The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

MarsDog · 2004-06-28 17:51:14

Impossible to have life without energy, is true.
But others, outside USA, think they deserve same rights and opportunities.
Hence, the present world situation.
-
Back to space.
The competative aspect, fear that US will grab all of Space for itself;
Is the motivation for the upcoming space race.
Whoever wins will be the Britannia of Space.

smurf975 · 2004-06-28 19:55:04

Impossible to have life without energy, is true.
But others, outside USA, think they deserve same rights and opportunities.
Hence, the present world situation.

I never said that others don't have the rights to energy. its just that you brought up the comments about the whitehouse being domininated by oil.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-28 23:52:36

Now Cobra, I never said that humans were the primary source of greenhouse gases on Earth, far from it in truth. However, before there were ever any power grids or smokestacks our climate was finely tuned over the eons to keep about the same temperature. The amount of CO2 that we put out is miniscule compared to that of, say, all the Earth's volcanoes, but it shouldn't be there. Our greenhousing acts like a finger on a balance slowly tipping it over. Want proof? Global average temperature has gone up more in the last 100 years than it has within the last 10,000. Oh, and every time there was a period of global warming it was followed up by rapid cooling once the globabl conveyor is broken.

I suppose we have roughly the same stance on Bush, but take the issue different ways. I too am very critical of what he's done, and have come to the conclusion that Kerry will probably do a better job in areas that are top priority for me (Science, stem cells, environment, etc.). I'd like to have a president I support for their space policy, but that's highly unlikely anytime soon. You, on the other hand, still support Bush because with Kerry it's difficult to tell where he stands. I supppose this is just a difference in opinion, but I shure wish I could convince someone to vote Kerry for me (I could make a fake ID perhaps, pretend I'm 18 :laugh: ).

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-29 06:39:24

Mad Grad, I must commend you on your calmness and reasonable demeanor. Few people are actually willing to discuss global warming, preferring to preach and shout condemnation.

Now, addressing your points, you stated:

Now Cobra, I never said that humans were the primary source of greenhouse gases on Earth, far from it in truth. However, before there were ever any power grids or smokestacks our climate was finely tuned over the eons to keep about the same temperature.

followed up with:

Our greenhousing acts like a finger on a balance slowly tipping it over. Want proof? Global average temperature has gone up more in the last 100 years than it has within the last 10,000. Oh, and every time there was a period of global warming it was followed up by rapid cooling once the globabl conveyor is broken.

So in effect, your 'proof' negates your point, if we've had so many past instances of global warming to refer to than clearly human activity is at best an minor contributing factor, not a direct cause.

The problem with the whole global warming debate is that it's become politicized. The Right has a vested interest in destroying the argument, and the Left has become locked into it as one of their crusades. No one wants to really look at the facts, which are somewhat vague. It's more complicated than the zealots can admit. For example, temperatures have gone up corresponding roughly with the Industrial Revolution, yet that increase is within the range of and on a consistent timescale with natural climate change as determined through analysis of geologic evidence, ice cores, etc. Not to mention that even with recent warming the average climate is still several degrees cooler (around 5 C) than the average for over 80% (some say 90%) of Earth's history.

In greater detail, there was what's become known as the "Medieval Warm Period" during which average temperatures were considerably higher than today. We have evidence of Viking settlements in now-frozen areas of Greenland, vineyards in Northern England, mild climates high up into Scandinavia as well as North America. It was followed by a cold shift, which began to subside roughly with the start of the Industrial Revolution, following long established natural patterns.

Further, greenhouse gasses can be as much a result of warming as a cause. Changes in ocean currents can release huge amounts of CO2, melting tundra can spew out Methane, which came first? We don't know.

But all of this, even if proven conclusively to be 100% in line with the thinking of the most radical enviromentalist, misses significant and perhaps overwhelming factors. There are factors beyond the air and the oceans, factors beyond the Earth. The Earth wobbles on its axis, the orbit may vary slightly over time, energy output from the sun may vary. Insolation most certainly does. Many factors are at work in ways we have only begun to understand, most of them entirely outside our ability to effect. Yet, there is a tendency to blame it all on the industry of developed nations. While we may like to believe that we have it in our power to save or destroy the planet merely by driving too much and burning coal, I'm afraid it just isn't true. We're along for the ride, wherever it takes us.

I too am very critical of what he's done, and have come to the conclusion that Kerry will probably do a better job in areas that are top priority for me (Science, stem cells, environment, etc.).

If those are your priorities, you may be right about Kerry. Maybe. Don't get your hopes up though, those issues are not high priority for any politician, they're used as bargaining chips for other issues with larger voting blocs.

You, on the other hand, still support Bush because with Kerry it's difficult to tell where he stands.

Except on issues where the record shows where he stands. Then he's just wrong.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 13:18:36

Amen about global warming Cobra...

Mad Grad, where did you get this figure about the world suddenly heating up in the last century? I bet that you originally got that number from a paper written by one Dr. Mann, good buddy to the UN IPCC panel. Anyway, Dr. Mann is either totally incompetant or a liar, and his own data when interpreted correctly does not show any such trend.

MarsDog · 2004-06-29 13:46:23

We may have delayed the next ice age.
Then, when the fossil fuels run out,
how are we going to warm Earth up ?

smurf975 · 2004-06-29 13:48:51

We may have delayed the next ice age.
Then, when the fossil fuels run out,
how are we going to warm Earth up ?

Who cares if the fossil fuels run out. The problem is more are we prepared for it?

At this moment no.

RobertDyck · 2004-06-29 14:29:35

Global warming does exist, the question is how much and what is causing it. I talked to John Lewis who claimed it doesn't exist, that weather measurements are made at airports and downtown where there is a heat island effect. That claim ignores weather balloons, weather satellites, ships and buoys that act as ocean weather stations, remote weather stations like Devon Island, etc. Global surface temperature measurement by satellites give the most accurate average global temperature. John Lewis also claimed that a high altitude air layer is actually cooling, but that is consistent with global warming; heat is trapped close to the surface so it can't re-radiate out into space.

As I've said before, palaeontologists found that before the last ice age ocean temperature in the tropics was warm all the way down to the bottom. Today it's ice cold. I claim the reason is we are still warming out of the last ice age. This means global warming is, to an extent, natural.

The discovery channel report a couple years ago that arctic ice was melting, including one bay that melted completely that had never melted in recorded history. Whales are travelling farther north, simply because they can. On one level I would like global warming, here in Winnipeg it gets damn cold in winter.

However, ice cores from Greenland show that onset of the last ice age occurred in just 10 years. Dust blown from North America showed it had the same temperate climate as today, then just 10 years until full ice age and glaciation. What triggered that? We have to be careful not to trigger something that could cause rapid onset of an ice age.

On the other hand solar radiation is not constant, it has been steadily increasing. Nature has been decreasing CO2 levels in order to reduce greenhouse gasses and maintain constant surface temperature. We can't afford to return to CO2 levels of ages past when the sun was cooler; that would result in significantly warming the Earth. Burning fossil fuels is undoing nature's hard work to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

For those afraid of the economic consequences, it doesn't have to be that bad. We can do simple things today. For example, convert cars to hydrogen fuel cells. A fuel station can use fuel cells in reverse to use electricity and water to make hydrogen. However, in areas where electricity is generated by coal or natural gas this doesn't make sense; it's more efficient to convert refineries to make hydrogen from oil. That means oil companies won't be out of business, they just change their refining process to make hydrogen instead of gasoline. Cars then produce pure water as exhaust instead of smog. Getting cars to stop running on gasoline has become a pet peeve of mine since gasoline price jumped 30% in a week over a month ago. I seriously want to tell the oil companies to take a long walk off a short pier.

MarsDog · 2004-06-29 14:57:57

We should be using the Methane, in the oceans, quickly as possible,
As the Methane deposits, in the past, may have caused extreme warming.

smurf975 · 2004-06-29 14:59:42

We should be using the Methane, in the oceans, quickly as possible,
As the Methane deposits, in the past, may have caused extreme warming.

Sorry about this MarsDog but are you some StarWars fanatic?

All your comments are like that little troll from star wars.

Grypd · 2004-06-29 16:08:02

When I was on a boat off Norway 10 years ago the sea seemed to be on fire, This was the methane/HydroCarbons stored at the bottom of the sea having been released, Through a minor sea quake or subsurface Sea slide.

I have great respect of these substances, They are an untapped resource or a potential Hazard to life. Frankly unlike oil we do not know how much there is of it or what tempature rise in the water would release it. It is a natural process that forms it and it is continous and does not necassarily need millions of years of pressure to form them, unlike oil.

I had a long talk with a Professor of Geology in Aberdeen who was of the opinion it would be able to form large deposits in only 20 Years.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-29 23:43:43

Mad Grad, where did you get this figure about the world suddenly heating up in the last century? I bet that you originally got that number from a paper written by one Dr. Mann, good buddy to the UN IPCC panel. Anyway, Dr. Mann is either totally incompetant or a liar, and his own data when interpreted correctly does not show any such trend.

Actually, I am quoting a figure in a National Geographic article about the carbon cycle published a few months ago. You can really go anywhere and be hard pressed to find a reputable source that won't tell you that global warming is coming on really, really fast, and that humans are the primary cause.

Cobra, just because we aren't the primary contributors of greenhouse gases doesn't mean humans aren't what's causing most of global warming. Think about it this way, let's just suppose that you could go on a diet where you eat exactly 2,000 calories and burn 2,000 calories during exorcise. Then at some point you start eating one 10 calorie sweet tart daily in addition to the original diet. The sweet tart falls far from being the main source of your weight gain, but it's the missing link that, were it not there, would not have any effect. In a few decades, you could easily gain 20, 30 pounds this way (Which is in itself an unsettling thought).

A common misconception about global warming is that it can somehow prevent the next inevitable ice age. Unfortunately, we're kinda screwed, too much global warming can cause an ice age. Once most of the ice caps are melted, the gulfstream won't be cooled off significantly when it reaches Greenland. When that happens, the heat-exchanger effect of the atmosphere warming while the oceans cool will shut down, significantly cooling the northeast US and Europe. Look at a globe. London, Berlin, Amsterdam, etc are all on about the same lattitude as Siberia and mid-southern Canada. The only reason it doesn't have an environment like those places is the Gulfstream. Once it's gone, you'll have over 600 million Europeans who can no longer grow enough food for themselves, not a pretty picture for the rest of the world.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-30 06:07:33

Cobra, just because we aren't the primary contributors of greenhouse gases doesn't mean humans aren't what's causing most of global warming. Think about it this way, let's just suppose that you could go on a diet where you eat exactly 2,000 calories and burn 2,000 calories during exorcise. Then at some point you start eating one 10 calorie sweet tart daily in addition to the original diet. The sweet tart falls far from being the main source of your weight gain, but it's the missing link that, were it not there, would not have any effect. In a few decades, you could easily gain 20, 30 pounds this way (Which is in itself an unsettling thought).

You seem to be assuming the existence of a natural climatic balance that simply doesn't exist. The Earth has warmed and cooled dramatically, and sometimes very rapidly, throughout its history. If we look at the history of the planet, we see that we're actually in a relatively cold phase. It's all a question of the size of our sample. Usually figures from the last 150-200 years are used, which do show a slight warming trend. Go back 500-600 years and we've cooled off considerably. Go back 10,000 and we've warmed up significantly. Go back 70 million and we're back to dramatically cooled off. Hell, go back five months, average temperatures in Detroit have climbed by 50 degrees! We're all gonna die! No, just natural climate change.

We are witnessing a relatively mild example of a natural process caused by a multitiude of factors beyond our control. The belief in human-caused global warming is just the latest manifestation of geo-centric, human-centric thinking. We aren't the center of the universe and and it's not all about us. The universe is not a pristine, well ordered machine but a violent interaction of forces. Climate change is caused by the interation of those natural forces, not by a few countries that have managed to elevate their standard of living through technology and industry.

In fact, when one really examines the ideology of 'global warming' one can see why it is so attractive to the Left. Just more of the old class warfare, 'blame the rich' mentality, only expanded to the next level. Rich nations rather than rich people. Bah, I've heard it all before. The numbers didn't add up then either.

MarsDog · 2004-06-30 11:30:40

We are affecting climate change by diverting rivers, increasing CO2, etc.. There are negative feedback mechanisms that prevent runaway greenhouse conditions from developing. I can see that people in a heat wave want it cooler, without wanting to move to a cooler climate, but in Siberia, warming by several degrees is not unwelcome, according to Putin.

BWhite · 2004-06-30 12:36:11

Sudden global warming from ANY cause (human or not) has potential to cause human extinction or very massive disruptions. The release of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_hydrate]methane clathrates could unbalance a tipping point and cause runaway greenhouse conditions.

Suppose there is only a 0.5 % chance (.005) of this happening. How much is a prudent amount to spend on insurance to assure the human race is not rendered extinct.

The problem with the extreme right is that they are not saying, "this is a real potential problem, we need to invest more in research, rather they are saying its a hoax being perpetrated by America-haters" and anyone who discuses global warming is a tinfoil hat guy.

smurf975 · 2004-06-30 13:05:38

I'm sorry but what do you mean with human extinction?

I mean as long as there are animals like fish/chickens and grasses/fruits/vegetables, the human race will not go extinct. The world will maybe not be able to support the 6 billion of today but there will be a balance.

For me I don't care who's side is right or wrong about global warming. Because pollution is the number one threat to childrens lifes (astma, low vertillity, weak immune systems, cancer) and is a more direct threat then global warming.

So I think pollution should be priority nr 1! Global warming to me is like nature parks. Should we conserve the nature park or build a shopping mall?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-30 13:18:44

Actually, I am quoting a figure in a National Geographic article about the carbon cycle published a few months ago. You can really go anywhere and be hard pressed to find a reputable source that won't tell you that global warming is coming on really, really fast, and that humans are the primary cause.
Think about it this way, let's just suppose that you could go on a diet where you eat exactly 2,000 calories and burn 2,000 calories during exorcise. Then at some point you start eating one 10 calorie sweet tart daily in addition to the original diet. The sweet tart falls far from being the main source of your weight gain, but it's the missing link that, were it not there, would not have any effect.

Ah yes, and Nat'l Geographic is a reputable scientific journal? Many sources simply copying one bad source, particularly a high-minded sounding one like the "United Nations International Panel on Climate Change," would make it all true? The reason that you don't hear that much dissent over "The Day After Tomorrow" croud of greenie/socialist nuts is that it simply wouldn't be "news."

Your example with the candy is so simplicistic as to warrent its own rebuttle, that the Earth's atmosphere and energy balence are not bound by a single variable, but rather it is a more of a complex collection of differentials... where if you add more calories, then you may wind up burning more of them too.

In any event, the entire amount of carbon dioxide released by man over the past century or two could only cause a very small percentage change in the amount of solar energy retained... even the UN-IPCC's report clearly states the the CO2 alone cannot be the culprit, and they proceed to make noises about how the increased CO2 increases water vapor (a much more powerful greenhouse gas) but they don't know how.

Methane Clatherates have survived for a very long time, even following temperature swings like ours which were not followed by some global climate catastrophy... why would they suddenly explode or some "the end is near!" silliness?

Suppose there is only a 0.5 % chance (.005) of this happening. How much is a prudent amount to spend on insurance to assure the human race is not rendered extinct. This is talk of the Precautionary Principle - Antiscience - the song of the greenie nuts... how much of a miniscule chance that somthing bad might happen is worth the 100% chance of poverty, misery, and death of millions from the economic gutting of the world?

Could it be that the Right is dismissing global warming because the Leftist/Socialists/Greenies have no proof or science, and that global warming madness just happens to support their agenda? Global catastrophy, rushing Earth headlong into destruction, fueled by those rich Americans and Europeans! They must be stopped! We have to control them or we'll all die! Its so simple, CO2 is an insulator, so the world gets hot! Anyone can understand that!...how convienant

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-30 13:32:00

The problem with the extreme right is that they are not saying, "this is a real potential problem, we need to invest more in research, rather they are saying its a hoax being perpetrated by America-haters" and anyone who discuses global warming is a tinfoil hat guy.

Humans contribute to climate change. So do rocks, mice, dung beetles, algae, trees and anything else in the physical world. Everything on Earth contributes to climate change.

So we've got some variation. Admittedly some on the Right, rather than acknowledging that such change occurs, is part of a natural cycle, and can have catastrophic consequences as it has throughout the Earth's history would rather simply dump the entire concept of climate change as so much fashionable leftist twaddle. But, many on the Left who push their ideologized version of global warming quite frankly are tin-foil guys. Ooh, driving SUV's is gonna destroy the Earth. If we don't sign the Kyoto Protocol the oceans will be dead in ten years and we'll have another ice-age. Right, and the sky is falling, but just recycle your trash and we'll be saved. Please... :hm:

clark · 2004-06-30 13:35:06

Because SUV's are part of the natural cycle.

MarsDog · 2004-06-30 13:37:20

For me I don't care who's side is right or wrong about global warming. Because pollution is the number one threat to childrens lifes (astma, low vertillity, weak immune systems, cancer) and is a more direct threat then global warming.

Not that many people die from pollution, such as cigarette smoke,
It may even make the gene pool stronger by eliminating the weak.
But global warming could be catastrophic, only a few Humans surviving inside military,
under mountain installations, and submarines.

BWhite · 2004-06-30 13:43:03

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 4.php]This link is from a group advocating "cooler heads" about global warming. Apparently sympathetic to the anti-hysteria mindset. :;):

"You can make the climate cool in certain places just by redistributing the heat through changes in ocean currents, atmospheric circulation or both," said Lynch-Stieglitz. "The most fully developed theory to account for these rapid climate changes is that they do represent changes in the transport of heat into the North Atlantic by what we call overturning circulation of the ocean."
In that scenario, warm water flows northward from the Southern Hemisphere into the North Atlantic, where it gives up its heat. Being denser, the cooled water then sinks and flows back south. The scenario accounts for both heating in the north and cooling in the south.
It's possible, Lynch-Stieglitz notes, that both global warming and changes in ocean heat transport occurred simultaneously, though records of carbon dioxide concentrations do not show concentration increases that would be enough by themselves to account for the climate change.

This is precisely the Atlantic salt conveyor theory which suggests that less saline water in the Icelandic and Norweigan Seas can cause the Gulf Stream to shut down. Global average temperatures can remain the same or only increase very slightly yet if northern ice packs melt, the climate of Europe will change very drastically.

And France has nukes.

William Calvin puts it this way - - its quite possible to drown in water having an "average" depth of 6 inches if there is a deep end and a shallow end.

That said, extinction is admittedly an very over stated consequence "unless" human political and military reaction to climate change takes unpredictable turns. That is why the appearance of concern and genuine participation in research is essential no matter which way the science turns out.

Diplomacy by raised middle finger is usually bad diplomacy regardless of the truth.

= = =

First paragaph from the above link:

A paper published this week in the journal Science supports the hypothesis that heat transfer by ocean currents – rather than global heating or cooling – may have been responsible for the global temperature patterns associated with the abrupt climate changes seen in the North Atlantic during the past 80,000 years.

Global heating can melt glaciers which in turn alters ocean currents just as this report asserts.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-30 13:49:39

Because SUV's are part of the natural cycle.

Okay, you're right. Let's pack up civilization.

Are you saying that driving some trucks around can throw a planet's entire climate wildly out of balance? How many trucks? How long?

How 'bout belches, how many of those? Or shouting at enviromentalist rallies, that spews lots of CO2. And don't even think about eating that bean burrito...

Silly? Of course. Like trying to pin something as huge as a shift in the climate of an entire planet on a single cause. The Earth has undergone far more dramatic fluctuations long before there were humans around to screw it up. By all means, let's find cleaner burning fuels, let's make our vehicles more efficient, but before we start talking about how we're melting the polar icecaps and freezing everything else let's make sure we've all got our tin foil hats pointed toward Polaris and repeat the mantra of the forest spirits...

EDIT:

And I'll meet Bill halfway and agree, let's look into this, without the hysteria. And without the assumption that the Western industrialized world is to blame for any variation from some imagined baseline.

clark · 2004-06-30 13:59:22

Are you saying that driving some trucks around can throw a planet's entire climate wildly out of balance?

No. That would be silly. I'm saying it alters the balance. Look around, Mother nature is constant flux. One place turns to desert, another into lush verdant garden. It is a feedback mechanism we poorly understand.

Now, the Earth has developed a balance that seems to change every few thousand years, right? That's the basic system at rest- without additional outside influences that alter the balance.

Enter Humanity in all their technological glory. We change the balance- upset the thousand years equilibrium by means we can hardly understand. We don't quite grasp how interconnected the entire biosphere is, just that it somehow seems to be. Smart monkey realizes this, and says, "tread carefully. ook."

The Earth will find a new equilibrium, but it won't look like what we've grown used to in the modern day global village over ten billion served Terra. Remember the Mayan's? Poof. Same thing dude.

How many trucks? How long?

Dunno. Do you want to keep rolling the dice? Mother nature is the House. She will always win.

Or shouting at enviromentalist rallies, that spews lots of CO2.

At least there aren't as many facists doing the same. Way to save the environment, brown-shirt-pinko-commie.

BWhite · 2004-06-30 14:05:22

And I'll meet Bill halfway and agree, let's look into this, without the hysteria. And without the assumption that the Western industrialized world is to blame for any variation from some imagined baseline.

If gobal warming is a threat, China's coal burning is the biggest new danger.

I fully support safe regulated fission (fusion is too iffy for the intermediate term) and so does France by the way. I believe Illinois public power is 100% nuclear. And that reduces CO2 emissions.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-30 14:10:52

No. That would be silly. I'm saying it alters the balance. Look around, Mother nature is constant flux. One place turns to desert, another into lush verdant garden. It is a feedback mechanism we poorly understand.

There is no balance, we merely perceive one because of the incredibly brief time frame we're capable of truly understanding on a gut level. We remember "you know, I think it used to snow more when I was a kid." but we can't grasp "sub-tropical forest on the continent of Antarctica millions of years ago" any more than we feel in the gut "Canada was covered by a sheet of ice" except on a vague intellectual level. Climate change is a natural process, it has always and will always happen. We may well be a factor, be we aren't causing it any more than we're causing rain or earthquakes.

Enter Humanity in all their technological glory. We change the balance- upset the thousand years equilibrium by means we can hardly understand.

And here's the opening. While the Right needs to admit that climate change may have implications for humanity in the foreseeable future, the Left needs to acknowledge that they don't understand the forces at work and blaming it all on rich countries is nothing but the same propaganda they've spouted for years in other guises.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-06-28 17:51:14

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#77 2004-06-28 19:55:04

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#78 2004-06-28 23:52:36

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#79 2004-06-29 06:39:24

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#80 2004-06-29 13:18:36

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#81 2004-06-29 13:46:23

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#82 2004-06-29 13:48:51

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#83 2004-06-29 14:29:35

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#84 2004-06-29 14:57:57

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#85 2004-06-29 14:59:42

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#86 2004-06-29 16:08:02

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#87 2004-06-29 23:43:43

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#88 2004-06-30 06:07:33

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#89 2004-06-30 11:30:40

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#90 2004-06-30 12:36:11

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#91 2004-06-30 13:05:38

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#92 2004-06-30 13:18:44

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#93 2004-06-30 13:32:00

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#94 2004-06-30 13:35:06

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#95 2004-06-30 13:37:20

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#96 2004-06-30 13:43:03

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#97 2004-06-30 13:49:39

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#98 2004-06-30 13:59:22

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#99 2004-06-30 14:05:22

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#100 2004-06-30 14:10:52

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer