

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?

Yeah and thats one of the resons we had to invade Iraq, the job was never
finished. We had to maintain a no fly zone to protect the north and south
of Iraq from Saddam. That cost us 2 billion a year. We lost our major base
(airport) in Saudi arabia and couldn't maintain the no-flys as economically.
Also we had Democrats in congress calling for and passing the depose Saddam
resolution. Just no-one with courage to implement it.


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't,
yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...

NO, but we can add taxes to the incoming goods that equal the difference in
burdon that our plants have when competing with one that doesn't have the
same restrictions. That makes it less attractive to polute in third world
countrys. Currently it's illegal for us to do that because of trade
language that was passed when the democrats controlled congress.

Is it "impossible" to gain the respect of, and cooperation with, other
nations?

All countries act in their own short term interest.

Agreed. OTOH if we don't insult & trample other countries needlessly, they
might be more cooperative on the anti-terror thing.

After Sept 11th the whole world was on our side... except for the very few
Muslim radicals who openly sided with Al-Queda.

The Bush Administration has squandered that good will and lost the chance
to forge a meaningful alliance against terrorism.



Is influencing North Korea to not build "nookular" weapons totally
impossible, when it had been done for years before President Bush Jr took
office?

see below

Is it "impossible" to protect the environment?

No, just difficult.


Clinton made an effort to do all of the above but you need a good faith
effort on the part of all involved before anything is accomplished. From
the failures that Clinton had with both N Korea and the Palestinians,
Bush had learned that they DON'T act in good faith. The N. Koreans took
the money we gave them for fuel oil and invested it in nuclear breeder
reactors and gas diffusion enriching equipment so we took the hard line
with them.

Really? We sold them that stuff long before... and the Koreans knew more
than you did about Clinton's planning to raid their nuclear facilities if
they didn't dance right. The pros at the State Dept managed the show under
Clinton, not the suck-up right-wing whackos that the Bushies have put in
charge.

The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about what
was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens with a
stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.

Yes their nuclear program has been going on for more than 10 years. Much of
it while Clinton was in office. Think about the time it takes to build a
nuclear reactor, gather the uranium ore, process the ore and load the
nuclear reactor. Then run the breeder reactor for 2 years to make enough
plutonium to be extracted, then to seperate the plutonium out of the uranium
fuel rods. The technology to build the detonation system and delivery
system isn't developed overnight either. All of these take a lot of money
and a dedicated government with savy managers to coordinate all these
technologys.

Yes Clinton talked about using the stick, Democrats talk the same line as
Republicans but rairly do anything. Actually that's unfair, there have been
far sighted Democrats....just very few of them. Look at how many wars start
in the world when a power vacuum is created by our system.


Bush refused to meet with the Palestinians until they had new management
and Arafat their leader suddenly died, new management.


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'

YES

I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get
is some positive world press because we tried while the people we are
trying to help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20
million dollars from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game
now too."

Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in foreign
policy, I guess.

Yup, he refused to deal with or give money to them. We have been supporting
both sides (money) and it has been in their interest to continue the
conflict. Now it's in their interest to solve the problem.


DSK

... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't
return enough money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that
make big political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of
that for a long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered
housing." I used to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
The problem with solar power besides the cost to make the solar cells
(energy) and maintain (they have a limited life before they degrade) is
storage.

Your point? 'Conventional' energy system ain't cheap, nor are they
trouble free.

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound
as is available in a pound of gasoline.


... Having your solar cells
feed back into the electric grid is the best solution now.

Not really. A lot of people are taking their houses off the grid,
putting in 24V lighting & fridge etc etc. It works acceptably. How much
is your electric bill each month?

Personally, my solution is to buy stock in the gas & oil companies, but
that doesn't work for everybody either.


Would it have been impossible to put together a *real* coalition to
invade Iraq, like say for example the one that President George Bush Sr
put together?

YES, remember the bribes that FRENCH and RUSSIAN polititions were
getting.

Oh yeah, park that fantasy right next to NOBBY's ongoing daydreams about
Iraqi WMDs getting shipped to Syria.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?


Prove that, point to a NEWS source that supports that statement.


Why bother? A yay-Bush person like yourself isn't going to believe any
link I post. However, the facts are out there even if Fox News isn't
shouting it at you 24/7.

Like I said, if it was impossible then how come Bush's daddy managed it?


Yeah and thats one of the resons we had to invade Iraq, the job was never
finished.

Oh, so now Bush Sr is part of the problem? Golly, during the election
the RNC was trying to make us believe that 1988 to 1992 was a golden era
where everything was perfect.

... We had to maintain a no fly zone to protect the north and south
of Iraq from Saddam. That cost us 2 billion a year. We lost our major base
(airport) in Saudi arabia and couldn't maintain the no-flys as economically.
Also we had Democrats in congress calling for and passing the depose Saddam
resolution. Just no-one with courage to implement it.

Did the resolution call for spitting on the UN and destroying former
alliances in order to go it alone?


Is it "impossible" to increase manufacturing jobs?

When we have restrictions on our companys that foreign countrys don't,
yes.

Gee, let's get rid of all pollution laws and let's start hiring subteens
and chaining them factory benches. Heck with that, let's just force
prisoners to work for free... BTW remember that parking ticket you got
years ago...


NO, but we can add taxes to the incoming goods that equal the difference in
burdon that our plants have when competing with one that doesn't have the
same restrictions.

That's the way it's *supposed* to work now.


... That makes it less attractive to polute in third world
countrys. Currently it's illegal for us to do that because of trade
language that was passed when the democrats controlled congress.

Horse ****. Go read the NAFTA treaty... which was passed by a Republican
Congress... another yay-Bush lie which you eagerly swallow.


The Clinton Administration... or at least, the pros at State... offered
the N Koreans a carrot & a stick, and had credible intelligence about what
was going on. The Bush Administration offers no carrot, threatens with a
stick it doesn't have, and believes it's own daydreams.

The results speak for themselves.


Yes their nuclear program has been going on for more than 10 years. Much of
it while Clinton was in office. Think about the time it takes to build a
nuclear reactor, gather the uranium ore, process the ore and load the
nuclear reactor.

Yep. However, there are key differences between building a nuclear power
plant and building a bomb.

... Then run the breeder reactor for 2 years to make enough
plutonium to be extracted, then to seperate the plutonium out of the uranium
fuel rods.

Which is what they *weren't* doing, and verifiably so. But guess what,
the Bush Administration has let both the military options and the
intelligence assets slip away.

... The technology to build the detonation system and delivery
system isn't developed overnight either.

No, they developed and tested the missiles back in the 1980s. But hey,
it must be all Clinton's fault, right?



Yes Clinton talked about using the stick, Democrats talk the same line as
Republicans but rairly do anything. Actually that's unfair, there have been
far sighted Democrats....just very few of them. Look at how many wars start
in the world when a power vacuum is created by our system.

Look at how the current war was started by greed & ignorance. Which do
you prefer?


Are you insinuating that perhaps Arafat had a little 'accident?'


YES


Doubtful, Arafat was old & sick and it was surprising he had lived as
long as had. Well overdue.


I resent our leaders giving money away when they KNOW that all they get
is some positive world press because we tried while the people we are
trying to help laugh at our system of government. "Look we got 20
million dollars from the stupid Americans. We know how to play the game
now too."

Yep, that's why President Bush has had such a marvelous success in foreign
policy, I guess.


Yup, he refused to deal with or give money to them. We have been supporting
both sides (money) and it has been in their interest to continue the
conflict. Now it's in their interest to solve the problem.

I guess that's why so many "problems" are being solved around the world?
Iran & North Korea with nukes, a thousand+ US deaths in Iraq and ten
thousand maimed, terrorism on the rise, fewer countries willing to
cooperate with US counter-intel & counter-terrorism ops, and then
there's all the economic issues which NOBBY keeps trying obfuscate. You
think this is good going?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


Did the resolution call for spitting on the UN and destroying former
alliances in order to go it alone?

Yes, it did called for spitting on the people that were ****ting on us.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... I guess decentralized solar & fuel-cell power won't return enough
money to the big corporations, and they're the ones that make big
political contribution$... so yeah, we won't be seeing any of that for a
long long time... do some research on "off-grid powered housing." I used
to call 'em 'survivalists' but it's a different attitude.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
The problem with solar power besides the cost to make the solar cells
(energy) and maintain (they have a limited life before they degrade) is
storage.

Your point? 'Conventional' energy system ain't cheap, nor are they trouble
free.

... Current battery technology is terrible.

Only in comparison to fossil fuel technology. It may be physically
impossible to store as much energy in electro-chemical bonds per pound as
is available in a pound of gasoline.

For fixed storage, weight is not the issue, it's economics. IF you have 10
batterys in a state like Arizona for for use at night, that might work but
for Florida where we get cloudy days you might need 30 batterys. And every
2-3 years you need to replace those batterys. Not economical at the current
cost for fuel unless you live outside the power grid and transporting fuel
is too prohibative in cost economics again.


... Having your solar cells feed back into the electric grid is the best
solution now.

Not really. A lot of people are taking their houses off the grid, putting
in 24V lighting & fridge etc etc. It works acceptably. How much is your
electric bill each month?

$100 and most of that is Air conditioning for the 90 degree 99% humidity
days, I have a very efficient (good insulation) home. Can't use solar power
for Air conditioning. There are some locations that have climates that lend
themselves to well designed homes that use the sun to heat and solar power
to provide electricity for appliances. Their electric bills today are
probably (without solar panels) $25 per month.

I'd love to live in N. Carolina by a stream that I could use to provide
hydo-electic power, to be totally self contained. Ain't happening.

Did you know that American pals of Cheneys were getting more money from
the oil-for-food scams than the Russians and the French put together?

Prove that, point to a NEWS source that supports that statement.

Why bother? A yay-Bush person like yourself isn't going to believe any
link I post. However, the facts are out there even if Fox News isn't
shouting it at you 24/7.

I googled and look what I found:

"With regard to the three individuals cited in the CIA report and "revealed"
by the Times, two of the individuals have been known since January 2004 when
the Scandal information was first publicized in Iraq. The first American is
Iraqi-born Samir Vincent who has lived in the U.S. since 1958 and once
organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet
with former president Jimmy Carter. And the other person is Shaker
Al-Khafaji who has historically had an indepth involvement with the Hussein
regime. He is described by The Middle East Mediar Reseach Institute (MEMRI)
as "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates,"
and financed a film by Scott Ritter, former UN inspector, [which argued]
against UN sanctions, admitted to having financial ties to the Hussein
regime, been active in the anti-Iraq-war movement and accompanied
Congressmen Jim McDermott (D- Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif), and David
Bonior (D-Mich) to Baghdad prior to Gulf War II in 2002 to criticize the
impending war."