http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing us with it -
2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0a0ec86da3faf9a?hl=en
* Corporation To Run For Public Office! - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/025ce6dd19c25e00?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I finally get it: If GW is not man-made, then God is punishing us with
it
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0a0ec86da3faf9a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 2 2010 6:55 pm
From: jeff
delboy wrote:
> On 2 Feb, 16:51, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> delboy wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> delboy wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> DC.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!
>
> A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
> glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
> global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
> but getting longer!
Nope:
http://blog.taragana.com/science/2010/01/22/himalayan-glaciers-are-in-retreat-un-body-4218/
NEW DELHI - Himalayan glaciers are retreating, and small glaciers will
probably disappear by the end of the century, the UN body in charge of
the Himalayas said Friday.
It was commenting on another UN report that had admitted it blundered by
predicting disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN is under
fire for having included in its 2007 report — without adequate peer
review — an assertion that glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear by
2035 due to global warming. It has since retracted the statement.
The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod),
however, supported the overall conclusions of the IPCC.
"We can state that the majority of glaciers in the region are in a
general condition of retreat, although with some regional differences;
that small glaciers below 5,000 metres above sea level will probably
disappear by the end of the century, whereas larger glaciers well above
this level will still exist but be smaller; and that deglaciation could
have serious impacts on the hydrological regime of the downstream river
basins," it said in a statement.
>
Among many other articles...
On another note, there is increasing evidence that Sarah Palin's brain
is shrinking faster than anyone could have imagined:
http://trueslant.com/johnknefel/2010/01/14/oh-god-sarah-palin-cant-name-a-founding-father-haha-tear/
With the current rate of mental decline, analysts predicts she will will
be a shoe in for the 2012 GOP nomination.
Jeff
> DC.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 2 2010 8:01 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Feb 2, 9:55 pm, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> delboy wrote:
> > On 2 Feb, 16:51, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> >> delboy wrote:
> >>> On 2 Feb, 14:02, jeff <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>> delboy wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> DC.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Himalayan Glaciers are not Melting!
>
> > A pro climate change scientist recently claimed that all the Himalayan
> > glaciers would be gone by 2032, based on the 20th Century rate of
> > global warming. In fact these glaciers are not only holding their own,
> > but getting longer!
>
> Nope:
>
> http://blog.taragana.com/science/2010/01/22/himalayan-glaciers-are-in...
>
> NEW DELHI - Himalayan glaciers are retreating, and small glaciers will
> probably disappear by the end of the century, the UN body in charge of
> the Himalayas said Friday.
>
> It was commenting on another UN report that had admitted it blundered by
> predicting disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN is under
> fire for having included in its 2007 report — without adequate peer
> review — an assertion that glaciers in the Himalayas will disappear by
> 2035 due to global warming. It has since retracted the statement.
>
> The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod),
> however, supported the overall conclusions of the IPCC.
>
> "We can state that the majority of glaciers in the region are in a
> general condition of retreat, although with some regional differences;
> that small glaciers below 5,000 metres above sea level will probably
> disappear by the end of the century, whereas larger glaciers well above
> this level will still exist but be smaller; and that deglaciation could
> have serious impacts on the hydrological regime of the downstream river
> basins," it said in a statement.
>
>
>
> Among many other articles...
>
> On another note, there is increasing evidence that Sarah Palin's brain
> is shrinking faster than anyone could have imagined:
>
> http://trueslant.com/johnknefel/2010/01/14/oh-god-sarah-palin-cant-na...
>
> With the current rate of mental decline, analysts predicts she will will
> be a shoe in for the 2012 GOP nomination.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> > DC.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi IQ is not required for high office. It may be a hindrance. She only
needs to lead the sheep...
http://www.icelandicsheep.com/images/Leading_the_sheep_2.jpg
I wonder if they can also deny the extinction of species...
"The interaction between climate change and habitat loss might be
disastrous."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691268/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Corporation To Run For Public Office!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/025ce6dd19c25e00?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 2 2010 7:25 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Canuck57 wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> hls wrote
>>> Rod Speed<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> hls wrote
>>>>> krw<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote
>>>>>>> If you have a point, make it, but dont just spout crap.
>>>>>> Read the decision, is my point. You clearly have been listening to Obama, not reality.
>>>>> This is the decision of the Court.
>>>>> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
>>>>> It is a bit broad, in a place or two, about expenditures of
>>>>> political action committees. It IS couched in terms of free
>>>>> speech and communication, and frees organized to spend in these
>>>>> areas - in other words to get the candidate of advantage by the
>>>>> juridical "person" elected.
>>>>> I still say it is a way for big money interests to buy a candidate.
>>>> Of course it is, and if you dont like that, campaign to amend the constitution.
>>>> Corse you will have to do that in the face of corporate TV advertising opposing that.
>>>> If you dont like that, blame those who wrote that constitutional
>>>> amendment that did not have the forsight to predict that downside
>>>> of their very swingeing wording they chose to have.
>>>> Bit hard to lynch a corpse now tho.
>>> We, the lowly citizens, cant even get our elected officials to look at term limits, real campaign finance reform,
>>> etc.
>> Hardly surprising given that they are dug in now.
>>> And, no, I dont like the fact that our government is effectively
>>> steered by lobbyists representing big money groups.
>> Blame that on the farts that wrote the constitution.
> Hey, they did pretty good really,
True. My main objection is to their objection to standing
armys and its easy to see why they went that way with that.
And they didnt do anything about slavery, and easy to see
why they decided that that wasnt feasible at that time too.
> better than most other countries.
Which isnt a bad effort considering that it was one of the first.
> But given liberalism and the corrupt time they will always run
> anything down to decay unless the people are hard nosed about it.
And even when they are, that isnt necessarily enough.
> I say hard nosed, as someone needs to publically tell Obama his corruption and mamoth debt spend is screwing people.
> And call him a corrupt prick.
Yes, the provision on free speech is certainly one of the most important rights.
Also not surprising given the history in western europe at that time.
>>> We tread along the tightwire of the law, sometimes, but I feel that
>>> the intent for government by, of, and for the people is being hijacked.
>>> It is all about money and power.
>> Then set fire to yourself outside Congress or sumfin.
> I hope he does not.
Its the only possibility for getting anything done about either.
And the farts that wrote the constitution were the epitomy of money and power at that time too.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 2 2010 8:28 pm
From: krw
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:42:24 +1100, "Jomo" <j@nospam.com> wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:40:10 -0800, "Bill"
>> <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If a corporation is a "person", then it should also be able to get a
>>> birth certificate, passport, and register to vote!
>
>> A corporation certainly does have a "birth certificate".''
>
>Not one that is any use to get to vote with.
...and?
>>> (Someone with a corporation, register the corporation to vote, then
>>> let's see the Supreme Court say they can't do that because a
>>> corporation is NOT a person!)
>>
>> It is by law person. It can be sued in both criminal and civil court.
>
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 2 2010 9:01 pm
From: "Jomo"
krw wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:42:24 +1100, "Jomo" <j@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:40:10 -0800, "Bill"
>>> <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a corporation is a "person", then it should also be able to get
>>>> a birth certificate, passport, and register to vote!
>>
>>> A corporation certainly does have a "birth certificate".''
>>
>> Not one that is any use to get to vote with.
>
> ...and?
That was what was being discussed, corps getting to vote.
>>>> (Someone with a corporation, register the corporation to vote, then
>>>> let's see the Supreme Court say they can't do that because a
>>>> corporation is NOT a person!)
>>>
>>> It is by law person. It can be sued in both criminal and civil
>>> court.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment