Secret Pentagon report suppressed by US officials

02/27/2004 04:24:05 PM · #51

Originally posted by Patents4u:

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

I don't recall naming anyone? Did I say "-insert name- are a hypocrit"? Why, I don't believe I did, huh, funny how that works. Perhaps you ARE a mind reader afterall! lol I wasn't specifically speaking of anyone, and ya know, strangely I DO know people outside of DPC and I DO know personal habits of people who do rant about environmental issues that I would certainly call hypocrits. Who's bent out of shape? LOL I'm not bendy at all, sarcasm and humor don't equate being upset. Well, not in my, sad, lonely, pathetic world of microwaving nachos and riding the bus anyways. [see, sarcasm and humor DO exist!]

When you backpedal that quickly, you are likely to get hurt. Please take it easy.

My goodness, don't split your skull when a tidal wave knocks you off that high horse. Reason is lost on you? .. it must hurt your 'brain' to be confined in such a narrow space.

Message edited by author 2004-02-27 16:28:16.

02/27/2004 04:25:32 PM · #52

Originally posted by jmritz:

Sorry Fiber Optix. lol

Obviously I can't tell you what to do, but there's really no reason to apologize.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

02/27/2004 04:31:03 PM · #53

And it is to late now..
I have apologized all my life...
Why stop now...:)

02/27/2004 04:34:12 PM · #54

Originally posted by jmritz:

And it is to late now..
I have apologized all my life...
Why stop now...:)

;-0 it's only too late after the last breath is drawn right?! Too philosophical..lol

Fibre Optix

02/27/2004 04:34:26 PM · #55

I was just joking around.
I realy liked your reply.

PEACE!!

Message edited by author 2004-02-27 16:34:59.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/27/2004 04:36:11 PM · #56

Originally posted by Fibre Optix:

I was just joking around.
I realy liked your reply.

PEACE!!

Eep! Good example of online communication gone bad! I actually felt bad for ritz after reading your post about his pic. I really didn't get any humor from it, but sorry for the misinterpretation! Now there *I* go apologizing ;-)

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

02/27/2004 04:36:41 PM · #57

All I was trying to do was get this thread away from all the doom and gloom. So far so good.

Fibre Optix

02/27/2004 04:43:01 PM · #58

Everyone is saying sorry.

THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!!!!

Patents4u

Canon EOS-40D

02/27/2004 05:07:03 PM · #59

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Reason is lost on you? .. it must hurt your 'brain' to be confined in such a narrow space.

Let me guess, you're a natural blonde, aren't you? You are too funny. Backpedal then attack. I promise I'll let your next response go - you can have the last word. This is just too painful. 'Reason' away. lol.

Fibre Optix

02/27/2004 05:09:23 PM · #60

lol.

Message edited by author 2004-02-27 17:10:31.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/27/2004 05:21:44 PM · #61

here is a good quote i belive generalIE once posted on a different topic of the same nature on DPC that i saved:

"We express our faith in the technological ingenuity of our offspring by making sure they'll need it to survive."

the fact is, humans are so prevolent in the world today we are having great impact on our environment. There is no one issue, all aspects of earths environment are suffereing from our abuse. There is no exact way to know how or when things will get *really* bad but one thing is certain:
we need to start changing our ways. start small, recycle, try to reduce water use, reduce electricity use, decide to buy the smaller honda instead of the bigger fatter ford.

its our planet, its our job to take care of it.

Patents4u

Canon EOS-40D

02/27/2004 05:52:42 PM · #62

why not the smaller Ford?

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/27/2004 06:14:14 PM · #63

indeed, why not the smaller ford?

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/27/2004 07:23:53 PM · #64

Loriâ�¦I agree with you completely if you are saying that people on the whole should be taking more responsibility for the environment and making changes in THEIR OWN lives, and encouraging others, including governments and business, to make positive changes as well. You are also right that as a species, we have become too complacent and allowed convenience and luxury to rule our lives. I think thatâ��s a natural tendency to happen and weâ��ve got to combat that in ourselves, although Iâ��m not saying the only way to do that is a total return to the wilds. Itâ��s not a black and white issue as youâ��re making it out to be. (A good question to ask is why this has occurred)

I donâ��t blame the Bush administration for this problem, but I do blame him/it for ignoring the problem and setting policy that encourages continued, and elevated use of fossil fuels when we need to, as a nation, be conserving and making strides in alternative energy means. What can you expect from an oil businessman, though? His allegiance is to the people and organizations that contributed to his campaign of 2000 and helped elect him. That will continue to be the case if he gets reelected. The 2004 Bush campaign has already raised over 10 times the amount of money that ALL of the democratic candidates have raised and is going to break his record for campaign funds from the 2000 campaign. (I'm sure the dems do the same thing too!) The people and organizations that are the big contributors are those who only care about their bottom-line and not about spending on environmental solutions.

The point of this rant is not to run around like chickens without heads yelling the end of the world is coming. Itâ��s to get people becoming aware of things so that they can start taking back the power in their lives and not just leave things to the powers that be who couldnâ��t give a hoot about anything but their own bottom lines. The people in the White House need to start being accountable to everyone and the environment, not just big contributors. The real bottom line right now, is the environment is in really bad shape and we need to start addressing it, and quickly, not sticking our heads in the sand or being concerned about superfluous issues. Our children, childrenâ��s children and so on, depend on that.

The Pentagon is not just another governmental agency that is secondary to other govâ��t organizations. The Bushmen Iâ��m sure listen to all that they say, and if they, and other conservatives like intelligence agents and businessmen are worried about this issue because it may have an impact on the health of the globe down the line, then we need to know about it.

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Outrage about environmental issues from anyone who drives a car, rides a bus, smokes a cigarette, uses a dishwasher, or takes full advantage of any other everyday civilties that ALL contribute to polluting and diminishing the same environment they're ranting about, is just pure hypocracy. There'd be no issue with the Bush Administration's take on environmental issues if the general populous wasn't so energy hungry. And we're all posting via the internet so we're all guilty on that front..

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/27/2004 08:12:14 PM · #65

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

we need to start changing our ways. start small, recycle, try to reduce water use, reduce electricity use, decide to buy the smaller honda instead of the bigger fatter ford.

its our planet, its our job to take care of it.

Isn't pretty much everybody doing that now? I pay extra each month to take away the recyclables (which the street people walk by 1 hour before the trash guy gets here to go sell). We have water regulators, low-flow toilets, low wattage light bulbs. Sorry, I had to buy that big honkin' Ford F150 - couldn't fit all my stuff in a the little honda. (Actually, I like hondas, but that's beside the point.)

This ultimately will come down to power and control. (That's the agenda I alluded to earlier.) *IF* things are as dire as you and others describe, then little bits here and there are not going to make a difference. Lifestyle will have to change radically. And that won't happen without totalitarian-style control. Of course, if things aren't so dire, and we give up that control anyway, well, it's probably lost for a very long time.

02/27/2004 08:58:53 PM · #66

yes but start somewhere. simply saying "its too big, has to be drastic" then continuing the wastefull ways is just stupid. yes great change is needed. yes change will probably be forced on us rather tahn a choice. but do what you can now and we wont have as big a mess to clean up after later.

02/28/2004 01:08:20 PM · #67

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I don't blame the Bush administration for this problem, but I do blame him/it for ignoring the problem and setting policy that encourages continued, and elevated use of fossil fuels when we need to, as a nation, be conserving and making strides in alternative energy means. What can you expect from an oil businessman, though?

*IF* that were true, then WHY, in President Bush's State of the Union Address, in January, 2003, would he have said ( and I quote ):

"Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles."

The last time I checked, hydrogen was NOT OIL!

Gosh. Some people want it both ways - as long as one of them can bash Bush.

Ron

darcy

Canon PowerShot G3

02/28/2004 01:20:53 PM · #68

sigh...

the ignorance of the world continues to baffle me.

all people want to be told is that all their problems are being taken care of, that they are not the cause of any problems, and that their wasteful and greedy lifestyles are what makes their country great so keep it up.

words like "zombie" and "sheep" come to mind...

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/28/2004 01:33:44 PM · #69

btw, bush was just saying that about hydrogen cause of ppl like you who say "see, he does care". and 1.2 billion is NOTHING when it comes to trying to solve our energy problems. we have allready spent over 400 billion in iraq killing civilians and american soldiers for oil and power.

darcy, i prefer "sheeple".

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/28/2004 01:49:58 PM · #70

First of all, the Bush plan for hydrogen fuel cells is just a drop in the bucket. Others are calling for 5 or 6 times what the Bush administration has commited to it's development. But, as far as I know, there are no specifics or goals for this plan and, imo, words are cheap, especially in an election year.

Why did Bush abandon the Clinton's administration's plan for development of hybrid cars, which are just starting to come out in higher numbers? With all the billions he's spending he couldn't keep both programs going? This plan does nothing to reduce current consumption levels of fossil fuels and if anything, we're more dependent on it than ever.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't blame the Bush administration for this problem, but I do blame him/it for ignoring the problem and setting policy that encourages continued, and elevated use of fossil fuels when we need to, as a nation, be conserving and making strides in alternative energy means. What can you expect from an oil businessman, though?

*IF* that were true, then WHY, in President Bush's State of the Union Address, in January, 2003, would he have said ( and I quote ):

"Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles."

The last time I checked, hydrogen was NOT OIL!

Gosh. Some people want it both ways - as long as one of them can bash Bush.

Ron

02/28/2004 02:36:19 PM · #71

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I know that the Democratic Party is the Party that "cares". But, personally, I don't care if Bush, or Kerry, for that matter, "cares" or not, as long as they do the right thing.

Do we have an energy problem? If so, what is it? Gasoline too expensive? Not enough to go around? What problem are you referring to?

And, I prefer to think that we spent all that money preventing the slaughter of hundred's of thousands ( if not millions ) of Iraqi civilians at the hands of a brutal dictator ( and his sons ) who relished in their deaths.

How much is your mother/father/sister/brother/etc worth? 400 billion is a CHEAP price to pay for that many saved lives. Far worse than the money ( that seems so important to you ) is that we have lost the lives of many of our citizens, as well as those of coalition partners, including the Iraqi's themselves, in trying to bring stability to the region.

Ron

02/28/2004 03:05:47 PM · #72

Care to take a walk on the wild side? Here's the Bush Administration's Environmental Propaganda. It actually maintains the the Bush Administration is actually trying to HELP the environment instead of destroying it. Here's an excerpt on the Clear Skies initiative:
"Today in remarks in the East Garden, President Bush called on Congress to pass Clear Skies legislation to expand the Acid Rain Program, the Clean Air Act's most successful program to cut air pollution.

1) Clear Skies mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years including the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions.
2) Clear Skies would help cities and counties across America meet the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) stringent new health-based air quality standards for ozone and fine particles.
3) Clear Skies will improve air quality using a proven, market-based approach that will reach the Nation's air quality goals while keeping energy affordable for American consumers and businesses.

Clear Skies Dramatically and Steadily Cuts Power Plant Emissions

1) Cuts sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 73 percent, from current emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and to 3 million tons in 2018.
2) Cuts emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 67 percent, from current emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
3) Cuts mercury (Hg) emissions by 69 percent - the first-ever national cap on mercury emissions. Emissions will be cut from current emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and to 15 tons in 2018."

There's more. Go ahead, it won't hurt for long:

//www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/

(edited to add quotations)

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-02-28 15:09:55.

02/28/2004 03:43:59 PM · #73

//www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment/

this is your information source? nuff said..

02/28/2004 04:18:51 PM · #74

No, it's NOT 'nuff said. That's a cop out.

BTW, I DID take care to point out that that link was to a site of Bush Administration Propaganda - it's purposefully constructed to cast the administration in a good light. However, it DOES point out that the administration is trying to do SOMETHING - and, to me, that's NOT "NOTHING".

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-02-28 16:23:33.