News-Record.com

the party of the people??? hahahahaha!
having been raised in the liberal northeast mecca's of baltimore and new york, i know first hand what your future under the liberal democrats is.
people in liberal mecca's don't live, they only exist.the schools are out of control, the water is filthy, and street gangs own large sections of the cities.
your taxes will be raised steadily over time till your paying 50c on the dollar. then they'll put up some toll roads to take even more.
sure, they'll take more of your money to inspect "cargo containers", but nevermind the thousands sneaking into this country everyday, afterall, they're just trying to find "a better life".
well, on the bright side? at least when " the party of the people" finally gets total control, you won't have to worry about things like which doctor or hospital to go to.or which media outlet to use.
remember, like the 100 hours platform and global warming, discent will not be tolerated.
liberal-progressive-socialist-commucrat.

Minimum wage...useless 'feel good' liberal claptrap designed to porttay them as for the 'working man'. Uncle Ted's impassioned speech on this the other was enough to make a buzzard puke. A drunk clown who never worked a day in his life claiming to speak for the 'working man'. What a juckin' foke.

"Recending tax breaks" for oil drillers. Stealing money from corporations to fund their pet projects while the price of gas increases. Here too, uncle Ted has a double standard. No windmills out in cape cod. They might spoil his blured scenery of the yatchs.

The democratic agenda is nothing more than government, government, and more government. And we get to fund it.

Good letter, Mr. Kollar. To the above comments I just say, what have the current leaders done for the people of the USA?

They have managed to kill more soldiers in Iraq than the terrorists killed in 911. Maybe that accounts for the "low" unemployment rate, fewer alive to be unemployed.

They have provided tax breaks for the mega rich. They have proposed an amendment to ban gay marriage. They have provided mega bucks for the pharmacutical industry. They have made Haliburton even richer. What else have they done. Please share with us all.

With the exception of the minimum wage increase, and stem cell research, I'm okay with these issues. I hope Bush will use his veto power to kill the federal funding of stem-cell research.

The only issue that I'd be concerned with regarding the other issues is exactly how to pay for them.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing Neocon is right regarding the tax breaks for oil drillers. Who do you think will pay for that one? Instead of us paying through the government, it will be us paying to the oil companies. How does that address the ridiculous price of gas in this country? I also wonder how that will effect oil drilling in this country versus oil drilling in other countries.

Oh yeah,Nitpicker, that makes a lot of sense! Especially sense the oil companies are just hanging on by a thread! What planet have you been living on? And for stem cells, you are in the dark ages and your stance ensures that some other country will find cures before our country. What a bunch of crap!

The Dems wasted no time in putting their hands back in our pockets to fund their giveaway/entitlement/earmark programs designed to buy votes and regain their power so they can buy more votes and gain even more power.
Yessiree, they're really looking out for the little people...*wink wink*

Oh, cack, waiting for you to tell me what the current administration...I will not classify them as Republicans, aka conservatives, has done for you so far. How MUCH has been wasted in Iraq? Do you have a clue???

Stem cell research has been used as another fear tactic...we will be aborting babies just for research...what an ingnorant stance.

"The Dems wasted no time in putting their hands back in our pockets to fund their giveaway/entitlement/earmark programs designed to buy votes and regain their power so they can buy more votes and gain even more power.
Yessiree, they're really looking out for the little people...*wink wink*"

Looking at the kleptocracy that they replaced I'm not sure you have much room for sarcasm.

DD:

Perhaps you can tell me how that move will hurt or help gasoline prices or oil companies? You and I will pay for it. And since, the plan does not call for a reduction in spending, we'll keep paying the government as well.

"What a bunch of crap" "What an ignorant stance"

All because I don't agree with federal funding of stem-cell research. It's called a difference of opinion. I never gave my reasons for not agreeing with it. Please let me know if I ever call your beliefs "crap" or "ignorant" even if I don't agree with them.

lilbean and neocon,

Consider that maybe you're the ones who are drunk. I can't believe some of the nonsense you two are trying to pass off as legitimate argument.

"Discent (sic) will not be tolerated"? What!?! What was the standard response for the previous six years when voices of dissent were heard? "Traitor!" "Treason!" "Terrorists!"

"The democratic agenda is nothing more than government, government, and more government. And we get to pay for it." Is this a joke!?! What we have seen in the previous six years is the largest and most expensive government in history, and they have essentially accomplished nothing! So now, the largest bureaucratic behemoth ever created (Dept. of Homeland Security) is actually being asked to do something, like container security, the Dems are accused of reaching into your pockets? Someone please point out to me what DHS has done besides drive up the demand for duct tape. I see no problem with asking them to help secure the homeland, but I guess some of you can find fault with everyhing.

For the oil companies, I've been asking you geniuses for over a year now why this administration has given over ten billion dollars in relief to the most profitable companies in history. So far the only responses I've gotten are personal insults. Put up or shut up. If you think tax breaks for the oil companies are justified, explain why.

Nitpicker, what is your objection to stem cell research?

Just a quick point on the oil companies: Before one is too quick to condemn ExxonMobile, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, etc., one should take a quick peek at one's own IRA, Roth IRA, 401-k, 403-b, mutual fund holdings, etc. to be sure YOU are not one of the SOBs profiting from their success. If they are anywhere in your portfolio, then you have some divesting to do, lest someone pins the hypocrite tail on your ... donkey.

Howie G,

My objection is to embroynic stem cell research. In this case, it involves using my tax dollars to pay for it.

For me, it is an issue of conscience, plain and simple. For many of the same reasons, I'm against my tax dollars going to fund abortions as a form of birth control.

I am not against stem cell research on stem cells derived from adults, cord blood, or the placenta. As I said before, the new studies out of Wake are very encouraging to me.

I have a serious objection to the destruction of embryo's. For me, it is even worse when embryos are destroyed for a profit.

There's a question as to when life starts and there is a moral question if such life should be discarded or used to further scientific research. I've heard the argument that we're talking about embryos already extracted for fertility treatments and that they would be destroyed anyway. As you can imagine, I don't believe in that either. But I also have serious doubts that embryonic stem cell treatments would not lead one day to the specific creation of embryos for destruction.

Is it possible that major medical breakthroughs might be derived from embryonic stem cells and not the other forms. It's possible. Hasn't happened yet, but it's possible. Does that make it right?

Not in my mind.

It really just comes down to different beliefs. I'm in the minority but I think you can understand that even when you are in the minority, it doesn't always mean that you are wrong (or full of crap or ignorant on a subject).

Many were in the minority in feeling we should not engage Iraq in war. They had a different opinion than the majority, but was their opinion any less valid? With embryonic stem cells, there is even less of a clear cut right or wrong.

Funny, nit, but you don't have a problem with Bush wasting your tax dollars on proposals that he knows will never pass---school prayer, Gay Marriage, etc. Prancing all across the nation in AF1 to promote those agendas just to energize his base. Well guess what? I don't like him using my money to kill tens of thousands in Iraq! So you seem to have a dual system for your morality--and your stance on stem cell research is absolutely NOT based on anything other than emotion that has been whipped up by some right wing religious group. Give me a break! The cells are going to be thrown away but you don't want them to be used for medical breakthroughs? One cannot argue with that kind of ignorance.

Jack Armstrong:
I keep all the multinationals in my portfolio, and I maintain that what congress did will not harm them one bit. What Congress did is roll back the "gift" from the GOP for the ones who bankrolled their policies.

HERE'S MORE GREAT NEWS FOR THE 21%:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16944672/

Saw this one coming !!! As soon as a party was mentioned, many of the points got lost in the "my group is better than your group."

I happen to like the letter except for the last paragraph. It wasn't needed. Many, many letters in these communications wanted to know when some of our serious domestic issues would be addressed. Some of the ones listed above are of concern to me. I want to put my energies into productive action; if there is substantive disagreement, well, that's what we need to hear.

I'm not an economist but does it really matter initially whether money for priorities comes from taxation or from borrowing money from other countries. We all will pay regardless. I am concerned about our current levels of spending and our soaring national debt. I am also concerned about the quality of life in our country; I would like to see our national and community needs more in the mix.

One of our biggest challenges, apart from the above, is how are we going to get back the power of the citizenry and set some of our own priorities. We have given away alot.

Ok, who has the Maalox??

The Democrats, so far, have done a fine job in their first month of Congressional control. They zeroed in on problems Bush and his ilk have ignored for too long.

Remember, too, that it was the much-maligned Democrat Bill Clinton who actually started to pay down the national debt. Bush has ballooned our nation's debt out of sight! So which party has its hands in our pockets?

I'd like to reiterate Howie G's challenge for lilbean, neocon, jcackbar, Jack Armstrong, etc. (Dan's on vacation): what has the Bush administration done that benefits you personally? I challenge you collectively to name ten things that Bush has done to help you personally. I will guess that one is the income tax cut. You still need nine.

Howie, I agree that spending is out of sight. I don't believe you will find anywhere that I have defended out of control spending by Bush or anyone else.
But insted of scaling back spending on the "behometh" dhs the democrats apparently have plans to "strenghten" it. I read this (strenghten) as a spending increase. To see it any other way I would have to dip into uncle Ted's private stock.

BB, what the Bush administration has done for me personally is cut taxes that led to a boon in the stock market and has grown my portfolio by appx. 25% as of this date. And yes, I have some of that evil oil stock too. On top of that he has, as of this date, prevented another attack on our soil. I know you liberals will poo poo this, but if it were sli...,uh Clinton in the WH you would be tooting your horn about how HE has prevented such an attack.

JA,
You are right on the mark. If you have any funds, retirement accounts, you are the sob making all that money. Shame on us. Of course Hillary has the right answer, lets take the oil companies profit. Said so on tv today. If you want to hear it go to the Druge Report, and play it.If you want to screw the big oil companies, quit buying their products. Maybe you should open your on oil co. Why is it you never hear about the ambulance chasing lawyers that run up the cost health care. Lets hear about their profits?? Face it people neither party gives a damn about John Q Public.

howie,
try this, go to the game this weekend, wear your team sweatshirt, then stand behind the bench and hurl insults at the coach.
some of the comments by some democrats have been treasonous.some republicans too.but they got heard didn't they?
the republican party has sucked the last 6 years, and their paying the price.and unless they change their ways, they'll pay an even bigger price in '08.
but the democrats being the party of the people? yeah, maybe the europeans.not americans.
watch now as they line up with all the socialist around the world in an all out blitz on this country. watch and listen and learn as any differing opinion or view on global warming is squashed. alittle advise?? look into getting some horses.

Only nine more, huh, Beadbaby?

Well, lemme see ... first thing he did was to arrange for the elimination of my main business competitor, whose corporate office was in the World Trade Center. He went a little overboard there, but, hey, I didn't tell him HOW to do it.

Then, of course, there was the ex-wife who was “eating my lunch” alimony-wise. She lived in New Orleans, but she suddenly stopped bugging me since he arranged for Katrina to leave her calling card.

Oh, oh ... how could I forget? He arranged for a few hundred sub-minimum-wage guest workers to be flown in on Air Force One so I could get the tobacco crop harvested. He even congratulated me on “doin' a helluva job keepin' that nicotine flowin' to those folks who didn't know how to vote right.”

I'll get back to ya on the other six.

nitpicker,

I understand your conviction, but I cannot understand your explanation of the embryonic stem cell issue. If there are some 100,000 frozen embryos that are going to eventually be destroyed, then why not get some scientific use from them? Whether or not you believe that each of these embryos is a human life, if they will be destroyed by disposal or destroyed by scientific research, then I don't see the difference. The issue is really not about when life starts, it's about productive use of embryos that will be destroyed regardless.

If there were a shortage of embryos and an excess of women lined up to be implanted, thereby meaning that they would not eventually be destroyed, then I'd say the stakes were different, and my opinion might change. But as of today, I believe there have only been something like 140 of these "snowflake" babies. So it sounds to me like about 100,000 of these women who believe that these are frozen humans need to get busy implanting themselves, lest they be partially culpable when these embryos are thrown away.

By the way, the "creation of embryos for destruction and profit" scenario is 1) a totally separte issue, and 2) more importantly, a cheap fear tactic. And stating that no medical breakthroughs have happened yet is also pretty cheap. Did it occur to you that maybe it's because there are so few viable cell lines?

neocon,

What's your objection to the DHS actually being accountable for some segment of the homeland's security? And why is it that you blindly support uncapped spending on the Iraq war and "troop surge", yet balk when it's suggested by anyone with a (D) behind his/her name? Consider that you're at least as partisan as those you so vehemently criticize.

lilbean,

Your doomsday "socialist-commie" fear tactic nonsense is a waste of my time. You must have an extremely short or selective memory if you fail to recognize what's been going on for the past six years. Protestors shouting in a "free speech zone" miles away from the president are not heard as well as those who get invited to his Town Hall pep rallies.

Likewise, since the Dems have had no power to set agendas, there have been very few opportunities to be heard from in the Congress. Rather, it has to play out outside the walls of our government in the press. So I say welcome back to the idea of checks and balances.

And on a personal note, I don't mind a little bullying on the topic of global warming. For too long the SCIENCE has been surpressed, and the report that came out this week says it may be too late to reverse the current trend. If sea level rises two feet in the next 93 years, then cities like London, Tokyo, Miami, New York, and Charleston will face the choice of being under water or building a levee system. Guess who'll pay for that? So it's about time for a rude awakening on this topic. I can't believe our oil man president actually acknowledged some need for climate change, and some of you cling to the idea that it's a hoax.

Big oil.

Honestly folks, oil companies have us by the short hairs. No getting around it. In fact, if oil companies wanted to increase their profit margin, they probably could.

Are you going to stop using gas if it went to $4 per gallon? Didn't think so.

Does an industry that creates a product that every single American uses expect to make a large profit? Hell yes. Not exactly rocket science.

So, why does the government give big oil money? They are hardly hurting, why do they do it? So that we only have to pay $2.50 a gallon, not $5 a gallon, I believe.

Overall, my opinion is that this is all a wash. Our taxes going (indirectly) to keep costs lower equates out to no net savings for a lower pump price.

But boy, do politicians get ansy when pump price goes up. Yes sir they do. Everyone gets pissed and wants SOMEONE to do SOMETHING about it. But who, doing what is never really defined. Just that someone should do something. Exxon shouldn't pay their fat CEO's 500 trillion dollars a month, should they? It just ain't right.

So, lets get angry at big oil, even as we continue our unbridled use of their product.

As I see it we have the following options:

1) pay it and suck it up

2) let the government nationalize everything oil related. It would only make things better, right? Right? Hello, anyone there?

or

3) reduce our dependence on oil

I like option 3 myself. But it would require drastic and seemingly unacceptable sacrifices from many Americans. Such as buying smaller cars, wearing sweaters in winter (even in your own house), and recycling more.

I know of a fellow once that suggested something along the lines of wearing sweaters. It didn't go over very well for the man. But no matter how I look at the issue, I can't seem to see how that isn't good advice.

Maybe I am just shallow, naive or completely idiotic, but I also can't see how anyone could be anything but completely for the concept of conservation and weening ourselves off oil.

Oil companies are the outward, visible manifestations of the problem. Our addiction to oil is, in my humble opinion, the problem. Cure the illness and the symptoms go away. Treat the symptons only, and you will never get better.

Nice dodge Howie. I say the democrats plan to "strenghten" dhs reads as more spending, not "holding the dhs accountable". I have no problem with 'holding them accountable', it's what that 'strenghtening' will cost that bothers me.

How 'bout showing me where I have said I blindly support this "troop surge"...thanks in advance. I'm on record as saying might as well bring them on home, the victory went to the terrorists last november with their party of choice taking control of congress.

BB, Bush also deep sixed the worthless 'Kyoto Treaty', had he signed this useless piece of tax increasing garbage, it would have had a very negative effect on my line of work. Not to mention the negative effect it would have on the economy as a whole. All the useless regulations 'carbon neutral al' would have us adhere to would ammount to money out of my pocket. Don't bleat about 'business and corporations' having to eat the cost either, they eat nothing, it is simply passed on to all of us in the form of higher prices for their goods and services.

Howie,

I appreciate the civil response.

I don't really understand the purpose of an overabundance of frozen embryo's. Why is there an overabundance? Why do fertility clinics produce so much more than they need? I honestly don't know.

Why not get scientific use from them? Well, there's probably an overabundance of dead fetuses out there from miscarriages and abortions. Why not sell them as meat by-products to the dog food industry? Seems kind of a waste to not use them. Along the same lines, why bury anyone? Why just dispose of them underground or cremate them when doctors could perform tests on them or they could be ground up as chum for fishermen? Sounds reasonable to me, unless of course it was a loved one and then I might have a problem with them being used as shark-bait.

As far as their being few viable cell lines, is that even really true? Or is it a matter of where those cell lines exist and how they are funded? I honestly don't know the answer to that question either.

I know, I know. I'm being melodramatic but in a small way, it's just to illustrate that one thing I don't believe in isn't going to make me believe in the other.

You're a smart guy and I appreciate your point of view and even more, I appreciate the fact that you can debate without insults.

One thing that bothers me about many stem-cell proponents is that when doctors like the guy at Wake discover that other forms of stem-cells exist and may be just as useful, nobody seems to want to listen. It's almost like they've got their mind set that it has to be embryonic stem cells or else.

And that may just not be true.

As far as cheap fear tactics, I disagree. Does it not seem reasonable to think that if the supply of embryonic stem cells ran out from one source that it might be deemed acceptable to create more? Another cheap scare tactic: telling people that stem cell research will cure just about any kind of disease without any proof to back that assertion up? Right now, it is mere conjecture.

I know more people disagree with me than don't. That's totally okay. And I'm open to ideas and knowledge that I don't have. Right now, however, I'm not convinced that embryos are a good source for scientific experiments.

From Nit: "... the tax breaks for oil drillers .. instead of us paying through the government, it will be us paying to the oil companies."

Wait - what ever happened to the competition scheme - Seems Nit (promped by Meow) want it both ways ... Keep the tax Breaks - we pay through g-man taxes ... hill the tax Breaks - the oil companies raise the prise - we pay through g-man taxes. What ever happened to the capitism competition - are you saying ot doesn't work?

As for oil drilling in this country versus oil drilling in other countries - what a dumb-shortsighted idea. Count me as a vocal opponent.

The ridiculous price of gas in this country? Jeeze Nit - do some traveling!

jcackbar's probably correct - while they've not YET put hands in our pockets to fund their giveaway/entitlement/earmark programs designed to buy votes and regain their power so they can buy more votes and gain even more power .. they probably will.

NanP is def' correct too - The current administration is certailnly no better, and arguably has set a new [low] standard.

joejoe: I'm not an economist either, but HELL YEA it matters whether money for priorities comes from taxation or from borrowing money from other countries.

Taxes - we have the power to throw the bums out - we don't have the wisdom, or the ability to see beyond 2 days out, e.g., folks that vote for ANYTHING a politician does as long as Stem-Cells / Abortion / Gayness / etc. is aligned with the voter. STUPID>

vs. borrowing money from other countries:

THEY have all the power. baby - you have no control.

HELL YEA it matters

Meow: Here's the trap that's been set:

The War is off budget - $400,000,00 Billion known plus uncalculated rebuild and rehablitation costs. Should the Dem's demand "Fiscal Responsiblity" (just assume they due, OK?) ... and to pay for what must be spent - omg what a thought - they raise taxes. They do not raise taxes, and either the deficit skyrockets even more or serious cuts in everything else must happen.

It's a no-win trap. And $100 says "your" neocons will not call for serious cuts in everything else - cause thay are as ball-less as everyone else.

OR ...

They re-write the tax laws - DRAMATICALLY - like a VAT. Another $100 say's that's where we end up.

btw - you of course can believe - but you cannont proove that "the Bush administration has .. cut taxes that led to a boon in the stock market and has grown my portfolio by appx. 25%." The port' may have grown, and you can produce parallel charts - but no one can prove the cause - only boast on assumptions.

ALSO - He has, as of this date, prevented another attack on our soil. Sure - from the 3000 AFGAN' Radicals.

Another $100 say's that agressively pursuing "Green" technologies ... will have a Very POSITIVE effect on the economy - as a whole and in the micro.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SKPB_enUS205US206&q=%22green+is+green%22

That's right cRocko-o-...feller, I can produce charts and graphs, but I can't prove that Bush's policies led to to the growth of the port...just like you cannot prove otherwise.

But I forgot, your opinion IS proof.

Saw a film clip the other day of W on the trading floor. He was greeted like a rock star. That really rubs you socialists the wrong way, huh?

First off, I wish I knew where your socialist rhetoric comes from - 'cause that I'm clearly not.

Secondly - you're right, I cannot produce a chart that say's GWB was NOT responsible for the stock-market rise, just as you cannot produce a chart that say's GWB WAS NOT responsible for the stock-market rise ... BUT - I was not the one claiming GWB WAS responsible for the stock-market rise ...

Whom can will be fabulously wealthy - and that means you're a member of the Carlyle Group - you make the rules, you have the inside investment line - you make the money and the rest of us suck the hind tit. I criticize them at all chances - you can call that "socialism", I call it Capitalism at its worst.

btw, socialism (my definition - but close to the book's) is central planning by a few "for the good of the people". Now if you wanna argue that suck's, I'll agree - it's also where America has been the past 6 years,

ps -- make that 60 years

What is laughable is that people, like neocon, actually think Bush is "looking out for them"! That is such a joke. Like the guys who live in the sticks, drive pick ups with gun racks and vote for Bush because they think he is cutting "THEIR" taxes, and that the inheritance tax affects "THEM", and that he shares "THEIR" values! Talk about a crock!

Or the Duke power and Progress Energy people who push the bullsh_t about Kyoto Treaty hurting their business. They are shills for the GOP and they have done a pretty good job of duping the ignorant workers like neocon who actually believe THEY are in the top tax brackets, and that power companies do not pollute! Or that pollution controls would put them out of business---and the ignorant ones believe every word of that.

Reading back through this thread, and this is a typical thread on this subject, I see comments from the leftists like "name some things Bush has 'done for you' personally", and of course there is the village parrot tooting "neocon thinks Bush is looking out for them". I don't want Bush to 'look out' for me. I want him to stop robbing me to pay for everything from enfamil and abortion to cable TV for the 'impoverished'.

This is the mindset of the left. They think it is the job of government to 'look out' or 'do something' for them. America has become a giant sow to many of it's citizens who look to the government to 'do something for them personally' by providing a teat.

As for the cost of implementing the useless and tax increasing 'Kyoto Treaty', I could take the word of hand wringing socialists like the village parrot, or I could believe someone who has done some research on this:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307es.html

"The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year. However, according to a climate model of the National Center for Atmospheric Research recently featured in Science, the Kyoto emission-control commitments would reduce mean planetary warming by a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50 years. If the costs of preventing additional warming were to remain constant, the Kyoto Protocol would cost a remarkable 12 percent of GDP per degree of warming prevented annually over a 50-year period.

The Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible effect on global climate--in fact, it is doubtful that the current network of surface thermometers could distinguish a change on the order of .19 degree from normal year-to-year variations. The Kyoto Protocol will result in no demonstrable climate change but easily demonstrable economic damage."

Oh and make this

"Saw a film clip the other day of W on the trading floor. He was greeted like a rock star. That really rubs you socialists the wrong way, huh?"

This:

"Saw a film clip the other day of W on the trading floor. He was greeted like a rock star. That really rubs you socialists and those who view success as "Capitalism at it's worst" the wrong way, huh?"

neocon,
Kindly credit where you lifted the article above, as it DEFINITELY is not from your pea brain. Its absence of misspellings, coupled with cogent sentence structure gives it away as a "copied" piece. If you do not credit it the proper place, then just shut up and go away.

Your inability to read the link provided, world traveler, kinda puts your "pea brain" comment in perspective. I thought even parrots knew how to click on a link.

Just got back from a trip to the grocery store and these two Einsteins behind me in the checkout line were arguing over who to vote for in the democratic primary... Hillary or Edwards. The one for Hillary was an older guy and his main point seemed to be that if Hillary were elected, she would ensure he got his piece of the pie via free medical care. The other genius was for Edwards because "Edwards would take all that hot damn money Bush was wastin' in Iraq and use it (and I quote) "to feed all the poor and starving" right here in the good old U S of A.

Anyone see a common thread here? That's right! They both wanted the gubberment to give them something.

DoubleD - it's there - just look below the blank space.

Meow: Patrick J. Michaels is one of an ever fewer folks holding that view. That article you cite is also 10 years old, with much better science is now completed (or being completed) ... but whatever ....

I will tell you this: A couple years ago energy and greenhouse gases were only topics of discussion. This year, my tiny company will take in over $100,000 doing designs for reductions in green-house gases. Currently, I have two projects under construction - $350,00 each investments - to lower energy costs. For another client, I have 5 design studies currently funded to achieve the same impact. These will million-dollar investments - completed because it's a good business idea: save energy & therefore spend less. My clients get their money back many fold over - and they consider Greenhouse gas reduction as positive PR icing. Kyoto? No. Common sense, yes.

The only real difference between now and a few years ago is they are now OK with making the money back in 5 years - before it had to be a 2 year payback, but in reality, 5 years is still a damm good (20%) ROI.

Try nailing that as a long-term stock market strategy. Then ask Patrick J. Michaels to explain how that all leads to a reduction in GDP. I'll away his answer.

cRock-o-...feller,
Sounds like good business by private enterprise. I applaud their efforts and their sense of capitalizing on an emerging market.

So why do we need the useless burdens of the Kyoto Treaty?

neocon,
Do you ever visit reality? Just a few short months ago, you and a few other fringe nutcakes were saying global warming was a "crock" but now you are beginning to change at least part of your tune. The power industry in this country is run by a bunch of short sighted, unenlightened white men who have operated in a regulated environment so long that they can't understand the word "compete". A T & T was the same way until Judge Green busted them wide ass open and forced the operating companies to learn to what "competition" meant. So, I say, put the restrictions on those bozos now so that my children and grandchildren will still have air to breathe. They want the "gubbermint" to pay for their scrubbers and the cost of moving to lower pollution fuels--what makes them any different than the two you talk about in line at the grocery? neocon, you are delusional.

Meow:

I've never promoted the Kyoto treaty, however I have agressively promoted its concept: Man has / is / and will continue to do stuff that negatively impacts the quality of life for my grand-children. The quarterly corporate bottom line has been the only driver, and as only that incentive, there will be no change.

SOMETHING has to "motivate" us away from this myopic thinking - either thoughtful G-Men (now there's the quintessential oxymoron), or public opinion. Currently there is a major shift of public opinion - I believe it is cause by Old Hippies (like my current boss' boss) that have lived long enough to have a clue and with enough "power" to make constructive change - combined with the image in Al Gore's movie of that poor polar bear - about to starve due to the loss of habitat.

I swear to God - my dad (who'll be 75 this year) wrote me a special e-mail to tell me he'd seen the Al Gore movie and ask if I'd heard much about this climate change thing.

World traveler,
The fact that people are creating new money making businesses has nothing to do with the phony baloney issue of the earth's natural warming and cooling trends. In a few decades when the chicken little crowd (most likely your g'children) are wringing their hands about the impending ice age, perhaps there will be some industrious fellow invent a 'cosmic stove' or some such device to ward off the massive cooling caused by man and his addiction to solar power...more power to them, I say.

Easy to see why cRock-o-...feller says he largely ignores your rants. You lack common sense on any given subject. All you know is what the left wing cable news shows and web sites ejaculate for your consumption. :]

neocon,
Your post makes no sense. Too bad all your buddies have left you circling the bowl. What makes you an expert on global warming being false?

Can't wait to hear that one. :)

"All my buddies", world traveler? I don't have any 'buddies' here. I stand on my own and don't parrot others to make a point. At least no one with whom I generally agree has stated that they "ignore" my posts as has the grand poo bah concerning your rants. At least he knows what note your horn is capable of and I give him credit for saying as much.

What makes me an expert on global warming being false?...Nothing. There are no 'experts' on global warming. There ARE expert politicians who have staked their careers on this phony baloney issue. algore comes to mind first.

World traveler, how do you suppose the plant and animal fossils got underneath all that ice in the polar regions? How about Greenland? If algore had been around a couple of million years ago he would have been cackling about 'global cooling'.

I find it highly entertaining to watch the chicken little crowd squawk about the weather. Some of them are hilarious and algore is one of best. It's when they gain political power and have the opportunity to steal more of my money in the name of 'global warming' that I have a problem with them.

I really don't think I'll waste any more time on you tonight. Go play outside, little man or at least go to your room and fire up the gameboy, you bore me.