Free Republic

Thank you very much for the wealth of information, very impressive. Is there a forum to discuss on general topics? And finally, sorry for forging off in the wrong direction, I'll shut up now.

Hey, thanks all for the welcome. Today has indeed been informative, though I am not so sure about the asbestos underwear!

Oops, it would appear that somewhere along the line a ',' was lumped in with the address, you can simply remove that trailing comma or go here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/index.html

Please note that I am not necessarily saying I support this as fact, it is just interesting.

To Mike Darancette, good point, those greenhouse gasses are a natural part of life. Can you give some online references for your numbers? I am also curious to hear your considerations regarding environmentalism as a religion.

Now wait a minute there ivyleaguenerd. You are attending Harvard, in a justice class, and contributing to a "Moral Reasoning" poll by recruiting people form outside your class to contribute to the poll? Does that sound at all dubious to you? This is not the way to ensure justice, or to further one's goals. Granted that colleges tend to lean towards liberal (so I hear), but if that is the general view of your class, you should not rig the results as you have just done. Very disappointing.

Here's the odd thing about the media, people of a conservative disposition say the media is a bunch of liberal goons slandering the Reps good name. People of the liberal persuasion state that the media is ran by a small number of mega-companies in bed with the Reps and are trying take controls of this that and the other... Is it possible that cons only watch liberal outlets? And vice-versa? Is it that we only complain about that which is contrary to our own views? Buy reading posts from either side, you'd think that the "bad guys" had a big conspiracy going. Why does everyone feel so overwhelmed by the media, no matter what the views? (There are slight generalizations here, definitely no offense meant, and I know the arguments are more legitimate than that.)

jmstein7, Mich0127; to both of you, very good points!

I have heard arguments both ways, though oddly enough I could not find 2000 results on foxnews.com nor newsmax.com. ABC had them available, would you recommend them mich0127? Hmmm, I tend to not watch (TV, net, etc.) the news because I cannot stand the endless negativity (political and otherwise). I am trying to talk to people such as those here on freerepublic.com because you are the people, you are the ones that really count. Not career politicians, not the media. I would love to hear what the Dems are complaining about and how they are not valid or are not offering feasible alternatives. (is there a way to spin this off to a new thread?) I have to say that some of what little I “know” (or rather have heard) does concern me. For instance the issues with the 9/11 commission. It appears that parts of the government are not speeding this along as they ought to be. I am of the opinion that there is very little that the white house can justify not sharing with the commission (or committee?) There are people not willing to prove that the pres hasn’t lied about certain aspects of the situation and that concerns me. In fact it makes me mad (In the same way that Clinton’s lies about all of those scandals incited near rage).

Utopian is every good word for… hmmm… what I view as an ideal direction for government. And indeed I agree that they are likely not possible in this world. But we are obligated to strive for whatever our ideals are. If we don’t work to better our world, what are we fighting for? (Good point about the not being ruled by a single body, I did not mean to imply this, sorry about the inaccurate info.)

I try to avoid any particularly liberal or conservative bias at this point, mainly by trying to listen and understand both points of view; in what context are they are right (or at least valid), when they are wrong etc. Furthermore, I think this is (one of) the best possible places to post and discuss. I want to learn and contribute (if possible) to the betterment of my world. (“my world” being pretty subjective.) I think that the people here tend to contribute reasoned posts, less inflammatory than many other sites. And I really want to talk with these people. Regarding the truth; I think that it is all perspective, the old blind-men/elephant proverb. I think all (well many) perspectives have some validity to them.

“the Constitution -- as a device, it intentionally makes it difficult to get anything done”,
jmstein7, this is an insightful perspective you have here, I never thought of our government being setup to purposefully slow decision making. That is rather ingenious and goes to show that even if there are problems (and what system is perfect?) that there is a lot of potential left in our system.

However, you aren't arguing that we are placing large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, right? And that we should not reduce the excess introduction as much as possible? With the fossil fuel age still relatively young, we can't know all of the effects the chemicals could have on our lives.

That NASA fellow stated that other greenhouse gas (CFC) reduction may result in better returns for the effort. The treaty includes other gas reductions, is CFC among them? In which case the overall effect may be more beneficial than this article states.

BTW way, this is an interesting article: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/index.html, maybe we don't need to worry about greenhouse gasses after all. Wonder if there is truth to it.

So you are saying that, though they believe in different ideals or strive to achieve different goals, they ended up the same way? It is interesting to ponder what factors could influence the ideologies to result in similar outcomes. Furthermore, could those same factors influence us with our version of democracy, or any form of government? I am inclined to believe that it is the human element, human nature, that has the greatest potential to be so destructive to any organization of man.

Here's my concern about our situation: We are fighting each other. Not just among Reps but among Americans; Rep, Dem and all. We don't seem to view ourselves as a union but as adversaries. And that is really scary. Why is that? Why is everybody mad? I know some people are mad because they feel like they are not represented as they would like to be. The fact remains that Bush did not win a majority of the vote. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.president.html) And yet he is in office. That, to me, indicates that our system is flawed. A two party system, as we have, makes change very difficult. (I call it "two party" here based on the election dynamics, elections don't work with more than two candidates. Or rather have the potential to fail.)

We can certainly agree that one man cannot rule a country alone. The president surrounds himself with many of the brightest people (not necessarily in the country, but in his party at least.) Perhaps we need a way to map election result to cabinet positions or better yet have a committee rule, representative of the actual vote numbers. Of course this wouldn't work in the real world. (right?) I am sure the thought is coming to mind right now, "partisan squabbling would increase more than exponentially!" Indeed that is likely; the human factor again.

Well now that my rambling is tiring even my own will connect with the intelligent inhabitants of this site, I guess I should come to a point: that no matter who wins any election, our point of view has to change, we need to stop fighting each other, and work on peaceful change. I will qualify this by point out that my analysis of the situation is not the most well informed and I lack much insight that I am sure many of you have. (Shall we say that I am still trying to forge my political identity?) So criticism and corrections are more than welcome. Also if there is a more appropriate place for this discussion I will gladly move. However I would like to keep it open, not limited to emailing.

Thanks!

He ho, sorry for such a silly question, but I am new to the political game in general. How do you define socialist, communist, etc... And what are the alternatives?

Thanks!

Oh! Just to clarify I was not making the statement about citing info with specific regards to cpst12's post, that remark was in general.

"Vaccination supplies are expected to be plentiful this year and people were urged to begin getting flu vaccinations in October and November. With enough vaccine supply to meet demand, anyone - regardless of age or health status - should be able to get vaccinated..."

The interesting thing is, this excerpt ( BTW it is from http://www.apha.org/journal/nation/flucover1103.htm Don't you hate it when posters don't support their assertions with citiations?) is from an article not even a month old. I am not inclined to think that production was low because of less manufacturers, but rather fell short due to unexpected demand. In which case implicates the media in my POV.