"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:46 pm, Bill Baka > wrote:
>>
>> Like the Bible is supposed to say is "God helps he who helps himself",
>
> That's not in the Bible.
>
> That's a Calvinist thing - the same Calvinist idea that those that
> *have* are blessed, and that those who *have not* have some sort of
> character flaw, or are sinful. Also things not supported by
> Scripture.
>
> Southern Baptists are pretty highly Calvinist.
>
> E.P.
>
Oh oh, my secret is out, not religious.
I have been hearing that phrase since I was a little kid.
Back to my Satanic rituals.
Bill Baka

I just know that will send someone into a rant.

>>Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to not
>>work

>>in school. People choose to have kids when they know they can't afford

>>them. People choose to drop out of school. People choose to sell drugs to

>>make a fast buck. People choose to screw up their lives why should I be

>>FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?

>>

>

> When I was a kid I attended PS 3 in the Bronx (NYC). In the middle of

> second grade my parents scraped together enough money to move us to

> Queens, and a better school district. They evaluated me and were going

> to place me in the "slow" classes because I was already way behind

> reading level. My parents talked them into putting me in the regular

> classes and within a few months I was ahead of reading level and going

> into the "gifted" classes.

>

> My parents attended an open school night and the principal asked them

> just what was going on in that school in the Bronx that I kid like me

> was behind reading level. I don't know that they could answer the

> question.

>

> That was over 40 years ago. I suspect my life would be very different

> if I wasn't lucky enough to get out of PS 3. Your argument that

> poverty is almost always a result of bad choices is simplistic. It

> takes a very special person to climb out of a crappy environment. It

> happens, but lots of good people get stuck.

Of course its simplistic it would take a book to explain it in detail. But
your story actually supports my point. 1) Your parents could have NOT made
the choice to make the effort to improve their lives; 2) they could have
just accepted the fact that you were slow and not tried to push you and 3)
you could have made the choice to accept the slow label and worked down to
that expectation.

My bigger point is that most people living in 'poverty' today in the US are
there because of things they have done themselves. That poor, high school
drop-out, single mother is in that predicament because she chose to have sex
before she was out of school and with a man who felt no need to hang around.
Look and any 'poor' person and the odds are that the reason they are 'poor'
is because they made bad choices.



> I don't know the answer. We have a system that benefited enormously

> from having a virgin continent to harvest, yet we have staggering

> poverty and really awesomely bad schools. They're worse now than my

> experience so long ago.

I don't have all the answers but I do know that what we are doing now is
only making things worse. You have a system to "help" them that traps them.
It makes them totally dependent on the system. Which makes them totally
dependent on the government which make it very easy to make them vote to
keep the person in office that keeps giving them money. To me it is worse
then the old slavery system. At least then the slaves knew they were slaves
and wanted to be free.



> Providing money for doing nothing doesn't seem to work. Letting people

> starve or be homeless isn't something I can stand either. I'll just

> repeat that I don't know the answer.

Personally I think we need to go back to the 1930's plans of you work for
your money. If you want government money then you will be doing some of the
hardest, most disgusting jobs out there. Why are paying government workers
to mow the right-of-ways AND paying people to sit around the house watching
TV? Put the bums out there with hand tools cutting the weeds. If they don't
like then they can find a better job.

> One of the grade schools around here had a guy shooting students at an
> elementary school. That wasn't even a school related thing but some looney
> who went over the edge. He just drove up and started shooting through a
> chain link fence.
> I would put a pointer to the newspaper but out hick town paper wants money
> to go through the archives.

You must be be mistaken. This could not have happened because the government
has made it illegal to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.

Isn't it strange how you very rarely hear about shootings in places where
the criminals think there might be someone with a gun?

>>>> Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those
>>>> who should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those
>>>> that are on it have obviously learned how to milk the system.
>>> That will happen with any welfare system with some of them.
>>>
>>>> Now that we have a glut of school aged children
>>> No you dont.
>>>
>>>> everybody is complaining about not enough schools,
>>> No they arent.
>
> They've been complaining about crowded schools since I was a child. We
> managed to learn to read even in what I discovered later was a
> lower-middle-class school with 35 students in each class. Between then
> and now, something has gone wrong with either teaching or teachers and it
> has nothing to do with the number of kids/class.

I rather have my kid in a class room with 34 other kids and a good teacher
than sitting with 9 others if front of some of the twits they have hired
today! Seems strange to me that in college I was in classes with 90+ other
people yet we all seemed to learn. Could it be that everyone there WANTED
to be there and to learn?


>>>> yet nobody is addressing the main issue.
>>> Wrong again.
>>
>> You must not live anywhere near California.
>> My grandkids have to attend schools that are not only substandard but
>> where guns have been found on students.
>
> My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly those
> monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now) district. They
> have "lockdown" drills. That's what's supposed to happen when a weapon or
> other threat is discovered. The kids drop flat on the floor and the staff
> turns out the lights. I need to find out more...

Sounds like the liberal answer. Let's make them nice easy to find targets.
Kick in a door, toss in a Molotov cocktail, move to next door. Repeat.

Suggest a sensible solution such as allowing trained teachers to carry
firearms or teaching the kids that it just might be better to fight back
rather than laying down and being killed and you are looked at as a nut.

>>Now that north american society has little use for the totally unskilled
>>who dont want to work,
>
> How many can there be, with a 4.5 percent
> unemployment rate, and 3.0 percent means everybody
> holds a job for 3 years and takes 4 or 5 weeks to
> find another job.

Because if you aren't looking for a job you are not included in the
unemployment rates. IOW, all the people sitting at home drawing welfare
checks are not unemployed, they are government employees.

>>>My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly those
>>>monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now) district. They
>>>have "lockdown" drills. That's what's supposed to happen when a weapon
>>>or other threat is discovered. The kids drop flat on the floor and the
>>>staff turns out the lights. I need to find out more...
>>
>> Unfortunately that would appear to be a smart thing to plan for
>> considering the number of actual incidents. Back when we were kids we
>> had those idiot abomb drills. Climb under the desk and put your head
>> between your legs. And, as the precocious kids added, kiss your ass
>> goodbye.
>
> Do you not think that making weapons far harder to get hold of might help
> a bit ?

Yeah, sure. Just check the data for Washington DC, New York City, England
and Australia. Have you noticed that these things always happen in places
where the criminals KNOW that their victims will be unarmed?

I have always lived in area where it seemed that the number of firearms was
larger than the number of people and have NEVER had any problem with crime.
IMO, the more firearms you have in the hands of people the fewer such crimes
you will have. The data supports this. The states with the more lax gun
laws, especially lax carry laws, have the lower crime rates.

FYI, I rather have someone shooting into a room full of kids with a 9 mm
handgun than tossing in a fire bomb made from a beer bottle and gasoline.

A friend of mine pointed out something. He lived in a large city where the
police response time was just a few minutes. I lived out in the middle of no
where with a police response time, if you were lucky, was 30 minutes. Anyway
had just had his car stolen and was quite upset. After a few minutes of
venting he stopped and looked at me and made the statement that he knew why
I didn't have problems like this where I lived. It was because the crooks
knew that if the owner of the car didn't shoot them then the neighbor
probably would.

>>My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly those
>>monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now) district. They
>>have "lockdown" drills. That's what's supposed to happen when a weapon
>>or other threat is discovered. The kids drop flat on the floor and the
>>staff turns out the lights. I need to find out more...
>
> Unfortunately that would appear to be a smart thing to plan for
> considering the number of actual incidents. Back when we were kids we
> had those idiot abomb drills. Climb under the desk and put your head
> between your legs. And, as the precocious kids added, kiss your ass
> goodbye.

Might be a smart thing to plan for but a stupid plan. Much easier to shoot
a kid laying on the floor than one running as fast as possible.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:38:01 GMT, "no spam" > wrote:

>Because if you aren't looking for a job you are not included in the
>unemployment rates. IOW, all the people sitting at home drawing welfare
>checks are not unemployed, they are government employees.

I hate using facts with you - you seem to do so well with very few at
all - but a general requirement to draw unemployment in most U.S.
states is that you ARE looking for employment, unless you have a
qualified reason to not do so - generally a current impairment.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

>> When I find times that the bike lane is lacking double parked cars, it
>> sure is a lot easier for bikes than it was before the bike lane was put
>> in place.
>
> Where lanes are narrow I use the full lane and force motorists to wait
> behind me. So for me, there is no easier or harder roads. There is always
> plenty of room for my 2 foot wide bike.

Now there's something smart to do. Let's see if we can **** off someone in
control of 2000+ pounds of car while I'm on a bicycle. I've had people in
cars try to push me out of the way when I was driving a loaded grain truck
doing 45 mph. I don't want to think what they would do if I were on a
bicycle.

>>>>> Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs so
>>>>> that stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these signs
>>>>> don't exist, the transportation engineer in charge should be
>>>>> notified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Transportation engineer <BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!!> <wiping tears
>>>> from my eyes> Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from
>>>> didn't even have building inspector (note that is for the entire
>>>> COUNTY) and you expect them to have a transportation engineer.
>>>>
>>>> As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the
>>>> summer tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic
>>>> accidents (one time involving a state trooper).
>>>>
>>>> The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not
>>>> expected are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car,
>>>> tractor, bike or cow..
>>>
>>> Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses
>>> responsible for a known hazardous situation that could easily be
>>> fixed.
>>
>> Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there
>> (several times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure
>> that after in one year a trooper had been rear ended and a
>> motorcyclist KILLED at that intersection something would be done. I
>> was on that same road last year and there was a change. . .they
>> repainted the lines.
>> Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.
>
> Pig ignorant fantasy.

Why don't you try to sue your state. You'll find out that something
controled by a bunch of power hungry lawyers has made itself fairly lawyer
proof.
>
>