Political Discussion

[jacko]

So you support the Ryan budget, Medicare/medicaid plan and the GOP platform? There will be no economic collapse. Where not Greece, by a long shot.

I also don't normally vote for Republicans, and I don't like Romney, but I will be voting for him this time, as will all my family. In fact, I got a telephone call today from someone doing a political poll (they didn't say who they were calling on behalf of) and they asked me who I would be supporting for Congress--Barber or the other person (don't remember their name) and if the election were held today would I vote for Romney or Obama. To the first question, I responded that I don't like Barber, and I did not research the other person, so I have no idea. To the second question, I said that although I dislike Romney, I dislike Obama even more, and that I would vote for the Devil himself over Obama.

And I am not kidding. Please remember to vote AGAINST Obama and help save our country from even worse economic collapse, and possible civil war!

[AngelinaCatHub]

Fact: 9-11 attack was performed by Saudi citizens.
Fact Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian.
Fact Obama bowed low to King Saud.
Fact: Obama did not bow to the Queen of England.
Fact: Obama walked rudely out of Prime minister Netenyahu's White House visit.
Fact: This year (yesterday) on 9-11-12 Obama snubs Netenyahu again. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...5J8hSLR8Xmm6pL
Fact: Both candidate have apologized for the use of freedom of speech of the film maker who made a video clip of his opinion.
Fact: Three of our embassies/councilet (sp) that in theory is U.S.A. real estate defined as homeland soil, has been attacked on 9-11.

So, I'll take my chance with a new President after our current President will fix all this with a speech. MY OPINION. 'Hub

[GoingDown]

Well the truth is coal is bad. The good news is that with the price of natural gas now they should be able to convert the plants and actually save money. Climate changes is real and man's contribution is overwhelmingly supported. We need to get rid of all coal plants now and as an interim convert to natural gas which only produces @ 1/3rd of the CO2, until we can get to more renewable carbon free alternatives.
Bush/Cheney use to have the 1% doctrine - if there is a 1% chance of a terrorists action we would take them out first. We should be applying that philosophy to man made global warming. It would be so helpful to this country on many levels.

This is my favorite quote about the global warming movement:

From Seinfeld...

Kramer: "Ahh, no, no, no. You got me all wrong buddy. I am loving this having no refrigerator. You know what I discovered? I really like depriving myself of things. It's fun."

But are we getting ready to deprive ourselves of our high standard of living for no reason?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.



Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says

Are global warming skeptics anti-science? Or just ignorant about science?
Maybe neither. A study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried, as determined by their answers to questions like:
"Electrons are smaller than atoms -- true or false?”
"How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun? One day, one month, or one year?"
“Lasers work by focusing sound waves -- true or false?”
The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct.
"As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes.
Yale Law Professor Dan Kahan, the lead author of the study, cautioned that the survey results are not evidence for or against climate change.
"This study is agnostic on what people ought to believe," he told FoxNews.com. "It just doesn’t follow to say this finding implies anything about what people should believe on this issue."
Kahan said that he thought another finding of the study was more important: That people’s cultural views – how much they value things like individualism and equality -- affect their views on global warming much more than actual knowledge about science. Regardless of how much they know about science, individualists were relatively unconcerned about global warming, whereas those who value equality were very concerned.
Both sides of the global warming debate say the study's findings support their views. Those who worry about global warming say it shows that cultural biases blind even smart people to the “scientific consensus.”
"Kahan’s research is so interesting,” Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. “Over the last few years, the policy issues surrounding climate change have become increasingly politicized, and that’s bleeding over into people’s perceptions of climate science.”
"What we need to remember is that we have a number of excellent non-partisan scientific resources… [They] all tell us that human activity is altering the climate in ways that are disruptive to our economy and way of life."
But some of the 16 scientists who signed a letter this January titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming
undefined" disagree.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, was one skeptical scientist who signed the letter. He said that the finding that skeptics know as much or more about science surprised him "not at all."
"MIT alumni are among my most receptive audiences," he added

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...#ixzz26DB0Ivtm

[msm859]

[QUOTE=AngelinaCatHub;582621]

........
So, I'll take my chance with a new President after our current President will fix all this with a speech. MY OPINION. 'Hub

You man Romney wants to overturn Roe v Wade, get rid of planned parenthood, turn Medicare into vouchers, privatize social security, give more huge tax cuts to the rich, refuses to release his tax returns (because he probably did take the amnesty deal in 2009 for his Swiss bank accounts and pays a minimal tax rate) and believes corporations are people. He wants an oligarchy. Anyone who thinks he is going to make anything better is naive. Unless you know the "cause" of the problem you cannot find the "cure". The "cause" of our current problems are: The Bush tax cuts, the two unnecessary wars, and the banking system. Obama is trying to address ALL of those problems. Romney wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and even make more -- the EXACT opposite of what needs to be done. Romney wants to keep us in Afghanistan -- again the EXACT opposite of what needs to be done. He wants to get rid of the "little" banking reform that has been enacted -- again the EXACT opposite of what is needed. The other systemic problem with this country is over the last 30 years virtually all of the growth in wealth and income has gone to the top 1%. Romney will not do anything about this real problem. Above someone mentioned civil war if Obama gets reelected -- that is insane talk. However, today 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 150 million people. 6 of the Walton families (WalMart) have more wealth than the bottom 40% of this country. At what point will those numbers bring us our own French Revolution? We are on a projection for those figures to only get worse. Without a strong middle class this country will continue to have serious economic problems. Romneys proposed 20% tax cut across the board will lower taxes for the rich and raise them for the middle class and bring us further in debt. Wake UP America!

[chrisdfw]

What "exactly" has Obama done to cause this economic collapse you are talking about. You are asking people to not vote for him based on your personal "feelings" what facts do you have to support your position?

In the interest of fair disclosure, I wish there was a better choice than Romney... it really is voting AGAINST Obama... and that is sad. In a country of 300 million the best
two choices are Obama and Romney... I sure wish a libertarian could get traction.

Here is what he did:

Failed to veto several ridiculous spending bills and tax increases despite his promise to not raise taxes on those under 250,000, not vetoing tax increases
makes him a liar. He said he would not increase taxes on those making less than 250k and he did.

He is a liar! Having a liar as president creates uncertainty, which is bad for the economy

He has run up the debt to unsustainable levels (congress passes the bills of course, but he could have vetoed, so the buck stops with him)

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Romney, but right now I am simply voting against the guy who failed to stop the predicament we are in, if Romney
can't fix it, I'll vote against him in 4 years if given a reasonable alternative.

You can't spend or borrow your way out of a debt crisis... we should all know that here, Obama and Congress (all of them) apparently do not. So we
stack on trillions of debt a year.

If Obama was honest he would have vetoed the SCHIP expansion, because it raised taxes on those making less than 250 a year, he would have vetoed the
healthcare bill for the same reason. He made a promise, lied to me and my fellow americans, and piled debt on the backs of our children.

I won't even go into his desire to restrict my second amendment rights, but that alone would be reason enough to vote against him for me, though I doubt
Romney is much better.

[GoingDown]

In the interest of fair disclosure, I wish there was a better choice than Romney... it really is voting AGAINST Obama... and that is sad. In a country of 300 million the best
two choices are Obama and Romney... I sure wish a libertarian could get traction.

Here is what he did:

Failed to veto several ridiculous spending bills and tax increases despite his promise to not raise taxes on those under 250,000, not vetoing tax increases
makes him a liar. He said he would not increase taxes on those making less than 250k and he did.

He is a liar! Having a liar as president creates uncertainty, which is bad for the economy

He has run up the debt to unsustainable levels (congress passes the bills of course, but he could have vetoed, so the buck stops with him)

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Romney, but right now I am simply voting against the guy who failed to stop the predicament we are in, if Romney
can't fix it, I'll vote against him in 4 years if given a reasonable alternative.

You can't spend or borrow your way out of a debt crisis... we should all know that here, Obama and Congress (all of them) apparently do not. So we
stack on trillions of debt a year.

If Obama was honest he would have vetoed the SCHIP expansion, because it raised taxes on those making less than 250 a year, he would have vetoed the
healthcare bill for the same reason. He made a promise, lied to me and my fellow americans, and piled debt on the backs of our children.

I won't even go into his desire to restrict my second amendment rights, but that alone would be reason enough to vote against him for me, though I doubt
Romney is much better.

This is where I am at, too. I wish there was a better choice than Romney, but I can no longer bring myself to vote for Obama because he is using the E.P.A. regulations to shut down electrical generating plants with no concern for our need for electricity to run our air conditioners. I won't stand for that.

Solar is a pipe dream. The sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day, and we need air conditioning 24 hours a day. Even when the sun does shine, solar doesn't provide anywhere near the electricity we need to power our air conditioners.

And wind is a joke. There are some days the wind doesn't blow. We can't rely on these things for our power needs.

The environmentalists want us to abandon an energy source that we have in abundance right here in America, that actually works very well, and with our new technologies is relatively clean-- acid raid is a thing of the past-- and yet they provide us with no reasonable alternatives that actually work.

If they could provide us with a green energy source that provided cheap, reliable electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then fine, let's switch to it. But until then, forget it.

And the idea of switching to natural gas is okay, but the E.P.A. is trying to shut them down, too. They don't even want us to drill (or frack) for natural gas in our own country.

We have enough coal and natural gas in America to become a lot more energy independent, so we don't have to buy so much oil from countries in the middle east that hate us. And yet, they don't want us to use them.

Meanwhile, China uses coal to power their factories and spews out "greenhouse gasses" night and day, without any eco-friendly technology to scrub the emissions. So, unilaterally deciding to not use coal does absolutely no good in terms of any global warming issues. China is still going to use coal, whether we do or not. They don't care. They're not going to follow these stupid eco nut laws. So, what good does it do for us to stop using coal?

[jacko]

Fact: The Oklahoma bombing, WACO tragedy and the Sikh church massacre were performed by Christian terrorists.
Fact: Daily Christian on Christian murders nationwide. Already ten were murdered today.
Fact: The Israeli Prime Minister is a yahoo, not worthy of a POTUS audience. Trying to pull the country into another needless war. Israel has 300 nukes and can take care of themselves.
Fact: Stuff happens worldwide. Over 200 marines were blown up in Lebanon during Reagan's watch, but he did not act irrationally with a invasion.
Fact: Romney is no match for Harry Reid.
Fact: The conservative pundits have conceded a Romney loss.

Fact: 9-11 attack was performed by Saudi citizens.
Fact Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian.
Fact Obama bowed low to King Saud.
Fact: Obama did not bow to the Queen of England.
Fact: Obama walked rudely out of Prime minister Netenyahu's White House visit.
Fact: This year (yesterday) on 9-11-12 Obama snubs Netenyahu again. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...5J8hSLR8Xmm6pL
Fact: Both candidate have apologized for the use of freedom of speech of the film maker who made a video clip of his opinion.
Fact: Three of our embassies/councilet (sp) that in theory is U.S.A. real estate defined as homeland soil, has been attacked on 9-11.

So, I'll take my chance with a new President after our current President will fix all this with a speech. MY OPINION. 'Hub

[jacko]

The utility firms had years to get their act together. Maybe a compromise is in order. Arizona will agree to compensate states for air pollution related costs such as increased health care costs affected by their dirty air.

[QUOTE=GoingDown;582632]This is where I am at, too. I wish there was a better choice than Romney, but I can no longer bring myself to vote for Obama because he is using the E.P.A. regulations to shut down electrical generating plants with no concern for our need for electricity to run our air conditioners. I won't stand for that.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Fact: The Oklahoma bombing, WACO tragedy and the Sikh church massacre were performed by Christian terrorists.
Fact: Daily Christian on Christian murders nationwide. Already ten were murdered today.
Fact: The Israeli Prime Minister is a yahoo, not worthy of a POTUS audience. Trying to pull the country into another needless war. Israel has 300 nukes and can take care of themselves.
Fact: Stuff happens worldwide. Over 200 marines were blown up in Lebanon during Reagan's watch, but he did not act irrationally with a invasion.
Fact: Romney is no match for Harry Reid.
Fact: The conservative pundits have conceded a Romney loss.

Jacko, I just love you my friend. You are my most entertaining advocate, and I enjoy your enthusiasm as flawed as it is.

Fact: The Oklahoma bombing, WACO tragedy and the Sikh church massacre were performed by Christian terrorists.
I too am a Christian, and I am no terrorist. Your point? The Democrat President Clinton killed off WACO a Christian Church and community. I've been there, and watched the tank flame thrower live on TV and have that tape.

Fact: Daily Christian on Christian murders nationwide. Already ten were murdered today.
Many murders by the percentage are Black on Black. Some are Jews on Jews. Christians on Christians as our Nation is mostly of Christian heritage. Your point?

Fact: The Israeli Prime Minister is a yahoo, not worthy of a POTUS audience. Trying to pull the country into another needless war. Israel has 300 nukes and can take care of themselves.
Your opinion only. They have yet to test a real atomic weapon. Are you Judgmental of our best alley so far, or just bigoted a bit? Your point?

Fact: Stuff happens worldwide. Over 200 marines were blown up in Lebanon during Reagan's watch, but he did not act irrationally with a invasion.
No argument with that. They were killed by the same people/organization/s at the USS Coal (sp) and the first Bush did not finish the job, the second one did a poor job of finishing it. However, isn't a certain detention camp still open in Guantanamo? Aren't we still shooting in Afghanistan? Who put that on the first burner the day he started "RULING"? Your point?


Fact: Romney is no match for Harry Reid.
Boy, I'll agree with that. Also Polatzi. ("We got to vote on it before we know what's in it"
You are right on that one. No one in Congress but those two could be more destructive to our Republic.


Fact: The conservative pundits have conceded a Romney loss.
Gee, I didn't realize I missed election day. Remember Truman vs. Dewey, 1948. No point at all.

[filed]

Well the truth is coal is bad. The good news is that with the price of natural gas now they should be able to convert the plants and actually save money. Climate changes is real and man's contribution is overwhelmingly supported. We need to get rid of all coal plants now and as an interim convert to natural gas which only produces @ 1/3rd of the CO2, until we can get to more renewable carbon free alternatives.
Bush/Cheney use to have the 1% doctrine - if there is a 1% chance of a terrorists action we would take them out first. We should be applying that philosophy to man made global warming. It would be so helpful to this country on many levels.

Who is this "they" that you speak of?

[AngelinaCatHub]

Who is this "they" that you speak of?

Yes. I've wondered that too. I'll bet some of these posters still believe in "Global Warming" is caused by people having too much sex. I remember Gary Indiana. You could not see the sky at noon and could not breath outside. Our Country is now free of this damage. We shipped Gary, Pittsburgh, and most all our steel mills to China. Of course, they have blue skies everywhere and they're really great technology does not use coal. Yeah, that's the ticket. 'Hub

Oh yes, It created thousands of jobs too.......for unemployment clerks.

[banca rotta]

I am voting for Obama. Voting for Romney would mean voting for an economic collapse. The one that started with Bush.

Possible civil war? With the extremists who like to call themselves tea partiers and their willingness to shut down the government so their rich buddies can get a tax break? Possibly. But that's not on Obama, that's on the republicans, the party that those extremists have run under.

It started with Nixon taking us off the gold standard and every president (especially Clinton by over turning Glass steagall) since Nixon played a part. Bush was the sucker, the deer in the headlights who just so happened to have been in office when the music stopped. Obama may be the next sucker when the dollar continues it's collapse. You can argue all you want. It's collapsing! Just look at your food prices and gas prices and think of banca.

[LadyInTheRed]

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

And in response, 38 climate and earth scientists signed a letter to the editor saying in part:

...You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

...The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered..

You can read the entire letter at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...727472662.html

Those 16 scientist are in the very small minority. Many are reported to have ties to the oil and gas industry: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new...stry-influence

[msm859]

Who is this "they" that you speak of?

The power companies -- it is already happening

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703579804575441683910246338.html

[msm859]

It started with Nixon taking us off the gold standard and every president (especially Clinton by over turning Glass steagall) since Nixon played a part. Bush was the sucker, the deer in the headlights who just so happened to have been in office when the music stopped. Obama may be the next sucker when the dollar continues it's collapse. You can argue all you want. It's collapsing! Just look at your food prices and gas prices and think of banca.

I agree with you about Clinton signing the bill to end Glass Steagall, but in his defense it was a Republican bill and they in fact had a veto proof vote on it. I totally disagree with you about Bush. He in fact is the primary cause of the current economic state. The Bush tax cuts, 2 unnecessary and unpaid for wars and the big pharma drug give away. He also set the get away with anything environment starting when Enron raped and pillaged CA that he could have easily stopped with FERC - the banks then saw they could get away with anything - as they have. You are correct about concern with the dollar. The 800 pound gorilla is the looming deficit. We will at some point reach critical mass were perhaps the only answer will by hyper inflation.