I think Mike and Ron are the most honest candidates. I choose Ron Paul though because of his voting record, and I think his ideas about changing the monetary system top all the candidates. Not to mention he worked in the health care industry and knows how that works better than the rest also.
This is the option I have selected for comments: "Yes, allow comments after I approve them. Friends can add automatically." So, maybe we should be friends....
Fighting global warming can only be effective if it is a collective global effort. As President, Senator Gravel will see that the U.S. launches and leads a massive global scientific effort to end energy dependence on oil and integrate the world's scientific community in this task.
Not sure I follow. Are you saying that a government regulating something makes it worse...? If so, that is often a problem with corruption within a government, not the regulation itself. Without government regulation of industry we would still have twelve-year-olds working ten hour days, adult heads-of-household earning only $1.50/hr and workers would not have the right to form workers' unions. Not to mention paved roads.
Senator Gravel believes that global climate change is a matter of national security. As President, he will act swiftly to reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions, and lead the fight against global deforestation, which today is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases.
This looked like a video about litter. If we forcibly reduce our carbon footprint enough to have an actual impact on global warming it would cripple our economy. If you want to fight deforestation have private ownership of the forests. No one devistates his own land. Also the greater use of bio fuels stressed by many is causing a huge rise in farm land which leads to deforestation.
You need to verify the neo conservative talking points you are regurgitating by doing some actual research. Carbon dioxide is released into our atmosphere when carbon-containing fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal are burned in air. As a result of the tremendous world-wide consumption of such fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the past century, now rising at a rate of about 1 ppm per year. So any amount of reduction is positive.
Reducing emisions to the Kyoto protocol will delay the CO2 buildup by 6 years over the next 100. This will cause the loss of many jobs and lives around the world. It is not worth it. How many people have to starve because we delay global warming by a couple of years.
Your statement is absolutely absurd. No has to starve because we choose to reduce emissions. People are starving all over the world right now, and have been for generations. Our government (U.S.) subsidizes wheat, rice and corn farming to a gross extent. Farmers are paid to destroy crops in the field or not grow more in the first place. And because of Bush, the U.S. is not a signatory of Kyoto. You are trying to connect things that are not connected.
There's always incentive not to take an action; the question is, is that incentive great enough? Consuming less means some companies might make less money, which means fewer staff might be hired. Overall, though, blowing your money on useless shit is not a good thing. When it comes to global warming, action seems to be worth taking.
Your contention that "no one devastates his own land" is untrue and sadly shortsighted. All forest areas being destroyed for economic gain are "owned" by someone, whether it is by a local government, a tribal counsel, an individual family, or a multinational corporation. So YES one does devastate one's own land.
I have worked in the logging industry. Land owned by paper companies and logging companies are never clear cut unless they plan on building something in that area. It destroys the lands value. Goverment land is almost always clear cut. Why conserve something that isn't yours.
I have to point out that your argument is a contradiction. Logging companies clearcut an area to build their mill and associated buildings, and then they go elsewhere to cut timber; generally clear cutting certain defined areas at time. And the areas they "harvest" are on government-owned land, which is owned by all of us -- including the loggers.
Logging and paper producing companies (pulp mills) buy land from private owners as well; so, not only are they devastating land they purchased, the former owner was willing to trade money for land. Also, logged land is not completely destroyed; they can plant and harvest more trees.
Now, as for "why conserve something that isn't yours?" Ultimately the world is all ours. So again, your argument that "no one devastates his own land" is wrong and completely without merit.
All of your above-stated arguments (no disrespect toward you) are oft repeated false talking points backed by none other than corporate political pundits. Misinformation to muddy the needed discussion of responsible change in our human-controlled emissions of greenhouse gases.
We have had huge tracks of farm land for years. This was not caused by the production and use of biofuels. So greater use of biofuels does not cause deforestation. Existing grain crops are enough. Another good alternative for cooking and heating is methane (biogas) made from livestock and crop wastes. The real problem you are pointing to is one of overuse -- our society overuses resources of all kinds.
Advances in agricultural technology have alowed us to produce more on less land, that is true. But expecting this to contiue while diverting a large amount of this production to fuel is nieve. The problem of overuse is due to population growth. The only societies that have a low growth are postindustrial ones. We should be trying to get the rest of the world up to our standered, not retarding there advancement by restricting them.
Again, what? Reducing carbon output in every part of the world does not "retard" any country, industrial or otherwise. How did our country become postindustrial? By pushing our manufacturing industry onto other weaker and needer countries.
Every country can learn to run their manufacturing plants and factories more efficiently, thus reducing impact on the environment. And if we stopped forcing other countries to produce disposable crap so their workforce can survive, it would help. We all could stop buying cheap crap from Walmart.
We do not have to divert large amounts of a single substance, like is the case with crude oil for gas, because there are many crops, and animal and crop waste, to produce biofuels and gases. Since we waste some much wheat and rice, use it for fuel production, as well as continuing to use fossil fuels at a much lower rate. The idea is to reduce. I have not heard a logical argument against simple reduction through many means.
It is not actually titled (BTW: entitled means you have a right to something) Ron Paul. It is a reply to a video about Ron Paul. And no disrespect to Mr. Paul; he is a good man. I think Gravel and Paul should work together.
Actually, "entitled" is frequently used as a past-tense transitive verb, and the usage is not considered incorrect; of course, "titled" is also acceptable.
I have nothing against Paul, either, though I note that there are strong differences between him and Gravel. I prefer Mike.
The Associated Press Stylebook: <b>Entitled</b> Use it to mean a right to do or have something. Do NOT use it to mean titled (e.g., She was entitled to the promotion. The book was titled "Gone With the Wind." Frequent improper usage doesn't make something correct.
Also see American Heritage Dictionary: 1. To give a name or title to. (Referring to a person, not an object. A thing like a movie cannot be entitled.) 2. To furnish with a right or claim to something: The coupon entitles the bearer to a 25 percent savings. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law.
This is from an Oxford English Dictionary. We speak U.S. (American) English here. And the listed definition does specify "in early use" so I'd argue that saying "the book was 'entitled'" is an archaic usage of the word, and titled is the word that has come about over time to be correct for your place and time.
Yeah, seems to be a setting i didn't realize I had set. I feel I can trust you to not spam or resort to ad hominem attacks or appeals. Speaking of that, the meaning through common usage has changed over time for ad hominem.
I don't like some of Gravel's ideas, but I do like to listen to him talk in the debates. He does say some good things and he puts the top guys in there place. I would take him over every other democrat in the primary.
I think Mike and Ron are the most honest candidates. I choose Ron Paul though because of his voting record, and I think his ideas about changing the monetary system top all the candidates. Not to mention he worked in the health care industry and knows how that works better than the rest also.
animateclay 4 years ago
This is the option I have selected for comments: "Yes, allow comments after I approve them. Friends can add automatically." So, maybe we should be friends....
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
I wasn't aware; this is the first time I've encountered my messages' having to be approved prior to being posted. Thanks for clarifying.
Commando303X 4 years ago
Hello?
Commando303X 4 years ago
Hello. How's stuff? I had selected "approve comments" so I'm changing that now.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Fighting global warming can only be effective if it is a collective global effort. As President, Senator Gravel will see that the U.S. launches and leads a massive global scientific effort to end energy dependence on oil and integrate the world's scientific community in this task.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
This is what I disagree with Gravel on, if the government puts there hands in it, it will only get worse.
PizzaGod 4 years ago
Not sure I follow. Are you saying that a government regulating something makes it worse...? If so, that is often a problem with corruption within a government, not the regulation itself. Without government regulation of industry we would still have twelve-year-olds working ten hour days, adult heads-of-household earning only $1.50/hr and workers would not have the right to form workers' unions. Not to mention paved roads.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
How is Mike Gravel going to change any of this?
Huey55 4 years ago
Senator Gravel believes that global climate change is a matter of national security. As President, he will act swiftly to reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions, and lead the fight against global deforestation, which today is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
This looked like a video about litter. If we forcibly reduce our carbon footprint enough to have an actual impact on global warming it would cripple our economy. If you want to fight deforestation have private ownership of the forests. No one devistates his own land. Also the greater use of bio fuels stressed by many is causing a huge rise in farm land which leads to deforestation.
Huey55 4 years ago
You need to verify the neo conservative talking points you are regurgitating by doing some actual research. Carbon dioxide is released into our atmosphere when carbon-containing fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal are burned in air. As a result of the tremendous world-wide consumption of such fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the past century, now rising at a rate of about 1 ppm per year. So any amount of reduction is positive.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Reducing emisions to the Kyoto protocol will delay the CO2 buildup by 6 years over the next 100. This will cause the loss of many jobs and lives around the world. It is not worth it. How many people have to starve because we delay global warming by a couple of years.
Huey55 4 years ago
Your statement is absolutely absurd. No has to starve because we choose to reduce emissions. People are starving all over the world right now, and have been for generations. Our government (U.S.) subsidizes wheat, rice and corn farming to a gross extent. Farmers are paid to destroy crops in the field or not grow more in the first place. And because of Bush, the U.S. is not a signatory of Kyoto. You are trying to connect things that are not connected.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
There's always incentive not to take an action; the question is, is that incentive great enough? Consuming less means some companies might make less money, which means fewer staff might be hired. Overall, though, blowing your money on useless shit is not a good thing. When it comes to global warming, action seems to be worth taking.
Commando303X 4 years ago
Your contention that "no one devastates his own land" is untrue and sadly shortsighted. All forest areas being destroyed for economic gain are "owned" by someone, whether it is by a local government, a tribal counsel, an individual family, or a multinational corporation. So YES one does devastate one's own land.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
That should read, tribal <b>council</b>, not counsel.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
I have worked in the logging industry. Land owned by paper companies and logging companies are never clear cut unless they plan on building something in that area. It destroys the lands value. Goverment land is almost always clear cut. Why conserve something that isn't yours.
Huey55 4 years ago
I have to point out that your argument is a contradiction. Logging companies clearcut an area to build their mill and associated buildings, and then they go elsewhere to cut timber; generally clear cutting certain defined areas at time. And the areas they "harvest" are on government-owned land, which is owned by all of us -- including the loggers.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Logging and paper producing companies (pulp mills) buy land from private owners as well; so, not only are they devastating land they purchased, the former owner was willing to trade money for land. Also, logged land is not completely destroyed; they can plant and harvest more trees.
Now, as for "why conserve something that isn't yours?" Ultimately the world is all ours. So again, your argument that "no one devastates his own land" is wrong and completely without merit.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
All of your above-stated arguments (no disrespect toward you) are oft repeated false talking points backed by none other than corporate political pundits. Misinformation to muddy the needed discussion of responsible change in our human-controlled emissions of greenhouse gases.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
We have had huge tracks of farm land for years. This was not caused by the production and use of biofuels. So greater use of biofuels does not cause deforestation. Existing grain crops are enough. Another good alternative for cooking and heating is methane (biogas) made from livestock and crop wastes. The real problem you are pointing to is one of overuse -- our society overuses resources of all kinds.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Advances in agricultural technology have alowed us to produce more on less land, that is true. But expecting this to contiue while diverting a large amount of this production to fuel is nieve. The problem of overuse is due to population growth. The only societies that have a low growth are postindustrial ones. We should be trying to get the rest of the world up to our standered, not retarding there advancement by restricting them.
Huey55 4 years ago
Again, what? Reducing carbon output in every part of the world does not "retard" any country, industrial or otherwise. How did our country become postindustrial? By pushing our manufacturing industry onto other weaker and needer countries.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Every country can learn to run their manufacturing plants and factories more efficiently, thus reducing impact on the environment. And if we stopped forcing other countries to produce disposable crap so their workforce can survive, it would help. We all could stop buying cheap crap from Walmart.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
We do not have to divert large amounts of a single substance, like is the case with crude oil for gas, because there are many crops, and animal and crop waste, to produce biofuels and gases. Since we waste some much wheat and rice, use it for fuel production, as well as continuing to use fossil fuels at a much lower rate. The idea is to reduce. I have not heard a logical argument against simple reduction through many means.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
It is a video about litter; picking it up to be specific. Which I did.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Why is the video entitled "Ron Paul"?
Commando303X 4 years ago
It is not actually titled (BTW: entitled means you have a right to something) Ron Paul. It is a reply to a video about Ron Paul. And no disrespect to Mr. Paul; he is a good man. I think Gravel and Paul should work together.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Actually, "entitled" is frequently used as a past-tense transitive verb, and the usage is not considered incorrect; of course, "titled" is also acceptable.
I have nothing against Paul, either, though I note that there are strong differences between him and Gravel. I prefer Mike.
Commando303X 4 years ago
The Associated Press Stylebook: <b>Entitled</b> Use it to mean a right to do or have something. Do NOT use it to mean titled (e.g., She was entitled to the promotion. The book was titled "Gone With the Wind." Frequent improper usage doesn't make something correct.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Actually, frequency is exactly what makes a particular sort of usage right.
Commando303X 4 years ago
Hey, that's a good argument. I guess over a long enough period of time... that's how languages evolve.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Also see American Heritage Dictionary: 1. To give a name or title to. (Referring to a person, not an object. A thing like a movie cannot be entitled.) 2. To furnish with a right or claim to something: The coupon entitles the bearer to a 25 percent savings. Every citizen is entitled to equal protection under the law.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Oxford English Dictionary:
1. trans. To furnish (a literary work, a chapter, etc.) with a heading or superscription; in early use gen. (cf. TITLE n.).
Commando303X 4 years ago
This is from an Oxford English Dictionary. We speak U.S. (American) English here. And the listed definition does specify "in early use" so I'd argue that saying "the book was 'entitled'" is an archaic usage of the word, and titled is the word that has come about over time to be correct for your place and time.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
I replied to this a few times. Apparently, my message must be "approved."
Commando303X 4 years ago
Yeah, seems to be a setting i didn't realize I had set. I feel I can trust you to not spam or resort to ad hominem attacks or appeals. Speaking of that, the meaning through common usage has changed over time for ad hominem.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
I prefer Mike Gravel as well. Some of Paul's ideas on removing government regulation go too far. I think Gravel is more thoughtful and compassionate.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
I agree.
Commando303X 4 years ago
GRAVEL 08 !!
crzyman101 4 years ago
Yes. Agreed. Spread the word.
w w w dot grave l2008 dot us
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
Don't know what that has to do with Ron Paul, but it was a good video for Gravel.
PizzaGod 4 years ago
Thank you. I hope you gave it a high rating. Cheers.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
I gave it 5 stars.
I don't like some of Gravel's ideas, but I do like to listen to him talk in the debates. He does say some good things and he puts the top guys in there place. I would take him over every other democrat in the primary.
PizzaGod 4 years ago
Yes, me too. I'm glad he is not afraid to go after the failings of the "front runners". The only other Democrat I support is Dennis Kucinich.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
im only watched this because it said Ron Paul, but Mike Gravel is indeed the man, and you made a great video for him.
phantomileco 4 years ago
Thank you. Glad you liked. Gravel has great experience and excellent values. He and Ron Paul might make a good team.
KipperEdgar 4 years ago
RON PAUL 2008!!!
blueballzstudio 4 years ago