Artful Dodger:

> A Militant Gadhafi Threatens to Target European ‘Homes, Offices, Families’
Posted on July 1, 2011 at 2:30pm by Billy Hallowell

> ***This is exactly the type of threat that Saddam carried out. Instead of fighting the US, he targeted civilians in Israel. Both are thugs and cowards.

Let's see. The Regan admnistration bombed his home and killed his son in the 80s. Then recently the Nato axis bombed his home and killed his other son, his son's best friend, and his three grandchildren, aged 2 years old and six months old. Gaddafi should love the West and send flowers and teddy bears to every western government in the Nato axis.

I am sure the Nato axis is very brave for killing children with war planes. Then the Nato axis really, really did not take sides in a civil war inside Lybia. The opposition trying to depose Gaddafi was never, never infiltrated by Al Qaeda. And oil tankers never came to rebel-held territory to ship oil to refineries in the UK.

Just like in Iraq, it is all about the war on terror and democracy. Oil has nothing to do with it. If Lybia had no oil, the Nato axis would still be bombing Lybia just like they took such an active role in Bahrain and deposed a despotic king who jailed and made disappear hundreds of opponents.

If Gaddafi is a coward and a thug, then the Nato axis is a fascist empire of hypocrites that acts only when politically and economically convenient.

Artful Dodger: It's thought they might support..

"Gerges said the election "utterly discredited" claims that the Brotherhood has moved away from being an al-Qaida style political and religious organisation. He is wrong. The election proves that it is not an organisation of the "al-Qaida variety". How many organisations in the Middle East hold internal elections? Al-Qaida doesn't.

Certainly, commentators are worried that with Badie in charge the youth success and reform push of recent times will be put on hold.

Abdelrahman Ayyash, one of the leading MB bloggers, told me he fears a return to the politics of Sayyid Qutb. Badie has been linked to this radical ideology.

But grassroots reformist can still make an impact if they try hard enough. In October, a group of Brotherhood bloggers issued a statement that argued point by point the pitfalls they saw within the movement. Unsurprisingly, conservatives were upset.

Meanwhile, Badie faces a number of challenges. He is positioned between the reformists – who call for an opening of the structure of the Brotherhood to allow more debate and participation within the group – and the conservatives – who want to maintain their stranglehold on the politics of yesterday.

Khalil al-Anani, a political Islam expert who understands the Muslim Brotherhood better than most, said he believes the main challenges for Badie "will be how to balance between reformists and conservatives and how to engage [the] young Brotherhood".

This is the crux of the matter. The youth movement within the Brotherhood is growing and becoming the main face of the group abroad, but it doesn't have any real power in decision-making.

This is the last stand for the conservatives – members who espouse an ideology that lies in the politics of the 1960s and 1970s – and it is only a matter of time before the younger generation has a greater say.

Reformists, such as the popular Guidance Bureau member, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh – who talks of tolerance, understanding and democracy and is widely looked up to by the youth, should not sulk after the conservatives' victory but try to demonstrate the past few years were not an abnormality."

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=23222&ref=search.php

Why is it the Conservatives that always want war and death??

Artful Dodger: Wow that is totally pathetic. That's shameful. And of course some see that and then think all Americans are stupid.

Iamon lyme:

> They don't come close to extinguishing all life on earth.

Like I said in severfal of my posts below, the problem with global warm ing is not one of ice melting and coastlines rising. The worst that could happen is that governments will have to move cities inland as water advances slowly. Some cities already under sea level will be overrun by the sea. That is not the problem here.

The real problem is the vapour pressure of water. A change of 1 degree Celsius in atmospheric temperature causes an increase in the vapor pressure of water. That means that 1 degree rise becomes an increase of 5 to 8% in the rate of evaporation of water from the surface of the earth. Now soild are drying 5 to 8 % faster than before. That will lead to a large increase in arid regions (deserts) in the planet, and an accompanying decrease in arable land surface. That means that grain will become harder to cultivate and it will become a lot more expensive. The middle class will just pay more for their food. The real problem is the poor (which make 2/3 of the population of the world). The poor will not be able to afford higher grain prices and a lot of people will go hungry.

The problem is not one of the world "ending" as they paint it in a couple of sensationalistic movies. The problem will be one of growth of deserts and famine.

People have to get out of the "end of the world" mindset, and start thinking of a growing population and less land to feed it because deserts are getting bigger every day.

People in North America are spoiled because the Prairies produce so much grain. Imagine life with half the grain we have now, all because the planet warmed up 1 degree Celcius. The grassland prairies of North America are for the most part semi-arid. They are the breadbasket of the world and a reduction in water in the soil will push them from semi-arid to arid, making them a lot less productive. That will be the true impact of global warming. Coastlines will be merely but an incovenience when compared to famine.

Artful Dodger: ROFL @ lazy bums...

Iamon lyme: Not as much CO2 as they absorb.. they use it to grow and lock it into their chemistry. If they didn't .... we would not be here, as plants are the reason for the decrease in CO2 levels/increase O2 that allowed animals to live on land.

Iamon lyme: Yes.. but ice that is locked in glaciers and the like is land based and not in the sea.. unless it breaks off or melts and then adds to the sea. Certain low island already are disappearing.

"More rays are deflected with a heavier veil, therefore over time less and less heat is produced."

Interesting, but I thought that our atmosphere extended way beyond the usual water vapour range. Or it maybe I'm just remembering the problem we had with CFC's and ozone... I thought water vapour is usually invisible.. it's in the air we breath yet we do not 'see' it. If it was sulphur.. different matter, that reflects.

"but that the extremes really aren't so extreme"... it's the % of more extreme weather that is the problem. eg our UK crops are having problems due to an extremely rare dry and hot April. Food production from this season (wheat and other cereals) will be lower.

Iamon lyme: Scale really is a tricky one, but my guess is melting ice would be less of a problem for the earth than it would be for my tall glass of ice water. Less, or the same. As you can see, I care very deeply over the fate of my ice water, especially during periods of global warming..

lizrising: Good questions. Plants do throw off CO2 whenever they are not producing O. They make O when there is light, but at night they actually give off CO2. Obviously I'm not talking about dropping ice cubes into an already full glass of water, that would just be like adding more liquid water to the liquid water. My point about ice and water is mostly about how water contracts when it melts. Most (if not all) other substances will expand when going from solid to liquid. You are right about land based ice melting and adding it's volumn to ocean levels, but before it can even get there other factors are in play, such as evaporation, pooling into ponds and lakes, etc etc. I think maybe the scale of the ocean makes it difficult to believe it wouldn't be a big problem.. after all, it's a big ocean, and a very deep one.

(V): Sci-fi writers talked about using algae for long space flights long before we even tried getting to the moon.. Anyway, environmental alarmists have oversimplified natural global warming and cooling cycles and make it out to be something under our control. I remember the old joke that goes "Everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it." The reason we don't need to worry about dramatically overflooded coastlines is because H2O contracts (instead of expanding) when going from solid to liquid. It has to do with the crystaline structure of ice.. the molecules are farther apart when H2O becomes a solid. Also, we probably see more ice above the waterline because there is more air trapped in the ice than you would see in a perfectly clear ice cube. I hadn't thought of this one before, but if the globe was a bit warmer, then there may be increased evaporation, leading to an even higher percentage of water vapor adding to the "greenhouse effect". But the greenhouse effect is only about trapping heat after the suns rays have already penetrated the veil and reached the ground. More rays are deflected with a heavier veil, therefore over time less and less heat is produced, which perhaps helps to usher in the next global cooling cycle. I'm speculating about a lot of this, but the evironmentalists are correct when they start out telling us how complex this system really is. What impresses me is not that it goes from warm to cool, but that the extremes really aren't so extreme. They don't come close to extinguishing all life on earth.

Übergeek 바둑이: I stand by what I said. The answer is fixing the loop holes, NOT RAISING taxes. And the bigger more important part is lowering spending significantly.

Obviously there is nothing I can say to convince you and other libs otherwise, and there is nothing you or them can say to convince me otherwise.

Artful Dodger: Are you speaking of Obama, or.........???

rod03801:

> Well the problem with someone like G.E. is taken care of by fixing stupid tax loop-holes. NOT increasing taxes. Increasing taxes will just have G.E. finding loop holes for that too.

That's precisely the point. You say that the rich pay their fair share, but the truth is that they don't. All those "loopholes" are the exemptions and tax breaks that the rich can exploit to get away with paying less taxes. The entire taxation system (and that is not only in the USA but in most western capitalist countries) is designed to favor the rich and make sure that they pay far less taxes than the middle class. There is a myriad of exemptions and breaks that the big corporations can employ, and when that is nor enough they lobby for even more tax breaks. That is what is happening now. Republicans are pushing for tax breaks, but on behalf of big corporations. GE paid $0 in taxes. that's right, the third largest company in the world paid NO taxes in 2010. Then you have to wonder what other corporations are getting away with, and why the dificit is so bad. Is it because of massive spending or because of tax breaks for the rich? In reality it is both, but the proposed solution is to cut spending and at the same time give more tax breaks to the rich. That means that the burden of sustaining the deficit falls on the middle class, while the poor have less services from the government they elected.

rod03801: It's a reasonable request if you make 'claims'. I like to see if you know your stuff or are just quoting political hogwash.

"This is NOT the floor of congress, and I don't even know you."

Amnesia?

As to your article, it goes some way but is to general. Your rich? (I say it as this due to differences in exchange rates and what we consider rich in the UK) already pay less than they ever have. That your top percentage earners pay less isn't stopping loopholes and haven use. The deregulation that has caused the mess with the banks only has shown to make them rich quicker.

And all because big business can buy politicians.. especially Raygun and the Bush's.

(V): Are you for real? You'd like to see proof (official notes/docs/site) ???
LOL. I am an average person, typing on a discussion board on a game web site. This is NOT the floor of congress, and I don't even know you.

And, unlike some people I don't have all day to Google everything. However, just to entertain you I took a quick minute and found this article.
Is it skewed to the right? Quite possibly. Is it a few years old? Sure is, but things haven't changed much since 2007. I don't care, frankly. It's really common sense anyway.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Übergeek 바둑이: Well the problem with someone like G.E. is taken care of by fixing stupid tax loop-holes. NOT increasing taxes. Increasing taxes will just have G.E. finding loop holes for that too.

Iamon lyme: you mean

"But here's one even easier to debunk. more vegetation produces more CO2."

It's called photosynthesis. Sunlight+CO2 = plant growth+O2

It's why the boffins have all looked at using plant matter as a means of long term O2 production on long space flights.

rod03801: Do they? As every real look at tax income and who it comes from that I see of the USA. Says NO THEY DON'T.

So. I'd like to see proof (official notes/docs/site)

As it seems now as a percentage of actual taxes collected re what percentage they pay in relation to income.... THEY DON'T.

loopholes, havens.

"We aren't the UK. We fought not to be over 200 years ago. "

And at the moment do you think with all the lobbyists greasing government (local/state/federal) you actually have real representation?

rod03801:

> It's time to stop blaming and crying about who did what. It's past time to FIX it.

The question is: Can it be fixed? Cinsidering the number if manufacturing jobs that have been shipped overseas, and the large number of people employed by the military, can the American economy be sustained? Once the wars end and the troops come home, unemployment will rise very quickly and tax revenues will shrink. Retailers and manufacturers are quite happy to continue to manufacture overseas where salaries are low. That means that less Americans will contribute into the taxation system.

The only solution I see is to make the tax cuts targetted. Companies that manufacture domestically would receive a tax cut. Those that manufacture abroad would get no tax cuts at all. Not only that, but a tariff should be imposed when they import their products into North America. In the short term a measure like that would cause inflation, but in the long term it would create jobs and the revenue necessary to increase tax dollars coming into the treasury.

This idea will never fly because the companies that manufacture abroad (like Walmart, GE, Intel, etc.) have too much power and they would lobby to kill any legislation that protects American jobs.

rod03801:

> The "rich" already pay more than their share of the taxes.

I want you to prove that by telling us all how much General Electric paid in taxes last year. That might show us how the rich pay "their fair share".

Übergeek 바둑이: Ah, I do vaguely remember learning that now. Thank you.

Übergeek 바둑이: Personally, regardless of what party is in Congress, or what party is in the White House, I'd be "bullying" to cut spending.

It's not a middle school playground. It's time to stop blaming and crying about who did what. It's past time to FIX it.

(V): You go right ahead and raise all the taxes you want in the UK. We aren't the UK. We fought not to be over 200 years ago.

The "rich" already pay more than their share of the taxes.

We spend MORE than we should be. If we cut down to the bare minimum, and more is needed? Then MAYBE I'd agree that more taxes are needed. We haven't even scratched the surface of what spending needs to be cut though.

Most of us are forced to live within our budget. The wasteful Federal Govt. needs to be forced to do the same.

lizrising:

> Please explain how vegetation produces CO2. I must have missed that lesson in biology class.

Plants, just like animals, consume carbohydrate for energy and growth. A plant releases carbon dioxide as it uses carbohydrate as fuel. A plant releases and absorbs carbon dioxide and oxygen through stomata on the leaves. During the day the plant udergoes photosynthesis and converts carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrate and oxygen. This carbohydrate is used to provide energy as well as a raw material for growth. At night there is no sunlight so photosynthesis stops. Instead the plant uses the carbohydrate and releases carbon dioxide and water, the reverse of photosythesis. The plant grows because during the day it produces far more carbohydrate than it burns. Since the amount of carbohydrate is in excess of what is consumed for energy, the plant produces a much larger amount of oxygen than the amount of carbon dioxide. While a plant produces carbon dioxide, the net result is one of oxygenation of the atmosphere. Plants remove carbon dioxide and turn into glucose, which is in turn polymerized into cellulose. When you see a tree, the trunk, branches, leaves, etc. are a big store of carbon dioxide converted into cellulose. That cellulose can be burned for energy. It is why wood is a good fuel. But when we burn wood all that stored CO2 is realeased back into the atmosphere.

Does more CO2 mean more vegetation? In a greenhouse it does. Many greenhouses enrich the atmosphere with CO2 to stimulate plant growth. it works because the plants get warth, CO2, fertilizer and water. On the global scale of our atmosphere more CO2 does not translate into more vegetation when rainfall is low or the soil can't retain moisture. With global warming, rainfall will become erratic or change its patterns. The soil will retain less humidity. So more atmosphereic CO2 might mean death of vegetation rather than a lush jungle everywhere.

rod03801:

> Seems regardless of whatever blame games everyone wants to play, FORCED cuts in spending are VITAL.

There is no other choice left. The USA will be forced to go into austerity measures like Greek and Portugal have done. The spending cuts that have been pushed through due to Republican pressure are not enough, and the tax cuts are simply adding wood to the fire.

Obama wants to leave Afghanistan because the USA has no choice. The cost of the war is too great. That lesson was learned during the Vietnam era. The US withdrew when the OPEC crisis caused a big spike in interest rates and the American government had no choice but to cut spending and leave the war.

The only thing that I dislike is how Republicans are bullying Obama when they started the mess in the first place.

Artful Dodger: It's true. Warmer climate means more vegetation, more vegetation produces more CO2. But here's one even easier to debunk. I'd like to see this done on the show Myth Busters, but it's too easy and doesn't require blowing anything up.. melting ice would cause a significant rise in ocean water levels. it that was true, my half ice half water glass of liquid should always spill over when the ice melts. No matter how full the glass is, I've never seen that happen.

Iamon lyme: Human waste makes good gas. It's a nice recycling of all those nasty McD's

Francis Fukuyama summarized these concepts: "Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they collected in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit."[19]

Economist Bruce Bartlett wrote in 2009 that without benefit cuts in Medicare and Social Security, federal taxes would have to increase by 8.1% of GDP now and forever to cover estimated program shortfalls, while avoiding debt increases.[20] The 30-year historical average federal tax receipts are 18.4% of GDP, so this would represent a substantial increase in tax receipts as a share of GDP relative to historical levels in the United States. However, such an increase would still leave tax revenues relative to GDP substantially lower than other developed nations like France and Germany (see: List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP).


............. In comparing corporate taxes, the Congressional Budget Office found in 2005 that the top statutory tax rate was the third highest among OECD countries behind Japan and Germany. However, the U.S. ranked 27th lowest of 30 OECD countries in its collection of corporate taxes relative to GDP, at 1.8% vs. the average 2.5%.[27] Bruce Bartlett wrote in May 2011: "...one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant. The economic importance of statutory tax rates is blown far out of proportion by Republicans looking for ways to make taxes look high when they are quite low.


In other words the Republicans get paid by lobbyists to make stocks look good at the expense of the USA....

It must be KFC gravy!!

Artful Dodger: lol Yeah, the gas always greener on the other side.. ??? euwwww... green gas?

rod03801: as you said upto Reagan. Raygun gave America more debt than the previous 200 years of American government.

"FORCED cuts in spending are VITAL."

Ok.. so why is the Republicans against raising taxes a little? Here in the UK VAT has been increased so everyone pays. The more you spend, the more you pay.

What's a percent or two to someone with $10 million+ in their account? One less bottle of champers??

Übergeek 바둑이: Actually, Obama added more to the debt, in his first 19 months, than all presidents from Washington to Reagan, COMBINED.

So are you saying he and the Libs should be allowed to spend spend spend us into oblivion?

Seems regardless of whatever blame games everyone wants to play, FORCED cuts in spending are VITAL.

It started before Bush with Raygun... The tax breaks he gave the rich the American economy has never benefited from and ham stringed the economy. The amount of money Raygun spent to make things look better, was more than any President ever. The rich get Richer and the average or poor Joe gets to foot the bill.

The Capitalist American Dream. Robin hood reversed!!

Right now Republicans are forcing the Obama administration to cut spending and give tax breaks to the rich. Yet, why are the American economy and the deficit so bad? A new report estimates the cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to be at least 3.7 trillion dollars.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-cost-war-least-3-7-trillion-counting-110411362.html

Apparently, the interest alone for the deficit is 185 billion dollars.

Those Republicans that are pushing the Obama administration for spending cuts and tax breaks should at least have the decency to admit that it was their political party and the Bush administration that decided to plunge the United States into war. Now the same people that created the mess are forcing cuts and tax breaks. I wonder if those Republicans will cut their own salaries as a gesture of admission of the mess they created. Can the Obama administration be expected to succeed in anything considering the mess left behind by the Bush administration? The Republicans mortgaged away the future of the United States, and now that mortgage can't be paid.

Artful Dodger: By your standards. Raygun did worse... by most standards, he is the worst..... ever.

Artful Dodger:

> Hey, she's hot, hot, hot. ;)

The question is, when some hostile country develops a nuclear bomb, will her good looks save the world?

Artful Dodger:

> How much steel and land do “environmentally friendly” energy technologies use? Is this “sustainable”?

Every industrial activity (even the "Green" industries) consume land, natural resources and energy. It is a given.

Wind turbines require steel, aluminium, lubricants, wiring, electronics, etc. Pollution is generated from the manufacture of wind turbines.

Solar panels are not much better. Refining silicon wafers is very energy intensive. There there is copper, plastics, metal, glass, etc.

If wind turbines use land, so do oil wells and drilling rigs. If wind turbines use steel, so do oil wells, drilling platforms, pump jacks, etc.

One must look at the sum total of energy spent during manufacture and energy generated during consumption. Oil wins at the moment because the amount of energy used during extraction, transportation and refining is relatively low compared to the amount extracted when oil products are burned. This is why oil is cheaper than wind turbines.

One must also look at the amount of pollution generated during manufacture, production, transporation, consumption, accidental spills, etc. Oil production can be very messy when spills occurr. Oil releases a lot of carbon dioxide when burned. There is also nitrogen oxides, ozone and other pollutants generated during combustion. Windmills and solar panels win on the pollution side because once they are manufactured and installed, they generate almost no pollution. That is what makes renewable energy sources attractive.

Then we have to remember that is most of the energy comes from renewable sources, then a more ecologically balanced manufacture or wind turbines and solar panels is possible. The raw materaials can come from recycled steel, aluminium, plastics, glass, etc. The energy comes from a renewable source, so less fossil fuels are used during manufacture.

Slowly, the renewable side can add up leading to a decrease of our dependance on oil. The problem is that people want a solution right now. People don't want to wait 30 years for renewable energy to become viable.

Artful Dodger:

> Not at 100% levels. And it won't drive our cars. At the moment, you need both types of energy. And you can't stop producing oil when you don't have in place a replacement. It's that simple.

Not with the current technology. We still need oil for motor vehicles. There is no current technology that can replace the diesel engine in a tractor-trailer carrying tons of cargo. The day might come when we will. In the meantime we still need oil.

But electricity is something else. The problem is that people think in very selfish, nationalistic terms.

If Iceland can make 100% of its energy from geothermal sources, North America should aim at developing a similar source in places where it is viable. It would be impossible to do that in Saskatchewan or Florida, but it might be viable in volcanic regions. Electricity could be generated in Guatemala (a very volcanic country) and redistributed north through Mexico and the USA. It would help Guatemala and Mexico develop thier economy while the USA would get a respite from some of the oil dependence.

Unfortunately, everybody gets nationalistic. The USA has the capital to invest, but not the willingness to do so while oil remains cheap. Mexicans will want to make a big profit, as will Guatemalans. Guatemala completely lacks the infrastructure and the capital. All in all everybody will keep using oil until it becomes so expensive that building geothermal plants in Central America becomes cheaper.

Once energy is generated efficiently from a renewable source, it can be used to generate synthetic fuels. For example, electricity can be used to power a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst and make hydrocarbons from carbon dioxide and water. Methanol can be synthesized too and used in fuel cells to power motor vehicles.

The big challenge right now is the lack of infrastructure and capital. Many of the technologies are there, but their cost is too great when compared to oil extraction and refining. We could replace oil at this point, but the cost would be too great. Nobody wants to pay $2000 per month for an electricity bill.

Texas have done big look at geothermal.. Including reusing old oil and gas wells. Seeing as the State has already a great deal of info recorded on what is beneath them.....

It's looking good!!

Artful Dodger: Why? They seem to be happy to tap into geothermal and use solar.

"The production and transportation of steel are both expensive and energy-intensive."

.... and how much is used in a refinery or coal burning plant... let's not forget the concrete!!

"Obviously these are ballpark figures"

ie.... made up figures??

Artful Dodger: you aren't very choosy when it comes to women are you hahahahaha