"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
John,

Even in grade school the nuns taught us that science and faith can easily co-exist.


Ah, maybe nuns are not the most neutral source on this ;-)

I'm not sure they can.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Which is precisely why it struck home so hard. The nuns and priests taught us everything,
from the grade-school diagrams of the earth's layers and how the surface formed over the
eons, to biology with evolution. It gave me a great appreciation of how science did not
have to be the natural enemy of faith and vice versa.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

Recently, Gig601XLBuilder posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Matt Whiting posted:

And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.

Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
scientific method?



The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the
economy.

The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within the
control of human beings and has historically always survived in one form
or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis regarding the
human contribution to global climate change is *right*, then the economy
is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as the rational course of
action?

Neil

"WolfRat" wrote

Don't you mean our "white" European culture? As politically correct
tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here in America we will
soon see 3rd word attitudes and fanaticism in our own malls and streets.

It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown terror as PC
tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.

I just think you are all placing blame and responsibility in the wrong
places.

True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a means to
influence others. I think that is because that is the Christian way, and
that is the reason it is the prevalent way.

Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook, I feel that
violence is not the way Christians try to make their point. All throughout
the New Testament, tolerance and love for your neighbors is taught as the
way to treat others. Turn the other cheek, and spread the words and deeds
of Christ, and you will teach others the True Way, and grow His Kingdom on
earth.
--
Jim in NC

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
Recently, Gig601XLBuilder posted:

The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the economy.

The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within the
control of human beings and has historically always survived in one form
or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis regarding the
human contribution to global climate change is *right*, then the economy
is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as the rational course of action?

That's correct in the sense that even stone-age villages will have some form of ongoing
"economy". I think the point was that global warming can massively disrupt and degrade
ongoing international, regional and local economies to the point that for many of Earth's
inhabitants, existing standards of living (which are largely determined by "the economy")
would be set back centuries if not millenia. So "the economy" is totally relevant - to
the point that we could recycle Clinton's 1992 campaign slogan and apply it here.

That's why global warming grabs headlines. Hardly anyone cares about dire warnings that an
obscure plant or animal living on an isolated pea patch is about to go extinct due to
human activities. The stakes for global warming are enormous if we get it wrong.

Shifting direction a bit, "economy" again rears its head when discussing what humans might
do to reduce their role in global warming. We already have political resistance to
measures that would reduce the human impact on environment but impose economic costs on
industries. This is further compounded by international trade. Even if a nation goes
"totally green" for its own production, its products and services will be undercut in
pricing from nations that impose little or no environmental economic costs on their
producers.

No matter how you look at it, deciding what to do and then getting it done is going to be
one helluva mess.

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gig601XLBuilder posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Matt Whiting posted:
And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.

Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
scientific method?


The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the
economy.

The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within the
control of human beings and has historically always survived in one form
or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis regarding the
human contribution to global climate change is *right*, then the economy
is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as the rational course of
action?

Neil



First off let me rephrase to the destruction of the economy AS WE KNOW IT.

From the http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp Natural Resources
Defense Council.

Q. Is the earth really getting hotter?

A. Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past
50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest
rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating:
the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists
say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S.
temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.

Let's say they are right. It isn't going to be a instantaneous event. We
are going to have decades to move the world economy in an orderly
fashion. Everybody talks about how there will be a huge food shortage
but if you look at a map there are many places now to cold to produce
food that with a 3-9 degree increase will be able to produce food.

About a year ago I saw a climate model (and I really do wish I
remembered where) that showed huge amounts of both Canada and Russia
would be better of agriculturally with exactly the amount of global
warming the worst-case guys are talking about. It also touched on the
theory that even Sub Saharan Africa could be better off because of the
additional moisture in the air because of water released in the ice caps.

My favorite fear mongering is the rise in MSL. It is always shown in an
animated New York with cars and the first story or two of all the
buildings being flooded.

While there are many that will disagree New Yorkers aren't stupid. This
isn't going to happen overnight. Those cars can go over those bridges
long before the flood comes but it really won't matter because while it
won't be cheap a wall or other flood control method can be put in long
before there is a problem.

So let's say humans aren't causing GW. We do all this stuff that blows
our economy out of the water and it helps not a lick.

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"WolfRat" wrote

Don't you mean our "white" European culture? As politically correct
tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here in America we
will soon see 3rd word attitudes and fanaticism in our own malls and
streets.

It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown terror as
PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.

I just think you are all placing blame and responsibility in the wrong
places.

True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a
means to influence others. I think that is because that is the
Christian way, and that is the reason it is the prevalent way.

Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook,


Not a very respectful way to talk about Bush, so I approve.

Bertie

Gig601XLBuilder wrote in
:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gig601XLBuilder posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Matt Whiting posted:
And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.

Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with
the scientific method?


The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the
its proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of
destroying the economy.

The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within
the control of human beings and has historically always survived in
one form or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis
regarding the human contribution to global climate change is *right*,
then the economy is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as
the rational course of action?

Neil



First off let me rephrase to the destruction of the economy AS WE KNOW
IT.

From the http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp Natural Resources
Defense Council.

Q. Is the earth really getting hotter?

A. Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past
50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest
rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating:
the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990.
Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average
U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the
century.

Let's say they are right. It isn't going to be a instantaneous event.
We are going to have decades to move the world economy in an orderly
fashion. Everybody talks about how there will be a huge food shortage
but if you look at a map there are many places now to cold to produce
food that with a 3-9 degree increase will be able to produce food.



the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx changes that
it's going to produce that are the problem.

Also you're going to have to replace florida.


Bertie

"John Mazor" wrote in message
news:mttgj.8377$Xo1.2518@trnddc06...
Amen, except that any fanatical American religious or political leader is
going to be
constrained by American law, politics, and culture. This limits the scale
of potential
damage. That's not to say that they can't be immensely harmful in other
ways, but our
system and culture does not tolerate violence or even the advocacy of
violence. Here we
insist that differences be settled by law. In other countries not only is
violence
tolerated as an accepted way to settle differences, it is aided and
abetted by many
elements of government, religion, and local culture. Even if those
elements are in the
minority, that's one of the principal differences between "us and them".


I suspect that this is why there are so many black men in jail, the inner
city culture does not demand that difference be settled in court, indeed the
entire court system is out of reach and somewhat of an anathema to the
entire group of inner city youth. So when they "take care of business" the
law punishes them and perpetuates the class. Islamic radicals are, I'm sure,
very interested in these young Americans.
It's odd, one solution is hard and expensive and will never be tried. The
other solutution is reprehensible to the extreme and at some point, I
believe it will be.

Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs and
suicide bombers in America.

Wow.

You are not who I thought you are, Jay.

I'm saddened, by your stand on this.

I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions, united by
one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching) principles of our
constitution were laid out by Christian men, but the participants are far
from monolithically Christian, and the principles are not exclusively
Christian.

This is why it so important that we protect and nurture our unique (in the
history of the world) culture, and is why real conservatives (not the
new-fangled religious ones) fight so hard to preserve and protect it. IMHO
it's a delicate thing that could be easily destroyed in a generation or two
if we don't play our cards right.

But, hey -- back to the original topic of this post: It looks like Obama is
going to easily beat Hillary in New Hampshire, according to the latest
polls. Quite a surprise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook, I feel that
violence is not the way Christians try to make their point. All
throughout the New Testament, tolerance and love for your neighbors is
taught as the way to treat others. Turn the other cheek, and spread the
words and deeds of Christ, and you will teach others the True Way, and
grow His Kingdom on earth.
--

So, what book were they reading when they sold indulgences, and commited the
crusades, witch burnings, and many other misdeeds involving native
populations. The Christian church has likely murdered more people than the
others so far and it looks to me like many of it's prophets would like to
have another round. Christianity on an individual level has a lot going for
it, as do most other religions, it's when we/they bunch up that things go
wrong. Don't climb up to far on that pulpit, the fall will hurt.