Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

"Jean H." > wrote in message
...
>
>> Way off base for the US. We get one pregnant Mexican having a baby here
>> and the whole illegal family stays, so that one 'Citizen' gives a whole
>> pre-existing family the right to stay here. Mortality due to disease is
>> down from what it used to be, but then people in non-developed countries
>> just have more children who then starve and of course, we send them food.
>
> Now that is a lame statement.
> Most underdevloped countries have the potential to be autonomous regarding
> the food... however the dear poisoned "gift" from developed country, as
> free or cheap food, prevents any development of a local agriculture. Who
> can compete against free food????
>
> By sending food to these countries, our governments are 1)giving
> subventions to the farmers

what are subventions?

"Amy Blankenship" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jean H." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> Way off base for the US. We get one pregnant Mexican having a baby here
>>> and the whole illegal family stays, so that one 'Citizen' gives a whole
>>> pre-existing family the right to stay here. Mortality due to disease is
>>> down from what it used to be, but then people in non-developed countries
>>> just have more children who then starve and of course, we send them
>>> food.
>>
>> Now that is a lame statement.
>> Most underdevloped countries have the potential to be autonomous
>> regarding the food... however the dear poisoned "gift" from developed
>> country, as free or cheap food, prevents any development of a local
>> agriculture. Who can compete against free food????
>>
>> By sending food to these countries, our governments are 1)giving
>> subventions to the farmers
>
> what are subventions?
>
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...%3a+subvention

Google is your friend.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Jean H." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Way off base for the US. We get one pregnant Mexican having a baby here
>>>and the whole illegal family stays, so that one 'Citizen' gives a whole
>>>pre-existing family the right to stay here. Mortality due to disease is
>>>down from what it used to be, but then people in non-developed countries
>>>just have more children who then starve and of course, we send them food.
>>
>>Now that is a lame statement.
>>Most underdevloped countries have the potential to be autonomous regarding
>>the food... however the dear poisoned "gift" from developed country, as
>>free or cheap food, prevents any development of a local agriculture. Who
>>can compete against free food????
>>
>>By sending food to these countries, our governments are 1)giving
>>subventions to the farmers
>
>
> what are subventions?

sorry, I meant subsidy

Jean

DTJ wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:30:31 -0600, "Jean H."
> > wrote:
>
>
>>By sending food to these countries, our governments are 1)giving
>>subventions to the farmers 2)usually making a loan to the poor country
>>3)making sure that the markets of this poor country will remain open for
>>their goods.
>>
>>So don't blame your problem on the back of the poors.
>>Jean
>
>
> You people are frickin insane. First, you bitch if we let them
> starve, then you bitch if we don't.

Your point is correct, though you are not targeting the rights persons.
THere is a huge difference between helping people (what the population
wants) and maintaining the poors in their poor state (what the
governments, world bank ect wants).

For instance, Africa would be much better if the developed countries
were helping to establish a good cold transportation network, irrigation
system etc rather than providing cheap food to them!

Another example, in Mauritania (one of the poorest country in the
world), a while ago (like 20 years), the world bank gave a few billion $
loan to this country in order to built a water treatment plant that
would take the salt out of the water... the plant never worked because
the country could not afford the petrolum required to run it!... but
they had to pay the loan.. do you consider this as an help to
development, or as sodomization of this poor country?

A few years later, an engineer came with an idea to built a solar
powered plant to take the salt out of the sea water... world bank said
"No, it doesn't cost enough". I re-ask my previous question.

Jean

Lorenzo L. Love wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:12:15 -0700, george conklin > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lorenzo L. Love" > wrote in message
>> newsp.tg8lacqipheghf@ibm22761843607...
>>>
>>> What is it about "gradually increasing fertility rates" that you do not
>>> understand?
>>
>> What YOU do not understand is that the future growth of populations is
>> measured by the Total Fertility Rates, or TFRs. These are calculated
>> by the
>> census for nations and they say that 63 nations are no longer reproducing
>> themselves. I suggest you check out the population pyramid projections
>> which the census makes available, both for the USA and most other
>> nations of
>> the world. Stop simply guessing.
>>
>>
>
> No guessing needed. The U.S. has a population growth rate of +0.91%.
> Australia +0.85%, France +0.35%, United Kingdom +0.28%, Italy +0.04%,
> Japan +0.02%. This info is from the wild and crazy guys at the C.I.A. By
> the way, the C.I.A. says there are 272 nations which much mean there are
> 209 nations are reproducing themselves. And then some as the world
> population growth rate is +1.14% with a birth rate of 20.05 births/1,000
> population and a death rate of 8.67 deaths/1,000 population. Whole lot
> of reproducing going on. The counties that have negative growth rates
> are for the most part either tiny or not something anyone would inspire
> to. Like Russia which has a population growth rate of -0.37% but also an
> infant mortality two and half times that of the U.S. and a life
> expectancy ten years less. Is Russia your ideal for the future of the
> world?
>
> Lorenzo L. Love
> http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
>
> "...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot
> survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more
> and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it
> disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there
> are, the less one individual matters."
> Isaac Asimov
Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
Bill Baka

Jean H. wrote:
>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>> available at all.
>
> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
> Monsanto..
>
>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>> maybe Truman.
>> Bill Baka
>
> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?

He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
A. Totally stupid.
B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.

I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?

Bill Baka

George Conklin wrote:
> "Jean H." > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>> available at all.
>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>> Monsanto..
>>
>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
>>> stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
>>> a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
>>> Bill Baka
>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>
> Stem cell research is caught up in theological debates, since the Roman
> Catholic Church is against such research too.
>
>
That is part of the problem I have with the Republicans, since so many
claim to be "Born Again" Christians that I am wondering about the church
trying to run the United States. I don't want the Vatican dictating our
policies, or a dumbo like Bush thinking he's doing God's work.
Can politics get much worse?
Bill Baka

"bill" > wrote in message
m...
> Jean H. wrote:
>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>> available at all.
>>
>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>> Monsanto..
>>
>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool thinks
>>> stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November he will be
>>> a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except maybe Truman.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>
> He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he could
> have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4 years of
> screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
> A. Totally stupid.
> B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>
> I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
> voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>
> Bill Baka

Well Bill, if you were to get out of California you would find thousands of
people who voted for Bush, or maybe rather voted against Kerry, either way.
As far as fixing the election, they didn't have to, Democrats threw the last
2 elections away by running idiots like Kerry & Core..

> Where did they come up with 272 nations? The last I heard it was 201 or
> something like that. When I was in grade school I think it was only
> about 104 or something close. Is somebody minting new countries?
> Bill Baka

1) a nation is not a country... think of the First Nations, Quebecers etc.
2) There are many more coutries than that, most of them are not
recognized... the weirdest country being this offshore oil platform
close to britain!

Jean
------------------------
http://geography.about.com/cs/countr...wcountries.htm
New Countries of the World
From Matt Rosenberg,
Your Guide to Geography.

Jan 2 2006
The 30 New Countries Created Since 1990
Since 1990, thirty new countries have been created. The dissolution of
the USSR and Yugoslavia in the early 1990s caused the creation of most
of the newly independent states.
You probably know about many of these changes but a few of these new
countries seemed to slip by almost unnoticed. This comprehensive listing
will update you about the countries which have formed since 1990.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Fifteen new countries became independent with the dissolution of the
USSR in 1991. Three of these countries declared and were granted
independence a few months preceding the fall of the Soviet Union but the
remaining twelve did not become independent until the Soviet Union fell
completely on December 26, 1991.


Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Estonia (September 1991)
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia (September 1991)
Lithuania (September 1991)
Moldova
Russia
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Former Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia dissolved in the early 1990s into five independent countries.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, February 29, 1992
Croatia, June 25, 1991
Macedonia (officially The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
declared independence on September 8, 1991 but wasn't recognized by the
United Nations until 1993 and the United States and Russia in February
of 1994
Serbia and Montenegro, (also known as the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia), April 17, 1992
Slovenia, June 25, 1991
Other New Countries

Nine other countries became independent through a variety of causes.


March 21, 1990 - Namibia became independent of South Africa

May 22, 1990 - North and South Yemen merged to form a unified Yemen

October 3, 1990 - East Germany and West Germany merged to form a unified
Germany after the fall of the Iron Curtain

September 17, 1991 - The Marshall Islands was part of the Trust
Territory of Pacific Islands (administered by the United States) and
gained independence as a former colony

September 17, 1991 - Micronesia, previously known as the Caroline
Islands, became independent from the United States

January 1, 1993 - The Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent
nations when Czechoslovakia dissolved

May 25, 1993 - Eritrea was a part of Ethiopia but seceded and gained
independence

October 1, 1994 - Palau was part of the Trust Territory of Pacific
Islands (administered by the United States) and gained independence as a
former colony

May 20, 2002 - East Timor declared independence from Portugal in 1975
but became independent of Indonesia in 2002

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:20:44 GMT, bill > wrote:

>Jean H. wrote:
>>> Most of the GMOs that I have read about are modified to withstand a
>>> particular plant disease or to survive long periods without water, or
>>> something like that. There is a need or some foods might not be
>>> available at all.
>>
>> hum, indeed a lot of them are made resistent to pesticides (not to the
>> insects!)... the first one in my mind is the Round Up Ready corn by
>> Monsanto..
>>
>>> Bush is the biggest enemy of research right now, since that fool
>>> thinks stem cell research is immoral. Good thing that after November
>>> he will be a real "Lame duck". Worst president in my lifetime, except
>>> maybe Truman.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> agreed! ... isnt' he the biggest enemy of almost everything?
>
>He seems to be even this countries worst enemy. I don't know how he
>could have gotten re-elected, much less by such a big margin, after 4
>years of screwing up, unless the Republicans are either
>A. Totally stupid.
>B. The party is so corrupt that they fixed the election.
>
>I am just not believing that Kerry lost so badly since everyone I know
>voted for him. How did the coward win over the guy who actually served?
>
>Bill Baka

Its easy to understand... at the time, the Dems were still into collecting up
all the guns, and in spite of how that is not a popular issue with you and your
friends, in a whole lot of the rest of the country, people cherish their 2nd
amemdment rights, and in fact all their rights. While California, New York,
and a lof of the coastal states would like to forget the 2nd amendment, the
rest of the country, those vast seas of red states, believe that without our
guns, the liberals would do just as they please, and negate even more of the
bill of right.

Now, I understand that the Dems have given up on the idea of collecting up all
the guns. Maybe they'll actually get somewhere in the polls this time. But, in
any close election, the NRA will kill you if you are not pro-gun (notice that
doesn't mean simply not anti-gun, but actually _for_ 2nd amendment rights). It
doesn't matter to the NRA whether you're Dem or Rep, you get an endorsement
from them if you support gun right. Then I vote for that person. And several
million other NRA members do the same. And that's how they win the election.

Dave Head