You are not logged in.
Ok, ill accept Cobras point that most people use up what time they have ranting about negative things that Bush has done rather than positive things Kerry could do - so lets look at it from the other side (and this is mainly for Cobra who has the right point of view to anwer this question)
What are the positive things that Bush has promised to do that will make him a great president, and what are the negative things that Kerry has done that point to him being a bad president.
Yeah, it's funny on several levels. But more importantly, Cheney could be President, though not a particularly popular or personable one. Edwards, on the other hand... Well, we're talking about a one-term Senator that repeatedly lost primaries to John Kerry...
Well with 4 to 8 years as Vice President under his belt im sure he'd be considered experienced. ???
Wow, heated discussion. I dont want to get caught in the crossfire but from the linked article above.......
IATA in cooperation with the United States Department of Transportation sponsored an international intercarrier agreement on passenger liability that was adopted by airlines starting in 1997. Today, over 120 airlines have signed the agreement. The intercarrier agreement removes the $75,000 (U.S.) limit of liability and allows passengers to recover full compensatory damages for physical injury or death in an "accident," according to the laws of their domicile, or place of permanent residence. After 1997, almost all the airlines have agreed that they can be sued for the entire amount of damages that a victim’s country of domicile would normally allow the family to recover. The victims only have to show that the airline was negligent in causing their injuries.
The new Intercarrier Agreement modifying The Warsaw Convention theoretically exposes the airlines to unlimited liability. But the amount of damages for the plaintiffs is still dependent upon the laws applied by the country that has jurisdiction over the lawsuits.
<dives for cover>
Cheney on the other hand?
I liked that when asked to compare Cheney to Edwards, Bush replied that Cheney could be President....
Cheney for President! :laugh:
Made me laugh.
If you combined it with a http://www.enviromission.com.au/index1.htm]Solar Power Tower then youd definately be onto something. EnviroMission, through this project, would validate most of the concepts and technologies - all youd need to do is 'extend' the tower up the side of a mountain and add cooling facilities at the top.
An added bonus is that moist air is denser than dry air and would as such deliver more power to the turbines on the way up.
EDIT:
BTW, im not envisaging using SPS in this arrangement - just the power of the sun. Whilst im not sure of the efficiencies of incorporating SPS im sure it would work to boost the power - but at what cost.
The thing thabugs me is that if you vote for Bush you are effectively endorsing everything he has done in his presidency. Im not going to list everything but in my eyes hes made a lot of mistakes, and no matter how hard i try i cant think of anything positive that he has done.
He just seems to be a really bad president, and doesnt deserve a second chance. Maybe Kerry should have a go. ???
Cobra
Do you contest that there is a hole in the ozone layer? Or that carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in 400'000 years? Representing a 30% increase in the last 100 years?
It seems to me that there are far too many people crying out for crippling the industry of certain wealthy countries
Actually its more along the lines of a majority of wealthy countries are worried about their potential detrimental effects on the environment and are trying to agree to a method to reduce their pollution in certain areas.
How exactly do you feel that industry may be crippled?
You seem to feel that its a case of everyone in the world trying to harm America, whereas its more like everyone in the world trying to make tough decisions while america sulks like a petulant child. Im sorry, but thats what it is.
The problem i have with SUVs (asside from safety issues) is that they were orriginally specifically designed to get around fuel efficiency and pollution controls.
I agree with Clark, less pollution cannot hurt us, more pollution can and will, its just a matter of opinion by how much.
Cobra is correct that there is no 'balance' in so far as climate warming and cooling are naturally occuring phenomenon - what you really need to examine though are the time frames involved. The planets flora and fauna (including us) will naturally adapt through evolution and geographical mobility to a changing climate (otherwise there would be nothing here today) but how fast?
Lets get some facts and figures and bring them into discussion.
No one can, with certainty, describe the cause and effect relationship in climate change - but maybe we are beginning to get an idea, and maybe the risk of being right alone is enough to begin to make responisble decisions. ???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu … stm]Design wanted for Antarctic base
The complex must be self-sufficient, have minimal impact on the pristine Antarctic environment and house instruments for BAS's research into the environment and climate change.
The base's residents - among them scientists, engineers, carpenters and chefs - must be given comfortable living quarters, a kitchen, restaurant, library and rest areas to escape the 80mph gusts of wind outside.
"These are like mini-cities in microcosm, they have to be self-contained," said Prof Rapley.
Sounds like a little martian colony to me. It will be interesting to see what the final design will be like.
Maybe the mars society should submit a design based the Mars Direct Hab designs? Who designed them anyway?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu … stm]Design wanted for Antarctic base
you still need to get 30 - 50$bn........
What it means is that the GPS can be switched off in an area if it was so wanted. This has never happened but it has always been a means to hurt enemies.
This is a potential problem though - Galileo is designed as a civilian run system for civilian use. Its high resolution will give it an unprecedented range of applications including flying planes and controlling transport networks (it will even work effectively in urban areas). The probelem is that the US military has 'reserved' the right to jam it at a moments notice without asking permission which introduces massive reliability issues and could potentyially damage its commercial viability.
Nader is simply making trouble. He can't win. All he can accomplish is further divisiveness and helping Bush win this election.
If he gets 5% then he gets government funding for his campaign next time round.
Im an admirer of Nader too, but it is tempting to agree with Cindy that he should take one for the 'team'.
That said a viable alternative to both the Republicans and the Democrats needs to emerge at some point and if the Republicans happen to help it along to swing an election and then get bitten in the ass 8 years later, then i wouldnt be able to help but enjoy the irony. That said...... Bush still in the whitehouse..... for another 4 years....... <shudder>
EDIT - One final point. Bush has managed to polarise the political landscpae so much that america could end up stuck on the Republican-Democrat 'knife edge' (ie 50-50) for a generation - maybe the emergence of a third party is important enough for me to grit my teeth and bare Bush for another 4 years - who knows.
Want to bet the Republicans (including the Bush family of course) are behind this?
It is most certainly the repulicans - its a form of tactical voting. They arent proposing voting for him, just to get enough signatures to get him on the ballot. They quite correctly realise that he will eat up a small percentage of kerry voters but is highly unlikely to woo any Bush voters.
In the 1997 UK elections Labour encouraged its voters to vote Lib Dem in those seats where it was a close race between Conservative and Lib Dem and Labour were a distant 3rd and it helped them secure their landslide victory.
On another note, i think what the US really needs is a third major party - it would go a long way to reducing a lot of the political polarisation which makes getting things done so hard sometimes.
Bearing in mind that those who have railed against the Iraq war have completely lost any credibility they may have had on human rights issues.
Please explain? ???
Then what he had was "barely illegal" and a few sarin shells are hardly a world threatening WMD stash. The line keeps getting finer.
The sarin shells were found under a road which had been built after the last iran-iraq war - 20 years ago! They had obviously been forgotten - these things happen.
The Bush Administration quite simply did not have a good reason for invading Iraq. Now that it is done, i agree that we have to stay and rebuild, but we never should have gone in in the first place. On a world list of terrorist activity London would have been higher - Iran and Saudi Arabia certainly were, but neither were atacked for obvious reasons.
What about our invasion of Iraq?
'Saddam has missles that violate UN resolutions. He must disarm them or we will make him.'
Saddam disarmed, but was still attacked.He didn't disarm. Iraq fired banned missiles at the CentCom HQ in Qatar in the opening weeks of the war. Patriots shot them down. Maybe there is something to that missile defense stuff.
The missiles fired at CentCom were barely illegal. It was found that if they were stripped down it could be possible for them to 'coast' a couple of kilometers further than the allowed 100km range. Claiming they were illegal was just the Bush administration clutching at straws, and they certainly cant be descibed as WMD.
The truth is that Irag did dissarm in the 90s in order to avoid invasion by the US - but Sadham needed to keep power and pride, especially in the eyes of his people (shia uprising), sons (keen to take over) and neighbouring Iran (dabling with 'nucular' technology) and so felt the need to keep up apperances.
Bush was either too stupid to see through his posturing, or was glad for the excuse. At any rate, Bush has spent over 100 $bn and commited roughly 250,000 troops in an exercise which has only served to detract from his effort in the war on terror and strengthened his enemies.
With 100 $bn in Afghanistan (and the war on terrorism proper), the taliban would be beaten, Al'Qaeda would be destroyed and Osama would be captured. And there would have probably been enough left over to cure cancer and aids.
London:
Petrol prices in some parts of london have reached £1 per litre which is roughly $6.95 a gallon.
The average nationwide petrol price is at roughly 83p per litre which is $5.77 per gallon.
hmmmmm
Anyone want to place a bet that the second flight will be on the 4th of July? ???
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ … m]Historic Space Launch Attempt Scheduled for June 21
Looks like the X-Prize is in the bag for scaled.
Im looking forward to the documentary mentioned at the end of the press release.
ESA has gotten round these problems by having two official languages - English and French.
Everything is done in these languages, its a requirement that you speak one (or more likeley both) to even get a job there.
Its being shown at the cannes film festival - hopefully enough people will see it provide enough pressure for it to be released.
though this link should probably be posted here too.
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id … t=0]RUSSIA, WESTERN EUROPE MAY UNITE INTO LARGEST SPACE ASSOCIATION
Would make for a very interesting combination
Why is the number 6 and resting on the 7th important in the creation? God is a God of numbers:
One is the number for unity. Genesis 1:1-5. The part of creation that comes together. So ends the first day.
Two is the number of division. Genesis 1:6-8, God devides or seperates things. The waters from above from the water below. So ends day two.
Three is the number of resurrection, devine completeness and perfection. Genesis 1:9-13, God resurrects life from his creation (earth). The earth is now finished or completed, it's life, that grows from it, and it's form, is done. So ends day three.
Four is the number of creation of everything that so far does not require the blood of life. Genesis 1:14-19. All of the stars, planets etc... are now completed. So the void (filling the earth with life that grows from itself) is now fixed.
Four also applies to:
1) Four regions; North, South, East, West.
2) Four elemants; Earth, Air, Fire, Water.
3) Four Seasons; Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter.
4) Four kingdoms; Mineral, vegetable, animal, spiritual.
5) Four winds; from the four directions of this earth as mentioned in the word of God.
6) Four divisions of our day; morning, noon, evening, and night.
7) Four phases of the moon; 1st quarter, new moon, last quarter, and full moon.Five is the number for God's grace or goodness. There are five offerings in the word of God: 1) The burnt offering, 2) The peace offering, 3) The sin offering, 4) The trespass offering, and 5) The meat offering. To have these offerings, you have to have animals to scrifice. So on the fifth day, God created the animals(Genesis 1:20-23) so that His grace through offerings for sins could be manifested.
Six is the number of: weakness of man, evils of satan, and manifestation of sin. All of this came about through the creation of man. Genesis 1:24-31. Man is what satan used to manifest his evil (sin) through.
Seven is the number for completeness, and spiritual perfection, Genesis 2:1-3. This also set up the 7 day week as a time period we now use. 7 is also the day we worship the Lord.
I cant really see your point - but considering your track record with numbers I'm not going to bother reading it again.
Congratulations on counting to six though. (I'm assuming you got seven because it was the only number left)