One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: TomF
Feb 13, 2014 12:43:37   #
Can the government simply unilaterally change the terms of these contracts? Doubtful. If this were to raise their costs, would they simply eat it, or demand to renegotiate their contracts? More likely there are next to zero people who would get a raise from this, so it really was just political grandstanding - something to put over on the GOP, and The People.
Go to
Feb 10, 2014 14:05:26   #
Having been to Japan, I can assure you that it is a VERY different country than the USA. I'm sure Brian, if he had to live there, would complain that they are r****t and xenophobic.
Go to
Feb 7, 2014 17:40:38   #
WHoops - that comment was for Madshark. not seabird! I'm dazed and confusrd this morning because it is raining in California!
Go to
Feb 7, 2014 17:06:16   #
Seabird: Please read more carefully; maybe you will see the difference between "winter-like conditions." and Winter."
Go to
Feb 7, 2014 02:36:51   #
When we run out of f****l f**l, neuclear will be looking prety good - If we're still around then.
Go to
Feb 6, 2014 17:30:50   #
Let me rephrase that: The Romans didn't grow wine grapes in Britain, they exported wine from Britain. Vinyards generally died out there during the Little Ice Age. The Wine industry in Britain is considered to have started a real comeback only after WW2.
Go to
Feb 6, 2014 15:28:38   #
jay-are wrote:
Read the article below. The 2 most salient points are that water is the greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect, and that CO2 levels have only increased from 300 ppm to 375 ppm. CO2 makes up less than half of a percent of the atmosphere. How much effect can that have? Answer: very little.


The average temperature of the earth's surface is about 15°C (59°F). The temperature largely is determined by the amount of energy absorbed from the sun versus the amount of energy emitted into space by the earth. The energy absorbed by the sun mainly covers wavelengths from the ultraviolet (< 400 nm) through the visible (400 to 700 nm) through the ultraviolet (> 700 nm).
Any change in the balance between the quantity of energy absorbed compared to the amount emitted affects climate. The "greenhouse effect" is concerned with the infrared radiation given off by the earth. Part of this radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, rather than being lost to space. The gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared light primarily are water (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (NO2) and methane (CH4). The gases act as a sort of insulating blanket for the earth, in the same way they would act to lessen heat loss from a greenhouse, hence the name 'greenhouse effect'. It is estimated that the mean global surface temperature of the earth would be -25°C (-13°F) if not for the absorption of energy by carbon dioxide and water.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher than that of carbon dioxide. Consequently, most of this energy conservation is attributable to water. You can see this effect when you look at how temperature drops less on nights with heavy cloud cover as opposed to clear skies or when you consider how large the temperature difference between day and night is in places with lower relative humidity, like the desert.

Although the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is low (~375 ppm in 2005), it has been increasing appreciably over time. A century ago, the carbon dioxide concentration was less than 300 ppm. Human activites are accountable for this increase, including consumption of f****l f**ls and extensive clearing of land (less carbon dioxide can be consumed by photosynthesis). Changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are associated with changes in the earth's climate.
Read the article below. The 2 most salient points... (show quote)


All good information, but the CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and the temperature has been higher. None of these "scientist's" climate models can accomodate how much warmer the climate was a thousand years ago, when Vikings were farming in Greenland, and wine grapes were being grown in Britain. Man-made c*****e c****e didn't do that. Nor do they explain how the Romans grew wine grapes in Britain 2000 years ago - the British are spending millions looking for varieties they can grow in the current climate. C*****e c****es, and has been changing forever. None of the "studies" go back before 1850 because they can't explain those five centuries of cold weather. Look up the painting of Washington crossing the Delaware that shows ice floes in the water; we've been on a warming trend since then. Yes, it makes sense to make efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, but at what expense? And if we are to do something, what would you do about China's pollution, which is coming to your home soon?
Go to
Feb 1, 2014 15:22:02   #
All good points, but - the States do extract royalties on oil, and the Gvmt does on federal lands - how much may need to be examined, but Texas, for example, has never had Income Tax and has a low Sales Tax (about half of what we pay in California), and has a Billion dollar surplus, and better roads than California has. I agree that we should add value wherever we can, so don't export crude. As far as China is concerned, they will get the Keystone Oil if we don't take it. The Keystone pipeline is being built with oil company money, so it's not costing the taxpayers. Yes, there are environmental concerns - but that pipeline is likely FAR safer than Buffet's tank cars, and that's the most likely result of continuing to block the pipeline. Now that the State Department (why them?) has appproved it, everything is in place for him to approve crossing the border with it (all he has authority over), but he wants to please his environmental n**i base, and reward Buffet, so I think it's still iffy.
Go to
Jan 31, 2014 21:49:02   #
Not sure who you're protesting; I served '62-'65, and I'm in full agreement with Michele Zook, although I'm not a military retiree.
Go to
Jan 31, 2014 16:56:26   #
VERY well said!! No one deserves it more!!
Go to
Jan 28, 2014 17:28:24   #
I left Texas 30 years ago for a better job in the computer and network business, and stayed because the jobs were here, but still miss it. Fortunately, now that I'm retired, California, unlike many Eastern states, does not tax Social Security. Yes, I know, Texas has NO income tax.
On the other hand, while the coastal cities are hard blue, most of the rest of California, like here in the Sierra Foothills, is mostly red, and some people here talk of splitting the state.
Go to
Jan 28, 2014 15:10:12   #
Thanks for sharing that.
Go to
Jan 26, 2014 18:24:10   #
Thanks. While the USA has done some bad things, I'm concerned that we have gone from FDR's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" to BHO's approach of throw away the stick and whimper, which some would favor. That's dangerous because there are lots of bad actors out there - and one of the reasons we may NOT survive BHO. Some think him a warrior because of the drone strikes, but the strikes on weddings, funerals and other innocents do more harm than good.
Go to
Jan 26, 2014 16:03:21   #
hprinze wrote:
I love my country, but I do not love some of the things the government has and is continuing to do.
In the early 1800s Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and maybe Nevada and Utah were part of Mexico, a foreign sovereign nation. People from the U.S. illegally migrated to Texas to raise cattle and farm on “free”land. So many went there that the Mexican government became concerned and decided to send the i******s back to the U.S. When they refused to leave the Mexican army was sent to remove them. The immigrants bravely, but foolishly refused to leave and decided to fight the Mexican army. They all died, bravely, but to no avail. Then the U.S. government invaded and conquered Mexico. The Mexican army was no match for the U.S. army and was forced to ask for surrender terms. Those terms included giving the U.S. all the territory that is now the SouthWestern U,S. Including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The U.S. was the aggressor in invading a foreign country that posed no threat, and taking by force a huge portion of that country The history revisionists in government, news media, and the government schools have convinced Americans that the i*****l i*******ts from the U.S. were heroes and that the Mexicans were the aggressor.

Since that time every war and military action the U.S. has engaged in, with the exception of WW II was aggression or meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries. That includes the War Between The States, the Spanish American war, WW I, Korea, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Iraq Afghanistan, and Libya..I think it was right to go into Afghanistan in search of those who had attacked us on 9/11, but I think it should have been full force and then get out, not a 12 year old war with no goals.

Two of the worst cases are the Panama and Haiti adventures. For those who have forgotten, the elder Bush launched an illegal invasion of Panama and kidnaped the head of the Panamanian government.

The first Iraq episode may have been legitimate because Iraq had invaded and occupied Kuwait, an ally of the U.S. After the invaders were repelled, the war stopped and as long as Iraq stayed within its own borders, no further action other than r********n was called for.

Bill Clinton did not like the results of a p**********l e******n in Haiti so he demanded that the loser be made president. He even launched an invasion to force the Haitians to do his bidding. The forces were actually enroute to Haiti when Haiti capitulated and put the loser of the e******n in office as ordered by Clinton.


Neither Haiti or Panama posed any threat to us.

I have saved Grenada for last. My research tells me that there was a medical school in Grenada where a large number of Americans were students. Large numbers of Cubans, including military, were arriving on the island. The Grenada government contacted DC and stated that they feared for the safety of the students and asked the U.S. to aid them removing the students to safety and removing the Cuban military.
As I said in the beginning, I love my country, but I despise the filthy politicians and bureaucrats who have taken control. None of the past or present ones are anywhere near as bad as Obama. I have grave doubts that the USA will survive Obama and his owners.
If we survive Obama and survive the things he has d**gged us down with, I only hope that the government will stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries. That would be a giant step in the right direction.
I love my country, but I do not love some of the t... (show quote)

-----------------------------
While I agree with some of your points, hprinze, you are vastly wrong about Texas - where did you learn History? In 1820, Stephen F. Austin took a bunch of mostly German settlers to Tejas with the Mexican government's approval. In the early 1830's, they, along with the local Hispanic population, wanted independance from a government that wasn't helping them, and in 1835, Santa Ana sent an army to whip them into line. He won at the Alamo, but lost (badly) and was captured at the battle of San Jacinto, near present day Houston. (Read up on Goliad, where he butchered the surrendering soldiers!) In 1845, Santa Ana was threatening to come back (although he had sworn not to), and Texas joined the union and became a state. The US Army got involved after Mexican forces came across the river to invade a US State - that was not illegal.

I could pick apart a number of your other points, but here's just one - Grrenada. You forgot to mention it was invaded by Argentina. It belonged to Britain, and we went there to help our ally wrest it back from Argentina; I hardly see how that was an illegal invasion on our part.

About VietNam... I was in the Army when Lyndon Johnson made the campaign promise "I will not send American boys to fight a war on foreign soil!" The 1963 Military Authorization bill greatly reduced the number of authorized overseas troops; this, to me, supports the story that JFK wanted to pull out of VietNam. When January '64 came around (with LBJ in charge), we thought some of us would get to go home (from Europe). But that didn't happen - they just kept sending more and more troops, and I didn't know why; they became "excess personnel," not in an authorized "slot." Some of us were rotated in and out of "slots" so we could get promotions. LBJ was sworn in for his own term January 21, 1965; a week later, all overseas personnel got the order that anyone not in a slot, with at least 8 months left on their enllistment, was going to VietNam, and would be extended as necessary to fill a full 13-month tour of duty there. This proved to me that from the time LBJ took over in November 1963, he intended a buildup of overseas troops he could send to VietNam WITHOUT the US Press Corps seeing what was happening. Many waited around for several months just waiting to get shipped to VietNam, knowing that their enlistment time was getting longer day by day - a dreary time for them.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was totally phony, so why attack VietNam? Money for his Military-Industrial complex campaign contributors, many of whom were his close buddies from his House of Representatives days. I don't know if LBJ had anything to do with the Assassination, but he sure had motive and opportunity. Yes, a war for MONEY, and 58,000 Americans died for it. And our country has not been the same since - it greatly damaged our moral fabric, and it has been mostly downhill since.
Go to
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.