... 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

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1 trillion
or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK


Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all been
spent. To FORCE the government to invest the money and not spend it would
require either 1) We cut spending so some of the SS money coming in
(remember we still have a surplus, more coming in than is going to SS
recipients) can be invested, the goal is 20% which exceeds the surplus in SS
income 2) we borrow the money to invest and do not cut spending.

BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1 trillion
or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all been
spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of sense.

DSK


To FORCE the government to invest the money and not spend it would
require either 1) We cut spending so some of the SS money coming in
(remember we still have a surplus, more coming in than is going to SS
recipients) can be invested, the goal is 20% which exceeds the surplus in SS
income 2) we borrow the money to invest and do not cut spending.

"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.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

I've seen both of their transcripts. He took even easier classes than
Bush.

Proof?

Proof from Harry? When he posts Bush's transcripts, I'll post
Kerry's...and
then you can compare the two.

Perhaps you didn't understand my request. YOU SAID "I've seen both of
their transcripts. He took even easier classes than Bush", did you
not? Just look above, you did! So, I asked for the proof. Do you have
any, or is it business as usual with you, just trying your hardest to
make the right look better than they really are?

When Harry posts Bush's transcript, I'll post Kerry's.

Nice try, NOYB. My question has absolutely NOTHING to do with Harry.
NOTHING!
I asked for proof of YOUR STATEMENT. Have any? Let's see it.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...


The Russians just about admitted when they complained about some of their
nationals being killed by our planes that they were removing
"incriminating technology" from Irag into Syria. Speculation was they
they were moving records, advanced SAM systems, GPS jamming systems,
Computers, missles and other equipment that they weren't allowed to sell
Saddam. Trucks were seen loading at sites north of Bagdad and driving
east. Since they had information on our satellite systems they could time
the travel so that we couldn't see where they went.


Frankly, who could blame them for having equipment there? There's only so
far you can go with testing certain technologies before you finally have to
try them in real world situations. We are no different. Remember some of the
news reports in the first days of Desert Storm? All the networks were
reporting comments from the military, and even companies like Raytheon,
about new technologies we were pleased with (or those which needed work).

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

Fact: You are anywhere near bright enough to post one single post or
reply without your childish, boorish, petty name calling. Why to ****
can't you grow up? Really Fritz, you DO know that people here don't
give you one ounce of respect, nor credibility because of your childish
actions, don't you?

P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student
His 4-year average on par with Bush's
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005

WASHINGTON -- During last year's presidential campaign, John F. Kerry
was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while
George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.

But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually
identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.

In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had
received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and
a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his
senior year.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his
four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when
he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his
freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later
years.

(In the interest of upholding international copyright laws, a
significant portion of this article has been snipped. Go to the link
below to see the article in it's entirety.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...dent? mode=PF



What did Kerry take?

He got 4 D's his freshman year. D's!

I got one D in my *life*. Thermodynamics I. In Thermo II, I finally
decided to read the damn book back to chapter 1. Once I knew the
difference between an open and a closed system, I aced Thermo II.

I'm surprised Yale let someone with 4 D's stay in school. Purdue's
Engineering schools would have tossed him...and he'd have finished up as a
grad of the restaurant and hotel management school.

My alma mater would allow you to stay if your overall GPA was still about a
2.0, or you continued to get above a 2.0 each quarter if your overall was
below a 2.0. (academic probation) However, some of the colleges within the
institute would kick you out of the major if you received less than a 'C' in
any two required major courses, (including withdrawls, and including
repeating the class).....so even if you got a second 'D' in you last
quarter, you would not receive a degree in that major.


Which middle school is that? Your actions here are so childish that no
one would think that you're older than middle school age.

"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."

wrote in message
ups.com...


P.Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


The economy is great. Unemployment is low, and GDP is up. The
stock
market is undervalued IMHO. People got burned by the corporate
accounting scandals and irrational growth from the dot-coms and
IPO's...and turned to a safer investment: real estate. Real
estate
is
the new millenium's new stock market.


That's a crock.

BUSH JOB LOSSES NEAR 3 MILLION: "Our economy is strong," President
George
W. Bush declared on May 31, citing as evidence job growth during
the
past
two years and a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. What Bush didn't
mention
was how many jobs have been lost in his entire four-year-plus
tenure.

Irrelevant. There's been a *NET GAIN* of nearly a million jobs while
he's
been President...and almost 3 1/2 million in the last two years.

Yeah, sure. Let's say that a certain person's worth five years ago was
$1 million. Because of poor investments, four years ago, your worth
was
down to $500,000. This year your worth went up to $750,000. Following
your analogy, you actually gained! But, wait, look......there's a
$250,000 deficit, not including inflation, etc.



Fact: There are more people working today than in 2000.

Fact: There have been 23 straight months of net gains in the employment
numbers

Fact: If you add up the net gains and the net losses each month since
Bush
has been in office, you end up with a total net gain of almost 900,000
jobs.

Fact: You're a dimwit


Fact: He is the "King of the NG idiots"

Fact: You are anywhere near bright enough to post one single post or
reply without your childish, boorish, petty name calling. Why to ****
can't you grow up? Really Fritz, you DO know that people here don't
give you one ounce of respect, nor credibility because of your childish
actions, don't you?


"You are anywhere near bright enough..."? "Why to f*#k..."? OMG, how
funny.