Obama set to push ‘big bang’ reform package

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well there was also the bit about you getting a coffin in a thread related to terrorism.

One can only assume what you meant.

[sj5 4]

Well there was also the bit about you getting a coffin in a thread related to terrorism. You should read why I answered it the way... Are you 12 years old?

One can only assume what you meant.

I assumed that everyone knows I making fun of Bin Laden for wearing a turban.

It's an indirect praises.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SJ

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

too late on the edit, so here it is

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the U.S. emissions.[44] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[45] Various predictions see China overtaking the U.S. in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[46][47][48] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[49][50][51]

so because china, a way less developed country than the usa, produces pollution it isn't important to invest in renewable energy sources in the usa? nice logic. luckily for everyone you aren't running the country.

was there some reason why you ignored that? leading by example isn't important? ignoring the kyoto protocol is fine? like i said, we are all lucky that you aren't running the country.

is there a reason why you're ignoring the fact that china is a major polluter? and spare me the insults, will ya?

China has been going 'green' for the past 3 or 4 years. Yes, it's still a polluter but interestingly, they take the idea of reducing emissions very seriously. If you followed the ball bearings, as per my recommendation, you would know this.

apparently you didn't read that wikipedia story either that i posted. not surprising.

either post a link or story about these ball bearings or give it a rest. you nattering on about them without anything further makes me think a few broke loose in your central cortex.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well there was also the bit about you getting a coffin in a thread related to terrorism.

One can only assume what you meant.

I assumed that everyone knows I making fun of Bin Laden for wearing a turban.

It's an indirect praises.

No you were praising him. And you said you think Bush did 9/11 not bin Laden.

Your sympathies are clear. You are the enemy.

[sj5 4]

Well there was also the bit about you getting a coffin in a thread related to terrorism.

One can only assume what you meant.

I assumed that everyone knows I making fun of Bin Laden for wearing a turban.

It's an indirect praises.

No you were praising him. And you said you think Bush did 9/11 not bin Laden.

Your sympathies are clear. You are the enemy.

Most Democrat supporters think it's inside job by Bush. Please read and pay attention or Do you need help to understand this issues?

If you can't keep up with joke.. shut off your computer.

I don't care if you think I'm your enemy. I don't have enemy.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SJ

[Peikko 1,575]

too late on the edit, so here it is

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the U.S. emissions.[44] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[45] Various predictions see China overtaking the U.S. in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[46][47][48] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[49][50][51]

so because china, a way less developed country than the usa, produces pollution it isn't important to invest in renewable energy sources in the usa? nice logic. luckily for everyone you aren't running the country.

was there some reason why you ignored that? leading by example isn't important? ignoring the kyoto protocol is fine? like i said, we are all lucky that you aren't running the country.

is there a reason why you're ignoring the fact that china is a major polluter? and spare me the insults, will ya?

China has been going 'green' for the past 3 or 4 years. Yes, it's still a polluter but interestingly, they take the idea of reducing emissions very seriously. If you followed the ball bearings, as per my recommendation, you would know this.

apparently you didn't read that wikipedia story either that i posted. not surprising.

either post a link or story about these ball bearings or give it a rest. you nattering on about them without anything further makes me think a few broke loose in your central cortex.

Wiki doesn't know everything but I highly doubt you read it because it clearly states that China is on its way to greendom Here, check this out:

Efforts to control China's pollution problem have become a top priority of the Chinese leadership. In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency, reflecting the growing importance the PRC Government places on environmental protection. Beginning in 2006, the government greatly expanded expenses into environmental protection, and a series of new laws have been passed. Enforcement of these laws is also being expanded. The PRC has strengthened its environmental legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental deterioration. During the 11th 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), the PRC plans to reduce total emissions by 10% and bring China's energy efficiency up by 20%. Beijing in particular is investing heavily in pollution control as part of its campaign to host a successful Olympiad in 2008. Some cities have seen improvement in air quality in recent years. In the first half of 2007, China's total energy consumption per unit of output improved by 2.8% and China's sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 0.6%, showing that these new measures have the potential to slow down pollution growth.^[2]

As for the ball bearings, I shall post about them as often as I see fit.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Most Democrat supporters think it's inside job by Bush.

Another lie.

You've been caught and now you're lying your way out of it.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I heard Obama will be changing Affirmative Action policy to incorporate Classes versus race. Instead of basing the quota on race, it'll be on class.

[sj5 4]

Most Democrat supporters think it's inside job by Bush.

Another lie.

You've been caught and now you're lying your way out of it.

Yes, I'm lying. What you can do about it?

( )

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Most Democrat supporters think it's inside job by Bush.

Another lie.

You've been caught and now you're lying your way out of it.

Yes, I'm lying. What you can do about it?

( )

You will see, terrorist.

[sj5 4]

Most Democrat supporters think it's inside job by Bush.

Another lie.

You've been caught and now you're lying your way out of it.

Yes, I'm lying. What you can do about it?

( )

You will see, terrorist.

I hope you didn't vote for abortion rights.

Read this: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/279...piracy02ww.html

Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

By THOMAS HARGROVE AND GUIDO H. STEMPEL III

SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appear to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" -- the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet -- quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission). His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaida five years ago.

"A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said.

"Many say the government planned the whole thing," he said. "Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."

The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Conspiracy groups for at least two years have also questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," said the poll's findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.

"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said. "Although the Iraq war was not directly related to the 9/11 attacks, people are now looking back at 9/11 with much more skepticism than they used to."

The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University has tracked the level of resentment people feel toward the federal government since 1995, starting shortly after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Forty-seven percent then said they, personally, feel "more angry at the federal government" than they used to. That percentage dropped to 42 percent in 1997, 34 percent in 1998 and only 12 percent shortly after 9/11 during the groundswell of patriotism and support for the government after the attacks.

But the new survey found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with the government recently and 54 percent say they, themselves, have become angrier -- both record levels.

The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. People who regularly read daily newspapers or listen to radio newscasts were especially unlikely to believe in the conspiracies.

"We know that there are a lot of people now asking questions," said Janice Matthews, executive director of 911Truth.org, one of the most sophisticated Internet sites raising doubts about official explanations of the attacks. "We didn't have the Internet after Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Kennedy assassination. But we live in different times now."

The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Thomas Hargrove is a reporter for Scripps Howard News Service. Guido H. Stempel III is director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University.

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

too late on the edit, so here it is

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the U.S. emissions.[44] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[45] Various predictions see China overtaking the U.S. in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[46][47][48] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[49][50][51]

so because china, a way less developed country than the usa, produces pollution it isn't important to invest in renewable energy sources in the usa? nice logic. luckily for everyone you aren't running the country.

was there some reason why you ignored that? leading by example isn't important? ignoring the kyoto protocol is fine? like i said, we are all lucky that you aren't running the country.

is there a reason why you're ignoring the fact that china is a major polluter? and spare me the insults, will ya?

China has been going 'green' for the past 3 or 4 years. Yes, it's still a polluter but interestingly, they take the idea of reducing emissions very seriously. If you followed the ball bearings, as per my recommendation, you would know this.

apparently you didn't read that wikipedia story either that i posted. not surprising.

either post a link or story about these ball bearings or give it a rest. you nattering on about them without anything further makes me think a few broke loose in your central cortex.

Wiki doesn't know everything but I highly doubt you read it because it clearly states that China is on its way to greendom Here, check this out:

Efforts to control China's pollution problem have become a top priority of the Chinese leadership. In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency, reflecting the growing importance the PRC Government places on environmental protection. Beginning in 2006, the government greatly expanded expenses into environmental protection, and a series of new laws have been passed. Enforcement of these laws is also being expanded. The PRC has strengthened its environmental legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental deterioration. During the 11th 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), the PRC plans to reduce total emissions by 10% and bring China's energy efficiency up by 20%. Beijing in particular is investing heavily in pollution control as part of its campaign to host a successful Olympiad in 2008. Some cities have seen improvement in air quality in recent years. In the first half of 2007, China's total energy consumption per unit of output improved by 2.8% and China's sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 0.6%, showing that these new measures have the potential to slow down pollution growth.^[2]

As for the ball bearings, I shall post about them as often as I see fit.

and not one thing about ball bearings. no surprise..........

maybe they started that off in mar 98 like your posts says, but the same one says: Forbes Magazine reports that all 10 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China.[1]

i don't know about you, but it seems like closing the barn door after the horse got out.

Pollution control

The quality of the environment has not at all improved, even though there have been years of increased CHEEZNIPZ control. According to some national plan targets which were released before 2005, by the end of 2005, discharge amounts of main pollutants would be 10 percent less than in the year 2000. However, this has not happened, according to a survey of air, land and water carried out in the year 2006. so much for your claim "China is on its way to greendom."

now this i fully agree with:

Beginning on June 1, 2008, for the entire country of China, all supermarkets, department stores and shops are prohibited from giving out free plastic bags. Stores must clearly mark the price of plastic shopping bags and are banned from adding that price onto the price of products. The production, sale and use of ultra-thin plastic bags - those less than 0.025 millimeters, or 0.00098 inches, thick - are also banned. The State Council calls for "a return to cloth bags and shopping baskets."[28]

Edited November 10, 2008 by charles!

[sj5 4]

AJ, Who was the father of Constitution? [Don't cheat]

I think, I can help you with your citizenship test.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SJ

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

AJ, Who was the father of Constitution? [Don't cheat]

I think, I can you with your citizenship test.

I don't engage terrorists. Sorry.

[sj5 4]

too late on the edit, so here it is

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the U.S. emissions.[44] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[45] Various predictions see China overtaking the U.S. in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[46][47][48] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[49][50][51]

so because china, a way less developed country than the usa, produces pollution it isn't important to invest in renewable energy sources in the usa? nice logic. luckily for everyone you aren't running the country.

was there some reason why you ignored that? leading by example isn't important? ignoring the kyoto protocol is fine? like i said, we are all lucky that you aren't running the country.

is there a reason why you're ignoring the fact that china is a major polluter? and spare me the insults, will ya?

China has been going 'green' for the past 3 or 4 years. Yes, it's still a polluter but interestingly, they take the idea of reducing emissions very seriously. If you followed the ball bearings, as per my recommendation, you would know this.

apparently you didn't read that wikipedia story either that i posted. not surprising.

either post a link or story about these ball bearings or give it a rest. you nattering on about them without anything further makes me think a few broke loose in your central cortex.

Wiki doesn't know everything but I highly doubt you read it because it clearly states that China is on its way to greendom Here, check this out:

Efforts to control China's pollution problem have become a top priority of the Chinese leadership. In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency, reflecting the growing importance the PRC Government places on environmental protection. Beginning in 2006, the government greatly expanded expenses into environmental protection, and a series of new laws have been passed. Enforcement of these laws is also being expanded. The PRC has strengthened its environmental legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental deterioration. During the 11th 5-Year Plan (2006-2010), the PRC plans to reduce total emissions by 10% and bring China's energy efficiency up by 20%. Beijing in particular is investing heavily in pollution control as part of its campaign to host a successful Olympiad in 2008. Some cities have seen improvement in air quality in recent years. In the first half of 2007, China's total energy consumption per unit of output improved by 2.8% and China's sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 0.6%, showing that these new measures have the potential to slow down pollution growth.^[2]

As for the ball bearings, I shall post about them as often as I see fit.

and not one thing about ball bearings. no surprise..........

maybe they started that off in mar 98 like your posts says, but the same one says: Forbes Magazine reports that all 10 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China.[1]

i don't know about you, but it seems like closing the barn door after the horse got out.

Pollution control

The quality of the environment has not at all improved, even though there have been years of increased CHEEZNIPZ control. According to some national plan targets which were released before 2005, by the end of 2005, discharge amounts of main pollutants would be 10 percent less than in the year 2000. However, this has not happened, according to a survey of air, land and water carried out in the year 2006. so much for your claim "China is on its way to greendom."

now this i fully agree with:

Beginning on June 1, 2008, for the entire country of China, all supermarkets, department stores and shops are prohibited from giving out free plastic bags. Stores must clearly mark the price of plastic shopping bags and are banned from adding that price onto the price of products. The production, sale and use of ultra-thin plastic bags - those less than 0.025 millimeters, or 0.00098 inches, thick - are also banned. The State Council calls for "a return to cloth bags and shopping baskets."[28]

That's good they're working on their pollution problems. How about cars smoke regulation?

Edited November 10, 2008 by SJ